WI: No Nationalism
- Thread starter Aranfan
- Start date
Nationalism exist since.. ages... it just took modern shape in the 19th century...
It can not be waved away, i say. As long humans have nations, ethnicals..
It can not be waved away, i say. As long humans have nations, ethnicals..
You could certainly have the idea that a multiethnic state is as acceptable as it was in say, 1600, in 1900.
But it would require those empires incorporating all their varied ethnicities and them all feeling to be part of the empire, rather than defining themselves primarily as (for instance) Croats with the Habsburgs resented as foreign and oppressive.
How history changes...depends on how you achieve this. The main thing is that the multiethnic states like the Habsburg Empire are much, much stabler.
But it would require those empires incorporating all their varied ethnicities and them all feeling to be part of the empire, rather than defining themselves primarily as (for instance) Croats with the Habsburgs resented as foreign and oppressive.
How history changes...depends on how you achieve this. The main thing is that the multiethnic states like the Habsburg Empire are much, much stabler.
Nationalism, as in the idea of a distinct national entity only came into existance after the enlightenment, prior to that people did'nt much care, and territory changed hands quite alot.
So have the situations that lead to the idea of static nations not develop and Nationlism is nipped in the bud.
So have the situations that lead to the idea of static nations not develop and Nationlism is nipped in the bud.
Last edited:
I Blame Communism
Banned
National identity existed before the enlightenment, even in a primitive way among ordinary people (usually manifested in a simple dislike and distrust of foreigners, but still expressed in 'national terms': "I know you're a Francon!" *smack*), but it wasn't universal or uniform, it wasn't generally the primary way of identifying oneself, and - here's the thing - pretty much nowhere was there any suggestion that it was or should be the basis for states and sovereignty.
I feel that if one managed to avoid the French Revolution, that would be enough. A France that changes gradually and so never comes to identify itself in such dramatically national terms; and perhaps a Holy Roman Empire reforming itself so that Germany follows the same path.
After all, nationalism was never so ubiquitous. The Hapsburgs did stay up for a damn long time, and when they fell so did arch-nation-state Germany, so why assert that nationalism was all that did them in? And Russia only decided that it was going to be a national state of sorts from the mid-late 19th C. India, meanwhile, still exists today and is more multi-ethnic than anyone.
So I don't see anything inevitable about the idea of 'nationality' as the basis for states in Europe.
(Another thought: Poland-Lithuania succeeds? The Poles were great evangelisers of nationality in eastern Europe IOTL, but in that case they would be part of another multi-ethnic framework.
I feel that if one managed to avoid the French Revolution, that would be enough. A France that changes gradually and so never comes to identify itself in such dramatically national terms; and perhaps a Holy Roman Empire reforming itself so that Germany follows the same path.
After all, nationalism was never so ubiquitous. The Hapsburgs did stay up for a damn long time, and when they fell so did arch-nation-state Germany, so why assert that nationalism was all that did them in? And Russia only decided that it was going to be a national state of sorts from the mid-late 19th C. India, meanwhile, still exists today and is more multi-ethnic than anyone.
So I don't see anything inevitable about the idea of 'nationality' as the basis for states in Europe.
(Another thought: Poland-Lithuania succeeds? The Poles were great evangelisers of nationality in eastern Europe IOTL, but in that case they would be part of another multi-ethnic framework.
Last edited:
Hard. By example, while ancient greeks thought of their state first, greecitude second, they where quite nationalist in one way - and frowned on barbarians. The roots of Romantic Nationalism are old..
But the idea of the Roman state never had any requirement for someone to be ethnically anything. Empires able to continue that would be possible, if probably always a minority of the states out there.
CULTURALLY, yes.
And this is also maybe a part of the issue; when we use the word Nationalism, it is by default meaning *ethnic* Nationalism..
But there is another form.. Civic Nationalism. In a way, the Roman nation is a distant predecessor of the idea; the culture of Rome, romanity, citizenship, rules, way of life, etc....
Hendryk
Banned
I second this analysis, and as always when nationalism is being discussed, heartily recommand two absolutely essential books on the topic. One is Nations and Nationalism since 1780 by Eric Hobsbawm, and the other, which I cannot insist enough anyone interested in the history of nationalism cannot do without, is Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson.
There is a big difference between nationality and ethnicity which is not being made clear here. Ethnicity is a concept that has been around since people, as different ethnic groups obviously have very different physical features. But nationalism, as in each ethnic group should have its own state, is a concept that has only been around since the French Revolution. The other thing is that nationality itself is very much is constructed term, for instance in France before the Revolution, more than half the population did not speak "French" as we know it. Whereas, Serbs and Croats fought a war of ethnic cleansing among each other, yet the language they speak -- Serbo-Croatian -- is as far a I know pretty much the same between the two groups. What I am trying to say is that nationalism was never inevitable because nations themselves are constructs and not innate, and often people define themselves as a nationality that is very different from the facts about their heritage and ethnicity, despite the two things supposedly being inextricably linked in nationalist rhetoric.
Scipio
Scipio
Well, the other form of nationalism, Civic is harder to repeal... to me.
That's certainly true. Post-revolutionary France had to fill in the gap it had incurred by dumping its religious basis, and used "La France" as kind of a new goddess. The attractive features of the revolutionary society took this idea all over Europe.
But avoiding the FR is a very far-reaching change!
Sure, cancelling nationalism is so as well, but I like to keep the PoD somewhat under control. So a couple of suggestions for a MiPoD, a "Minimally Invasive Point of Divergence":
- The French troups a much more brutal, and/or there is much more hardship in the occupied areas. This might keep people from embracing the new ideas.
- Somehow French nationalism is much more focussed on France and less transferrable to other countries/peoples. The consequence would be as above. Problem: They already tried hard to do so ...
- Revolutionary France fails much earlier for internal struggles. For instance, a *Napoleon doesn't manage to keep up the illusion of continuing the revolution by calling himself Emperor.
Btw, I don't agree that, nationalism was never so ubiquitous.
It was just held down.
Well, no. Sure, ethnical patriotism and also xenophobia are as old mankind. But it had been the general understanding in Europa for almost a millennium that this was a cultural thing and had nothing to do with politics or rule. The modern idea of the 19th century was exactly this combination (one people, one state) - and this is what the term Nationalism refers to.