The idea of nationalism being a new thing I have always felt is something that you could only really believe if you have really not read all that much from the past. When it comes to my country Norway, you find clear nationalistic tendencies in the some of the earliest sagas written in the middle ages after Norway's founding. It is clear that the nation is being lifted up and that there is a commonality between the people of the nation.
Great article, Keith. People love to forget that Roman citizenship wasn't extended outside of Italia until way later under Emperor Caracalla, which massively screwed up the empire for all time. Before Caracalla, only about 5 percent of the empire had citizenship. Kinda reminds me of the United States' switch to Jacksonian democracy in the 1820s.
Excellent article. As a further example from the classical era, it seems to me that the confederation of various previously warring gallic tribes under Vercingetorix against Julius Caesar can only be explained by a sense of shared ethnic identity. Same as the unification of Greek states against Persia’s invasions in the 5thC BC. Maybe a hostile outside force is necessary to forge a common national identity. BTW I believe Cheddar Man dates to 9th Millennium BC.
It happened much the same way with the Americans during the early Indian Wars. Pennsylvania was falling apart under the Quakers as every ethnic and sectarian groups were avoiding each other. The Indian attacks with the French assistance made everyone focused on what they have in common.
Thanks! I have been playing with the AI images trying to find something that doesn't look too much like it was AI generated. I think the sketch style suits Substack
I know you mention the city-states of Ancient Greece here, and maybe they do not 100% fit the category of 'nation'... but! I would still argue that they are essentially in the same category and it is clear, from the writings of at least the Athenians -- from Aristophanes to Xenophon -- that they had great pride in their People and Culture. City-state, nation, call it what you will: the behaviour is the same.
I would make the case that the Aztec Empire would have to be considered 'nationalistic' in some sense, considering that it consisted in a geographic location that had relatively definable borders, that the area was settled, that had its own coherent system of rule, it was hostile to outsiders, unincorporated peoples in the region, was constantly at war with those outside its borders and influence. (The Empire being a collection of three smaller city-states, I would imagine that it would also constitute a nation more appropriately than smaller regional societal structures that would not suitably fir the category)
There are examples, too, throughout the history of Asia, where national pride is clearly historically catalogued, and nationhood is very much a thing, even if usually discussed by some other name. We must remember that these tricky academics use language and its plasticity in often insidious ways. We must always be on our guard, and vigilant in countering their flawed narratives.
Yes the greeks didn't even consider other european ethnic groups as part of their nation. They believed a democracy had to be with people of the same ethnic group otherwise it was not really a democracy, as each population would be nepotistic in gaining power for their own group instead of having solidarity with the whole population.
Something to bear in mind, and that I'm gonna have to consider when writing Roman fantasy stories after my current crop are finished; Rome was to grant citizenship to a great many later and become more an idea, but that was as you said after several centuries. At one time, it was an ethnicity, and one must bear in mind while the Celts of Gaul were eventually Romanized it was a gradual process across almost five centuries.
As a philosopher, I am more worried about the logic of the argument from "nation states are modern entities". Philosophers like Popper, who accused nationalism, have used such an argument, but I really do not understand it.
For example, modern technology is also a new event. Does it follow that there is something wrong with it?
On a larger histprical scale, democracy is a modern event. Does it follow that there is something wrong with democracy?
Reasoning capability is comparatively new event. Does it follow that there is something wrong with it?
On the larger, biological and geological scale, human beings are a modern event. So what follows? Does it follow that there are no human rights?
British white identity was strong in the 40s. Churchill made distinction between White British fighting the war and Indians and Africans fighting the war. At this point, you're just bending history to fit your argument
Yes, in the sense that there are "subject peoples" who have been conquered. It's not much of an "empire" if there aren't conquered provinces of genetic foreigners.
However, the core of the empire is ALWAYS a "Herrenrasse," a "master race" or "lord-people."
This is great work, and it shows how myopic modern interpretation of identity is - knowing how tribal and status-conscious humans are, it is unsurprising that existence of Rome as a power was facilitated by existence of ethnic loyalty and identity as Romans for the Italic peoples. Their common genetic origin and cultural affinity no doubt aided the process and made the growth of Roman-Italian ethnicity not only viable but virtually inevitable.
Perhaps it is the limited amount of sources that we have, and the focus on elite theory, but the bias towards recognition of "nationalism" as a solely modern phenomenon tends to obscure (partially on purpose) the fact that ethnic self-identification existed as long as tribes themselves, and it can be recognised as far back as Ancient Egypt, where both Hyksos and Nubian invaders are seen as alien and non-native, and the desire for a native pharaoh being the origin for the existence of new dynasties throughout millenia.
Brilliant article. Got me thinking when you touched on the topic of loyalty to their kin in central Rome during the invasion by Hannibal, could this be more due to monetary gain than the sense of national pride? Just a thought. Same can be said on the other side when Rome raided North Africa the people closer to Carthage would have more to lose due to it being an economic centre.
The idea of nationalism being a new thing I have always felt is something that you could only really believe if you have really not read all that much from the past. When it comes to my country Norway, you find clear nationalistic tendencies in the some of the earliest sagas written in the middle ages after Norway's founding. It is clear that the nation is being lifted up and that there is a commonality between the people of the nation.
Great article, Keith. People love to forget that Roman citizenship wasn't extended outside of Italia until way later under Emperor Caracalla, which massively screwed up the empire for all time. Before Caracalla, only about 5 percent of the empire had citizenship. Kinda reminds me of the United States' switch to Jacksonian democracy in the 1820s.
Excellent article. As a further example from the classical era, it seems to me that the confederation of various previously warring gallic tribes under Vercingetorix against Julius Caesar can only be explained by a sense of shared ethnic identity. Same as the unification of Greek states against Persia’s invasions in the 5thC BC. Maybe a hostile outside force is necessary to forge a common national identity. BTW I believe Cheddar Man dates to 9th Millennium BC.
It happened much the same way with the Americans during the early Indian Wars. Pennsylvania was falling apart under the Quakers as every ethnic and sectarian groups were avoiding each other. The Indian attacks with the French assistance made everyone focused on what they have in common.
Wonderful article.
Great article. I’m new to substack but loving the clean format. And good use of AI generation btw.
Thanks! I have been playing with the AI images trying to find something that doesn't look too much like it was AI generated. I think the sketch style suits Substack
Great article Keith!
Outstanding, Keith. I was absorbed. Thank you.
I know you mention the city-states of Ancient Greece here, and maybe they do not 100% fit the category of 'nation'... but! I would still argue that they are essentially in the same category and it is clear, from the writings of at least the Athenians -- from Aristophanes to Xenophon -- that they had great pride in their People and Culture. City-state, nation, call it what you will: the behaviour is the same.
I would make the case that the Aztec Empire would have to be considered 'nationalistic' in some sense, considering that it consisted in a geographic location that had relatively definable borders, that the area was settled, that had its own coherent system of rule, it was hostile to outsiders, unincorporated peoples in the region, was constantly at war with those outside its borders and influence. (The Empire being a collection of three smaller city-states, I would imagine that it would also constitute a nation more appropriately than smaller regional societal structures that would not suitably fir the category)
The Aztecs also had a strict 8-tier caste system.
https://www.fcusd.org/cms/lib/CA01001934/Centricity/Domain/1168/Aztec%20social%20pyramid%20readings.pdf
There are examples, too, throughout the history of Asia, where national pride is clearly historically catalogued, and nationhood is very much a thing, even if usually discussed by some other name. We must remember that these tricky academics use language and its plasticity in often insidious ways. We must always be on our guard, and vigilant in countering their flawed narratives.
Yes the greeks didn't even consider other european ethnic groups as part of their nation. They believed a democracy had to be with people of the same ethnic group otherwise it was not really a democracy, as each population would be nepotistic in gaining power for their own group instead of having solidarity with the whole population.
Something to bear in mind, and that I'm gonna have to consider when writing Roman fantasy stories after my current crop are finished; Rome was to grant citizenship to a great many later and become more an idea, but that was as you said after several centuries. At one time, it was an ethnicity, and one must bear in mind while the Celts of Gaul were eventually Romanized it was a gradual process across almost five centuries.
As a philosopher, I am more worried about the logic of the argument from "nation states are modern entities". Philosophers like Popper, who accused nationalism, have used such an argument, but I really do not understand it.
For example, modern technology is also a new event. Does it follow that there is something wrong with it?
On a larger histprical scale, democracy is a modern event. Does it follow that there is something wrong with democracy?
Reasoning capability is comparatively new event. Does it follow that there is something wrong with it?
On the larger, biological and geological scale, human beings are a modern event. So what follows? Does it follow that there are no human rights?
My understanding is that its's more an attempted refutation of the Nationalist argument that Nations have always existed.
All empires are multiracial and multicultural.
And to the extent that they function, the sovereign centre is an ethnic bloc with a strong national identity.
It's no coincidence that the British Empire crumbled when the White ethno-block at the centre stopped perceiving itself as a (racial) Nation.
British white identity was strong in the 40s. Churchill made distinction between White British fighting the war and Indians and Africans fighting the war. At this point, you're just bending history to fit your argument
Yes, in the sense that there are "subject peoples" who have been conquered. It's not much of an "empire" if there aren't conquered provinces of genetic foreigners.
However, the core of the empire is ALWAYS a "Herrenrasse," a "master race" or "lord-people."
Most empires are superficial multicultural because usually all the people in power are usually the same race
This is great work, and it shows how myopic modern interpretation of identity is - knowing how tribal and status-conscious humans are, it is unsurprising that existence of Rome as a power was facilitated by existence of ethnic loyalty and identity as Romans for the Italic peoples. Their common genetic origin and cultural affinity no doubt aided the process and made the growth of Roman-Italian ethnicity not only viable but virtually inevitable.
Perhaps it is the limited amount of sources that we have, and the focus on elite theory, but the bias towards recognition of "nationalism" as a solely modern phenomenon tends to obscure (partially on purpose) the fact that ethnic self-identification existed as long as tribes themselves, and it can be recognised as far back as Ancient Egypt, where both Hyksos and Nubian invaders are seen as alien and non-native, and the desire for a native pharaoh being the origin for the existence of new dynasties throughout millenia.
Great essay Keith
Wonderful essay Keith
Brilliant article. Got me thinking when you touched on the topic of loyalty to their kin in central Rome during the invasion by Hannibal, could this be more due to monetary gain than the sense of national pride? Just a thought. Same can be said on the other side when Rome raided North Africa the people closer to Carthage would have more to lose due to it being an economic centre.
Question, you say "it would be a mistake to claim that some of these examples were “nationalist” in the sense we understand it today..."
To what extent, if any, is nationalism a modern invention. How much credence does the modernist understanding of nationalism have?
Surely an understanding of this question is necessary if one wishes to defend a primordial position of nationalism.