[MENTION=159]-lexus-[/MENTION]
First off, apologies for the late reply.
No problem. Anyways, one thing, Im not sure if you notice it, or if its even you thats causing it, but everytime I quote you, I get a whole lot of extra font and size code and it makes it rather annoying to quote. Just so you know.
There are cultural groups who adhere to a national identity (E.g. the French, as in your example), however those where not of my point. I said that cultural cohesion can exist without nationalism, and I am right. Examples of such cultures are evident in any country, be it via the grouping of racial minorities who have their own cultural/ethnic background or something more ideological. So, while I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the above quoted statement, I am merely saying that if it where true, that is but one example.
Yes, those groups exist, but they were never the basis on which a nation could be build. Within a country, there might have been dozens of these little cultural groups, yet the Nation united them all. "On the contrary, we follow recent scholars view nations not as natural and primordial but as historically constructed; that is, imagined, and created. We view the nation as more or less consciously invented in order to create the cultural, sociological, and psychological conditions necessary to increase the politico-military power of the sovereign territorial state. The development of a full-blown national identity that overrides regional, class, and religious loyalties requires the systematic effort of the state. Creating a sense of nationhood requires the break down of the individual's attunements to local languages and cultures in order to create a common national culture (languages, values, norms of behavior) that includes the state's subject population a common national frame of references across space (i.e., territory) and time (i.e., a single national history). Therefore, initially, the creation of a nation was closely connected to the needs of the territorial state. (Opello and Rosow, 2004
The Nation-state and Global order A Historical introduction to contemporary politics)
Well, people created those ties, not nationalism--though that is of course what you meant. And while a nations identity is always very much rooted in its history, but as is the identity of any social or cultural unit (As aforementioned).
Of course it were people who created the ties. But they used Nationalism to do so. Nationalism is nothing more then a tool that can be used to create a common identity when there wasnt one before.
You know, it would elate me to bliss to be able to understand where this statement stands in the grand scheme of things. since I can't however, I will merely say "Okay".
Well think about it. In the quote I used it clearly says that a single national history needs to be created. Such a history leaves very little room for the actual history, instead it is used to supposedly demonstrate that the nation exists for far longer then actually was the case. Refer to Herman the German, who according to 19th century German nationalist was already fighting to defend the German nation from the Romans, while the German nation is nothing more then a 19th century invention.
Yes, it does more than make more, even I agreed with that in my last post. Nevertheless, my main criticism was that your views on nationalism causing cultural cohesion where over simplified. Anyway, France was France before it had "nationalism" by your example (You mention a king and the statement about bureaucracy is alluding to a government of some sorts). Moreover, a nation must exist before nationalism steps in--no nation, no nationalism. This is not to say that the people could not still feel united without a nation, they could, but it would not be on the grounds of nationalism . In the given definition above, there are two phenomena which nationalism describes:
Both of these require a nation to exist beforehand, thus the issues with the statement that "Nationalism created nations...". Nationalism can unite, cause wars, even cause rebellion, but this all requires the existence of a nation beforehand.
Yes, states did exist. France has been a state for more then a thousand years. But being a state doesnt mean you also have a nation. A state refers exclusively to a government bound to a certain territory.
Anyways, this comes down to Gellners argument which states that it was Nationalism that made nations, or gave nations their identity, by using historical myths, art, etc to create the sense of a common national culture. However, this can only be done during and after the industrial revolution because of the sheer scale it needed to be done. That required a certain level specialization, which in turn needs a certain level of education of all the citizens within a country. This is also why there is no nation before the industrial revolution. The lack of infrastructure to educate and spread a standardized form of national history, language, values and norms of behavior. Countries were way to fractured, and the communication infrastructure simply did not allow for a fast spread of ideas.
I will try to say this in a concise way: I asked for your definition because it is easier to disprove your assertions on the basis of your own definition; if that makes any sense. I asked because I could care less about multiple kinds of nationalism (And to be honest, prior to this debate, I only saw one kind of nationalism, like you I saw no distinction between general and modern nationalism); I wanted your definition. For when I got it I was going go about disproving it via reductio ad absurdum. Sadly any chances of that have all but fallen flat on its arse and I am left doing this the long winded way T.T Much apologies to you Lexicon.
Well, Kaze's definition is mostly correct, however, it deals with nationalism after the creation of a nation, while there is a strong argument to be made that Nationalism is also the tool used to create a nation.
[No problem my friend ^-^
"If nationalism is collective action designed to render the boundaries of the nation congruent with those of its governance unit, then a simple analytic typology of nationalism flows directly out of this definition. Further, this typology helps account for the normative differences between types of nationalism." (Micheal Hechter, 2000
Containing Nationalism)
I believe this to be a much better definition of nationalism, as it also includes Kaze's definition. Except this one also shows that Nationalism is used for nation building.
And that is exactly what I've been trying to points out all these time! Anyone with basic knowledge in History will know the claim that;
This idea of a nation and people referring to themselves as being part of such a nation wasnt around till the end of the 18th century. Before that, people identified themselves more with their local surroundings and people they knew then with countless faceless people living all across the country.
Is just pure garbage.
Funny since there are quite a few historians who claim the same. In fact, it is currently the most accepted theory on nationalism and nations (Opello and Rosow, 2004, The Nationalism Project, retrieved on 29-06-2011).
The Maccabean Revolt (of which you have no idea what you're talking about) is the simplest and clearest example that Nationalism predate the 18th century by hundred of years - if not thousands. The Masoretic Text of which is the official version of the Tanakh, was already in circulation circa 7-10 Centuries CE (ignoring its even more ancient origin). Anyone who read the Old Testament can easily pointed out verses where the Israelite nation are emphasized repeatedly and in a way that fits the definition of Nationalism (even Fascism) perfectly.
Its not Nationalism, pure and simple. It was a religious revolt against one group of Jews who liked the Greeks a bit to much against another group of Jews, who didnt like change that much. That is not Nationalism.
As for your claim about America, they are of equal fantasy as well, but I will just ignore it for now.
"Although patriotism - the desire to raise the prestige and power of one's own nation state relative to rivals in the international system - is often considered to be nationalistic, the present definition rules this usage out. Patriotism is no form of nationalism at all, for here the boundaries of the nation and governance unit are already congruent." (Micheal Hechter, 2000
Containing Nationalism)
Whoops, seems like it isnt just fantasy after all.