"The pleasure of hating....makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands." -William Hazlitt, "On the Pleasure of Hating"
I often like nothing better than finding a connection between classes. In this case, the above quote arose from a personal essay that Non-Fiction was assigned to read. It automatically made me think about the making of nations, as discussed in Chapter 21 of Western Civilizations as well as Mazzini's "The Duties of Man".
Incredibly idealistic in tone, "The Duties of Man" left me feeling empowered. This is our duty. This is what remains to be done. Now, let's gitterdun. At the same time however, like Declan thoughtfully brought up, nationalism obviously acts as an exclusionary force.
William Hazlitt also shares this view. While loving your country is a wonderful thing, sometimes it can become part of a slippery slope. While I think we're all perfectly capable of distancing ourselves from national fervor and being 100% in agreement with everything our nation does (especially in respect to foreign policy), I feel like the average citizen or revolutionary during the mid-19th century might not have the liberty of being so well-informed.
Thus, I wonder if nationalism, while leading to fraternity and passion, also contributed to warfare during that time. In the Crimean War? How exactly did nationalism rear its head? Was it all positive?
Showing posts with label Chapter 21. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chapter 21. Show all posts
January 29, 2009
January 26, 2009
Bismarck: Machiavelli Lover
As I was reading about Bismarck last night, I couldn't help but think that he reminded me of someone. Then, I read zak p's blog post and all became clear.
I completely agree that Bismarck "ruled" with Machiavellian principles at the root of his decisions. Thinking back to the lion/fox metaphor that were talking about last semester, it is clear that Bismarck completely fulfilled these criterion. As a lion, he didn't shy away from war, encouraging change through "Iron and Blood." As a fox he successfully manipulated competing nations (Austria, Denmark, and France) to move against one another, almost like playing a game of tic-tac-toe. At the same time, he also worked to appeal to the working-class man, always trying to appear as though he was working for the underdog (as briefly discussed in class).
The more I read, the more respect I gained, but also lost, for him. On one hand, his political mind is unparalleled (at least when compared with previous rulers we have learned about this year). Yes, many before him ruled with great authority, but none was so clearly manipulative. On the other hand, I could not help but think, who on earth would do such things? Falsifying documents, breaking agreements...
And then I thought about the Zimmerman Telegram, another case in which (although not falsified) a document played a key role a nation's declaration of war.
Similarly, in class today, many of us (yours truly included), delved into wily ways. While many of us forgot about public opinion, Bismarck obviously had thought that out, fulfilling a Machiavellian expectation. Setting aside the matter of dressing up Prussians as Austrians and launching "defensive" against the "aggressors," why did we all turn to deception? Was it just spitting back out the textbook? Could the Prussian/Austrian/French(/Danish) conflicts have been resolved in a way other than war?
I completely agree that Bismarck "ruled" with Machiavellian principles at the root of his decisions. Thinking back to the lion/fox metaphor that were talking about last semester, it is clear that Bismarck completely fulfilled these criterion. As a lion, he didn't shy away from war, encouraging change through "Iron and Blood." As a fox he successfully manipulated competing nations (Austria, Denmark, and France) to move against one another, almost like playing a game of tic-tac-toe. At the same time, he also worked to appeal to the working-class man, always trying to appear as though he was working for the underdog (as briefly discussed in class).
The more I read, the more respect I gained, but also lost, for him. On one hand, his political mind is unparalleled (at least when compared with previous rulers we have learned about this year). Yes, many before him ruled with great authority, but none was so clearly manipulative. On the other hand, I could not help but think, who on earth would do such things? Falsifying documents, breaking agreements...
And then I thought about the Zimmerman Telegram, another case in which (although not falsified) a document played a key role a nation's declaration of war.
Similarly, in class today, many of us (yours truly included), delved into wily ways. While many of us forgot about public opinion, Bismarck obviously had thought that out, fulfilling a Machiavellian expectation. Setting aside the matter of dressing up Prussians as Austrians and launching "defensive" against the "aggressors," why did we all turn to deception? Was it just spitting back out the textbook? Could the Prussian/Austrian/French(/Danish) conflicts have been resolved in a way other than war?
January 25, 2009
Nationalism: The Process
I feel like the theme this week in MEH was nationalism. Although revolution and 1848 were the stage on which the theme was invoked, the reading consistently discussed nationalism, specifically the ways it changed over the years and its effects on revolutionary (or reforming) efforts.
Charlie was adept enough to point out the wandering (and contradictory) nature of my last blog post. Since then I've reflected on it and decided that he's completely correct. As I was writing, I was simultaneously consulting the textbook and hence I believe that my point of view changed depending on the section of the book I was reading. The post was written previous to any class discussion on nationalism had taken place, which I think only further enriched my thoughts on the matter.
Probably the most interesting thing we did in class was debate the matter of the U.S.A. as a nation. Reading other blogs, I was particularly interested in what DK and DLemma had to say on the matter.
We adopt the notion of legitimacy practiced by the Concert of Europe, i.e. the notion that "if we say it's legit., then it's legit." Essentially, nationhood is a product of (1) the desire of the people to be a nation and (2) arcane and arbitrary exclusivity. You can't be a nation and let everyone in. -DK
Nationalism- helped unify groups of people that identified themselves as "German" or "Italian," but it also broke apart people from different ethnicities that were living in the same nation and therefore a tangled mess of alliances was created. -DLemma
I'd agree with both of them, and trying to reflect upon the matter of the U.S.A. as a nation, I must consider an issue they both bring up: ethnicity.
As DK notes, to create a nation, people must desire one. As DLemma says, a nation helps to unify, but it also helps to break apart. I feel, though, that creating a nation doesn't necessarily have to "break apart people" or create "a tangled mess of alliances." While this undisputedly happened in Europe during the mid-19th century, the U.S.A. was different. While Europe was struggling to unify many groups of people who had all lived on the land for years (like Israel/Palestine perhaps), the United States was created almost solely by the overwhelming majority of Caucasian immigrants. The indigenous people were entirely excluded from the process.
Now though, it's as if the process is happening in reverse. Italy started divided and now is united. The USA, arguably, started united and now is...divided (?). As Lollotte brought up in class, as globalization comes more and more into play, with the identity of the U.S.A. as an almost entirely Caucasian country definitely ceasing to exist, are we still a nation? With these different groups of people (much like the minority populations in Germany and Austria-Hungary), can we/do we manage to hold it together?
Charlie was adept enough to point out the wandering (and contradictory) nature of my last blog post. Since then I've reflected on it and decided that he's completely correct. As I was writing, I was simultaneously consulting the textbook and hence I believe that my point of view changed depending on the section of the book I was reading. The post was written previous to any class discussion on nationalism had taken place, which I think only further enriched my thoughts on the matter.
Probably the most interesting thing we did in class was debate the matter of the U.S.A. as a nation. Reading other blogs, I was particularly interested in what DK and DLemma had to say on the matter.
We adopt the notion of legitimacy practiced by the Concert of Europe, i.e. the notion that "if we say it's legit., then it's legit." Essentially, nationhood is a product of (1) the desire of the people to be a nation and (2) arcane and arbitrary exclusivity. You can't be a nation and let everyone in. -DK
Nationalism- helped unify groups of people that identified themselves as "German" or "Italian," but it also broke apart people from different ethnicities that were living in the same nation and therefore a tangled mess of alliances was created. -DLemma
I'd agree with both of them, and trying to reflect upon the matter of the U.S.A. as a nation, I must consider an issue they both bring up: ethnicity.
As DK notes, to create a nation, people must desire one. As DLemma says, a nation helps to unify, but it also helps to break apart. I feel, though, that creating a nation doesn't necessarily have to "break apart people" or create "a tangled mess of alliances." While this undisputedly happened in Europe during the mid-19th century, the U.S.A. was different. While Europe was struggling to unify many groups of people who had all lived on the land for years (like Israel/Palestine perhaps), the United States was created almost solely by the overwhelming majority of Caucasian immigrants. The indigenous people were entirely excluded from the process.
Now though, it's as if the process is happening in reverse. Italy started divided and now is united. The USA, arguably, started united and now is...divided (?). As Lollotte brought up in class, as globalization comes more and more into play, with the identity of the U.S.A. as an almost entirely Caucasian country definitely ceasing to exist, are we still a nation? With these different groups of people (much like the minority populations in Germany and Austria-Hungary), can we/do we manage to hold it together?
January 21, 2009
Power of (to?) the People
Nationalism is not something learned. Pledging allegiance to a piece of fabric cannot possibly create nationalism, nor can being encouraged to "take a more active role in civil service" (Western Civilizations, Coffin & Stacey, 746). Nationalism, instead, comes from the people.
In the case of Prussia in the early 19th century, with reforms aiming to "revive 'patriotism and national honor and independence,'" the interference of the government in the domain of the citizen did not bode well. Encouraging nationalism in your country's people does not automatically boost the popularity of a regime. In fact, this is exemplified in the 1840's when Prussians rose up against the government, criticizing the lack of political freedom.
Similarly, Tsar Nicholas attempted to manipulate nationalism to curry favor among the people. This, however, had a definite downside, as it meant alienating the people who were not pro-Slav. Nationalism is only a stage on which other issues come to play. Yes there were empires, but within these empires existed minorities (the book would like you to read "liabilities to autocratic control"). In this sense, ruling a country could not be taken as a cookie-cutter process. All citizens were not the same, nor had the same wants. Even beyond the racial/ethnic divisions, there were also political divisions, complete with subgroups.
Popular rebellion is difficult to control, but often can be effective should the rebels pull their act together in a cohesive argument. In the case of Frederick William in 1848, the strength of the Prussian revolutionaries bullied the king into capitulating
And with popular rebellion often comes a sense of nationalism ("the sense of belonging to a community that shares historical, geographic, cultural, or political traditions" [Ibid.,745]). When fighting for a common goal (should the goal indeed be common, at least in the greatest sense), a certain camaraderie arises among the individuals. However, even this can be held back by the aforementioned divisions, be them political or ethnic.
What rebels need to be successful is a clear focus, a singular thing around which to orient their fight, and an integral part in determining this goal. For Hungarians, this was Lajos Kossuth, who played an integral part in strengthening the popular rebellion by adding the forces of some lower aristocracy.
In the case of Prussia in the early 19th century, with reforms aiming to "revive 'patriotism and national honor and independence,'" the interference of the government in the domain of the citizen did not bode well. Encouraging nationalism in your country's people does not automatically boost the popularity of a regime. In fact, this is exemplified in the 1840's when Prussians rose up against the government, criticizing the lack of political freedom.
Similarly, Tsar Nicholas attempted to manipulate nationalism to curry favor among the people. This, however, had a definite downside, as it meant alienating the people who were not pro-Slav. Nationalism is only a stage on which other issues come to play. Yes there were empires, but within these empires existed minorities (the book would like you to read "liabilities to autocratic control"). In this sense, ruling a country could not be taken as a cookie-cutter process. All citizens were not the same, nor had the same wants. Even beyond the racial/ethnic divisions, there were also political divisions, complete with subgroups.
Popular rebellion is difficult to control, but often can be effective should the rebels pull their act together in a cohesive argument. In the case of Frederick William in 1848, the strength of the Prussian revolutionaries bullied the king into capitulating
And with popular rebellion often comes a sense of nationalism ("the sense of belonging to a community that shares historical, geographic, cultural, or political traditions" [Ibid.,745]). When fighting for a common goal (should the goal indeed be common, at least in the greatest sense), a certain camaraderie arises among the individuals. However, even this can be held back by the aforementioned divisions, be them political or ethnic.
What rebels need to be successful is a clear focus, a singular thing around which to orient their fight, and an integral part in determining this goal. For Hungarians, this was Lajos Kossuth, who played an integral part in strengthening the popular rebellion by adding the forces of some lower aristocracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
