Traitorfish said:
May I ask what the essential difference is between between modern nationalism and the quasi-mythological self-identity that, say, ancient Upper Egyptians had?
Also, your editing left tags around that block of text in the post.
Could the Byzantine empire have been thought of as a 'nation?'
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
May I ask what the essential difference is between between modern nationalism and the quasi-mythological self-identity that, say, ancient Upper Egyptians had?
Also, your editing left tags around that block of text in the post.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
The inhabitants of ancient upper Egypt did not imagine themselves in terms of a national community, nor would they have had the conceptual equipment to do so. And it's really community which is at the heart of nationalism, the idea that every member of a nation is part of a totalising, extra-local community which every aspect of their life. Nationhood means the ability to recognise a total stranger as familiar, because he is your co-national, which is not something you'll find a strong sense of in the pre-modern world. People certain recognised common language or custom, but that did not in itself imply any sort of fraternity. The closest you'll see are universalising religions like Christianity or Buddhism, or universalising imperial ideologies like those in Rome and China, but they're never never really developed into what we'd recognise as "national" terms, because they presented a particular religious truth or civilisational ideal which was held to apply to everyone, everywhere, whereas nationalism necessarily imagines the world as a plurality of distinct communities.
Oh, yeah, that was deliberate, to show that only the block was part of the edit.
But Judaism appears to meet these criteria. It didn't demand that all goyim should rightfully follow Judaism; that was the duty of the Jews as the 'Chosen people.' Yet it had a strong theocratic tradition, and was openly hostile to polytheism and Christianity. It seems closer to nationalism than anything else in the pre-modern world.
You'll have to admit its was very local religion though, especially after the destruction of the second temple. Once the priests were gone, the rabbi's moved in and decentralized Judaism (though I'm not sure how centralized it was before, I'm no expert). Each rabbi leading his synagogue has his own style and thoughts that transmitted to his congregation.
I mean, sure, they would recognize other Jews as Jews if they met them traveling, or if they came through town, but they wouldn't identify with them any farther than that. The real focus of attention was on the local community surrounding a rabbi and a congregation, that's where the primary identity came from, and that's where the Jewish nation broke down into bits.
I'm talking about pre-exile Judaism. Anyway, I think the term "Rebbe" would be more accurate as a leader of a Jewish sect.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I think you can certainly make the case that it was closer than most pre-modern identities. I'd also agree that this proximity explains why see the emergence of a strong pan-Jewish nationalist movement, which in itself seems quite improbable. Jews are probably unique in Europe as a scattered minority whose identity was actually strengthened by exposure to print culture, because rather than being absorbed into locally-dominant print cultures, they developed their own unique print culture, in Hebrew and Yiddish, and the emergence of this distinctly Jewish print culture obviously something to some existing sense of "Jewishness" shared by diverse individuals.
But I don't think we find in pre-modern Judaism the same sense of "national" community we associated with nationhood. As you say, Judaism is not a universalising religion in the same sense as Christianity, but it's also not a pluralistic one, because the special status of Jews is still built into the ordering of the universe. The distinction between "Jew" and "gentile" is parallel to that between "Roman" and "barbarian" or "Christian" and "infidel", even if it lacks the assumption that the latter should be brought into the former. Gentiles might have distinctions between themselves, but for traditional Judaism these are merely practical matter, and tell us nothing about the divine or natural ordering of the world. The Jews are a distinct people, yes, perhaps even a distinct community, but they are distinct before God, not distinct in relationship to other human communities. It's still a self-identity which is constructed in terms of a universal theology.
(Telling, the closer Jewish literature was to the stuff of everyday life, the more likely it was to be in Yiddish and to use distinctly local dialects, rather than the more universal, pan-Jewish Hebrew, in contrast to German, French, etc. attempts to develop a standard literary dialect from everything from the Bible to local news-sheets. It's only really in the 19th century, when we see the development of modern Hebrew that the Jews gain a shared Jewish print language of the sort possessed by the Germans or French- and, significantly, it existed in competition with literary Yiddish, explicitly a language of Central and East European Ashkenazi, rather than Jews internationally.)
Pre-modern Judaism, then, only appears to possess "national" characteristics when viewed from a modern perspective, when we read their own understanding of groups and group identities into the past. There are certainly continuities between pre-modern Jewish identities and modern Jewish identities, national or otherwise, but we shouldn't confuse the two in trying to present pre-modern Jewishness as a "national" identity, any more than trying to present contemporary Jewishness as as purely religious one.
You mean before the Babylonian exile? I don't think Judaism was anything like you describe then, even assuming we can know much about it to speak of.
Besides, I think you're making out Judaism to be much more monolithic than it ever was in the pre-modern world (certainly in the pre-medieval world). In classical times and late antiquity it was extremely diverse.
Is that a common meaning of "pre-exile"? Because it seems to me confusing - I thought that in a Jewish context "the exile" typically means the Babylonian one.
In any case, I really don't think you can make blanket statements about Judaism in the first century CE and immediately before. It was a very diverse religion at that time. You say, for example, that Judaism was openly hostile to polytheism and Christianity; but that's only true of some Jews at that time. There is good reason to think, for example, that the border between "Judaism" and "Christianity" were extremely vague and fluid for some centuries, and that there were many people who regarded themselves as both. To assume that they were quite distinct and hated each other is to project later attitudes backwards. However, it's also important to recognise that we don't really know a great deal about Judaism in the first century CE and thereabouts; our sources are disappointingly slight or from later periods. The major source, I suppose, is the Mishnah, which is horribly complicated and hard to tell what's from an earlier source and what's redacted material (not unlike the Christian Gospels, but on a much bigger scale and longer time period).
In any case, I really don't think you can make blanket statements about Judaism in the first century CE and immediately before. It was a very diverse religion at that time. You say, for example, that Judaism was openly hostile to polytheism and Christianity; but that's only true of some Jews at that time. There is good reason to think, for example, that the border between "Judaism" and "Christianity" were extremely vague and fluid for some centuries, and that there were many people who regarded themselves as both. To assume that they were quite distinct and hated each other is to project later attitudes backwards. However, it's also important to recognise that we don't really know a great deal about Judaism in the first century CE and thereabouts; our sources are disappointingly slight or from later periods. The major source, I suppose, is the Mishnah, which is horribly complicated and hard to tell what's from an earlier source and what's redacted material (not unlike the Christian Gospels, but on a much bigger scale and longer time period).
Yeah, the period after the destruction of the Temple is considered another stage of exile, much like the Babylonian one.
I guess historians would view it that way.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
It's a grim history that a people has, when you have to debate which exile was "the" exile. 
Byzantines never called themselves as "Byzantine" but Roman (Romios/Romioi in Greek) and they weren't a nation state at all. There were too many different people in Byzantine Empire, such as; Armenians, Etruscans (I know a few colonies originally came from Italy and settled in Anatolia), Hellenics, Native Anatolians, Galatians (they founded a state when Turks invaded Anatolia), Iranians (From Pontus and Cappadocia), Arabs, Africans, Syrians, Assyrians, Jews, Slavs, Balkan people, Illyrians and many more I can't remember.
Actually very few of Byzantine Emperors were Greeks and most of Byzantine soldiers were non-Greek too. Anatolia was the heart of Byzantine Empire and most of Anatolian people were just Hellenized people.
Actually very few of Byzantine Emperors were Greeks and most of Byzantine soldiers were non-Greek too. Anatolia was the heart of Byzantine Empire and most of Anatolian people were just Hellenized people.
^Can you pls provide more of that great info? I have never seen this level of lack of bias and faithfulness to historical accuracy before. I hope you get to post much more before more of the internet is banned at your country 
^Can you pls provide more of that great info? I have never seen this level of lack of bias and faithfulness to historical accuracy before. I hope you get to post much more before more of the internet is banned at your country
A Greek have internet connection
Tell me then "smart-funny" boy, How many Greek Emperor ruled Byzantine Empire? All of those successful emperors of Byzantine Empire were not Greeks at all. Actually very few of Emperors were Greeks. You can't change the history because you don't like.
Tell us, smart boy, was Heraclian dynasty Greeks? or Valentinian dynasty? or Theodosian dynasty?
And cry more about Turks, you don't even know me but jumped to discussion with this
People in Turkey living far better condition, all minority living in peace and they are not racists. I know Golden Dawn of yours. I know many tourists who went to Greece and regretful to have been in there.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I cracked a tooth today, so let's just which ever nation can fix that wins. Okay? Go!
You are far smarter than I thought man. Seriously!^Not sure what you mean there, i just congratulated you on your excellent intellectuality..
Seems to be a breakdown in euro-asian communication
Lol
Get you popcorn!Greeks can fix that. But, if you are also a Greek.
Link to video.
Btw, for the records, I'm not a Turk. So, this isn't a "nationalism fight", at least for me.
Similar threads
