Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Domen said:
More examples of nationalism in (late) Medieval / (early) Renaissance Poland below:
http://staropolska.pl/ang/middleages/Sec_prose/Ostrorog.php3
New Project: Comprehensive List of World Civilizations
- Thread starter The Kingmaker
- Start date
More examples of nationalism in (late) Medieval / (early) Renaissance Poland below:
http://staropolska.pl/ang/middleages/Sec_prose/Ostrorog.php3
This isn't nationalism; this is linguistic chauvanism, which is related, but not quite the same. You cannot talk about nationalism as a Thing before 1789; it simply didn't exist before then.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meaning_of_linguistic_chauvinism
Uhmmm... - "This isn't a musk ox; this is ovibos moschatus"
But OK. Maybe the part which you quoted was indeed "linguistic chauvinism".
But what about this fragment (remember - he wrote this in ca. 1475):
"(...) nature itself implanted eternal discord and hatred between those two languages (as well as in another aspect). (...) Unless we are such simpletons that we forget that the Germans treat our language in a similar [= bad] fashion in their country."
Of course he is speaking about Polish and German.
Especially take into consideration this excerpt: "as well as [hatred & discord] in another aspect [than linguistic]" (between Poles and Germans).
Looks like Poles and Germans were not really liking each other already in 1475. But NOOOO - of course this can't be the result of nationalism...
After all, "Poles" and "Germans" did not even exist as nations back then, as there was no nationalism. They existed just as "language categories"...
Bah !!! Bastille fell - and Nationalism was born! In one moment! It was like "no nationalism", ... 5 minutes later; BAH !!! - there is nationalism!
A very Communistic-Leftist view.
I have just imagined a Great Satirical Picture for this - a Big Baby with huge caption "Nationalism" on his forehead comes out of ruins of Bastille !!!
But my view of Nationalism as a Big Baby doesn't fit to your view of Nationalism as a Thing.
Hmmm, but - after all - a Baby is also a Thing according to Communists (hence late-term abortion should be legal - perhaps even up to 5 years of age).
==============================
Edit:
By the way, regarding his another fragment:
Why the hell I have an impression that he is writing about the European Union ???
Just remove / replace a few words - like "Kingdom", "guise of piety" (by "guise of laicism"), "Roman court" (by "Brussels"), etc. - and it will fit perfectly.
The point is that he's beseeching outsiders who come to Poland to learn Polish - there's nothing inherently nationalistic about that. He makes no distinction between a Pole who speaks Polish and a German who speaks Polish in Poland; a nationalist would say that the Pole, by virtue of being born a Pole, is inherently superior to the German, and that the Pole, by virtue of being born a Pole, has the right to live in Poland, and that the German, by virtue of not being born a Pole, has no right to do so. None of this is required for what this chap said.
Looks like Poles and Germans were not really liking each other already in 1475. But NOOOO - of course this can't be the result of nationalism...
'Ethnic animosity' is not the same thing. You can find numerous examples in Greek literature of strong anti-Persian sentiment, in Roman of anti-Greek feeling (in fact, 'racism' against just about everyone!) in Shakespeare against the Jews, and so on. Nationalism hinges on the belief that we, the nation - being born into this nation, hence natio - are in some way special, and we have a right to live in our own state, run for the benefit of the nation, and this nation should be the fundamental basis of our society. None of this is present in 'all Germans should hate Poles'.
After all, "Poles" and "Germans" did not even exist as nations back then, as there was no nationalism. They existed just as "language categories"...
You can have nations without nationalism; it's not correct to talk of a nation-state without at least some form of it, though. See above.
If we're going to be specific, nationalism is really more a product of the revolutionary wars than the revolution itself - it was the result of a mostly-homogenous state having to find a wartime identity, based around a radically new set of values, and exporting that abroad. There's a difference between patriotism - which fuelled the American revolution - and nationalism, which is what you get, essentially, when patriotism goes to war. French politicians openly referred to France as 'the Great Nation' in the years after 1789; they believed that France, by virtue of its superior values and culture, had a right to rule over Europe (they would have said God-given had they not been sworn atheists, in public at least) - that's nationalism.
You can certainly talk about proto-nationalism before 1789 - just because nothing existed which fitted the bill, that does not mean that nothing existed which was at all like it. Owain Glyndwr and Robert the Bruce can be called proto-nationalistic, but they lacked the idea of the nation. Put simply, a nationalist believes that the people come second to the good of the nation - if the nation needs soldiers, they can conscript people, and they will do so in the name of the nation, not of the people, the King or even liberty, equality and fraternity - which is why the precise moment that nationalism was born in France is a bit of a grey area.
EDIT: For reference, see this rather famous essay on the subject
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
These "outsiders":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostsiedlung
I bet nowadays a similar public speech would be labelled as nationalistic and also anti-minority.
And when people say such things in 15th century, then it is not nationalistic, because "nationalism did not exist"?
Gosh...
Also national - not just ethnic.
But assuming that nationalism appeared together with nation-states is wrong.
Nationalism existed and still exists also in states which are far from being "nation-states".
So why just don't we call things with their names...
Ancient Greeks - ardent nationalists
Ancient Romans - ardent racists
Shakespeare - ardent Anti-Semite
Instead of inventing strange theories that all these 3 "evil ideologies" are the products of 18th - 20th century thinkers.
Well, this is some argument. But, modern nationalists (as well as those from 18th century onward) also would not make distinction between an ethnic Pole who speaks Polish and an ethnic German who speaks Polish in Poland on a daily basis and feels affiliation to so called "Polishness".
After all, if nationalists were paying attention to roots of each person (instead of their affiliation), this entire concept would not have any chance to work - because only a very small percentage of entire population can legitimate themselves with "purely" Polish or "purely" German, etc., roots.
Vast majority of people have ancestors from various nations and of various ethnicities.
Hence, even Heinrich Himmler said - "If you shake ones genealogy tree hard enough, at least one Jew will fall".
You have just confused nationalism with chauvinism. What you described is chauvinism - much "stronger" than nationalism. But not exactly - I suppose that even ardent chauvinists do not require you to be born a Pole in order to become Polish (and inherently superior to others).
If you have strong affiliation and devotion to Polishness, even ardent chauvinists will regard you as a Pole - no matter where you was born.
OTOH, the requirement to be born "superior" (with no chance of becoming superior if you was born inferior) is typical for RACISM.
Not really. The goal of Polish nationalist political parties in history (for example - when we take a look at Polish nationalists from early 20th century) was never to expel all non-Poles from Poland. On the other hand, their goal was to Polonize / assimilate all non-Poles in Poland (Jews, Belarusians, etc.).
This either means that you are wrong while claiming that only those born as Poles have the right to live in Poland (according to Polish nationalists) - or (second option) this means that Poland never had real nationalists, because Polish ones always preferred assimilation over expulsion.
The first option is more probable - as I wrote chauvinists (or: national chauvinists) do accept assimilation. Racists - on the other hand - don't.
For example in racist ideologies (such as Nazism or "classical racism" of whites vs coloured) a Black person or a Jewish person cannot become Aryan.
However, the III Reich did accept Jewish Nazi collaborators - but that was, IMO, modification / exception from their ideology due to practical reasons.
And none of this is also required for what nationalists from 18th century onward were saying.
Just replace the word "nation" with "race" and this is the perfect description of Racism or Nazi concept of "Ubermenschen".
On the other hand, if this is describing nationalism (or even national chauvinism - a more radical form) - then this is erroneus.
Nationalism, as I already wrote, does not require being born into a nation. Also - normal nationalism does tolerate national / ethnic minorities, but it requires them to be loyal and it will try to assimilate them into majority. Only the most radical forms of national chauvinism do not tolerate minorities.
Also - normal (that is - moderate) nationalism, does not include the belief in inherent superiority of one nation over all others. Once again - only the most radical forms of national chauvinism include this belief. Most of nationalists do not consider their nation as better than others (or at least as inherently better).
OTOH, nationalists believe that one of the most important duties of a person is to contribute to greatness of his nation (run for the benefit of it).
Nationalism is considered as a right-wing ideology.
When we speak about the French Revolution of 1789+, IMO it contributed more to some of the radical left-wing ideologies than to nationalism.
And if the set of values of the French Revolution was indeed nationalism such as according to your definition - then it would have been impossible to export it abroad, because those who were born Germans or English could not be turned into French people, if we accept your understanding of nationalism.
Plus, French people were not exporting French nationality, but Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite - that's officially.
However, in some periods (when the Revolution was adopting more radical & more leftist faces), they were exporting rules of Terror (but they claimed that it was just a transitional step on the path to "people's democracy"), hatred of the Moneyed Class and class wars - things typical for radical left-wing ideologies.
Technically - their "Patria" was England - which means that what they did was rather not very patriotic (rebelling against "Patria").
But - as they say - "The point of view depends on the viewing point"...
Plus, England was a very bad "Patria" for them - treating them like citizens of 3rd category.
But are you sure that Pre-Revolutionary France was mostly-homogenous in ethnic terms? Even one of French users on this forum once wrote that only after the Revolution various ethnicities of France found common identity in French Civic-Nationalism (i.e. they were proud of being citizens of France).
Aquitanians, Alsatians, Andegavenians, Bretonians, Burgundians, Gasconians, Corsicans, Lorrainians, Normans, Orleanians, Auvergneans, Parisians, Picardians, Provencelians, Sabaudians, Champagnians, Tourainians, Vandeians, Basques, etc. (not sure if spelling is correct in each case) - before the Revolution they considered themselves as (slightly) different ethnic groups, rather than as homogenous French people, at least that's what I have heard.
I think they were proud of "great achievements" of their recent Revolution rather than thinking that France was inherently superior. They believed that their recent achievements made France superior - not that it always was superior and that's why its achievements were so great. I do not see much difference between that and the 20th century "penis waving contest" of the USA (they also referred to themselves as the Greatest Nation in the World).
Plus - I don't see any connection between this and your theory that only those born in France as ethnic French could be superior to others.
Oh - finally we agree.
I think it is a very vague theory. In reality, it is hard to determine whether someone conscripts soldiers in the name of the nation, rather than in the name of the people - because almost always interests of the nation are the same as interests of its people.
And if we speak about all the people - not just people of the nation which is conscripting - then always conscripting soldiers / going to war is against the interest of at least some people, because in every single war some people are going to get defeated / die / suffer.
You used to be an active soldier, Flying Pig.
How did you know whether those who sent you to - e.g. - Falklands, did it for the British nation, or for the British people, or for fraternity, etc.?
This view is common for many ideologies - not just for nationalists.
I would even say, that for majority of politicians and governments people come second (or 3rd) to the good of the state and / or nation.
I'm not sure what your point is here, I'm sorry.
Because if it happened today, it would be viewed as symptomatic of nationalism - we don't dislike YEC politicians because they believe silly things; we dislike them because being YEC is a symptom in today's world of being rather stupid. If somebody had come out as YEC in the fourth century, we would not have made that connection.
Anti-minority is not the same as nationalistic. I think you're being a bit sloppy with your words; there's a few points in this post where you've equated concepts which are not the same.
No! A nation has some sort of shared identity, a shared history, a shared culture, a same language - the 'process of collective forgetting', as is often quoted. Ethnicity is simply genetic: a man born in China, speaking Chinese and self-identifying as Chinese, but with two English parents, is unmistakably of the same ethnicity as I am - nationalists are divided as to whether he can be considered part of the Chinese nation, but they would all agree that he cannot, at least not yet, be considered part of the English nation.
Do you see my point? Words in these contexts have very specific meanings; you can't equate language-ethnicity-nation-state and have a meaningful discussion.
Indeed; my point was the other way around. You can have nationalism without the nation-state, but you cannot have the nation-state without nationalism - it's just a homogenous country without it.
I didn't say that. It is certainly incorrect to categorise the Greeks as nationalists - Greek nationalism depends on the idea that the Greeks are one body and should be politically united, which was manifestly not the case until the 19th Century! It also depends on subsuming the individual to the nation - here we must be careful, because while Ancient Greece was overwhelmingly a collectivist society, it believed in subsuming the individual to the state or the community, not the nation. An Athenian believed that his own good was second to the good of Athens, a Spartan believed that his own good was second to the good of Sparta, but none believed that the good of Sparta was second to the good of the Greek nation. That is an essential component of nationalism.
As to whether the Romans were racist - potentially; it's hard to tell. Racism requires a sense of racial superiority; it's difficult to seperate a belief that Roman culture was innately better than foreign culture and the belief that Romans are born regere imperio populos. The general trend is to say that the Romans were not, as we understand it, racist, because the concept of race was not developed in Roman times as it is today, but it's a bit of a moot point.
As for Shakespeare, that's possibly a fair comment, except for the caveat that a writer's output is not always a perfect reflection of the writer. Anti-semitism was certainly very present in most of Europe throughout the Middle Ages - Shakespeare was actually writing in a time when few of his audience would have ever met a Jew, because they had been expelled from England by Edward I.
I'm not saying that 'evil ideologies' are a product of the modern era or that nasty philosophical movements didn't exist in ancient times; I am saying that to look back on historical thoughts which seem to resemble modern ones and painting them with the same brush leads to making connections which simply aren't there. By the same token, we 'see' that Plato was a card-carrying Tory, that Augustus Caesar was a Fascist, and so on.
This is just plain wrong, I'm afraid - unless we're going down the 'No True Scotsman' route. You're right that some nationalists wouldn't, but the ideology doesn't agree on that.
I never said that ethnocentric nationalists were a particularly intelligent bunch - they would almost certainly argue that large modern states should be split up - Balkanised, if you will - along national lines. The UK would disappear, as would the USA, China and most of the countries of Africa.
I can't actually find a reference to that quotation anywhere apart from your post; I'm inclined to think it's a misquotation. At any rate, there's no intrinsic requirement for pure ethnicity to be considered part of an ethnic 'nation' - it's entirely logically consistent for an ethnocentric nationalist to say that all people who are majority-German belong to the German nation.
Again, see above. You're ignoring the fact that not all nationalists agree with you. To use a related example, some liberals believe that the state is justified in providing compulsory education, while others do not: they're all liberals, despite the difference in opinion, because they all share the fundamental liberal principle. In a same way, ethnocentric, cultural and territorial nationalists share the fundamental nationalist principle that 'the nation' is the fundamental unit of politics, that it shares a kinship, and that the individual exists to serve the interests of the nation.
Yes; ethnocentric nationalism is almost always racist. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, I am saying that Poland never had ethnocentric nationalists.
This is what makes them nationalists. If they don't believe that, they're not nationalists! This is like the vixen/female fox argument - if the fox isn't female, it's not a vixen!
Again, nationalism can be racist, as National Socialism clearly was.
Precisely. You're right that some forms of nationalism (cultural and civic nationalism, chiefly) allow people to join a nation, but most of them do not. This is the fundamental nationalist principle, and explains why nationalism cannot be said to have existed before 1789. This principle simply did not exist.
Nationalism doesn't have a wing; most nationalist movements have been right-wing, because the greatest influences on left-wing politics in the 19th and 20th Century were internationalist (Marx, Trotsky, Kropotkin, Bakunin and so on). You still get left-wing nationalism, though
No; the overwhelming majority of nationalists believe that it's possible to give Germans French culture - or at least to rule them in accordance with French values, even if they're not fit to rule themselves because they can't understand them - but ethnocentric or territorial nationalism believes that these Germans or English will still never be French. It doesn't preclude promoting the interests of the French nation by expansion - nationalism in Germany never sought to make the Namibians or the Polish into Germans; it simply sought to improve the living-standards and international standing of the German nation by ruling over these people.
Yes - see above.
Yes; again, nationalism in itself doesn't have a wing.
No; the government under which they were born was British, but the territory to which they felt attachment was their homeland - whichever of the 13 Colonies they lived in. The dissonance between homeland and government led to strife; we saw the same in Northern Ireland in the past few decades.
Indeed. This is what people mean when they say that nationalism requires collective forgetting and remembering - to create a French nation, it's necessary for people to remember that they are French, and to remember the Glorious Coup of the 14 Brumiere, but to forget that they are Parisians, Alsatians and the like (this never totally caught on in certain regions, though) and to forget the atrocities of French history that harm their self-image. If you can read French:
What is a Nation? said:
My perhaps-shoddy translation said:
Indeed; this is what's called cultural, or civic, nationalism - the belief that the nation's culture and values are what give it its identity and greatness. Certainly, 'American exceptionalism' tends towards nationalism, although we must be careful about using that word in connection with a country which is very much not a nation-state.
There isn't, necessarily; ethnocentric nationalism did exist in France, but not as a major force. Early nationalism was focused on values, culture and language - especially in Germany - and ethnocentric nationalism only really came to prominence in the 20th Century, chiefly in Germany, Japan, and black America.
I think it is a very vague theory. In reality, it is hard to determine whether someone conscripts soldiers in the name of the nation, rather than in the name of the people - because almost always interests of the nation are the same as interests of its people.
[...]
You used to be an active soldier, Flying Pig.
How did you know whether those who sent you to - e.g. - Falklands, did it for the British nation, or for the British people, or for fraternity, etc.?
[/QUOTE]
This is itself a nationalistic view! I was drawing a distinction between 'true' Communism - as distinct from Stalinism - which is internationalist but collectivist, and so urges people to fight 'for the [working/oppressed] people' rather than 'for the Russian nation'. You're right that most propaganda campaigns appeal to different loyalties, so it's rare to get a purely-nationalistic, a purely-patriotic, or a purely-self-interested recruitment campaign.
This is why most anarchists are also pacifists; they reject the idea that sacrificing a few people for the good of the many is ever justified. Most communists would say that since all men are brothers, to die for the freedom of many fellow people is worthy, and would probably commend the government for supporting this - hence Trotsky's doctrine of worldwide revolution and later Soviet support to communist revolutions across the world, although that had so much Realpolitik mixed with it that it's hard to describe it as a product of altruism. 'The people' does not mean the Human Race, by the way - it only means 'our people', and you can talk about that without talking about the nation - the Peasants' Revolt springs to mind.
Well, those two things aren't the same. This is why I think you need to tighten up your use of words a bit: the state is simply the governing organisation which has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and many ideologies - conservatism in almost all its forms being among them - believe that the preservation of the state is essential for the well-being of the people, and so that they should subsume their own interests to those of the state in order to keep it running. The nation however is a community based on a shared culture and identity; it does not depend on having a state to organise and govern it, and can exist across political borders - the German nation being a good example of this. There are almost no mainstream politicians in the western world who will admit to believing that this comes above the rights and welfare of their citizens.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
You wrote (about Jan Ostrorog):
"he is beseeching outsiders who come to Poland to learn Polish"
My point was, that he was beseeching not only outsiders - as you assumed - but also those Germans who (and whose ancestors) already lived in Poland for long time and were born here (just like their parents, grandparents, etc.). German immigrants started settling in Poland a few centuries before Ostrorog was born.
When I wrote "word A / word B" with "/" in between, it doesn't mean I equated them - it means I presented 2 alternative options. But, as a matter of fact, concepts which you think that I have equated (I did not) have many common features, hence are quite similar (but not equal).
So we had a different view on what a nation-state is. I thought that a nation-state is precisely just a state with homogenous national structure of its population. Now you say that a nation-state is something more than just such a homogenous state.
Can you write some sort of definition of a nation-state and maybe "classic" examples of such states from history?
Does a nation-state have to be a criminal state like the Third Reich or Imperial Japan? - because what you wrote about nationalism, would mean that all nation-states in history were and are almost criminal political structures, full of racism, discrimination, xenophobia and such.
But anti-minority is often a viewpoint typical for radical nationalists.
Yes I see your point.
But I support what I wrote before - what Jan Ostrorog described, was not ethnic animosity, but national animosity. He was angry that Germans in Poland did not speak Polish and did not self-identify as Polish (he was not agry about genetic & ethnic things, like the fact that they had German parents).
So I think that rather you confused something in this case.
The fact that Greek 19th Century nationalism depended on the idea that the Greeks were one body and should be politically united, does not mean that nationalism in general - and every form of nationalism in history in every single country and region - also depended on the same idea...
Thus the fact that Ancient Greek nationalism did not depend on the idea of political unification of Greece doesn't mean that nationalism in Ancient Greece didn't exist at all. But it isn't completely true that Ancient Greeks didn't want political unification - after all, Greeks were often able to unite themselves against common enemies, such as Persians, and the concept of unified Greece existed in their minds, and was even temporarily put into practice by Philip and Alexander of Macedon.
Nation is a kind of community. And state was political expression of its nation (or its nations - in case of multinational states such as Poland-Lithuania).
This is just the matter of scale and scope of each nation and methods of determining where one nation "ends" and a distinct one "begins". Maybe instead of Greek nationalism, there was Spartan nationalism, Athenian nationalism, etc. (in such case we assume the existence of separate Spartan and Athenian nations - since "nation" often is a rather vague term without clear definition, we can do this). One can consider Spartans, Athenians, etc. as separate nations. But one can also consider all those guys labelled together as just one, "Greek" nation. Finally - one can even consider entire humanity as "one big nation" - and then we might be talking about "Human nationalism" - belief that the good of humanity is most important.
By the way - both Athens and Sparta wanted hegemony over entire Greece. Once achieving such hegemony, they did consider the good of the entire Greece as the most important thing (since entire Greece would be under their rule). Thus we can assume that the good of the entire Greece was in their minds - but they could not agree upon the method of achieving it, because they could not agree which city-state was going to be the leader of all Greeks, responsible for political unification. In the end, Macedon under Philip and Alexander unified entire Greece and for some time it remained politically unified.
===============================================
Edit:
This reminds me of those "peasants" from our discussion about estates in Medieval Europe - where I explained that peasants had just one or two fundamental things in common (e.g. lack of privileges - contrary to the rest of the Medieval society), despite many not less fundamental differences, hence they were labelled as "peasants" - from the richest to the poorest one. You replied, that it would mean that in fact they had not much in common. Same here. You have labelled several completely distinct groups as "nationalists", just because they have one thing in common, despite a whole lot of fundamental differences...
You are now labelling so many various characteristics and different features under one word supposedly denoting all of them - "nationalism" -, that the way you present nationalism is becoming even more vague than terms "feudalism" or "feudal" when used by historians when referring to Medieval times...
Perhaps you remember that discussion about feudalism. It ended with conclusion that "feudalism" is used to describe so many fundamentally different things, that there is no point in labelling all of those things under this one name "feudalism". And now - you are listing plenty of different ideologies, and labelling all of them as "nationalism", just because they share one or two principles, despite differing in dozens of others. In fact never in history all those principles were at the same time parts of the same coherent ideology / viewpoint called collectively "nationalism".
You are creating an artificial construct that never existed as one unity / entity.
OK; I think any response to this would just be restating what I have already said, so I'm going to bow out and let this thread die.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
A sort of hypocrisy to deny the "existence of nations" but at the same talk about "our people" as opposed to "those bastards from abroad".
This is a hidden nationalism, I would say.
I am also a pacifist in a way that I do not support any wars (even those "justified") and I hope that one day humanity will be free of wars. But - at the same time - I'm not an anarchist, I do not support abolition of state organization. Some people on this forum even claim I'm a nationalist.
But I wonder which of the very vague and misty aspects of nationalism according to your definitions presented in above posts (in which you labelled like a dozen of various ideologies and systems of viewpoints as just one word - "nationalism") do they mean regarding my supposed views.
Because I certainly do not consider my nation as superior to others nor do I consider that only by being born a Pole you can become Polish.
Maybe one more of all those vague definitions of nationalism should be "nationalist is the one who posts annoying amount of information about his country's history". In such case I might understand why they call me a nationalist.
But in such case all Americans on this forum are nationalists too.Yes - a nation can also exist without any political borders - like Kurds, Basque people, Catalans, Jews for long time, Poles for some time, etc.
However, in your previous posts, you claimed that (most of) nationalists have a different understanding of nation than this quoted above.
Politicians rarely admit all the truth about what they believe because in such case they would not get elected for the second time.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I don't see why this is necessarily indicative of nationalism. That only seems to hold if you go in with the assumption that "Pole" and "Poland" are used in the same sense they are today. All the extract actually tells us is that there was some concept of a community of Polish-speaking individuals, rather than a "Polish nation" as something in-and-of-itself, and there's no indication that this community is imagined to consist of anything than aristocrats and perhaps town-dwellers, or that it was imagined to extend beyond the borders of the Commonwealth. (It certainly excludes Jews and other non-Catholics within the Commonwealth.)
What Ostroróg is really espousing in this extract is a fairly typical neoclassical republicanism. Look at the second quoted passage, where his advocacy of a single legal code is posed not as an appeal to national unity or the equality of countrymen, but to the upholding of "reason" within "the state". If that seems like nationalism to us, it's because it was one of the major influences on Enlightenment nationalist thought, which tended to express itself in terms borrowed from neoclassical republican terms.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
What the Christ are you on about? Never thought I would see the day that Flying Pig was accused of thinking like a communist!
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
Gosh, I am not reading all that but there clearly was some form of "nationalism" in existence in Poland before 1789. One great example is Tadeusz Rejtan and his exploits during the Partition Sejm.
Beware of conflating patriotism with nationalism - although we're working so close to 1789 in the question of this chap that it might be hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.
First of all, that story is more of a touchstone for Polish nationalism than necessarily indicative of the actual article.
Secondly, I don't think anybody's seriously arguing that the Tennis-Court Oath or whatever was the first and only expression of nationalistic or proto-nationalistic sentiment anywhere in the world. The whole Enlightenment's got loads of that sort of thing. But that's a very long way from the time period previously under discussion.
Gucumatz
JS, secretly Rod Serling
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,181
Is it worth mentioning civilizations still or not, since it seems the OP is gone...?
If so a couple I can see through a quick glance not on the thread:
Chachapoya [One of the biggest city state empires of South America, sort of like the Maya of S.A.], Comanche, Musica, Pagan [The empire and civilization in Burma], Majapahit, Harrapan, Java, and the Khazars. Just a few
If so a couple I can see through a quick glance not on the thread:
Chachapoya [One of the biggest city state empires of South America, sort of like the Maya of S.A.], Comanche, Musica, Pagan [The empire and civilization in Burma], Majapahit, Harrapan, Java, and the Khazars. Just a few
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Sorry - I do not get your point.
"Polish-speaking individuals" - excluding foreign-speaking individuals who know Polish only as their secondary language - is precisely exactly the same thing as "Polish nation". Plus guys who consider themselves as Polish nationals due to having Polish ancestors or feeling Polish cultural affiliation, but don't speak Polish (however, such guys usually call themselves "Polish-Americans", et cetera - depending on political entity they live in).
No. There were plenty of Polish-speaking non-Catholics (after the Reformation) and Jews. For example Calvinists, Greek-Catholics, Arianists, Lutherans, even Orthodox people. Also Muslim Lipka Tatars, who underwent Polonization. Their modern descendants who live in Poland are still Muslims, but at the same time they consider themselves as Poles and they speak Polish. Here is an interesting video about modern Polish Muslims, descendants of Lipka Tatars:
"Polish Tatars have spoken Polish since the 17th century" - as professor Chazbijewicz (descendant of those Tatars, by the way) says:
Link to video.
So Polish peasants spoke Marsian or Venusian language instead of Polish ???
At that time - apart from Poles studying at Universities abroad (particularly in Italy) - it probably did not extend beyond the area of so called (this term was already used in Medieval) "Corona Regni Poloniae", that is historically Polish lands (in the west up to the Odra and Lusatian Nysa rivers, in the north up to the Baltic Sea), apart from very few individuals (other than those students). However, Polish emigration community greatly increased in numbers from 18th century onward.
Beyond political borders of the Kingdom of Poland (and later the Commonwealth) it certainly extended, as even Jan Ostrorog mentions above (he writes about the bad treatment of Polish language and its native speakers in politically German-controlled countries).
Flying Pig said:
As far as I noticed, nobody on this forum is beware of this, when they randomly call people nationalists.
Unless of course in their minds word "nationalism" is used to denote many completely different and unrelated views.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
See, again, you're starting with contemporary understandings of "Polish" and working backwards, which: no. Nothing in the document suggests a concern for Poles as ethnicity, only for Poles a native speakers of the Polish language, and nothing in the document suggest a belief in "Poland" as a community of ethnic Poles, only in "The Republic" as a polity, and that this polity is best served by the use of a common public language, for which Poland seems to be preferred simply for reasons of historical precedence.
Possibly all that is so. But it isn't relent. Ostroróg's discussion of Church practices demonstrates and identification between "The Republic" and adherents of the Catholic Church, and thus excluding whatever Jews, Muslims and Orthodox Christians may also be subject to the state.
It isn't particularly relevant what they spoke, because there's no indication that Ostroróg regarded them as part of the Polish political community. It's possible that he did, but there's no reason to believe so, and it would represent an unprecedented departure from the rest of the neoclassical republican philosophy, which drawing on Rome and Greek inspiration identified "The Republic" with the landowning elite and/or town-dwellers. It can be reasonably assumed that Ostroróg was in line with his contemporaries on this, while a claim that he possess anachronistically universalising views requires some attempt to demonstrate it.So Polish peasants spoke Marsian or Venusian language instead of Polish ???
Perhaps true, but, again, irrelevant. Nothing in the document suggests a belief that foreign Polish-speakers are part of the "The Republic.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
In what way supposedly it does demonstrate this?
Ostroróg does not write about practices of all Churches of all religions which existed in Poland - he doesn't even write about practices of the Catholic Church organization in Poland. He writes about practices of the Papal State and the fact that both Kingdom of Poland and the Holy Roman Empire were paying Annates and Peter's Pence to the Papal Treasury. Large part of European countries did not pay these fees to the Pope. Ostroróg criticized the fact that Poland did.
I do not see any identification between the "The Republic" and adherents of just the Catholic Church and I have no idea how did you come to such conclusion - perhaps you confused Annates and Peter's Pence with tithes and wrongly assumed that he was referring to the latter.
What is this contemporary understandings of "Polish" that I am supposedly starting with?
I think I have already explained above (post #356) what is my understanding of "Polish nation".
But maybe I'm wrong regarding my own understanding and I will gladly read what you think that I think.
Yes, true - Ostroróg is expressing his concern for Poles as nationality, not for Poles as ethnicity. He also writes about "X causing discredit and shame for all Poles" and "X causing harm to dignity of the Poles". Where "X" = fact that German language was used in Poland (for example during sermons).
He is not writing about "dignity of the Polish language" or "causing shame for the Polish language" - he is writing about the Poles (not language).
Just like there is no indication in the quoted text that he regarded nobility or townsmen or priesthood - or any single particular group of citizens of "The Republic" - as part of the Polish political community. Nor there is indication that he was talking about "Polish political community", as he didn't use such words.
And how can you claim that he ignored peasants, considering that he demanded equal law for everybody - thus including peasants.
Even more - there are proofs, that Ostroróg was not talking about "Polish political community". After all, he was talking only about the community of Polish-speaking individuals (as you called this - I call this Polish nationals) - while non-Polish speakers were also parts of the "Polish political community" (i.e. political community of Poland). For example - Ruthenian-speaking gentry of Poland or Ruthenian-speaking townsmen of Poland, as well as German-speaking gentry or German-speaking townsmen. All of them definitely were parts of the Polish political community, but were not Polish-speakers, nor ethnic Poles.
Ruthenian-speaking or German-speaking gentry in Poland in 15th century had exactly the same political rights as Polish-speaking gentry. The same refers to townsmen - a Polish speaking townsmen had no more or distinct political rights than Ruthenian or German speaking one. Etc, etc.
Regarding religious adherence - a Catholic noble / townsman / peasant also had no more or distinct rights than an Orthodox or Muslim one.
On the other hand - Jews (followers of Judaism, but also ethnic Jews - since these two groups were largely overlapping each other) had different legal status than Christians (or Muslims for that matter). Not necessarily better legal status, not necessarily worse legal status - but definitely a different one. However, this is the only exception when it comes to religious adherence. And as far as I know, this situation was typical for vast majority of Medieval Europe.
Jews, due to their distinct legal status, could be even considered as a separate Estate - other than Nobility, Peasantry and Townsmen.
See above. He writes about equal set of legal rules for "everybody" and "all inhabitants of the country" - thus including peasants. Early Roman society was also divided for just 2 major groups - patricians & plebeians. In this case "gentry" is an equivalent of patricians. Since you claim that Ostroróg was most likely drawing from Roman terms - I see no reason to think that his "plebeians" don't include everyone except gentry (patricians). So they include also peasants.
He divided "everybody" into just two groups as well - "gentry" and "plebeians" - thus "plebeians" must include both villagers and townsmen.
And he wrote that equal law should be binding both groups - "gentry" and the Third Estate (= "plebeians" or "commoners").
But the Medieval idea of "Corona Regni Poloniae" - that is, the desire of re-uniting all once Polish lands again under Polish rules - suggests this.
Define "civilization".
