Were Ancient Folk Nationalist?

>>3200545
Nationalism is pretty much tribalism-lite, so it's kinda funny you picked nations over roughly bazillion tribes that existed along with them.

>>3200545
>Carthaginian

Doubt it, they were individualist merchants always merging with natives from other lands but peacefuly

>Persians

possibly

>Egyptians

Yes, they were also quite isolationists and viewed Egypt as heaven on earth

>>3200545

The Romans were unique in that their form of government allowed common people to participate in the government to a far greater extent, which naturally makes common people more engaged in what is going on. They also had a conception of citizenship that extended beyond people who were born in the actual city of Rome.

>>3200562
I consider Aeudi a nation, because tribes did act the way nations do nowdays. They were pretty much countries, no?

Why would you not be nationalistic? What does the word even mean to yo?

Not being nationalistic is purely a modern, first world thing.

>>3200545

Ancient Greeks and Jews had a strong group identity reinforced by religion, language, culture etc. That could be called nationalism in my opinion.

>>3200615
To love ones nation.
For example an Cretan would not be patriotic to Macedon who conquered them but to Crete and would want to see Crete free from Macedon.

>>3200545
They most likely were not.

Nationalism goes hand in hand with education and the transmission of political myths as a unifying element that also presents the imperative of the nationalist mission: uniting ones people within a nation state.

Before the printing press, the political cosmos of people was fairly small in scale. They may have identified with their village or perhaps their region, but otherwise their understanding of the world was limited to what they themselves experienced.

National consciousness existed to some extent, but mostly among the upper classes who could travel and had some insight into the politics of their time.

>>3200545
>>3200562
How is tribalism even different from nationalism? Is there any meaningful difference besides the scale? Isn't a nation really just an extended "tribe", a group that individuals associate themselves with?

>Nation (n) - a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.
I don't see any reason a tribe isn't the same thing as this, minus the qualifier "large". Some tribes such as the Navajo even refer to themselves as Nations in the modern day.

Is it the presence of a state?

>>3200955
Presence of a state with a defined area of control.
See: King of the French vs King of France

>>3200545
No. Nationalism is very much a 19th century invention.

People identified with their co-religionists (muh sect only), their Lord/King/Bishopric/whatever in an abstract way, but more often it was with their immediate geographic community. The notion that they were ONE PEOPLE based on speaking more or less the same language was a novel idea. Really, it was a way to break from the then traditional supra-national structures, like church and empires.

>>3200625
It's not the same, unless you such a broad umbrella definition of 'nationalism' that everything becomes it. Applying modern sensibilities and understanding to humans before a particular concept existed is the first taboo of history.

Nationalism is just kin based collectivism or tribalism. Singling it out as something especially new or modern is kind of bs. It's the same in group/out group psychology that dominated human politics forever simply larger in scale.

>>3200545
Not in modern sense, no. We are talking about multi-ethnic empires here. A lot of their people just waited to stab their masters in the back.

>>3200982
>simply largr in scale
That's pretty important difference.

>>3200973
>No. Nationalism is very much a 19th century invention
Bullshit. A nation is a people.
See>>3200982

File: Flower-of-Scotlnad-Hampden.jpg (437KB, 1440x960px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1440x960px

>>3200545
Nationalism is a modern invention. It uses symbolism and imagery to construct a narrative that seeks to form a tribal sense of unity out of a nation state, which by necessity is ordinarily too large or heterogeneous for such unity.

>>3201054
Retard see>>3200982

>>3201013
>>3201093
> Why don't people accept something I pulled out of my ass as the official definition of nationalism ?

>>3201336
>why don't people accept the marxist definition of nationalism as a totally new concept that fell out of the sky precisely in 1821?

>>3200545
Proto-nationalism did exist in Iran and probably Egypt. We don't know much about Carthage.

Europran 19th century nationalism obviously didn't exist before the 19th century.

>>3200545
The first nationalists were Bohemian (Czech) Hussites. If you read about them it's hard to argue they weren't nationalist.

>>3200982
Tribalism is actually the antithesis of nationalism. Paternal line is all that matters in tribalist societies and loyalty ended up being more valued than blood anyway. Plus no defined state structure which is what nationalism is all about.

ancient greeks got together to fight off the persians despite their constant wars
they felt some identity among themselves is that what you have in mind?

>>3201013
You're wrong though. Anyone who has been through basic civilization classes knows that 19th century nationalism is largely based on linguistics and is unlike tribalism before it.

>>3201389
>implying paternal lines aren't good enough for most nationalists
>implying nationalists didn't reward non ethnics that were loyal to their cause all the same
>implying there is a meaningful distinction between nationalist state apparatus and tribal elders innawoods dictating policy

>>3201408
Tribes didn't organize themselves along shared linguistic heritage now?

Get out.

>>3201410
I don't think a nationalist would argue that a full blown nigger with a German paternal ancestor somewhere down the line counts as a real German.

>>3201418
Not him, but they literally don't. Read literally anything about the tribal units of the Eurasian steppe, do you think all Huns spoke a Hunnic language?

>>3201426
Tribes never organized themselves along common linguistic heritage then?

Yeahhhhh no.

>>3200973
This post is painful to read.

>>3200955
>How is tribalism even different from nationalism?
Actual known and personal blood ties versus vague and romantic connections with strangers.

If you were part of a tribe, that meant you were part of a small family that was directly related to known people who are part of a larger clan, who themselves are directly related to a larger tribe.

>>3201459
Tribes adopted unrelated people all the time.

>>3201459
Why is a tribesman's connection to other strange members of the larger clan any less romantic than nationalism?

It's not.

>>3201441
>Tribes never organized
Never would be quite the absolute statement, but language was far less relevant than you might believe. Most big tribes were formed by allying and absorbing smaller tribes that spoke a different language anyway.
>Yeahhhhh no.
Go back to r*ddit if this is your way of arguing. Are you a woman or something? Get a hold of yourself.

>>3201495
>Never would be quite the absolute statement, but language was far less relevant than you might believe. Most big tribes were formed by allying and absorbing smaller tribes that spoke a different language anyway.
Nice backpedalling.

>>3201468
In which case that unrelated person becomes directly related to a family of the tribe.

>>3201475
Because it's tangible. You can go meet your father who can take you to meet his fathers and brothers and cousins.

>>3201518
>Because it's tangible
Common tongues and culture are just as tangible.

>>3201336
>why people can't be a rootless cosmopolitan whore like me?

>>3201524
No, they are not. These are mutually appreciated activities based on independent adoption of concepts.

A nation is simply an extension of a family/village/tribe/pack/troop/...

Nationalism is simply an expression of a basic animalistic instinct that all social animals have. It's basically genetic, even.

File: map.jpg (902KB, 1500x1072px) Image search: [Google]

902KB, 1500x1072px

The birth of nations in the 17th century and the rise of nations in the following centuries were both attempts to consolidate concurrent identities into one concrete geography from their cultural space, this nation constitutes a set of ethno-cultural identities. As vapor condenses and collects into a pool of water, so too did the nation draw the cultural and tribal allegiances and collect them in concretely. Nations were autonomous religious zones, so that catholic zones and a protestant zones could exist as distinct entities.

Only in nations could "blood and soil" be drawn into the foreground as a unifying concept."One land, one law, one people", and the German obsession to collect all german speaking peoples into one country, are foreground aspects of social life and the state. Nationalism did not create racial in-group preferences, differences in culture, language, religion, allegiance to certain political factions, etc. Nations emerged as a consequence of these and in the nationalists' attempt to consolidate these identities they thought they would prevent the conflict of these identities. The consolidation of these identities neither created them, nor did it remove them, and the conflicts of identities simply became inter-national, rising and converging with the catastrophe of the first war.

Tribalism, in-group preferences, polity, etc. are ubiquitous, the "nation" is one manifestation of these. The nation is today believed to be some metaphysical entity that is anthropomorphised into an individual. The actions of a government, people, or culture, are ascribed to the "nation" and we often talk about nations as though they were entities or individuals. In the aristocratic society, the ruler was often referred to by his title: "my noble Buckingham, good Northumberland!", etc whereas now the "nation" has become a metaphysical Emperor. The foundation of ideological "nationalism" is essentially the same as that of aristocracy.

>>3201733
>nations were invented in the 17th century

Jesus fucking chris, what kind of koolaid are you drinking?

>>3201740

Peace of Westphalia, European settlements of 1648, which brought to an end the Eighty Years’ War between Spain and the Dutch and the German phase of the Thirty Years’ War. The peace was negotiated, from 1644, in the Westphalian towns of Münster and Osnabrück. The Spanish-Dutch treaty was signed on January 30, 1648. The treaty of October 24, 1648, comprehended the Holy Roman emperor Ferdinand III, the other German princes, France, and Sweden. England, Poland, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire were the only European powers that were not represented at the two assemblies. Some scholars of international relations credit the treaties with providing the foundation of the modern state system and articulating the concept of territorial sovereignty.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Peace-of-Westphalia

>>3201748
Nations existed long before the modern state system.

>>3201751
It depends how you define nation. The continuity of a particular race, religion, culture and language is not itself a "nation", the Jews are an example of this and did not have a nation for centuries. It is the consolidation of these into a fenced region which is then believed to be the set of its identities that constitutes a nation. The word "nation" is unhelpful, I prefer my own terminology: prescriptive and descriptive states. The former defines its population and the latter is defined by its population. These are held in dialectical tension and one assumes the foreground, so that a modern nation-state can remove your citizenship but not your nationhood. England, the nation was a descriptive state while Britain, the Empire, was a prescriptive one. "Nationalism" is a modern and liberal concept, but we're probably talking past each other at this point.

>>3201789
A nation is typically an ethnic or other group of people identified with a certain geographical area under a common rule, but migratory groups are also often called nations.

>>3201789
You seem to be equating a nation to a state as opposed to an ethnicity. A nation can exist without its own (nation) state.

>>3200962
Here we go again

You're still repeting ad nauseam your BS despite being refuted again and again

>>3201389
Jesus Christ this thread is retarded. Nationalism is literally just a type of tribalism. All nationalism is tribalism but not all tribalism is nationalism

File: 1848revolutions.jpg (81KB, 500x328px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 500x328px

>>3201363
If you don't understand the historical significance of what was going on in the early to mid 19th century with regards to the concept of the Nation you need to leave the history board

>>3201886
This.

>>3201423
And I think you've been on /pol/ too much then.

>>3201888
What really happened in the 19th century is that a lot of nations were suddenly told they were a single nation because they shared some common traits.

>>3201013
You're putting the cart before the horse and pulling definitions out of your ass. Nationalism is a 19th century word and notion. You're doing exactly what I just said was in error: applying a (more) modern term and concept to humans before the term and concept existed. It is a fallacy to presume nationalism is some natural state of humans.

Even the concept of "a nation is a people" is subjective. What "people"? This particular in-group 'cause we said so? In that very broad sense, that is basic human organization. But that is not nationalism. Nationalism is the idea that millions of people, the vast majority of whom you will never know or even meet, are part of the same exact tribe. This is NOT how people viewed their relations to others pre-19th century.

>>3201363
This has nothing to do with Marxist revisionism or whatever, you dolt.

>>3201384
They were religious reformists, m8. The desire for more Church functions in the local vernacular was not new, though the Hussites were the first mass movement for is (it wasn't their only gripe). A desire for mass in the vernacular was exacerbated first by increasing education/academia in general (in the local language rather than purely in Latin), and then given a huge boost by the printing press. This wasn't really nationalism, but more about egalitarianism.

>>3201418
It depends how much you rely on circular logic. But in fact, there are enough exceptions that suggest it wasn't a key factor. It wasn't a conscious choice to organize along linguistic lines.

>>3201455
Not an argument.

Also, I completed a history MA in (basically) nationalist theories. So come at me, bro.

>>3201475
We're talking a few hundred people versus tens of millions. Some modern societies talk about clans, like Somalis or various Turkics for example, but really these are historical notions that thanks to modern medicine have exploded the populations of a group, so the "clans" may be now several hundred thousand. This is an anomaly.

>>3201524
In times past, a "common tongue" would imply close (and a relatively small) geographical presence. I don't think you understand how fractured and variant dialect gradients were in the past. The majority of people in a given region would not move very far over the course of their lives.

>>3201807
No. It's more than just geography.

>>3201808
And that is a modern notion. Taken to its extension, it necessitates that every nation should also have its own state.

>>3200562
>>3200955

The difference between the tribe and the nation is that the identity of the tribe is based on blood relations, whereas nations are imagined communities where you know a specific place's boundaries is inhabited by the same people that share your culture, language, customs and religion

>>3202653
There's also the (distant) blood relation through ethnicity. And the culture, customs and religion part can vary from one nation to another.

>>3200545
>Or is it just something Romans

Romans didn't have nationalism in our modern day understanding, but rather a big pride in their country because being a roman citizen gave you a certain set of privileges. That's why the SPQR was named "Patria"

>>3200574
Being a citizen and being a Roman were too different things. You could have all the benefits legally of citizenship and still be treated as a second class because you weren't Roman. The word of someone born and raised in the Eternal City was always worth more than any provincial, including those from the rest of the Italian peninsula. Just go look up how they treated the Samnites even in the 1st century AD.

>>3200625
>ancient greeks

>Group identity

You must be joking. If you were not from the same city as the rest of the people you were literally viewed as a sub-human, regardless of which greek city-state we're talking about

>>3202653
Tribes can be pretty big and the connection through blood is most likely imagined too.

>>3200973
>Nationalism is very much a 19th century invention.

Maybe to shitty civic states like France and USA.

Nationalism as a collective identity of people that was passed generation to generation existed ever since medieval times

>>3202574
To claim that nationalism is a 19th-century invention is painfully retarded for two reasons:

Firstly: nationalism is an extension of tribalism, which is an extension of social animal behaviour. This goes back millions of years.

Secondly: nations have existed for thousands of years. At least the ones we have evidence for.

>>3202678
Greeks did identify as a group you dunce. They formed rival city states, but non-Greeks were barbarians.

>>3202694
>civic states like France and USA
We just copied Gayrmany

If you want to blame someone blame the Gayrmans

>>3202594
Two Frenchmen with horribly disparate dialects would still get on together much better than they would with a german. The un-intelligibility of the various dialects of "pre nationalist" standardization of national languages is exaggerated in any event. Language standardisation wasn't exactly built on shakey ground the way you seem to imply.

>>3200955
Tribalism is a broad term that basically includes any instance of an exclusive group.
Nationalism brings in an adherence to the idea of a well-defined homeland.

>>3202614
>And that is a modern notion.

No its not

>>3201886
>Nationalism is literally just a type of tribalism. All nationalism is tribalism but not all tribalism is nationalism

You are seriously retarded. Take your idiotic pseudo-intellectual notions back to pol

>>3202614
>No. It's more than just geography.
Which is why I mentioned more than geography.
In fact, I even said geography isn't even a necessary element since migratory communities are also often considered "nations".

>>3202682
Care to give an example?

> the connection through blood is most likely imagined too.

You're taking the term "imagined" literally. When i say that, i mean a particular non-physical abstract notion that each individual creates in his head based on a collective feeling of belonging to a group of persons that do not necessarily share the same blood as you nor part of your extended family.

>>3202702
>Greeks did identify as a group

They did identify as a culture, but not as a nation, and even so that didn't stop them from slaughtering each other whenever they had the chance. Whereas a nation's members do not wage war between one another unless politics are involved, which is ultimately the difference between a tribe and a nation.

>>3202694
>nationalism is whatever I want it to be

>>3202695
>dat circular logic
>facegif.palm
You're taking an assumption as if it's given. Way to beg the question, dolt.

>>3202713
>Two Frenchmen with horribly disparate dialects would still get on together much better than they would with a german
Nice assumption. Do you get along with everyone you meet from the same country as you? And *always* better than someone from another country?

Besides, if we're talking about pre-modern times, the concept of "Frenchman" and "German" did not exist. (Well, OK, it kinda did for France, being a clear exception. But a royalist and a republican would not have got on very well...)

Here's an important but tangential question: Where are you from and how many languages do you speak?

Neighbouring dialects could understand each other, and you would certainly recognize a dialect of your language. Most are mutually intelligible with varying degrees of work. The point is rather that they mark you as "other".

>>3202958
>Nice assumption. Do you get along with everyone you meet from the same country as you? And *always* better than someone from another country?
I'd necessarily get along with a person from the same country as me because the communication barrier wouldn't exist. Are you being purposefully obtuse or just retarded now?

>>3202922
Yes, it is.

Nationalism = states organized on ethnic lines
Nationalism =/= "ethnicities exist"

Both nationalists and anti-nationalists get confused by this for some reason.

>>3202958
>dat circular logic
Explain.

>>3202969
Bullshit. Your odds of getting along with someone from (assuming you're English-speaking) Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Ireland, South Africa, etc. etc. are reasonably high. You're not going to get along with some dude who just raped your mother and then shot her in the face just because you're both wearing "Team USA" shirts.

It's a weak argument bro. If I were you I'd just let it quietly die.

>>3203000
>English is now a transnational lingua franca in the era of post nationalism therefore two French men in the 19th century wouldn't have had a better rapport with one another even if their dialects were disparate when compared to the rapport they would have with a german or an Englishman that didn't speak a lick of french

Die retard. Don't even bother coming up with a rebuttal, I'm not even going to bother to read it.

>>3202986
>nationalism has always existed no matter what, but under other names, therefore I can take any example as proof of my argument

Again, the concept of nations was invented in the 19th century. YOU might apply the name retroactively to group X, Y, or Z, but that does not mean X, Y, or Z saw themselves as a nation according to your definition. More than likely, they did not.

>>3202958
>Being this much of an uneducated peasant in such a vast and complicated subject as nationalism


If we define the nation and therefor nationalism as a sentiment shared by people that adhere to a common culture, set of principals or other values that create a solidarity between members of a community, then we might as well call gays as members of a nation. Yes, there is such a thing as Queer nationalism in case your simple mind didn't comprehend.

However, gays/lesbians/whateveryoucallthem are basing their solidarity in this case with their sexual orientation. Which is not enough in itself for them to be named a nation, because the reproductive factor is important in transmitting these set of principles and solidarity feeling to the next generations of your community in order for it to survive as a culture. A thing which has existed since medieval times. First in the forms of "christian nations", then as european cultures and societies became more and more complex, so did this exact feeling of what defined the collective solidarity called nationalism evolve in parallel.

>>3202971
No it's not you fucking retard. All the various german stats prior to unification were very well aware that it's members are part of a single nation and are part of an imaginary unified country which did not yet exist. Just because in the german case there are written records of it in modern times does not mean it did not exist in prior times. Holy shit do the people that browse this fucking place even bother to read on the shit they give their opinion on?

>>3203044
>the concept of nations was invented in the 19th century
Look up the definition of "nation" and hang your head in shame.

>>3203032
Glad to see you have taken opted for my advice to let your weak argument die. Pride comes before a fall, of course.

>>3200634
It also means to have feelings of superiority of ones own country over others

>>3203072
Not even him but you reaffirmed his argument but you're too stupid to even realize it. People who can speak in a common tongue can relate to each other better right off the bat than people who can't.

>>3203057
You use a lot of words to say very little.

Medieval peasants didn't give a fuck what cultural traits were being transmitted on the other end of their Sprachbund. 19th century nationalism was not really a grass-roots movement. It was promulgated by educated romantics and then picked up by the military/ruling classes before even beginning to spread to the peons.

>>3203062
>relying on the dictionary to make your point
nigga puh-lease. We may have slightly different working definitions of what a "nation" and nationalism are, but I am viewing it in the political sense, which is the predominant way the pleb on the street would view it. What's your nation? (Insert country name here)

>>3203087
Relate to each other ≠ nationalism inherent. As I said, it's a weak argument.

>>3203165
Only Americans think that nation is a synonym of country. Anywhere in Europe it means an ethnic group.

>>3203165
>Relate to each other ≠ nationalism inherent. As I said, it's a weak argument.
Common langue is the fundamental building block of nationalism. Two Frenchmen from opposite sides of France would necessarily be able get along with each other better right off the bat than they would with a german right across the Rhine through ease of communication alone. Not too difficult to understand.

>>3203177
It's more complicated than that bud. And I should know, because I am Eurofag btw.

>>3203223
That still doesn't mean they would, and it still doesn't 'presto chango' make nationalism. It takes more than that. Not too difficult to understand.

>>3203165
>>relying on the dictionary to make your point
>nigga puh-lease.
That's where you learn what words mean.
You fucking retard.

File: wtf2.gif (1MB, 300x191px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x191px

>he learns things from the dictionary.
>mfw I'm conserving with someone who thinks 8-year old logic is some kind of checkmate.

>>3203165
>You use a lot of words to say very little.

You confuse the idea of a nation with the process of nationalism

>>3200615
Nationalism is a modern phenomena. Tribalism is what you're thinking of.

>>3205387
>Nationalism is a modern phenomena.

That's just your modern understanding of nationalism

>Tribalism is what you're thinking of.

I'm sorry but that's just fucking retarded and you should go read a book

>>3202553
Jan Hus was butthurt because Czech language was disappearing and many Czechs increasingly spoke German as their mother tongue, so he reformed Czech orthography and with his followers started promoting Czech language everywhere. Hussites were decidedly nationalist and viewed Catholicism as a form of German/Latin domination.
Honestly if it wasn't for him, there would be no Czech nation right now, they would al, be considered just Germans.

File: c62.jpg (136KB, 546x700px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 546x700px

>all those /pol/tards in stage 1: denial when their phony idea of nationalism is proven to be nothing but just another arbitrary manipulation scheme and opposed to tribalism

>>3205429

Calling it denial would give them the benefit of thinking they know what they're talking about


protip; Most poltards are highschoolers with no other superior education which is why their knowledge on definitions and scholarship is limited

File: paul_1.jpg (42KB, 610x255px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 610x255px

>>3203177
Funny because most countries in Europe are artificial and their nationalism just a fake shit created in the 19 century to control the masses

t. I live in the most artificial country of all, SHITaly

>>3205478
define artificial

File: 1485128664772.png (36KB, 856x756px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 856x756px

>>3205500
Fake

Ie: creating a baseless identity and promoting it as if it always existed, then crushing local identities in favor of the new artificial one

Our hymn literally says "we were divided for centuries because we were not a people". Of course, because there was never such a thing as an "italian" people, it's a modern invention

>>3205379
You can't have one without the other. It's as if you were talking about the idea of porcelain teacups before there was porcelain. Sure, you could find a drinking horn, a golden chalice or a fired clay cup. That doesn't make drinking horns, golden chalices or fired clay cups porcelain teacups.

The word 'nation' is older than the idea of nationalism, but just a few centuries, and with a different meaning. Words can change meaning, you know. Like if you said "we'll have a gay old time" today versus 120 years ago, they'd have quite different meanings.

The answer to OPs question in the way he meant (modern nationalism) is "no". Ancient civs did not view themselves along (modern) nationalist lines.

>>3205527
>there was never such a thing as an "italian" people

?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_peoples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Italy

>>3205546
Italics != italian

And roman Italy doesn't fully coincides with modern Italy's limits. Neither did it have a consistence, as the papal states, the zones under HRE, etc were not an identical continuation of it. Forgot to add also that southern Italy was inhabited by greeks, Sardegna still today by a living fossil people related to corsicans and the north by celts, therefore Italian peninsula isn't synonym with italic peoples either

>>3205566
>Italics != italian

Well, there's your explanation as to why you think the italian nation is an artificial one. 19th century nationalism was focused more on civic issues in an era with much political turmoil so it's understandable that they'd view themselves as a civic nation rather than an ethnic one. But that's the thing about how nations defined themselves across history. They can be civic ones, who evolved into ethnic ones, and vice versa. It's all simply a matter of perspective and what circumstances shapes that certain perspective

>>3200545
>Carthaginians.

>City-states.
>Nationalist
Que?

>>3205537
>You can't have one without the other.

The concept of nation is independent from the concept of nationalism. While the later deals strictly with a particular set of ways of looking at the past and set of sentiments, the first deals with the relation between individuals that share a common culture outside political circumstances, e.g german people no longer killing each other based on tribal things like warrior culture, honor or revenge killings. From this point of view, the step between a tribe and a nation could be related to socio-economics

>>3203615
>makes up his own definition for words just to pretend he won an argument

Autism.

>>3205604
>city states can't be nations
That's extremely wrong even by the narrow modern definition of "nation".

Nationalism is an extension of a basic animal instinct for social animals like apes.

Nations have existed for thousands of years.

Anyone who says "nations" and "nationalism" are recent inventions from the 17th-18th-19th century is extremely retarded.

>>3201398
They fought together because in many cases they were direct neighbors. only very late Greeks would have been able to conceptualize Greece like that. During Alexander's reign of course.

Just on a basis of what context would be available to an ancient Greek.

>>3206007
>Nations have existed for thousands of years.
ok but how do we know which culture formed a nation and which didn't? Were the celts a nation? were the etruscs or sumerians a nation?

>>3205387
>If I play semantics enough then people will think I'm smart

>>3206016
>ok but how do we know which culture formed a nation and which didn't?
By verifying if they formed nations.

>Were the celts a nation? were the etruscs or sumerians a nation?
Depends on whether or not they formed nations.

You do know what a nation is, right? You could always look it up if you don't.

>>3206037

On what definition? If you mean the official one, then "nations having existed for thousands of years" is wrong because we'd be talking about a culture not a nation

>>3206047
>On what definition?
The definition of nation.

>If you mean the official one, then "nations having existed for thousands of years" is wrong because we'd be talking about a culture not a nation
Wait, are you talking about the Celts, Etruscans, and Sumerians?
Because I never said they collectively formed nations. I wasn't even the one who brought them up.

>>3200545
The Romans were the first globalists.

>>3206064
Post-Caracalla, yes. And Rome started declining soon after.
Before Caracalla, Roman citizenship was heavily regulated within the empire.

>>3205429
There was nothing arbitrary or manipulative about nationalist movements at all.

>>3200545
Yes.

Nationalism not existing before the 19th century is one the dumbest memes in history. Nationalism was always present somewhere at some point throughout all of history.

>>3206059
That's the thing tho, we need to know exactly the definition as to what a nation is so we can manage to accurately gradually trace back this phenomenon and see how far it goes

>>3206184
>we need to know exactly the definition as to what a nation is
This definition is readily available.

>>3205913
I did my MA in history, drawing heavily on theories of nation. I'm a teacher now and it's a theme we discuss in classes at least several times a year. I know what I'm talking about numbnuts, unlike your highschool-age edgelord self. If the dictionary is your primary source of argumentation on a topic, you're doing it wrong.

>>3206144
>Nationalism not existing before the 19th century is one the dumbest memes in history. Nationalism was always present somewhere at some point throughout all of history.

Because Nationalism as everybody uses it today always leads you back to the "one race, one culture, in one country" meme of the 19th Century.

Not to mention dumbasses who mistake Civic Identities or Dynastic Loyalties as nationalism outright.

It's always funny watching Marxists drone on about how precarious and arbitrary nationalist sentiments are when they unironically believe one day billions of people all around the world will all march in ideological lockstep of a global communist revolution with the only thing uniting them being their relation to capital as wage earners.

>>3206007
>look at me pull ideas out of my ass to justify my political stance, despite scholarly consensus to the contrary.

The simple fact is that prior to the Renaissance (at the earliest), a "nationalist" concept of human organization did not exist. It's just not how people thought. Applying the term retroactively to cherrypicked examples doesn't mean nationalism is actually thousands of years old.

Not the least because nationalism is essentially egalitarian. A romantic notion of one people (based on XYZ), all the same, despite your geographic/class/professional/religious/whatever differences. Most ancient societies were very stratified. Telling a muck-raking pleb he's the same group as a 6th generation senator because they speak the same language and are one people... they'd both laugh in your face.

>>3208340
What thread have you been reading to prompt this comment? It's certainly not this thread...

>>3208259
"Nations" were not invented a few centuries ago.
No matter how hard you want to ignore the basic definition of the word "nation".

If you really are a teacher, choose a different career as quickly as possible before you poison any of your students with your bullshit.

>>3208344
Nationalism simply refers to a group of people that identify typically with a piece of territory (temporarily in case of migratory groups).
The same concept has existed long before apes even evolved.

Nations predate the renaissance by millenia, and so does nationalism in the strictest sense.

Stop making a fool of yourself.

>>3208351
Not him, but what prompted that comment is all the retards itt trying to claim that nationalism is a recent invention.

>>3208344
>The simple fact is that prior to the Renaissance (at the earliest), a "nationalist" concept of human organization did not exist.
Anyone who ever took pride in their country/nation was a nationalist.

Unless you want to argue that nations did not exist before the renaissance, you should know how obviously wrong you are being.

And if you do want to argue that nations did not exist before the renaissance, know that the definition for "nation" (common culture, language, not necessarily geographically tied, ...) is arguably even looser than the one for "country" (well-defined territory with central government, not necessarily common culture and language, ...), and arguably more conducive to feelings of pride. So it would be best to just stop posting and go read a fucking book.

>>3208623
I've said this many times already, but you cannot apply a relatively modern concept all the way back to homo habilis. That's just fucking retarded. You might as well claim communism, libertarianism and theocracy always existed in human groups, too.

The concept of labelling a certain in-group a 'nation' instead of other labels is necessarily tied up with other ideas. It's earliest use was akin to "ethnicity", but that word didn't exist yet either. The word and concept did not enter widespread use until the 19th century nationalist waves. It is ridiculous applying the label to ancient civilizations who would not have used the label, because they would not have conceived themselves that way.

>Nationalism simply refers to a group of people that identify typically with a piece of territory
No, it does not "simply" mean that. It's obvious you can't see past your nose on this, though.

>>3208680
>dat circular logic

>>3208680
>read a book
I've read several on nationalist theories alone, thanks. You've consulted an online dictionary.

>>3208901
"Nation" is not a modern concept. Neither is "country".

>>3208905
Have you read the definition of "nation", or "country"?
Well, "nationalism" simply refers to a sense of pride in one's nation/country/...

>>3208912
>Have you read the definition of "nation", or "country"?
>Well, "nationalism" simply refers to a sense of pride in one's nation/country/...
>facepalm.gif
Just stop.

You may use "nation" as a convenient shorthand for what seems to be a fairly logical idea (to us, today). But that does not mean ancient civlizations (OPs question), let alone fucking hominids, actually viewed themselves according to your modern understanding of nation(alism). I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

>>3208942
Read the definitions for the terms nation and country.
They apply specifically to ancient nations and countries as well.

>>3200987
What the fuck do you even Mean?

Watching the basement dwellers itt sperging out when confronted with the fact that nations are a 19th century meme is hilarious.

>b-but nations have always existed

no they have not you retards

>>3209003
Look up the definition for "nation".

File: ic1Sgvk.png (684KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 1280x720px

>>3209021
look up nationalism, there where literaly no concept of "nations" before the 18th century.

it is just a meme for losers to feel special about what their "people" have achieved beacuse they have no accomplishments of their own.

>>3209003
>b-but nations have always existed
There is difference between "nation" and "modern nation". The first one can be applied much more liberally.

Also this is not /pol/, so stop chearleading. Just because your views once upon the time allign with he winning side of thread doesn't mean you are smart or knowledgeable.

>>3209071
>>3209003
>dude nations were invented in the 19th century lmao before that an Englishman didn't think himself different from a Frenchman or Spaniard lmao

What did the retard mean by this?

>>3209003
>literallycanteven.png

>>3209071
>there where literaly no concept of "nations" before the 18th century
You would be correct only if you changed the definition of the word "nation".

>>3209083
>Englishman didn't think himself different from a Frenchman or Spaniard lmao

Your average Englishman only cared about whatever village he happened to be born in. His "fellow countrymen" from other regions where just as distant to him as your average Spaniard.

>>3206089

Lmao what?

A rich non-citizen could buy citizenship.

Poor non-citizens served 20 years as auxilia and got citizenship.

Roman enfranchisement was very inclusive for the time.

>>3208912
That patriotism you uneducated anglo moron. Noone west of the Rhine should talk about Nationalism, you westerners can't even imagine it.

>>3209071
Just like the "nationalism always was" people you are wrong. Nations in the modern legalist sense started in 1648 after the peace treaty in Westphalia.

>>3200545
No, nationalism didn't exist until the 19th century.

>>3209083
Except they literally didn't. English and French identity started earlier, but Spanish as a primary identity didn't catch on until late in the 1800's, and it was forced onto the various "Spanish" peoples. People thought of themselves as Basque before Spanish, or Catalan, or Leonese.

Occitan and Leonese had to be forcibly purged by the French and Spanish governments to created the "national identity" meme. Otherwise, it's usually a great shared hardship that galvanized the population into a greater national identity.

Italian, German, and Spanish are all very late identities that were purposely created and implemented by specific parties in the 19th century

>>3209209

Welsh started even earlier, their very name, Cymreag, is derived from Civitates (citizen) via Late Brittonic "Cumbrogi" (compatriots). They have clearly identified themselves in contrast to the English and Irish invaders long before England was a nation, and before even the Visigoths began the process of Spanish national identity formation.

>>3209083
>Englishman didn't think himself different from a Frenchman or Spaniard
Listen up m8, they LITERALLY DIDN'T THINK IN THOSE [NATIONAL] TERMS.

They were subjects of Monarch XYZ, from a specific location of the realm, and for some also 'Member of THIS Church'. And that was just the step before. Self-identifying terms of the "nation" weren't common yet, not in the way we understand it today. For them it was more like what we'd call "race".

>Englishman
Pretty rude to Irishmen, Scots and first-gen colonists.

>>3200545
No. And no. Nationalism is very recent, only coming about in the past 500 years and only really kicking up in the 19th century. People formed their identity not from a broad state but from their local community.

As a side note, expansionary multicultural, multiethnic, and multilingual empires like the Roman Empire are inherently non-nationalistic.

>>3209090
What definition are you using? The one found in the dictionary used by laypeople or the ones used by historians and political scientists?

>>3208340
Lol this

>>3208623
Maybe examples would help your argument.

The only recent thing about nationaism is the idea that the nation-state should have all the members of the nation in its borders.

People identifying with others based on their shared language/culture, thinking they are superior etc is a social construct and changed from time to time and from different regions. At times you could call it kind of nationalistic, at others not.
Take the Greeks for example, they ruled themselves on city-states but did recognise themselves as part of a bigger culture. Some of them were pro-unity, most weren't. Was that nationalistc or not you may ask? IT DEPENDS ON THE CASE FFS
Why do you autists want to be absolute about this?

>>3202985
This
In that regard then yes, nationalism is a modern concept. This entire thread really doesn't need to be so fucking long

>>3209237
That surrounded and harassed minorities would get a buffalo circle mentality.

>>3209353
>Why do you autists want to be absolute about this?
Because undermining notions of national unity is extremely useful both for the prevailing neoliberal order and the Marxist left, therefore we are supposed to male pretend people only cared about the immediate surroundings of their hometown and nothing more until notions of nationalism proofed themselves into existence in the 19th century.

>>3209549
Yah that's what my idea to. I really don't want to be that autist sperging about "Marxism" but I can't see how this bullshittery can help anyone but people who wish to take away national identity and replace it with a class one. What better way to do so than pretend the national identity wasn't real to begin with (well it is actually a social conscruct, but one that has existed for millenia was naturally developed).

>>3209269
>For them it was more like what we'd call "race".
You just shot your entire argument with that last sentense.

>>3209614
Again, you're still using an overly broad umbrella understanding of "nation". OBVIOUSLY people associated with others around them somehow, but in the past it was a more tangible circle. They were both subjects of King X, residents of town Y, or part of family clan Z and so on. To claim that these are all exact equivalents of a "nation" is ignoring the fundamental political difference with nationalism. Again, you *might* take "nation" as a convenient shorthand for any associated group in a very general sense, but that's a fallacy from your modern POV. It is not how the people themselves would've grouped themselves. It is obvious that you have no grounding in political theories here. Try reading a few books.

>I really don't want to be that autist sperging about "Marxism"
Aha, no wonder you /pol/spergs are so obtuse on this. It's part of some anti-Marxist contrarianism.

>You just shot your entire argument with that last sentense.
Nah. We're opening a can of worms here, but I don't think you understand how 'race' was used either. Before a few hundred years ago or so ago, people wouldn't have commonly used such terms to identify with on a daily basis. But if they lived in a larger state/realm, and you pestered them long enough about their linguistic and geographical connection to someone from Exeter and Newcastle, they might say part of the "English Race", which meant more ethnicity (not skin colour, in case that's not obvious). The follow-up notion that this would mean 'something bigger' was not yet there.

You might shrug and say "yea, derp, well, same thing", but they really aren't. The conceptual act of unifying disparate regional groups under one inherent "nation" was the novelty. I think you take for granted how normal this seems today and assume it was always so. Wrong.

Of course that doesn't mean people didn't associate with other 'alike' people, but it wasn't under the clear guise of a 'nation'. Again, try reading some actual history books.

>>3209549
>therefore we are supposed to male pretend people only cared about the immediate surroundings of their hometown and nothing more until notions of nationalism proofed themselves into existence in the 19th century.

You're a fucking idiot. Nobody was saying that. What people were saying is that there were other ways of how states & identities were conceptualized by people that isn't concurrent with notions of Nation. As such there were identities that people embraced that were bigger than their hometown/tribe/clan that is *not* the nation. An Empire for a fucking start, which is usually centered around either Dynastic Loyalty or Imperial Identity as opposed to a national one.

>>3211143
>they might say part of the "English Race"
I don't see how that is any different from the concept of a nation. Unless you want to tell me that you need a unified state for a nation to exist, in which case we all fucking agree that this notion of nationalism is indeed a modern invention and this entire thread was pointless.

I don't even use /pol/ btw and telling me to "read a book" twice in your post is kinda bitchy but ok

>>3209168
That's what I said, it was highly regulated and not available to commoners outside of Rome and later Italy.

>>3209172
According to Merriam-Webster (and plenty of other sources), patriotism and nationalism are near-synonyms: strong pride in one's country or nation; the only distinction being that patriotism does not necessarily imply an air of superiority.
The Oxford English dictionary even describes nationalism as "patriotic feelings".

Looks like you're the one with some self-education to do.

>>3211143
>you're still using an overly broad umbrella understanding of "nation"
Look up the definition.
We'll wait.

>>3211552
Or even better, can he finally give us the strict motherfucking definition of what a nation is since the dictionaries have it wrong apparently?

>>3211169
For there to be empires, there first have to be nations/states/countries/...
The conquering state, and the conquered states that make up the empire.

>>3211554
That would be sweet.

>>3209549
This.

>>3209296
>What definition are you using? The one found in the dictionary used by laypeople or the ones used by historians and political scientists?
Lmao. They all generally use the same definitions as the basis, since there is often no definitive consensus on the specifics of these terms.

You're a typical example of "that kid" who thinks the more specific and obscure the terms you use, the smarter and more correct you are.

>>3211586
What exactly is neoliberal about people identifying with their local area, region or duchy before the spread of romantic nationalism in mid 19th century?

>>3211614
It's true though, it leads to a lot of confusion if someone uses nation in the sense of country or nation in the sense of an ethnic group - which seems to be ba big issue in this thread.

>>3211631
>What exactly is neoliberal about people identifying with their local area, region or duchy before the spread of romantic nationalism in mid 19th century?
People still do that on top of identifying as part of the larger nation/state.
Even in the US, where localized identity is the same age pretty much as national identity.

>It's true though, it leads to a lot of confusion if someone uses nation in the sense of country or nation in the sense of an ethnic group - which seems to be ba big issue in this thread.
That's not the source of confusion.
The confusion is between these two:
1) "nation" as near-synonym of country
and
2) "nation" as an extremely specific entity that somehow only came into existence a few centuries ago

Definition 2) wholly conflicts with the general dictionary definition of "nation" as used by laymen and historians alike.

>>3211143
Take notes kids, this is what pedantry and semantic nitpicking looks like.

File: 6_tipov_ras.jpg (53KB, 512x455px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 512x455px

>>3202653
and most importantly: race

>>3209283
>People formed their identity not from a broad state
Of course they did.

File: Assface_Doggo.jpg (9KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 320x320px

>>3200973
>Nations were """""invented""""" to:
>break free from the before existing Supra-National structures
gotcha

>>3211662
It's hard to talk about this as if it was completely monolithic all over the world but at its core, people used to identify far more with the local than the wider ethnic identity. That doesn't mean that that can't be true today but the further back one goes, the less people have a national identity and identify more with their region. They did realise that people outside their communities spoke a variation of their language but that wasn't necessarily of any meaning to them because those people belonged to a different regional group.

>>3212354
Phenotypes can vary among people of the same ethnicity, you know.

>>3212404
Nations have existed on earth for millennia, and wherever you find nations, you will find nationalism, because nations would not last a day without people wanting to preserve them.

It is definitely true, however, that a lot less of the world's surface was taken up by nations in the past, and that ancient modes of transport and communication made nationalistic sentiment more difficult across larger territories.

But it is also very true that nationalism is in itself simply an extension of tribalism, which is in turn simply an extension of group instinct in social animals like apes.

>>3212421
>people wanting to preserve them.
That's not nationalism, just self preservation. There really was no push for uniting nations into their own countries before the 19th century.

>>3212449
Well how are you going to preserve a nation without anyone having a sense of pride in said nation?
You're not, that's how.

Nationalism, tribalism, patriotism, pride, ... is a requirement for the preservation of countries, nations, states, tribes, ...

Nationalism is an imagined community. A community that shares a common, language history, identity etc.

File: Babur_of_India.jpg (192KB, 578x780px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 578x780px

>>3211561
>For there to be empires, there first have to be nations/states/countries/...
Again, not necessarily nations.

Most Empires in history have been started by
>Monarchic dynasties
>Theocracies.
>City-States.
>Fucking individuals.
Nation just got in the Empire game by the 18th/19th Century. And it was ill-equipped to do so because it kept on shrieking about exclusivity while wanting to ruling over people from different races, cultures, and creeds.

>>3212604
>Monarchic dynasties
>Theocracies.
>City-States.
These are generally all states/nations/countries/empires/...

>Fucking individuals
You mean leaders.

>Nation just got in the Empire game by the 18th/19th Century.
Fuck no.

File: Mughal India-26.jpg (311KB, 1574x1200px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1574x1200px

>>3212615
>These are generally all states/nations/countries/empires/...
Wrong. Monarchies and theocracies aren't based on states: it's the other way around. The state is centered around a dynasty or a religion. As such, people who live in them have identities that go beyond mere nationality. This doesn't even include imperial dynasties and theocracies based on universalist religions who believe they ought to rule the world.

Which is why states centered around monarchic dynasties and theocracies tend to have people from different nations. Despite this they share the same identity due to being loyal to a dynasty or to a given creed.

Layered identities. Look it up.
>You mean leaders.
I posted a picture Babur for a very good reason: he wasn't a state leader when he founded the Mughal Empire. In fact he was a landless hobo-lord with an army after the Uzbeks ousted him from his tiny little princedom in Transoxania, working as a mercenary around Central Asia. In addition his army is a multinational clusterfuck held together solely because Babs is their liege lord, along with those who do so because Babur paid them top dollar.

>>3212665
What the fuck are you babbling about.

Kingdoms and theocracies (which largely overlap since a king's power often comes from deities) are states/countries/nations/...

The widely accepted definitions of the term "state" boil down to the same basic thing: a centralized political entity with laws, people, and territory.
These things have been around for millennia.

>he wasn't a state leader
He was a leader who ended up emperor.

Do you have a mental condition of some sort?

>>3211552
>>3211554
>a dictionary definition you just googled is more authoritative than a dozen books read and an MA written on the topic.

There is no strict definition you mong, is that not obvious by now?

>>3212343
>I'm in over my head, and can't compete so I'll resort to being a crab in a bucket
Go drink bleach, kiddo.

>>3212367
Prove it.

>>3212421
>yfw this meme again...

>>3212856
>a dictionary definition you just googled is more authoritative than a dozen books read and an MA written on the topic.
Absolutely.
Show me one book where the general dictionary definition of nation or state is contradicted.

>There is no strict definition
Which is exactly why you're retarded for trying to push your overly specific autistic definition on others.

Literally everyone uses the general dictionary definitions as the basis.

>>3212697
You're the one who keeps equating nation = state.

They're not the same thing until you start talking about nation-states.

>>3212870
Literally every state that ever existed.

>>3212872
>yfw no refutation again

>>3211662
"Dictionary says" arguments have no place in any discussion. Are you literally 12?

Dictionaries are not authorities, they simply reflect common word usage. That's why "literally" also now means figuratively. Words change their meanings over time, and it's obvious who the un-learned here by arguing against scholarly consensus and the history/development of the word and concept.
>BUT MUH DICTIONARY SAID!!

>>3212883
That's a claim, not proof, you massive retard.

>>3212880
They are nearly synonyms, yes.

>>3212884
>"Dictionary says" arguments have no place in any discussion.
Lol.

>Dictionaries are not authorities, they simply reflect common word usage.
Exactly.
And the broad consensus on terms like nation and state is entered into dictionaries.

>>3212889
Anyone who ever lived in a state at one point identified as a resident of that state.

>>3212877
And everyone thinking a black hole is a club in Atlanta doesn't negate astrophysicists' knowledge of the matter.

Instead of being such an anti-intellectual cunt, why don't you entertain the idea for just a minute that maybe you are wrong or simply uninformed.

The notion of nationalism I'm explaining is pretty standard in any history department.

>>3212894
Still not proof. You're begging the question, and you are making the classic rookie error of assuming past people had the exact same ontological mooring points as you.

>>3212903
"Nationalism" simply refers to patriotic feelings towards a nation/state/...

Since nations/states/... have existed for millennia, nationalism has likewise existed for millennia.

Like many others said in this thread it is hard to denote what "nationalism" would have been for ancient people when nation states did not exist back then.

A nation state is something quite specific. For example a citizen of a Greek city state would not be considered "nationalist" since his first allegiance is to the demos, and not to the more extended Greek ethnic people (though panhellenism was a very active idea in the classical era).

Considering large states and empires as nationalist is also quite ahistorical.

The Persian empire at its height had at least a hundred small ethnic groups inside its borders. Egypt though quite insular is confronted by the mystery of Hyksos, which we still do not know what they were and what role they played in initiating the Second Intermediate Period, where they outsiders? Or exiled Egyptians? We do not know.

As for Carthage and Rome, yes one quite ahistorically could say they were nationalists, but there were important differences. Carthage fought for economic supremacy in the Mediterranean, as it was a mercantile republic. Rome fought for land and expansion of its military hold. Both the goals in which they fought and what their goals signify a quite different approach. Carthage when it expanded, it built trade settlements and cities. Rome on the other hand conquered, and then absorbed the native populace by "militarising" the conquered provinces, which is why later it became a multi-ethnic empire.

I think nationalism is a very recent phenomenon, that has even largely waned in the 20th-21st century. For example Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were not nationalist at all. Nazi Germany believed in the superiority of race beyond borders. The Soviet Union on the other hand believed in the Marxist struggle of classes which also extended beyond nations. The US is also more of a hybrid of nationalist 19th century liberal civic nationalist tendencies and cosmopolitan finance expansionist policies.

>>3212909
Are you seriously saying that until a few centuries ago, nobody ever identified as part of the larger state under which they lived?

>>3212915
>A nation state is something quite specific.
Nationalism doesn't refer exclusively to nation states.

It refers to nations, states, countries, etc. All of which have existed for millennia.

>>3212924

If you wanna stretch the term that widely then it makes no sense to call it nationalism which refers to a specific period in time.

Just call it tribal identification with the state. To call a Muslim fighting for Umayyad caliphate "nationalist" is pure stupidity.

>>3212920
They identified as part of their ethnic group first

>>3212910
>"Nationalism" simply refers to patriotic feelings towards a nation/state/...
Wrong. Nationalism will always exclusively have to deal with a nation.

Its counterparts in other state identities would be Patriotism (love of ones country, civic pride basically) and Fealty (loyalty to one's monarchs).

>>3212949
Kek, they identified as part of their town/city/clan first if you want to play the firsts game.

>>3212940
>If you wanna stretch the term that widely
Not me, but the broad scientific consensus as reflected in the dictionaries.

>nationalism refers to a specific period in time
No it doesn't.

>To call a Muslim fighting for Umayyad caliphate "nationalist" is pure stupidity.
Why?
Islamic nationalism is very much a thing.
As is religious nationalism in general.

>>3212949
So do many people today, even nationalists.
Ever heard of black or white nationalists?

>>3212952
>Wrong. Nationalism will always exclusively have to deal with a nation.
And nations have existed for millennia.
Also, you're wrong. "Nationalism" doesn't simply refer to nations, but also states, cultures, ethnicities, even races.

>>3212959
And as part of their family firstst.
And as part of their household firststst.

>>3212461
Before the rise of nationalism, it wasn't part of state policy to focus on rooting out certain ethnicities.
When the Ottomans invaded the Balkans and started enroaching on Serbian lands, many Serbs moved to the northwest. They settled on Austrian lands among Slovenes and Croats and on many occasions, they faced their own people who would march under the Ottoman banner. To them, defending the Military march was a matter of self-preservation but this defence had no nationalist sentiment. And not too far away to the west, about two hundred years before the Serbs started their migrations, Slovenes marched among Friulians to attack communities of Slovene old believers. Common blood did not matter when they destroyed the old believers' holy places. On the other side, the old believers fought for their self-preservation, but that of a community, not a nation.

>>3212470
Nation, not nationalism.

Nations in Western Europe started at about the 9th century. Before that they identified as tribal units seperated by ethnicity. You had Burgundians, Franks , Suebi, Alemanni, Saxons, Goths, Lombards etc.

Once these tribe created states, connected to the concept of kingship and landed tribute, nations started springing up. i.e. France, England, Holy Roman Empire, Scotland, etc. They were not however nation-states, they were nations as defined by kingship. Feudalism is just system you have, when you have both national "royal" interest and feudal interests colliding, or working together.

It is a dialectical process that eventually led to the dismantling of the landed aristocracy, increase of the power of the third estate, and eventually resulted in the Nationalism of the 19th century. Nation by then had come to include not only the states power, but also citizenship, economic obligations, the question of race, origin, religious affiliation and loyalty etc.

>>3212975
>Before the rise of nationalism, it wasn't part of state policy to focus on rooting out certain ethnicities.
Yes it was in some cases.
Just like genocide is only present in some cases in today's nationalism.

>>3212981
>Nations in Western Europe started at about the 9th century.
There were nations in Europe way before that. States, even.

File: 1343995676010.jpg (31KB, 426x331px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 426x331px

>>3212975
>Before the rise of nationalism, it wasn't part of state policy to focus on rooting out certain ethnicities.
Are you for real?

>>3212981
>Nations in Western Europe started at about the 9th century.
>Meanwhile, in the 1200s.
>"Hi this is the Angevin Dynasty, and welcome to Jackass."

>>3212988

A tribal federation is not really a nation, its first in-group identification is with the tribe not the "nation of Germanics" for example.

If we include southern europe, then there were nations but only in the colloquial terminology of defining them. One would prefer to say the Roman Republic and not the Roman nation, since the first identification was with the Roman system of aristocratic governance. All Romans identified as the Roman people, but there really wasn't a Roman nation in the way we use it today. The Roman state was also quite unlike todays states it never occurred that Roman plebeians would be ever standing at the same rank as Roman senatorial families. A prussian general however could be humble junker farmer and it wound't matter.

>>3213001
Alright, I should've expanded on that. They did, you're right, but persecution was mostly based on religion.

>>3213017
>A tribal federation is not really a nation
Even a single tribe meets the definition of nation.

And there were plenty of states before that, from Greek city-states to Rome.

>One would prefer to say the Roman Republic and not the Roman nation
"Nation" is a relatively modern English word, but the concept of "nation" refers to entities going back several millennia.

>>3213009

It was a fucking mess but still they were called the kings of the English.

My theory is that Plantagenet kings never left the robber baron Norman piratical mentality and they thought they could be considered overlords by exacting tribute over several ethnic groups at the same time. This is why they expanded in Wales and Ireland, while the French were more occupied in consolidating the "nation of France" which was in reality Francia of the Carling dynasty.

>>3213027

In Greek the word for nation is "ethnos", so the referred to the Greek people as the "ethnos" of the Greeks. The Greeks though used the word for state as "kratos" (The word also meant power) . The Greek city state was thus known as "polis-kratos". There were also the "ethnos" of Ionians,Dorians, Aeolians and Achaeans, but these did not designate states but sub-ethnic groups of the Greek people.

>>3213027
The Greeks literally separated Nation (Ethnos), and the City State (Polis).

>>3213031
Its not a mess when you consider that Monarchic Dynasties simply rule over multiple fiefdoms which they collect/lose over time for various reasons. The collection of which ultimately forms the bigger state.

>>3213073
And?

>>3211415
Race, before it mean skin colour, meant a specific in-group (sometimes self selected, sometimes attributed), akin to ethnicity. This is more of a cultural appellation.

"Nation" is a political term.

>>3211548
>>3211552
>>3211554
>quoting the dictionary as your source in a (quasi-)intellectual debate.
Christ, I cringed hard.

>>3211631
>What exactly is neoliberal about people identifying with their local area, region or duchy before the spread of romantic nationalism in mid 19th century?
If the 'Eterna-Nation Since Homo Habilis' faction here admits that, there "nationalism is inherent" argument would be null, and the Marxist bogeyman they like to see behind every corner might evaporate. Can't have that...

>>3213265
"Nationalism" means "to fuck animals".
You have to believe what I say, because I will call you names if you dare refer to the dictionary.

>>3213275
You're too retarded to grasp even the simplest of arguments.

A nation, state, country, ... is simply an expanded version of the monkey troop or primitive human tribe.

>there argument
Embarrassing.

>>3212920
Not using the apparently overly-broad definition of "nation" you are thinking of. So, not in the romantic sense of "one nation". No.

Obviously they would have realized if they were part of this or that political boundary.

>>3212924
Nope.

>>3212961
>broad scientific consensus as reflected in the dictionaries.
lol, that is not even how dictionaries work.

>>3213299
auto-corrected from "the", but OMG YOU TOTALLY KILLED MY ARGUMENTS!

BRB, committing sudoku.

>>3213319
>overly-broad definition of "nation"
I'm just using THE definition.
It's used by historians and laymen alike.

>Nope
Are you saying nationalism only refers to nation states?
Then how do you explain religious nationalism, white nationalism, multi-ethnicity nationalism (like Belgium, Switzerland, ...), etc.?

>>3213321
I never said that was how dictionaries work, but it does often work that way.

File: bhm.jpg (153KB, 538x478px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 538x478px

>>3202553

Sounds pretty nationalist to me. Obviously, these forms of early nationalism were more likely to emerge in zones where two or more nations were present in the same place, as in Bohemia. For an uneducated mediaval/early modern Englishman who is only surrounded by other Englishmen, a strong national consciousness is far less likely, since there is no contact and little knowledge of the other.

>>3213513
No, it doesn't. You really need to move away from the MUH DICTIONARY line of argumentation. It is not only embarrassing for you, or anyone over age 10, but it's a blind alley besides.

>>3213475
>It's used by historians and laymen alike.
I think all of my professors and thesis supervisors would enjoy having a word with you. The fact that ignorant plebs use the word in a generic, ahistoric and overly broad way gives it some credence for using it that way *today*, where it makes sense. But applying it to ancient societies, that they had a concept of a grande unified nation with a shared destiny, is just pants on head retarded. There is simply no evidence for it. As I've already said multiple times, you might use "nation" as a modern shorthand for various ethnic groupings, but it is NOT how they themselves would have identified. Just like they would not have had a 1:1 concept of genderqueer, agnostic, vegan, Tea Party republican, etc. etc. These are essentially modern terms and don't belong as casual descriptors for ancient people. (Not that I think ancient people were vastly different in other ways; I'm sure they still liked sniffing a nice warm pussy and fart jokes and a cold brew at the end of the day and so on...)

>Then how do you explain religious nationalism, white nationalism, multi-ethnicity nationalism
These are all modern innovations resulting from the modern political concept of nationalism. Duh.

>Are you saying nationalism only refers to nation states?
No. That is not what I'm saying.

>Belgian nationalism
lol. Have you ever been to Belgium? Or know anything about it?

>>3213655
I don't really have a problem viewing this as an example of some of the first early rumblings of nationalism. It didn't quite come together then, but it might have had they had better success. I mean, their goal was primarily religious though.

>>3214145
>No, it doesn't. You really need to move away from the MUH DICTIONARY line of argumentation. It is not only embarrassing for you, or anyone over age 10, but it's a blind alley besides.
So where's your definition of "nation" that's so different from the dictionary's?

>I think all of my professors and thesis supervisors would enjoy having a word with you. blablablabla
Trust me, I would LOVE to meet the professors, writers, sociologists, historians, ... that choose to change words that have been in the dictionary since long before they were born.

>These are all modern innovations resulting from the modern political concept of nationalism. Duh.
The modern political concept of nationalism simply means "patriotic pride in one's nation/state/country/...".
This concept goes back many thousands of years.

>lol. Have you ever been to Belgium? Or know anything about it?
I am Belgian.

>>3214214
>So where's your definition of "nation" that's so different from the dictionary's?
FFS, read the thread.

>choose to change words that have been in the dictionary since long before they were born.
Lol, now you're just confirming how ignorant you are. The dictionary definition means shit. Are you really this retarded?

>The modern political concept of nationalism simply means "patriotic pride in one's nation/state/country/...".
No, it really doesn't 'simply' mea that. Maybe you don't understand English?

>Belgian
Post your passport with a timestamp.

>>3214477
>FFS, read the thread.
I will not accept your autistic ramblings, source this shit.

>The dictionary definition means shit.
So show us the definition you use.
Meanwhile you can readily find sociologists and historians all over the internet echoing the dictionary definition, which is the dictionary definition for a reason.

>No, it really doesn't 'simply' mea that. Maybe you don't understand English?
I speak four languages fluently: Dutch, English, French, and German; and the definitions for "nation" and "nationalism" in all of these languages are the same.

>Post your passport with a timestamp.
I'm comfy in my sofa, but here's a little how-do-you-do in my native Flemish dialect:
http://vocaroo.com/i/s1w7meTDSwbi

>>3200575
Really? A tribe acted like a nation does today? Think about it in your head for a while it and realize how stupid a statement that is.