five different countries on two pages jumping from the late 1940s through the 1960s to the present? This, however, would all be negligible if one could discover an argument in the book and if the narrative got the facts straight. But the author does not seem to have any argument, probably also the reason why he does not bother appending a conclusion for the reader, instead just ending the book abruptly. Assuming, for instance, that the author is correct in asserting that ethnicity is determined by appearance, language, and religion, and following him that ethnos equals nation, what can one make of the statement that "in essence, culture is a product of modernity, building upon appearance, language and religion" (p. 139)? Does ethnos then equal nation and nation culture? Or is it the other way around? And what might finally be the differences between such highly controversial concepts as ethnos, nation and culture? Would there remain any space for nations not being based on ethnocultural idioms, given that this definition has any validity? One might say that at night all theoretical cats are grey once an effort to differentiate and define properly is given up. Or what should one make out of a sentence such as "All parties which participate in the political processes of nation states are nationalist because they work within the parameters of the existing boundaries" (p. 225). What a relief for political scientists to read this; a detailed analysis of party programs and politics is no longer needed as long as one is aware of the geographical boundaries in which parties articulate their opinions. By analogy, one should assume that labor representatives and trade unions operating within the framework of companies are capitalist if one follows this logic. The book also shows deficiencies at the basic factual level. When going into the details of international organizations and the impact of international institutions on minority existence i...
