Where the fuck did Nationalism come from so suddenly in the 19th century?

bigger factor more than nation*

Its true though. Look at the Ottoman Empire where no one really cared what ethnicity you were vs the 20th century were you had mass exodus of ethnicities to their "nation"

OP here

I'd like to clarify i was speaking in general terms when i said "No one" gave a damn. I mostly meant the lower classes, obviously some certain groups found their identity to the state important.

You would be surprised that in 17th century England the commoners rose up the social ladder and to suppress a feeling of inferiority, they started calling the commoners where they originated as the "people", i.e the nation

It's the first ever recorded historical account where someone attests a nation in the modern sense.

Literally all medieval old norse text specifically have a pro-Icelandic stance on them. They are proud to be Icelanders and not Norwegians or Danish, comparing themselves to them.

Well thats a bit different when you're literally justifying the foundation of a new country, but also is it really nationalism, don't they still clearly identify as norse first?

Luís de Camões

> justifying the foundation of a new country
Those would be the older sagas, like the Landnamabok. You have sagas, which are generally older and already take place in an established Iceland.
While it is obvious, that they spoke the same language, they specifically differenciate between Norwegians, Danish and Swedish people and make the differences clear.
There are generally described differences between the population of Icelanders (usually more fierce in battle, smart, kind hearted and good poets), compared to the normal Norwegian who was rather selfish and usually easy to fool.
One example would be Audun Saga, where an Icelander Halldórr Snorrason gets many amounts of favours from the Norwegian king, like personal trade routes and own ship and crew from a nobleman (as he argues, his stance in Iceland is as high as that of a nobleman in Norway). It is said many times that he is a better figher and should get better pay, he threatens to go back to Iceland if he is not treated right. In the end he forces the king to give him the pay he deserves (by threatening him in his bed) and then fleeing to Iceland, where he is out of the kings reech, literally calling him a flacid cock.

Fucking hell, a lot of mistakes. I rewrote the text.
>you have sagas, which are generally more recent than those
and the saga of Halldorr is not Audunar Saga, but of course Halldórs thattr Snorrasonar

Okay, its an early form of nationalism, but it isn't the obvious raw nationalism of the 19th century, and i don't think that it's connected much, where did that nationalism come from? Such all the sudden movements to unite Germany and Italy?

Mass of people getting education about the history of their nation, identity, and culture.

The quick expansion of the colonial powers forced the whole world into a nationalist race. Its similar to an arms race so to speak

Okay, Education, International competition. Also the shrinking of the nation through technological improvements (mail and rail)

So was it top down from a government level, or bottom up from the people?

Unironically the French revolution, and the shift from the nation belonging to a monarch, to the nation belonging to the people.

Led to national armies as well, which led to warfare becoming generally much more destructive than in the past.

printing

Top down, from corporate/government to people.

The corporates/gov took the land/economy by force and the people benefited. Once we are used to the benefit, we accepted it as part of our identity. Thus protection of those benefit reinforces/creates nationalism in the people.

but in modern nationalism it seems to be pretty bottom up, such as the OP image

I can only speak for Germany here:
Germans and Italians, although living in different kingdoms etc. already had a sense of commonality, as with the Holy Roman empire of "German" nation and the term "German lands" frequently being used beforehand.
What really sparked nationalism in Germany was seeing the French unite and fighting alongside their brothers, who were French now by the fact that they had French ancestory or were born in France not because they were the subject of the king.
The French troops, which quickly conquered most of Europe, took on the old switching factions model and had German and other soldiers with them (a lot of Germans died in Russia as well). The experience of being conquered by a militarily superior nation that was not united under a royal family but also under the sense of belonging to a nation really ignited the nationalist movement (which obviously already had followers since the French revolution) but this time against the French.
An enemy on the outside makes the group grow closer on the inside and with Napoleon destroying the institution of the Holy Roman empire, made way in the minds of the people for something new.
Basically nationalism here then grew as a propagandistic way of fighting of the French to the point, where you have German soldiers on the French side switching sides mid-battles as they would "no longer shoot on fellow Germans".
Then restauration basically destroyed the hopes for change and beneath the surface the fight for egalitarian rights and a national unity grew, blowing up in 1848 and then taken over by the ruling class in the 60s. Bismarck used the nationalist movement and its anti-French resentments to implement Prussian hegemony over Germany

Interesting thanks, so the revolution created nationalism not only in France through its ideals but in other nations by their fear of France and desire to copy it.

>and desire to copy it.
The argument in Germany at least was not really to copy it, but to actually fullfill it. While many scholars in Germany were in support of the French revolution, they were shocked by the bellicose nature of an advancing France and thought the ideals of the French revolution were not carried out right, so it was up to the Germans to actually try and fullfill it.
Or at least that is, what Johann Gottlieb Fichte (considered one of the founding fathers of German nationalism) wrote in his address to the Germans in the early 19th century.

We can see it both ways, but its more top down because that's where the real power of change lies. Still I said that once people get used to the benefit created by gov/corporation using force to benefit a nations, giving those up will cause nationalism in the population. No one wants to give up the comfort they are used to, even if it was obtained illegally.

It really depends what you would call bottom up.
Modern thought, as with communism for instance, says that those movements usually don't come from the peasants but actually the middle-class to higher-class elite, as they actually have time and resources to think and act on the problems they see.
For instance: Lenin's background is not your average Russian peasant, but his father was a teacher of physics, Napoleons family was of small royalty in Corsica. Marx was the son of a lawyer and Engels owned factories. So none of them were really your average person in terms of wealth and upbringing

Just like, did the growth of nationalism come from the ordinary people, or was it encouraged by the top and elites.

If you think that the most influental groups for German nationalism were scholars, students and educated poets. The Hambacher fest and the student unions were from a rising burgois nature, but so were the other leading thinkers:
The aforementioned Fichte, while coming from a poor background was heavily supported by royality and went to university.
Ernst Moritz Arndt went to university although from a poor background and Theodor Körner had a wealthy background and went to uni as well.
So, though they may not have been always of wealthy background, they were either rising ranks or had a well-of background.
While you have poorer people fighting against their condition (the weaver uprisings for instance), they usually don't succeed and are very focussed on their acute misery, while the upper-classes can focus more on a long-term change.

Hell, even the cultural revolution in the west around the last years of the 60s was mainly a student protest. And the rising of political correctness is usually also coming from universities and cultured elites, as with the current rise of the right-wing.

>No one gave a damn before then what nation they were in.

What the fuck?

How can you possibly even come to that conclusion?

How can you possibly even come to the contrary conclusion?

It would be quite simple, just provide some evidence for, lets say, french or english nationalism in the 15 century.

What I know about my country, Finland, here primus motor in spreading national consciousness were lower paid educated people, rural priests, schoolteachers etc.

Greek Philosopher Herodotus
A nation consists of 3 things, blood, traditions and language.

Thousands of years since people have been trying to tie themselves to Greek heritage so they can take part in the olympics.

Even Germs and steel talks about tribed men who would spend hours seeing if their related to decide if to kill one another.

The Otterman empire was a religion based society, hence a pyramid scheme for anyone to be forced into.

>Yes they did. People have always thought "insiders good, outsiders bad", the fuck are you talking about?
There's a big difference between "My village is good, that village is bad", and "this territory of 30 million people who I can only know in an abstract sense are my insiders and that territory of 25 million people who I've never met are the outsiders." Tribalism and nationalism have similar elements but they're fundamentally different concepts and should stop being conflated.

Exactly, earlier I was reading how in the 1800s some French villagers thought they were Russian.

Thats like saying that ice and water have similar elements but theyre different,

Its funny because the Ancient Greeks never considered the Macedonians as their own. You could make a case for their ruling dynasty, apperantly they were Argives rather than Macedonians, but no one could agree to it.

Ancient peoples, like the Israelites and the Greeks, had ethno-religious tribal confederations called amphictyonic unions.

The Latins(Romans included) claimed descent from Trojans and went to Alba Longa every April to celebrate the Feriae Latinae.

The Gauls claimed descent from Dis Pater(Taranis), and their druids met each years in the Forest of the Carnutes.

The Germans claimed descent from Mannus and some of them like the Suebi met each years to worship Nertus.

The Ancient Greeks claimed common descent from Hellen, and met each years for the Olympic games, originally a feast held in honor of Zeus.

The Israelites claimed common descent from Jacob/Israel and met each years to Shiloh.

The Arabs, although they did not claim a common descent, met each years at Mecca.

>The Arabs, although they did not claim a common descent, met each years at Mecca.
Ismael ?

>A nation consists of 3 things, blood, traditions and language
Read Herodotus, he talks about peoples, not nations. He describes all them barbarians you´ve all heared so much about. The fact that he doesn´t mention territorry or political organization should have given away the fact that this has nothing to do with nationalism in the modern sense (which was what OP´s post was about). Also, renember that you originaly replied to "giving a damn about which nation one belongs to".
>Thousands of years since people have been trying to tie themselves to Greek heritage so they can take part in the olympics.

Brother, you do know that ancient greeks spoke diffferent languages, were racially diverse and had very different political, culinary, aesthetic and (to apoint) even artistic traditions? That they had fierce intergenerational rivalry and hatred among each other?
That any Theban to whom you would insinuate that he was similar to an Athenian (living 45 miles away) would probably gut you?
Beeing greek was a cultural identity back then, not a national one.

>Even Germs and steel talks about tribed men who would spend hours seeing if their related to decide if to kill one another.

Proves my point (sort of): if they had a concept of national identity this wouldn´t have been necessary. Or do people of the same nation have to resort to family geneaology in order to work out if they are on the same side or not? Well, maybe Italy ;^)

>The Otterman empire was a religion based society, hence a pyramid scheme for anyone to be forced into.
I did not understand what that was suppuosed to mean.

Aren´t they?

Northern Arabs and Central Arabs claim descent from Ismael though Adnan but Southern Arabs claim descent from Qahtan(Joktan), son of Eber and brother of Peleg.

Genealogy-wise, Joktan was the great-great-great grand uncle of Abraham since Peleg was the great-great-great grand father of Abraham.

Hey, finally a thread that i can provide a great quality response to
This will be limited to the development of nationalism in europe, the degree to which this can be extrapolated to other regions is unknown to me and if someone could compare and contrast it with the following points on the situation in europe i wold be very grateful
Nationalism in the centuries before mass democracy and the rise of citizens was situated solely in the region's nobility. The leading aristocracy in historic political entities(such as the kingdom of bohemia for example, and also further down into its subdivisions such as moravia), would press for the 'rightful and historic' controls of their area, often at the cost of the overarching monarch/emperor. This included limiting restrictions on serf labor, control over taxes, non-integrated armies etc. This autonomy was slowly repressed overtime, up to the point where absolutist european monarchs such as the brothers joseph and leopold in austria specified that schools had to be built under the exact same blueprints and specifications in all the various crownlands in the empire. Nevertheless, the local nobility still pushed for their historic rights in various forms, in what can be called the precursor movement to nationalism.
For the vast majority of the populace, nationalism did not exist(atleast in the modern interpretation of the word) and in some cases a sense of 'ant-nationalism) even existed under the repressed classes. While inter-regional distrust existed between linguistic groups co-existing the same area(such as in the conflicts between german and czechs in bohemia), where the ruling monarch was from and what other lands they held did not matter to the majority of the population. Their major contact with the state was through the local nobility, who for most of the timeperiod were the collectors of tax for the state and settled legal disputes in their lands.

cool stuff, go on

This is what leftists actually believe

cont
in some cases, the local populace would side against their local nobility and its privileges, in favor of the overarching imperial monarch. For example, in the 'galician slaughter," huge amounts of polish peasantry rose up against the local nobility in the name of the emperor ferdinand. The polish state pre-partition strongly favoured the local nobility, to the point where they had complete jurisdiction, control and even ownership over the local serf population. The austrian state had put some limitations on this local autonomy, much to the joy of the lower class poles. However the independence/greater autonomy plans of the local nobility(using the aforementioned pre nationalism form of nationalism) was caught onto by the polish peasantry, who then started an armed rebellion against their lords, slaughtering many. They saw these local nobles as their oppressors, who were obstructing the will of their good natured emperor. The majority of the polish people had sided with the imperial monarch over the existence of an independent polish state, showing just how weak nationalism was for the majority of people in central europe in the mid 19th century. This paid of for them, as two years later they were granted emancipation and complete civil rights under the state from the 1848 constitution.
Just how and when did a sense of nationalism form then?
Other anons have already touched on this, and the mass levee was a contributing factor. However, i argue that the rise of citizenship, where all peoples of a nation were treated equal under the law, was the most important factor which lead to mass politics and nationalism. Most constitutions in central europe by the springtime of nations fully emancipated serfs, allowing all citizens greater access and participation with the state. No longer did was their legal and economic interaction with the state through local nobility, but through the overarching state.

wut

The American Revolution

Great exaggerated by Americans today

cont
They paid taxes directly to the state, drafted by the state, and were treated as a citizen by the state. In this situation, the polish ex-peasantry for example are much more inclined to see themselves as poles, in the overarching imperial state. With their major historical oppressor, the polish local nobility, removed from relevance, conflict emerged in border regions harboring large ruthenian populations, who demanded independent schools and administrations from the local polish population. Throughout the habsburg lands, languages in schools was the forefront of early nationalism. At a local village level, funds were raised by individuals to create a school in the mother tongue if it did not meet the states student requirement for funding. In the hungarian half of the crown, all schools were required to teach some hungarian in duality with local languages, promoting the 'magyarisation' of the area. With the vast expansion of the voting base from the mid nineteenth century to the universal elections at the end of the twentieth century, a huge political shift occurred to nationalism. The classical liberal government lost the widespread support of the middle class that allowed it near free reign during the earlier stratification of the electorate, in favor of increasing support for individual nationalist parties. Comparing at the cisleithanian election results in the 1850's and the final election in 1911 demonstrates just how much nationalism exploded in those 50 years. Interestingly, the imperial monarch and government still had widespread support, instead nationalism manifested itself in how each nation was to exist in the empire. For example, the czech nationalist parties at this time saw themselves as marginalized under the dual monarchy system, and desired a similar arrangement to the hungarian state where they were to have a expanded local autonomy under the imperial state.

cont
So the question of the emergence of nationalism in europe was maybe a bit to broad to tackle in an imageboard post, so instead it is focused on central europe/the habsburg crownlands. Many similarities can be extrapolated from this example though, roughly 50 years later in russia and 50 years earlier in france/germany. The UK is probably the most different from this model, and needs further explanation. A good starting place for further reading would be 'the habsburg empire' by judson, it is constantly recommended here by various anons as a great entrance point into the economic, social and political changes in the habsburg state.

No, not the physical place. You had different ethn ic groups sharing the same physical places and yet they maintained different identities. Also France is a bad example because the central provinces of the kingdom developed a primitive form of nationalism very early in the medieval era.

I think there was always a sense of strong identification with local traditional values in most people, but around the 19th century those local, small cultures dissolved when people moved to cities for work in the times of industrializations. Since they needed something to identify with they chose the next cultural and traditional institution, which, for alot of people, was national identity.

hmmm

>Nationalism
>19rh century

Try the the mid 16th century pleb

Attached: unnamed.jpg (1024x660, 142K)

Nationalism is just Tribalism at it's core. And that's been around since anatomically modern humans have been around. Fuck, before that even.

It's not nationalism when its confined to some merchants and nobles

Civic nationalism blown the fuck out

>6

Shut the fuck up leftist Amerimutt, the Dutch revolt was a popular movement backed by the nobles as it was against a foreign tyranical power with a harsh religious persecution, even today there are many songs and stories about our people unifying against the Spaniards.

Nationalism was also a vehicle for democracy and republicanism which people had an affinity for.

So it wasn't the idea of the nation-state per se, but popular (national) rule over monarchies.

You can see it in the US constitution and French revolution.

Also, people always had a sense of nationhood and could identify their compatriots and co-nationals ever since the ancients. They just didn't tend to (always) act on it politically.

Alexander the Great for instance was constantly being taught about the supremacy of the Hellens and his generals got butthurt when he adopted an internationalist and non-supremacist tone after the conquests.

You won't find nation-states before the modern period but you will find countless of accounts of people speaking AS IF there were nation-states. For example, people talked about "Huns", "Persians", "Egyptians", "Franks", "Greeks", etc., even at times when those peoples were politically fractured. The Nordics even called the Byzantine Empire "Greece".

So it's misleading to claim that the IDEA OF nation magically appeared in the 19th century.

open question for anyone that cares to answer

Do you think that the lack of nationalism, using all the definitions provided by your post, meant that ethnic groups could survive better despise the sovereignity of 'outsiders' in the past?

In other words, as people were aware they were 'english' despise being ruled by english persons, just an example, they didn't depend on their own rulership to consider themselves what they were

This doesnt seem to happen as much today, I think
Are people more easy to culturally change today than in the past? If so, is this the reason?

That’s not really true, nationalism is an extension of tribalism, which necessarily flows through the veins of every man

There was no reason to because before the Industrial Revolution you could live comfortably with people the same race, ethnicity, tribe, religion, and ancestry as you.

>the shift from the nation belonging to a monarch, to the nation belonging to the people.

That would be England you're talking about. And it happened way before the french revolution. 100 years prior at least.

>Yes they did. People have always thought "insiders good, outsiders bad", the fuck are you talking about?
That's tribalism, not nationalism. Nationalism is an extent of that and is much newer.

It goes either way, because there are two (sometimes three) types of nations and nation-building.

Attached: 1nationalism.jpg (638x442, 105K)

Religion died but people need to be associated with some group, this is evolutionary mechanism. Do you know why tests like 'who are you in Fallout IV' are so popular?

French nationalism is a meme. It would take WW I for literally every citizen of France to speak the same language and identifying with the same nation. Prior to that everyone identified with the regions they were born in.

Why do Jews always play this "nation" game? You know damn well what a nation means.

>You know damn well what a nation means.

A series of bordered protected by a specific army and treaties? Something Jews apparently have no belief in since they keep breaking treaties?

Were the participants of the revolt mostly merchants or not?

Nations might have appeared before the 19th century, but nationalism is a completely modern phenomenon.

> likewise did the Italians

"We have made Italy, now we must make Italians"

-Massimo d'Azeglio

No it grew over the 19th century, the Franco Prussian war especially.

Nope. Infrastructure that connected all the different parts of France didn't develop only up until WW I and after.

Sure you had the elites from Paris that felt the consequences of the Franco-Prussian war, because that's where the french nation was born, but other than that nobody gave a flying fuck.

>Nope.
Yes... You have to be fucking retarded to assume nationalism suddenly appeared instantly at ww1. Like i said, it had been steadily growing over the century.

I never said it instantly appeared during WW I. Rather it was a gradual process that expanded from Paris to other provinces that only ended around WW I

No, they were a mixture of common folk, merchants, noblemen and pirates.

Greenfeld posits that for a modern nation to come into existence it must have 3 essential characteristics of modernity, that is secularism, egalitarianism and popular sovereignty. Did the event have that or not?

Thats literally what i said and you said nope

Just to make sure we're on the same page, we are both talking about From peasants to Frenchmen right?

Attached: DETmOi-WAAAhq4L.jpg (1200x754, 197K)

Secularism, various ethnicities and groups were allowed to live peacefully and have their own places of religious practises. Egalitarianism is a debatable topic which can even today be questioned on its fullfillment. Furthermore, it was indeed enjoyed a popular sovereignity.

lastly, what a communist Jew does not make up the definition of a nation.

The French civic totalitarism arose to completely transform and eradicate foreign cultures. Nationalism was a counter movement.

~I'm not, but it looks like a good book. I need to write a paper on the main factors for the rise of nationalism.

why

This is the book for you

Attached: 51jMpvggjOL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (333x499, 48K)

>(((Eugen Weber)))

Into the trash it goes