Anti-Nationalism | Historiography
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лип 2024
- All of these histories challenge nationalism at its very core, by questioning the nature of boundaries and nations themselves, allowing historians like Benedict Anderson to show that nations in the modern conception of them are only a 19th century invention, often created by the history profession itself. This fundamentally undermines the very basis of not only orthodoxy, but revisionism too, for it opens up the possibility of something beyond modernity.
―――――――――
Bibliography
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, rev. Ed. (1983; London, UK: Verso, 2006). amzn.to/2uGcZNm
The Invention of Tradition, eds. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983). amzn.to/2uTH7Fl
Paul Lawrence, Nationalism: History and Theory, new ed. (2005; London: Routledge, 2014). amzn.to/2MXuYaY
―――――――――
Connected videos
rapid historiography: • The History of History...
The other historiography shorts: • Historiography shorts
―――――――――
SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE VIDEOS: ua-cam.com/users/subscription_c...
Support the channel through PATREON: / cynicalhistorian
or by purchasing MERCH: cynical-historian-shop.fourth...
LET'S CONNECT
Twitch: / cynicalhistorian
Facebook: / cynicalcypher88
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / cynical_history
Bluesky: bsky.app/profile/cynicalhisto...
Threads: www.threads.net/@cynicalhisto...
Just finished reading Imagined Communities, and I loved it for the historgraphy and great use of sources! It made me rethink how I see not only nations but also other Communities that are imagined/craft.
Stay mad nationalists. Y'all's mythology is bunk. Time to get with the century or at least last century, cause you're stuck in the 19th like the neanderthals you are
"Borders are scars on face of planet" ~Eugene Hutz
Scars imply permanence. Better word would be scabs
Yes, nationalism is newish, but the idea of borders and boundaries between states is not new. In a way, when not missused, nationalism is an improvement on the past because it is driven by the importance of the will of the people within the state they resided.
Maybe if they are romantic (19th century) or left-wing nationalists trying to free their country from foreign rule, or establish a democratic republic in the case of Revolutionary France. Right-wing nationalists are infamous for disliking democracy and not caring what the people think once they’ve gotten into power.
Nationalism was an improvement as it allowed for religious and racial tolerance- you no longer had to believe in the same God to be loyal to the state. But as a banner it often leads to people being fooled/exploited to sacrifice themselves for the interests of the rulers of a nation, rather than for their own interests or shared interests.
Hey, I know I only have 2 years of community college and a 5 year apprenticeship as a Steamfitter working in nuclear, coal, gas and oil fired power plants plus oil refineries but what the hell did that mean?
The way we think about "countries" is only like 100-200 years old, is the gist. This effects many different types of philosophy surrounding how you define a country, what they should be like, etc.
Nation is real
But nationalism isn’t
Can't have one without the other
@@CynicalHistorian nation is a way to organized people
Nationalism is the way to mobilize people and their resources
Think like a company
If you consider it a way to organize, it is fine
But if the president of the company call for sacrifice for the company ( aka nationalism ) it is just some kind of rhetoric