U.S. Flags at half mast.

[MiloMorai]

The key difference between nationalism and patriotism is that nationalism is the belief in an exclusionary and insular nation-state, while patriotism is the non-exclusionary love of your own nation.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

By very nature patriotism is nationalism as one loves one's country above all others. I'll dig up Scrunton's definition in a minute. 

You should take it up with the Oxford English Dictionary. They are clearly two entirely different things. Related, yes, but not at all the same.

 

[17thfabn]

13 hours ago, sunday said:

France exists since the baptism of Clovis in 496, way before Nationalism was invented. Same with Spain, Reccared I, and 587.

Most historians would disagree with those dates. Of course you know that.

[rmgill]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You should take it up with the Oxford English Dictionary. They are clearly two entirely different things. Related, yes, but not at all the same.

 

You should note that the rise of nationalism was a concept that predated the 20th century.

[sunday]

2 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

Most historians would disagree with those dates. Of course you know that.

Of course.

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, rmgill said:

You should note that the rise of nationalism was a concept that predated the 20th century.

Ryan, you should note that I studied with the Open University the course Nationalism and the rise of the 19th Century state. Im very far from an expert, and it was nearly 20 years ago, but I do know a little of what im talking about.

Yes, nationalism predated the 20th century, arguably it really kicked into gear with the 19th Century. High speed printing machines, low cost broadsheets and books, extensive telegraph networks, all made it easier to transmit the kind of nationalist rhetoric that thrived at that time. Here is something to study, when did Europe lose its mind? 1848, a period when the first tranche of telegraph networks spread across Europe. One nation heard about a nation having a revolt nearby, hey that looks fun, lets do it too! And suddenly half of Europe was having revolts, nationlist based or otherwise.

And the one country that sailed through it with barely a murmur? Britain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1848_in_the_United_Kingdom

To be fair, thats not entirely true. I would recognise Northern Ireland is predominantly nationlist. And there is an unhealthy streak of it today in the UK among Brexiteers and Scottish nationalists. But historically, with those exceptions, its not really been our thing. You can read PJ Wodehouse mocking nationalist groups in the UK with his parody of the 'Black Shorts' worn by Spode as an example of our irritation with nationalism. Being a nationalist historically has always regarded as being a bit suspect here, and its a view I happily retain.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2022 by Stuart Galbraith

[rmgill]

No, Imperialism was the UK's thing. Now you can't make noises about nationalism because of that fear of association and everyone is picking at your nation's Imperial past, including folks castong shade on your dead monarch. So you slowly wither away since you can't have empire any more and patriotism for England is verboten. 
 

Channeling Penfold without DM around for some sand isn't doing very well for you. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 9/10/2022 at 7:47 AM, rmgill said:

Even if it's nationalism. 

Irish Republicanism IS nationalism. French patriotism IS nationalism. No nationalism, no nations. You just go back to kingdoms, empires, duchies, etc. 

Here is a basic truth that many people dont seem to grasp.  Nationalism really only arrived on the scene relatively late, say the latter half of the 18th Century. It didnt really exist before that, or if it did, it had little impact on the conduct of affairs of states. Because the affairs of states were conducted by Monarchs, and who really cares what the plebs think.  

If you think about it, the world seemed to go mad in the latter half of the C18th. You had the American Revolution. France had the French Revolution. You had the numerous wars that grew out of that. And a large part of what drove your revolution was the belief that anyone on that side of the Atlantic was better suited for running your affairs, than someone on this side of the Atlantic. That is nationalism, however you frame it. 'This is ours, not yours. Fuck off'.

Before that, states were not formed via nationalism, or even particularly for the benefit of the racial groups living in a state. You could hardly explain the polygot Austro Hungarian Empire, or the Russian Empire for that matter. Or lets be fair, the British in North America, whom never really got around to asking native Americans what they thought. But between  English political writers, the rise of class based revolution in France, and the export of those values across Europe in the Wake of the French Revolution, that all grew nationalism into a heady brew that was transmitted across Europe, and eventually, the world. In many cases, adopted BY nations, like Prussia or Russia, as a tool for helping to fight againt Bonapartism. Tools that in the event, actually proved very difficult to control long term, as nations adopting Socialism also eventualy found.

There is no easy explanation of why nationalism grew as it did. But it is a fact historians usually refer to States before C18th, and Nation States after that. And the reason for that is the rise and growing power of nationalism on the conduct of states.

Ask youself this question, did France exist as a state before the C18th Century? Of course. Spain certainly did. Ireland didnt as a state, because it was incorporated part of Britain, and had little of an independent existence before that point (even the Normans in England were fighting over it at one point). Poland arguably did, even as part of the Russian Empire, because it kept its independent culture alive in writing and music, and remembered its existence as an independent state. So interestingly, so Seri Plokhy claims anyway, did Ukraine. Even if you just limit that to the Ukrainian Catholic church, independent Ukrainian culture clearly survived, occupied though it was. That fostered nationalism.

Nationalism broke nations, as it did in Britain with the American and Irish Revolution, and created others. Its a primary cause for the eventual fracturing of the British, French and Dutch Empires  Nationalism became a mantra that was occasionally deliberately adopted, to drive economic, social and political change, as I would argue to some extent, was used in the German Empire to drive unification under a common German identity. You can also that clearly with France, which took a monarchial state, and changed it into a vehicle for exporting what essentially became Bonapartism across Europe. It too used French nationalism later as a tool for driving everyone to speak French and adopt a common culture. You can even see Lenin adopting nationalism as a tool to incorporating the various disparate elements of the former Russian Empire. Which as we saw, worked less than optimally in the longer term....

Basically, you could have states without nationalism. We know that, because several extant European nations arose before nationalism became an impact on human affairs. You can therefore draw a very distinct line between French Patriotism (Ive no doubt the gallant Frenchman who fought against Marlborough were patriots of a monarchial sort), and nationalism (ive no doubt the Frenchman who fought at Trafalgar and Waterloo were Nationalists).

Just stop and think about it. Stop thinking what Trump says about Nationalism.. When you love your flag, when you love our country, thats patriotism, pure and simple. If you said 'Hey, he is a native American/Mexican/Irishman, so he cant be a real American!', then that is nationalism. Look at Gangs of New York and you will see exactly what I mean. There IS a clear difference.

 

Edited September 11, 2022 by Stuart Galbraith

[sunday]

8 hours ago, rmgill said:

No, Imperialism was the UK's thing.

Of the Jingo type.

[rmgill]

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Here is a basic truth that many people dont seem to grasp.  Nationalism really only arrived on the scene relatively late, say the latter half of the 18th Century. It didnt really exist before that, or if it did, it had little impact on the conduct of affairs of states. Because the affairs of states were conducted by Monarchs, and who really cares what the plebs think.  

Just my point. 
 

with the British being an interesting form of Imperial laid over nationalism. ie England/English nationalism and a larger set of British nationalism.

 

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

If you think about it, the world seemed to go mad in the latter half of the C18th. You had the American Revolution. France had the French Revolution. You had the numerous wars that grew out of that. And a large part of what drove your revolution was the belief that anyone on that side of the Atlantic was better suited for running your affairs, than someone on this side of the Atlantic. That is nationalism, however you frame it. 'This is ours, not yours. Fuck off'.

Same for across the channel. Why isn't the UK part of the Holy Roman Empire? 

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Before that, states were not formed via nationalism, or even particularly for the benefit of the racial groups living in a state.
 

Precisely my point. Is Holland Dutch/ or Deutch as in the empire of the Germanies/HRE? Its Dutch. By way of Dutch nationalism.

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You could hardly explain the polygot Austro Hungarian Empire, or the Russian Empire for that matter. Or lets be fair, the British in North America, whom never really got around to asking native Americans what they thought. But between  English political writers, the rise of class based revolution in France, and the export of those values across Europe in the Wake of the French Revolution, that all grew nationalism into a heady brew that was transmitted across Europe, and eventually, the world. In many cases, adopted BY nations, like Prussia or Russia, as a tool for helping to fight againt Bonapartism. Tools that in the event, actually proved very difficult to control long term, as nations adopting Socialism also eventualy found.

 

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There is no easy explanation of why nationalism grew as it did.
 

A body of people vs dukes, barons, kings and emperors. Thank the excesses of royalty for that.  'Let them eat cake' and all that. Now, for the new royalty its 'let them eat bugs and freeze' 

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ask youself this question, did France exist as a state before the C18th Century? Of course.

What of Bretons, Occitan's, Savoyards, etc? 

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Spain certainly did. Ireland didnt as a state, because it was incorporated part of Britain,

just as Navarra and Castille and Other regions don't exist as nations. Spain Could have been part of the Empire of France. 

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Nationalism broke nations,

and made them. 

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

as it did in Britain with the American and Irish Revolution, and created others.
 

I am sure the Irish would disagree. 

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Its a primary cause for the eventual fracturing of the British, French and Dutch Empires  Nationalism became a mantra that was occasionally deliberately adopted, to drive economic, social and political change, as I would argue to some extent, was used in the German Empire to drive unification under a common German identity.

And at the same time subsumed other nationalities that were part of it. 

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You can also that clearly with France, which took a monarchial state, and changed it into a vehicle for exporting what essentially became Bonapartism across Europe. It too used French nationalism later as a tool for driving everyone to speak French and adopt a common culture.
 

How prolific is Gaelic? 

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Basically, you could have states without nationalism. We know that, because several extant European nations arose before nationalism became an impact on human affairs.
 

what are those nationalities? 

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

You can therefore draw a very distinct line between French Patriotism (Ive no doubt the gallant Frenchman who fought against Marlborough were patriots of a monarchial sort), and nationalism (ive no doubt the Frenchman who fought at Trafalgar and Waterloo were Nationalists).

Just stop and think about it. Stop thinking what Trump says about Nationalism..

Stop reacting to everything through the lens of Trump and Hitler. 

[17thfabn]

Interestingly from my observation  less than half the flags went to half mast for the queen. The flag going to half mast for the queen was over lapped by going to half mast for 9/11 memorial. For 9/11 my observation was about 90% of the flags are at half mast.

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 9/11/2022 at 10:39 PM, rmgill said:

Just my point. 
 

with the British being an interesting form of Imperial laid over nationalism. ie England/English nationalism and a larger set of British nationalism.

Quote

Ok, so stop and think what you said there. If Nationalism implies that other nations are inferior, then yes, that seems like it created the Empire. And having  acquired an Empire, we tried to some degree to turn them into Britons. Have you ever reflected why so many people whom came from the Caribean and Africa to Britain in the 1950's were called Winston and Nelson and spoke perfect English?

Is that a simplification on my part? Yes. But unlike some other nations, I think latterly there was a considerable amount of guilt over our Empire, and we tried (or at least pretended to ourself) it was an act of altruism. The White Mans burden as we smugly called it.

The problem with the allegation that Nationalism created the Empire is that the Empire existed LONG before Nationalism. We had already acquired India before it became an issue. Did it drive management policies? Yes, probably did. But isnt it a curious kind of Empire that conceives to turn its acquired states into Englishmen? Because to my eyes at least, thats very much how it looks.

 

Same for across the channel. Why isn't the UK part of the Holy Roman Empire? 

Quote

Because we have a Channel, and Austrians cant swim? Or couldnt build enough Siebel Ferries as Glenn might say.

Precisely my point. Is Holland Dutch/ or Deutch as in the empire of the Germanies/HRE? Its Dutch. By way of Dutch nationalism.

Quote

The Dutch existed before nationalism, but that was in part because of other states policies. No, Its not an area Im familiar with, but I remember there was considerable conflict between Spain and England and France over the Low countries. Nationalism may have created the Holland we see now, but it wasnt present at its formation, simply because Holland existed before it became and influence in international affairs.

 

A body of people vs dukes, barons, kings and emperors. Thank the excesses of royalty for that.  'Let them eat cake' and all that. Now, for the new royalty its 'let them eat bugs and freeze' 

What of Bretons, Occitan's, Savoyards, etc? 

Quote

You are talking about regional culture, not nationalism, because none of those were nations, or desirious of having one. I might want to sing a song in pure gaelic, but it doesnt make me a Scottish nationalist.

just as Navarra and Castille and Other regions don't exist as nations. Spain Could have been part of the Empire of France. 

Quote

In fact, if you study the French invasion of Spain, I think there was nothing so much that created Spanish nationalism than the desire to kick the French out.

and made them. 

I am sure the Irish would disagree. 

Quote

Irish CULTURE has existed for well over 1000 years. Count how many years they have been an independent nation. There is a difference between culture and actually wanting your own independent nation to serve as a vehicle for your personal culture.

Think of the Arab uprising against the Ottomans in WW1. That was nationalism in action. That was after having been incorporated in the Ottoman Empire for how long by that point? Its too simple to say they couldnt revolt. I would argue it didnt occur to them to revolt.

In fact, thinking on, have a look at when the first Irish Rebellion against British rule was. 1798. We cant count the Boyne, that was a rebellion based what they believed was the lawful monarch, not irish nationalism. Thats after being incorporated in the English Empire since 1542. So what took them so long?

https://www.thoughtco.com/irish-rebellions-of-the-1800s-1774018#:~:text= Irish Rebellions of the 1800s 1,Young Ireland movement in the early... More

And at the same time subsumed other nationalities that were part of it. 

How prolific is Gaelic? 

what are those nationalities? 

Stop reacting to everything through the lens of Trump and Hitler. 

Once again, culture. German CULTURE existed for Centuries. You could argue to some extent back to Arminius. It wasnt until Prussia was fighting against Napoleon that people hitched it to the idea of forming a Inherently German state, made of other German states. A German Empire in other words. Until that point, until nationalism changed the perspective of people from being beyond Serfs, or Peasants, the idea was to serve the Monarch. He was the state, you serve him, you serve the state. It has not been till Nationalism arose, that people figured 'Right, we have our own nation, we can have our own culture, language, without being imposed upon by THAT foreign monarch.

You know this. Its the history of your own nation too.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

Look Ryan, dont even take my word for it. it may only be Wikipedia, but its considerably more authoritative and full of quotes than anything Ill give you.

 

Scholars frequently place the beginning of nationalism in the late 18th century or early 19th century with the American Declaration of Independence or with the French Revolution.^[26][27][28] The consensus is that nationalism as a concept was firmly established by the 19th century.^[29][30][31] In histories of nationalism, the French Revolution (1789) is seen as an important starting point, not only for its impact on French nationalism but even more for its impact on Germans and Italians and on European intellectuals.^[32] The template of nationalism, as a method for mobilizing public opinion around a new state based on popular sovereignty, went back further than 1789: philosophers such as Rousseau and Voltaire, whose ideas influenced the French Revolution, had themselves been influenced or encouraged by the example of earlier constitutionalist liberation movements, notably the Corsican Republic (1755–1768) and American Revolution (1775–1783).^[33]

Due to the Industrial Revolution, there was an emergence of an integrated, nation-encompassing economy and a national public sphere, where the British people began to identify with the country at large, rather than the smaller units of their province, town or family. The early emergence of a popular patriotic nationalism took place in the mid-18th century, and was actively promoted by the British government and by the writers and intellectuals of the time.^[34] National symbols, anthems, myths, flags and narratives were assiduously constructed by nationalists and widely adopted. The Union Jack was adopted in 1801 as the national one.^[35] Thomas Arne composed the patriotic song "Rule, Britannia!" in 1740,^[36] and the cartoonist John Arbuthnot invented the character of John Bull as the personification of the English national spirit in 1712.^[37]

The political convulsions of the late 18th century associated with the American and French revolutions massively augmented the widespread appeal of patriotic nationalism.^[38][39]

The Prussian scholar Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803) originated the term in 1772 in his "Treatise on the Origin of Language" stressing the role of a common language.^[40][41] He attached exceptional importance to the concepts of nationality and of patriotism  – "he that has lost his patriotic spirit has lost himself and the whole world about himself", whilst teaching that "in a certain sense every human perfection is national".^[42]

Some scholars argue that variants of nationalism emerged prior to the 18th century. American philosopher and historian Hans Kohn wrote in 1944 that nationalism emerged in the 17th century.^[43] In Britons, Forging the Nation 1707–1837 (Yale University Press, 1992), Linda Colley explores how the role of nationalism emerged about 1700 and developed in Britain reaching full form in the 1830s. Writing shortly after World War I, the popular British author H.G. Wells traced the origin of European nationalism to the aftermath of the Reformation, when it filled the moral void left by the decline of Christian faith:

[A]s the idea of Christianity as a world brotherhood of men sank into discredit because of its fatal entanglement with priestcraft and the Papacy on the one hand and with the authority of princes on the other, and the age of faith passed into our present age of doubt and disbelief, men shifted the reference of their lives from the kingdom of God and the brotherhood of mankind to these apparently more living realities, France and England, Holy Russia, Spain, Prussia.... **** In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the general population of Europe was religious and only vaguely patriotic; by the nineteenth it had become wholly patriotic.^[44]

[rmgill]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Once again, culture. German CULTURE existed for Centuries. You could argue to some extent back to Arminius. It wasnt until Prussia was fighting against Napoleon that people hitched it to the idea of forming a Inherently German state, made of other German states.

Right Nationalism. Previously it was the HRE and thence the subversion to the Hapsburgs and mostly Austria based on who was HRE. Many of the nations that belonged to the HRE were not German per se or were what we would call derivatives. Like the low countries. 

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

A German Empire in other words. Until that point, until nationalism changed the perspective of people from being beyond Serfs, or Peasants, the idea was to serve the Monarch. He was the state, you serve him, you serve the state. It has not been till Nationalism arose, that people figured 'Right, we have our own nation, we can have our own culture, language, without being imposed upon by THAT foreign monarch.

Right. The Nation. Serving your nation is bad right? Why isn't England part of the HRE as was right? Why not the Emperor in Rome? 

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You know this. Its the history of your own nation too.

Strange thing, the US's nationalism is about Being American which is a composite of the many peoples that made up the US. That's why its rather different. Presuming that it's one Nationality is silly. You only have to look at Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Appalachia to see how silly that is. 

 

 

[JWB]

Honoring the life and accomplishments of Queen Elizabeth II and expressing condolences to her family and the United Kingdom on her passing:

https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/779539bd-a707-4606-801a-dda53ce197a2/22880167CAEF2455DC680B4598D1FBE3.lip22547.pdf