Thread 17980288

Why do people say that nationalism wasn't a thing until the 18th century when Rome was literally an ultranationalistic state
Even later into its history, the idea of Rome became less and less about the city of Rome and more about the Roman "nation" and identity, but the nationalism still stood

>>17980288 (OP)
It used to be coined Liberal Nationalism but modern libs cant read something without projecting modern meanings onto it, so it was just to just nationalism which is wrong. It’d be also apt to just recoin it, ethnonationalism but then that makes early nationalists seem like Nazi’s because, again, modern libs cant into historical relativism

>>17980288 (OP)
>Why do people say that nationalism wasn't a thing until the 18th century
Because the defining aspects of what is defined today as a "state" were only developed during that time. You are basically just conflating a state
>when Rome was literally an ultranationalistic state
Rome was a kingdom and then an empire. The latter is incompatible with nationalism. You either preserve your nation, or you outsource your identity to a bunch of second class citizens outside the metropole who will inevitably demand the right to utilize your institutions or live within your pre-expansion borders.

>>17980296
first half of my post didn't enter for some weird reason.

*conflating a state with having a governing body in general

ignorance

>>17980296
Rome during the time of Julius Caesar was literally full of Romans angry at Caesar for aggresively expanding the state as it was making Romans less a majority, they then raged at Caesar making Gauls senators as they were not Roman. Tell me, is this not a form of nationalism? Were Hungarians in 1840 Austria not nationalists because they didnt have a state and lived in an empire?

>>17980308
>Were Hungarians in 1840 Austria not nationalists because they didnt have a state and lived in an empire?
Essentially, yes. If you expand your borders to include a shitload of foreigners who also have the same rights and political representation as you, does your nation exist anymore as anything other than an abstract? You don't even have to go full blown imperialist to see how this directly contradicts the idea of a nation, which should be synonymous with its people. Just look at "civic nationalism" which basically just turns countries into economic zones for any jeet with a green card to come in and call himself a native.

>>17980313
nationalism is imperialism, at least, it leads to imperialism because the state needs to project power to maintain legitimacy even if it's to stave off societal decay. It's also usually a reaction to outside forces

>>17980313
Is there any state that was ever nationalist according to your strict definition?

>>17980288 (OP)
>christmas tree in the background
settle down, its only September.

>>17980288 (OP)
>Why do people say that nationalism wasn't a thing until the 18th century
it's literal judeocommunist propaganda meant to belittle the importance of nation states
>>17980296
in the forword to history of peleoponesian wars tucydydes discusses who greeks are: what ties them together, their common history, language and experience - the same concept of a nation we have today

>>17980483
Would you consider native Americans a "nation" under your definition? The term is synonymous with the abstract idea of "the state" rather than a racial or cultural group. But most native Americans didn't have social structure beyond tribal ones.

So is nation just another word for race/people?

>>17980510
Yeah, it always has been

>>17980288 (OP)
Because nation states, or the concept of a certain ethnicity/group of people speaking a certain language inhabiting a certain place being the core aspect of a state rather than the king or whatever else is a new phenomenon that emerged with the french revolution.

But you're right in the sense that the same aspects of nationalism can be applied to other forms of states.

>>17980308
That was all Senators, and it was shut down by pointing out that like half of the people on the floor had Etruscean or Latin family names.

Because most people, (((historians))) included are downright retards. Nationalism has existed since the dawn of time. The Greek city states were basically bickering over who was more civilized of them for centuries.

>>17980714
>historian said thing I dont like therefore judaism
Go ahead and name these historians, faggot retard.

>>17980714
>Nationalism has existed since the dawn of time
>Greek city states were basically bickering over
Bait or retardation?

Because Rome was an empire that encompassed a large group of people from a bunch of different races.

>>17981044
Honestly sounds like communists using the power of ignorance to come to a conclusion about ancient societies

It all boils down to people getting pedantic about what the word “nationalism” even means and nitpicking historical moments where it was paired with certain political ideologies to make a point. Of course nationalism is a very broad subject and has been paired with every single political ideology across time
So nobody actually falls for this tactic.

>>17981058
it comes from the misunderstanding that history didn't start when you were born

>>17980288 (OP)
>when Rome was literally an ultranationalistic state
They literally were tribals ruled by a hereditary caste of priests, many of whom originated from a completely different Italian ethnicity.

>>17981063
people don't understand that if you didn't speak the language you were basically an alien and people would start swinging at you if you were in the wrong place

>>17981063
yeah but they were nationalists because they made marble statues (ignore the fact they were garishly painted at the time) and were heckin based and redpilled because they had slaves (ignore that I would've been a slave and would've hated the system with every fiber of my being)

VGH we need to RETVRN to the age of marble statues so I can get a girlfriend...