How inevitable is nationalism?

While nationalism developed gradually throughout the 18th century, I think it is certainly possible to say that it was really the French Revolution which caused nationalism to "explode," and be further exported to all parts of Europe, thus ushering in its massive presence in politics and society for the next two centuries.

However, just how inevitable is the "rise of nationalism," unseating previous regional and personal loyalties? If the French revolution were to be butterflied, would that greatly reduce the influence and level of nationalism, or would that require much earlier PODs and possibly greater and deeper changes to historical trends in general? Around how far back would you have to go to completely kill the development of any form of linguistic, social, or ethnic nationalism (if this is at all possible)?

And finally, do you personally think that the development of nationalism as a political and social force was overall a good or bad thing?

Zmflavius said:

While nationalism developed gradually throughout the 18th century, I think it is certainly possible to say that it was really the French Revolution which caused nationalism to "explode," and be further exported to all parts of Europe, thus ushering in its massive presence in politics and society for the next two centuries.

However, just how inevitable is the "rise of nationalism," unseating previous regional and personal loyalties? If the French revolution were to be butterflied, would that greatly reduce the influence and level of nationalism, or would that require much earlier PODs and possibly greater and deeper changes to historical trends in general? Around how far back would you have to go to completely kill the development of any form of linguistic, social, or ethnic nationalism (if this is at all possible)?

And finally, do you personally think that the development of nationalism as a political and social force was overall a good or bad thing?

Click to expand...

Personally, I think nationalism was someone inevitable once mass literacy/communication and large scale armies set in. No French Revolution could have delayed the matter, but as soon as you have a large conscript army from one kingdom occupying another country of a different language and culture, you're going to get nationalism.

As far as I see it Nationalism as we know it now was simply a return to the pre-developed feudal relations just at a much wider scale.

Nationalism was more or less unavoidable from the point of universal education. When people suddenly have wide access and are able to communicate across their linguistic area, the development of a national conscious is unavoidable.

I agree with others that it was basically inevitable once communication between linguistics groups was possible. That being said, developments that made this possible were not necessarily destined to happened as early as they did.

I response to your 2nd question: I suppose nationalism was a good thing because it gave a voice to people who previous had none via literacy and shared identity (Chicken or egg?). I look at it as a phase we had to get through, but it's high time we get over it now. Our economic and cultural realities are global not national. I could rant on this forever but I'll leave it at that so this doesn't get moved to Chat.

I've been toying with this idea: If the religious wars of Europe cause an even greater loss of Rome's authority, could this lead to a backlash against religious power and eventually lead to pan-German and pan-Italian identities centuries before OTL?

I think nationalism is a very contingent thing.

Up til wwi, ah, russia, the ottomans, and even britain were multiethnic empires.

If the HRE can avoid becoming the HREGN, then Europe could easily be partitioned between Russia, Austria, the Ottomans, and possibly an AngloFrench empire, with a few minor independent countries wedged between and on the edges.

Basically, you dont get many rebellions, when the cause is clearly laughable, and even fewer successful ones.

"Natiionaliism" in such a universe would consist oofr literature and possibly loccal administrative priviledges, rather than independence movements.

Marko said:

As far as I see it Nationalism as we know it now was simply a return to the pre-developed feudal relations just at a much wider scale.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're referring to. Nationalism (and indeed, nation-states) were completely absent in, and alien to, feudalism. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post

My guess is that the lack of it that existed during the semi-warlordism of the feudal era is the oddity. I mean the Romans seemed to have a degree of it, the Greeks had it, pretty well all ancient empires had it to a degree with the whole "people outside our borders are backwards barbarians" thing. It might have been based off of a common set of values rather than language, but it was the same basic thing.

My Username is Inigo Montoya said:

I don't understand what you're referring to. Nationalism (and indeed, nation-states) were completely absent in, and alien to, feudalism. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post

Click to expand...

Now that I look back on how I wrote that I can see the source of confusion. I wanted to say that prior to the development of a fully developed feudal system people had their tribal afiliations which is nationalism in anything but name if your "nation" is confined to a single tribe. In the modern period that same "tribalism" just went supersize and was coined nationalism.

I would also agree that Greek and Roman period shows strong signs of nationalism in addition to patriotism that sometimes border on the xenophobic.

Marko said:

Now that I look back on how I wrote that I can see the source of confusion. I wanted to say that prior to the development of a fully developed feudal system people had their tribal afiliations which is nationalism in anything but name if your "nation" is confined to a single tribe. In the modern period that same "tribalism" just went supersize and was coined nationalism.

I would also agree that Greek and Roman period shows strong signs of nationalism in addition to patriotism that sometimes border on the xenophobic.

Click to expand...

There's a big difference between tribal affiliations, and finding rule by anyone not of your tribe to be objectionable.

And the Greeks and Romans didn't just "border" on xenophobia (at least in the lay sense of the word).

Beedok said:

My guess is that the lack of it that existed during the semi-warlordism of the feudal era is the oddity. I mean the Romans seemed to have a degree of it, the Greeks had it, pretty well all ancient empires had it to a degree with the whole "people outside our borders are backwards barbarians" thing. It might have been based off of a common set of values rather than language, but it was the same basic thing.

Click to expand...

The difference is that Roman (and to a lesser extent Hellenistic) identity weren't ethnically exclusive. So long as you followed the cultural norms you were pretty much assured of acceptance.

Flocculencio said:

The difference is that Roman (and to a lesser extent Hellenistic) identity weren't ethnically exclusive. So long as you followed the cultural norms you were pretty much assured of acceptance.

Click to expand...

The US is well known for it's nationalism and is focused on values more than ethnicity.

Beedok said:

The US is well known for it's nationalism and is focused on values more than ethnicity.

Click to expand...

And France, although that's also language.

Of course nationalism is inevitable

When you deliberately target an entire race for genocide by mass immigration and forced assimilation on a global scale, people of that race will react and become "nationalists", i.e. opponents of their own genocide.

You see this happening in Tibet, of course, and also in white countries.

All white countries, even places like Norway that have no history of black slavery or colonialism, have been targeted for genocide by mass immigration and forced assimilation.

Everyone recognizes that this is genocide when it happens to non-whites, for example Australian aborigines, even though White settlers were brought to Australia against their will. But when it happens to Whites its called "diversity" or "immigration" or "multiculturalism".

The Turks exterminated millions of Greeks and the Moors enslaved hundreds of thousands of Europeans. The Arabs attempted to conquer Europe and enslaved many Africans as well, even castrating them, but nobody says these people need to "make up" for their disgraceful history by importing tens of millions of aliens and "assimilating" with them until they are a minority and eventually extinct. But that is what is demanded of all White countries.

Its genocide, and yes it is inevitable that "nationalists" will oppose this.

White Mom said:

When you deliberately target an entire race for genocide by mass immigration and forced assimilation on a global scale, people of that race will react and become "nationalists", i.e. opponents of their own genocide.

You see this happening in Tibet, of course, and also in white countries.

All white countries, even places like Norway that have no history of black slavery or colonialism, have been targeted for genocide by mass immigration and forced assimilation.

Everyone recognizes that this is genocide when it happens to non-whites, for example Australian aborigines, even though White settlers were brought to Australia against their will. But when it happens to Whites its called "diversity" or "immigration" or "multiculturalism".

The Turks exterminated millions of Greeks and the Moors enslaved hundreds of thousands of Europeans. The Arabs attempted to conquer Europe and enslaved many Africans as well, even castrating them, but nobody says these people need to "make up" for their disgraceful history by importing tens of millions of aliens and "assimilating" with them until they are a minority and eventually extinct. But that is what is demanded of all White countries.

Its genocide, and yes it is inevitable that "nationalists" will oppose this.

Click to expand...

The whole of that, bar the last and perhaps first paragraph, were irrelavant to the topic at hand.

...what.

"Tribalism" is as old as humanity. Nationalism, xenophobia, blood feuds and religious extremism all have their roots in it and have been used to galvanize people to take a fight against other people that are presented as "the other" since forever.

Turn of the Century nationalism was expressly linked to the language, and the idea that people of X language should have their own country. That idea might or might not arise, but the... "base" that made it posible was already there, with or without literacy, mass media, the printed press, etc. Take the Sicilian Vespers in the 13th century for instance. It was an anti-French movement in every definition of the word. What sets it apart from 19th century nationalist wars is that the Sicilians did not have the creation of a Sicilian state in mind as a goal, or its union to some Italian state for that matter.

White Mom said:

When you deliberately target an entire race for genocide by mass immigration and forced assimilation on a global scale, people of that race will react and become "nationalists", i.e. opponents of their own genocide.

You see this happening in Tibet, of course, and also in white countries.

All white countries, even places like Norway that have no history of black slavery or colonialism, have been targeted for genocide by mass immigration and forced assimilation.

Everyone recognizes that this is genocide when it happens to non-whites, for example Australian aborigines, even though White settlers were brought to Australia against their will. But when it happens to Whites its called "diversity" or "immigration" or "multiculturalism".

The Turks exterminated millions of Greeks and the Moors enslaved hundreds of thousands of Europeans. The Arabs attempted to conquer Europe and enslaved many Africans as well, even castrating them, but nobody says these people need to "make up" for their disgraceful history by importing tens of millions of aliens and "assimilating" with them until they are a minority and eventually extinct. But that is what is demanded of all White countries.

Its genocide, and yes it is inevitable that "nationalists" will oppose this.

Click to expand...

I think we got a Nazi on our hands ladies and gentlemen. Anyone making a big fuss over the imaginary "white genocide" bs usually is.

Tocomocho said:

...what.

"Tribalism" is as old as humanity. Nationalism, xenophobia, blood feuds and religious extremism all have their roots in it and have been used to galvanize people to take a fight against other people that are presented as "the other" since forever.

Turn of the Century nationalism was expressly linked to the language, and the idea that people of X language should have their own country. That idea might or might not arise, but the... "base" that made it posible was already there, with or without literacy, mass media, the printed press, etc. Take the Sicilian Vespers in the 13th century for instance. It was an anti-French movement in every definition of the word. What sets it apart from 19th century nationalist wars is that the Sicilians did not have the creation of a Sicilian state in mind as a goal, or its union to some Italian state for that matter.

Click to expand...

It is not a matter of whether they are "presented as the other" or not. There are differences between people and anyone who values those differences will wish to preserve them, which requires a nation-state.

For example, the Boers of South Africa wanted their own separate state when the rest of the world decided to butt in and demand an end to Apartheid. They were promised that their human rights would be respected in the new black-run South African multicultural state. That didn't happen. Johannesburg looks like it has been nuked because of incompetent black rule. Genocide Watch is now advising White South Africans to flee the country because they are being slaughtered and there is a risk that the violence will escalate. Nothing is being done about it because the "international community" believes White children in South Africa deserve genocide because of "history", i.e. they do not believe Whites are human. The same dynamic is in play in the US, where the MSM makes excuses for black-on-white atrocities, not-so-subtly implying that we deserve it.

White nationalism in South Africa is a matter of survival as it is for White populations all over the world that are threatened with annihilation by mass no-white immigration and forced assimilation with all those non-whites, who often rape, rob and murder them, driving them out of towns and cities their families have lived in for centuries.

http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com...l-violent-rapes-in-oslo-committed-by-muslims/

http://gatesofvienna.net/2012/01/there-is-nothing-left-for-us-danes/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ht-London-White-Britons-minority-capital.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5HpQyflZN4

http://www.amren.com/features/2013/03/france-laid-waste/

White Mom said:

White nationalism in South Africa is a matter of survival as it is for White populations all over the world that are threatened with annihilation by mass no-white immigration and forced assimilation with all those non-whites, who often rape, rob and murder them, driving them out of towns and cities their families have lived in for centuries.

http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com...l-violent-rapes-in-oslo-committed-by-muslims/

http://gatesofvienna.net/2012/01/there-is-nothing-left-for-us-danes/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ht-London-White-Britons-minority-capital.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5HpQyflZN4

http://www.amren.com/features/2013/03/france-laid-waste/

Click to expand...

I think that proves where this poster's sympathies lie. Can we get a mod in here to swing the banhammer plz?