Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 30th, 2017, 06:36 PM   #21

PrinceofOrange's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Kingdom of the Netherlands
Posts: 1,811

Such a nonsensical comment that nationalism is a '19th century' concept.

Pick up the book by Azar Gat on Nationalism and you'll learn that nationalism is deeply rooted in humanity and is not a 'vague' concept, but an actual tangible thing. Much of today's problems actually arise due to the fact that we try to live in this so called 'post-national' society or 'global family'.

First of all we simply did not call it nationalism before the 19th century due to the lack of communication so instead of the nation, people mostly referred to more local similarities.

Last edited by PrinceofOrange; August 30th, 2017 at 06:39 PM.
PrinceofOrange is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 30th, 2017, 06:41 PM   #22

robto's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 5,115

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceofOrange View Post
Such a nonsensical comment that nationalism is a '19th century' concept.

Pick up the book by Azar Gat on Nationalism and you'll learn that nationalism is deeply rooted in humanity and is not a 'vague' concept, but an actual tangible thing. Most of today's problems actually arise due to the fact that we try to live in this so called 'post-national' society or 'global family'.

First of all we simply did not call it nationalism before the 19th century due to the lack of communication so instead of the nation, people mostly referred to more local similarities.
You are conflating collective identity with nationalism - those are not synonymous terms.

Nationalism is just one variety of collective identity.
Most of the world prior the 19th century didn't know nationalism neither it was an important mark of identity for th great majority of people, but that doesn't mean that people back then didn't had any sort of collective/cultural identity.

Last edited by robto; August 30th, 2017 at 06:48 PM.
robto is offline  
Old August 30th, 2017, 06:54 PM   #23

PrinceofOrange's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Kingdom of the Netherlands
Posts: 1,811

Quote:
Originally Posted by robto View Post
You are conflating collective identity with nationalism - those are not synonymous terms.

Nationalism is just one variety of collective identity .
Most of the world prior the 19th century didn't know nationalism neither it was an important mark of identity for th great majority of people, but that doesn't mean that people back then didn't had any sort of collective/cultural identity.
Hmm I see your point, but will have to disagree. It is true that nationalism is a form of collective identity, but nationalism has always existed in one way or another. Gat talks of the evolution of kin-culture communities. Sure that community got larger in the 19th century due to technology, for we simply started to know more about the world beyond our own town, but the concept of loyalty towards one's kin is constant throughout history. So lets say we would give the same technology to a 1400's Dutchman, he would probably view his kin the same way the 1900's Dutchman would. Difference being that the technology simply did not enable the guy from 1400 to look far beyond his own village.

Since I used my own country as an example. Dutch people very early on had a very good concept of their nation. Sure there were different states combating for power, but they all had unified under a common Dutch banner to resist Spanish rule. They knew very well what differed them from others. And this was in the 1500's already.
PrinceofOrange is offline  
Old August 30th, 2017, 06:58 PM   #24

PrinceofOrange's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Kingdom of the Netherlands
Posts: 1,811

I feel that their are also a lot of misconceptions on nationalism in general. I will not cover them all in this post, but most shocking is this idea that people think nationalists want their nation to rule/be superior over others. Whilst in fact nationalists usually just prefer their 'own' over others. A very healthy attitude in my view. Just as you would prefer your own family over that of a stranger. That doesnt mean you wish harm towards that other family.
PrinceofOrange is offline  
Old August 30th, 2017, 06:59 PM   #25

robto's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 5,115

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceofOrange View Post
Hmm I see your point, but will have to disagree. It is true that nationalism is a form of collective identity, but nationalism has always existed in one way or another. Gat talks of the evolution of kin-culture communities. Sure that community got larger in the 19th century due to technology, for we simply started to know more about the world beyond our own town, but the concept of loyalty towards one's kin is constant throughout history. So lets say we would give the same technology to a 1400's Dutchman, he would probably view his kin the same way the 1900's Dutchman would. Difference being that the technology simply did not enable the guy from 1400 to look far beyond his own village.
Again, you seem to conflate kin-culture community with nationalism. Nationalism is a form of culture community, but culture community is not nationalism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceofOrange View Post
Since I used my own country as an example. Dutch people very early on had a very good concept of their nation. Sure there were different states combating for power, but they all had unified under a common Dutch banner to resist Spanish rule. They knew very well what differed them from others. And this was in the 1500's already.
By the way, the common banner to resist Spanish rule was religious identity, not exactly national identity.
robto is offline  
Old August 30th, 2017, 07:02 PM   #26

PrinceofOrange's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Kingdom of the Netherlands
Posts: 1,811

Quote:
Originally Posted by robto View Post
Again, you seem to conflate kin-culture community with nationalism. Nationalism is a form of culture community, but culture community is not nationalism.
Well I don't think I do, but we will leave that for another time.

Quote:
By the way, the common banner to resist Spanish rule was religious identity, not exactly national identity.
The Dutch revolt had many origins. Religion, privilige, financial burdons, centralization etc can all be named. Though what sustained it in such a cohesive force for a period of eighty years was a common identity and goal. It was hardly a religious conflict alone. Many catholics happily fought for the Dutch Republic and not for Spain.
PrinceofOrange is offline  
Old August 30th, 2017, 07:09 PM   #27

robto's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 5,115

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceofOrange View Post
Well I don't think I do, but we will leave that for another time.
I actually don't understand exactly what you are saying. Nationalism is referent to a nation, if someone has a strong affection to his local community and its sole identity is attached to his local village than it makes him a person with a collective identity related to that specific village, not the nation. Therefore that sentiment is simply not nationalism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceofOrange View Post
The Dutch revolt had many origins. Religion, privilige, financial burdons, centralization etc can all be named. Though was sustained it in such a cohesive force for a period of eighty years was a common identity and goal. It was hardly a religious conflict alone. Many catholics happily fought for the Dutch Republic and not for Spain.
Religion was not the only issue, but it was the main one - it's what made the war possible to begin with. Other issues were quite feudalistic in nature and also over political issues, but religion was the real mobilizing force behind the war effort of the respective belligerents and it was the most important mark of identity during that period - It was the main polarizing factor.
robto is offline  
Old August 30th, 2017, 07:22 PM   #28

PrinceofOrange's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Kingdom of the Netherlands
Posts: 1,811

Quote:
Originally Posted by robto View Post
Religion was not the only issue, but it was the main one - it's what made the war possible to begin with. Other issues were quite feudalistic in nature and also over political issues, but religion was the real mobilizing force behind the war effort of the respective belligerents and it was the most important mark of identity during that period - It was the main polarizing factor.
Not quite. Both direct and long term causes mostly focus on taxation and sovereignty. In fact what really started hostilities were two things. One being an extra tax (tiende penning ) imposed by the Duke of Alva, second being the bloedraad imposed by the same Duke. Sure the Duke re-instated the inquisition in the low countries and punished those who had taken part during the iconoclastic fury of 1566, but that had not mobilized the Dutch cities when William of Orange did his first attempt to invade the low countries with his German mercenaries. No, instead it was after Alba imposed his new taxations and further centralized power around the landvoogd that Dutch cities steadily started to join in on William's cause during his second invasion. Religion may have kickstarted it somewhat in 1566 during the fury, but none of that had any intention of breaking free from Habsburg rule. The driving factor behind all that was mostly the Dutch nobility who sought more sovereign control over their lands. This they had attempted numerous times by first resisting the reforms proposed by Granvelle and also by resisting the tendencies of Philips II of Spain to circumvent them to approach the landvoogd directly. Not even the calvinists unified during the rebellion. This actually resulted in fact in a very nasty struggle between the grand pensionary Oldenbarneveldt and Maurice of Orange. The Dutch Republic was not just split between catholics and calvnists, but even within calvinists ranks there was very little cohesion (remonstraten vs contra-remonstranten). Those cohesive elements that kept the rebellion going was certainly not based on religion.
PrinceofOrange is offline  
Old August 31st, 2017, 12:23 PM   #29

Rodger's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: US
Posts: 3,323

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceofOrange View Post
I feel that their are also a lot of misconceptions on nationalism in general. I will not cover them all in this post, but most shocking is this idea that people think nationalists want their nation to rule/be superior over others. Whilst in fact nationalists usually just prefer their 'own' over others. A very healthy attitude in my view. Just as you would prefer your own family over that of a stranger. That doesnt mean you wish harm towards that other family.
It is "natural" that we are drawn to our own: blood kin, communities formed by some common bond or goal, etc. it really is a form of self preservation. Does this mean that we necessarily have to be opposed to those outside our circle? Not always, but those who are perceived as a threat will likely fall into this circumstance. It then becomes an exercise of reason to decide if the threat is real or exaggerated.
Rodger is offline  
Old September 1st, 2017, 02:40 AM   #30
Academician
 
Joined: Aug 2017
From: Portugal
Posts: 73

There can be a Liberal Nationalism, if we don't get very strict with the concepts.

If we understand liberal as someone who recognizes the legitimacy of the democratic process, if we understand a liberal as someone who doesn't promote a dictatorship or an autoritarian government as a regime solution, ofcourse there can be Liberal nationalism.

Many times people get to focused on the historical meaning of some concepts. When people think about nationalism, they immediately think about XIX and XX centuries political regimes and experiences of authoritarian or dictatorial nature, forgetting that nationalism was just an element of those philosophies, some times not even the most important. And people also forget that during that time there was always democratic or liberal tendencies within the nationalist movements. In Portugal, for example, on of the most important nationalist philosophies was the Integralismo Lusitano, which promoted the values of Monarchy, Anti-Liberalism, Nationalism, Traditionalism and Christianity. Threw out the years the movement tended to evolve, and at a certain period of History the Integralismo Lusitano (specially after the Second Word War) began to accept the idea of Democracy. It began to present the Democratic, Liberal Monarchy as a regime solution for Portugal, something that 40 years before they vehemently would object.

And there was many other movements that defended both Nationalism and the democratic system, Nationalism and a liberal economical concept. The most progressive sectors of the Estado Novo regime, while nationalist, already promoted the idea of the typical western liberal democracy as the only solution for a political transition in Portugal. There was many people in the group of Marcelo Caetano, the last leader of Estado Novo, that were nationalists, but at the same time supporters of a parlamentary-democracy like the one in Great Britain or France.
Tuga is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
liberal, nationalism



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Medieval nationalism (nationalism was not born in early modern era France) Janos Peter European History 33 March 18th, 2016 04:53 AM
Liberal-Conservative and Conservative-Liberal Presidents Precedence American History 0 January 21st, 2014 09:02 PM
Liberal Institutions A Simple Student History Help 6 November 21st, 2012 01:07 PM
The liberal party Pavel European History 10 January 10th, 2012 04:14 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.