DUDE nations and nationalism are constructs of the 19th century

Not true. Israel had many tribes, but they still recognized each other as being part of the same nation, the Israelites. Similar to how ancient Greeks lived in different city-states and countries, but still saw each other as being part of the same nation.

>Holy shadows of the dead, I’m not to blame for your cruel and bitter fate, but the accursed rivalry which brought sister nations and brother people, to fight one another. I do not feel happy for this victory of mine. On the contrary, I would be glad, brothers, if I had all of you standing here next to me, since we are united by the same language, the same blood and the same visions.
Addressing the dead Hellenes (the Athenean and Thebean Greeks) of the Battle of Chaeronea, as quoted in Historiae Alexandri Magni by Quintus Curtius Rufus.

It would be fair to say that all of those concepts, if not invented in the 19th century, underwent extreme transformation during it.

Even the war cited as an example of Greek-nationalism the Greco-Persian war had city-states allying with the Persians with quite a few staying neutral.

then you got the other Greek wars which were mostly the city-states fighting against one another. Hard to count that as a nation. They had more familiarity with those that spoke Greek than the barbarians, but they didn't really like each other.

also the guy you quoted was Roman

The feeding mechanisms of it are natural.

>Even the war cited as an example of Greek-nationalism the Greco-Persian war had city-states allying with the Persians with quite a few staying neutral.

>then you got the other Greek wars which were mostly the city-states fighting against one another. Hard to count that as a nation. They had more familiarity with those that spoke Greek than the barbarians, but they didn't really like each other.
You can say exactly the same about all the German states before the unification of Germany. They had many different states, and they often fought each other and cooperated with foreigners, and even had different dialects and cultures, but Germans were still considered one nation.

>also the guy you quoted was Roman
He is supposed to be quoting Alexander himself. Whether or not he really is, it still shows that the concept of nationalism existed way before the 19th century.

Nationalism doesn't mean "ethnicities exist".

this is disputed by more recent empirical historical studies, such as The Origins of Nationalism, by Caspar Hirschi

>You can say exactly the same about all the German states before the unification of Germany.
and I am saying that because they weren't a nation until that period

also note that when the city-states really did completely go together it's after foreign powers like Rome and Macedon took them all over.

They were a nation. You're confusing "nation" with "nation-state" or "country". They are not the same concept.

This. Ameriblubbers also actually believe that "civic nationalism" isn't an oxymoron and a cheap substitute for the word patriotism.

Civic nationalism IS a cheap substitute for the word patriotism. Alexander's definition that I posted above is more accurate of real nationalism:
>since we are united by the same language, the same blood and the same visions.

While I'm at it, let me post a few more relevant evidence of antique nationalism from him:

>Our enemies are Medes and Persians, men who for centuries have lived soft and luxurious lives; we of Macedon for generations past have been trained in the hard school of danger and war. Above all, we are free men, and they are slaves. There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service — but how different is their cause from ours! They will be fighting for pay — and not much of at that; we, on the contrary, shall fight for Greece, and our hearts will be in it. As for our foreign troops — Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, Agrianes — they are the best and stoutest soldiers in Europe, and they will find as their opponents the slackest and softest of the tribes of Asia. And what, finally, of the two men in supreme command? You have Alexander, they — Darius!

>Your ancestors came to Macedonia and the rest of Hellas [Greece] and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury. I have been appointed leader of the Greeks, and wanting to punish the Persians I have come to Asia, which I took from you.

nationalists (and satan) love retconning history to believe that they were nations all along because they became a nation later on.

but places like Handover had more in common with the British (due to sharing a royal family) than they would with their fellow German at a point.

That's what I meant. It's not even a thing, the only form of nationalism is the ethnic kind.

>In a decree following the 1512 Diet of Cologne, the name was changed to Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (German: Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, Latin: Imperium Romanum Sacrum Nationis Germanicæ),[24][25] a form first used in a document in 1474.[22] The new title was adopted partly because the Empire had lost most of its Italian and Burgundian (Kingdom of Arles) territories by the late 15th century,[26] but also to emphasize the new importance of the German Imperial Estates in ruling the Empire due to the Imperial Reform.[27]
So much for retconning History, huh.
Oh, my bad, I misread you. You're right.

so what is his thesis?

h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=12456
It doesn't sound like its exactly full proof and immune to criticism

Do you not deny that our understanding of things have changed over time? That people from a millennia ago had a different understanding of how they viewed their government and communal groupings, on their relationships with others, on the nature of children and childhood? Or that these are different in other societies?
I think even somebody who is the most intent on believing that there are certain "natural" laws would agree that these things sometimes vary, and that there is therefor some room - although there are certainly biological limits - for social constructs of what society is.
If that is what you're complaining about with postmodernism it seems like a foolish complaint.

That nationalism isn't a purely modern phenomenon

>Similar to how ancient Greeks lived in different city-states and countries, but still saw each other as being part of the same nation
They all saw themselves as fellow Greeks but the hugbox ends there.

Ancient Greeks were notoriously xenophobic even towards Greeks from other city-states, jealously hording citizenship of their own city-state and treating everyone else like second class citizens. They were more likely to be warring with each other than trading. They only unified in the face of an external threat, and even then many Greeks still sided with the Persians or remained neutral. Hell, one of the only reason why Spartans won the Peloponnesian war was because of Persian financing.

They viewed themselves as a race, not an empire. In fact the original Greek word for Golden age more plausibly means 'Golden race'. But like skinheads squabbling endlessly in their backwoods compound, that doesn't mean that they were a nation truly united by any socio-political narrative.

A closer ancient equivalent to a true nation-state was the SPQR, where a public government managed by elected officials governed a multiracial population united by a historical narrative that was the city and people of Rome. You could also make the argument that Achaemenid Persia was the first true nation-state because being a multiethnic society it wasn't just built on bonds of blood but an ideal.

Can we call it nationalism, though? That's trickier to say because nationalism is a modern invention that is arises from already quantified and categorized ideas and research, particularly from the concept of a "commonwealth", which is that everybody is benefiting when we put the needs of the collective first. The classical models were comparatively primitive, lacking in this concept, and Romans were just as willing to wage brutal wars on their own countrymen as they were to wage a war of foreign conquest, which ultimately proved to be unsustainable for their society.

>Social construct
Truly the shittiest buzzword. Literally all constructs are social constructs.

Stupid frogposter

No, but it offers a myriad of examples of pre-modern nationalistic discourse. This review is about his German book btw, whose content is different from the English one

Wow. It's amazing how you got everything wrong, even in your understanding about what I previously said.

>They all saw themselves as fellow Greeks but the hugbox ends there.
So they saw themselves as being part of one nation.

>They were more likely to be warring with each other than trading.
No, they did fight each other regularly, but trade was also omnipresent in Greece, with each other and with other people around them.

>They viewed themselves as a race, not an empire.
Race at the time was pretty much just a word for nation. Nobody here said they viewed themselves as an empire.

>A closer ancient equivalent to a true nation-state was the SPQR, where a public government managed by elected officials governed a multiracial population united by a historical narrative that was the city and people of Rome. You could also make the argument that Achaemenid Persia was the first true nation-state because being a multiethnic society it wasn't just built on bonds of blood but an ideal.
What you're describing here is the opposite of a nation. Persians were a nation, but their empire was the opposite of a nation-state specifically because it included so many other nations in it.

>That's trickier to say because nationalism is a modern invention that is arises from already quantified and categorized ideas and research, particularly from the concept of a "commonwealth", which is that everybody is benefiting when we put the needs of the collective first.
This concept already existed in antiquity, it just wasn't vastly applied.

>and Romans were just as willing to wage brutal wars on their own countrymen as they were to wage a war of foreign conquest, which ultimately proved to be unsustainable for their society.
You can say the same about pre-Germany Germans.

Lmao it took you how long to figure out that postmodernism is sophistry?

If childhood is a social construct then why can't I court a 14-year-old girl.

Oh yeah those fuckers only believe this nonsense when it serves them.

>projecting modern nationalism onto ancient greece

ffs

>as we know it

that's the key word

of course childhood has changed and is varies depending on location

still doesn't justify the childhood = social construct sophism

Using the word "modern" onto something doesn't mean what they did and valued in practice wasn't exactly the same as nationalists in the 18th century did.

Glorifying a city-state and it's inhabitants isn't any different than glorifying a bigger geographical area and it's inhabitants.

nationalism is not "glorifying"

>nationalism is not "glorifying"

Most certainly is. Chauvinism is implicit in nationalism.

no it's not

No.

...

Fantastic post.

No, some are individual constructs.

what did he mean by this?

Prolonged childhood was a big evolutionary change that benefitted our ancestors. The concept of "youth" begun in the 50s - 60s. All factors allign (economic realities, prolonged lifespan etc. that today's 30 year olds in specific social groups are not exactly youth nor adults). As would Bowie say ch-ch-ch-ch-changes.

The first german nationalists were so chauvinist that they sparked a period of pole-romanticism in germany because they saw the poles as nationalistic rolemodel.
While Nationalism often leads to chauvinism this notion is not implicit to it, the basic desire is and was at the time of the european spring of nations, that the common people are governing themselves according to their tribal fraction.
You could say that most ideologys are chauvinist once they meet opposition, communists are chauvinist against the bourgouise, multicultural states like america often find points of anger which need to be fanned against their foes undemocratic streaks and the theocrats will try to whip up resentment against rivalring cults and their adherents or the ones that want to secularize etc.

Chauvinism as generally accepted impliciticy of it was put in later on by smug liberals and conservatives who frantically tried to distance themselves from the word after the great war.

>The concept of "youth" begun in the 50s - 60s

This is retarded, from the ancient romans to most tribals stuck in isolation since the stone age there are often man and womanhood rituals which part life into different stages with varying implications concerning responsibility and dignity.

But it was like... child -> ritual -> adult , while after the 50s you have all these youth centers, youth activities, youth jobs etc. It is what you said but evolved from a mechanical to a more organical stage. Don't offend if not offended. Makes things easier...

>DUDE nations and nationalism are constructs of the 19th century
Some nations are constructs of the 19thc. Nationalism as we know it is product of 18-19th century.

The rest looks like bullshit you've added to reinforce your claim on the first one

>Sophomoric
I keep seeing this word everywhere.

dude the increase in the use of sophomoric is a construct of [current year]

>people don't agree with my autistic opinion
>i told them to go back to pol hahah pwned!!!
leave

"When herakles was passing from boyhood to youth's estate..." -500bc

Nationalism is both modern and primordial. It wouldn't ex

Did you die in the middle of a sentence?

These postmodernisms are communists who, butthurt over the working class rejection of the revolutionary ideal, attempted to undermine their competing ideologies.

This has nothing to do with post-modernism but with reading the actual sources your mongrel.

>So they saw themselves as being part of one nation.
>speak different languages
>look differently
>have different forms of governments
>live in different states
>fight against each other
A nation for sure.

Actually Post-Modernist like Foucault and Bourdieu were fierce anti-maoists i.e. against the left mainstream during their time. But whatever we are not talking about reality anyhow ITT:

Something being a social construct doesn't mean it has no bearing on reality. In fact it means the exact opposite.

by their logic the entire western world is a nation

Well that's because "social" means it's a term used by socialists.

>itt people who have never read a book or play or poem from before the 19th Century

Fair enough...ideas are like whirlwinds. They exist forever.

>So they saw themselves as being part of one nation.
Not in a modern sense
>No, they did fight each other regularly, but trade was also omnipresent in Greece, with each other and with other people around them.
What distinguishes a primitive nation-state from a modern nation-state is that the ancients had no sense of loyalty to each other, nothing that gave them pause when deciding to take up arms against members of their own nation, no grand unifying national narrative for them to strive towards that isn't their own personal glory.
But the ancient Greeks did not organize into a nation-states, they were independent city-states.
>Race at the time was pretty much just a word for nation.
But they did not practice "nationalism" in the sense that we use the term.
>What you're describing here is the opposite of a nation. Persians were a nation, but their empire was the opposite of a nation-state specifically because it included so many other nations in it.
No, I'm elucidating what makes a true nation different from a simple confederation of tribes bound by blood and marriage. The primary difference is that a nation unifies its population through a national ideal which is independent of any one ethnic group's destiny.
>This concept already existed in antiquity, it just wasn't vastly applied.
It existed in a primitive, undeveloped, uninstitutionalized , non-codified state.
>You can say the same about pre-Germany Germans.
And after the rise of true nationalism, this behavior stops and "Germany" becomes something for all Germans to strive towards improving.

since the 60s, it is the youth-as-consumers which is a novelty

psot-modernists don't really try for originality since they admit that nothing is truly original. also i've only seen nationalism and homosexuality as being social constructs of the 19th century and for the most part they are right

childhood is more 18th century and romantic love dates back to the middle ages

i think the main point is though that our 'modern' beliefs were in fact constructed around the time of industrialisation and we should understand the contexts of our beliefs rather than think they are 'natural' or 'true'. similarly it helps to understand the history of knowledge and that people have organised socially in different ways, and that what we have now may not always be the best or even permanent

the less you shut yourself out of narrow thinking the better imo

there is merit to post-modern theories themselves, just obviously there are some people who don't quite grasp the material who otherwise want to share it with others. or, as is what i read in OPs post, use it to shut down arguments

i agree with this on the basis that nationalism, at least to me, is more about the full participation of nationals in the political process

>implying social constructs are necessarily bad

it's certainly more widespread to the point where it is compulsory to define oneself in terms of a nation, since the 19th century. but yes there probably is a point that we should not automatically accept what we learn from 19th c europe as being true on the basis that it is 'established', since often it is concerned with its own history rather than comparative, pluralistic, or world history

postmodernism exposes the sophistry of modernism. any problems with postmodernism are in fact with modernism

Bruh.

na·tion
ˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

>how dare people state that western society went through a cultural shift in the nineteenth century
what does the frogfag mean by this?

how recent is the translation, how accurate, etc.

the way people refer to 'childhood' in a modern sense is related to the knowledge of consciousness and subjective development. there is quite a lot of literature written from the middle ages until maybe the 17th or 18th century (until rousseau who seems to be the catalyst for our current understanding of children, but he drew from literature of the late 17th century) about how children should be restrained, punished, etc for, at its most extreme, being demonic.. because they're hard to understand. but later they had toys made for them, childhood was recognised as a special time for the development of people (and thus the nation), there was a movement trying to get mothers to breastfeed (which the aristocracy never did, instead relying on wetnurses) they featured in novels as characters in their own right, they even began to feature in art in a different capacity than cherubim or family portraiture. but then of course the philosophers who followed the renaissance model of society may only see as far as the renaissance itself, owing to that it was such a 'human awakening'

>And after the rise of true nationalism, this behavior stops and "Germany" becomes something for all Germans to strive towards improving.

So the war of 1866 prooves that Germans weren't a nation yet back then?

All those except "romantic love" are largely true

>homosexuality as being social constructs of the 19th century
how? doesn't plato's symposium illustrate his belief that there was a clear, natural division between homosexuals and heterosexuals?

How on earth did you read that from the symposium?

>So the war of 1866 prooves that Germans weren't a nation yet back then?
Typically, the 1871 unification of Germany is considered to be the starting point of Germany as a nation-state. "Nation" is a nebulous term and what we're specifically discussing is the concept of nationalism, where national identification is stressed over family, religious, or economic ties.

>primordialism
Literally the source of all the cancerous We Wuzism out there.

Aristophane's mythological theory that some people are homos because their soul mate, whom they used to share their body with before Zeus parted them, was of the same sex.

ancienthistory.about.com/od/sciencemedicine/a/072309SoulMates.htm

The point was that wars and conflicts between members of a nation don't prove the non-existence of national sentiment or nationalism

>DUDE nations and nationalism are constructs of the 19th century
Nations actually popped around the 16th/17th centuries, but they aren't ancient. (Israel is arguably an example).

Not sure on the others, though I'm pretty sure romantic love is a very, very old concept.