There are people on /his/ right now, that unironically believe nationalism existed in any form, prior to the 19th century when it started.
>>324401
Well, nobody ever said nationalists were smart.
Technically nationalism started in late 18th century.
Also back in the ancient days we had tribalism.
>>324410
No it didn't. The only legitimate form of nationalism is ethnic nationalism, which started in the 19th century
>>324401
RARE
This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
Wasn't Marx outed as a Nazi sympathizer?
SPQA
P
Q
A
>>324485
1776 bitch where u at
>>324510
He actually hated Jews
>>324504
Woooa
You're unironicly one of the smartest anons i've ever seen.
10/10 post
>>324527
He wrote a paper about jews or some shit and I showed it to my Physics professor and he just laughed.
God Marxists are fucking morons just because they haven't even read the author they get so fucking wet for.
>>324527
So he hated himself too?
10 seconds on wikipedia, senpai
>With the emergence of a national public sphere and an integrated, country-wide economy in 18th-century England, English people began to identify with the country at large, rather than the smaller units of their family, town or province. The early emergence of a popular patriotic nationalism took place in the mid-18th century, and was actively promoted by the British government and by the writers and intellectuals of the time
>>324555
It wasnt at all until after king philips war and wasnt even when the revolution started there where h8ters that didnt want war with britain
>>324576
>patriotic nationalism
>the state defined the nation and it's attributes
Non-country tier
>>324938
Nice splitting hairs, OP.
>>325055
Since when is patriotism the same as nationalism, exactly?
>>324401
Early Republican Rome was nationalist as well as most city states in fact.
Citionist then.
>>325064
They're not, but they share some characteristics.
Again, from the Wikiepdia:
>Nationalism is essentially a shared group feeling in the significance of a geographical and sometimes demographic region seeking independence for its culture and/or ethnicity that holds that group together.
Which is what Britain had in the 18th century.
>>325084
>patria idem est quod natio
I seriously hope you plebs don't do this.
>>325101
According to this logic, tribes shared a feeling of nationalism too, in pre-historic times.
>>325113
Yes, abstractions can be difficult/impossible to pin down. What's new?
>>325137
It is hard for people to grasp the concept of something not existing prior to their own time. It is hard to put yourself in the mindset of those people back then.
Still, nationalism in it's modern form appeared in the 19th century, while previous social phenomenons could be viewed as it's precursors.
>>324576
Patriotic nationalism is much older than 18th century, try going back all the way to Charlemagne.
Ethnic nationalism however is pretty recent.
>>325092
This. While probably not the only example, the ideal of loyalty to "The Republic" is the best preserved example of nationalism before the 19th century.
>>325176
>This happy breed of men
What about Rome?
>>325183
Women
>>325182
>>325189
You are both retarded. There was no such thing as a national concept of "Rome" or "The republic". Get it in your heads that nationalism doesn't mean an idea that some political figures shared among one another, and put on paper. It's what NATIONalism means. An idea rationalized and accepted by the entire population of the country which partakes in the greater idea of belonging to a bigger group.
That type of thinking started to develop recently and it certainly did not exist in roman times.
nationalism is human nature xD
>>324485
>The only legitimate form of nationalism is ethnic nationalism
>>325206
>An idea rationalized and accepted by the entire population of the country which partakes in the greater idea of belonging to a bigger group.
tell me how this doesn't describe the early republic
>>325268
Show me historical documentation in the early republic that everyone identified as "roman" and not as each one's city, ethnicity, culture or tribe.
>>325290
Civis romanus sum
>>325290
well that's complicated isn't it, considering that the majority of latium under Rome was settled by actual Romans from the city of Rome and conquered peoples were given "citizenship without the vote", but gradually became romanized themselves over a long period and then considered themselves Roman
the social war later on was the death knell of
>and not as each one's city, ethnicity, culture or tribe.
this sort of thinking in the republic
>>325250
And what is the difference between nationalism and patriotism?
>>324541
Did he actually read it?
>>324485
>only legitimate form of nationalism is ethnic nationalism
i-it's not nationalism unless I say so!
>>324401
Weren't the Romans nationalists though?
Yeah, and nations didn't exist before the 19th, right?!!!! Also, everyone was dumb and ugly because we didn't have science :((((
>>325321
The difference between becoming a citizen, or remaining a foreign national.
>>324410
What this anon said. Tribadism was basically the status quo of most of the world until relatively recently.
>>328015
>Tribadism
>>324485
>The only legitimate form of nationalism is ethnic nationalism
Moving the goalposts, dumbfuck. You could say that the romans were nationalistic because they saw anybody outside of their empire as inferior 'barbarians'
>>328020
I really was born too late.
>>328099
>You 'could' say
Yeah, you can say a lot of dumb shit if you keep the definitions super fuzzy.
>>324485
>I can't see anything beyond Europe
>>328108
Its not 'dumb shit' you fucking idiot. It fits the definition just fine. You're just mad that it doesn't fit your tumblrite marxist definition
>>328112
Damn eurocentrism, amrite?
>>327942
Prior to the 19th century there were kings, monarchs and dynasties. No nations.
People had no sense of nation and lived happily with other races and religions before Hitler desu
>>325321
Nationalism = ethnic (national) fraternity
Patriotism = loyalty to polity
>>329212
No nation states*
>>329248
That's a modern view you're projection onto the past.
Nobody thought of themselves as part of the same nation, just subjects of the crown they were serving under. Incidentally, when nationalism started to appear, so did nations and nation-states began to arise.
>>329259
Feudalism and nationalism is not a dichotomy
Then there's the distinction between a nation and national conciousness
If you're seriously suggesting that they were not aware of their own national belonging, ancestry and communal relations even beyond fiefs you need to read more from the time
You can make a case for peasants but peasants were ignorants in general
>>324401
iktf OP, i see people acting as if anglo-saxon england or charlemagne or even medieval france are analogs for their nations today.
>>329291
Serfs and farmers were aware they shared the same culture and language, but that's very far from saying they knew they belonged to a nation, much less to a country that was expressed by the nation.
The big difference between the era of feudalism and nationalism was when identities were based on class and not culture. After nationalism started to appear, classes did not matter as a form of social identification, and people started to rationalize the fact that culture comes before class.
>>329316
A nation in its simplest form doesn't even need to know it's a nation. It's just a distinct group of people unified by faith, language, etc. In this sense nations always existed with varying degrees of self-awareness.
Most modern nations are historical patchworks due to tribal and feudal fragmentations in the past despite being mire or less one nation culturally speaking. Nationalism is the realization of all this and the pursuit for a unified national state.
Nationalism, in that a person identifies with their nation as a whole over the town/state/region they live in, which of course is more likely to share the values you have than the nation, is a relatively new concept, yes.
>>329312
Those are precursors for their their respective states, because their borders didn't change to much. Since western european states are the ones that define the nation, they just apply this logic to the past, and assume that's when their nations were born as well.
There are people on /his/ right now, that unironically believe class struggle and capitalism existed in any form, prior to Marx.
>>329347
> a distinct group of people unified by faith, language, etc
This is called an ethnicity.
> In this sense nations always existed with varying degrees of self-awareness
Except there are absolutely no historical records of a group of people being self-aware of their alleged belonging to a "nation". Today it's easy for us to assume that because we have linguists and scholars who done global research and can actually map out to you an ethnicity from another. The same intellectuals and scholars who started to do it was not earlier than the 19th century. We're talking about a time before people had wide access to information and the only other people, people knew were the next 2-3 villages or 2-3 cities around them.
Still, getting rid of feudalism is the essential part in establishing a nation. Because if you don't make people cooperate on the grounds of the same cultural belonging, they will restrain this cooperation to their social class. I don't even want to talk about pre-feudal societies and nations. It's just to ridiculously far stretched.
>>329360
i understand that, but borders have shifted a lot more than you think and the linguistic and cultural divides very big from region to region back then.
>>324485
>what is Robespierre
>what is l'état du peuple
>what is la marseillaise
>>329376
>This is called an ethnicity.
Nation is like a slightly more conscious idea of ethnicity. An abstraction that sufficiently existed since the dawn of civilization.
>Except there are absolutely no historical records of a group of people being self-aware of their alleged belonging to a "nation"
Except countless racist tirades against other nations and shilling for their own.
This is an honest question. In episode 3 in Simon Schama's A History of Britain, he implies that Edward I's wars across the Isles (and Robert Bruce's invasion of Ireland) stirred a large amount of nationalist sentiment, especially in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. How true is this? Is Schama wrong? Or was he right, but should have specified that this was only a thing among the upper classes who needed some way of differentiating themselves?
Or is it something else?
>>329457
Looks like strong solidarity of A culture around a political issue caused by a threat. This sort of thing happened all the way back to ancient athens, when city-states put their differences aside and formed a league against the invading Persia. But it's in no way recognisable to nationalism simply because this solidarity cease to exist during peace time, and tribes belonging to the same culture, war and kill each other again.
>>329410
Robespierre was a freemason and had humanistic ideals for France and french people. If he was a nationalist as some other anon suggested itt, he should have made his declaration of rights more exclusive to being part of the french ethnicity
>>329481
Why does strife make it not primitive nationalism?
>>329487
>national supremacy maymay
>in a state already along ethnic lines
>>329495
Because
>But it's in no way recognisable to nationalism simply because this solidarity ceases to exist during peace time, and tribes belonging to the same culture, war and kill each other again.
Learn to read.
There are people on /his/ right now, that think that Eric Hobsbawn and Benedict Anderson were seriously historians, not revolutionary communists using their works to push an agenda.
>>329512
yes, it's a stupid claim
>>329525
you obviously haven't read anderson
>>329528
Not as stupid as claiming tribes had nationalism.
PoliSci 101, faggot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_%28university%29
>>329538
>tribes
>greek citystates
>germany wasn't nationalist because they fought austrians
>you
>>329457
Robert's invasion of Ireland was justified on the basis of his supposed High Kingship, while the connections between the kingdoms advanced simply as an argument why this Kingship was also a happy fact.
>>329566
>disregarding highly abstract forms of communication because you're a simpleton
>>>/reddit/
>>329584
>some tribes with narrow personal interests killing each other
>abstract form of communication
>>>/highschool/
>>324541
You didn't read the essay, did you?
HI MY NAME IS OP AND I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THE TREATY OF WESTPHALIA
>>329684
What does that have to do with nationalism?
>All of these posts that have barely anything to do with the modern definition of nationalism
>Everything they understand and brand as "nationalism" is thanks to the modern definition that appeared in modern times
>>329694
Pretty much what you'd expect, innit?
This type of tumblrite marxist logic annoys me, it's just the same "x is a social construct" bullshit argument to invalidate something. Guess what complex languages and writing didnt exist for most of human existence, it doesnt mean shit.
>>329487
>the french ethnicity
The what now?
German ethnicity, sure, why not, but how exactly do you find a French ethnicity in that mix of latin, celtic, celtiberian and germanic blood? The unifying forces of the French nation were not built on ethnic standards around the Empire or the Republic and the ideals of the enlightenement (be they moderate or radical).
>>324485
Ethnic nationalism started in the 18th century.
In general the 19th century was a regurgitation of the 18th. Intellectually speaking.
>>329525
No there aren't.
Nobody is that retarded.
>>329714
Wut? Reading comprehension, m8.
>>324401
So when Vercingetorix united the Gallic tribes against rome, what was he appealing to? Not tribalism; it trancended the tribes that had feuded until then.
>>329838
>what was he appealing to?
FUCKING ROMANS, REEEEE
>>329848
Basically. "They are a threat, and need to be dealt with." If he managed to win, the alliance would collapse in a matter of seconds and once again become a bunch of tribes/autonomous cities.
>>329838
Good old political centralization.
>>329861
The centralization of what political apparatus? There was no legal mechanism for centralization, but it wasn't done by force either.
They were separate states, albeit with a distinct national identity. They unified under a nationalist leader in opposition to a foreign (i.e., non-gaulish) aggressor.
It didn't "start" in the 19th century out of nowhere.
What happened in the French Revolution is that French nationalism was turned into a universal principle that could be exported to any country. French nationalism wasn't just made up from scratch, it had existed since the Middle Ages (a couple of other countries already had it as well, namely England and the Netherlands).
>>324401
there are people on /his/ right now, that unironically believe that atoms existed in any form, prior to the 19th century when chemistry started
there are people on his right now, that unironically believe that gravity existed in any form, prior to the 17th century when Newton started it
>what is Pax Romana
pic related, it's you
>>329924
There are people on /his/ right now, that unironically believe that writing existed in any form, 5 million years ago
>what is Pax Romana
Imperium, or a desert depending on who you ask
Depends on what you define as nationalism. In a sense feeling closer ties to people similar to you in terms of race/culture/language/location has always existed and been a part of humanity.
>>329857
Why did the other peoples of Gaul see the romans a threat, but not the Arvernians of Vercingetorix? Romans allied some of those peoples and even protected them. While the arverni were historical enemies of some of those.
>>324401
There are people on /his/ right now who unironically believe the inane ramblings of an unemployed 19th century jew.
>>329924
>People who disagree with me are fat and ugly.
>>329999
But you are fat and ugly.
Checked
>>329532
Not him, Anderson's imagined communities are okay but Cornell Paper are quite embarassingly commie tbqh pham.
>>329983
He wrote a fuckton of books that made him ostracized and either with not time to spare or unemployeable.
>>330038
I am muscular and handsome, not even lying. I have a red birthmark around my stomach and genitalia though and I don't want grills to be disgusted by it, so I am a virgin :(
>>330126
>I am muscular and handsome
>virgin
Protip : you're not handsome.
>>324485
you're right
But you should find out the difference between risorgimento nationalism and integral nationalism.
>>330128
Did you read the second half of my post? I go to clubs and meet girls and then bottle it because of birthmark. It is really very bad.
>>324401
There are people who unironically believe that because nationalism didn't exist prior to the 19th century, that identifying with an independent polity or cultural group didn't occur, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Nationalism was codified in the 19th century, as was Socialism and Communism. As with Socialism and Communism, there are examples of movements, people and time periods which can be designated Proto-Communist and Proto-Nationalist.
>>330143
Are you proto-retarded or post-retarded?
>>325290
>Civis romanus sum
"Roman" was most certainly a concept and point of identity throughout history. You can see this from Cicero to the Alexiad. Whilst it is nowhere near as clear-cut as modern day ethnic nationalism, a great many people, including commoners have seen themselves as 'Roman' historically.
It is one thing to understand that ethnic and political nationalism did not exist until recently, it is another to be so blind as to ignore countless examples of people identifying with various polities. The simple fact is that throughout history there have been examples of people identifying with a wide variety of social metric.
If you asked a peasant in the Ukraine in the 1870s what their nationality was, they would probably respond with "Greek Orthodox". If you asked Aeschylus if he identified as a Greek, or Pericles if he identified as an Athenian, you'd probably get a yes.
>>330132
I'm a Brit who was circumcised young due to phimosis.
It left a skin bridge on one side, I always thought it would weird girls out, it never has.
Trust me a birthmark wont send anyone running, I knew a guy whos girlfriend who had a massive birthmark, about 5 inches long and two across, that legitimately looked like a crusty shit.
Don't overthink it an just do it, if that is why you haven't got laid before.
>>330072
>Cornell Paper
what's this?
>>329915
>it had existed since the Middle Ages
Which is exactly why the fathers of the french revolution didn't mention at least once "french nation" in their entire documents and political activity
>>330179
I suppose that a girl being disgusted at me is better than never finding out. I'm going out tonight, maybe tonight will be the night I get over it.
>>329749
>The what now?
Exactly.
>but how exactly do you find a French ethnicity in that mix of latin, celtic, celtiberian and germanic blood?
Every ethnicity is a previous mix of something else. For the record i'm not arguing that a french ethnicity exists, because being french doesn't mean inheriting your identity, but winning it by abiding by some civic identity. Because to some people, it really matters that your state is an expression of what your ethnicity is, to some, like the french or english, it doesn't. Thus, the french revolution was not nationalist in any way.
>>329838
Nothing. Fusing several tribes together doesn't make it a nation. Nationalism is more specific than that, it doesn't just mean "hurr durr a bunch of people working with each other".
>>329875
>nationalist leader
More like opportunist.
protip; being chief to so many tribes gained you mad respect from all the other tribes around you, not to mention wealth and status. It was a primitive matter of selfish prestige.
I don't see any nationalism here.
>>330170
From identity to nation is a long way. Before the roman identity, there was city-state identity, and before that tribal identity.
If you draw modern things as the same thing from the ancient past in a different form, then boats were submarines, letters were phones, and chariots were cars.
>If you asked Aeschylus if he identified as a Greek
I doubt i would get an identification based on ethnicity. For the sake of the argument, let's say he really did say he was a greek to some foreigner who asked. But what would mean greek to someone back then? If being athenian meant you were born and raised in the city of Athens, then a greek would have been born and raised in Greece. But greece only appeared on the world's map in the 19th century.
>>330235
>Thus, the french revolution was not nationalist in any way.
>Thus
>thus
>T͟Həs/
>adverb
>1.
>as a result or consequence of this; therefore.
Aristotle encouraged Alexander toward eastern conquest and his attitude towards Persia was unabashedly ethnocentric. In one famous example, he counsels Alexander to be "a leader to the Greeks and a despot to the barbarians, to look after the former as after friends and relatives, and to deal with the latter as with beasts or plants"
>>330399
So?
>>330423
>Individual and collective national self-identification beyond the everyday feuds of kings and cities
>Comparisons with other national groups as affirmation (us vs them)
>national supremacy and privilege
What more do you want?
>>330201
They mention "the Nation" all the time.
But muh vikings who traded with everyone and worked for everyone were defenders of the white race despite not even having the concept of race in the first place.
>>330429
stop falling to baits anon
>>330484
This. The first things vikings did when they landed on foreign shores was to reassert that we're all one race, the human race and that skin color is an illusion.
>>330513
They also got their ass handed to them by Moors, Inuits and native Americans so if they were the strongest white race has to offer I don't want to know what the weakest was.
>>330513
>The first things vikings did when they landed on foreign shores
kill monks
pillage the monasteries
rape the pretty ladies
>>324401
I don't understand why most people always need to argue from the most extreme position
Group identity has always been something that has existed in humankind, it just expresses itself in various forms during history.
From the family, to the soil, to the tribe, to the city-state, to the nation-state, to the continent, all the way to people who identify themselves as citizens of the world, or as members of a specific religion, and/or political ideology.
Most ideological fault-lines between the left and the right, especially in Europe, live from this clash - their belief in identity and their devotion to a specific group within the pyramid of identity is experienced differently, which is just growing stronger as identity politics, also amongst minorities crowding around Islam as a specific fundament of identity, is spreading.
I actually would argue that in the end Huntington was right and that the fight of identity nowadays mostly crowds around civilizational faultlines, even though he was unable to predict that for Westerners these fault-lines would actually happen internally within their countries first.
As Bowden said, in the past threats were always perceived as external. Another nation, another dictator, another aggressor, another imperial rivalry. In this filament of Empire, in the scramble for Africa at the end of the 19th century, and so on.
All the real enemies we now face are internal - at least for those of us who believe in the nation-state and identify with western cultural values.
>>330439
Which is?
Because of not specifying who or what "the Nation" is, any african or asian can claim to be "frech" part of the "french nation" nowadays
>>330660
>As Bowden said
Literally who
>>324401
Didn't it really take off around the time of public education? The schools indoctrinated children into nationalism for the benefit of the ruling class...
>>330763
It took off because of its democratic appeal in a world of aristocracy
But unlike Livy the medieval historian treats this material from a universalistic point of view. Even in the Middle Ages nationalism was a real thing; but an historian who flattered national rivalries and national pride knew that he was doing wrong. His business was not to praise England or France but to narrate the gesta Dei. He saw history not as a mere play of human purposes, in which he took the side of his own friends, but as a process, having an objective necessity of its own, wherein even the most intelligent and powerful human agent finds himself involved, not because God is destructive and mischievous, as in Herodotus, but because God is provident and constructive, has a plan of his own with which he will allow no man to interfere; so the human agent finds himself caught up in the stream of the divine purpose, and carried along in it with or without his consent. History, as the will of God, orders itself, and does not depend for its orderliness on the human agent's will to order it. Plans emerge, and get themselves carried into effect, which no human being has planned; and even men who think they are working against the emergence of these plans are in fact contributing to them.
t. collingwood
new component of 18th century nationalism and onwards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Gottfried_Herder
>Herder attached exceptional importance to the concept of nationality and of patriotism – "he that has lost his patriotic spirit has lost himself and the whole worlds about himself", whilst teaching that "in a certain sense every human perfection is national". Herder carried folk theory to an extreme by maintaining that "there is only one class in the state, the Volk, (not the rabble), and the king belongs to this class as well as the peasant". Explanation that the Volk was not the rabble was a novel conception in this era, and with Herder can be seen the emergence of "the people" as the basis for the emergence of a classless but hierarchical national body.
>>329369
>There are people on /his/ right now, that unironically believe gravity existed in any form, prior to Newton.
>>330936
Prior to Marx Capitalism didn't exist.
I don't see why this is such a silly thing to say, given these authors founded them.
>>330936
>>330954
There are people on /his/ right now, that unironically believe the social sciences are the same as physics or economics
>>330660
It's funny you say this, considering that the ruling discourse in Europe and the rest of the world after the Paris attacks is one that is very explicitly directed against a clearly external foe. If you heard the speeches of Hollande or Rajoy after the attacks, you could see that they reinvented terms from the Cold War as they distinguished the current situation as a "clash of civilizations" threatening "our way of life" and "our western values".
>>330970
>>330954
>>330936
The point is that the class struggle is a theoretical concept, which according to Marx existed since the development of agriculture. Capitalism is another form of class society, but not the only one. So of course, if you are a marxist then you'd say that is much earlier than him. It's the same case with Newton's gravity, even if as >>330970 said, there's a big difference between these two.
>>331044
You forgot the part where the pan-european universalism is in defence of the Euro trade bloc by association of western values.
lmao are you an orientalist. nerd
>>331044
>It's funny you say this, considering that the ruling discourse in Europe and the rest of the world after the Paris attacks is one that is very explicitly directed against a clearly external foe. If you heard the speeches of Hollande or Rajoy after the attacks, you could see that they reinvented terms from the Cold War as they distinguished the current situation as a "clash of civilizations" threatening "our way of life" and "our western values".
Of course this is what he would say. The last thing he wants is to criticize the EU/Germany's refugee admittance policy and to get on collision course with Merkel. It's like after 9/11 Bush was ready to go fight terrorism half a world away but god forbid reexamining the visa policy that allowed those people to get in the US. Open borders are the new credo.
>>331089
I don't think hijacking a plane is a legal visa application.
>>324401
is the book tiny or is marx huge?
>>331114
Why did you type this post?
>>331131
>Why did you type this post?
Why did you type this post?
>>329212
Yeah, but territorial states as they were defined in 1648.
>>331154
1648 was just a particular political and religious arrangement. There were borders prior to the 17th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huaxia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese#Terms_and_etymology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihonjinron#Kokugaku
Nationalism starts around the time of the French revolution and all that shit
before that the common identity was Christendom and its various denominations
>>330970
>there are people on /his/ right now who unironically believe that physics and economics should be grouped together, rather than economics and social sciences.
>>324541
Yes, because a Marxist literally has to 100% agree with every single thing Marx ever said or did.
>>331235
define common
define identity
>>331231
That's nice dear. Now would you be kind enough to leave the thread to the experts
>>331235
2bh during the reformation religious identity simply became an arm of proto-nationalism.
I don't think there's a real reason why Ireland, or the Dutch Republic, chose the denominations they did aside from to help revolt against the overlord.
>>331291
yeah I guess you're right
in the reformation theology kinda takes a backseat to politics, but there's still the whole dastardly papist vs. protestant pleb opposition
During the Hundred Years' War people living in the kingdoms of England and France developed what could be called nationalistic views as a result of the war.
>>324401
French nationalism, and to an extent British nationalism as well, were born from the Hundred Years War.
