The idea that a nation is a delusion is always slyly propagated by the Satanic Globalists. Multiculturalism has failed in this moment.. But We will all truly be united when The real Lord Jesus Christ comes back. And Establish his City. New Jerusalem. Then They we will all be one Nation.
What is fascinating, as a European, is ones sense of identity/community expands the further away you go geographically. A Swede will feel like a Swede in Sweden. A Swede in Italy will gravitate towards other Scandinavians. A Scandinavian in Brazil will gravitate towards other Europeans. A European in China will gravitate towards other "western people".
And for us binationals (either by blood or birthplace) that sense of identity is blurred further still. I think the idea of hierarchy of identities is pretty common among emigrant families.
@arandomhandsomeman7725 in Nigeria we are very divided by tribes. I mean in my state, we have almost 10 languages and we don't agree. But if I go to the North, my fellow Rivers man is my brother, when I met some Yoruba people, they asked if I know Burna Boy and Omah Lay 😂😂. I leaned into it, after all Burna Boy's dad and my mom are from the same local government area 😂😂 so I guess he is my brother. I went to Kwara state and was excited to see an Igbo kitchen, because they cook more like us, I was tired of eating food I wasn't used to. I know if I go to the US, I'd embrace the Yoruba and Hausa food faster than I'd smell a plate of Mac and cheese 😅.
I disagree. The concept of a tribe is rooted in the fact that you share enough with your tribe members to be part of the same tribe. These people are your family, these people are your neighbours and you work with these people. However in these giant nations, person A does not have anything valuable in common with person B who lives 200 kilometers away.
communication is key to this concept. thats why for example a mars colony will always need their own government. the communication time is too long. especially when it comes to in person communication
@@adriaanvandoorn1263 Tribes also have belief systems, which have proven to be powerful enough to make even complete strangers bond with one another. And as @Arthera0 pointed out, communication of these belief systems used to be physically limited.
I don't understand how "countries are made up" (which is kind of obvious) turned into "countries aren't real." Lots of real things are made up: books, plays, art, and, to a certain extent, math and science. Something being "made up" or created by humans doesn't mean it's not real. That's an unfair correlation.
by "real" he means they only exist in our minds. The effects of that existence are impactful and real, but the thing itself is a myth we all collectively believe.
yeah, he has to be super frustrated by his win. I like his videos but hes clearly biased and for some reason sort of hates western civization which is kinda funny. Maybe he should blame other countries too for human right opression-like Saudi etc
yeah this whole idea of nations dont exist and no borders thing is so dumb. our nations always existed they once upon a time were just nations of 10 guys with sticks and the culture of those 10 guys turned into 100. then 1000. then 10,000 and then 100,000 and you needed more space so you dominated the nations of smaller people groups and converted them into your nation culture. thats just human history. we used to call it tribal warfare now its nation warfare. its all the same thing.
Thank you for you immensely beneficial comment. My life has improves exponentially. I have never felt so enlightened by such an outstanding piece of information you just provided.
France, Germany and Italy define themselves via a common language and culture, China via bloodline, Pakistan via religion just to mention a few. All problems that these nations face arise from how they define themselves. Switzerland transcends these fundamentally exclusive concepts. To be Swiss is to belief in the institutions of the Swiss state: compromise, neutrality, direct democracy, federalism and a militia. As such there are no natural boundaries to the Swiss nation, it's more akin to how we viewed the Roman Empire historically. As a concept this way of creating a nation would work for any place in the world and would avoid many many conflicts.
@@themechanic49 you bought a bit into the national narrative here. Switzerland, as a nation, arguably only started to exist with Napoleon's invasion of 1798 and the subsequent creation of the Helvetic state. With the dissolution of the vassal states and the formation of a federal government. Prior to that you weren't Swiss, you were either from Zurich, Bern, Lucerne etc. and that was your whole identity.
If France is so complex Imagine the same for a country like India Where there are totally different cultures, languages, traditions and beliefs every 100km
Absolutely! India takes diversity to a whole new level. With so many languages, customs, and traditions coexisting, it’s like a collection of mini-countries within one nation. That’s what makes India both challenging and fascinating to understand!
He skipped many things. Skipped whole story of sovereignty, why each nation feels it has the right to 'self-determination' I think he was trying to focus on the modern construction of nation. The Roman Empire was nothing like nation-states of the current age But as you said his story is incomplete. And his 'nations are fake' is too oversimplified that its not really true.
@@alexx12545i’m not sure to every detail but they are very scetchy and essentially build everything around economics (suprice surprice it’s in their name). They are very utopian in their views while ALSO being kind of scary because they suggest some really idiotic things that would never work
@@alexx12545the WEF is pushing “globalism” which basically means that they want the entire world to be under the governance of one combined government, which sounds good but really is just another word for world domination and control.
As a European, the idea that countries are made up doesn’t strike me as a particularly novel concept, you don’t have to travel very far in Europe to realise this
It's also a bit weird that he brings up the countries in Europe as claiming they are for their people, while countries in Europe have actively decided to create a massive federation to which they willfully hand off some of their power. The EU is currently probably the biggest example of borders being nowhere near as strict as many people think
Bulgarian here, we were 500 years under Ottoman rule and we didn't got assimilated by the ottomans for that long period. That didn't happend mostly because the christian religion, but also because of our language, traditions, all these things were saved by the people and passed trought generations. These hard times made all of our people more united than ever. There were revolution committees in cities, towns and villages all over "the country". In 1878 Bulgaria was liberated and put back on the political map for first time since 1396.
marinhristozov1832, "and we didn't got assimilated by the ottomans for that long period. That didn't happend mostly because the christian religion, but also because of our language, traditions, all these things were saved by the people and passed trought generations." No, it didn't happen because Ottoman empire didn't have a policy of assimilation. Like every other classical empire, it didn't care who you were, so long as you paid taxes and didn't revolt.
@@yalcnbey5834 You are Turkish, try not to be biased. The Ottomans did have a policy of assimilation, especially in the later period of the empire. The Jizya, and jannisary system were some methods of assimilation. Understand that western Anatolia, and eastern Thrace didn’t become Turkish by magic. Many assimilated in the Balkans as well but migrated to Anatolia following the Balkan wars
@@yalcnbey5834 Also if you look into the Arab revolts and the reasons they wanted independence from the Ottomans, you will see discrimination against non-Turks as one of the primary reasons.
Portugal is the only uniform nation in Europe. Our borders have been the same for almost a millennium and all of us have allways spoke the same language, with regional accents.
Changed the original title on his recent election videos, along with the image. Starting to wonder if he starts with a slightly 'inflammatory' title and image to boost the comments and metrics he receives, in a similar way people who make shorts will place an obvious spelling mistake to boost their video when people obviously pick it up and comment about it. Pretty scummy tbh.
A lot of what he's saying is contextually deceptive. For example, in the same early 1800s there was one "french" as far as the world was concerned, which Thomas Jefferson and the kings of Spain and England also spoke as a diplomatic language...the other "languages" were mostly french with what we'd today consider very thick dialects of French. They could understand each other across much of France, despite those various "languages". He also is being deceptive when he conflates country with nation. A country is a top-level political division. A nation is an ethnicity/culture that identifies together as a group. Countries are as old as recorded history. But nations, while being a concept as old as time, only became normalized as a way to form a country in the 19th century. Nationalism, during the romantic era, was about cultural nations forming their own countries, governing themselves. This is also what the Springtime of Nations was about, in 1848, when all across Europe various ethnicities overthrew their arbitrary rulers and formed their own states.
good critiques! yes there was a common french that diplomats communicated with and that was known broadly, but as an identity that language was mostly used and identified with by elites. The major point here is that the modern day idea of a unified group of people within borders (ie the psychological "nation" as you pointed out) is a fairly new concept, a construct that was fortified mostly over the last hundred or so years, which at least for me was surprising. I thought this sort of unity of people within borders existed in this form for much longer. You're right that I use nation and country interchangeably which, within political science literature, would be technically wrong since both have a useful definition within that context. But I'm not writing for an academic journal here. I'm trying to convey the broad concepts for the audience and hopefully they found this useful!. Thanks for thoughtful pushback.
I think it used to be more of a dialect continuum, where a place at the border of one nation *might* be considered a dialect of that nation if you squint enough, but it's really similar to another dialect of a different language just across the border. So you could have drawn the borders differently and still say that everything in that border is a dialect of one language. Where you put an end to one language and what you consider a dialect vs. a different language is arbitrary, and dictated by politics. As someone said, "a language is a dialect with an army and navy".
@@johnnyharrisWhat a fantastic way to respond to a critical comment! I wish more UA-camrs would follow your professional example, Johnny. It increases trust in your research and intentions. Edit: by the way, I say this as a person who often sees quite differently from Johnny's political points of view. His demeanour makes it easy to be open to the way he sees things and to consider his conclusions with deeper thought. I've been a subscriber for a while, and I will continue to look forward to each video he comes out with!
Italian here. The idea of Italy as a distinct entity has deep roots, reaching back to the Roman era, although Italian identity has evolved and transformed over the centuries. As early as the Republican era, the Romans used the term "Italia" to refer part of the peninsula-initially only the southern part, later expanding to include all of it during the imperial period. By the Augustan age, Rome had consolidated the concept of Italy as the heart of the Roman world, a distinct geographical and cultural entity separate from the provinces. This idea was reinforced by the Romanization of Italic peoples and the granting of Roman citizenship to all inhabitants of the peninsula. Thus, Italy was perceived as a privileged land, with a unique status within the Empire. Although the concept of a nation-state did not yet exist, there was a sense of cultural unity due to Roman citizenship and the prestige of being "Italic" within the Empire. However, with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, this identity fragmented. During the Middle Ages, Italy became a patchwork of independent kingdoms, duchies, republics, and city-states, with strong local identities rather than a unified national consciousness. The Italian territory became a battleground for foreign powers and local forces, including the Holy Roman Empire, the Normans, the Byzantines, and later the major European monarchies. Each city and region developed its own identity, and people primarily identified with their own city or commune (Florence, Venice, Milan, etc.). Nevertheless, the spirit of belonging to a "land of Italy" did not disappear completely. Writers and poets like Dante Alighieri, Francesco Petrarca, and Niccolò Machiavelli expressed a strong desire for unity and a sense of an Italian homeland. Although these were primarily cultural and literary ideals, these early sentiments of national unity foreshadowed the Risorgimento, when the dream of a united Italy became a concrete political project, led by figures like Giuseppe Mazzini, Camillo Benso di Cavour, and Giuseppe Garibaldi. In summary, there existed a sense of Italy as a cultural and geographical entity dating back to the Roman era. However, this awareness underwent significant changes: during the Middle Ages, it weakened and fragmented into regional identities, and only with the Risorgimento did the idea of an Italian identity take political shape, transforming from an abstract concept into a unified national state.
I'm Greek and we were calling ourselves Romans (Romioi) up to 20th century. Even today in some songs and poetry the term is still used, mostly to describe the Greek identity rather than the Imperial citizenship.
Im interested to know, did the people in different parts of italy before the unification realy speak different languages, or was it just different dialects?
@arassadeghi3998 Before unification, Italy was linguistically fragmented, with each region speaking its own distinct language or dialect, often quite different from others, but with basically all of them having the common root in Latin. Tuscan eventually became the basis for modern Italian due to its literary prestige (the Divine Comedy, for example, is written in vulgar Tuscan, the same with the Decameron), but most Italians continued speaking regional languages until the 20th century, when education, media, and urbanization spread standard Italian across the country. I'm from Ferrara, a city in northeastern Emilia-Romagna, and my grandparents' generation still speaks in dialect. My parents and people my age, of course, speak Italian, though most people can still understand the dialect. In the most southern cities, the vast majority of people still have a strong dialectal influence.
What I found the most weird claim in the video was the language thing. I find it very hard to believe that in 1950, only 20% of Italians spoke "Italian". I mean dialects ofc. are a thing, but different language? Ofc, what is a language and what is a dialect, is often very handwavy. My native language Finnish, has really strong dialects based on old "tribal borders", but we still think all of the people are speaking the same language. We can fully understand each other, aside of some corner cases, which are maybe comparable to teens having their own words that the older folks don't understand, but on a regional level.
China as a unified nation is indeed not that simple. As a Chinese Singaporean, I am descended from Hokkien forefathers from Quanzhou City in Fujian province, while my maternal relatives, came from somewhere in the old Chaozhou prefecture, in Guangdong province, and identify as Teochews, not Cantonese. If you thought my ancestors saw themselves as "Chinese" brothers, and worked together harmoniously when they came to Singapore, you would be wrong. When the Hokkiens and Teochews arrived en masse in the 19th century, multiple fights and riots broke out between the two groups. On identity documents, the British and the people themselves did not write "Chinese", they wrote "Hokkien", "Teochew" or "Cantonese". They saw themselves as Chinese, yes, but their local identity was far stronger than the national identity. Fujian province alone can be split into people from Quanzhou City, Zhangzhou City, Putian City, Fuzhou Provincial capital and Fuqing City. Each city speaks its own version of the "Hokkien" dialect, which can be somewhat understood by people outside of that city. So people would split even further, from province down to the local city level to identify themselves. The Teochews speak a language different from the rest of Guangdong Province, closer to Hokkien than Cantonese, but they don't like this comparison with the Hokkiens. The Teochews were in their own prefecture , separate from Guangdong, before being merged into it, hence the different language and culture. They do not identify with being Cantonese, despite being in the same province. Even family surnames can be used to divide people. My ancestral village is in Xiangyun town, NanAn County, which is another way to differentiate myself from others in the same City of Quanzhou, or those of the same surname. Immigrants to Singapore used to group themselves first by province, then city, then town and family surname. If I am told that someone of the same surname came from another village, I knew he was an outsider, a non relation who shares only my surname. Thus, these people, who outwardly look the same, from an outside point of view, did not differ much in their way of life and their reasons for coming, ended up breaking themselves into petty groups for support. China was a faraway concept to them, practically and literally. Thus, the whole China as a totally unified nation is truly a modern invention. Every province has its own culture and traditions, which people identified with first, while acknowledging they were Chinese, at least in theory.
The idea of Imperial China always seem more like a piece of administrative tool than a nation of any kind. Even the written Chinese language was more of a tool than part of anyone's identity. People were left alone and even the Imperial officials didn't care who identified as what as long as they behave. As long as the dynasty was functional, no one cared who ruled. As long as the people didn't stir up troubles and people of any culture is left alone.
@@ArchOfWinternot to mention it seems like they lacked any reason to differentiate themselves from anyone else as the central power and progenitor culture that all their neighbors were influenced by, so what need would there be to be a modern nation state?
There is a very fitting saying that has applied to China since its founding, ‘’天高/山高，皇帝遠‘’。A simple phrase that translated literally means that Heaven is high up or the mountains are high, and the Emperor is far away. The local people did not receive much interference from the imperial government, basically because they were too far away and / or too remote. Which meant that the local government had leeway to govern as they needed....and corruption could go unnoticed.
Here is what I know. Countries are man made calling them fake is... Irrational to say the least. That is like saying a language is fake... There is one race. The human race. If you have no noticed. WE CAN ALL F GLOBALLY and make babies... You could use ethnicity, but that falls apart too... What would the ethnicity of a kid from an American, a Sweden, an Indian and a Korean person be? Serious what the F do you mean by race here? I never understood that American concept... As for gender/sex well there are Male and Female that encompass 98% with 2% Intersex. For the latter of Think rare genetic anomalies like how some ppl got testies instead of ovaries some born with no PPs among others things... There is also approximate sex change operations for ppl with severe dysphoria. The tech is improving but is still far from ideal... There are no laws of physics that prohibit the tech from being perfected so it is a matter of time. Transhumanism in general will go MUCH father than just changing sexual organs if you ask me... PPl will change EVERYTHING you can think of about the human body until the very definition of human would have to be hard set. Think all manner of extra organs or limbs or colours etc... As for sexuality (I will assume you mean attraction) There are the classics hetero/homo/Bi/A sexual. Observed and recorded in human history and WELL DOCUMENTED in many... Websites for corn farmers. Some like Gender fluidity and Pan sexuality. I really don't understand. I never looked into them they could be legit or not. The rest of the "sexualies" I think of as basically kinks or made up by ppl who want to be special on social media as they make little to no sense at all... Finally, PDFs are a blight. Correct me if got anything wrong if you know better that is.
@aziouss2863 There are many different definitions of race in America. Race is usually either between the color of your skin or where you come from. For example, pale europeans may be considered white, but pale Israelis would not be considered white. This is because of a difference in culture, religion, and history. Back in the 1900s, not all pale europeans were considered white, and Italians and Irishmen were discriminated against for being Catholic. To this day, white Americans are usually only considered to be pale-skinned protestants with Anglo Saxon or Germanic heritage. Black Americans also have a bit of a controversial meaning. While anyone with dark skin could be called black, being black is more of a cultural identity limited to African Americans. This means that very dark-skinned Hispanics, Asians, and other groups would not be considered black in America. Asians are people usually from either China, Korea, or Japan, but can extend down to people from southeast Asia as well, like people from Vietnam, Thailand, and the Phillipines. When it comes to Asians, race isn't so much as defined by the color of a person's skin but instead from a person's country of origin. This is also the same for Hispanics. The US Cenaua Bureau has races listed as the following: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders. This covers about 81.6% of the racial makeup in America, with the other 18.4% being mostly Hispanics who either identify with none of these or more than one of them. So, to review, what is race? Race is a person's country of origin combined with a similar cultural identity and appearance. To be a part of a certain race, you have to fill all these qualities. For example, a pale-skinned Italian may be considered white by the US government, but because they don't have that shared cultural identity as other white Americans, they would not fit in this category.
@@michaeladkins6 you know, those checks from the Democratic Party probably won’t clear… you can drop the tough guy act. Don’t call people idiots, don’t be a sore loser
Title changed from "Countries Aren't Real, Here's Why" -> "Nationalism, Explained" What drives these title choices, what to start with, and where to change them to? What data are y'all tracking?
Whole my life as a central Siberia citizen, I've been identifying as Russian, then Siberian, then Asian and then Tuvan. And only recently I started to realize that the concept of being Russian isn't clicking for me: I'm not white, my hair isn't blond, my eyes aren't blue, I'm not Slavic, I'm 100% Asian. I speak Russian because this is what school taught me, but my whole family speaks an entirely different language. It's not even Slavic language, Tuvan is Turkish kind of language. Because of globalisation, I speak three different kinds of languages from three different ethnic groups: English, Russian and my mother language Tuvan. This is wild. In Russian language there are two words for "being Russian": "русский" is being Russian as an ethnicity and "россиянин" is being Russian as a citizen of the country. I'm latter *and* I'm Tuvan.
Tuva is a republic therefore calling your nationality Tuvan is a Ok. Also there's a distinction between Russians and Rossians(Россияне) but it's really vague and kinda imperial. I hope Tuvans and others will be free in the choice of their future.
Wow! Interesting to hear that "Russian" in the Russian language is separated into 2 words, one for ethnicity and one for citizenship. Actually "Chinese" is also separated into 2 terms in the Chinese language. Zhong Guo Ren means citizen of China, Hua Ren means anyone of Chinese blood regardless of citizenship.
There's Russian ethniticy and Russian citizenship. Russia by all means is the remanents of the russian empire and not a nation-state as commonly defined. If Russia was centered only around Moscow-StPb and volvograd then might be it would be a russian nation-state. This is why in Russia Patriotism is celebrated, while Nationalism is suppressed.
@@AstroBear11 but France do not exist. It is muslim at the bottom and african in the center with some French people here and there trying to not to be attacked.
The reason why French history is such a big part of this video is because it played a really crucial role in the emergence of nationalism as an ideology as the video lays out
Maybe he went anarchist or imperialist? I'm joking. The video's claim isn't that nations should be dissolved; it's just describing the recent developments in the history.
Norway wasnt inspired by Napoleon. Norway became independent because their previous union with Denmark was broken as Norway was given as bounty to Sweden. Norway didnt want to be in union with sweden and declared independence. Also if you look at the borders of scandinavia you'll see a pretty early sense of nations. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are formed, have kings, form unions, etc.
Everyone should know this Johnny Harris is sponsored by the WEF, allied with Alex Soros, and actively trying to dismantle the idea of "nationalism," as George Soros deems the ideology an "enemy to Open Societies" in his book.
3:39 “you look at the distribution of red hair, for example, and you see that it never lines up with national borders” while showing a map where Wales, Cornwall, Scotland, and literally all of Ireland are noticeably darker than England lmfao. Edit: I actually went back and you can make out Brittany in France too
You miss the point. Where is the nation, whose defining trait is Red hair? None, it doesn't exist, every nation is born by belief and politics, not genes.
All of those identities are also modern and are places where much of the population identifies with another national identity, especially in the case of Cornwall and Brittany where very few people identify with that nation at all.
@@slothbirdbeard6996well yeah that was the point being made in the video. People in France previously identified more with their local areas and cultures, but then got brought into these larger groups. Modern Scottish and Welsh nationalism is also very new.
@@spe3dy744 I’m simply making the point that the example they chose very clearly doesn’t do a very good job at supporting what they’re saying, and that it’s frankly comical how closely aligned at least these national borders are with the distribution of red hair
Why does the discussion between Johnny and Max seem so fake and scripted. Like it is taking me out of the video 🤣 they just seem so fake when talking to each other. Still watched of course but it was throwing me off.
Countries and nations are real, and here's why: money is just silly pieces of paper. But we all agreed, or were forced to interact with the majority who agrees, that we assign a value to paper money, even if it's a distant iteration of "two chicjens make a sheep, two sheeps make a cow". At the very least, countries and nations exist in that way - and that's a very powerful way.
But again, just because something as an effect on you, does not make it real. If we collectively stop believing in money or contries, they cease to exist and have no effect anymore. If we stop believing in the comet that comes to destroy the earth, it will still destroy the earth. Thats why a comet is real and nations are not.
False. Nations exist since Antiquity. The Academia for long claimed otherwise, but that trend has changed, even in cases where they even denied ethnicities, like the Byzantine Studies, where Byzantinologists like Anthony Kaldellis demonstrate that the Medieval Romans did have a national identity. And "countries" as a term is not connected to nationhood. You can have a country with 10 national identities in it (which will have to form a new one out of them). Yet, "countries" mostly refers to states, which have existed too since Antiquity.
Irans name is on the coins of the Sassanian empire, same country is on the Shahnameh telling stories since before the Acheaminds, so yes, nations are so fucking old but modern mostly left wing educational system can't accept that.
Agreed, he didn't dig far back enough. Using medieval Europe as the starting point was a huge oversight, as historians know that medieval Europe was anything BUT unified, it's infamous for it's disunity. Classical antiquity and the Byzantine era is proof that a sense of national/cultural identity was a thing and has always been a thing. Rome controlled Britain to the Middle east at one point, all subjects were Roman and identified as such (at least up until the fall of the west).
@@hello855 Yea I think only Roman citizens would consider themselves Roman. subjects of Rome would have identified with their local or historical ethnic group
Well, that's just not true. First of all, you have to define society. Then you have to realize that there are actual things that are aren't social constructs, yet exist.
@@nearly_epic yes but this concept of nation states being a social construct, and overall logic, applies to everything within our society. Why can people inherit millions of dollars without lifting a finger while others go hungry living on the street? Why is it okay for a 50 year old man to sleep with a naive 18 year old but not okay if they're 17? Why can an Israeli passport go to 171 countries visa free when a Palestinian living less than a mile away only go to 36? Why is it okay for a man and women to love each other but not to love more than one person or a person of the same sex? Why is it normal to cover ourselves in cloth but strange to walk around without it? These are not inherent natural laws that must be followed, like everything else these are social constructs which we've been told are the way things work. Regardless of if there's merit or rational to these decisions, they are still just constructs of our society that we've been forced to accept. There's no such thing as race, religion, nationality, sex, gender. We can study these subjects and label the natural phenomenon but no inherent trait or belief, no race, no religion, no gender, no sexual orientation, no nationality is better than another, just different. We are all just people of earth, each products of our environment and the biological inheritance that makes us up.
You missed one thing about Italy...Italian is a made up language. Literally nobody spoke the language, it was just a literary creation (Dante Alighieri, Alessandro Manzoni and others), made up from pieces of different languages of the peninsula (mainly Tuscan and Lombard languages) and a lot of newly invented words inspired by Latin. At one point, since all of the Kingdoms didn't have a common language to speak, they started using this language that was only used in literature. That's why in 1861 only 2% of the people spoke it, it was just the high-end of society. French at least was a real language spoken by real people...that's also why it took longer for Italy to build a national identity. And to this day some communities still don't see themselves as Italian. Some in Sardinia for example, but the main ones are the people from South Tirol, who still speak German as their first language and their knowledge in Italian is straight out BAD.
@@citrusandseasalt Such as? I don't know honestly, I thought Italian was a bit of an exception. Maybe not the only one but I believed it was quite rare.
@@am.perronace That first sentence of yours, "Italian is a made up language. Literally nobody spoke the language", you could replace "italian" with any language of the world in any time in history. Tens of thousand years of history, empires, lands, social groups, languages etc ... and you thought your language is exceptional ? Daverro Perronace, ti manca prospettiva.
@@am.perronace every single language on this planet is "made up". Ever since we came up from Africa exploring, we created new languages. When the Roman Republic broke down Latin was a source of words for new languages to be used.
Before nations, empires existed, before empires, kingdoms existed, before that city states existed, before that villages existed, before that tribes and tight-knit communities existed. To say that nations are made up just because of a lack of a homogenous genetic makeup is stupid, one just has to look at the light map border between India-Pakistan or North Korea-South Korea, to know that despite them being genetically similar, their independent nationhood is very real.
6:08 “Thats everywhere” is a stretch. Look at Portugal since the 12th century only two languages (one used by 0.01% of the population since that time), borders fixed and 90% same genetic identity. Well before it was an empire
But that just means that the social construct of "Portugal" was created earlier, but it doesn't negate the fact that it wasn't created in the first place.
I feel each nation has their own story...Personally I believe that countries "exist", I guess the difference is how long they have existed...the idea of a nation being a social construct is kinda out there...
Sry, not a fan of this video... The terms "country" and "nation" constantly get mixed up. The focus on "one language for one country" seems weird since it certainly isn´t a requirement for an united country/nation- for example Switzerland, Belgium, Italy (the North is german speaking) the UK, Canada etc. they all have several different languages used within their borders- meanwhile there are for example several german-speaking-countries, spanish-speaking-countries etc. next to each other that didn´t unite.... Cultural and religious identity predate countries and nations (old greeks, Romans, christian and muslim culture etc.). Countries were born by uniting several smaller pieces to one big (standing armies, one law etc.). Nations were born thanks to fixed borders, laws and rulership based on the cultural identity of the many people instead of those of a few nobles (feudal sytem, monarchy...) (-> cultural differences between North and South Korea, China vs Taiwan etc.). In Europe many modern nations were born from the bottom up (Revolutions in France and Germany, rebellions of the Dutch, Swiss, Scots etc.) - while many African nations were created from the top down (colonialism)- hence why many african countries have civil wars within their borders. Nationalism often comes from the top down though, it is a policy to gain control. (There is btw. a reason why the flags of many of many european nations/countries have the colors used by the revolutionists that fought for freedom/independence against the top/rulers decades ago.) The example of Napoleon is kinda bad since Napoleon reintroduced the monarchy ? After defeating the Austrians he claimed the(ir) title of emperor (there is a reason why most rulers were kings/queens and didn´t claim emperorship during the middle ages etc. in Europe). That title was for hundreds of years pretty much limited to the Holy Roman Empire and Austria. In the HRE kings/nobles voted for an emperor which was crowned by the pope and was supposed to protect the pope/church (HRE/Austria for the western/catholic church. Russia for the eastern/orthodox church). The religious meaning got lost more and more over the centuries since the catholic church lost more and more power and meaning. The identification with the culture became more important instead - nations, nationalism, freedom of religion, standards for the languages etc. were born. But Napoleon certainly wasn´t the cause....(he went back to the monarchy). Later on nationalism, fascism, the ethnic identity etc. get all mixed up. Fascism is born in Italy and basically based on the national identification as heirs of the roman Empire. Nazis didn´t go after minorities because it was a threat to nationalism- they went after specific minorities because of racism, often outside the borders of their nation. White non-jewish French, Italians etc. for example were valued by them and left alive after they conquered those lands. Black people from the colonies were not seen as equals but also not hunted down.... The european identity can be based on the continent or the EU. Both are not national identities - so the comparison isn´t good. The identification as Europeans is not based on culture and values - hence why Russia or Turkey might not be seen as "european" by many "Europeans", or why Brexit was such a shock for many people in other EU-countries, or why Hungary under Orban isn´t liked by many Europeans... The EU is a unique thing and developing more and more to something like a european nation, resulting in younger generations starting to identify more and more as Europeans over time. For, maybe, the first time in history a new identity is growing without any wars, conquering, rebellions, revolutions etc.. Exclusion in the EU is very much a thing, it just isn´t forced by armies (the EU doesn´t have an army anyway) but courts and policies (for example when values don´t align anymore - Poland, Hungary etc. for example)
The country you live in, USA, is the one founded on the newer and more enlightened ideas. What the US has is unique. You can be American no matter what your ethnic or religious background is.
Don't take it so literally, countries obviously still govern how humans function on the day-to-day. All he's saying is the concept is very new relatively speaking. Personally, I think countries are kind of dumb and humans have the capacity to unite as just that - humans. We should get the to point (maybe hundreds of years down the road, but still) where we don't need borders anymore and everyone shares everything from technology to resources to culture.
@@SceptileSlashthat would have worked in a smaller population but imagine trying to unify 8 BILLION people. You couldn’t even talk to that many in a lifetime.
@@Grassdia Ah, but this is where the internet comes in. We have a tool that has the capability to reach every last person on the planet. Even the internet is still in its infancy when you think about it. Think about what the internet will be like in 200 years.
Cosmopolitan identity tends to be parasitical, a tendency to move to the next fun location rather than having ‘skin in the game’ of caring about a community and working long term to make it better.
@@romeyjondorf can't see much evidence for a benevolent cosmopolitan elite playing constructive roles in the communities they live in, but do see a lot of parasitical behaviour, hopping from one city to the next depending on which community has made themselves more appealing.
Also, you choose the worst countries in Europe as example. France, Italy and Germany! France which on its feudalistic prime, was an empire. Italy and germany, both parts in the Holy roman empire, had to go through an unification war to form. This idea falls apart when you choose countries that are culturally homogeneous, like Portugal, Denmark, Greece, Estonia ... Removed Hungary. Forgot about the Romanian and Croatians
Old Hungarian kingdom being homogenous culturally? I don't know about what you are speaking, as a inhabitant of former part of Austro-Hungarian province of Transilvania I can tell you that you are wrong, this was the most diverse culturally and ethnic region in the world before the American colonization.
@@theOrionsarms There is also the croats within. Removed Hungary from that list. But I can say that the Portuguese were a mix of people before the late middle ages, that originated around the 1200's and 1300's into a very homogenous people. I believe that a country does not make so much sense in terms of borders, but more into language and culture. The Hungarians were quite diferent from all the other groups that co-existed in hungary, specially by language. There are portuguese people speaking portuguese and its creoles, spread all over the world outside of portugal and with other nationalities, but they share a lot of cultural and social ties.
@miguelguerreiro5280 yeah, that was my point, Hungary is homogeneous culturaly today (ignoring century of mixed origin)only after decade of ethnic cleansing and even genocide, I mean what happened with Hungarian Jewish at the end of WW2 , they can pretend that are pure , but historical facts say otherwise.
That's an exaggeration. Yes there are countries that are mostly made up, specially in Africa. But there are countries that are very old and homogeneous. Like Portugal, has the same borders for over 800 years, same language, national identity, etc.
All this means is you did not understand. And it was invading, enslaving, robbing Europeans who forced nationhood...meso and south American as well as Africa. Of course, humans are the one race...had not a Chinese and a Japanese emperor each decided on CLOSING BORDERS EXCESSIVELY...you might be writing in a very different way.
Even if countries aren't real, humans will still find other ways to group themselves and fight for resources with other groups. Humans are tribal by nature and conflicts are inevitable.
Human nature means whatever the argumenter wants it to be... as every person has a different definition for it... That's why "human nature" arguments are hacks.
@@dv8ug take a look outside of your narrow world view. Take a look at the history of Scandinavia. There's never been internal wars or struggles, but wars between nations. If what you say is true we would have fought internally when resources were scarce, but what you see instead is communities helping each other through the last 1500 years. This is also a point again this video, there's been nations that have existed for longer than Johnny thinks without civil wars, resolutions or a fall of empire.
At least with space exploring nations, my question is what happens when we have rival nations setting up colonies in similar locations on Mars. It's not like antiquities contact where might is right, it's just plain survival. You don't just raid their base and take the loot, you both die of asphyxiation. Will they work together for their own survival regardless of what is happening on Earth?
This is by far the lowest quality video I've ever seen from Johnny this streaks through so much evidence and just ignores facts. He's really getting desperate needs to be embarrassed
Did you know that Napoleon was from Corsica (which joined France 1 year before Napoleon was born)? He also had a huge Italian accent when he spoke French!
This video isn't really talking about nations it's talking about Nation States specifically imo. The notions of ethnicity, nation, country, citizenship, nation state, and sovereign state are all being mixed up. Which isn't good for an informative video on a complex and divisive topic. Max says that the formation of the modern nation can be top down or bottom up. A top down example, France, was given in detail, but no bottom up example was given in detail when it really should have been if the video is genuinely trying to explore the origin. Saying it's all "made up" can be damaging. The idea that certain people belong to certain land is presented as a new, manufactured, and arbitrary idea is incredibly damaging to movements like Land Back. This idea has already been used to justify Russian invasion of Ukraine, as Putin and many other Russian officials determine that Ukraine isn't real and Ukrainian identity is a recent fabrication not anchored in any history. "If I tell you France is made up that feels wrong" 2:02 No, it doesn't necessarily feel wrong it feels extremely reductionist. Because so is the weird green paper in my wallet is also made up. Most currency has literally no value, most currencies aren't representing some stash of gold or made out of the "valuable material" themselves. Only 8% of currency is actual physical coin/paper. Religion is also made up yet we find it so intrinsically valuable that being able to pick one and follow its tenants is considered a fundamental human right.
I think the theory presented by the guy in the blue shirt in this video is incomplete, if not flawed. He claims that nations are modern created concepts and it has not always been so in the past. As example, he mentions France and China, how their nations are composed of different identities, languages, even ethnicities that does not truly unite them into a nation. He mentions how a peasant hundreds of miles away from the king and speaks a different language would not consider himself a frenchman and only identify with the local community. This might be true for nations that are empires and are composed by many ethnicities. The flawed or incomplete part of this guy's theory it that it takes the example of these 2 nations and he concludes it is true for all the other nations. I can immediately think of other nations, usually smaller nations that are not empires, where national identity is indeed composed by one national language, one ethnicity, and common culture. I am not well versed enough to speak for all other countries, but I do know that Korea is indeed composed by single language, culture, etc. going back thousands of years. I know that currently Korea is divided into 2 countries due to recent geopolitical wars artificially drawing lines in the map. But both south and north Korea had existed as a single country united by a common language and culture going back thousands of years. If you add Korea to China and France as examples of nations, the central theory of the guy in blue shirt in this video is weak.
I believe he’s more accurate than you give him credit for. I can assure you that this concept does apply to the continent of Africa and the so-called Americas.
@@Jack.....yeah but also, if you drew the borders “right” in Africa you would’ve bundled one thousand different countries into that continent, and it’s not like all those “countries” ever thought of themselves as such until Westerners came & exposed them to a different ideology. Sharing common language doesn’t automatically qualify you as a “nation”, it’s much more than that.
Peasants never cared about this. Same today. Majority of people don't want war, but the powerful want to play. It's just a playground for the rich and powerful and nationalism was a way to mobilise people.
I always hear this argument, that the peasantry do not want war at all. But, truth is that without peasant support to a certain degree, empires were rarely able to go to war. Be it they either persuade the peasantry or the peasantry realize what's at stake ie their liberty in some cases, the peasantry's support plays a major hand in drawing a nation towards victory.
@genosingh But peasants are often mislead and hatred is being spread by propaganda, which is based on sensationalism and never shows the hole picture. It's used to divide and distract. It's still the circus of Rome.
Johnny: this is how China is preparing to invade Taiwan and why the US will need to get involved Also Johnny: we need to defund the military. It’s too big.
Everyone should know this Johnny Harris is sponsored by the WEF, allied with Alex Soros, and actively trying to dismantle the idea of "nationalism," as George Soros deems the ideology an "enemy to Open Societies" in his book.
This is a common fallacy, especially amongst sociologists. Everything is a social construct, but just because it is a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Math, science, and engineering are all social constructs, along with the tools made from them, but that doesn't mean the hammer I accidentally smashed my finger with doesn't exist.
I have travelled to a lot of countries in the world (80+), and lived in four different nations, and this feeling of belonging, of nation/group/tribe, language, culture, is common. It is what I call a "Narrative", people grow up studying its nation/tribe history books and language in a somehow manipulated way so people feel patriotism and proud of their nation/tribe. It tends to be more aggressive in poor, new countries and super powers, it is part of a narrative to keep people united. The narrative can also include blaming other nation or group of people as a threat, or there is something that unite us, like a religion, past or language. This is a very interesting topic.
It is an interesting topic, but it makes sense. We cannot know everyone and everyone's intentions. As such, we gravitate towards the safety of those that we know.
@hello855 ethnicity is fluid mate almost nobody is 100% anything. People migrate and get invaded throughout all of history regardless of borders. Also a country is a concept but that doesn't mean it's not real.
This also wholly does not apply to America. America as a nation has an explicit founding. We have an explicit creed, structure of government, and way of life that distinguishes us as a people and as a nation. This makes America unique in the world.
😂 you have the same process that other western European countries, revolution, creation of a state, creation of identity with flags and so in. Maybe french find they roots in Gaul, but you find your roots in Britain, that fought against.
Only 6% of people could vote when America was founded. And America was very sparsely populated for most of its history. National identity wasn't always as strong as it is today.
do people just use "propaganda" to describe all information they don't like? it might help you to know: most people arnt paid to be malicious a company wants to put out a message there is a million creators out there they find the ones already saying what they want and choose to give those people money *they usually make an honest voice louder* *all people want to be persuasive* *most people miss some evidence* or more likely here johnny just has an interest in globalist views and to everyone who's not into that it looks like mad propaganda which for the record means that it's: made to be persuasive and maybe emotional and might not be factual which means literally anything can be propaganda thus "propaganda" is not a useful term the kind of content doesn't tell us why it's made you just make the association due to dislike so your just using heated language to avoid engaging with the material just say "it's wrong because X" or "I don't like this because Y"
This video says more about the American school system than it does any fundamental truth about nation states. What do you even learn in school? Most Americans don't even study a second, let alone a third, language so you have all this extra time for other subjects but the most basic historical concepts are completely foreign to you?
That's exactly what I thought. When I was in high school in Turkey we were taught about how nationalism was spread and how nation as a concept came to fruition. But it appears that Americans only know about it after they are 30.
Sri Lankan here. As a tiny island off the coast of India, you'd think we'd be basically Indian by this point. I mean, its India for god's sake. Hardly so, we have our own languages, our own cultures, which, sure some things have been derived from India, but that is mostly as a result of conquests throughout history, but these conquests never lasted, because the Sri Lankan identity prevailed throughout our over 2 millennia of civilized history, and our people fought for, died for, and won that identity, even against a seemingly overwhelming opponent like India. The only times kings of Indian dynasties ruled for a few generations, is only when they assimilated to _our_ culture, and not the other way around, such as the Nayakkars . Those that tried to impose Chola, Kalinga and Pandaya traditions were all soundly chased off the Island, to be replaced by a leader of our own. hell, one of our kings went on a fun little conquest of Myanmar in 1000 AD to depose an unpopular leader, and rather than conquer it, simply installed the rightful heir, as he understood that the values of the people of Myanmar are unique from those of us. Nations exist, no matter the geographical size, with their own cultures and traditions, despite close proximity to seemingly more "powerful" cultures, and this video is stupid.
Kind of a dumb misleading title. Of course countries are made up, it’s only the next step. There were kingdoms, empires, etc. It’s not a bad thing either.
what they mean is that states DON'T represent the civilian population as the term "country" implies. This is a common misunderstanding of how states functions as people give far too much credit to the control they have with elected officials, when of course most of the world's decisions are made by those with the most economic influence no matter how fair their country's elections may seem. States are inherently violent institutions that prop up conflicts by nature in order to maintain their military apparatuses. They primarily use identity politics and manipulation of history within their education to push administrative agendas. This is horrible for humanity, but we've been stockholm syndromed into feeling nationalism instead of dissent when we are extorted for monies that are consistently mishandled and used to prop up the administration rather than providing social services. This is because they are a strong arm group for hire within the economic elite circles in their respective region; allowing them to spew out propaganda faster than yo momma can finish a donut. Hope this helps :D
Even in the medieval period, people in France were united by their loyalty to the French crown and the defense of the kingdom, creating a shared political identity that transcended regional and linguistic differences. The idea of "France" as a unified entity was already in place through royal authority and common struggles, even if it was not yet defined by modern concepts of ethnicity or language. This early sense of unity laid the foundation for the development of a national identity in later centuries.
Governments in medieval times were far more decentralized than their modern counterparts. The crown in Paris had very little relevance to most people's daily lives.
You can see this is Afghanistan and Pakistan too. The Pak-Afghan border literally runs through the Pashtun ethnicity homeland. North Afghanistan is more Tajik populated then actual ethnic Afghans (Pashtuns). And west Pakistan is Iranic and completely different from east Pakistan, which is more Indian.
And whats even more funny is that the word India, comes from the indus river which is almost entirely in Pakistan, as well as the indus valley civ, While the major river in India is the ganges, and gangetic civillization was its own seperate thing, the people call the country baharat, not to mention that country historically has been a fragment of different ruling kingdoms for most of its history HECK, even the word Hindu basically comes from Sindhu, and before the islamic and european conquests referred to the people of Indus valley, ie Pakistanis, the real name for the religion is Sanatan dharam/vedic religion
@@ThatGuyWayOverThere well, globalism works in opposition to the ideology of nationalism, which generally prohibits international trade and movements of people.
I think most Americans would tell you they’re very proud to believe in the American identity. It’s a very strong sentiment. This is just left-wing anarchist BS. The idea that countries don’t exist is just insane- try tell that to the Palestinians -or any other people group for that matter. His argument falls apart. They do exist, even if it’s just in our minds.
These sort of ideals exist outside of the United States. He's looking at the world through the eyes of the White Left that control the Western media, NGOs, and education systems throughout the Western world. As such even though European groupings have long history of existence just like the ethnocentric states in Asia. The far Left see Europe no different as colonies just like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America want to force their idealistic nonsense. Even though the Muslims migrants flooding into Europe reject the Lefts ideals.
exactly, our Czech nationalism emerged in 15th century because of hussites, i agree that bougeosie nationalism formed in 19th century is bad, but sense of nationality as peoples united under their culture, language and indentity exists for millenias, in second punic war for example, Roman soldiers won the war because they were more nationalistic then the carthaginians, which more thinked about themselves, not a nation
TBH it's not too wrong... the near 70% of the new nation states recently are born out of the arbitrary lines on map by the European Colonial authorities, very little were born naturally. Local freedom fighters might have existed since the start, but it as a construct is a very modern one, Post-WWII modern at that. Also, the 90% of the troubles all comes from the British lines on map... including the those back at home...
This is an interesting argument, but I respectfully disagree with it at least partially if not wholly. I’d posit that countries always existed. It’s just that they existed in different forms with different sociological structures and economics. Much of the medieval world was feudal, mercantile, and hyper-hierarchical. And state capitols with lords and monarchs ruled remotely over small, agrarian village peasants. (As you alluded.) The only things that really changed was that Napoleonic imperialism and legal reforms revived the Roman system of government and civilization. But that state - the imperial republic, founded on laws and enforced by an industrial war machine, is not a new idea. It’s a reborn, a rediscovered idea. The US founders based America on Greco-Roman Republican ideas. And the enlightenment revived this system, taking the world out of feudal mercantilism and into republican (rule of law, civically-powered) capitalism. The nation state as we know it is an old idea that was LOST to the fall of the Roman Empire. It was rebirthed in a mechanized and republican manner, which founded the new world order as it is today. The Industrial Revolution meant that powerful capitol cities made their states bigger and bound them together with standing armies, cement and public education. All this means is that the modern way of nation-building is different from much of history. But states such as the Roman Empire loosely had these civic concepts already. This is why Europe, for example, has many different languages that come from Latin. Because it *was* all just Latin, spread by imperialism. The fall of the empire is why they became different languages. This is why Napoleon crowned himself the new Caesar. This is why the “civic” word and concept is in the western mind, because it’s ancient and Roman. This is also why recorded history is divided between classical (ancient civilization), feudal/medieval (fractured agrarian), and modern industrial.
The idea that France is a nation is much older than the 1789 Revolution. This idea came from France's victory in 1453 at the end of the Hundred Years' War with England. A consensus that England was the enemy solidified after the Hundred Years' War, and it continued to define French national identity until the Crimean War in the middle of the 19th century when France and Britain finally began to fight on the same side (and of course continued to do so in the 20th century). Because of her ability to inspire, Joan of Arc saved France from England during the Hundred Years' War and continued to be a very important symbol of the French nation afterwards.
@@thesupergamer43430 A series of wars that lasted over 100 years was far more complicated than how it can be described in one paragraph. Also, think about things from the perspective of the average people, not just kings and nobles. The average medieval peasant had no clue what national identity is.
@@hello855 They did otherwise during People's Crusade tens of thousand peasant wouldn't walk half of Europe to go to fights Saracens, or Germans would not have genocided the Slavs who occupied modern Germany etc. There are so many examples its not even worth mentioning.
@@hello855 Joan of Arc was a peasant. She also made it very clear that she wanted France to be free and not occupied by England. You do have a point - the Hundred Years' War is too complicated to fully understand with just one paragraph. However, the only point I was making is that French national identity is older than the 1789 Revolution. The life of the peasant Joan of Arc and its legacy (as well as the nearly continuous conflict between England and France after the Hundred Years' War until the middle of the 19th century) are enough evidence to conclude that France became a nation before it abolished its monarchy.
I don't know to what extent I agree with the idea... A region has resources, it trades with other regions. The people within these regions have values, they have laws/rules that they abide by. A nation unifies these regions that share laws, culture, values, resources, etc without barriers. Then you need a military to protect the borders from outsiders who threaten these values/laws/trade, etc. They collect taxes to enforce/protect these laws. As military capabilities increase over time, the threats increase, and the more regions need to consolidate their borders to ward off potential threats. So you could say countries are "made up". But they are definitely naturally occurring. The regions that tried to avoid ever being part of a nation are lost to history, because it wasn't a competitive strategy.
I've known this for at least a decade. There needs to be introductory content to conceptual thinking, I think Johnny did a great job. @12:44 Him talking about how trains helped form the nation state is actually pretty new thinking. It's a part of the measuring human advancement through manipulation of energy rather than materials line of thinking that's just gotten traction in the last decade. Part of checking if you have a theory and not a hypothesis is by taking the relevant metrics and seeing if it can "predict" historical events. It's high level, and very smoothly integrated so I don't blame anyone for not noticing, but a fantastic addition none the less. Sorry about our election BTW, we'll see if Mexico is our Poland, to gauge how serious this is.
I think you did a great job with this one, as always great edition and you managed to simplify lots of complex topics. Great to spark your curiosity into learning more!
A person from another family, therefore another identity, marries another person from another family/identity and they create a new family and kids, therefore new identity...SO, ALL OF THIS IS NOT NEW...HAS BEEN GOING SINCE FOREVER.
@@countercurrents8585 why are you here if that is what you think. Spending time watching videos from people you think are dumb is a pretty weird thing to do. Does that make you dumb?? What's up with that?
This language argument is kinda off. It’s True people in Germany for example didn’t speak the same language. But there are huge similarities between fresian, bavarian and saxon dialects.
Globalist nonsense. Compare someone from France with someone from Serbia, for example. They are completely different. Ethnically, linguistically, culturally, like mentality and thinking too. Countries are not just some imaginary borders. Boundaries exist even in the animal world, for example with wolves. Each of them knows their territory. And it is precisely the existence of nation-states that is the reason for avoiding wars and conflicts with other groups. This piece of land is mine, the other is yours. When you mix two radically different cultures and civilizations to live in the same place, it leads to tensions, conflicts and wars. Many countries have collapsed due to these reasons. The example of Israel and Palestine and Yugoslavia is recent
Well said, I usually like his videos but this one is just wrong and makes zero sense. You can tell he doesn't even know the history of anything he's really talking about.
i think a lot of people are not ready to really talk about this, given how many people base their identity on nationalism or their home country. So when you talk about this a lot of people feel attacked because your questioning their identity, so its a delicate topic. But im very thankful you talked about this
That language map around 4:00 is a bit of a tricky one. You see, what we considered to be a "language" is different before standardization compared to today. Many of those "languages" in the old map still exist, they're just today considered dialects of French. So while nationalism did create the idea of "French" as a language, for instance, that does not mean that these people were speaking entirely different languages. They were part of a dialect continuum, and while someone in Normandy might have more trouble understanding someone from near Nice than someone from near Lyon, that doesn't mean they were linguistically or culturally distinct from their neighbors.
I know America has it's problems, but living in so many places I've come to realize it has the most diverse and inclusive national identity of any nation. Truly anyone can become an American. It's not about religion or race it's about community and a shared American dream. if your American and you disagree just LOOK AROUND YOU at all the people that you would never ever think to question their American identity and observe how diverse they are. Sad to see movements like MAGA challenge that and try to draw stupid lines in the sand over irrelevant bullshit.
You mean stupid lines that are meant to preserve the very American identity you want preserved? Make no mistake, there are people in this world that want you and me dead, and to ignore that shows how naive you are. And also make no mistake, the majority of his supporters are open and accepting of immigrants, but what they will not tolerate are those that skip the line and legitimately pose a threat to our way of life.
Ok so after watching this i still think they still exist A nation is not a unified identify and language its practically a big tribe. Humans always had tribes who worked together and shared things. Then those tribes competed and concurred others making them their "tribe". The only reason these people can be fine with this is because they all know that unity is better then having your own small area. Everyone is benefited but when you aren't and people share this idea you make that idea correct. So nations aren't a conglomerate of a single language, ethnicity and people but a group who are unified by ideas and goals. Sorry if that was hard to understand i typed alot😅
Save $3 off your first eSIM purchase with Airalo using promo code JOHNNY3 try.airalo.com/JohnnyHarris
Part 2
ua-cam.com/video/aKHxADMhJtE/v-deo.html
So everything in our society is fake ?
The idea that a nation is a delusion is always slyly propagated by the Satanic Globalists. Multiculturalism has failed in this moment.. But We will all truly be united when The real Lord Jesus Christ comes back. And Establish his City. New Jerusalem. Then They we will all be one Nation.
Note that you can set it up, but not turn it on, before you leave.
You aren't real, Johnny
This does not change the fact kangaroos have outnumbered the population of humans in Australia and still they do not have a parliament seat
Yesterday a wallaby was caught in Kentucky. The kangaroos should form a coalition to bring him home.
If they cant revolt, I mean its their problem.
KLM
Part II
ua-cam.com/video/aKHxADMhJtE/v-deo.html
He has yet to understand the roo deep state , they're watching 🌚🌚🌚🌚🌚
What is fascinating, as a European, is ones sense of identity/community expands the further away you go geographically. A Swede will feel like a Swede in Sweden. A Swede in Italy will gravitate towards other Scandinavians. A Scandinavian in Brazil will gravitate towards other Europeans. A European in China will gravitate towards other "western people".
On Mars, we are all earthlings 💙 and so on.
This is soooo true. This is for all cultures. I'm somali. In Somalia we see Nigerians as foreigners. But in UK I see them as fellow black friend.
And for us binationals (either by blood or birthplace) that sense of identity is blurred further still. I think the idea of hierarchy of identities is pretty common among emigrant families.
@arandomhandsomeman7725 in Nigeria we are very divided by tribes. I mean in my state, we have almost 10 languages and we don't agree. But if I go to the North, my fellow Rivers man is my brother, when I met some Yoruba people, they asked if I know Burna Boy and Omah Lay 😂😂. I leaned into it, after all Burna Boy's dad and my mom are from the same local government area 😂😂 so I guess he is my brother. I went to Kwara state and was excited to see an Igbo kitchen, because they cook more like us, I was tired of eating food I wasn't used to. I know if I go to the US, I'd embrace the Yoruba and Hausa food faster than I'd smell a plate of Mac and cheese 😅.
as a european living in china I totally agree, all my friends are from other countries
Humans are tribal, and the tribes have just gotten larger over time..
I agree with you. The concept has been all along, but transportation and information technology making it possible to make it larger and larger
True
I disagree. The concept of a tribe is rooted in the fact that you share enough with your tribe members to be part of the same tribe. These people are your family, these people are your neighbours and you work with these people. However in these giant nations, person A does not have anything valuable in common with person B who lives 200 kilometers away.
communication is key to this concept. thats why for example a mars colony will always need their own government. the communication time is too long. especially when it comes to in person communication
@@adriaanvandoorn1263 Tribes also have belief systems, which have proven to be powerful enough to make even complete strangers bond with one another. And as @Arthera0 pointed out, communication of these belief systems used to be physically limited.
Nations aren't this old but the tribalism behind them is literally part of our evolutionary history.
I don't understand how "countries are made up" (which is kind of obvious) turned into "countries aren't real." Lots of real things are made up: books, plays, art, and, to a certain extent, math and science. Something being "made up" or created by humans doesn't mean it's not real. That's an unfair correlation.
Yes, lot of intellectual confusion in this video.
@@peterlast4775 110%. This is Johnny being pissed off with the election.
by "real" he means they only exist in our minds. The effects of that existence are impactful and real, but the thing itself is a myth we all collectively believe.
What he means is that countries only exist in our minds, they are as real as any product of our imagination can be.
on point !
Trump : wins election
Johnny: well countries aren’t real
Part 2
ua-cam.com/video/aKHxADMhJtE/v-deo.html
yeah, he has to be super frustrated by his win. I like his videos but hes clearly biased and for some reason sort of hates western civization which is kinda funny. Maybe he should blame other countries too for human right opression-like Saudi etc
😂😅
Fascism is making a comeback
Kamala supporters: Everyone is racist and misogynistic
Trump supporters: we'll support him as he's driving us off a cliff
Money isn't real either, doesn't make it any less real for us.
We need both money and nations. Concepts are important.
The colonization of the human mind.
yeah this whole idea of nations dont exist and no borders thing is so dumb. our nations always existed they once upon a time were just nations of 10 guys with sticks and the culture of those 10 guys turned into 100. then 1000. then 10,000 and then 100,000 and you needed more space so you dominated the nations of smaller people groups and converted them into your nation culture. thats just human history. we used to call it tribal warfare now its nation warfare. its all the same thing.
@@GonzoJohnnyhow is money colonization😂?
@@jjoohhhnn Do we really though? Is it really impossible for us to create a society that doesn't depend on either concept?
Title changed from Why Countries Aren't Real
Thank you for you immensely beneficial comment. My life has improves exponentially. I have never felt so enlightened by such an outstanding piece of information you just provided.
I still have this exact title now
Johnny: "Countries aren't real."
Also Johnny: Loves Switzerland.
Switzerland also exists since 1291. It grew larger because others joined. But the core stayed, since 1291...
France, Germany and Italy define themselves via a common language and culture, China via bloodline, Pakistan via religion just to mention a few. All problems that these nations face arise from how they define themselves. Switzerland transcends these fundamentally exclusive concepts. To be Swiss is to belief in the institutions of the Swiss state: compromise, neutrality, direct democracy, federalism and a militia. As such there are no natural boundaries to the Swiss nation, it's more akin to how we viewed the Roman Empire historically. As a concept this way of creating a nation would work for any place in the world and would avoid many many conflicts.
@@martinzihlmann822 that's kinda how the US organizes itself, to some extend.
Switzerland is very much modeled after the US, and the US after Switzerland, we even had a short civil war over state rights (no slavery) in 1847
@@themechanic49 you bought a bit into the national narrative here. Switzerland, as a nation, arguably only started to exist with Napoleon's invasion of 1798 and the subsequent creation of the Helvetic state. With the dissolution of the vassal states and the formation of a federal government. Prior to that you weren't Swiss, you were either from Zurich, Bern, Lucerne etc. and that was your whole identity.
If France is so complex
Imagine the same for a country like India
Where there are totally different cultures, languages, traditions and beliefs every 100km
USSR was even worse
Yeah in the state of UP, there is a new dialect of Hindi when one moves from Mathura to LKO.
Absolutely! India takes diversity to a whole new level. With so many languages, customs, and traditions coexisting, it’s like a collection of mini-countries within one nation. That’s what makes India both challenging and fascinating to understand!
I think India would be right now in the process of creating the Indian identity under one language and everything else, like France did back then.
westeners always overlook india
I kinda feel that you skipped over the roman empire...
or Greece, Egypt or any other old nation
Yeah, they even have the concept of citizenship
Or nations that are thousands of years older than the roman empire?? Try Persia, Mesopotamia, Assyria, Phoenicia, Egypt
@@Lamalas 'everyone'should'know'this'"johnny harris"'is'sponsored'by'the'WEF,'allied'with'Alex'Soros,'actively'pushing'to'eradicate'nationalism'-'as'George'Soros,'in'his'book,'deems'the'ideology'"an'enemy'to'open'societies."'this'comment'will'be'deleted'.
He skipped many things.
Skipped whole story of sovereignty, why each nation feels it has the right to 'self-determination'
I think he was trying to focus on the modern construction of nation. The Roman Empire was nothing like nation-states of the current age
But as you said his story is incomplete.
And his 'nations are fake' is too oversimplified that its not really true.
Time to thank the sponsor of today's video, the World Economic Forum.
Please explian further if u can, I'm curious as to why that's bad, what's the goal of the WEF?
@@alexx12545i’m not sure to every detail but they are very scetchy and essentially build everything around economics (suprice surprice it’s in their name). They are very utopian in their views while ALSO being kind of scary because they suggest some really idiotic things that would never work
@@alexx12545it's a favorite villain for conspiracy theorists, like the lizard people, Jews, Muslims, women, leftists etc.
@@Ikbeneengeitlol classic name calling when it's actually true, he's a WEF "agenda contributor" and his name is literally listed on their website
@@alexx12545the WEF is pushing “globalism” which basically means that they want the entire world to be under the governance of one combined government, which sounds good but really is just another word for world domination and control.
As a European, the idea that countries are made up doesn’t strike me as a particularly novel concept, you don’t have to travel very far in Europe to realise this
Same in India.
Europe is the place that proves the opposite.
@@rohannatuindia is civilizational state
MY COUNTRY IS REAL
It's also a bit weird that he brings up the countries in Europe as claiming they are for their people, while countries in Europe have actively decided to create a massive federation to which they willfully hand off some of their power.
The EU is currently probably the biggest example of borders being nowhere near as strict as many people think
Bulgarian here, we were 500 years under Ottoman rule and we didn't got assimilated by the ottomans for that long period. That didn't happend mostly because the christian religion, but also because of our language, traditions, all these things were saved by the people and passed trought generations. These hard times made all of our people more united than ever. There were revolution committees in cities, towns and villages all over "the country". In 1878 Bulgaria was liberated and put back on the political map for first time since 1396.
marinhristozov1832, "and we didn't got assimilated by the ottomans for that long period. That didn't happend mostly because the christian religion, but also because of our language, traditions, all these things were saved by the people and passed trought generations."
No, it didn't happen because Ottoman empire didn't have a policy of assimilation. Like every other classical empire, it didn't care who you were, so long as you paid taxes and didn't revolt.
@@yalcnbey5834 You are Turkish, try not to be biased. The Ottomans did have a policy of assimilation, especially in the later period of the empire. The Jizya, and jannisary system were some methods of assimilation. Understand that western Anatolia, and eastern Thrace didn’t become Turkish by magic. Many assimilated in the Balkans as well but migrated to Anatolia following the Balkan wars
@@yalcnbey5834 Also if you look into the Arab revolts and the reasons they wanted independence from the Ottomans, you will see discrimination against non-Turks as one of the primary reasons.
@@g1u2y345jizya is a tax and janissaries were no different than recruiting as French Legionnaires
Nope this guy says countries aren't real
How many maps do you have Johnny?
Johnny: yes
CIA has a lot of maps
Part 2
ua-cam.com/video/aKHxADMhJtE/v-deo.html
His rent is 3x higher than necessary bc he needed room for them
Asking the real questions.
More than Map Men?
Portugal is the only uniform nation in Europe. Our borders have been the same for almost a millennium and all of us have allways spoke the same language, with regional accents.
Original title: "Countries Aren’t Real, Here’s Why"
Ah, it's still the same now 1hr in, commenting, so I won't forget :0
By this time tomorrow it should be different
I mean they can just delete your comment if they want.
Changed the original title on his recent election videos, along with the image. Starting to wonder if he starts with a slightly 'inflammatory' title and image to boost the comments and metrics he receives, in a similar way people who make shorts will place an obvious spelling mistake to boost their video when people obviously pick it up and comment about it. Pretty scummy tbh.
Nations and cultures are real, but the idea of governments is entirely made up.
A lot of what he's saying is contextually deceptive.
For example, in the same early 1800s there was one "french" as far as the world was concerned, which Thomas Jefferson and the kings of Spain and England also spoke as a diplomatic language...the other "languages" were mostly french with what we'd today consider very thick dialects of French.
They could understand each other across much of France, despite those various "languages".
He also is being deceptive when he conflates country with nation.
A country is a top-level political division.
A nation is an ethnicity/culture that identifies together as a group.
Countries are as old as recorded history.
But nations, while being a concept as old as time, only became normalized as a way to form a country in the 19th century.
Nationalism, during the romantic era, was about cultural nations forming their own countries, governing themselves.
This is also what the Springtime of Nations was about, in 1848, when all across Europe various ethnicities overthrew their arbitrary rulers and formed their own states.
Thank you.
good critiques! yes there was a common french that diplomats communicated with and that was known broadly, but as an identity that language was mostly used and identified with by elites. The major point here is that the modern day idea of a unified group of people within borders (ie the psychological "nation" as you pointed out) is a fairly new concept, a construct that was fortified mostly over the last hundred or so years, which at least for me was surprising. I thought this sort of unity of people within borders existed in this form for much longer. You're right that I use nation and country interchangeably which, within political science literature, would be technically wrong since both have a useful definition within that context. But I'm not writing for an academic journal here. I'm trying to convey the broad concepts for the audience and hopefully they found this useful!.
Thanks for thoughtful pushback.
Exactly
I think it used to be more of a dialect continuum, where a place at the border of one nation *might* be considered a dialect of that nation if you squint enough, but it's really similar to another dialect of a different language just across the border. So you could have drawn the borders differently and still say that everything in that border is a dialect of one language. Where you put an end to one language and what you consider a dialect vs. a different language is arbitrary, and dictated by politics. As someone said, "a language is a dialect with an army and navy".
@@johnnyharrisWhat a fantastic way to respond to a critical comment! I wish more UA-camrs would follow your professional example, Johnny. It increases trust in your research and intentions.
Edit: by the way, I say this as a person who often sees quite differently from Johnny's political points of view. His demeanour makes it easy to be open to the way he sees things and to consider his conclusions with deeper thought. I've been a subscriber for a while, and I will continue to look forward to each video he comes out with!
Italian here.
The idea of Italy as a distinct entity has deep roots, reaching back to the Roman era, although Italian identity has evolved and transformed over the centuries.
As early as the Republican era, the Romans used the term "Italia" to refer part of the peninsula-initially only the southern part, later expanding to include all of it during the imperial period. By the Augustan age, Rome had consolidated the concept of Italy as the heart of the Roman world, a distinct geographical and cultural entity separate from the provinces. This idea was reinforced by the Romanization of Italic peoples and the granting of Roman citizenship to all inhabitants of the peninsula. Thus, Italy was perceived as a privileged land, with a unique status within the Empire. Although the concept of a nation-state did not yet exist, there was a sense of cultural unity due to Roman citizenship and the prestige of being "Italic" within the Empire.
However, with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, this identity fragmented. During the Middle Ages, Italy became a patchwork of independent kingdoms, duchies, republics, and city-states, with strong local identities rather than a unified national consciousness. The Italian territory became a battleground for foreign powers and local forces, including the Holy Roman Empire, the Normans, the Byzantines, and later the major European monarchies. Each city and region developed its own identity, and people primarily identified with their own city or commune (Florence, Venice, Milan, etc.).
Nevertheless, the spirit of belonging to a "land of Italy" did not disappear completely. Writers and poets like Dante Alighieri, Francesco Petrarca, and Niccolò Machiavelli expressed a strong desire for unity and a sense of an Italian homeland. Although these were primarily cultural and literary ideals, these early sentiments of national unity foreshadowed the Risorgimento, when the dream of a united Italy became a concrete political project, led by figures like Giuseppe Mazzini, Camillo Benso di Cavour, and Giuseppe Garibaldi.
In summary, there existed a sense of Italy as a cultural and geographical entity dating back to the Roman era. However, this awareness underwent significant changes: during the Middle Ages, it weakened and fragmented into regional identities, and only with the Risorgimento did the idea of an Italian identity take political shape, transforming from an abstract concept into a unified national state.
I'm Greek and we were calling ourselves Romans (Romioi) up to 20th century. Even today in some songs and poetry the term is still used, mostly to describe the Greek identity rather than the Imperial citizenship.
Im interested to know, did the people in different parts of italy before the unification realy speak different languages, or was it just different dialects?
@arassadeghi3998 Before unification, Italy was linguistically fragmented, with each region speaking its own distinct language or dialect, often quite different from others, but with basically all of them having the common root in Latin. Tuscan eventually became the basis for modern Italian due to its literary prestige (the Divine Comedy, for example, is written in vulgar Tuscan, the same with the Decameron), but most Italians continued speaking regional languages until the 20th century, when education, media, and urbanization spread standard Italian across the country.
I'm from Ferrara, a city in northeastern Emilia-Romagna, and my grandparents' generation still speaks in dialect. My parents and people my age, of course, speak Italian, though most people can still understand the dialect. In the most southern cities, the vast majority of people still have a strong dialectal influence.
@@danthblackwinter8635 thanks for the information : )
What I found the most weird claim in the video was the language thing. I find it very hard to believe that in 1950, only 20% of Italians spoke "Italian". I mean dialects ofc. are a thing, but different language? Ofc, what is a language and what is a dialect, is often very handwavy. My native language Finnish, has really strong dialects based on old "tribal borders", but we still think all of the people are speaking the same language. We can fully understand each other, aside of some corner cases, which are maybe comparable to teens having their own words that the older folks don't understand, but on a regional level.
Maybe when the aliens invade, our primary identity can finally be "human".
China as a unified nation is indeed not that simple.
As a Chinese Singaporean, I am descended from Hokkien forefathers from Quanzhou City in Fujian province, while my maternal relatives, came from somewhere in the old Chaozhou prefecture, in Guangdong province, and identify as Teochews, not Cantonese.
If you thought my ancestors saw themselves as "Chinese" brothers, and worked together harmoniously when they came to Singapore, you would be wrong. When the Hokkiens and Teochews arrived en masse in the 19th century, multiple fights and riots broke out between the two groups. On identity documents, the British and the people themselves did not write "Chinese", they wrote "Hokkien", "Teochew" or "Cantonese". They saw themselves as Chinese, yes, but their local identity was far stronger than the national identity.
Fujian province alone can be split into people from Quanzhou City, Zhangzhou City, Putian City, Fuzhou Provincial capital and Fuqing City. Each city speaks its own version of the "Hokkien" dialect, which can be somewhat understood by people outside of that city. So people would split even further, from province down to the local city level to identify themselves.
The Teochews speak a language different from the rest of Guangdong Province, closer to Hokkien than Cantonese, but they don't like this comparison with the Hokkiens. The Teochews were in their own prefecture , separate from Guangdong, before being merged into it, hence the different language and culture. They do not identify with being Cantonese, despite being in the same province.
Even family surnames can be used to divide people. My ancestral village is in Xiangyun town, NanAn County, which is another way to differentiate myself from others in the same City of Quanzhou, or those of the same surname. Immigrants to Singapore used to group themselves first by province, then city, then town and family surname. If I am told that someone of the same surname came from another village, I knew he was an outsider, a non relation who shares only my surname.
Thus, these people, who outwardly look the same, from an outside point of view, did not differ much in their way of life and their reasons for coming, ended up breaking themselves into petty groups for support. China was a faraway concept to them, practically and literally.
Thus, the whole China as a totally unified nation is truly a modern invention. Every province has its own culture and traditions, which people identified with first, while acknowledging they were Chinese, at least in theory.
The idea of Imperial China always seem more like a piece of administrative tool than a nation of any kind. Even the written Chinese language was more of a tool than part of anyone's identity. People were left alone and even the Imperial officials didn't care who identified as what as long as they behave. As long as the dynasty was functional, no one cared who ruled. As long as the people didn't stir up troubles and people of any culture is left alone.
Bro yall do have history
@@ArchOfWinternot to mention it seems like they lacked any reason to differentiate themselves from anyone else as the central power and progenitor culture that all their neighbors were influenced by, so what need would there be to be a modern nation state?
There is a very fitting saying that has applied to China since its founding, ‘’天高/山高，皇帝遠‘’。A simple phrase that translated literally means that Heaven is high up or the mountains are high, and the Emperor is far away.
The local people did not receive much interference from the imperial government, basically because they were too far away and / or too remote.
Which meant that the local government had leeway to govern as they needed....and corruption could go unnoticed.
Please stop using a marginal minority to represent the majority of the Chinese nation.
First, it was race, then sexuality, then gender, and now you're telling me that countries are fake too?
Here is what I know.
Countries are man made calling them fake is... Irrational to say the least. That is like saying a language is fake...
There is one race. The human race. If you have no noticed. WE CAN ALL F GLOBALLY and make babies...
You could use ethnicity, but that falls apart too... What would the ethnicity of a kid from an American, a Sweden, an Indian and a Korean person be?
Serious what the F do you mean by race here? I never understood that American concept...
As for gender/sex well there are Male and Female that encompass 98% with 2% Intersex. For the latter of Think rare genetic anomalies like how some ppl got testies instead of ovaries some born with no PPs among others things...
There is also approximate sex change operations for ppl with severe dysphoria. The tech is improving but is still far from ideal... There are no laws of physics that prohibit the tech from being perfected so it is a matter of time. Transhumanism in general will go MUCH father than just changing sexual organs if you ask me...
PPl will change EVERYTHING you can think of about the human body until the very definition of human would have to be hard set. Think all manner of extra organs or limbs or colours etc...
As for sexuality (I will assume you mean attraction) There are the classics hetero/homo/Bi/A sexual. Observed and recorded in human history and WELL DOCUMENTED in many... Websites for corn farmers.
Some like Gender fluidity and Pan sexuality. I really don't understand. I never looked into them they could be legit or not.
The rest of the "sexualies" I think of as basically kinks or made up by ppl who want to be special on social media as they make little to no sense at all...
Finally, PDFs are a blight.
Correct me if got anything wrong if you know better that is.
@aziouss2863 There are many different definitions of race in America. Race is usually either between the color of your skin or where you come from. For example, pale europeans may be considered white, but pale Israelis would not be considered white. This is because of a difference in culture, religion, and history. Back in the 1900s, not all pale europeans were considered white, and Italians and Irishmen were discriminated against for being Catholic. To this day, white Americans are usually only considered to be pale-skinned protestants with Anglo Saxon or Germanic heritage. Black Americans also have a bit of a controversial meaning. While anyone with dark skin could be called black, being black is more of a cultural identity limited to African Americans. This means that very dark-skinned Hispanics, Asians, and other groups would not be considered black in America. Asians are people usually from either China, Korea, or Japan, but can extend down to people from southeast Asia as well, like people from Vietnam, Thailand, and the Phillipines. When it comes to Asians, race isn't so much as defined by the color of a person's skin but instead from a person's country of origin. This is also the same for Hispanics. The US Cenaua Bureau has races listed as the following: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders. This covers about 81.6% of the racial makeup in America, with the other 18.4% being mostly Hispanics who either identify with none of these or more than one of them.
So, to review, what is race? Race is a person's country of origin combined with a similar cultural identity and appearance. To be a part of a certain race, you have to fill all these qualities. For example, a pale-skinned Italian may be considered white by the US government, but because they don't have that shared cultural identity as other white Americans, they would not fit in this category.
He's leftist. Everything is a social construct for them. Nothing exists.
Trump gets elected and Johnny goes Sovereign Citizen on us. 😂
He sees people as the idiots they are, who would appoint Matt Gaits as attorney General.
@@michaeladkins6 are you counting yourself among them?
@@michaeladkins6 you know, those checks from the Democratic Party probably won’t clear… you can drop the tough guy act. Don’t call people idiots, don’t be a sore loser
Title changed from "Countries Aren't Real, Here's Why" -> "Nationalism, Explained"
What drives these title choices, what to start with, and where to change them to? What data are y'all tracking?
Whole my life as a central Siberia citizen, I've been identifying as Russian, then Siberian, then Asian and then Tuvan. And only recently I started to realize that the concept of being Russian isn't clicking for me: I'm not white, my hair isn't blond, my eyes aren't blue, I'm not Slavic, I'm 100% Asian.
I speak Russian because this is what school taught me, but my whole family speaks an entirely different language. It's not even Slavic language, Tuvan is Turkish kind of language. Because of globalisation, I speak three different kinds of languages from three different ethnic groups: English, Russian and my mother language Tuvan.
This is wild. In Russian language there are two words for "being Russian": "русский" is being Russian as an ethnicity and "россиянин" is being Russian as a citizen of the country. I'm latter *and* I'm Tuvan.
Tuva is a republic therefore calling your nationality Tuvan is a Ok.
Also there's a distinction between Russians and Rossians(Россияне) but it's really vague and kinda imperial.
I hope Tuvans and others will be free in the choice of their future.
Wow! Interesting to hear that "Russian" in the Russian language is separated into 2 words, one for ethnicity and one for citizenship. Actually "Chinese" is also separated into 2 terms in the Chinese language. Zhong Guo Ren means citizen of China, Hua Ren means anyone of Chinese blood regardless of citizenship.
There's Russian ethniticy and Russian citizenship. Russia by all means is the remanents of the russian empire and not a nation-state as commonly defined. If Russia was centered only around Moscow-StPb and volvograd then might be it would be a russian nation-state. This is why in Russia Patriotism is celebrated, while Nationalism is suppressed.
@Armadurapersonal tell that to Russian Obshina ("Community") I'm sure they'll get a laugh.
Yes! Finally you're waking up to your real cultural ties and roots that have been subjugated
Is it just a video about why France doesn't exist ?
Let’s just say French centralization and language enforcement is proof of how artificial national identity is.
Nah, it's just a video promoting the destruction of France. It's called brainwash. Don't worry.
@@AstroBear11 but France do not exist. It is muslim at the bottom and african in the center with some French people here and there trying to not to be attacked.
The reason why French history is such a big part of this video is because it played a really crucial role in the emergence of nationalism as an ideology as the video lays out
it's free real estate 😏
A week ago, you believed in a nation. Today you went full globalist 😂
It's because he's a world economic forum "agenda contributor" - he's literally listed on their website.
Maybe he went anarchist or imperialist?
I'm joking. The video's claim isn't that nations should be dissolved; it's just describing the recent developments in the history.
lol this
@@sampdbiz u can hijack a nation and its policies
I do believe you meant to say, "globalisht."
To rule one has to divide first.
I remember the video where Johnny was shocked when putin said Ukraine didn't exist historically.
Interesting point.
It does seem kinda inconsistent.
Personally, I count myself consistent in disagreeing with this video and Baldy's comments.
Why context matters.
It doesn't matter what matters is present so many countries don't existed in past but exists today.
Ukraine existed longer than Russia did. Russia is a tale of how a city state spun off and expanded under a central, autocratic rule.
@@martytu20 yes
Norway wasnt inspired by Napoleon. Norway became independent because their previous union with Denmark was broken as Norway was given as bounty to Sweden. Norway didnt want to be in union with sweden and declared independence.
Also if you look at the borders of scandinavia you'll see a pretty early sense of nations. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are formed, have kings, form unions, etc.
Everyone should know this Johnny Harris is sponsored by the WEF, allied with Alex Soros, and actively trying to dismantle the idea of "nationalism," as George Soros deems the ideology an "enemy to Open Societies" in his book.
3:39 “you look at the distribution of red hair, for example, and you see that it never lines up with national borders” while showing a map where Wales, Cornwall, Scotland, and literally all of Ireland are noticeably darker than England lmfao. Edit: I actually went back and you can make out Brittany in France too
You miss the point. Where is the nation, whose defining trait is Red hair? None, it doesn't exist, every nation is born by belief and politics, not genes.
Ah but the "country" is the UK in their heads
All of those identities are also modern and are places where much of the population identifies with another national identity, especially in the case of Cornwall and Brittany where very few people identify with that nation at all.
@@slothbirdbeard6996well yeah that was the point being made in the video. People in France previously identified more with their local areas and cultures, but then got brought into these larger groups. Modern Scottish and Welsh nationalism is also very new.
@@spe3dy744 I’m simply making the point that the example they chose very clearly doesn’t do a very good job at supporting what they’re saying, and that it’s frankly comical how closely aligned at least these national borders are with the distribution of red hair
i heard that WEF pays well.
what do you think Johnny?
Why does the discussion between Johnny and Max seem so fake and scripted. Like it is taking me out of the video 🤣 they just seem so fake when talking to each other. Still watched of course but it was throwing me off.
It's 100% scripted. Which is fine, but I wish it weren't presented as if it were unscripted.
Because is fake and scripted... and flawed.
Because this is globalist propaganda
@@hughheff19 'everyone'should'know'this'"johnny harris"'is'sponsored'by'the'WEF,'allied'with'Alex'Soros,'actively'pushing'to'eradicate'nationalism'-'as'George'Soros,'in'his'book,'deems'the'ideology'"an'enemy'to'open'societies."'this'comment'will'be'deleted'.
just taking hints from some alt rights play book
Countries and nations are real, and here's why: money is just silly pieces of paper. But we all agreed, or were forced to interact with the majority who agrees, that we assign a value to paper money, even if it's a distant iteration of "two chicjens make a sheep, two sheeps make a cow". At the very least, countries and nations exist in that way - and that's a very powerful way.
But again, just because something as an effect on you, does not make it real. If we collectively stop believing in money or contries, they cease to exist and have no effect anymore. If we stop believing in the comet that comes to destroy the earth, it will still destroy the earth. Thats why a comet is real and nations are not.
He didnt say it isn't real in that sense, he only talks about the concept of nations..
Its just a title
nations don't exist as physical entities, they're merely social constructs we all agree to uphold
I think what he meant was more that they're a social construct, not that they aren't real. Yes, they're real, but they were made up by humans.
False. Nations exist since Antiquity. The Academia for long claimed otherwise, but that trend has changed, even in cases where they even denied ethnicities, like the Byzantine Studies, where Byzantinologists like Anthony Kaldellis demonstrate that the Medieval Romans did have a national identity.
And "countries" as a term is not connected to nationhood. You can have a country with 10 national identities in it (which will have to form a new one out of them). Yet, "countries" mostly refers to states, which have existed too since Antiquity.
Irans name is on the coins of the Sassanian empire, same country is on the Shahnameh telling stories since before the Acheaminds, so yes, nations are so fucking old but modern mostly left wing educational system can't accept that.
Agreed, he didn't dig far back enough. Using medieval Europe as the starting point was a huge oversight, as historians know that medieval Europe was anything BUT unified, it's infamous for it's disunity. Classical antiquity and the Byzantine era is proof that a sense of national/cultural identity was a thing and has always been a thing. Rome controlled Britain to the Middle east at one point, all subjects were Roman and identified as such (at least up until the fall of the west).
@@Calikid331 I'm not sure if Jesus and the Apostles (maybe except Paul) would had ever identified themselves as "Roman".
Nations don't exist when they don't fir the globalist agenda. Johnny Harris is sponsored by the WEF.
@@hello855 Yea I think only Roman citizens would consider themselves Roman. subjects of Rome would have identified with their local or historical ethnic group
So glad I am Australian. No borders just one big island!
Why does it feel like Johnny is a toddler being explained the basic notion that everything in our society is just a social construct 🥲
He is just waking up to the fact that the concept of a nation only came into being after the French Revolution 😂
Well, that's just not true. First of all, you have to define society. Then you have to realize that there are actual things that are aren't social constructs, yet exist.
You're probably getting high on your own farts (average viewer of this channel)
@@nearly_epic Not true at all. The word nation = people has been used since ancient greece.
@@nearly_epic yes but this concept of nation states being a social construct, and overall logic, applies to everything within our society. Why can people inherit millions of dollars without lifting a finger while others go hungry living on the street? Why is it okay for a 50 year old man to sleep with a naive 18 year old but not okay if they're 17? Why can an Israeli passport go to 171 countries visa free when a Palestinian living less than a mile away only go to 36? Why is it okay for a man and women to love each other but not to love more than one person or a person of the same sex? Why is it normal to cover ourselves in cloth but strange to walk around without it? These are not inherent natural laws that must be followed, like everything else these are social constructs which we've been told are the way things work. Regardless of if there's merit or rational to these decisions, they are still just constructs of our society that we've been forced to accept. There's no such thing as race, religion, nationality, sex, gender. We can study these subjects and label the natural phenomenon but no inherent trait or belief, no race, no religion, no gender, no sexual orientation, no nationality is better than another, just different. We are all just people of earth, each products of our environment and the biological inheritance that makes us up.
How can countries be real if our eyes aren't real?
Our eyes are 'un- real', which is not the same as 'not real'.
Are you real?
Part 2
ua-cam.com/video/aKHxADMhJtE/v-deo.html
nothing is real and nothing is an illusion
"real eyes realize real lies" aah comment
@@glocksupremo Fabulous.
You missed one thing about Italy...Italian is a made up language. Literally nobody spoke the language, it was just a literary creation (Dante Alighieri, Alessandro Manzoni and others), made up from pieces of different languages of the peninsula (mainly Tuscan and Lombard languages) and a lot of newly invented words inspired by Latin. At one point, since all of the Kingdoms didn't have a common language to speak, they started using this language that was only used in literature. That's why in 1861 only 2% of the people spoke it, it was just the high-end of society. French at least was a real language spoken by real people...that's also why it took longer for Italy to build a national identity. And to this day some communities still don't see themselves as Italian. Some in Sardinia for example, but the main ones are the people from South Tirol, who still speak German as their first language and their knowledge in Italian is straight out BAD.
Many modern languages came up in a similar way.
@@citrusandseasalt Such as? I don't know honestly, I thought Italian was a bit of an exception. Maybe not the only one but I believed it was quite rare.
@@am.perronace That first sentence of yours, "Italian is a made up language. Literally nobody spoke the language", you could replace "italian" with any language of the world in any time in history.
Tens of thousand years of history, empires, lands, social groups, languages etc ... and you thought your language is exceptional ?
Daverro Perronace, ti manca prospettiva.
If you want a more concrete example. You could use modern hebrew.
@@am.perronace every single language on this planet is "made up". Ever since we came up from Africa exploring, we created new languages. When the Roman Republic broke down Latin was a source of words for new languages to be used.
Before nations, empires existed, before empires, kingdoms existed, before that city states existed, before that villages existed, before that tribes and tight-knit communities existed.
To say that nations are made up just because of a lack of a homogenous genetic makeup is stupid, one just has to look at the light map border between India-Pakistan or North Korea-South Korea, to know that despite them being genetically similar, their independent nationhood is very real.
{{{{Globalist}}}} propaganda.
He's on the world economic forum website, no surprises.
Define globalism
LOL conspiracy theorists are really a joke. Just because it doesn't fit your nationalist agenda, you will call it a "propaganda"? LMAO.
6:08 “Thats everywhere” is a stretch. Look at Portugal since the 12th century only two languages (one used by 0.01% of the population since that time), borders fixed and 90% same genetic identity. Well before it was an empire
But that just means that the social construct of "Portugal" was created earlier, but it doesn't negate the fact that it wasn't created in the first place.
@@mhjy9394 the language you are using is a social construct, does it exist?
Same in Estonia lol. Long history or slavery and being tied down to land has crated a strong link between culture, language and genetics
I feel each nation has their own story...Personally I believe that countries "exist", I guess the difference is how long they have existed...the idea of a nation being a social construct is kinda out there...
@@MrTriple3D a standardised language? sure. But what makes someone a certain ethnicity has never, ever been standardised.
Sry, not a fan of this video... The terms "country" and "nation" constantly get mixed up. The focus on "one language for one country" seems weird since it certainly isn´t a requirement for an united country/nation- for example Switzerland, Belgium, Italy (the North is german speaking) the UK, Canada etc. they all have several different languages used within their borders- meanwhile there are for example several german-speaking-countries, spanish-speaking-countries etc. next to each other that didn´t unite....
Cultural and religious identity predate countries and nations (old greeks, Romans, christian and muslim culture etc.). Countries were born by uniting several smaller pieces to one big (standing armies, one law etc.). Nations were born thanks to fixed borders, laws and rulership based on the cultural identity of the many people instead of those of a few nobles (feudal sytem, monarchy...) (-> cultural differences between North and South Korea, China vs Taiwan etc.). In Europe many modern nations were born from the bottom up (Revolutions in France and Germany, rebellions of the Dutch, Swiss, Scots etc.) - while many African nations were created from the top down (colonialism)- hence why many african countries have civil wars within their borders. Nationalism often comes from the top down though, it is a policy to gain control.
(There is btw. a reason why the flags of many of many european nations/countries have the colors used by the revolutionists that fought for freedom/independence against the top/rulers decades ago.)
The example of Napoleon is kinda bad since Napoleon reintroduced the monarchy ? After defeating the Austrians he claimed the(ir) title of emperor (there is a reason why most rulers were kings/queens and didn´t claim emperorship during the middle ages etc. in Europe). That title was for hundreds of years pretty much limited to the Holy Roman Empire and Austria. In the HRE kings/nobles voted for an emperor which was crowned by the pope and was supposed to protect the pope/church (HRE/Austria for the western/catholic church. Russia for the eastern/orthodox church). The religious meaning got lost more and more over the centuries since the catholic church lost more and more power and meaning. The identification with the culture became more important instead - nations, nationalism, freedom of religion, standards for the languages etc. were born. But Napoleon certainly wasn´t the cause....(he went back to the monarchy).
Later on nationalism, fascism, the ethnic identity etc. get all mixed up. Fascism is born in Italy and basically based on the national identification as heirs of the roman Empire. Nazis didn´t go after minorities because it was a threat to nationalism- they went after specific minorities because of racism, often outside the borders of their nation. White non-jewish French, Italians etc. for example were valued by them and left alive after they conquered those lands. Black people from the colonies were not seen as equals but also not hunted down....
The european identity can be based on the continent or the EU. Both are not national identities - so the comparison isn´t good. The identification as Europeans is not based on culture and values - hence why Russia or Turkey might not be seen as "european" by many "Europeans", or why Brexit was such a shock for many people in other EU-countries, or why Hungary under Orban isn´t liked by many Europeans... The EU is a unique thing and developing more and more to something like a european nation, resulting in younger generations starting to identify more and more as Europeans over time. For, maybe, the first time in history a new identity is growing without any wars, conquering, rebellions, revolutions etc.. Exclusion in the EU is very much a thing, it just isn´t forced by armies (the EU doesn´t have an army anyway) but courts and policies (for example when values don´t align anymore - Poland, Hungary etc. for example)
Nation is a fake thing like he trying to explain how nation were presented.
I agree the video felt kind of disspointing having such a complex topic, I understood the point but many were missing
The country you live in, USA, is the one founded on the newer and more enlightened ideas. What the US has is unique. You can be American no matter what your ethnic or religious background is.
Johnny: “countries aren’t real”
Me: uses his video unlawfully
Johnny: sues me in a U.S. court
😂 precisely.
Don't take it so literally, countries obviously still govern how humans function on the day-to-day. All he's saying is the concept is very new relatively speaking. Personally, I think countries are kind of dumb and humans have the capacity to unite as just that - humans. We should get the to point (maybe hundreds of years down the road, but still) where we don't need borders anymore and everyone shares everything from technology to resources to culture.
@@SceptileSlash hear, hear!
@@SceptileSlashthat would have worked in a smaller population but imagine trying to unify 8 BILLION people. You couldn’t even talk to that many in a lifetime.
@@Grassdia Ah, but this is where the internet comes in. We have a tool that has the capability to reach every last person on the planet. Even the internet is still in its infancy when you think about it. Think about what the internet will be like in 200 years.
Cosmopolitan identity tends to be parasitical, a tendency to move to the next fun location rather than having ‘skin in the game’ of caring about a community and working long term to make it better.
The cosmopolitan identity (world citizen) is mostly based on being wealthy enough to be able to move anywhere, and be wanted there.
Cosmopolitanism is really just the same as nationalism except that cosmopolitans are "nationalistic" toward humanity rather than their own nations 🤷♂
@@dna9838 'everyone'should'know'this'"johnny harris"'is'sponsored'by'the'WEF,'allied'with'Alex'Soros,'actively'pushing'to'eradicate'nationalism'-'as'George'Soros,'in'his'book,'deems'the'ideology'"an'enemy'to'open'societies."'this'comment'will'be'deleted'.
@@romeyjondorf can't see much evidence for a benevolent cosmopolitan elite playing constructive roles in the communities they live in, but do see a lot of parasitical behaviour, hopping from one city to the next depending on which community has made themselves more appealing.
"Thats everywhere"
"Everywhere"
Meantwhile, Portugal has become nowhere according to these guys🤷♂
Also, you choose the worst countries in Europe as example.
France, Italy and Germany!
France which on its feudalistic prime, was an empire.
Italy and germany, both parts in the Holy roman empire, had to go through an unification war to form.
This idea falls apart when you choose countries that are culturally homogeneous, like Portugal, Denmark, Greece, Estonia ...
Removed Hungary. Forgot about the Romanian and Croatians
Old Hungarian kingdom being homogenous culturally? I don't know about what you are speaking, as a inhabitant of former part of Austro-Hungarian province of Transilvania I can tell you that you are wrong, this was the most diverse culturally and ethnic region in the world before the American colonization.
@@theOrionsarms There is also the croats within. Removed Hungary from that list. But I can say that the Portuguese were a mix of people before the late middle ages, that originated around the 1200's and 1300's into a very homogenous people. I believe that a country does not make so much sense in terms of borders, but more into language and culture. The Hungarians were quite diferent from all the other groups that co-existed in hungary, specially by language. There are portuguese people speaking portuguese and its creoles, spread all over the world outside of portugal and with other nationalities, but they share a lot of cultural and social ties.
@miguelguerreiro5280 yeah, that was my point, Hungary is homogeneous culturaly today (ignoring century of mixed origin)only after decade of ethnic cleansing and even genocide, I mean what happened with Hungarian Jewish at the end of WW2 , they can pretend that are pure , but historical facts say otherwise.
@@miguelguerreiro5280exactly my thoughts when watching the video.
That's an exaggeration. Yes there are countries that are mostly made up, specially in Africa. But there are countries that are very old and homogeneous. Like Portugal, has the same borders for over 800 years, same language, national identity, etc.
If a country's borders are consistent for long enough, some cultural homogenization is likely to occur.
All this means is you did not understand. And it was invading, enslaving, robbing Europeans who forced nationhood...meso and south American as well as Africa. Of course, humans are the one race...had not a Chinese and a Japanese emperor each decided on CLOSING BORDERS EXCESSIVELY...you might be writing in a very different way.
Even if countries aren't real, humans will still find other ways to group themselves and fight for resources with other groups. Humans are tribal by nature and conflicts are inevitable.
Human nature means whatever the argumenter wants it to be... as every person has a different definition for it...
That's why "human nature" arguments are hacks.
That's a very biased viewpoint.
@@Floedekage But real and true.
Human nature means whatever you want it to be...
@@dv8ug take a look outside of your narrow world view. Take a look at the history of Scandinavia. There's never been internal wars or struggles, but wars between nations.
If what you say is true we would have fought internally when resources were scarce, but what you see instead is communities helping each other through the last 1500 years.
This is also a point again this video, there's been nations that have existed for longer than Johnny thinks without civil wars, resolutions or a fall of empire.
Countries are real. There. Fixed it.
Someone didn’t watch the video
1920: In the future, we will have flying cars!
2024: Countries aren’t real.
At least with space exploring nations, my question is what happens when we have rival nations setting up colonies in similar locations on Mars. It's not like antiquities contact where might is right, it's just plain survival. You don't just raid their base and take the loot, you both die of asphyxiation. Will they work together for their own survival regardless of what is happening on Earth?
This is the earliest I've been to a Johnny Harris video.
This is by far the lowest quality video I've ever seen from Johnny this streaks through so much evidence and just ignores facts. He's really getting desperate needs to be embarrassed
Did you know that Napoleon was from Corsica (which joined France 1 year before Napoleon was born)? He also had a huge Italian accent when he spoke French!
This video isn't really talking about nations it's talking about Nation States specifically imo.
The notions of ethnicity, nation, country, citizenship, nation state, and sovereign state are all being mixed up. Which isn't good for an informative video on a complex and divisive topic.
Max says that the formation of the modern nation can be top down or bottom up. A top down example, France, was given in detail, but no bottom up example was given in detail when it really should have been if the video is genuinely trying to explore the origin.
Saying it's all "made up" can be damaging.
The idea that certain people belong to certain land is presented as a new, manufactured, and arbitrary idea is incredibly damaging to movements like Land Back.
This idea has already been used to justify Russian invasion of Ukraine, as Putin and many other Russian officials determine that Ukraine isn't real and Ukrainian identity is a recent fabrication not anchored in any history.
"If I tell you France is made up that feels wrong" 2:02
No, it doesn't necessarily feel wrong it feels extremely reductionist.
Because so is the weird green paper in my wallet is also made up. Most currency has literally no value, most currencies aren't representing some stash of gold or made out of the "valuable material" themselves. Only 8% of currency is actual physical coin/paper.
Religion is also made up yet we find it so intrinsically valuable that being able to pick one and follow its tenants is considered a fundamental human right.
I think the theory presented by the guy in the blue shirt in this video is incomplete, if not flawed. He claims that nations are modern created concepts and it has not always been so in the past. As example, he mentions France and China, how their nations are composed of different identities, languages, even ethnicities that does not truly unite them into a nation. He mentions how a peasant hundreds of miles away from the king and speaks a different language would not consider himself a frenchman and only identify with the local community. This might be true for nations that are empires and are composed by many ethnicities.
The flawed or incomplete part of this guy's theory it that it takes the example of these 2 nations and he concludes it is true for all the other nations. I can immediately think of other nations, usually smaller nations that are not empires, where national identity is indeed composed by one national language, one ethnicity, and common culture. I am not well versed enough to speak for all other countries, but I do know that Korea is indeed composed by single language, culture, etc. going back thousands of years. I know that currently Korea is divided into 2 countries due to recent geopolitical wars artificially drawing lines in the map. But both south and north Korea had existed as a single country united by a common language and culture going back thousands of years.
If you add Korea to China and France as examples of nations, the central theory of the guy in blue shirt in this video is weak.
You also got places like San Marino and various island nations as well that counter his point.
Honestly, even China is a bad example.
I may be biased, because I'm European, but that guys "theory" is questionable at best.
I believe he’s more accurate than you give him credit for. I can assure you that this concept does apply to the continent of Africa and the so-called Americas.
@@mosijahi3096 well thats bc those borders werent drawn right
@@Jack.....yeah but also, if you drew the borders “right” in Africa you would’ve bundled one thousand different countries into that continent, and it’s not like all those “countries” ever thought of themselves as such until Westerners came & exposed them to a different ideology. Sharing common language doesn’t automatically qualify you as a “nation”, it’s much more than that.
'Countries are malleable'
Vladimir Putin endorses this idea
Peasants never cared about this. Same today. Majority of people don't want war, but the powerful want to play. It's just a playground for the rich and powerful and nationalism was a way to mobilise people.
Yes, seems countries are as much about the warlords than the people.
Bs. Peasants have been organizing themselves into tribes for quite some time.
I always hear this argument, that the peasantry do not want war at all. But, truth is that without peasant support to a certain degree, empires were rarely able to go to war. Be it they either persuade the peasantry or the peasantry realize what's at stake ie their liberty in some cases, the peasantry's support plays a major hand in drawing a nation towards victory.
@genosingh But peasants are often mislead and hatred is being spread by propaganda, which is based on sensationalism and never shows the hole picture. It's used to divide and distract. It's still the circus of Rome.
Another great video Johnny thank you so much you always choose the most intriguing topics and no one wants to talk about
Next video: Here's why the US needs to worry about China.
Johnny: this is how China is preparing to invade Taiwan and why the US will need to get involved
Also Johnny: we need to defund the military. It’s too big.
Everyone should know this Johnny Harris is sponsored by the WEF, allied with Alex Soros, and actively trying to dismantle the idea of "nationalism," as George Soros deems the ideology an "enemy to Open Societies" in his book.
lol, lmao
All because something is socially constructed does not mean its not real.
This is a common fallacy, especially amongst sociologists. Everything is a social construct, but just because it is a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Math, science, and engineering are all social constructs, along with the tools made from them, but that doesn't mean the hammer I accidentally smashed my finger with doesn't exist.
Sorry but this is simply an interpretation of history
History is written by the winners. This version is written by a loser 😂
And a poor one at that.
Where did you get your map shirt? I love it and would love to buy one!
I have travelled to a lot of countries in the world (80+), and lived in four different nations, and this feeling of belonging, of nation/group/tribe, language, culture, is common. It is what I call a "Narrative", people grow up studying its nation/tribe history books and language in a somehow manipulated way so people feel patriotism and proud of their nation/tribe.
It tends to be more aggressive in poor, new countries and super powers, it is part of a narrative to keep people united. The narrative can also include blaming other nation or group of people as a threat, or there is something that unite us, like a religion, past or language.
This is a very interesting topic.
It is an interesting topic, but it makes sense. We cannot know everyone and everyone's intentions. As such, we gravitate towards the safety of those that we know.
Now do Denmark.....
Nobody thinks countries are ethnicities unless maybe you're on an isolated island. What are these idiots talking about?
Every heard of the concept of nation state?
@hello855 ethnicity is fluid mate almost nobody is 100% anything. People migrate and get invaded throughout all of history regardless of borders. Also a country is a concept but that doesn't mean it's not real.
I'm glad I found this channel!!!!
Keep up the great work!! very good content!!!
This also wholly does not apply to America. America as a nation has an explicit founding. We have an explicit creed, structure of government, and way of life that distinguishes us as a people and as a nation. This makes America unique in the world.
how is a Texas citizen way of life more similar to a Montana citizen compared to a northern and southern Italian for example?
😂 you have the same process that other western European countries, revolution, creation of a state, creation of identity with flags and so in. Maybe french find they roots in Gaul, but you find your roots in Britain, that fought against.
Only 6% of people could vote when America was founded. And America was very sparsely populated for most of its history. National identity wasn't always as strong as it is today.
@@hello855the idea that the American national identity wasn’t as strong as it is today is a flat out lie, look up some of John Jay quotes.
holy propaganda piece
That ignited tons of experts.
do people just use "propaganda"
to describe all information they don't like?
it might help you to know:
most people arnt paid to be malicious
a company wants to put out a message
there is a million creators out there
they find the ones already saying what they want
and choose to give those people money
*they usually make an honest voice louder*
*all people want to be persuasive*
*most people miss some evidence*
or more likely here
johnny just has an interest in globalist views
and to everyone who's not into that
it looks like mad propaganda
which for the record means that it's:
made to be persuasive and maybe emotional
and might not be factual
which means literally anything can be propaganda
thus "propaganda" is not a useful term
the kind of content doesn't tell us why it's made
you just make the association due to dislike
so your just using heated language
to avoid engaging with the material
just say "it's wrong because X"
or "I don't like this because Y"
This video says more about the American school system than it does any fundamental truth about nation states. What do you even learn in school? Most Americans don't even study a second, let alone a third, language so you have all this extra time for other subjects but the most basic historical concepts are completely foreign to you?
That's exactly what I thought. When I was in high school in Turkey we were taught about how nationalism was spread and how nation as a concept came to fruition. But it appears that Americans only know about it after they are 30.
Sri Lankan here.
As a tiny island off the coast of India, you'd think we'd be basically Indian by this point. I mean, its India for god's sake. Hardly so, we have our own languages, our own cultures, which, sure some things have been derived from India, but that is mostly as a result of conquests throughout history, but these conquests never lasted, because the Sri Lankan identity prevailed throughout our over 2 millennia of civilized history, and our people fought for, died for, and won that identity, even against a seemingly overwhelming opponent like India. The only times kings of Indian dynasties ruled for a few generations, is only when they assimilated to _our_ culture, and not the other way around, such as the Nayakkars . Those that tried to impose Chola, Kalinga and Pandaya traditions were all soundly chased off the Island, to be replaced by a leader of our own. hell, one of our kings went on a fun little conquest of Myanmar in 1000 AD to depose an unpopular leader, and rather than conquer it, simply installed the rightful heir, as he understood that the values of the people of Myanmar are unique from those of us. Nations exist, no matter the geographical size, with their own cultures and traditions, despite close proximity to seemingly more "powerful" cultures, and this video is stupid.
Kind of a dumb misleading title. Of course countries are made up, it’s only the next step. There were kingdoms, empires, etc. It’s not a bad thing either.
what they mean is that states DON'T represent the civilian population as the term "country" implies. This is a common misunderstanding of how states functions as people give far too much credit to the control they have with elected officials, when of course most of the world's decisions are made by those with the most economic influence no matter how fair their country's elections may seem. States are inherently violent institutions that prop up conflicts by nature in order to maintain their military apparatuses. They primarily use identity politics and manipulation of history within their education to push administrative agendas. This is horrible for humanity, but we've been stockholm syndromed into feeling nationalism instead of dissent when we are extorted for monies that are consistently mishandled and used to prop up the administration rather than providing social services. This is because they are a strong arm group for hire within the economic elite circles in their respective region; allowing them to spew out propaganda faster than yo momma can finish a donut. Hope this helps :D
Even in the medieval period, people in France were united by their loyalty to the French crown and the defense of the kingdom, creating a shared political identity that transcended regional and linguistic differences. The idea of "France" as a unified entity was already in place through royal authority and common struggles, even if it was not yet defined by modern concepts of ethnicity or language. This early sense of unity laid the foundation for the development of a national identity in later centuries.
we can go back up to Vercingetorix who united the Gauls tribes against the Romans as the "proto-France"
Governments in medieval times were far more decentralized than their modern counterparts. The crown in Paris had very little relevance to most people's daily lives.
You can see this is Afghanistan and Pakistan too. The Pak-Afghan border literally runs through the Pashtun ethnicity homeland. North Afghanistan is more Tajik populated then actual ethnic Afghans (Pashtuns). And west Pakistan is Iranic and completely different from east Pakistan, which is more Indian.
True, because of how the British split these countries.
Partially explains why they need to hold on to religious nationalism so fervently.
@@jhonklan3794 Exactly
And whats even more funny is that the word India, comes from the indus river which is almost entirely in Pakistan, as well as the indus valley civ, While the major river in India is the ganges, and gangetic civillization was its own seperate thing, the people call the country baharat, not to mention that country historically has been a fragment of different ruling kingdoms for most of its history
HECK, even the word Hindu basically comes from Sindhu, and before the islamic and european conquests referred to the people of Indus valley, ie Pakistanis, the real name for the religion is Sanatan dharam/vedic religion
`countries are ideas from not many years ago`
nice work, this video needed to be at least 40 minutes
Nationalism vs globalization
Yes, Jonny is showing his bias
@@nathanburck5574 How? Everything in this video has been the mainstream historical consensus on nationalism and the nation state for almost a century.
Their not really direct comparisons. Nationalism is based mostly in shared history and culture, globalism is primarily based on trade.
@@ThatGuyWayOverThere well, globalism works in opposition to the ideology of nationalism, which generally prohibits international trade and movements of people.
@@ThatGuyWayOverThere a century ago people had a very different historical consensus
This is an insult to nations all around the world who fought for their existence. Johny is looking at the world through the eyes of America.
I think most Americans would tell you they’re very proud to believe in the American identity. It’s a very strong sentiment. This is just left-wing anarchist BS. The idea that countries don’t exist is just insane- try tell that to the Palestinians -or any other people group for that matter. His argument falls apart. They do exist, even if it’s just in our minds.
These sort of ideals exist outside of the United States. He's looking at the world through the eyes of the White Left that control the Western media, NGOs, and education systems throughout the Western world. As such even though European groupings have long history of existence just like the ethnocentric states in Asia. The far Left see Europe no different as colonies just like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America want to force their idealistic nonsense. Even though the Muslims migrants flooding into Europe reject the Lefts ideals.
I mean, America too fought for it's existence, so looking at it through the eyes of America isn't a bad thing.
exactly, our Czech nationalism emerged in 15th century because of hussites, i agree that bougeosie nationalism formed in 19th century is bad, but sense of nationality as peoples united under their culture, language and indentity exists for millenias, in second punic war for example, Roman soldiers won the war because they were more nationalistic then the carthaginians, which more thinked about themselves, not a nation
TBH it's not too wrong... the near 70% of the new nation states recently are born out of the arbitrary lines on map by the European Colonial authorities, very little were born naturally. Local freedom fighters might have existed since the start, but it as a construct is a very modern one, Post-WWII modern at that.
Also, the 90% of the troubles all comes from the British lines on map... including the those back at home...
This is an interesting argument, but I respectfully disagree with it at least partially if not wholly. I’d posit that countries always existed. It’s just that they existed in different forms with different sociological structures and economics.
Much of the medieval world was feudal, mercantile, and hyper-hierarchical. And state capitols with lords and monarchs ruled remotely over small, agrarian village peasants. (As you alluded.)
The only things that really changed was that Napoleonic imperialism and legal reforms revived the Roman system of government and civilization. But that state - the imperial republic, founded on laws and enforced by an industrial war machine, is not a new idea. It’s a reborn, a rediscovered idea. The US founders based America on Greco-Roman Republican ideas. And the enlightenment revived this system, taking the world out of feudal mercantilism and into republican (rule of law, civically-powered) capitalism.
The nation state as we know it is an old idea that was LOST to the fall of the Roman Empire. It was rebirthed in a mechanized and republican manner, which founded the new world order as it is today.
The Industrial Revolution meant that powerful capitol cities made their states bigger and bound them together with standing armies, cement and public education. All this means is that the modern way of nation-building is different from much of history.
But states such as the Roman Empire loosely had these civic concepts already. This is why Europe, for example, has many different languages that come from Latin. Because it *was* all just Latin, spread by imperialism. The fall of the empire is why they became different languages. This is why Napoleon crowned himself the new Caesar. This is why the “civic” word and concept is in the western mind, because it’s ancient and Roman.
This is also why recorded history is divided between classical (ancient civilization), feudal/medieval (fractured agrarian), and modern industrial.
Four times thumbnail change and one time title change. Now i really wanna see what's in the video
The idea that France is a nation is much older than the 1789 Revolution. This idea came from France's victory in 1453 at the end of the Hundred Years' War with England. A consensus that England was the enemy solidified after the Hundred Years' War, and it continued to define French national identity until the Crimean War in the middle of the 19th century when France and Britain finally began to fight on the same side (and of course continued to do so in the 20th century). Because of her ability to inspire, Joan of Arc saved France from England during the Hundred Years' War and continued to be a very important symbol of the French nation afterwards.
That is nationalist history. They take previous historical events and frame them in the larger national story.
@@ThatGuyWayOverThere alright, what is your history then?
@@thesupergamer43430 A series of wars that lasted over 100 years was far more complicated than how it can be described in one paragraph. Also, think about things from the perspective of the average people, not just kings and nobles. The average medieval peasant had no clue what national identity is.
@@hello855 They did otherwise during People's Crusade tens of thousand peasant wouldn't walk half of Europe to go to fights Saracens, or Germans would not have genocided the Slavs who occupied modern Germany etc. There are so many examples its not even worth mentioning.
@@hello855 Joan of Arc was a peasant. She also made it very clear that she wanted France to be free and not occupied by England. You do have a point - the Hundred Years' War is too complicated to fully understand with just one paragraph. However, the only point I was making is that French national identity is older than the 1789 Revolution. The life of the peasant Joan of Arc and its legacy (as well as the nearly continuous conflict between England and France after the Hundred Years' War until the middle of the 19th century) are enough evidence to conclude that France became a nation before it abolished its monarchy.
I don't know to what extent I agree with the idea... A region has resources, it trades with other regions. The people within these regions have values, they have laws/rules that they abide by. A nation unifies these regions that share laws, culture, values, resources, etc without barriers. Then you need a military to protect the borders from outsiders who threaten these values/laws/trade, etc. They collect taxes to enforce/protect these laws. As military capabilities increase over time, the threats increase, and the more regions need to consolidate their borders to ward off potential threats.
So you could say countries are "made up". But they are definitely naturally occurring. The regions that tried to avoid ever being part of a nation are lost to history, because it wasn't a competitive strategy.
I don’t mean to be snotty but I feel like I’m watching Americans learn about world history for the first time.
I've known this for at least a decade. There needs to be introductory content to conceptual thinking, I think Johnny did a great job. @12:44 Him talking about how trains helped form the nation state is actually pretty new thinking. It's a part of the measuring human advancement through manipulation of energy rather than materials line of thinking that's just gotten traction in the last decade. Part of checking if you have a theory and not a hypothesis is by taking the relevant metrics and seeing if it can "predict" historical events. It's high level, and very smoothly integrated so I don't blame anyone for not noticing, but a fantastic addition none the less. Sorry about our election BTW, we'll see if Mexico is our Poland, to gauge how serious this is.
Johnny acting like a child is not an accurate commentary on Americans
I think you did a great job with this one, as always great edition and you managed to simplify lots of complex topics. Great to spark your curiosity into learning more!
A person from another family, therefore another identity, marries another person from another family/identity and they create a new family and kids, therefore new identity...SO, ALL OF THIS IS NOT NEW...HAS BEEN GOING SINCE FOREVER.
Why don't you interview actually intelligent people like Emil Kirkegaard instead of obvious idiots like Max Fisher?
Probably becuase Johnny Harris is just as "intelligent" as Max Fisher.
Because nobody knows who the existentialist Kirkegaard is
@@countercurrents8585 why are you here if that is what you think. Spending time watching videos from people you think are dumb is a pretty weird thing to do. Does that make you dumb?? What's up with that?
This video is willingly ignorant about the subject matter. I used to really like you Johny the the amount of blatant ignorance here is unbelievable
He went from making great factual documentary to propaganda
This language argument is kinda off. It’s True people in Germany for example didn’t speak the same language. But there are huge similarities between fresian, bavarian and saxon dialects.
not the case for Bulgaria...
And many other countries. While what he says does apply to some "nations" it doesn't to others.
Globalist nonsense. Compare someone from France with someone from Serbia, for example. They are completely different. Ethnically, linguistically, culturally, like mentality and thinking too. Countries are not just some imaginary borders. Boundaries exist even in the animal world, for example with wolves. Each of them knows their territory. And it is precisely the existence of nation-states that is the reason for avoiding wars and conflicts with other groups. This piece of land is mine, the other is yours. When you mix two radically different cultures and civilizations to live in the same place, it leads to tensions, conflicts and wars. Many countries have collapsed due to these reasons. The example of Israel and Palestine and Yugoslavia is recent
Well said, I usually like his videos but this one is just wrong and makes zero sense. You can tell he doesn't even know the history of anything he's really talking about.
Sadly stuff like this at least as far as I know is pushed in Germany. It's literally poison and we are seeing the very early effects.
You know there's more than 100 countries younger than Israel. Weird that Israel's one of your examples.
You favorite candidate lost Johnny 😊
You should read “Imagined Communities” by Benedict Anderson if you are interested in this topic.
It basically summarized the whole nationalism issue.
Unsubbed thanks for letting us who who you work for!
LOL conspiracy theorists are really a joke. Just because it doesn't fit your nationalist agenda, you will call it a "propaganda"? LMAO.
i think a lot of people are not ready to really talk about this, given how many people base their identity on nationalism or their home country. So when you talk about this a lot of people feel attacked because your questioning their identity, so its a delicate topic. But im very thankful you talked about this
Yes, pointing out how someone’s identity is false can be offensive. 🥴
Guy I think the WEF told him globalism is good
honestly alot of people just think it has value
it's probably not a new change for him
That language map around 4:00 is a bit of a tricky one. You see, what we considered to be a "language" is different before standardization compared to today. Many of those "languages" in the old map still exist, they're just today considered dialects of French. So while nationalism did create the idea of "French" as a language, for instance, that does not mean that these people were speaking entirely different languages. They were part of a dialect continuum, and while someone in Normandy might have more trouble understanding someone from near Nice than someone from near Lyon, that doesn't mean they were linguistically or culturally distinct from their neighbors.
I know America has it's problems, but living in so many places I've come to realize it has the most diverse and inclusive national identity of any nation. Truly anyone can become an American. It's not about religion or race it's about community and a shared American dream. if your American and you disagree just LOOK AROUND YOU at all the people that you would never ever think to question their American identity and observe how diverse they are. Sad to see movements like MAGA challenge that and try to draw stupid lines in the sand over irrelevant bullshit.
America's identity is the product of centuries of fighting for civil rights. It wasn't like that in the beginning.
You mean stupid lines that are meant to preserve the very American identity you want preserved? Make no mistake, there are people in this world that want you and me dead, and to ignore that shows how naive you are.
And also make no mistake, the majority of his supporters are open and accepting of immigrants, but what they will not tolerate are those that skip the line and legitimately pose a threat to our way of life.
Globalism, a love story.
Ok so after watching this i still think they still exist
A nation is not a unified identify and language its practically a big tribe. Humans always had tribes who worked together and shared things. Then those tribes competed and concurred others making them their "tribe". The only reason these people can be fine with this is because they all know that unity is better then having your own small area. Everyone is benefited but when you aren't and people share this idea you make that idea correct.
So nations aren't a conglomerate of a single language, ethnicity and people but a group who are unified by ideas and goals.
Sorry if that was hard to understand i typed alot😅