History questions not worth their own thread V

[Domen]

Addressing issues discussed on page 53. Nationalism is going to exist as long as countries exist, or at least as long as egoism in international relations exists. There is still a lot of competition between countries, countries take care almost exclusively of their own well-being (if they provide help to other countries, then it is never for free, and it is usually either investment for their own future benefits or an attempt to improve international reputation). Patents and technologies are being guarded like "national treasures" - if one think that one country can "provide" another country technologies, they are very naive, nobody ever do that, especially the USA. Japanese managed to develop technological basis prior to the war, all needed after was just some money to pump that potential. The USA never provided Japan any technologies for faster development - at least certainly not for free.

As long as this egoism between countries and corporations exists, nationalism is the only reasonable way to deal with it. You can't be a real globalist ignoring reality and ignoring how the world works and how mechanisms of distribution of wealth work. Unless, of course, you live in the richest country - then you can pretend that you are a "globalist", while in fact you are a nationalist and don't really do anything meaningful to improve the life of, for example, Africans - just like your country's government, which does not know such a word like "charity". Even if Europeans and Americans "help" Africa, this help is limited to investments which in the end produce benefits mostly for investors, not for actual African people.

You can't be a real globalist if you aren't outraged by fact that in one country for the same type and amount of work done, one gets paid 10 times less than in another country. Another aspect of egoism in international relations is aversion to immigrants - especially such ones who don't want to "get assimilated" in new homeland. Aversion to immigrants in country-wide scale is propped up by "tribal" mentality and "tribal" solidarity of common people.

For example Dutch people think that immigrants from East Europe "steal their jobs". But who exactly is stealing whose job? Who are "they" and who are "we"? When your Dutch neighbour has a better job than you, do you also call him a thief who "stole" you a better job? Or maybe this slur is limited just to "those aliens", who are not "us", but "them", who come from the East? And among "indigenous Dutch" people, there is just fair competition, not "stealing"?

This is exactly "tribal mentality", which prevails even - if not especially - among so called Westerners, who claim they are not nationalists.

Do you consider nationalism as an evil ideology

Nationalism is an "evil" ideology, but at the same time nationalists have a very correct idea about how this world works and how "evil" it is. Yes, it is an extension of tribalism - and tribalism was an extension of cavemen protecting their own family from other families of cavemen. Historically tribes formed from unions of families, and nations developed from tribal unions - people were grouping into gradually larger and larger communities. Maybe one day we will all rejoice within one, global community encompassing all of mankind and feeling solidarity with each other. But this has not happened yet, and nationalism is a response to such reality (certainly not inversely - this political reality was not created by nationalism, nationalism was developed as a response to already existing situation). People always organized themselves into groups (at first family groups, then tribes, then nations, even classes) which fought or competed for resources, land, women, etc.

As you probably noticed, above I wasn't discussing radical forms of national chauvinism, which are similar to racism because they evaluate groups of people - the difference being that national chauvinism evaluates people as "worse" or "better" along ethnic or national borders, not basing on skin colour.

I described normal, moderate nationalism - which is basically about egoism and hedonism, as it makes one take care of one's nation / country. The pattern of thinking here is, that the more well-off is one's nation / country, the more well-off are its members / citizens - including oneself and one's family. This reasoning leads one to a conclusion, that it is worth it to support one's nation / country, because by doing this one indirectly supports oneself too.

And surely people can achieve more as large groups (such as nations / countries), than when acting on their own as small groups (families, etc.).

I wrote that nationalism is an extension of tribalism. It is worth saying, that there have been also attempts of creating extensions of nationalism.

Such attempts were for example constructs like Pan-Germanism, Pan-Slavism, or - based on class rather than ethnic criteria - Communism.

Those attempts so far failed - neither Pan-Germanism, nor Pan-Slavism, nor Communism managed to succeed.

Pan-Slavism only - more or less - worked when Slavic nations had a common goal to achieve. When they did this, they started to fight each other.

Recently another attempt of creating extension of nationalism was European integration - an attempt to promote European identity over national ones. So far, we can say that this attempt also failed and some nations - such as the British people - were never really interested in participating in it.

I would call Britishness as example of success in developing a Pan-National identity, if not the fact that it was achieved mostly via conquest.

So it was more about assimilation of Welsh and Scottish people by English people, rather than a peaceful promotion of a new concept of Britishness.

It was a transformation of "English" into "British" - a transformation in which Scottish and Welsh people participated but not as "equal players".

If it is yes, by contemplating in history what will prevail in the future in the western secular world? is it civilizationism (which again another extension of tribalism)? globalism (extension of capitalism, trade globalisation forced the poor country to privatize their national company and eliminate tariff, in the end it only disbenefit local trader and benefit TNC and MNC)? Proletariat Internationalism (I don't know what to say, it never really work, it always regress to nationalism)? cosmopolitanism (this sound more tempting)?

If you assume a priori, that your "new ideology" is going to prevail only in the "western secular world", rather than everywhere on Earth - then it is inevitably going to be just another extension and / or form of tribalism (another division à la "this is us, that is them") - let's call it "Pan-Westernism", for example.

Regarding Pan-National identities once again - perhaps Islamic religious identity suceeded in achieving such Pan-Islamic solidarity.

But not entirely, because there are also wars and conflicts between various Islamic countries and nations.

Many views suggest that the concept of civilizations can be a good alternatives for the counter of the concept of nation-states, Nation stated from the time it gain the currency created so much problem, miss conception, separation, war, genocide like what happen in India, Turkey, Indonesia.

Replacing "nation" by "civilization" will cause the end of wars and genocides between nations, and the start of wars and genocides between civilizations - which can be even worse, because many small scale wars will be replaced by a slightly smaller number, but of large scale wars (since "civilizatons" are bigger than "nations" - for example the Islamic civilization). Many "nations" do not possess nuclear weapons - but practically each "civilization" has them.

I see the solution for the muslim world is, to go back to the concept of Ummah which I believed is the antidote to counter nationalism.

Maybe I'm missing something, but IMO in the Muslim world radical nationalism is not really a big problem - not as big as Islamic religious fanaticism.

Even conflicts between various Muslim nations are often fueled by religious differences between Sunni, Shia, and Ibadi branches of Islam.

Cosmopolitanism (good idea if they not worry that the western will be extinct by the immigrant)? or Globalism? Maybe in the future there will be more stable world to live in where different moral system and belief system can be accepted and even accommodate, where peoples can say "I'm right you are wrong" without end up in secretariat war :/ Sound utopian indeed, but yea I was thinking this subject can also be my thesis maybe.

Maybe an improved version of cosmopolitanism. Improved because it shouldn't be aggressively promoted "combative cosmopolitanism".

 

[H4run]

I nearly agreed with all the point that you address, nationalism is a reaction of other nationalism, it is somekind like self defences mechanism. Like we been trapped in a game and we can't stop play that game, if one of us stop it others will force us to play and continue that game again, like this game will never end until everyone drop off in the same time and stop it. You put lots of good case example that many I don't realize (like the case of British).

About Islam, I don't agree with you really, Islamic nationalism bleed us too much. Arab-Turko war, discrimination, Bangladesh-Pakistan, Pakistan with other Pakistani, mental conflict between Indonesian and Malaysia, I can keep go on giving you the examples.

Regarding the concept of Ummah, if you take the case for example in Abbassid Empire, the vizier of Mustasim (the last Abbassid caliph) is a shiite, and man like Ibn Sina, Farabi, etc were shiite that live within the Sunni caliphate, but when the tribalism and nationalism arise once again in the Muslim world you get Hajjaj you slaughter the peoples of Madinah, or the war between Yemeni immigrant, Berber immigrant and Arab immigrant in Spain, or the raise of Iranian nationalism and the slaughter of the Sunni by Shah Ismail. These guys are very proud peoples regarding on what they called their "ancestor" and western archaeology on Sumerian, Babylon, Egyptian civilization they took it not as a proper subject to studies but as a tools to satisfy their superiority or something to legitimated it or something to form their national identity. Just like many other western state also this is a common nationalism symptom even many muslim took nationalism far too far from it real subject, they really make it regress to basic tribalism.

The concept of Ummah doesn't mean to be "Islamic supremacy" or "Pan Islamic" ideology. It simply we put off our tribal and nationality color, and stood in equal standing, just that simple as it is state in the Quran :

"O Mankind, we created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you in to tribes and nations so that you may know each other (not that you despise each other). Verily, the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is he who is most righteous of you." (Al-Quran, Chapter 49, Verse 13)

EDIT : Btw Domen, I made a mistake just by saying "Islamic nationalism" because nationalism itself is anti-Islamic. I remembered I had a facebook friend, a natives American he even count as one of the chief. He is convert to Islam. And he talking about "how the white peoples take over their land, and put them in reservation camp, etc" and there's a mormon come to answer "how can you claim land of God as your land? while in your religion nationalism is a coal of hell fire" I surprise by that answer, because that's correct and he really arguing using Islamic terms. But of course he try to extend the definition of nationalism against this poor natives, as the natives not use this as a mean of nationalism but just to advocate his rights on equality, etc, and protecting our own rights and honor have it legitimacy if you see it in Islamic terms. But in short, a nationalist Muslim itself appear to be a paradox, the mormon nearly convince me with his argument because there always be something un-Islamic with the nationalist Muslim. As Islam and nationalism are against each other ideologically.

 

[Mouthwash]

I've been reading some ancient Egyptian histories, and I keep hearing about mysterious "sea peoples" and "Libyans" causing havoc. How much is known about them? I mean, yeah it was almost prehistorical, but isn't there anything more?

 

[H4run]

I think it may be fair to compare nationalism to tribalism. Just a much larger and more inclusive tribe. But really, it's just another version of 'this is us, that is them'. Is that bad? Well that depends on how it's used.

Really I miss your post I'm sorry. Yea I thought it can be pretty bad as I explained.

You can't be a real globalist if you aren't outraged by fact that in one country for the same type and amount of work done, one gets paid 10 times less than in another country. Another aspect of egoism in international relations is aversion to immigrants - especially such ones who don't want to "get assimilated" in new homeland. Aversion to immigrants in country-wide scale is propped up by "tribal" mentality and "tribal" solidarity of common people.

For example Dutch people think that immigrants from East Europe "steal their jobs". But who exactly is stealing whose job? Who are "they" and who are "we"? When your Dutch neighbour has a better job than you, do you also call him a thief who "stole" you a better job? Or maybe this slur is limited just to "those aliens", who are not "us", but "them", who come from the East? And among "indigenous Dutch" people, there is just fair competition, not "stealing"?

This is exactly "tribal mentality", which prevails even - if not especially - among so called Westerners, who claim they are not nationalists.

&


Maybe an improved version of cosmopolitanism. Improved because it shouldn't be aggressively promoted "combative cosmopolitanism".

I also don't like the idea of globalism itself as it tend to be an extension of capitalism. As how Globalisation apply in south American country, or how they plan AFTA, in the end it just moral legitimacy for the benefit of the corporation. And I don't think the unification of countries also solving the problem as many of the examples that you told me are valid.

I mean maybe this is the core of the problem. We always try to deal with differences by try to assimilate it or to eliminate it or forcedly unify it, or try to seek the same pattern of it, why must be like that? I believe this is never be the solution of dealing with differences. Differences should be dealt with tolerances and accommodation not with apologist attitude. I mean, you may believe it is wrong for me to believe in religion or I may also believe that it is wrong if you are don't worship God, but that doesn't mean we can't live together unless we say "ah both of us right, right and wrong is just relatives terms", this is also the very reason I don't agree with many of my lecturer or fellow students, as they thought pluralism and interfaith is the main reason to bridge religious differences as I don't agree that unification of states or globalisation as a way to dealt with nationalism.

The truth is that peoples have different version of truth and think other are wrong, it is not really about religion but this is the very nature of human, they always in the state of quarrel with other it can be in many things. The Jews in the Merchant of Venice make a very good solution for that, he said he will not celebrate the same celebration with him (christian), not eat in the same tables, sleep in the same bed, pray in the same chruch, but they still can be friends, they can work in the same places, running the same business, etc.

While peoples always try to seek what to eliminate or destroy even hide to make this problem fix, while they don't need to hide or eliminate anything, they just have to accept others wrong, or others must accept their wrongs. This is the very mental attitude that is posses by Muslim, Hindus and Jews in 10-12th century, I mean they live with each other, in Egypt there were lots of Jews synagogue and religious order, and Sudan there are many Hindus come from Indian coast, in Indian coast there are Gujarati, Yemeni Muslim and also Jews, they were not pluralist interfaith peoples the Indian ruler not try to force assimilate and convert the Muslim in that time, unlike the ultra-nationalist Indian party of today.

Even this primitive Indian as we called, they even declare war with the Portuguese in order to protect their Muslim guest from the hand of the Portuguese. I mean that just amazing for me to read, they not even bothers to build naval army because there are no naval military activity in vast Indian ocean except some minor pirates. I think the cosmopolitan society at that time already form, arguably nearly pacifist society, because the state of mentality of the peoples at that time ready for that. Comparing to what were they at that time and what are they now, is a total regression.

 

[Tee Kay]

Nationalism is going to exist as long as countries exist, or at least as long as egoism in international relations exists.

Nationalism didn't exist before the 18th century, so the existance of countries doesn't need to mean the existance of nationalism, nor is it something intrinsic to how the world works.

So it was more about assimilation of Welsh and Scottish people by English people, rather than a peaceful promotion of a new concept of Britishness.

It was a transformation of "English" into "British" - a transformation in which Scottish and Welsh people participated but not as "equal players".

Go ahead and call a Welsh or Scot English or even "assimilated". Wear armour.

I've been reading some ancient Egyptian histories, and I keep hearing about mysterious "sea peoples" and "Libyans" causing havoc. How much is known about them? I mean, yeah it was almost prehistorical, but isn't there anything more?

Unfortunately we don't know much about them since that was during the Dark Ages (the original one). They were probably not a single ethnicity but different loosely-allied groups migrating around the Eastern Mediterranean. A few of them probably came from Crete or vicinity.

 

[Domen]

Nationalism didn't exist before the 18th century

Maybe not in its modern form, but for example allegiance to one's king or feudal lord certainly existed.

And today, unlike in the 17th century, people don't serve their president but their country and / or nation.

Not all people are nationalists or even patriots (BTW - I saw people claim that nationalism = patriotism, even on this forum), but not all people in the past were loyal to their kings or to their feudal overlords as well - so I don't see any essential differences here.

so the existance of countries doesn't need to mean the existance of nationalism

The existence of countries trigerred the existence of nationalism shortly after old feudal forms of allegiance became obsolete.

So either we return to feudalism - which is maybe going to kill nationalism - or we abolish countries. Otherwise nationalism will exist.

Go ahead and call a Welsh or Scot English or even "assimilated".

What language do they speak? Not many Welsh and Scottish people still speak their original languages.

Preserving a few of old regional traditions like caber tossing etc. does not mean that they are not assimilated.

Normans by the time of conquering England were also no longer Vikings, but they were already assimilated French-speaking people (and Wilhelm's army also included many reinforcements consisting of French troops from other regions of France, not just Norman ones from his own duchy of Normandy).

For some 200 up to 300 years after the conquest by William, English kings and English social elites were French-speaking ruling class.

Robin Hood (in original version of the legend Robyn Hode) was an English-speaking guy fighting against French-speaking lords and "occupants".

The Hundred Years' War also did not start as a war of England vs France, because kings of England considered themselves as rulers of Anjou and Aquitaine at that time - England was just one of their less important possessions. The center of the Angevin Empire was the French region of Anjou, not England.

The Hundred Years' War is an example of how modern English nationalism distorted an old feudal conflict between dynasties, showing it as an epic struggle between English and French nations. In fact it was a conflict of one French dynasty against another French dynasty - one supported by English troops.

 

[H4run]

So either we return to feudalism - which is maybe going to kill nationalism - or we abolish countries. Otherwise nationalism will exist.

I don't think it will abolish nationalism because the very soul of nationalism itself is tribalism, as within the nation-state itself tribal dispute and boasting still prevail even it follow with serious conflict. And the nation proud is nothing but a extension of tribal proud. So nationalism is nothing but a league of tribes not really that advances even not much evolve from the problem of the past, am I correct? While the abolishment of countries is not erased tribes or national boasting, it just dissolve the league.

However in the other hand pluralism also will not work, Pluralism is similar to force unification. While multi-culturalism and cosmopolitanism is not focusing to eliminate (or reform) or unite (acculturate) difference aspect of culture or ideology, but it is more into acknowledgement and acceptances of difference culture and ideological system, without neither try to force unify them or to eliminate any of them, and all of them been accommodated to express their own unique ideological system.

 

[Domen]

"Tribe" has connotations of common descent; some nationalisms place emphasis on that too, but not all (modern Western civic nationalism for instance).

Tribe indeed has connotations of common descent, but they aren't correct in my opinion. They would be correct in case of clan (which is a large family).

I don't need to add that the idea that people within nations have a common descent is wrong too.

Tribes were unions of clans, which were maybe related, but they were distant relatives. All people are related, by the way - of course most of them distantly (if you take any two people from different parts of the world, they surely had at least one common ancestor - but perhaps several thousand years ago).

Families are related. Tribes were unions of families - or rather large families (which are known as clans), often not closely related. And nations - unions of tribes.

Of course those tribal differences started to disappear together with the development of nations. As did regional dialects of various languages. Or even entire languages (for example France used to be inhabited by many ethnic groups which spoke often very different languages or dialects).

So at first clans formed into tribes, and clan differences started to disappear. Then tribes formed into nations.

as within the nation-state itself tribal dispute and boasting still prevail even it follow with serious conflict.

There is some regional dispute and boasting, but I'm not sure it can be called tribalism - if anything, maybe "neo-tribalism" would be a better word?

In most of modern nation-states, original, old tribal differences are long gone and do not exist anymore.

On the other hand, "regional patriotism" exists in some places, but it doesn't have much to do with tribes which existed centuries ago.

For example in Poland there is some boasting by people from Warsaw (at least this is what the rest of the country thinks about them). But I'm not sure if it is "tribal" - people who come to Warsaw and settle there, suddenly start to boast because they live in "such a great city".

Maybe it has something to do with "tribal pride" - but it is not related to real tribes which existed in Poland in the Early Middle Ages.

It is rather the result of emergence of a brand new tribe of "Warsawians". It is some kind of regional and large-city patriotism.

==================================

Regarding "tribal pride":


Link to video.

I don't think it will abolish nationalism because the very soul of nationalism itself is tribalism

(...)

And the nation proud is nothing but a extension of tribal proud.

Indeed, I agree. This is why abolishing countries in itself is not going to abolish nationalism.

You need to abolish countries AND to replace them by something else - preferably by a cosmopolitan community encompassing entire world.

And only these two things combined can abolish nationalism.

While multi-culturalism and cosmopolitanism is not focusing to eliminate (or reform) or unite (acculturate) difference aspect of culture or ideology, but it is more into acknowledgement and acceptances of difference culture and ideological system, without neither try to force unify them or to eliminate any of them, and all of them been accommodated to express their own unique ideological system.

Indeed, but isn't cosmopolitanism also something about common system of morality / shared moral code?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism

Nowadays perhaps most have a similar system / understanding of morality, but there are still some (maybe even significant) differences.

 

[H4run]

There is some regional dispute and boasting, but I'm not sure it can be called tribalism - if anything, maybe "neo-tribalism" would be a better word?

In most of modern nation-states, original, old tribal differences are long gone and do not exist anymore.

On the other hand, "regional patriotism" exists in some places, but it doesn't have much to do with tribes which existed centuries ago.

For example in Poland there is some boasting by people from Warsaw (at least this is what the rest of the country thinks about them). But I'm not sure if it is "tribal" - people who come to Warsaw and settle there, suddenly start to boast because they live in "such a great city".

Maybe it has something to do with "tribal pride" - but it is not related to real tribes which existed in Poland in the Early Middle Ages.

It is rather the result of emergence of a brand new tribe of "Warsawians". It is some kind of regional and large-city patriotism.

==================================

Regarding "tribal pride":


Link to video.

Glad you put the words "Neo-Tribalism" I already don't know what to say because indeed in mostly modern nation-state right now the terms tribal is no longer exist as you said. But indeed if you go to developed country it do still exist as I told you and the terms that I told you about tribal dispute and fight or what ever it is, it is still on going until today.

But in modern country even the exact tribalism is already gone, it doesn't mean tribalism itself is disappear it just changing form or been subtitled with something (impulse sublimation), the truth is maybe they not even evolve from that state yet. The proud of city dwellers or even villages sometime even gained its legitimacy from the old tribal proud.

Take for example how mostly Japanese from other city seen the Okinawan as peaceful even sometimes as coward because the fact they never won (even without giving any meaningful resistance) a war or even a battle from the foreign invader. As you see the construction of Okinawan is not only solely made by the modern construction of Okinawan city dwellers but it also been constructed historically from the old history. I also heard some of the city dwellers in Japan doesn't like each other, because of the incident that happened during the Meiji revolution, I want to give the exact example but I forgot it. I'm sure also the proud of the city dwellers in modern time have its connection or legitimize itself with the glory of the past for each region, they never really disconnected with the old spirit of tribalism even though my lack of knowledges regarding Europe cannot prove it.

Their aggressive and destructive energy always been catharsis (manage) to be sublimate to other object in nationalism, like to foreigner, or to immigrant, or to other nation perhaps. Or even tribalism also gain its catharsis to other form like hooligans in football, I thought this is also helped the tribalistic impulse to be transform into more modern form, but not less violence, just look at British hooligans or Turkish. Interestingly each football groups are connected with cities (region modern substitute for tribe).

But yeah tribes as you say it is base on family ties, while now the grouping of the neo-tribalism after the raise of nation-state is no longer base on family ties but base on region in Europe or English speaking countries. But this is interesting subject at least for me.

Indeed, but isn't cosmopolitanism also something about common system of morality / shared moral code?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism

Nowadays perhaps most have a similar system / understanding of morality, but there are still some (maybe even significant) differences.

I already read this, it is my Professor the one that remark the cities cultures and way its interact during the middle ages from Egypt to Indian coast as cosmopolitan. Maybe we don't have the exact words to call it, maybe we should say it multi-culturalism instead cosmopolitanism.

 

[JohannaK]

I have question which is probably worth its own thread. What is nationalism?

 

[H4run]

we knew and been introduced the concept of nationalism by Ernest Renan, his definition of nationalism is quite scary :

a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which are really one, constitute this soul and spiritual principle. One is in the past, the other, the present. One is the possession in common of a rich trove of memories; the other is actual consent, the desire to live together, the will to continue to value the undivided, shared heritage....To have had glorious moments in common in the past, a common will in the present, to have done great things together and to wish to do more, those are the essential conditions for a people. We love the nation in proportion to the sacrifices to which we consented, the harms that we suffered.

While his thought about race also quite scray :

Nature has made a race of workers, the Chinese race, who have wonderful manual dexterity and almost no sense of honor...A race of tillers of the soil, the Negro; treat him with kindness and humanity, and all will be as it should; a race of masters and soldiers, the European race. Reduce this noble race to working in the ergastulum like Negros and Chinese, and they rebel... But the life at which our workers rebel would make a Chinese or a fellah happy, as they are not military creatures in the least. Let each one do what he is made for, and all will be well.[21]

I don't have any idea why he said the Chinese have no sense of honor.

 

[H4run]

btw sorry if my english is really mess up because I learning 3 languages right now and it is not a good idea at all, because it mix up the syntax and it make me sometime speak unconsciously 3 languages in the same time, I hope I don't get language disorder because of my studies.

 

[JohannaK]

May I know which are these languages? I've been learning Russian and Ancient Greek this semester.

 

[H4run]

Of course Joank, it is English, Turkish and Arabic, Turkish language totally mess up my syntax because it have a very very strange syntax (this also the very reason many Turkish unable to speak English, the structure is really upside down).

Some of my other friends suffer the same things like me, I really admire how peoples can be so talented with languages while in my experience learning languages is quite frustrating.

 

[Tee Kay]

Maybe not in its modern form, but for example allegiance to one's king or feudal lord certainly existed.

That ain't nationalism.

The existence of countries trigerred the existence of nationalism shortly after old feudal forms of allegiance became obsolete.

You say it like it's something intrinsic to the workings of the universe. It's not. It's an ideology.

What language do they speak? Not many Welsh and Scottish people still speak their original languages.

I speak English. Doesn't make me English.

Preserving a few of old regional traditions like caber tossing etc. does not mean that they are not assimilated.

"A few old regional traditions" does not define a nation. Nations are a matter of identity.

Normans...

The rest of that post is a shining example of your tendency to just ramble on about stuff which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Please at least try to keep it on point.

I don't need to add that the idea that people within nations have a common descent is wrong too.

Wrong it might be, but it's undeniably a component of some nationalisms.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Maybe not in its modern form, but for example allegiance to one's king or feudal lord certainly existed.

Your point would have been stronger had you not brought in inaccurate notions of feudalism. People served the King, but it was because the King was ruler of the country they lived in. They didn't do it because they had personal ties of loyalty to someone (or rather, they only did that when royal authority had essentially broken down and, even then, the King had influence as simply being the King).

I would argue that nationalism has a lot in common with the patriotic zeal and common defense of the Polis or other small unit of government from classical antiquity. There, national identity and government were tied together and you were expected to sacrifice yourself for the good of the state. It's not perfectly aligned, but the idea of identifying yourself with your state is ancient. Nationalism is just the particular way that identity breaks down (more with perceived linguistic or cultural heritage than other organizing principles).

 

[Domen]

Nationalism is just the particular way that identity breaks down (more with perceived linguistic or cultural heritage than other organizing principles).

Ethnic identity, as well as ethnic animosities and linguistic chauvinism, existed already in the Middle Ages. I already proved this in another thread. So if you define nationalism as just linguistic and cultural identity (= ethnic identity), then it would mean that nationalism existed already in the Middle Ages.

Not racial-based, but ethnic-based (language-based) Apartheid (segregation) also existed already during the Middle Ages, and I can also prove this.

The ideology of racism is also much older than 18th century and not all racism was based on skin colour - such an excerpt:

"(...) For centuries, the Irish were dehumanised by the English, described as savages, so making their murder and displacement appear all the more justified (...)"

Source: "The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America" by Don Jordan and Michael Walsh.

People served the King, but it was because the King was ruler of the country they lived in. They didn't do it because they had personal ties of loyalty to someone

Are you sure ???

I can imagine all of those reluctant knights, who fought for their king against both "infidels" and "believers", only because they were forced to do so...

Sir Edward: "Why do we have to go for this bloody, unwanted invasion / crusade?"
Sir Joe: "Ah, it's this crappy king and his stupid whims about strengthening the kingdom again!"

Would such knights ever be able to win a single battle ??? I do not think so.

You say it like it's something intrinsic to the workings of the universe. It's not. It's an ideology.

It is not intrinsic (and I actually admitted and underlined this). But the fact is, that the present-day world still works like this.

Nationalism is a practical and realistic ideology, because it describes how countries and governments really work - they are all selfish and egoistic.

And countries which stop to be selfish and egoistic, always lose power and eventually collapse. So do nations which stop to be egoistic.

Nations are a matter of identity.

Ok, so in this case I must agree with you and admit that you was right - Scottish nation really does exist as something different than English people.

I am not sure about Welsh nation though, it depends how many people still identify themselves as Welsh people.

I speak English. Doesn't make me English.

So do I, but as my secondary language not my primary language.

BTW, Pan-Englishism (?) is another project, which failed* - because not all of English-speaking countries consider themselves as one nation.

*If there even ever was such a project (which would be something similar to Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism).

I would argue that nationalism has a lot in common with the patriotic zeal and common defense of the Polis or other small unit of government from classical antiquity. There, national identity and government were tied together and you were expected to sacrifice yourself for the good of the state. It's not perfectly aligned, but the idea of identifying yourself with your state is ancient. Nationalism is just the particular way that identity breaks down (more with perceived linguistic or cultural heritage than other organizing principles).

Here I agree, but I would add that such patriotic zeal was not limited just to Ancient city-states but existed throughout many historical periods and places.

 

[JohannaK]

There are nations that are structured around different elements each. For example, while Catalan nationalism was always like the 'usual' nationalism, that is centered around language and a certain common history, basque nationalism started as revolving around an idea of a Basque race.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Are you sure ???

I can imagine all of those reluctant knights, who fought for their king against both "infidels" and "believers", only because they were forced to do so...

Sir Edward: "Why do we have to go for this bloody, unwanted invasion / crusade?"
Sir Joe: "Ah, it's this crappy king and his stupid whims about strengthening the kingdom again!"

Would such knights ever be able to win a single battle ??? I do not think so.

I'm not entirely sure you're referring to here. However, the reluctant soldier problem would exist either way and, if anything, a system of pure personal ties would be worse. There was a debate in the High Middle Ages in Germany about whether the man of my man is my man. Under a Feudal pyramid, it would only take one unwilling lord to topple everyone below him on the Pyramid.

Compare that to the Duke of Normandy raising an army to invade England. In that situation, William simply called for the army under his authority as a Duke and, if recruitment goals fell short, recruited those looking for loot and adventure from outside the Duchy. In general, all subjects had a duty of military service (in post-Norman England, this was quantified systematically), while, in practice,those with power on their own managed to avoid service (so it was those who were supposed to have direct feudal ties to the King that served the least while those lower down the chain ended up directly serving the King and responding for the call to defend the land or participate in campaigns abroad).

 

[Domen]

There was a debate in the High Middle Ages in Germany about whether the man of my man is my man. Under a Feudal pyramid, it would only take one unwilling lord to topple everyone below him on the Pyramid.

You are right here about Germany (similar situation was in France).

But feudal pyramid was not the same in every single Medieval country. Feudalism didn't really exist as something uniform. It was different in each region.

For example in Germany and in France indeed the rule: "the man of my man is no longer my man" prevailed over the opposite rule.

But - for example - in England and Poland, the opposite rule - namely: "the man of my man is still my man too" - was dominant.

So in England and Poland all knights were - in theory at least - directly subordinated to the king or to the high duke (or, in time periods when there was no king and no any commonly recognized high duke - to the regional duke of a local duchy, in which a particular knight had most of its landed estates).

================================================

Problems started when knights / landowners were vassals of several kings / rulers at the same time. For example on the eve of the battle of Grunwald in 1410, there were many knights which owned land both in Poland or in the Teutonic state. Those knights had to choose between allegiance to Polish king and allegiance to the grand master of the Teutonic Order, as they couldn't fight for both sides at the same time. Similar situation existed also after the "switch to nationalism", as you would call this - for example during the American Civil War, often members of same families fought for both the US Army and the CS Army.

During English-Scottish wars people from border regions often also had to choose - and members of same families fought against each other.

When it comes to Grunwald in 1410 - in that battle Polish army included a unit of knights from Land of Kulm, which was entirely located within territory ruled by the Teutonic Order. So in theory knights from that region were obliged to serve only for Teutonic grand masters, but they did not remain loyal.

Knighthood of Land of Kulm were mostly ethnic Polish - which is maybe (???) the reason why many of them did not remain loyal to the Order. On the other hand, one of my very distant ancestors from Pomerelia fought for the Teutonic Order at Grunwald, even though he was neither German nor Prussian.