Nationalism: An In-Depth Explanation
Added 2023-10-09 20:15:12 +0000 UTCHey everyone, here's the nationalism piece I've been working on for the last few months. I originally wanted to make about a 10-12 minute piece comparing nationalism and patriotism, but the more time I spent with nationalism the more I decided that the patriotism approach was thin/uninteresting.
I decided instead to focus entirely on nationalism and make an in-depth piece covering:
- The world before nationalism
- The broad contours of the history of nationalism from beginning to end
- The story of the French Revolution, which is wrapped up in the history of nationalism
- The story of Germany before nationalism, an explanation of their contribution to it
- An explanation of enlightenment vs romantic philosophy and how that relates to nationalism
- How fascism fits in
- The definition of nationalism.
That took more than a little research, and quite some time figuring out how to puzzle that all together elegantly enough for my standards.
Hope you guys enjoyed it and got something out of it. I'm going to record a Patron's video this week, then spend two days making some upgrades to the studio I'm recording in, then go straight into recording the next major piece on the causes of World War II.
Thanks as always for your support! I also know many of you have messaged me while I was producing that last video. I have been short on time and decided for own sake to hold off on replying to private messages until the nationalism video was done. I'll read and get to them this week.
Edit: for those interested in the difference between patriotism and nationalism, you can think of it this way - nationalism is the ideology I laid out in my last video. It’s a full political doctrine. You can tell someone you’re a nationalist and it says a lot about your beliefs and behavior, and people can even argue that you're not one if you don’t embody the full doctrine (like believing in the importance of collectivizing with your preferred nation). Patriotism just refers to loyalty to a homeland, or country and it’s people/institutions. That’s it. It’s a relatively simple concept. Because it’s so simple, basically anyone of any persuasion can also be a patriot, and that patriotism can come and go with time without it conflicting necessarily with other beliefs. Also because it’s so simple, saying you’re a patriot doesn’t say much about you.
- Ryan
Comments
You are young. When I was a boy, the pledge was mandatory. Nobody ever tried to opt out and if they did there'd be disciplinary action and social ridicule. The words "under God" was not a part of the original pledge, IIRC. It was added as a counter to the "Godless Communism" of the USSR.
Fred Heiser
2023-10-18 02:09:38 +0000 UTCHey thanks for the feedback. I see how you got the impression, but in the video I didn't claim anything about the etymological conations of goyim. I just said it was an ancient derogatory term that Jews used to refer to non-Jews. Afaik that's correct. It took some time for it to become a pejorative, but we're talking about a word from the Hebrew bible, so it can evolve into a pejorative and still be in antiquity.
Ryan Chapman
2023-10-11 16:35:44 +0000 UTCYes, thanks - an "isms" comparison is a fairly ambitious topic come to think of it... What I've noticed in Canada over the past three years or so is a real evisceration of the "traditional" sense of Canadian identity and belonging, at least when it comes to Anglo-Canadians. A lot of this has to do with identity politics, which our current government has really been using quite effectively to maintain razor-thin voter margins in contested constituencies - but has also created a great deal of confusion about what it means to be "Canadian". Outside of the greater Toronto and Vancouver areas, I think there is a very significant number of Anglo-Canadians who are having a hard time identifying as "Canadian" nowadays, with personal historical traditions, or regional identities becoming more and more important. I put "traditional" in quotes, too, because it's actually difficult to talk about tradition in Anglo-Canada with a straight face, since Canada is really too young to have formed any particular sense of itself. What I think of as a "traditional" identity was mostly the result of a federal government self-promotion from the 70's 80's and 90's. More propaganda than substance, and the propaganda was always rather ambiguous as it sought to balance the practical kinship shared with the US, its departure from a colonial empire, the significant francophone minority, and the changing face of its mass immigration (including the idea that Canada isn't a "melting pot" of cultures like the US, but rather a spectrum of cultures where being Canadian and being Ukranian [for example] aren't mutually exclusive). I think the situation in Québec is very different. Franco-Canadians in Québec have a very strong sense of nation, generally, although this is not a pan-Canadian identity, but rather a strong regional-linguistic one. Indeed, I think there is some resentment from the Quebecois being labelled as "Canadians" as this was their label for themselves ("Canadiens") before it became usurped as part of a federal-national one. In any event, there is a real difference in the sense of community and "national" identity when it comes to Canadians who speak English, and those who speak French. Even when these two groups use the same or similar (translated) words to describe "Canada", they are often talking past each other. I've spent a lot of meaningful time in Québec (far more than your average Anglo-Canadian) and have connected with enough "real" Québecois that I've developed a much greater appreciation of (and maybe some envy towards) Quebéc's unique culture and outlook that is hard to explain to Anglo-Canadians back home. This situation in Canada has been described as "two solitudes" (https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/two-solitudes), and I think this is a tidy turn of phrase to describe the situation overall. What I find interesting is that both solitudes (anglo and franco) have a real misunderstanding of each other that really hasn't been bridged since thinkers have been talking about this sort of stuff. The Québecois, for example, will often talk about the "Anglos" as if they were largely the same as people from England - which is something that most Anglo-Canadians would consider well outdated and foreign. Likewise, Anglophone Canada will often think of francophones from Québec as largely the same as people from France, which is something that Québecois find mildly to severely offensive. The role that the "other" plays in shaping identity is fascinating in this context. But what I think is going to be interesting about nationalism in Canada over the coming decades is how two things play out: (i) the ever-strengthening sense of Québec's nationalism, which seems to have come to tolerate (or even embrace) its participation in the Canadian federation for now, and (ii) the almost complete void of nationalism elsewhere in Canada. What will happen? Will something fill the void? Will it be compatible with Québec's nationalism? Will these things merge? Will nationalism eventually fade away in support of something else? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it will be interesting! (Watch what's happening in Alberta - the province in which I currently reside - for some developments here.) I'll end this (apologetically long) reply with an anecdote about "Canadian" identity. My wife is from France, and a couple of years ago we moved over there so our daughter could spend a year going to school in France (we generally spend a lot of time there, and I've more than once thought of taking up French citizenship to help deal with my personal Canadian-identity problem - although I actually find the French's sense of nation to be a little too xenophobic for my liking, so I never have). I've always noticed that the French have a very skewed understanding of Canadians, often thinking of "Canadians" as being their little francophone cousins (the Québecois finding this rather patronizing as it sort of glosses over their history of conquest by the English and their abandonment by France). One day, one of my wife's colleagues was asking about me, and my wife mentioned that I speak mostly English. Response: "Vraiment? Il y a des anglophones au Canada?"
CP Knight
2023-10-10 20:23:35 +0000 UTCI find it interesting how Nationalism evolved from The individuals of a group banding together for the common good (Enlightenment), to the individuals of a group working for the common good (Romantic), to the individuals of a group being coerced into working for the good of the state (Fascistic). [I would mention that (early in the video) you mention that "goyim" started out as a pejorative. It did not. It had (at least in biblical times) a nationalistic connotation, where the word "ahm" {aleph-mem in hebrew} - literally "people", has more of a tribal connotation. Of course, 2,000 years of being persecuted everywhere leads to changes in usage. In Yiddish, "goy" or "goyim" is used exclusively to mean "the other", the "non-Jew". But, Yiddish is a 'relatively' new language.]
Ira Kroll
2023-10-10 17:30:51 +0000 UTCHey, I just updated my original post with a quick explanation if you’re interested.
Ryan Chapman
2023-10-10 15:18:51 +0000 UTCIncredible video as always! I would personally be very interested in hearing the difference between nationalism and patriotism, but I'm happy this video turned into what it did. Having a deeper understanding of nationalism really helps you understand how the world works today and why
Avram
2023-10-10 15:09:20 +0000 UTCPS: The relation of Nation to Peoples would be of interest insofar: 1. Is a nation state a prerequisite of Democracy? 2. There is an increasing movement/momentum in Europe that wants to deny or even abolish the existence of Peoples (Volk). Can a Nation exist without a Peoples? Just food for though. Keep your head high! And have your well deserved rest :)
Atticus Mato
2023-10-10 14:23:31 +0000 UTCFantastic piece. I learned to understand the famous phrase "The third estate is everything" under the scope of Nationalism. As a German, it was new to inspect the "Romantic-Nationalism", as we here mainly have focused on the geopolitical aim of Nationalism to unite the German Peoples against Napoleon. But certainly that must have been the acre that was sowed before even. As a student of International Law, I missed a comparison of "Nation" with "Peoples" and a bit more Info about Nationalism in Africa (decolonialism and current conflicts). However I learned a lot and I don't think you could have neglected anything out of the video, so maybe there is some food for thought for a new video, now that the groundwork is layed. Especially a (short) Video about the relation of patriotism to nationalism would be of interest to many. with kind regards
Atticus Mato
2023-10-10 14:18:33 +0000 UTCThis was thought-provoking. I had always thought of nationalism as something pejorative, but you make a distinction between nationalism as a national system, which may be compatible with liberal values, and nationalism as an all-demanding statism, which may be authoritarian. Those are my words, so they may not state the distinction as well as yours would, but my take-way from your presentation is that nationalism can be used to describe an international order of states. I was intrigued by how you trace the origin of nationalism to Rousseau and France particularly, as opposed to the United States. I would be interested in a short video on the contrast between the American and French revolutions in this regard. I know I have been appalled by some quotes I have read from Rousseau, and it's not surprising a revolution partly inspired by him would turn into a Terror. But some of the things you quoted of him are insightful too. Thanks for a deeper look. I was not aware of Fichte's political theory. I have read some of Fichte's and Schelling's writings in idealism, but not Fichte's political works. Their texts are hard to comprehend, and I eventually became disillusioned with them when I read their correspondence over their disagreements and falling out with each other. For all their efforts to ground their thought in strict logical syllogisms, they couldn't even get out of the gate in agreement with each other, even though they both claimed to be starting from Hegel. While Hegel's system was genius, it's not surprising that his thought would be taken up in ways that eventuated in National Socialism. Schelling recoiled back into religious mysticism, but your research suggests Fichte marched forward into political theory. I hope to follow up with some reading on that. After watching your video, I now can't unconsciously take the national system for granted. Part of me wants to go back to that organic communal identity that was predominant prior to the nationalistic era. Hegel, I know, would be unhappy with me, and I realize it's impractical to go back to a pre-nation state of affairs at this point, but one can at least pine for a simpler, more organic, mythically "innocent" time. Thanks for the great video. I look forward to your future work.
Tim Elston
2023-10-10 05:19:35 +0000 UTCHi, Ryan! I rarely have time watch anymore, so it is a special treat to find a few minutes to indulge myself in your thoughtful and interesting takes on important and currently relevant topics. This was WONDERFUL! Thank you! I thought I understood nationalism, but we usually don't know what we don't know. The historical perspective was invaluable to me, as I spend a great deal of my time on social media trying to work against the massive misinformation-disinformation juggernaut. Above all, clarity of definitions has become increasingly necessary. Fuzzy edges and vague definitions of nationaiism, fascism, liberalism and socialism abound online these days. Your careful research and clarity of presentation are refreshing. Glad to hear you're upgrading a bit. Can't think of a better place to spend my dollar!!👍👍
Alexandra Leigon
2023-10-09 23:50:19 +0000 UTCHi, a comparison between the four ism's I mentioned in the video I think would be a great subject. Something like that has been on my radar for a while. I think it would warrant its own video and would probably be around a half hour long, give or take 10 minutes. It wasn't something I thought I could really tackle in any capacity on the last one, given everything else I had to do. Also funny you mention nationalism vs the Canadian status quo. It is an unnatural society according to nationalist logic. What have you noticed happening around you recently? My understanding is that the French and English sides are somewhat culturally separated and don't necessarily like one another, but also that it's been like that for a long time.
Ryan Chapman
2023-10-09 23:26:36 +0000 UTCThanks Ryan - really appreciate the effort. One (little?) thing that I would appreciate is a more in-depth concluding comparison of the essential elements of the four categories that you define at the outset (liberalism, socialism, conservatism, nationalism). I really like how you've concluded the nationalism piece with a discussion about the essential elements of nationalism (nations as the base unit, often with language and territory as significant; and collective solidarity). How do these essential elements of nationalism interplay with essential elements of the other 3 'isms'? For example, you mention that the first (nation as a basic unit) elements is largely accepted nowadays, but I think it would be interesting to learn more about the tensions (or lack thereof) of the idea of the nation state when it comes to socialism, conservatism, and liberalism. Likewise, I think part of that element of nationalism could likely use more discussion about the relative importance of ethnicity vs language vs territory (China, for example, is a bit easier to understand if you downplay the importance of territory when it comes to conceptualizing the 'nation'). I'm not suggesting changes but rather maybe a small piece more closely digging into the relations between these 'isms' , especially since category mistakes are so easy to make in these areas. To this end, I really liked your treatment of fascism not as a separate category but rather as an extremist form of nationalism (eg. it's not socialism or liberalism vs fascism - rather the comparison is with an extreme variant of nationalism). As someone born in Canada (a place where there is a defined territory, but no common language or ethnicity- and the collective solidarity that seemed to exist in my youth has all but disappeared over the past few years), I've been really at a loss to explain what is happening around me - your exploration of these topics is extremely useful and helpful to people like me, I think. I really appreciate your work - many thanks again!
CP Knight
2023-10-09 20:51:57 +0000 UTCI enjoyed it as always. It made me realize how recent the nation states are and the different stories that made - they are still being made right now. I enjoy the sober and objective presentation- well researched without any agenda other than to figure out what is going on and why.
Henrik L Berger
2023-10-09 20:44:35 +0000 UTCFantastic work as always!
Anton Berg
2023-10-09 20:37:36 +0000 UTC
