4 ms·

Nationalism is a relatively modern phenomenon. The founding of the US was part of the rise of Nationalism. The idea that your nation (I assume you are american?

Nationalism is a relatively modern phenomenon. The founding of the US was part of the rise of Nationalism. The idea that your nation (I assume you are american?) represents 'higher ideals' than others is rather nationalistic don't you think? From wikipedia: With the emergence of a public sphere and integrated economy in the 18th century, a broader sense of identification with one's country began to permeate society. In England, the early emergence of a patriotic nationalism can be traced to the period 1740-1790 and was spurred on by many of the writers and leading intellectuals of the day. Many symbols of national identity became widespread, such as the Union Flag being increasingly adopted as a national flag, the composition of patriotic songs such as Rule, Britannia! and the creation of John Bull as the personification of Britain by John Arbuthnot. The movement intensified and became overtly political with the late-18th century American Revolution and French Revolution; specifically the ultra-nationalist party in France during the French Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#History

nraynaud 13y ago
I have a candid question then: what did drive the mess of wars in Europe before that? Germany, Switzerland and Italy were a mess of little independent territories fighting each other. I don't think all of those wars where based on religious grounds.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Power. Money. Prestige.
- sampo 13y ago
  I am afraid anon1385's text puts the 200-300 year old rise of nationalism in a wrong light. Before that nationalism, people were not global citizens, quite opposite: their circle of life was even smaller (in a geographic sense). Cities, city-states and small kingdoms. England alone was a patchwork of small quarreling kingdoms ( http://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/pics/heptarchy.gif http://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/pics/heptarchy.gif ). So the rise of nationalism widened people's perspective, it was a step towards larger geographical areas being united and living in peace within themselves. So the nationalism was progress. Maybe Germans started to fight wars against the French. But at least now you have countries and larger scale organization, not just a patchwork cities and city-states and local warlords fighting their local neighbours.
  - rustynails 13y ago
    What about the Mongols? Romans? I'm not seeing the distinction. Can you please explain?
  - nraynaud 13y ago
    understood: without confrontation to the foreigner there is not need to take a stance on one's own nationality. There is no contrast to reveal it.
    - sampo 13y ago
      Before country-level identity, you were probably identifying to your clan or tribe or somesuch.
  - kenkam 13y ago
    There's a gap of a millennium between the 18th century and the link you posted. I was taught William the Conqueror of Normandy came and, well, conquered around 1066 and mark the turning point in England's society by the introduction of the Feudal System. If you we're a mere peasant you tended to stay in your village and work the land for the knights/barons. They might not be interested in nationalism at that point.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    You're skipping about 1000 years of history there to make your point. By the time of the rise of nationalism, many parts of Europe had shifted back and forth in control between larger empires for hundreds of years, and it mostly was not a continent of tiny little city states and small kingdoms any longer. The era of the city states started fading quickly after the renaissance, and were in the first place mostly limited to small parts of Europe - most of Europe had seen ongoing consolidation of smaller kingdoms for a millennia or two by the time nationalism became a factor. See this map from 1713, for example: http://victoriavane.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/western_europe_utrecht_treaty.jpg http://victoriavane.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/western_euro... Even of the smaller states, many were parts of larger empires for most of their existence, though the control might shift back and forth between empires. E.g. Germany did not exist as a united country, sure, but the Holy Roman Empire (not to be confused with the Roman Empire) encompassed most of the smaller countries on the territories of present day Germany and at various times part of Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, France, Switzerland, Poland, Croatia, Slovenia, Czech Republic. Even within the Holy Roman Empire, many of the constituent states were at various times larger than their succeeding present day European states (though there were also many smaller states). Nationalism in many instances erected substantial new borders in Europe in places where borders meant little to ordinary people before.
- mike-cardwell 13y ago
  Land
vacri 13y ago
Nationalism is a relatively modern phenomenon. How do the ancient Spartans not count as a prime example of nationalism? They had a very clear self-identity aligning with their nation.
dram 13y ago
And in two sentences after your excerpt, it says it's closely related to the push for popular sovereignty. This "higher ideal" that the American and French Revolutions prided themselves on is called the Citizen. Let's not forget we were serfs living before this in a time of oppressive monarchies and a very corrupt and powerful Catholic Church.

nraynaud 13y ago

I have a candid question then: what did drive the mess of wars in Europe before that? Germany, Switzerland and Italy were a mess of little independent territories fighting each other. I don't think all of those wars where based on religious grounds.

vidarh 13y ago
Power. Money. Prestige.
sampo 13y ago
I am afraid anon1385's text puts the 200-300 year old rise of nationalism in a wrong light. Before that nationalism, people were not global citizens, quite opposite: their circle of life was even smaller (in a geographic sense). Cities, city-states and small kingdoms. England alone was a patchwork of small quarreling kingdoms ( http://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/pics/heptarchy.gif http://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/pics/heptarchy.gif ). So the rise of nationalism widened people's perspective, it was a step towards larger geographical areas being united and living in peace within themselves. So the nationalism was progress. Maybe Germans started to fight wars against the French. But at least now you have countries and larger scale organization, not just a patchwork cities and city-states and local warlords fighting their local neighbours.
- rustynails 13y ago
  What about the Mongols? Romans? I'm not seeing the distinction. Can you please explain?
- nraynaud 13y ago
  understood: without confrontation to the foreigner there is not need to take a stance on one's own nationality. There is no contrast to reveal it.
  - sampo 13y ago
    Before country-level identity, you were probably identifying to your clan or tribe or somesuch.
- kenkam 13y ago
  There's a gap of a millennium between the 18th century and the link you posted. I was taught William the Conqueror of Normandy came and, well, conquered around 1066 and mark the turning point in England's society by the introduction of the Feudal System. If you we're a mere peasant you tended to stay in your village and work the land for the knights/barons. They might not be interested in nationalism at that point.
- vidarh 13y ago
  You're skipping about 1000 years of history there to make your point. By the time of the rise of nationalism, many parts of Europe had shifted back and forth in control between larger empires for hundreds of years, and it mostly was not a continent of tiny little city states and small kingdoms any longer. The era of the city states started fading quickly after the renaissance, and were in the first place mostly limited to small parts of Europe - most of Europe had seen ongoing consolidation of smaller kingdoms for a millennia or two by the time nationalism became a factor. See this map from 1713, for example: http://victoriavane.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/western_europe_utrecht_treaty.jpg http://victoriavane.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/western_euro... Even of the smaller states, many were parts of larger empires for most of their existence, though the control might shift back and forth between empires. E.g. Germany did not exist as a united country, sure, but the Holy Roman Empire (not to be confused with the Roman Empire) encompassed most of the smaller countries on the territories of present day Germany and at various times part of Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, France, Switzerland, Poland, Croatia, Slovenia, Czech Republic. Even within the Holy Roman Empire, many of the constituent states were at various times larger than their succeeding present day European states (though there were also many smaller states). Nationalism in many instances erected substantial new borders in Europe in places where borders meant little to ordinary people before.
mike-cardwell 13y ago
Land

vacri 13y ago

Nationalism is a relatively modern phenomenon. How do the ancient Spartans not count as a prime example of nationalism? They had a very clear self-identity aligning with their nation.

dram 13y ago

And in two sentences after your excerpt, it says it's closely related to the push for popular sovereignty. This "higher ideal" that the American and French Revolutions prided themselves on is called the Citizen. Let's not forget we were serfs living before this in a time of oppressive monarchies and a very corrupt and powerful Catholic Church.