Is ti true that nationalism is only about 200 years old?

Nationalism was birthed by the French Revolution yes, anyone telling you nationalism is natural or traditional has no fucking clue what they're talking about.

File: 1491377430839.jpg (242KB, 1203x884px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1203x884px

No it's bs pushed by communists to empower internationalism which will never come

No but it's pointless to argue about because there are often other factors involved such as religion that people will pretend were the sole reason for any kind of nationalism before the 1800s.

There's also the problem of civic vs ethnic nationalism which allows opponents of nationalism to worm their way out of acknowledging any kind of nationalism that had too much of one without the other.

For example they'll say that an ethnic uprising like the Jacobites in Scotland wasn't "nationalist" because there wasn't a centralized nation state behind it, but they'll also say a nationalist empire like Rome wasn't "really nationalist" because they were "multicultural" or they'll get into really semantic arguments about what "ethnicity" means.

>>2631785
Please provide proof that Nationalism is older than the French revolution please, a map of Europe =/= nationalism.

>>2631784

But could you not say that nationalism is just an extension of tribalism? Tribalism has been around since the start of humanity. How is nationalism much different?

If tribalism can be defended, and I think it can, then nationalism can be defended.

>>2631845
>How is nationalism much different?
Would you say that the people liking rap music and the people hating it constitute two nations?

>>2631813
>or they'll get into really semantic arguments about what "ethnicity" means.
I find that to be a perfectly legitimate thing to argue about. In fact, I guess that the vast majority of disagreements stem from either a disagreement on the material facts or semantic discord, which is why resolving this discord is as important as it's hard - very, that is, but I don't think that it's pointlessly hard.

>>2631756
Rome was a national state. It was trying to consolidate territory with its citizens identifying as being a part of said empire... SPQR

Later people identified as Christians. As devout believers, they acknowledged the monarchy and identified with their rulers. Since the rule of a given king was linked to certain territory, you'd consider this a kind of theologically-based nationalism.

Prior to nationalism, there was tribalism, which is even more extreme in everything one usually considers as not so cool about nationalism in theory, when in reality, it's just a logical step up in the coordination of international rivalry.

>>2631784
The fact that in the olden days tribes fought each other should tell you that humans inherently hate people different to them, nationalities, tastes, the color of their skin, it all counts as alienating a certain person or tribe.

Hardcore racism is acquired, but there is definitely a bit of racism inherent in every person.

>>2631941
The average Roman didn't give a fuck about the Roman Empire as a state. In the final centuries they tried to get the fuck away from state control and fled to independent groups like the Bacaudae and Armoricans.

>>2631946
The average free Roman citizen cared a lot about the state during the republican era.

>>2631959
He said Empire, not republic, don't try to change the subject

>>2631784
tribalism is natural. nationalism is the most natural manifestation of it right now.

>>2631965
The subject is nationalism before the 1800s, I don't care what he said.

Yes and no. Nationalism is undoubtably a product of modernity but it is also a reaction to the force's of modernity utilising pre-modern conceptions

>>2631968
The most natural manifestion of tribalism is the partiality towards the immediate family.
Another more natural manifestation of it is the partiality towards friends.
Even the partiality towards the extended family is more natural than nationalism.

>>2632024
Where did you get this fanciful idea that tribals are or were intimately known to all of each other? Nationalism is an community no more imagined than any other modern identity, doesn't make it any less existing

>>2632040
Misquote? I don't remember saying any of these things.

File: 1442541469015.jpg (14KB, 320x350px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 320x350px

>>2631784
>>2631814
Prove nationalism was birthed by the French Revolution
Not even kidding

loving your family is much older than that. ask yourself what is the point of the distinction between "nationalism", "tribalism", "ethnocentrism"? might as well just call it family-treeism

>>2632045
>>2632045
You post belies the notion that Nationalism isn't a felling of "extended family". The whole communal concept of a "People" would challange that. you can have cousin's thousands of mile away you have never met, does that make them "not family"

>>2632046
>in Britons, Forging the Nation 1707–1837 (Yale University Press, 1992) explores how the role of nationalism emerged about 1700 and developed in Britain reaching full form in the 1830s. Typically historians of nationalism in Europe begin with the French Revolution (1789), not only for its impact on French nationalism but even more for its impact on Germans and Italians and on European intellectuals

>With the emergence of a national public sphere and an integrated, country-wide economy in the 18th-century the British people began to identify with the country at large, rather than the smaller units of their family, town or province. The early emergence of a popular patriotic nationalism took place in the mid-18th century, and was actively promoted by the British government and by the writers and intellectuals of the time.[19] National symbols, anthems, myths, flags and narratives were assiduously constructed by nationalists and widely adopted.

All it took was fucking wikipedia

>>2632054
The conception of the nation as a family or community of family-tree-relationships breaks down as soons as the community extends over the village-level.

People in southern Germany genetically share much more with Northern Italians than with Northern Germans.

>>2631784
I think nationalism was literally revolutionized by the French Revolution. It was birthed at the end of the Hundred Years War.

Don't believe modern globalist retards who say nationalism is a social construct. As a Czech, we have records of our kings being rejected as emperors of HRE because they weren't German.

Its just a thing of priorities

In Medieval the main thing was religion
After Westphalian treaty, the main thing was the state
After Napoleon, nationality became the most important thing

>>2631899
a tribe is based on blood ties.
a nation is too, but more broadly so.
taste has nothing to do with it.

>>2631756
That depends what you call nationalism. And it depends of places and eras.
Sharing a culture and being proud of this culture is not always the sign of a nation existing ; A nation implies the will for the different people living in to be self-conscious about themselves. France, for exemple, has managed to reach this state of "nation" even before the Hundred Years War ; This is how you will easily notice, if you decide to read some french medieval chronicles, how important one's identity was for them, especially when fighting against the "english" (And I really mean it : Despite the fact that the lords of England were french, and their armies made up of welsh or gascons, the chroniclers often made differences between the cultures of their ennemy). During the war of Guyenne of 1453, the french forces spared prisonners, but hanged gascons mercilessly, because to them, the people of Gascogny were direct traitors to France. In the XVIth century, the knights of the ordonnances armies claimed the importance of defending their land.
This nation managed to be birthed because France was united under a sovereign, absolute King, who managed to unite behind him the peasants, the merchant class, the nobility and the clergy.
If you compare this with Germany or Italy, it is completly different : Despite sharing a way of life, trading, and talking the same language, they didn't act as a nation before the XIXth Century, even at times where a unified State could be argued to exist.

Anyone who claims that Nationalism is only 200 years old is either wrong, or has an extremly limitated definition of a "nation". How can you claim that the english people don't start to feel conscious about themselves, when they start pressuring the King to change the crown courts' legislation so that they may talk in english and not in french ?

File: NKVD officer.png (160KB, 424x553px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 424x553px

>>2632077
>in Britons, Forging the Nation 1707–1837 (Yale University Press, 1992) explores how the role of nationalism emerged about 1700 and developed in Britain reaching full form in the 1830s. Typically historians of nationalism in Europe begin with the French Revolution (1789), not only for its impact on French nationalism but even more for its impact on Germans and Italians and on European intellectuals

That's not a proof. "In 1914 people of Kongo decided have had enough of the Belgians and got pissed off, according to (some unnamed) historians." That's how credible what you just copypasted is.

>With the emergence of a national public sphere and an integrated, country-wide economy in the 18th-century the British people began to identify with the country at large, rather than the smaller units of their family, town or province. The early emergence of a popular patriotic nationalism took place in the mid-18th century, and was actively promoted by the British government and by the writers and intellectuals of the time.[19] National symbols, anthems, myths, flags and narratives were assiduously constructed by nationalists and widely adopted.

So you refer to Brits living in mid 18th century. French revolution started in 1789, and therefore in late 18th century France, and it escalated in 1792, when the very first revolutionary war started. I'm not an expert or anything on this subject, but shouldn't people get more patriotic when foreign power invades them rather than their own monarch proves to be incompetent? So when and where did it start? Make up your mind.

>>2632067
>The whole communal concept of a "People" would challange that. you can have cousin's thousands of mile away you have never met, does that make them "not family"
That doesn't sound communal at all, when the cousin has been living thousands of miles away for 20 generations.

The problem occurs when you have to look at other claimants to being part of the nation then, especially in border regions, which leads to absurd cases.

>>2632077
Are you saying that because of that, nationalism didn't exist before that? Do you think that the Romans or Ancient Greeks considering themselves to be superior to all other people didn't count as nationalism?

>>2632097
>a tribe is based on blood ties.
>a nation is too, but more broadly so.
>taste has nothing to do with it.
We were talking about tribalism, not tribes.

Tribalism is a much more general phenomenon and occurs even in matters of taste.

>>2632125
It was more cultural ('specially rome) than genetic

>>2632145
>What is civic nationalism

A lot of things like the concept of homosexuality, humanity, nation states are relatively new.

>>2631756
No, that's obviously some kind of postmodernist historiography.

Nationalism is literally just abstracted tribalism, and hence has existed for as long as there has existed individual cultures.

File: Cato.jpg (23KB, 274x300px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 274x300px

>>2631784
>>2631756
>Nationalism is only 200 years old

>>2632151
People were gay in ancient Greece.

>>2632125
>>2632145

Greeks certainly did have a Hellenic identity, and maintained this parallel to the sense of identity that was tied to their Polis.

Wouldn't ancient Greeks qualify as a nation?

>>2631785
It is actually pushed by Christian fundamentalists

If you define nationalism as putting the interests of your nation over that of other nations, then no, it is not a modern invention.

A statement like "America First", which is very controversial now, didn't even exist back then for any nation because it was taken for granted. Of course you're going to put your nation's interest of others. Why the fuck wouldn't you?

If anything the concept of globalism is a modern invention.

>>2632207
They were warring City states though.

>>2631756
>Is ti true that nationalism is only about 200 years old?

TECHNICALLY yes, but I feel like that statement gives people the wrong idea.

Yes, back then, people did not think of themselves as belonging to nations. People generally didn't care about any land they couldnt see beyond their rooftop. Most people's thinking was village-centric.

But its not like they didn't have a nationalist attitude about their own village or city. They still cared about it more than other areas of the world. So it's not like they had a globalist attitude.

>>2631785
I guarantee that a Basque peasant in 16th century Aquitaine did not think of himself as a Frenchman

>>2632054
The distinction is enormous. People who live hundreds of miles away and speak a barely intelligible dialect aren't my fucking family. It doesn't matter if we have the same distant monarch several steps up the feudal ladder.

>>2632228
Marrying your rapist was the common sense rather than the outlier back then too.
As well as stoning people for adultery. Electricity also didn't exist back either. Neither did the surrages nor access to automobiles. No access to penicillin, nor modern medicine. No computers or Internet to complain about how things were better.

Things used to be so much better back then, didn't they?

>>2632247
Same way a Chechnyan doesn't see himself as a Russian today.

>>2632228
>as putting the interests of your nation over that of other nations, then no, it is not a modern invention.
Depends on your definition of "nation". If by "nation" you understand the nation state, then it must be a modern invention, since you can't put the interest of one nation state over that of another, if neither exist.

>If anything the concept of globalism is a modern invention.
Depends on your definition of "globalism". If by "globalism" you just understand the free flow of goods and ideas globally, then this is not a modern invention, because goods and ideas flowed globally even in ancient times.

>>2631845
This.
You see protonationalism in any place economically wealthy enough and geographically compact enough place to have several high density cities with the same general language and culture. How could central Italy at the height of Rome not count?

Obviously full-blown nationalism would be hard as fuck if the closest large towns are 80 miles away, with tons of bandits on poorly maintained roads. Under those circumstances Slav warlord A will happily fuck over Slav warlord B when facing a steppe horde. But if you've got nice roads, family in other close towns, similar culture and political customs, an attack on one town is going to be an attack on all even if they are ruled by different leaders.

How could Aristotle's idea of a magnificent man, a patron of the Athenian navy, exist without some kind of nationalist feeling?

Triremes were built for the entire city, not just the benefit of a single family, by wealthy citizens. To some extent the Greeks also preferentially backed nearby city states against invasion. How is that not nascent nationalism?

>Greco-Persian war was so nationalistic which is why many Greek states either stayed neutral or joined the Persians and why they devolved into constant civil war afterwards.

always hilarious

>>2631945
>The fact that in the olden days tribes fought each other should tell you that humans inherently hate people different to them

no it tells that they are willing to fight other people to feed their family.
they don't mind each other unless food is involved

>>2631756
>Ignoring the entire old testament

>>2632125
having a national identity (literally seeing yourself as belonging to a nation, a group of people with a shared culture/language/etc) is not new

linking that identity with all members of your nation-state (that, is with your cultural group AND the governmental/civil structure that control the territory of your social group) is new. the greeks weren't greeks so much as they were atticans, boetians, euboeans, spartans, etc. and while most people in the empire eventually became citizens, certainly those from the city of rome proper dominated its politics and considered themselves above most of their distant subjects.

maybe today Californians think of Alabamans as different people or weirdos or whatever, but they are Americans in a way that I think a Roman (of Rome) would not have thought about, say, a roman from judea.

>>2632381
Your criteria disqualifies nationalism from existing in any period.

>>2632416
That wasn't real nationalism, it was state tribalism.

>>2632266

You're right, we should throw out literally every idea from the past because they came from worse times. And every new idea is automatically good because it's new.

nationalism is modern, but that doesn't mean people didn't hold ethnic/home identities. I mean I feel like that's what most people who say "nationalism is a recent invention" are implying, that before somehow all human beings on earth were singing around a campfire. nationalism is really just post-industrial tribalism.

>>2631756
Nationalism, as in the modern state taking increasingly centralized control over administration and sometimes industry over a cohesive people or plot of land has only existed that long. The word being applied to similar or strikingly dissimilar theories and applications is as old as the word, or words equated to that word.

>>2632370
>nascent nationalism

We are not talking about some kind "nascent nationalism" since "us good, they bad" concept is older than mankind. We are talking about modern nationalism.