[Hedkffiz]

Given Europe's extreme diversity, primarily that of language, which was/is too impractical to overcome, and given geographical concentration of speakers of each language, nationalisms were inevitable.

Were they a bad thing? I think that today's supranational EU is possible only because for a period nationalisms of its members were lived to the full (unfortunately, some gruesome things also happened).

[dr-eavealer]

Nationalism is anything but an artificial construction. Language barrier in particular is very real.

[idertedype]

Here is a historical example of the strength of nationalism: World War I. Communists expected the workers of all nations to rise as one class against those who are forcing them to fight. Instead, these same workers happily marched off to die for nation, not for class. Even communist parties became supporters of the war.

[Sydrothcoathy]

Nationalism is an expanded form of tribalism legitimized with romanticist interpretations of history. For examplethe people in what is now Southern France definitely didn't consider themselves French during the Middle Ages, they were more similar culturally and linguistically to the Catalonians then to the folks up in Paris. Another good example is how the distinctions between the East Slavic ethnicities (Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians are exaggerated for nationalistic purposes. I agree with AJ Toynbee's remark that Nationalism is a pathetic kind of collective self-worship that can be thought of as a kind of secularization of a polity having a patron deity.

[Alexeryy]

Everyone here seems either opposed to or detached from the notion of nationalism. I'm not. I consider myself a supporter of the concept in general though I'm also aware of it's less savoury sides.

Nationalism, before statehood, is no different from any other identity-based liberation struggle. Why should those who support the women's movement, gay rights, the workers' struggle, black power or whatever be opposed to the freedom struggles of ethnic groups? Nationalism is a great builder and preserver of identity, and opposing your own groups' assimilations into some ideological hegemony is the most important struggle of all. Should the strong, the rich and the majority always set the cultural agenda?

I've yet to see the "universal principles" that give fair treatment to less powered groups and minorities, nor have I seen any movement based on just one type of power inequality (yes, I'm looking at you anarchists) succeed in creating equality. The individual groups' collective perspectives need to be taken into account before I'd consider anything properly fair.

[r9tbayfC]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed

I've yet to see the "universal principles" that give fair treatment to less powered groups and minorities, nor have I seen any movement based on just one type of power inequality (yes, I'm looking at you anarchists) succeed in creating equality. The individual groups' collective perspectives need to be taken into account before I'd consider anything properly fair. The "nation" is a far more "fluid" thing than most identity politics issues. After all, in 1860 what did the people of Milan and Naples share culturally beyond their shared language? Most "nations" are constructs, creations of the 19th century. This is fundamentally different from gender or sexual orientation. As for race, its also a construct, though one limited by looks, unlike nationalism. Personally, to me nationalism creates as many oppressed groups as it "liberates."

[NicolasOL]

I have another question. Were you trying to say...

Then of course the Welsh and the Britons are supposedly part of the same "nation" as the French (Parisians) and Spanish (Castillians) respectively.

or...

Then of course the Welsh and the Bretons are supposedly part of the same "nation" as the French (Parisians) and Spanish (Castillians) respectively.

It doesn't make sense either way, but I'm curious as to what the word you mispelled was actually supposed to be.

[dwestemesse]

That said, was the age of nationalism that followed the French Revolution crucial in the creation of modern Liberal democracy in Europe, or could modern Liberal Democracy in Europe have developed in Europe without it, driven by the forces of the Industrial and Agricultural revolutions? If one imagines a pan-european state emerging in the C19th, the obvious conclusion is that it would be consumed from within by nationalist feuding before very long. That said, I don't think that nationalism helped liberal democracy along in any way.

Nationalists seem to value authenticity above pretty much anything else. There's pretty much always a small subset of capitalism devoted to servicing this demand for authenticity, churning out knick-knacks and romantic tosh. On the other hand, capitalism has anti-nationalist effects as well; the constant expansion of trade and the creation of powerful international bodies, for example. It also has a corrosive effect on tradition.

But one of the most capitalist states is also one of the most nationalist: the USA. Are these two linked (and what about the religiousness?). I find it strange that there's not more of a protectionist mood in America; free trade is an urban, intellectual ideology, it would be sooooo easy to damn its adherents as Unamerican, pro-China, non-salt-of-the-earth yuppies. There was a protectionist mood brewing during the early nineties against Japan - so where's the protectionist mood now?

The EU functions at least to the extent that it keeps europeans from making war on each other, but it certainly does not function adequately as a regional government. Where do you get this idea? European societies are more than 'adequate' from a global POV.

[EvaQWmrm]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I have another question. Were you trying to say...

Then of course the Welsh and the Britons are supposedly part of the same "nation" as the French (Parisians) and Spanish (Castillians) respectively.

or...

Then of course the Welsh and the Bretons are supposedly part of the same "nation" as the French (Parisians) and Spanish (Castillians) respectively.

It doesn't make sense either way, but I'm curious as to what the word you mispelled was actually supposed to be.

Yes, Bretons, and I did not change the welsh to Catalans.

[plantBanceper]

Originally posted by Sandman

But one of the most capitalist states is also one of the most nationalist: the USA. Are these two linked (and what about the religiousness?). I find it strange that there's not more of a protectionist mood in America; free trade is an urban, intellectual ideology, it would be sooooo easy to damn its adherents as Unamerican, pro-China, non-salt-of-the-earth yuppies. There was a protectionist mood brewing during the early nineties against Japan - so where's the protectionist mood now? The US is not nationalist. It might be jingoist and uber-patriotic, but in general it is not nationalistic. After all, the American "nation" is a hodgepot of different traditions and races. The founding ideology of the US is universalist (which probably has plenty to do with religiosity since Christianity is also universalist) and not related to the notion of "nation" as a single ethno-cultural group.

[Sheelldaw]

Originally posted by GePap
The US is not nationalist. It might be jingoist and uber-patriotic, but in general it is not nationalistic. After all, the American "nation" is a hodgepot of different traditions and races. The founding ideology of the US is universalist (which probably has plenty to do with religiosity since Christianity is also universalist) and not related to the notion of "nation" as a single ethno-cultural group. Virtually all nations are a hodge-podge of different traditions and/or races. The US is not particularly unique in this regard. The founding ideology may be universalist in your view, but it's easily adapted for nationalist purposes as well.

Americans like to call themselves one-eighth this or one-quarter that, but how many are really anything other than simply 'American' in their culture?

[MattJargin]

Originally posted by GePap
I consider myself a complete anti-Nationalist. I despise the notion that sovereignty needs to come from the general will of a group of individuals that are linked by a shared ethno-cultural experience, as opposed to say, coming from some univeral political ideal. Are you disgusted by the effect of nationalism or by what you see as its emotional rather than logical underpinnings? Nationalism has proven much stronger glue than ideological associations, to the extent that even putatively ideological associations like the United States or the Soviet Union relied on simple nationalism for their cohesion moreso than their ideology.

I think the reason nationalism is the stronger forces is simple. It functions rather like family. You may not agree with or even like every member of your family, but you naturally enough tend to stand or side with them when things are tough. Ideologies don't tend to be able to garner this sort of loyalty without becoming fantical and tending to destoy themselves. Plus there are so many ideologies that tend to cohabitate in a modern open society that it makes trying to form functional political units based on them difficult without resorting to repression.

[rbVmVlQ2]

Originally posted by Sandman


Americans like to call themselves one-eighth this or one-quarter that, but how many are really anything other than simply 'American' in their culture?
I would agree. Even hyphenated Americans are much more "American" than they realize, and NOT just on ideological grounds. It usually takes a visit to the "homeland" to realize this. I certainly never realized how unconsciously American I was till I spent several months in Israel. If Arrian were here, perhaps he could speak to his experiences in Southern Italy.

[CarrieSexy]

If Arrian were here, perhaps he could speak to his experiences in Southern Italy. Good food, good scenery, nice people, a bit poor (quite a difference from the North)... I didn't make it over to Sicily, though.

I'm American through and through. My ancestry is primary English (more than half, maybe 2/3), some Sicilian (1/4), some Croat and then bits of this or that. But other than a few quirks, I don't associate with the UK (or Italy, or Croatia). Culturally I'm nearly all American.

As for Nationalism... I think there is a sweet spot somewhere between the "love it or leave it/my country right or wrong" groupthink all hail the glorious leader crowd and Gepap's position. At some point, you have to figure out a way to cooperate with people who are not like you in some way (whether it be ethnicity, religious beliefs, or ideology that differs). Band < Tribe < Kingdom < Nation-State, in terms of power. The larger, more sophisticated political units tended to beat up on or absorb the smaller ones... this is simply historical truth. Is the nation perfect? Hell no. But it strikes me as better than tribalism.

-Arrian

[rhiniddibiarmr]

Originally posted by Sandman
Virtually all nations are a hodge-podge of different traditions and/or races. The US is not particularly unique in this regard. The founding ideology may be universalist in your view, but it's easily adapted for nationalist purposes as well. Not really. Nationalism states that soverignty comes form the collective decisions of the 'nation', while the enlightenment notions that frame US iodeals state that it comes from the consent of the Citizens. That is a very different source of legitimacy for the entire system. You can use nationalism to justify any form of government, certainly, from Liberal democracy to dictatorship. That can;t be said of the universalist values of the US.

Americans like to call themselves one-eighth this or one-quarter that, but how many are really anything other than simply 'American' in their culture? And what exactly is "American culture"? Its a hodgepot that is elastic enough to admit anything. American music? HUge African influences with some European stuff thrown in . American food? Anything from indigenous ideas (barbecue) to then German (Hamburgers, Franks), Italian (PIzza) and Mexican (Tacos). As for film and TV, I would say that American TV dominates the globe not only because it has a leg up in the mone available for production and other financial advanatges, but simply because American films are generally based on a more universal lowest common denominator.

[MegaJIT]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
What is the alternative case? Local sovereignty, a la Britanny or Hesse? Or large scale sovereignties that ignored the national principle, a la the Hapsburg monarchy, or the larger ancien regime monarchies.

The latter were inevitably brought into question by the rise of liberal democracy. Once you establish that the people should rule, it matters very much how you group the people. Democracy to work requires shifting coalitions and rotation in power - otherwise its simply dictatorship of the majority. When the issues in a polity run on lines of nationality and culture, there will be permanent majorities and minorities, and the minority has no stake in majority rule. Where that minority is large and strong enough, it will not be possible to enforce its staying inside an empire dominated by another group, at least not by liberal democratic means. Even in empires with multiple groups, the importance of identity, but especially of language, which more than most aspects of culture can NOT be excluded from the public sphere, made democratic politics problematic. A detailed study of the 19th century Hapsburg monarchy is very helpful in this regard. It is no coincidence that the "universalist" forces in the 19th century were almost always on the anti-liberal, anti democratic side. And yet, the breakup of these states brought about massive disruptions and death and war. As for your notion of what it takes democracy to work, Japan has been a dmeocracy for 50 years with one party. What democracy needs to work is respect for the outcome, and an acceptance that only through the democratic process should things be resolved. And democracy can be inherently anti-liberal, since Liberalism is about respecting individual values, while democracy is also about collective wills, which can be at odds. The uS is a great counterpoint. For most of our history, the US was a collection of states with lots of local soverignty. And many of those states used that soverignty to limit democracy and liberalism. It was as the central government gained more strenght that liberalism and greater dmeocracy, to the benefit of citizens, was pushed unto many states.


Could smaller states have survived, without integrating into nationalist wholes? Well, yes, depending on the strategic circumstances. Luxembourg made it, Canada avoided becoming part of the US, etc. While part of this was how strong local loyalties actually were, more of it had to do with the strategic situation. At some point after the Napoleonic wars, people in German and Italian states realized that their independence was illusory, and made them a battlefield for larger states. (of course Brittany, for example, was long gone BEFORE nationalism appeared)

German and Italian unification became real because of the specific work of certain powers that used it to their advantage. After all, the Kleine Deutschland that Prussia built was just really a greater Prussian Empire. A state like Bavarian could certainly have survived just fine in the interplay of great powers. JUst look at Belgium. And then of course, the Balkans people did not mind having their own tiny little states, as long as they could claim them as theirs.


Now in the late 20th cent this played out differently, at least in Europe. For the smaller states national sov proved as illusory as that of the small German and Italian states had been. For GErmany and Italy it had proven real, but disastrous. So going with a transnational EU makes a certain amount of sense. Will the EU face the kinds of language battles the Hapsburgs faces? Will the lack of a common language for transEuropean political campaigns limit democracy? Will the lack of emotional loyalty limit the effectiveness of the state, or the level of citizen involvement? At this time we dont know, since the EU is simply not yet quite that "state like". Given high levels of education and accompanying multilingualism, and the likelihood that the march of technology will soon give us good automated translators, the language issue may well be much less important.

IN many cases, much as in the US example, the greater centralizing EU idelogy allies with individual citizens to protect their individual rights from collective whims.


But IMHO it is a mistake to read the history of the 20th century and ignore the degree to which nationalism has been a progressive force in history. There were pan European wars before nationalism - they were less destructive than WW1 largely due to technological differences. Its likely that in the absence of nationalism there would still have been a pan-european war at some point, and it would have been very destructive. Its useful to note that perhaps the most hawkish state in Europe in July 1914, the one with the least interest in a compromise solution, was the one state that was self-consciously anti-nationalist, Austria-Hungary.

I think you are incorrect to state that AH was the "most hawkish". Germany was equally as Hawkish, in fact, no state in 1914 seemed particularly interested in not going to war. As for AH, it felt it needed the war to smash the nationalistic forces that were tearing it apart, and it should be interesting to note that through the war the empire was able to build sufficient internal support for what was a trully sapping experience.

As for WW2, I would say that fascism was no more natural an evolution of nationalism than Bolshevism was of socialism - socialism being another example of an attempt to address a "permament minority" that had limited stake in 19th c liberal democracy. For a discussion of "patriotic" opposition to fascism, id suggest John Lukacs. "patriotic" is not the same as Nationalistic. That is why there is a different word. Patriotism is loyalty to the "fatherland" (same root word for Patria and Padre). That loyalty does not really identify the legitimacy of said "fatherland."

And Bolshevism is not a development of socialism, it is a development of Communism, which is a more narrow idea, and Bolshevism itself is more narrow than communism, and so forth. BUt then, to state something like "normal evolution" is wrong, since it almost implies some predetermined ladder, but as we all know, evolution is random, based on events, never set.

The problem with Nationalism is simple, it places soverignty squarely within the hands of a particular single group, The Nation. Only things decided by the common "national will" are valid. Decisions that undermine the "nation" are inherently bad, as they undermine the source of legitimacy. Except that the "nation" is an invention, that can be defined, depending on the group in power, as broadly, or narroly as possible. And since legitimacy lies in some collective, there is plenty of excuses to crush the rights of individuals, in ways small or radical (like extermination) is said individuals pose a problem for the "nation" as has been defined.

[Hofonom]

Originally posted by GePap

"Not really. Nationalism states that soverignty comes form the collective decisions of the 'nation'," Id say thats one particular definition of nationalism. A more Herderian (?) type of nationalism, one that would not have been accepted by many 19thc liberals who we tend to think of as nationalists. A more liberal approach is to start with the enlightenment ideal of a democracy giving equal rights to all citizens, but pragmatically recognizing that groups exist as social entities, and that this makes it necessary to draw boundaried based on nationality. To recognize national loyalties, the role of language and group in politcs. The same way one can (and should) recognize the role of class in politics, even if one is not a Marxist.


As for what is American food - when I go to visit my inlaws in Brooklyn, I have little difficulty determing that some are more "Americanized" than others, and yes it does involve adoption of foodways, among other things. Although use of English is the key, Id say.

[Dyerryjex]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Id say thats one particular definition of nationalism. A more Herderian (?) type of nationalism, one that would not have been accepted by many 19thc liberals who we tend to think of as nationalists. A more liberal approach is to start with the enlightenment ideal of a democracy giving equal rights to all citizens, but pragmatically recognizing that groups exist as social entities, and that this makes it necessary to draw boundaried based on nationality. To recognize national loyalties, the role of language and group in politcs. The same way one can (and should) recognize the role of class in politics, even if one is not a Marxist. These local loyalties are far more limited in scope and size than the nationalists would have believe. Why should 'German' identity trump Bavarian identity? Why should 'French' identity trump Burgundian identity? 'Italian' identity Piedmontese identity? Yes, people live in communities that define themselves in social and cultural ways, but the bounderies drawn by Nationalists are as fake as any drawn by multiethnic empires. Clearly in Europe it took lost of suffering and mass population displacements to make those bounderies "make sense.

[Kneefrenolf]

Not really. Nationalism states that soverignty comes form the collective decisions of the 'nation', while the enlightenment notions that frame US iodeals state that it comes from the consent of the Citizens. That is a very different source of legitimacy for the entire system. You can use nationalism to justify any form of government, certainly, from Liberal democracy to dictatorship. That can;t be said of the universalist values of the US. You may consider enlightenment notions to embody US ideals, but many (most?) Americans subscribe to some form of American exceptionalism, believing themselves to be somehow better than other nations. You state later on that patriotism is loyalty to the state, but many 'patriotic' Americans have an ferocious antipathy to anything government-related, preferring to rely on folksy 'homespun' wisdom, rather than universal ideals.

And what exactly is "American culture"? Its a hodgepot that is elastic enough to admit anything. American music? HUge African influences with some European stuff thrown in . American food? Anything from indigenous ideas (barbecue) to then German (Hamburgers, Franks), Italian (PIzza) and Mexican (Tacos). As for film and TV, I would say that American TV dominates the globe not only because it has a leg up in the mone available for production and other financial advanatges, but simply because American films are generally based on a more universal lowest common denominator. The food thing is hardly uniquely American, the UK has tea (China), curry (India) and fish and chips (Spanish Jews). And what about sports? America is quite distinctive in that regard.

[Immarsecice]

Originally posted by GePap
The problem with Nationalism is simple, it places soverignty squarely within the hands of a particular single group, The Nation. Only things decided by the common "national will" are valid. Decisions that undermine the "nation" are inherently bad, as they undermine the source of legitimacy. Except that the "nation" is an invention, that can be defined, depending on the group in power, as broadly, or narroly as possible. And since legitimacy lies in some collective, there is plenty of excuses to crush the rights of individuals, in ways small or radical (like extermination) is said individuals pose a problem for the "nation" as has been defined. I challenge you to find a single socially binding ideology that is not an 'invention'.