The idea that a nation is a delusion is always slyly propagated by the Satanic Globalists. Multiculturalism has failed in this moment.. But We will all truly be united when The real Lord Jesus Christ comes back. And Establish his City. New Jerusalem. Then They we will all be one Nation.
What is fascinating, as a European, is ones sense of identity/community expands the further away you go geographically. A Swede will feel like a Swede in Sweden. A Swede in Italy will gravitate towards other Scandinavians. A Scandinavian in Brazil will gravitate towards other Europeans. A European in China will gravitate towards other "western people".
@arandomhandsomeman7725 in Nigeria we are very divided by tribes. I mean in my state, we have almost 10 languages and we don't agree. But if I go to the North, my fellow Rivers man is my brother, when I met some Yoruba people, they asked if I know Burna Boy and Omah Lay 😂😂. I leaned into it, after all Burna Boy's dad and my mom are from the same local government area 😂😂 so I guess he is my brother. I went to Kwara state and was excited to see an Igbo kitchen, because they cook more like us, I was tired of eating food I wasn't used to. I know if I go to the US, I'd embrace the Yoruba and Hausa food faster than I'd smell a plate of Mac and cheese 😅.
I disagree. The concept of a tribe is rooted in the fact that you share enough with your tribe members to be part of the same tribe. These people are your family, these people are your neighbours and you work with these people. However in these giant nations, person A does not have anything valuable in common with person B who lives 200 kilometers away.
communication is key to this concept. thats why for example a mars colony will always need their own government. the communication time is too long. especially when it comes to in person communication
@@adriaanvandoorn1263 Tribes also have belief systems, which have proven to be powerful enough to make even complete strangers bond with one another. And as @Arthera0 pointed out, communication of these belief systems used to be physically limited.
je suis très intéressée par ce que tu nous dis. Peux tu développer ? nous donner des exemples ? merci. Je t'écris de Suisse, et suis française. Je ne me sens d'aucun pays, ou plutot je me sens de tous les pays. au plaisir de te lire !
What? Maybe Benedict Anderson? this video is the same idea...well. in this context thats mean: if the nations doesn`t exist: Balcanize Russia!! (thats the main idea)....
interesante, como podemos ver el caso de paises colonizados como los de america cuyas raices se perdieron, no podemos crear una idea de nacion a partir de las raices como los eslavos o los germanos o algo asi por que somos formados de nativos, de africanos y europeos, nuestros mestizajes racial y cultural es similar en hispanomerica, tengo la duda de si nos sentimos mas identificados como parte de un continente de habla hispana que nacinales de cada pais, o por el contrario nos identifica mas ser de una region como ser paisas o indigenas que de un pais.
@ creo que algo importante en el mensaje del video, es que los conceptos de estados nación modernos son creaciones que sirven para reproducir una identidad por medio de muchas formas en su mayoría simbólicas (escudos, banderas, himnos) y por supuesto lingüísticas, es decir imponer una o varias lenguas oficiales, excluyendo en el proceso a minorías étnicas y lingüísticas. Tienes razón en decir que los procesos para el establecimiento de los estados nación en lo que es el territorio que llamamos Europa fueron muy diferentes porque no hubo un exterminio ni en lo físico ni en lo cultural tan visible como sucedió en América, sino que hay una oficialidad por parte de las élites que son quienes acaban determinando el rumbo y la identidad de muchos pueblos a pesar de su enorme heterogeneidad. Y para responder a tu pregunta, creo que la identidad impartida por el concepto de nación en los pueblos hispanos y latinoamericanos ha sido algo que nos ha separado más que unirnos, pero tengo mi ligera impresión que en un mundo cada vez más globalizado, esa misma identidad lingüística y en cierta forma cultural nos puede llevar a ser más conscientes de lo que tenemos en común y tomar ventaja de ello.
I don't understand how "countries are made up" (which is kind of obvious) turned into "countries aren't real." Lots of real things are made up: books, plays, art, and, to a certain extent, math and science. Something being "made up" or created by humans doesn't mean it's not real. That's an unfair correlation.
by "real" he means they only exist in our minds. The effects of that existence are impactful and real, but the thing itself is a myth we all collectively believe.
And I would argue that many “Nations” are actually quite old. The concept of an English identity or nation for example has existed since the 9th century. And European tribes and later “nations” or identities were well aware of their continuity and shared heritage
@@sebe2255 You literally just saw a video explaining why that doesn't hold true and your point is "Nah it's always been around in some form". You are literally just projecting modern ideas onto the past. A mistake most people make, especially when it comes to the middle ages.
1st title: Why Countries Aren't Real 2nd title: Nationalism, Explained 3rd title: The Idea We're Willing to Die for, Explained edit: 4th title: Nationalism, Explained (once again) edit: 5th title: How Humans Invented Nationalism
Honestly, this has some huge ''I'm 14 and this is deep'' feel to it. Yes we made up countries, anyone who thinks about it for half a second should have already known that. That doesn't mean they're not real or important. We made up money and the economy as well. I'm still in debt. Laws are made up too. I don't think the judge will accept ''laws aren't real'' as an excuse.
the point is that many people see nationalism as something that is rooted in human nature and that we cant change, while in reality these concepts hold us back as a species if we fail to question them
@@albus5796 Before it was nationalism it was civic pride during the age of city-states. Just look at what Athens and Sparta got up to if you don't believe me. Or just how many times in history you can read about two cities or towns going to war with each other despite technically being part of the same state. And before that, it was good old tribalism. And fun fact, during the prehistoric age of tribalism, archeological evidence shows that humans killed each other far *more* than they do now, not less. Nationalism is far from new, the claim that it is from this video is utterly ridiculous. It just involves a bigger group of people than before. But at the end of the day, humans are pack animals and are always gonna care more about people ''from their pack'' than for people outside of it. You're not any different by the way, you just decided that your pack isn't your nation. But you still got a pack, a group of people whose well-being you care about a lot more than other people.
You're completely missing the entire point, he's literally just going into it was created and the deep repercussions this one idea has, you're just yapping
He didn't say they don't exist, he's saying they are not a fundamental, unshakable aspect of human existence and history. Many people do sincerely believe, whether consciously or unconsciously, that nations are rooted in something foundational since the dawn of civilisation that has always existed and should always continue to exist, and that there are divides between people of different nations that can never be bridged. The idea forms the basis of a lot of anti-immigration thought. Immigrants can't come here because they are not part of our group, so if too many come, then over time they will destroy the nation and turn it into an entirely different one. They are not like us and they never will be, and neither will their children or grandchildren. But that's just a story. They may have different cultures and ideas, but those are things that do change and adapt to new places. Its not like saying laws aren't real so we can break them, it's like saying laws are made up, so if we decide one doesn't make sense or isn't just, we have have it changed.
yeah this whole idea of nations dont exist and no borders thing is so dumb. our nations always existed they once upon a time were just nations of 10 guys with sticks and the culture of those 10 guys turned into 100. then 1000. then 10,000 and then 100,000 and you needed more space so you dominated the nations of smaller people groups and converted them into your nation culture. thats just human history. we used to call it tribal warfare now its nation warfare. its all the same thing.
France, Germany and Italy define themselves via a common language and culture, China via bloodline, Pakistan via religion just to mention a few. All problems that these nations face arise from how they define themselves. Switzerland transcends these fundamentally exclusive concepts. To be Swiss is to belief in the institutions of the Swiss state: compromise, neutrality, direct democracy, federalism and a militia. As such there are no natural boundaries to the Swiss nation, it's more akin to how we viewed the Roman Empire historically. As a concept this way of creating a nation would work for any place in the world and would avoid many many conflicts.
@@themechanic49 you bought a bit into the national narrative here. Switzerland, as a nation, arguably only started to exist with Napoleon's invasion of 1798 and the subsequent creation of the Helvetic state. With the dissolution of the vassal states and the formation of a federal government. Prior to that you weren't Swiss, you were either from Zurich, Bern, Lucerne etc. and that was your whole identity.
2 месяца назад+58
TLDR: People always formed communities. Now the communities are just bigger. Surprise, surprise.
I can understand how Americans struggle with national identity, the country is young an made up of a wide range of migrants from other countries. But in Europe, people have much stronger senses of their Nation. Borders have moved and languages changed but fundamentally Europeans are all quite different. As a Brit, I feel a deep and old connection to my homeland, I can track my family tree back hundreds of years. If I'm abroad I can spot fellow Brits before they even open their mouths. There's something depressingly nihilistic about this video, we should celebrate our cultures, out history and embrace our differences and while doing so recognise how much we have in common and how we can work together to progress.
Yes. This asks the question of "do we really need to care that much about our nationalism? Do we have any guarantee that this idea will be there after just 100 years from now on?
I agree with you. But something very important and I think it would be worth analyzing is the climate factor and how it influenced the ethnic confirmation of each tribe.
As a European, the idea that countries are made up doesn’t strike me as a particularly novel concept, you don’t have to travel very far in Europe to realise this
It's also a bit weird that he brings up the countries in Europe as claiming they are for their people, while countries in Europe have actively decided to create a massive federation to which they willfully hand off some of their power. The EU is currently probably the biggest example of borders being nowhere near as strict as many people think
If France is so complex Imagine the same for a country like India Where there are totally different cultures, languages, traditions and beliefs every 100km
Absolutely! India takes diversity to a whole new level. With so many languages, customs, and traditions coexisting, it’s like a collection of mini-countries within one nation. That’s what makes India both challenging and fascinating to understand!
He skipped many things. Skipped whole story of sovereignty, why each nation feels it has the right to 'self-determination' I think he was trying to focus on the modern construction of nation. The Roman Empire was nothing like nation-states of the current age But as you said his story is incomplete. And his 'nations are fake' is too oversimplified that its not really true.
"Is this propaganda or an attempt to create a historical video without knowing history?" Honestly, the number of lies and inaccuracies, combined with the blatantly biased way the content was presented, left me astounded. Of course, those who believed the video’s narrative are either of low educational background or are already politically aligned with the agenda the video aims to promote. For those interested in the truth, let me briefly outline a few points to dismantle this fairytale. Firstly, the word "nation"-in Greek, "έθνος"-has existed for over 3,000 years. It was initially mentioned by Homer and later solidified in meaning by Herodotus, where it refers to a group of people sharing common characteristics such as lineage, language, religion, shared history and culture, geographic origins, and national consciousness. The Greeks fought against the Persians with a sense of common Greek nationhood more than 2,500 years ago. This is why, as you might have noticed, the presenter deliberately avoids mentioning Greece in any of their references. Instead, what they do is bring up France to inform us about its recent history. Let me clarify: the French are a Germanic tribe that appeared in the 3rd century AD in the regions of the Rhine and the Black Forest. Gradually, they infiltrated Roman territory, primarily as allies. After the fall of Rome, the Franks began conquering lands in Gaul, modern-day France, and integrated the native population (the Gauls), who had already been subjugated by the Romans. The identity of the Franks was closely tied to the Salic Law (Lex Salica), a set of legal rules that defined Frankish society and differentiated the Franks from Romans and other peoples. While there are many references distinguishing the Franks from other tribes, during Charlemagne's era, we see early mentions of a Frankish "nation." So, that’s a brief note on France since it was mentioned. There is a clear difference between a nation and a country (or, more accurately, borders, which is what you're essentially talking about), Mr. Harris. If you wish to create content about ideas that are relatively new in humanity's philosophy and are purely our own constructs, let’s talk about human rights and equality, which are inventions of the last 50 years. Just because we didn’t talk about these concepts earlier doesn’t make human rights any less important, Mr. Harris. Whether an idea is new or old is not what makes it good or bad. It’s a shame because I have followed your channel in the past, and (even though your stance is evident from your appearance alone), you’ve had some noteworthy moments. Best of luck with your propaganda, both to you and those who blindly parrot the lies you feed them.
You make some good points but you are are clearly more biased than the video maker. He is referring to the modern concept of the nation, which is widely regarded to be a product of the 19th century, at least in Europe. And since you are so fond of the Greeks, you ought to know that Stoicism (3rd century BCE) introduced the idea of equality, claiming all humans share the capacity for reason and are therefore equal in dignity. More recently the U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776) declared, "All men are created equal". Where is God's name do you get this last 50 years business?
@@Warmer_Bros Really? I'm a native english speaker from England, and I have no difficulty reading Shakespeare's texts. I think what you probably meant was most engtlish speakers would not understand Chaucer's language, since that version of medieval english really is far different from today's language. But Shakespeare is very understandable and in fact he gave us so many well-known phrases and coined so many of the words we use today (including the word "coined").
Yea and the root word and concept of nation, stemming from the Latin “nationem” meaning “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe," being around in the 3rd century BC… but but Johnny Harris said it’s a recent idea!!
This video isn't really talking about nations it's talking about Nation States specifically imo. The notions of ethnicity, nation, country, citizenship, nation state, and sovereign state are all being mixed up. Which isn't good for an informative video on a complex and divisive topic. Max says that the formation of the modern nation can be top down or bottom up. A top down example, France, was given in detail, but no bottom up example was given in detail when it really should have been if the video is genuinely trying to explore the origin. Saying it's all "made up" can be damaging. The idea that certain people belong to certain land is presented as a new, manufactured, and arbitrary idea is incredibly damaging to movements like Land Back. This idea has already been used to justify Russian invasion of Ukraine, as Putin and many other Russian officials determine that Ukraine isn't real and Ukrainian identity is a recent fabrication not anchored in any history. "If I tell you France is made up that feels wrong" 2:02 No, it doesn't necessarily feel wrong it feels extremely reductionist. Because so is the weird green paper in my wallet is also made up. Most currency has literally no value, most currencies aren't representing some stash of gold or made out of the "valuable material" themselves. Only 8% of currency is actual physical coin/paper. Religion is also made up yet we find it so intrinsically valuable that being able to pick one and follow its tenants is considered a fundamental human right.
This is an underrated comment, I agree also what about human nature. If human nature dictates it and it feels natural in my opinion that makes it real, culture is made up but real. If an old Native American was dropped into Japan in the 1600’s, the Native American wouldn’t feel at home, that’s part of the reasons people created tribes, regions, cultures, and like you said religions.
Well, the creator here wants to push the idea that everything is a social construct, so it could (and should) be deconstructed and reconstructed to bring equity. It doesn't account for the fact that tribalism, ethnicity, culture and History stem from the natural evolution of human nature, equivalents of that can also be found in animals. Human beings would never have survived without some form of communautarism. These 2 are way too idealistic and blinded by their own ideologies. If they were more objective, they would have told us that there were way more wars in the past when there were not strong nationalist identities, because tribal identities were and are even less tolerant, and have a stronger sense of fear. Second, they would have recognize that nationalism is not the problem in today's wars, like Ukraine. I see 2 main reasons: hegemonic visions of leaders, of power hungry individuals, and tribalism/identity politics around a culture, a religion or a people. Nationalism has actually brought more harmony among different and various ethnic/religious groups than ever before in History.
Changed the original title on his recent election videos, along with the image. Starting to wonder if he starts with a slightly 'inflammatory' title and image to boost the comments and metrics he receives, in a similar way people who make shorts will place an obvious spelling mistake to boost their video when people obviously pick it up and comment about it. Pretty scummy tbh.
This is a common fallacy, especially amongst sociologists. Everything is a social construct, but just because it is a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Math, science, and engineering are all social constructs, along with the tools made from them, but that doesn't mean the hammer I accidentally smashed my finger with doesn't exist.
You make the perfect point, that Johnny needs in this video. Money is made up, names are made up, language is made up. The thing is that they have a real impact on our physical lives, this makes them quite real.
It is and it isn't. It is real in the sense that it is experienced as a reality in every day life at a micro level, it is not real in the sense that it is not an objective reality. It has only the meaning and value that it is given and is subject to change. And that notion is important to recognise in a turbulent world that is increasingly adhering to this us vs them mentality.
He doesn't say it isn't real, he's just breaking down how something so insanely arbitrary can have such wide reaching effects and letting people know how arbitrary it actually is, you missed the entire point
@@thomasmogensen1 Not really fake, Johnny Harris channel is a brilliant piece of ideological propaganda, it is very deliberate. It is prime example of ideological subversion that is being done to western world today.
Why does the discussion between Johnny and Max seem so fake and scripted. Like it is taking me out of the video 🤣 they just seem so fake when talking to each other. Still watched of course but it was throwing me off.
Well, that's just not true. First of all, you have to define society. Then you have to realize that there are actual things that are aren't social constructs, yet exist.
@@nearly_epic yes but this concept of nation states being a social construct, and overall logic, applies to everything within our society. Why can people inherit millions of dollars without lifting a finger while others go hungry living on the street? Why is it okay for a 50 year old man to sleep with a naive 18 year old but not okay if they're 17? Why can an Israeli passport go to 171 countries visa free when a Palestinian living less than a mile away only go to 36? Why is it okay for a man and women to love each other but not to love more than one person or a person of the same sex? Why is it normal to cover ourselves in cloth but strange to walk around without it? These are not inherent natural laws that must be followed, like everything else these are social constructs which we've been told are the way things work. Regardless of if there's merit or rational to these decisions, they are still just constructs of our society that we've been forced to accept. There's no such thing as race, religion, nationality, sex, gender. We can study these subjects and label the natural phenomenon but no inherent trait or belief, no race, no religion, no gender, no sexual orientation, no nationality is better than another, just different. We are all just people of earth, each products of our environment and the biological inheritance that makes us up.
The video is not about nations not being real, despite the awful title, it's about how nation and sense of nationality have evolved over time with the advent of fast communication. The behaviour of smaller nations of old became the behaviour of bigger nations of today, and this can give rise to nationalism and intollerance. It's an interesting concept.
Whole my life as a central Siberia citizen, I've been identifying as Russian, then Siberian, then Asian and then Tuvan. And only recently I started to realize that the concept of being Russian isn't clicking for me: I'm not white, my hair isn't blond, my eyes aren't blue, I'm not Slavic, I'm 100% Asian. I speak Russian because this is what school taught me, but my whole family speaks an entirely different language. It's not even Slavic language, Tuvan is Turkish kind of language. Because of globalisation, I speak three different kinds of languages from three different ethnic groups: English, Russian and my mother language Tuvan. This is wild. In Russian language there are two words for "being Russian": "русский" is being Russian as an ethnicity and "россиянин" is being Russian as a citizen of the country. I'm latter *and* I'm Tuvan.
Tuva is a republic therefore calling your nationality Tuvan is a Ok. Also there's a distinction between Russians and Rossians(Россияне) but it's really vague and kinda imperial. I hope Tuvans and others will be free in the choice of their future.
Wow! Interesting to hear that "Russian" in the Russian language is separated into 2 words, one for ethnicity and one for citizenship. Actually "Chinese" is also separated into 2 terms in the Chinese language. Zhong Guo Ren means citizen of China, Hua Ren means anyone of Chinese blood regardless of citizenship.
There's Russian ethniticy and Russian citizenship. Russia by all means is the remanents of the russian empire and not a nation-state as commonly defined. If Russia was centered only around Moscow-StPb and volvograd then might be it would be a russian nation-state. This is why in Russia Patriotism is celebrated, while Nationalism is suppressed.
Bulgarian here, we were 500 years under Ottoman rule and we didn't got assimilated by the ottomans for that long period. That didn't happend mostly because the christian religion, but also because of our language, traditions, all these things were saved by the people and passed trought generations. These hard times made all of our people more united than ever. There were revolution committees in cities, towns and villages all over "the country". In 1878 Bulgaria was liberated and put back on the political map for first time since 1396.
marinhristozov1832, "and we didn't got assimilated by the ottomans for that long period. That didn't happend mostly because the christian religion, but also because of our language, traditions, all these things were saved by the people and passed trought generations." No, it didn't happen because Ottoman empire didn't have a policy of assimilation. Like every other classical empire, it didn't care who you were, so long as you paid taxes and didn't revolt.
@@yalcnbey5834 You are Turkish, try not to be biased. The Ottomans did have a policy of assimilation, especially in the later period of the empire. The Jizya, and jannisary system were some methods of assimilation. Understand that western Anatolia, and eastern Thrace didn’t become Turkish by magic. Many assimilated in the Balkans as well but migrated to Anatolia following the Balkan wars
@@yalcnbey5834 Also if you look into the Arab revolts and the reasons they wanted independence from the Ottomans, you will see discrimination against non-Turks as one of the primary reasons.
@@tvuser9529 Math is a language. Langugages are entirely artificial and made up. Thus everything in math is artifical. Like most of our understanding of the world around us (interpretation). However, that we actually realize things with it, is not only because we check scientifically (adapting theory to practice), we formulate instructions for the real world in a abstract language, then we are realizing what has been written in the langugage (following the instructions). There are plently of things than can not be done in the real world, aside the mathematical instructions, and most of the time they are even very limited to a condition set, within a definition context.
Read it first in Sapiens. "Large numbers of strangers can cooperate successfully by believing in common myths. Any large-scale human cooperation-whether a modern state, a medieval church, an ancient city, or an archaic tribe-is rooted in common myths that exist only in people's collective imagination." It's just a story. It's the ability to tell and engage with stories that sets us apart from other species on the planet. Storytelling makes us human. Stories are meant to be told with each other, they are the glue that binds societies together.That's why it's so sad that the stories most prevalent in our world today are told by people determined to keep us apart.
@@alexx12545i’m not sure to every detail but they are very scetchy and essentially build everything around economics (suprice surprice it’s in their name). They are very utopian in their views while ALSO being kind of scary because they suggest some really idiotic things that would never work
@@alexx12545the WEF is pushing “globalism” which basically means that they want the entire world to be under the governance of one combined government, which sounds good but really is just another word for world domination and control.
Italian here. The idea of Italy as a distinct entity has deep roots, reaching back to the Roman era, although Italian identity has evolved and transformed over the centuries. As early as the Republican era, the Romans used the term "Italia" to refer part of the peninsula-initially only the southern part, later expanding to include all of it during the imperial period. By the Augustan age, Rome had consolidated the concept of Italy as the heart of the Roman world, a distinct geographical and cultural entity separate from the provinces. This idea was reinforced by the Romanization of Italic peoples and the granting of Roman citizenship to all inhabitants of the peninsula. Thus, Italy was perceived as a privileged land, with a unique status within the Empire. Although the concept of a nation-state did not yet exist, there was a sense of cultural unity due to Roman citizenship and the prestige of being "Italic" within the Empire. However, with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, this identity fragmented. During the Middle Ages, Italy became a patchwork of independent kingdoms, duchies, republics, and city-states, with strong local identities rather than a unified national consciousness. The Italian territory became a battleground for foreign powers and local forces, including the Holy Roman Empire, the Normans, the Byzantines, and later the major European monarchies. Each city and region developed its own identity, and people primarily identified with their own city or commune (Florence, Venice, Milan, etc.). Nevertheless, the spirit of belonging to a "land of Italy" did not disappear completely. Writers and poets like Dante Alighieri, Francesco Petrarca, and Niccolò Machiavelli expressed a strong desire for unity and a sense of an Italian homeland. Although these were primarily cultural and literary ideals, these early sentiments of national unity foreshadowed the Risorgimento, when the dream of a united Italy became a concrete political project, led by figures like Giuseppe Mazzini, Camillo Benso di Cavour, and Giuseppe Garibaldi. In summary, there existed a sense of Italy as a cultural and geographical entity dating back to the Roman era. However, this awareness underwent significant changes: during the Middle Ages, it weakened and fragmented into regional identities, and only with the Risorgimento did the idea of an Italian identity take political shape, transforming from an abstract concept into a unified national state.
I'm Greek and we were calling ourselves Romans (Romioi) up to 20th century. Even today in some songs and poetry the term is still used, mostly to describe the Greek identity rather than the Imperial citizenship.
Im interested to know, did the people in different parts of italy before the unification realy speak different languages, or was it just different dialects?
@arassadeghi3998 Before unification, Italy was linguistically fragmented, with each region speaking its own distinct language or dialect, often quite different from others, but with basically all of them having the common root in Latin. Tuscan eventually became the basis for modern Italian due to its literary prestige (the Divine Comedy, for example, is written in vulgar Tuscan, the same with the Decameron), but most Italians continued speaking regional languages until the 20th century, when education, media, and urbanization spread standard Italian across the country. I'm from Ferrara, a city in northeastern Emilia-Romagna, and my grandparents' generation still speaks in dialect. My parents and people my age, of course, speak Italian, though most people can still understand the dialect. In the most southern cities, the vast majority of people still have a strong dialectal influence.
What I found the most weird claim in the video was the language thing. I find it very hard to believe that in 1950, only 20% of Italians spoke "Italian". I mean dialects ofc. are a thing, but different language? Ofc, what is a language and what is a dialect, is often very handwavy. My native language Finnish, has really strong dialects based on old "tribal borders", but we still think all of the people are speaking the same language. We can fully understand each other, aside of some corner cases, which are maybe comparable to teens having their own words that the older folks don't understand, but on a regional level.
A lot of what he's saying is contextually deceptive. For example, in the same early 1800s there was one "french" as far as the world was concerned, which Thomas Jefferson and the kings of Spain and England also spoke as a diplomatic language...the other "languages" were mostly french with what we'd today consider very thick dialects of French. They could understand each other across much of France, despite those various "languages". He also is being deceptive when he conflates country with nation. A country is a top-level political division. A nation is an ethnicity/culture that identifies together as a group. Countries are as old as recorded history. But nations, while being a concept as old as time, only became normalized as a way to form a country in the 19th century. Nationalism, during the romantic era, was about cultural nations forming their own countries, governing themselves. This is also what the Springtime of Nations was about, in 1848, when all across Europe various ethnicities overthrew their arbitrary rulers and formed their own states.
good critiques! yes there was a common french that diplomats communicated with and that was known broadly, but as an identity that language was mostly used and identified with by elites. The major point here is that the modern day idea of a unified group of people within borders (ie the psychological "nation" as you pointed out) is a fairly new concept, a construct that was fortified mostly over the last hundred or so years, which at least for me was surprising. I thought this sort of unity of people within borders existed in this form for much longer. You're right that I use nation and country interchangeably which, within political science literature, would be technically wrong since both have a useful definition within that context. But I'm not writing for an academic journal here. I'm trying to convey the broad concepts for the audience and hopefully they found this useful!. Thanks for thoughtful pushback.
I think it used to be more of a dialect continuum, where a place at the border of one nation *might* be considered a dialect of that nation if you squint enough, but it's really similar to another dialect of a different language just across the border. So you could have drawn the borders differently and still say that everything in that border is a dialect of one language. Where you put an end to one language and what you consider a dialect vs. a different language is arbitrary, and dictated by politics. As someone said, "a language is a dialect with an army and navy".
@@johnnyharrisWhat a fantastic way to respond to a critical comment! I wish more RUclipsrs would follow your professional example, Johnny. It increases trust in your research and intentions. Edit: by the way, I say this as a person who often sees quite differently from Johnny's political points of view. His demeanour makes it easy to be open to the way he sees things and to consider his conclusions with deeper thought. I've been a subscriber for a while, and I will continue to look forward to each video he comes out with!
3:39 “you look at the distribution of red hair, for example, and you see that it never lines up with national borders” while showing a map where Wales, Cornwall, Scotland, and literally all of Ireland are noticeably darker than England lmfao. Edit: I actually went back and you can make out Brittany in France too
You miss the point. Where is the nation, whose defining trait is Red hair? None, it doesn't exist, every nation is born by belief and politics, not genes.
All of those identities are also modern and are places where much of the population identifies with another national identity, especially in the case of Cornwall and Brittany where very few people identify with that nation at all.
@@slothbirdbeard6996well yeah that was the point being made in the video. People in France previously identified more with their local areas and cultures, but then got brought into these larger groups. Modern Scottish and Welsh nationalism is also very new.
@@spe3dy744 I’m simply making the point that the example they chose very clearly doesn’t do a very good job at supporting what they’re saying, and that it’s frankly comical how closely aligned at least these national borders are with the distribution of red hair
Watch out, dont confuse nationalisme and patriotisme. Like Charles De Gaulles said: nationalisme is the hate of other countries while patriotisme is the love of values incarnated by our country
Johnny: this is how China is preparing to invade Taiwan and why the US will need to get involved Also Johnny: we need to defund the military. It’s too big.
@@ambatubelo we have donald trump back in office now mfs arent worried about china 😂😂 we gotta be more worried about how many more bombs biden is gonna authorize ukraine to strike on russia before ww3 happens
Thank you for you immensely beneficial comment. My life has improves exponentially. I have never felt so enlightened by such an outstanding piece of information you just provided.
I noticed immediately after posting a comment stating that the video is really about nationalism, that the video's title had changed to "Nationalism, explained".
@@unapaulogeticit’s to see what ones perform better, if it’s still happening after a few days/weeks it’s to trick people into thinking it’s a new upload for the clicks
@@AstroBear11 but France do not exist. It is muslim at the bottom and african in the center with some French people here and there trying to not to be attacked.
The reason why French history is such a big part of this video is because it played a really crucial role in the emergence of nationalism as an ideology as the video lays out
"They don't share an ethnic identity" Yes, they absoilutely do. The ethnic ties to my original national population are less close than between my mom and me. But they're a lot closer than between me and India, Somalia or Afghanistan.
@ Most countries today don’t base themselves on the same principles they were established due to secularism and globalism , I’ll give you that . But the home of what the original countries were does exist . And even the modern countries can still be called States because as long as they don’t fall into anarchy , they are a real political entity .
Did you know that Napoleon was from Corsica (which joined France 1 year before Napoleon was born)? He also had a huge Italian accent when he spoke French!
Sry, not a fan of this video... The terms "country" and "nation" constantly get mixed up. The focus on "one language for one country" seems weird since it certainly isn´t a requirement for an united country/nation- for example Switzerland, Belgium, Italy (the North is german speaking) the UK, Canada etc. they all have several different languages used within their borders- meanwhile there are for example several german-speaking-countries, spanish-speaking-countries etc. next to each other that didn´t unite.... Cultural and religious identity predate countries and nations (old greeks, Romans, christian and muslim culture etc.). Countries were born by uniting several smaller pieces to one big (standing armies, one law etc.). Nations were born thanks to fixed borders, laws and rulership based on the cultural identity of the many people instead of those of a few nobles (feudal sytem, monarchy...) (-> cultural differences between North and South Korea, China vs Taiwan etc.). In Europe many modern nations were born from the bottom up (Revolutions in France and Germany, rebellions of the Dutch, Swiss, Scots etc.) - while many African nations were created from the top down (colonialism)- hence why many african countries have civil wars within their borders. Nationalism often comes from the top down though, it is a policy to gain control. (There is btw. a reason why the flags of many of many european nations/countries have the colors used by the revolutionists that fought for freedom/independence against the top/rulers decades ago.) The example of Napoleon is kinda bad since Napoleon reintroduced the monarchy ? After defeating the Austrians he claimed the(ir) title of emperor (there is a reason why most rulers were kings/queens and didn´t claim emperorship during the middle ages etc. in Europe). That title was for hundreds of years pretty much limited to the Holy Roman Empire and Austria. In the HRE kings/nobles voted for an emperor which was crowned by the pope and was supposed to protect the pope/church (HRE/Austria for the western/catholic church. Russia for the eastern/orthodox church). The religious meaning got lost more and more over the centuries since the catholic church lost more and more power and meaning. The identification with the culture became more important instead - nations, nationalism, freedom of religion, standards for the languages etc. were born. But Napoleon certainly wasn´t the cause....(he went back to the monarchy). Later on nationalism, fascism, the ethnic identity etc. get all mixed up. Fascism is born in Italy and basically based on the national identification as heirs of the roman Empire. Nazis didn´t go after minorities because it was a threat to nationalism- they went after specific minorities because of racism, often outside the borders of their nation. White non-jewish French, Italians etc. for example were valued by them and left alive after they conquered those lands. Black people from the colonies were not seen as equals but also not hunted down.... The european identity can be based on the continent or the EU. Both are not national identities - so the comparison isn´t good. The identification as Europeans is not based on culture and values - hence why Russia or Turkey might not be seen as "european" by many "Europeans", or why Brexit was such a shock for many people in other EU-countries, or why Hungary under Orban isn´t liked by many Europeans... The EU is a unique thing and developing more and more to something like a european nation, resulting in younger generations starting to identify more and more as Europeans over time. For, maybe, the first time in history a new identity is growing without any wars, conquering, rebellions, revolutions etc.. Exclusion in the EU is very much a thing, it just isn´t forced by armies (the EU doesn´t have an army anyway) but courts and policies (for example when values don´t align anymore - Poland, Hungary etc. for example)
Good summary but many African people in colonies were killed by colonial authorities deliberately for example Namibian genocide and Congo Free State genocide so you should not say they were not hunted down
I agree. I understand the intent of this video, but it is very disappointing. I'm noticing the same issues with his other videos. The tone also is getting condescending. 😢
one critique. countries did try to unify other countries that spoke the same language. its literally what Adolf did before and during world war 2. it is what the soviet union did and what Russia is now doing in many countries for example ukraine. all the arab speaking countries were mostly united before until the world wars where the allies defeated the big empire and broke it apart.
The thing is Even animals have borders. For example wolf packs have their territories and might kill a wolf from a different pack if it enters their land
When you see how people identify themselves as a citizen of a country, the concept of country for my country, India becomes interesting to me. We are people who has no common language, common culture, common religion, common ethnicity, common DNA, common food habits, but still have been being united for 77 years by democracy (which is more shocking). It is like 18% of the world's population, 5th largest economy in the world, pretty important, and united... just CRAZYYYY!!!
That’s a great observation. Thanks for sharing. Yeah, I’m not sure what selection criteria Johnny Harris had in mind when choosing to talk about some countries but not others. India, as the world’s largest democracy and most populous country, would have been a fascinating example to consider. Do most Indians think of themselves first and foremost as citizens of a nation called India or would they consider their religious, ethnic, or linguistic identity more important?
Here is what I know. Countries are man made calling them fake is... Irrational to say the least. That is like saying a language is fake... There is one race. The human race. If you have no noticed. WE CAN ALL F GLOBALLY and make babies... You could use ethnicity, but that falls apart too... What would the ethnicity of a kid from an American, a Sweden, an Indian and a Korean person be? Serious what the F do you mean by race here? I never understood that American concept... As for gender/sex well there are Male and Female that encompass 98% with 2% Intersex. For the latter of Think rare genetic anomalies like how some ppl got testies instead of ovaries some born with no PPs among others things... There is also approximate sex change operations for ppl with severe dysphoria. The tech is improving but is still far from ideal... There are no laws of physics that prohibit the tech from being perfected so it is a matter of time. Transhumanism in general will go MUCH father than just changing sexual organs if you ask me... PPl will change EVERYTHING you can think of about the human body until the very definition of human would have to be hard set. Think all manner of extra organs or limbs or colours etc... As for sexuality (I will assume you mean attraction) There are the classics hetero/homo/Bi/A sexual. Observed and recorded in human history and WELL DOCUMENTED in many... Websites for corn farmers. Some like Gender fluidity and Pan sexuality. I really don't understand. I never looked into them they could be legit or not. The rest of the "sexualies" I think of as basically kinks or made up by ppl who want to be special on social media as they make little to no sense at all... Finally, PDFs are a blight. Correct me if got anything wrong if you know better that is.
@aziouss2863 There are many different definitions of race in America. Race is usually either between the color of your skin or where you come from. For example, pale europeans may be considered white, but pale Israelis would not be considered white. This is because of a difference in culture, religion, and history. Back in the 1900s, not all pale europeans were considered white, and Italians and Irishmen were discriminated against for being Catholic. To this day, white Americans are usually only considered to be pale-skinned protestants with Anglo Saxon or Germanic heritage. Black Americans also have a bit of a controversial meaning. While anyone with dark skin could be called black, being black is more of a cultural identity limited to African Americans. This means that very dark-skinned Hispanics, Asians, and other groups would not be considered black in America. Asians are people usually from either China, Korea, or Japan, but can extend down to people from southeast Asia as well, like people from Vietnam, Thailand, and the Phillipines. When it comes to Asians, race isn't so much as defined by the color of a person's skin but instead from a person's country of origin. This is also the same for Hispanics. The US Cenaua Bureau has races listed as the following: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders. This covers about 81.6% of the racial makeup in America, with the other 18.4% being mostly Hispanics who either identify with none of these or more than one of them. So, to review, what is race? Race is a person's country of origin combined with a similar cultural identity and appearance. To be a part of a certain race, you have to fill all these qualities. For example, a pale-skinned Italian may be considered white by the US government, but because they don't have that shared cultural identity as other white Americans, they would not fit in this category.
Portugal is the only uniform nation in Europe. Our borders have been the same for almost a millennium and all of us have allways spoke the same language, with regional accents.
The behavior of IDENTITY within the society-nation is fascinating. In the end we will globalize the entire world, tear down borders and unite humanity. For the simple fact that the human being is a NOMAD and it is in his DNA, it is in his nature.
I feel like the biggest divide at the moment is urban vs rural. Most countries aren't at war with each other anymore so the need to all gather together to be safer as one unit to protect ourselves from our neighbours isn't as relevant. Right now countries are feeling more polarised because the "us vs them" is the cities vs everybody else - I feel like the natural next step is the evolution of city-states and more independence when it comes to megacities like NYC and London, Sydney/Melbourne, Montreal, regions like Catalonia etc. Berlin and Hamburg for example already are city-states within Germany
Maybe he went anarchist or imperialist? I'm joking. The video's claim isn't that nations should be dissolved; it's just describing the recent developments in the history.
@@michaeladkins6 you know, those checks from the Democratic Party probably won’t clear… you can drop the tough guy act. Don’t call people idiots, don’t be a sore loser
@@michaeladkins6gaetz is the most transparent AG we'll ever have. and dems know that thats why they have to constantly bring up a CLOSED DOJ investigation that resulted in gaetz being INNOCENT in order to fear monger people into not liking gaetz. but luckily for america we turned red and left the dems in the dust for them and their false allegations to live only among them and not america anymore bc we've woken up
People were killing and discriminating because they didn't know each other very well in the past so we should still be stupid and kill strangers today?
"just" is doing a lot of heavy lifting though. It's the process by which that happened that is both interesting and a little disturbing. Hiding all that behind "just" is to miss the point of the video
this comment implies it "just" happened naturally lol. it happened because the elites made it happen. people didnt just collectively decide to all speak the same language and wave the same flag
Countries and nations are real, and here's why: money is just silly pieces of paper. But we all agreed, or were forced to interact with the majority who agrees, that we assign a value to paper money, even if it's a distant iteration of "two chicjens make a sheep, two sheeps make a cow". At the very least, countries and nations exist in that way - and that's a very powerful way.
But again, just because something as an effect on you, does not make it real. If we collectively stop believing in money or contries, they cease to exist and have no effect anymore. If we stop believing in the comet that comes to destroy the earth, it will still destroy the earth. Thats why a comet is real and nations are not.
@@ThatGuyWayOverThere well, globalism works in opposition to the ideology of nationalism, which generally prohibits international trade and movements of people.
Countries are basically organizations. If you look at SSN cards in 1936, it used to say “Employee signature”. From those lenses, countries are just big companies that manage a territory and build industries.
Before nations, empires existed, before empires, kingdoms existed, before that city states existed, before that villages existed, before that tribes and tight-knit communities existed. To say that nations are made up just because of a lack of a homogenous genetic makeup is stupid, one just has to look at the light map border between India-Pakistan or North Korea-South Korea, to know that despite them being genetically similar, their independent nationhood is very real.
He's not saying that they don't exist. At least I think he'd walk off that point if pushed on it and mostly says it for clickbait and simplification. He is saying that the idea of a nation state and a national identity that belongs to a nation state that is shared between the majority of people in that nation state is an artificial concept. It's real, but it's artificial, not natural. Doesn't mean it's bad or good. The nation state has been quite successful in my opinion, it's resulted in the most peace and prosperity we've ever seen, but it's important to understand that it is an artificial concept which knowledge of that could dissuade people from some of the worst nationalistic tendencies like war and "cleansing" of people of another ethnicity. Think of it this way.. a Frenchman isn't born French. There is nothing objective in the universe that says he is French. You cannot look at his DNA, you cannot look at anything. Being French, and belonging to the French identify, considering yourself French and being considered French by others and feeling a connection to other people who have that same label is a learned and artificial behavior. That's far from it being fake... but it is a social construct.. to use the term that triggers people who like things to be simple black and white. The French identify doesn't exist objectively in the universe. It exists inter-subjectively in the minds of those who believe it exists. And that makes it very real.
You bring up a good point that family, tight knit village, tribalism, then eventually several groupings later, a country is what dictates a social identity of the people. Countries and eventually the greater “nation” is a political construct. In your example, Pakistan did not exist as a country in 1945 but then in 1949 its a new country. In that sense, Nationalism as a nation-state as we know it today is political and not “real”. Organic clusters on people bonded by beliefs, culture, language, religion are what bond people. In this video, Johnny said that France was a cluster of peoples that then later united under an empire. With the advent of literacy and mass communication the idea of a unified grouping, either natural or unnatural was born. I do believe nations can be wholly artificial and its main motive and driving force, politically motivated. In the late 1948s, “nations” just sprouted, with a national identity. Some were more organic like Pakistan- India where religion was the motivator, but culturally it was homogeneous, while there were also inorganic nations sprouted, where European colonists moved in an claimed a land by savory or unsavory means, and called it a nation. I think true nationalism is, local, family, tribe, tight knit community and it grows outward. Its borders organic and sometimes ebbing and meshing. The nomadic tribes of Afghan/ Pakistan Kochi tribe, exist and are recognized and they migrate north to south continually. They are an anomaly because their borders are temporary and dynamic. They temporarily cohabit more than stake a land. Foreign drawn, politically motivated borders are not real.
@@JoshBOfficial2001 I mostly agree with your points in the first paragraph, but regarding the second paragraph. There is something very real in being french, german, indian or likewise any other nationality. This may sound a bit unrelated to the video, but bear with me. It's the mark we, as nationals leave on the land. There is a very stark difference between the scale of the mark left between a nation and a smaller tribal group. Nations build international highways, train systems, postal services and likewise. That is what defines a nation, the fact that the mark on the land extends to its edges, and only go the nation's edges, not beyond it. And I think this is why the concept of nationhood has been very popular and lead to prosperity at a scale unheard of before it, because there are clearly drawn milestones. Okay, say we want inter-nation rail in our country, we know exactly where to stop, it's a clear milestone. We can draw tributaries within the system, but the edges are clearly defined, articulated by treaties. The clear definition of these edges translates over to nature even if we were to disappear, somebody could clearly tell just by looking at that rail system, that here is where a nation stops. I agree though that it's impossible to describe the reality of a nation without abstraction. A nation is not only it's people, but the brick and mortar they produce as well.
@@genosingh The problem is, your definition doesn't extend to cover extra-national peoples or displaced peoples. Emigrant communities still often hold their parent country identities long after any truly physical connection exists. For example, let's take the italian-american community. Many identify as Italian, despite having never had any impact, or often much knowledge of, the country of Italy. They may not even speak Italian. They may not have much, or even any, Italian ancestry. Or, take the chinese diaspora. Many of those communities date back to over a hundred years ago, and have little to no connection to even the Nationalist government, much less the Communist government. And yet, they identify as, and are identifiably, chinese.
Even if countries aren't real, humans will still find other ways to group themselves and fight for resources with other groups. Humans are tribal by nature and conflicts are inevitable.
Human nature means whatever the argumenter wants it to be... as every person has a different definition for it... That's why "human nature" arguments are hacks.
@@dv8ug take a look outside of your narrow world view. Take a look at the history of Scandinavia. There's never been internal wars or struggles, but wars between nations. If what you say is true we would have fought internally when resources were scarce, but what you see instead is communities helping each other through the last 1500 years. This is also a point again this video, there's been nations that have existed for longer than Johnny thinks without civil wars, resolutions or a fall of empire.
You entirely forgot about Japan, or Thailand - had constant borders and one lineage ruler for thousands of years. Nationalism is a new concept in the modern world, but existed for thousands of years.
See, he is leaning into the concept part hard. Gravity has been a thing since well, everything else, yet we didn't start calling it gravity until someone observed it and studied it (shout-out to Isaac Newton.)
Not entirely true. Both of the areas that we now think of as Japan and Thailand historically held many different ethnic groups who were gradually absorbed into whatever group was dominant at a particular time... so the notion that nations are made up still stands. Even now there are a bunch of ethnic groups in both Japan and Thailand that try very hard to keep their own cultures and languages alive in countries that employ mass media and language policies to push the idea of a nation on the few remaining outliers. Japan is slowly giving more freedom to smaller ethnic groups there, like the Ainu, but it is still tough for them. In Thailand there are the Isaan (fun fact: the northeast used to belong to Laos until Thailand annexed it, but the people there speak a language more akin to Laotian than Thai) or the various mountain tribes in the northern parts who still get discriminated against by the dominant Thai group.
Title changed from "Countries Aren't Real, Here's Why" -> "Nationalism, Explained" What drives these title choices, what to start with, and where to change them to? What data are y'all tracking?
@@railroadforest30 Doesn't he say the same phrase in the video? Probably poor understanding of concept of what's real, or defined. Otherwise his next video will be: "money aren't real here's why"> "money, explained"
@@kaseywahl probably because countries and nations are real, just like how money is real, and that they are far older than this video is trying to suggest
6:08 “Thats everywhere” is a stretch. Look at Portugal since the 12th century only two languages (one used by 0.01% of the population since that time), borders fixed and 90% same genetic identity. Well before it was an empire
But that just means that the social construct of "Portugal" was created earlier, but it doesn't negate the fact that it wasn't created in the first place.
I feel each nation has their own story...Personally I believe that countries "exist", I guess the difference is how long they have existed...the idea of a nation being a social construct is kinda out there...
Also, you choose the worst countries in Europe as example. France, Italy and Germany! France which on its feudalistic prime, was an empire. Italy and germany, both parts in the Holy roman empire, had to go through an unification war to form. This idea falls apart when you choose countries that are culturally homogeneous, like Portugal, Denmark, Greece, Estonia ... Removed Hungary. Forgot about the Romanian and Croatians
Old Hungarian kingdom being homogenous culturally? I don't know about what you are speaking, as a inhabitant of former part of Austro-Hungarian province of Transilvania I can tell you that you are wrong, this was the most diverse culturally and ethnic region in the world before the American colonization.
@@theOrionsarms There is also the croats within. Removed Hungary from that list. But I can say that the Portuguese were a mix of people before the late middle ages, that originated around the 1200's and 1300's into a very homogenous people. I believe that a country does not make so much sense in terms of borders, but more into language and culture. The Hungarians were quite diferent from all the other groups that co-existed in hungary, specially by language. There are portuguese people speaking portuguese and its creoles, spread all over the world outside of portugal and with other nationalities, but they share a lot of cultural and social ties.
@miguelguerreiro5280 yeah, that was my point, Hungary is homogeneous culturaly today (ignoring century of mixed origin)only after decade of ethnic cleansing and even genocide, I mean what happened with Hungarian Jewish at the end of WW2 , they can pretend that are pure , but historical facts say otherwise. PS. Also even some groups that considered itself as Hungarian from centuries, like Secuii (Szekely) and Ceangăii are culturally and linguistics different from the rest of Magyar, so so called historical uniformity is a recent evolution created in the last centuries and a half by modern Hungarian state institution .
"The greatest illusion of this world is the illusion of separation. Things you think are seperate and different, are actually one and the same. We are all one people, but we live as if divided." - Guru Pathik, Avatar the Last Airbender
You missed one thing about Italy...Italian is a made up language. Literally nobody spoke the language, it was just a literary creation (Dante Alighieri, Alessandro Manzoni and others), made up from pieces of different languages of the peninsula (mainly Tuscan and Lombard languages) and a lot of newly invented words inspired by Latin. At one point, since all of the Kingdoms didn't have a common language to speak, they started using this language that was only used in literature. That's why in 1861 only 2% of the people spoke it, it was just the high-end of society. French at least was a real language spoken by real people...that's also why it took longer for Italy to build a national identity. And to this day some communities still don't see themselves as Italian. Some in Sardinia for example, but the main ones are the people from South Tirol, who still speak German as their first language and their knowledge in Italian is straight out BAD.
@@citrusandseasalt Such as? I don't know honestly, I thought Italian was a bit of an exception. Maybe not the only one but I believed it was quite rare.
@@am.perronace That first sentence of yours, "Italian is a made up language. Literally nobody spoke the language", you could replace "italian" with any language of the world in any time in history. Tens of thousand years of history, empires, lands, social groups, languages etc ... and you thought your language is exceptional ? Daverro Perronace, ti manca prospettiva.
@@am.perronace every single language on this planet is "made up". Ever since we came up from Africa exploring, we created new languages. When the Roman Republic broke down Latin was a source of words for new languages to be used.
Even in the medieval period, people in France were united by their loyalty to the French crown and the defense of the kingdom, creating a shared political identity that transcended regional and linguistic differences. The idea of "France" as a unified entity was already in place through royal authority and common struggles, even if it was not yet defined by modern concepts of ethnicity or language. This early sense of unity laid the foundation for the development of a national identity in later centuries.
Governments in medieval times were far more decentralized than their modern counterparts. The crown in Paris had very little relevance to most people's daily lives.
The idea that France is a nation is much older than the 1789 Revolution. This idea came from France's victory in 1453 at the end of the Hundred Years' War with England. A consensus that England was the enemy solidified after the Hundred Years' War, and it continued to define French national identity until the Crimean War in the middle of the 19th century when France and Britain finally began to fight on the same side (and of course continued to do so in the 20th century). Because of her ability to inspire, Joan of Arc saved France from England during the Hundred Years' War and continued to be a very important symbol of the French nation afterwards.
@@thesupergamer43430 A series of wars that lasted over 100 years was far more complicated than how it can be described in one paragraph. Also, think about things from the perspective of the average people, not just kings and nobles. The average medieval peasant had no clue what national identity is.
@@hello855 They did otherwise during People's Crusade tens of thousand peasant wouldn't walk half of Europe to go to fights Saracens, or Germans would not have genocided the Slavs who occupied modern Germany etc. There are so many examples its not even worth mentioning.
@@hello855 Joan of Arc was a peasant. She also made it very clear that she wanted France to be free and not occupied by England. You do have a point - the Hundred Years' War is too complicated to fully understand with just one paragraph. However, the only point I was making is that French national identity is older than the 1789 Revolution. The life of the peasant Joan of Arc and its legacy (as well as the nearly continuous conflict between England and France after the Hundred Years' War until the middle of the 19th century) are enough evidence to conclude that France became a nation before it abolished its monarchy.
I have travelled to a lot of countries in the world (80+), and lived in four different nations, and this feeling of belonging, of nation/group/tribe, language, culture, is common. It is what I call a "Narrative", people grow up studying its nation/tribe history books and language in a somehow manipulated way so people feel patriotism and proud of their nation/tribe. It tends to be more aggressive in poor, new countries and super powers, it is part of a narrative to keep people united. The narrative can also include blaming other nation or group of people as a threat, or there is something that unite us, like a religion, past or language. This is a very interesting topic.
It is an interesting topic, but it makes sense. We cannot know everyone and everyone's intentions. As such, we gravitate towards the safety of those that we know.
What you're feeling is the polite but subtly hectoring condescension of someone that feels morally superior. Once you notice it for what it is, it's everywhere.
Bulgaria is perhaps one of the oldest countries in Europe. Shall we talk about it? France: The modern state of France began with the Frankish Empire, founded in 481 AD by Clovis I. The Frankish Empire became the foundation of modern France. France officially emerged as a monarchy in 987 AD with the coronation of Hugh Capet. Bulgaria: The Bulgarian state was established in 681 AD when Khan Asparuh founded the First Bulgarian Empire. Bulgaria is one of the oldest countries in Europe that has kept the same name throughout history.
China as a unified nation is indeed not that simple. As a Chinese Singaporean, I am descended from Hokkien forefathers from Quanzhou City in Fujian province, while my maternal relatives, came from somewhere in the old Chaozhou prefecture, in Guangdong province, and identify as Teochews, not Cantonese. If you thought my ancestors saw themselves as "Chinese" brothers, and worked together harmoniously when they came to Singapore, you would be wrong. When the Hokkiens and Teochews arrived en masse in the 19th century, multiple fights and riots broke out between the two groups. On identity documents, the British and the people themselves did not write "Chinese", they wrote "Hokkien", "Teochew" or "Cantonese". They saw themselves as Chinese, yes, but their local identity was far stronger than the national identity. Fujian province alone can be split into people from Quanzhou City, Zhangzhou City, Putian City, Fuzhou Provincial capital and Fuqing City. Each city speaks its own version of the "Hokkien" dialect, which can be somewhat understood by people outside of that city. So people would split even further, from province down to the local city level to identify themselves. The Teochews speak a language different from the rest of Guangdong Province, closer to Hokkien than Cantonese, but they don't like this comparison with the Hokkiens. The Teochews were in their own prefecture , separate from Guangdong, before being merged into it, hence the different language and culture. They do not identify with being Cantonese, despite being in the same province. Even family surnames can be used to divide people. My ancestral village is in Xiangyun town, NanAn County, which is another way to differentiate myself from others in the same City of Quanzhou, or those of the same surname. Immigrants to Singapore used to group themselves first by province, then city, then town and family surname. If I am told that someone of the same surname came from another village, I knew he was an outsider, a non relation who shares only my surname. Thus, these people, who outwardly look the same, from an outside point of view, did not differ much in their way of life and their reasons for coming, ended up breaking themselves into petty groups for support. China was a faraway concept to them, practically and literally. Thus, the whole China as a totally unified nation is truly a modern invention. Every province has its own culture and traditions, which people identified with first, while acknowledging they were Chinese, at least in theory.
The idea of Imperial China always seem more like a piece of administrative tool than a nation of any kind. Even the written Chinese language was more of a tool than part of anyone's identity. People were left alone and even the Imperial officials didn't care who identified as what as long as they behave. As long as the dynasty was functional, no one cared who ruled. As long as the people didn't stir up troubles and people of any culture is left alone.
@@ArchOfWinternot to mention it seems like they lacked any reason to differentiate themselves from anyone else as the central power and progenitor culture that all their neighbors were influenced by, so what need would there be to be a modern nation state?
There is a very fitting saying that has applied to China since its founding, ‘’天高/山高，皇帝遠‘’。A simple phrase that translated literally means that Heaven is high up or the mountains are high, and the Emperor is far away. The local people did not receive much interference from the imperial government, basically because they were too far away and / or too remote. Which meant that the local government had leeway to govern as they needed....and corruption could go unnoticed.
He meant that countries are made up, a story (we fought the oppressors and won) that justifies borders, armies and money, (which are real)all of which are controlled by a small group of people. There is usually no unifying history, if you realy look at it. Most of the time there are significant minorities like the Scots in the UK that are not part of that myth. 3rd, nations lead to nationalism and empires, both bad things. I think his argument is perswasive .
@@andreaslind6338 Why do you reject the reality of nations, but accept equally socially constructed concepts as real like "borders", "armies" and "money"?
@@testname3829 technicaly those things are imaginary too, money is just paper after all, it has no inherent value, borders are just lines on a map, but a border GUARD is real, the gin he will shoot you with if you try to cross the line is real. Its a fiction that shapes reality, sorta like how Islam is just a religion, a story, but the fact millions go to Mecca is real, jihad is real. Same with countries.
This video says more about the American school system than it does any fundamental truth about nation states. What do you even learn in school? Most Americans don't even study a second, let alone a third, language so you have all this extra time for other subjects but the most basic historical concepts are completely foreign to you?
That's exactly what I thought. When I was in high school in Turkey we were taught about how nationalism was spread and how nation as a concept came to fruition. But it appears that Americans only know about it after they are 30.
I think a big element being omitted in this video (which I believe is central to this conversation) is that the idea of the nation is embedded with violence to impose itself. My grandfather was born in Alsace in 1935, so he was born French, then became German, and then became French again during World War II. While his mother tongue was Alsatian (a Germanic language), it was forbidden for him to speak it in school (or even in the street). When he became German, he had to change his name to a German one, and then it was forbidden to speak French in school or on the street. At the end of the day, Alsatian as a culture and language is dying because of this kind of institutional violence of nationalism, and I believe this story can be found in many different places...
That's an exaggeration. Yes there are countries that are mostly made up, specially in Africa. But there are countries that are very old and homogeneous. Like Portugal, has the same borders for over 800 years, same language, national identity, etc.
All this means is you did not understand. And it was invading, enslaving, robbing Europeans who forced nationhood...meso and south American as well as Africa. Of course, humans are the one race...had not a Chinese and a Japanese emperor each decided on CLOSING BORDERS EXCESSIVELY...you might be writing in a very different way.
Portuguese identity wouldn't exist, at least not in the same way as today, if a random count didn't separate from a larger kingdom because of feudal politics 800 years ago. That region would have unified with the other Iberian kingdoms. Walk a bit north from the border and you'll come across Galicia, where people speak nearly the same language but identify as Spanish. In fact the most infamous Spanish nationalist, Francisco Franco, was a Galician.
Even in Africa, as much as the lines are recently drawn and have been changed. You can still feel the difference between being in South Africa amongst South Africans and Zimbabwe amongst Zimbabweans. As much as the lines are not accurate the nations and cultures are very much real.
Best analogy I can think of is if you've ever worked for a big company. You work in an open plan office where some desks are in team A and some are in team B. One week you get told "oh now these desks are also for team A".... or "you guys now ultimately fall under a different executive for reporting"... it doesn't really affect you at all, your identity is still more rooted in your job role and the people who you deal with more immediately - this would be how nationalism WAS before the modern country idea
A person from another family, therefore another identity, marries another person from another family/identity and they create a new family and kids, therefore new identity...SO, ALL OF THIS IS NOT NEW...HAS BEEN GOING SINCE FOREVER.
*by **_1206, Mongols were already a unified Nation-State_** with a:* *- Single unified script aka Mongol script.* *- Single legal codex known as the Yassa.* *- Postal system aka the first pony express called the Yam.* *- Diplomatic passports called the Gereg.* *- Electoral mechanism aka Khuraldai where Khans were picked by the people.* *- Defined territory of Mongolia.* *- Standardized mongol military machine and industrial complex.* *- Annual census and tax collection.* *- Kharakhorum capital city.* *- Administration and imperial seal.* *The seismic book, "Nomadic Leviathan" by scholar Lhamsuren reexamines the sedentary-centric conception of a nation-state.*
Yeah, but these describe nation-states as tool of administration. The video talks about nations as an identity. During Mongol rules, they didn't care if their subjects identify themselves as Mongol, they were left to their own devises as long as they paid taxes and didn't stir up troubles. They didn't force everyone under their rule to speak the same language, practice the same costume, to express only the same culture, and to worship the same religion. Heck, they didn't even demand loyalty outside of their armies. They didn't care if who they ruled over identified as.
@@leonenjoyer so? there were different ethnic groups, but its not like we have an objective criteria of what makes someone part of an ethnic group. As the nation is based on such a shaky foundation you can only come to the logical conclusion that it is completely made up.
@@thesupergamer43430 Nation is not a based on shaky foundation. It's literally based on groups trying to project as much power with as little people. This is the story of modern humans. Also I'm sure they were able to tell who was Chinese and who was Mongolian lol
@leonenjoyer of course humans are tribalistic, but the metrics we choose to divide ourselves are completely arbitrary. For example, im pretty sure Chinese living in Beijing are closer genetically to people from Mongolia than their fellow Chinese in Hong Kong. Northern Italians have more in common with the French across the border than with Neapolitans.
Cosmopolitan identity tends to be parasitical, a tendency to move to the next fun location rather than having ‘skin in the game’ of caring about a community and working long term to make it better.
@@romeyjondorf can't see much evidence for a benevolent cosmopolitan elite playing constructive roles in the communities they live in, but do see a lot of parasitical behaviour, hopping from one city to the next depending on which community has made themselves more appealing.
@@dna9838 Yeah, I'm not pro-cosmopolitanism at all, I'm actually against it; I was merely calling out the hypocrisy of those people who call themselves cosmopolitans who are supposedly against nationalism.
In the past 1,000 years, the longest period of China's division was during the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period from around 900 AD to around 960 AD. As history progresses, this period of division is getting shorter and shorter. The most recent time was during the period of the Republic of China, which was only about ten or twenty years.
A nation is not a myth, it’s an ideal. And most of your French section can be debated as there was a French kingdom united under a king under god for thousands of years. Or in the Roman Empire most people spoke Latin for administration related things that led to the widespread of Latin. And all the “languages” in the France of 1700 came from Latin and shared basic grammatical basis. And nation and empires like the Egyptian one existed really early. And most importantly a nation can be religiously strengthened and still be a nation. It’s a very recent phenomenon the separation of state and church.
Right, the idea of a nation came about from the Neolithic Revolution, right at the beginning of the Holocene. A time when we finally didn't have to constantly run around and remain in one place, and where we could keep track of who's offspring is who's so we can pass on the 'ownership' of said piece of area that we have remained in.
@@polishherowitoldpilecki5521 undestand the French language roots, the Spanish, German, Ukrainian and Italian ones. Look up who lived in e.g. Berlin during the rise of the n26is. Then you understand more. Same as with Holy Roman Empire, ancient greece... the old Egyptians...
You can see this is Afghanistan and Pakistan too. The Pak-Afghan border literally runs through the Pashtun ethnicity homeland. North Afghanistan is more Tajik populated then actual ethnic Afghans (Pashtuns). And west Pakistan is Iranic and completely different from east Pakistan, which is more Indian.
And whats even more funny is that the word India, comes from the indus river which is almost entirely in Pakistan, as well as the indus valley civ, While the major river in India is the ganges, and gangetic civillization was its own seperate thing, the people call the country baharat, not to mention that country historically has been a fragment of different ruling kingdoms for most of its history HECK, even the word Hindu basically comes from Sindhu, and before the islamic and european conquests referred to the people of Indus valley, ie Pakistanis, the real name for the religion is Sanatan dharam/vedic religion
thats what happens when TDS takes over these peoples brain. watching his trump video and his kamala video he doesnt even hide the bias against trump and towards dems
@@fonsleduck3643 wtf are u talkin about if bias is a factor in how u research (which this is 1000% the case) it creates doubt about the legitimacy of the research. people obviously how bias but im pretty sure its possible to create videos without bias ...😂
@@neenarman It is possible to try to be as balanced and fair as possible yes. But to act like one can be unbiased is absurd. I'd be more wary of youtubers that try to act as if they are unbiased than those that make their pov obvious and don't try to hide it. He's a globalist, so you can understand his motivations with a video like this and know to take certain things with a grain of salt.
duh, human rights changed over time, something that is illegal now, might have been perfectly legal few centuries ago, do you think a supreme being made human rights millenia ago, and they have been the same ever since?
@ to the letter, maybe not. But speaking the same language, having the same culture, and having a notion of a common political entity that in most senses was very much like the one we have in modern nation-states? Surely. San marino has been a republic since the Roman Empire… Portugal has the same people, borders, language, religion, since the XII century, with very explicit sentences in historical records were the king was the king “of the Portuguese”. Japan, although politically split until 1600s by feudal lords with their clans, had already one unified kingdom since the 1000’s/1100’s (legend says 660, but that’s disputed). Nevertheless, several centuries of a recognised “collective identity”.
This is just in-group/out-group dynamics. Our in-group has expanded as technology allows us to reach more people. As technology improves, barriers reduce and those included within the in-group increases
Save $3 off your first eSIM purchase with Airalo using promo code JOHNNY3 try.airalo.com/JohnnyHarris
Part 2
ruclips.net/video/aKHxADMhJtE/видео.html
So everything in our society is fake ?
The idea that a nation is a delusion is always slyly propagated by the Satanic Globalists. Multiculturalism has failed in this moment.. But We will all truly be united when The real Lord Jesus Christ comes back. And Establish his City. New Jerusalem. Then They we will all be one Nation.
Note that you can set it up, but not turn it on, before you leave.
You aren't real, Johnny
This does not change the fact kangaroos have outnumbered the population of humans in Australia and still they do not have a parliament seat
Yesterday a wallaby was caught in Kentucky. The kangaroos should form a coalition to bring him home.
KLM
Part II
ruclips.net/video/aKHxADMhJtE/видео.html
He has yet to understand the roo deep state , they're watching 🌚🌚🌚🌚🌚
Lmao, God-Tier Troll'n
What is fascinating, as a European, is ones sense of identity/community expands the further away you go geographically. A Swede will feel like a Swede in Sweden. A Swede in Italy will gravitate towards other Scandinavians. A Scandinavian in Brazil will gravitate towards other Europeans. A European in China will gravitate towards other "western people".
On Mars, we are all earthlings 💙 and so on.
This is soooo true. This is for all cultures. I'm somali. In Somalia we see Nigerians as foreigners. But in UK I see them as fellow black friend.
@arandomhandsomeman7725 in Nigeria we are very divided by tribes. I mean in my state, we have almost 10 languages and we don't agree. But if I go to the North, my fellow Rivers man is my brother, when I met some Yoruba people, they asked if I know Burna Boy and Omah Lay 😂😂. I leaned into it, after all Burna Boy's dad and my mom are from the same local government area 😂😂 so I guess he is my brother. I went to Kwara state and was excited to see an Igbo kitchen, because they cook more like us, I was tired of eating food I wasn't used to. I know if I go to the US, I'd embrace the Yoruba and Hausa food faster than I'd smell a plate of Mac and cheese 😅.
as a european living in china I totally agree, all my friends are from other countries
This is soo true, couldn't have said it better than this
Humans are tribal, and the tribes have just gotten larger over time..
I agree with you. The concept has been all along, but transportation and information technology making it possible to make it larger and larger
True
I disagree. The concept of a tribe is rooted in the fact that you share enough with your tribe members to be part of the same tribe. These people are your family, these people are your neighbours and you work with these people. However in these giant nations, person A does not have anything valuable in common with person B who lives 200 kilometers away.
communication is key to this concept. thats why for example a mars colony will always need their own government. the communication time is too long. especially when it comes to in person communication
@@adriaanvandoorn1263 Tribes also have belief systems, which have proven to be powerful enough to make even complete strangers bond with one another. And as @Arthera0 pointed out, communication of these belief systems used to be physically limited.
I’m a Colombian anthropologist and in my college years I was fascinated when I learned how recent the concept of nation is.
je suis très intéressée par ce que tu nous dis. Peux tu développer ? nous donner des exemples ? merci. Je t'écris de Suisse, et suis française. Je ne me sens d'aucun pays, ou plutot je me sens de tous les pays.
au plaisir de te lire !
Soy colombiano, y me gustaría saber qué han encontrado tu y tus colegas sobre el tem
What? Maybe Benedict Anderson? this video is the same idea...well. in this context thats mean: if the nations doesn`t exist: Balcanize Russia!! (thats the main idea)....
interesante, como podemos ver el caso de paises colonizados como los de america cuyas raices se perdieron, no podemos crear una idea de nacion a partir de las raices como los eslavos o los germanos o algo asi por que somos formados de nativos, de africanos y europeos, nuestros mestizajes racial y cultural es similar en hispanomerica, tengo la duda de si nos sentimos mas identificados como parte de un continente de habla hispana que nacinales de cada pais, o por el contrario nos identifica mas ser de una region como ser paisas o indigenas que de un pais.
@ creo que algo importante en el mensaje del video, es que los conceptos de estados nación modernos son creaciones que sirven para reproducir una identidad por medio de muchas formas en su mayoría simbólicas (escudos, banderas, himnos) y por supuesto lingüísticas, es decir imponer una o varias lenguas oficiales, excluyendo en el proceso a minorías étnicas y lingüísticas. Tienes razón en decir que los procesos para el establecimiento de los estados nación en lo que es el territorio que llamamos Europa fueron muy diferentes porque no hubo un exterminio ni en lo físico ni en lo cultural tan visible como sucedió en América, sino que hay una oficialidad por parte de las élites que son quienes acaban determinando el rumbo y la identidad de muchos pueblos a pesar de su enorme heterogeneidad. Y para responder a tu pregunta, creo que la identidad impartida por el concepto de nación en los pueblos hispanos y latinoamericanos ha sido algo que nos ha separado más que unirnos, pero tengo mi ligera impresión que en un mundo cada vez más globalizado, esa misma identidad lingüística y en cierta forma cultural nos puede llevar a ser más conscientes de lo que tenemos en común y tomar ventaja de ello.
I don't understand how "countries are made up" (which is kind of obvious) turned into "countries aren't real." Lots of real things are made up: books, plays, art, and, to a certain extent, math and science. Something being "made up" or created by humans doesn't mean it's not real. That's an unfair correlation.
Yes, lot of intellectual confusion in this video.
@@peterlast4775 110%. This is Johnny being pissed off with the election.
by "real" he means they only exist in our minds. The effects of that existence are impactful and real, but the thing itself is a myth we all collectively believe.
What he means is that countries only exist in our minds, they are as real as any product of our imagination can be.
on point !
Nations aren't this old but the tribalism behind them is literally part of our evolutionary history.
The video is really about nationalism. (Duh, only now I notice the video's title: "Nationalism, explained".)
From bands, literally banding together, to nation-states.
And I would argue that many “Nations” are actually quite old. The concept of an English identity or nation for example has existed since the 9th century.
And European tribes and later “nations” or identities were well aware of their continuity and shared heritage
Many nations are very old or at least national identities
@@sebe2255 You literally just saw a video explaining why that doesn't hold true and your point is "Nah it's always been around in some form". You are literally just projecting modern ideas onto the past. A mistake most people make, especially when it comes to the middle ages.
1st title: Why Countries Aren't Real
2nd title: Nationalism, Explained
3rd title: The Idea We're Willing to Die for, Explained
edit: 4th title: Nationalism, Explained (once again)
edit: 5th title: How Humans Invented Nationalism
Almost made me not watch..
@@omelashomelas Stay uneducated lmao
@@azca. Stay brainwashed 👻
Please keep this updated
WEF Globalist propaganda. Not all cultures are equal, not all cultures embrace individualism and fundamental rights.
Honestly, this has some huge ''I'm 14 and this is deep'' feel to it. Yes we made up countries, anyone who thinks about it for half a second should have already known that. That doesn't mean they're not real or important. We made up money and the economy as well. I'm still in debt. Laws are made up too. I don't think the judge will accept ''laws aren't real'' as an excuse.
the point is that many people see nationalism as something that is rooted in human nature and that we cant change, while in reality these concepts hold us back as a species if we fail to question them
@@albus5796 Before it was nationalism it was civic pride during the age of city-states. Just look at what Athens and Sparta got up to if you don't believe me. Or just how many times in history you can read about two cities or towns going to war with each other despite technically being part of the same state. And before that, it was good old tribalism. And fun fact, during the prehistoric age of tribalism, archeological evidence shows that humans killed each other far *more* than they do now, not less.
Nationalism is far from new, the claim that it is from this video is utterly ridiculous. It just involves a bigger group of people than before. But at the end of the day, humans are pack animals and are always gonna care more about people ''from their pack'' than for people outside of it. You're not any different by the way, you just decided that your pack isn't your nation. But you still got a pack, a group of people whose well-being you care about a lot more than other people.
You're completely missing the entire point, he's literally just going into it was created and the deep repercussions this one idea has, you're just yapping
Most of his videos are like this...
He didn't say they don't exist, he's saying they are not a fundamental, unshakable aspect of human existence and history.
Many people do sincerely believe, whether consciously or unconsciously, that nations are rooted in something foundational since the dawn of civilisation that has always existed and should always continue to exist, and that there are divides between people of different nations that can never be bridged.
The idea forms the basis of a lot of anti-immigration thought. Immigrants can't come here because they are not part of our group, so if too many come, then over time they will destroy the nation and turn it into an entirely different one. They are not like us and they never will be, and neither will their children or grandchildren. But that's just a story. They may have different cultures and ideas, but those are things that do change and adapt to new places.
Its not like saying laws aren't real so we can break them, it's like saying laws are made up, so if we decide one doesn't make sense or isn't just, we have have it changed.
Money isn't real either, doesn't make it any less real for us.
We need both money and nations. Concepts are important.
The colonization of the human mind.
yeah this whole idea of nations dont exist and no borders thing is so dumb. our nations always existed they once upon a time were just nations of 10 guys with sticks and the culture of those 10 guys turned into 100. then 1000. then 10,000 and then 100,000 and you needed more space so you dominated the nations of smaller people groups and converted them into your nation culture. thats just human history. we used to call it tribal warfare now its nation warfare. its all the same thing.
@@GonzoJohnnyhow is money colonization😂?
@@jjoohhhnn Do we really though? Is it really impossible for us to create a society that doesn't depend on either concept?
Johnny: "Countries aren't real."
Also Johnny: Loves Switzerland.
Switzerland also exists since 1291. It grew larger because others joined. But the core stayed, since 1291...
France, Germany and Italy define themselves via a common language and culture, China via bloodline, Pakistan via religion just to mention a few. All problems that these nations face arise from how they define themselves. Switzerland transcends these fundamentally exclusive concepts. To be Swiss is to belief in the institutions of the Swiss state: compromise, neutrality, direct democracy, federalism and a militia. As such there are no natural boundaries to the Swiss nation, it's more akin to how we viewed the Roman Empire historically. As a concept this way of creating a nation would work for any place in the world and would avoid many many conflicts.
@@martinzihlmann822 that's kinda how the US organizes itself, to some extend.
Switzerland is very much modeled after the US, and the US after Switzerland, we even had a short civil war over state rights (no slavery) in 1847
@@themechanic49 you bought a bit into the national narrative here. Switzerland, as a nation, arguably only started to exist with Napoleon's invasion of 1798 and the subsequent creation of the Helvetic state. With the dissolution of the vassal states and the formation of a federal government. Prior to that you weren't Swiss, you were either from Zurich, Bern, Lucerne etc. and that was your whole identity.
TLDR: People always formed communities. Now the communities are just bigger. Surprise, surprise.
Worship too
Worship and good life need community
They are bigger thanks to the means of transport and communication. Very soon we will all be united regardless of creed, religion or colour.
I can understand how Americans struggle with national identity, the country is young an made up of a wide range of migrants from other countries. But in Europe, people have much stronger senses of their Nation. Borders have moved and languages changed but fundamentally Europeans are all quite different. As a Brit, I feel a deep and old connection to my homeland, I can track my family tree back hundreds of years. If I'm abroad I can spot fellow Brits before they even open their mouths.
There's something depressingly nihilistic about this video, we should celebrate our cultures, out history and embrace our differences and while doing so recognise how much we have in common and how we can work together to progress.
This👆
Yes. This asks the question of "do we really need to care that much about our nationalism? Do we have any guarantee that this idea will be there after just 100 years from now on?
But america is one of most patriotic countries in the world
I agree with you. But something very important and I think it would be worth analyzing is the climate factor and how it influenced the ethnic confirmation of each tribe.
As a European, the idea that countries are made up doesn’t strike me as a particularly novel concept, you don’t have to travel very far in Europe to realise this
Same in India.
Europe is the place that proves the opposite.
@@rohannatuindia is civilizational state
MY COUNTRY IS REAL
It's also a bit weird that he brings up the countries in Europe as claiming they are for their people, while countries in Europe have actively decided to create a massive federation to which they willfully hand off some of their power.
The EU is currently probably the biggest example of borders being nowhere near as strict as many people think
If France is so complex
Imagine the same for a country like India
Where there are totally different cultures, languages, traditions and beliefs every 100km
USSR was even worse
Yeah in the state of UP, there is a new dialect of Hindi when one moves from Mathura to LKO.
Absolutely! India takes diversity to a whole new level. With so many languages, customs, and traditions coexisting, it’s like a collection of mini-countries within one nation. That’s what makes India both challenging and fascinating to understand!
I think India would be right now in the process of creating the Indian identity under one language and everything else, like France did back then.
westeners always overlook india
I kinda feel that you skipped over the roman empire...
or Greece, Egypt or any other old nation
Yeah, they even have the concept of citizenship
Or nations that are thousands of years older than the roman empire?? Try Persia, Mesopotamia, Assyria, Phoenicia, Egypt
He skipped many things.
Skipped whole story of sovereignty, why each nation feels it has the right to 'self-determination'
I think he was trying to focus on the modern construction of nation. The Roman Empire was nothing like nation-states of the current age
But as you said his story is incomplete.
And his 'nations are fake' is too oversimplified that its not really true.
Got you all thinking and that is good.
"Is this propaganda or an attempt to create a historical video without knowing history?"
Honestly, the number of lies and inaccuracies, combined with the blatantly biased way the content was presented, left me astounded. Of course, those who believed the video’s narrative are either of low educational background or are already politically aligned with the agenda the video aims to promote.
For those interested in the truth, let me briefly outline a few points to dismantle this fairytale.
Firstly, the word "nation"-in Greek, "έθνος"-has existed for over 3,000 years. It was initially mentioned by Homer and later solidified in meaning by Herodotus, where it refers to a group of people sharing common characteristics such as lineage, language, religion, shared history and culture, geographic origins, and national consciousness.
The Greeks fought against the Persians with a sense of common Greek nationhood more than 2,500 years ago. This is why, as you might have noticed, the presenter deliberately avoids mentioning Greece in any of their references.
Instead, what they do is bring up France to inform us about its recent history. Let me clarify: the French are a Germanic tribe that appeared in the 3rd century AD in the regions of the Rhine and the Black Forest. Gradually, they infiltrated Roman territory, primarily as allies.
After the fall of Rome, the Franks began conquering lands in Gaul, modern-day France, and integrated the native population (the Gauls), who had already been subjugated by the Romans. The identity of the Franks was closely tied to the Salic Law (Lex Salica), a set of legal rules that defined Frankish society and differentiated the Franks from Romans and other peoples.
While there are many references distinguishing the Franks from other tribes, during Charlemagne's era, we see early mentions of a Frankish "nation."
So, that’s a brief note on France since it was mentioned. There is a clear difference between a nation and a country (or, more accurately, borders, which is what you're essentially talking about), Mr. Harris.
If you wish to create content about ideas that are relatively new in humanity's philosophy and are purely our own constructs, let’s talk about human rights and equality, which are inventions of the last 50 years. Just because we didn’t talk about these concepts earlier doesn’t make human rights any less important, Mr. Harris.
Whether an idea is new or old is not what makes it good or bad. It’s a shame because I have followed your channel in the past, and (even though your stance is evident from your appearance alone), you’ve had some noteworthy moments.
Best of luck with your propaganda, both to you and those who blindly parrot the lies you feed them.
Human Richtschnur were alreadey a typisch over at least 1400 years
do you have doubts of that? all you gotta do is go and watch Kamala Harris video of this guy 😂
Human rights new? What about religion and the Bible?
You make some good points but you are are clearly more biased than the video maker. He is referring to the modern concept of the nation, which is widely regarded to be a product of the 19th century, at least in Europe. And since you are so fond of the Greeks, you ought to know that Stoicism (3rd century BCE) introduced the idea of equality, claiming all humans share the capacity for reason and are therefore equal in dignity. More recently the U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776) declared, "All men are created equal". Where is God's name do you get this last 50 years business?
Thank you for a very sensible comment. This video is globalist propaganda that wants to accelerate the decline of nation states
Johnny Harris in 2024: Nations have only existed since the 19th century
Shakespeare in 1595: Interesting
Egypt in 2000 BC lmao
Even native English speaker from England doesn't understand Shakespeare language
@@Warmer_Bros Really? I'm a native english speaker from England, and I have no difficulty reading Shakespeare's texts.
I think what you probably meant was most engtlish speakers would not understand Chaucer's language, since that version of medieval english really is far different from today's language.
But Shakespeare is very understandable and in fact he gave us so many well-known phrases and coined so many of the words we use today (including the word "coined").
Yea and the root word and concept of nation, stemming from the Latin “nationem” meaning “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe," being around in the 3rd century BC… but but Johnny Harris said it’s a recent idea!!
This video isn't really talking about nations it's talking about Nation States specifically imo.
The notions of ethnicity, nation, country, citizenship, nation state, and sovereign state are all being mixed up. Which isn't good for an informative video on a complex and divisive topic.
Max says that the formation of the modern nation can be top down or bottom up. A top down example, France, was given in detail, but no bottom up example was given in detail when it really should have been if the video is genuinely trying to explore the origin.
Saying it's all "made up" can be damaging.
The idea that certain people belong to certain land is presented as a new, manufactured, and arbitrary idea is incredibly damaging to movements like Land Back.
This idea has already been used to justify Russian invasion of Ukraine, as Putin and many other Russian officials determine that Ukraine isn't real and Ukrainian identity is a recent fabrication not anchored in any history.
"If I tell you France is made up that feels wrong" 2:02
No, it doesn't necessarily feel wrong it feels extremely reductionist.
Because so is the weird green paper in my wallet is also made up. Most currency has literally no value, most currencies aren't representing some stash of gold or made out of the "valuable material" themselves. Only 8% of currency is actual physical coin/paper.
Religion is also made up yet we find it so intrinsically valuable that being able to pick one and follow its tenants is considered a fundamental human right.
This is an underrated comment, I agree also what about human nature. If human nature dictates it and it feels natural in my opinion that makes it real, culture is made up but real. If an old Native American was dropped into Japan in the 1600’s, the Native American wouldn’t feel at home, that’s part of the reasons people created tribes, regions, cultures, and like you said religions.
Do you have an example of a modern nation founded on the bottom up model ?
@@Hattrick003 the Irish nation
This video is just neoliberal menticide.
Well, the creator here wants to push the idea that everything is a social construct, so it could (and should) be deconstructed and reconstructed to bring equity.
It doesn't account for the fact that tribalism, ethnicity, culture and History stem from the natural evolution of human nature, equivalents of that can also be found in animals.
Human beings would never have survived without some form of communautarism.
These 2 are way too idealistic and blinded by their own ideologies. If they were more objective, they would have told us that there were way more wars in the past when there were not strong nationalist identities, because tribal identities were and are even less tolerant, and have a stronger sense of fear. Second, they would have recognize that nationalism is not the problem in today's wars, like Ukraine. I see 2 main reasons: hegemonic visions of leaders, of power hungry individuals, and tribalism/identity politics around a culture, a religion or a people.
Nationalism has actually brought more harmony among different and various ethnic/religious groups than ever before in History.
I remember the video where Johnny was shocked when putin said Ukraine didn't exist historically.
Interesting point.
It does seem kinda inconsistent.
Personally, I count myself consistent in disagreeing with this video and Baldy's comments.
Why context matters.
It doesn't matter what matters is present so many countries don't existed in past but exists today.
Ukraine existed longer than Russia did. Russia is a tale of how a city state spun off and expanded under a central, autocratic rule.
@@martytu20 yes
Documenting the origin of a thing doesn’t make it less real.
Original title: "Countries Aren’t Real, Here’s Why"
Ah, it's still the same now 1hr in, commenting, so I won't forget :0
By this time tomorrow it should be different
I mean they can just delete your comment if they want.
Changed the original title on his recent election videos, along with the image. Starting to wonder if he starts with a slightly 'inflammatory' title and image to boost the comments and metrics he receives, in a similar way people who make shorts will place an obvious spelling mistake to boost their video when people obviously pick it up and comment about it. Pretty scummy tbh.
Nations and cultures are real, but the idea of governments is entirely made up.
How many maps do you have Johnny?
Johnny: yes
CIA has a lot of maps
Part 2
ruclips.net/video/aKHxADMhJtE/видео.html
His rent is 3x higher than necessary bc he needed room for them
Asking the real questions.
More than Map Men?
All because something is socially constructed does not mean its not real.
This is a common fallacy, especially amongst sociologists. Everything is a social construct, but just because it is a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Math, science, and engineering are all social constructs, along with the tools made from them, but that doesn't mean the hammer I accidentally smashed my finger with doesn't exist.
Facts
You make the perfect point, that Johnny needs in this video.
Money is made up, names are made up, language is made up.
The thing is that they have a real impact on our physical lives, this makes them quite real.
It is and it isn't. It is real in the sense that it is experienced as a reality in every day life at a micro level, it is not real in the sense that it is not an objective reality. It has only the meaning and value that it is given and is subject to change. And that notion is important to recognise in a turbulent world that is increasingly adhering to this us vs them mentality.
He doesn't say it isn't real, he's just breaking down how something so insanely arbitrary can have such wide reaching effects and letting people know how arbitrary it actually is, you missed the entire point
Why does it look like he’s just reading everything off a doc and not actually being interviewed
Because its scripted globalist propoganda
Exactly what I thought..
Fake and it shows 😢
Why am I getting comment replies if my comment was censored?
@@thomasmogensen1 Not really fake, Johnny Harris channel is a brilliant piece of ideological propaganda, it is very deliberate. It is prime example of ideological subversion that is being done to western world today.
Why does the discussion between Johnny and Max seem so fake and scripted. Like it is taking me out of the video 🤣 they just seem so fake when talking to each other. Still watched of course but it was throwing me off.
It's 100% scripted. Which is fine, but I wish it weren't presented as if it were unscripted.
Because is fake and scripted... and flawed.
Because this is globalist propaganda
just taking hints from some alt rights play book
It's scripted so It's easier to understand I personally like it, but as non native speaker maybe I dont feel it as much
Why does it feel like Johnny is a toddler being explained the basic notion that everything in our society is just a social construct 🥲
Well, that's just not true. First of all, you have to define society. Then you have to realize that there are actual things that are aren't social constructs, yet exist.
You're probably getting high on your own farts (average viewer of this channel)
@@nearly_epic Not true at all. The word nation = people has been used since ancient greece.
@@nearly_epic yes but this concept of nation states being a social construct, and overall logic, applies to everything within our society. Why can people inherit millions of dollars without lifting a finger while others go hungry living on the street? Why is it okay for a 50 year old man to sleep with a naive 18 year old but not okay if they're 17? Why can an Israeli passport go to 171 countries visa free when a Palestinian living less than a mile away only go to 36? Why is it okay for a man and women to love each other but not to love more than one person or a person of the same sex? Why is it normal to cover ourselves in cloth but strange to walk around without it? These are not inherent natural laws that must be followed, like everything else these are social constructs which we've been told are the way things work. Regardless of if there's merit or rational to these decisions, they are still just constructs of our society that we've been forced to accept. There's no such thing as race, religion, nationality, sex, gender. We can study these subjects and label the natural phenomenon but no inherent trait or belief, no race, no religion, no gender, no sexual orientation, no nationality is better than another, just different. We are all just people of earth, each products of our environment and the biological inheritance that makes us up.
The video is not about nations not being real, despite the awful title, it's about how nation and sense of nationality have evolved over time with the advent of fast communication. The behaviour of smaller nations of old became the behaviour of bigger nations of today, and this can give rise to nationalism and intollerance. It's an interesting concept.
How can countries be real if our eyes aren't real?
Our eyes are 'un- real', which is not the same as 'not real'.
Are you real?
Part 2
ruclips.net/video/aKHxADMhJtE/видео.html
nothing is real and nothing is an illusion
"real eyes realize real lies" aah comment
@@glocksupremo Fabulous.
where was the ad "video sponsored by New World Order, lets make one government" ?
Whole my life as a central Siberia citizen, I've been identifying as Russian, then Siberian, then Asian and then Tuvan. And only recently I started to realize that the concept of being Russian isn't clicking for me: I'm not white, my hair isn't blond, my eyes aren't blue, I'm not Slavic, I'm 100% Asian.
I speak Russian because this is what school taught me, but my whole family speaks an entirely different language. It's not even Slavic language, Tuvan is Turkish kind of language. Because of globalisation, I speak three different kinds of languages from three different ethnic groups: English, Russian and my mother language Tuvan.
This is wild. In Russian language there are two words for "being Russian": "русский" is being Russian as an ethnicity and "россиянин" is being Russian as a citizen of the country. I'm latter *and* I'm Tuvan.
Tuva is a republic therefore calling your nationality Tuvan is a Ok.
Also there's a distinction between Russians and Rossians(Россияне) but it's really vague and kinda imperial.
I hope Tuvans and others will be free in the choice of their future.
Wow! Interesting to hear that "Russian" in the Russian language is separated into 2 words, one for ethnicity and one for citizenship. Actually "Chinese" is also separated into 2 terms in the Chinese language. Zhong Guo Ren means citizen of China, Hua Ren means anyone of Chinese blood regardless of citizenship.
There's Russian ethniticy and Russian citizenship. Russia by all means is the remanents of the russian empire and not a nation-state as commonly defined. If Russia was centered only around Moscow-StPb and volvograd then might be it would be a russian nation-state. This is why in Russia Patriotism is celebrated, while Nationalism is suppressed.
@Armadurapersonal tell that to Russian Obshina ("Community") I'm sure they'll get a laugh.
Yes! Finally you're waking up to your real cultural ties and roots that have been subjugated
Bulgarian here, we were 500 years under Ottoman rule and we didn't got assimilated by the ottomans for that long period. That didn't happend mostly because the christian religion, but also because of our language, traditions, all these things were saved by the people and passed trought generations. These hard times made all of our people more united than ever. There were revolution committees in cities, towns and villages all over "the country". In 1878 Bulgaria was liberated and put back on the political map for first time since 1396.
marinhristozov1832, "and we didn't got assimilated by the ottomans for that long period. That didn't happend mostly because the christian religion, but also because of our language, traditions, all these things were saved by the people and passed trought generations."
No, it didn't happen because Ottoman empire didn't have a policy of assimilation. Like every other classical empire, it didn't care who you were, so long as you paid taxes and didn't revolt.
@@yalcnbey5834 You are Turkish, try not to be biased. The Ottomans did have a policy of assimilation, especially in the later period of the empire. The Jizya, and jannisary system were some methods of assimilation. Understand that western Anatolia, and eastern Thrace didn’t become Turkish by magic. Many assimilated in the Balkans as well but migrated to Anatolia following the Balkan wars
@@yalcnbey5834 Also if you look into the Arab revolts and the reasons they wanted independence from the Ottomans, you will see discrimination against non-Turks as one of the primary reasons.
@@g1u2y345jizya is a tax and janissaries were no different than recruiting as French Legionnaires
Nope this guy says countries aren't real
@2:22 He says "This idea is completely made up". Aren't all ideas made up?
Not all ideas are made up .
You could say some ideas are discovered, not made up. Like maths.
ideas are dreams, dreams are made up and then realized.
@@tvuser9529 Math is a language. Langugages are entirely artificial and made up. Thus everything in math is artifical. Like most of our understanding of the world around us (interpretation). However, that we actually realize things with it, is not only because we check scientifically (adapting theory to practice), we formulate instructions for the real world in a abstract language, then we are realizing what has been written in the langugage (following the instructions). There are plently of things than can not be done in the real world, aside the mathematical instructions, and most of the time they are even very limited to a condition set, within a definition context.
@@doom9603 The meaning of the numbers and equations aren’t made up , neither are the meaning of the words , just the symbols are .
Read it first in Sapiens. "Large numbers of strangers can cooperate successfully by believing in common myths. Any large-scale human cooperation-whether a modern state, a medieval church, an ancient city, or an archaic tribe-is rooted in common myths that exist only in people's collective imagination." It's just a story. It's the ability to tell and engage with stories that sets us apart from other species on the planet. Storytelling makes us human. Stories are meant to be told with each other, they are the glue that binds societies together.That's why it's so sad that the stories most prevalent in our world today are told by people determined to keep us apart.
Time to thank the sponsor of today's video, the World Economic Forum.
Please explian further if u can, I'm curious as to why that's bad, what's the goal of the WEF?
@@alexx12545i’m not sure to every detail but they are very scetchy and essentially build everything around economics (suprice surprice it’s in their name). They are very utopian in their views while ALSO being kind of scary because they suggest some really idiotic things that would never work
@@alexx12545it's a favorite villain for conspiracy theorists, like the lizard people, Jews, Muslims, women, leftists etc.
@@alexx12545the WEF is pushing “globalism” which basically means that they want the entire world to be under the governance of one combined government, which sounds good but really is just another word for world domination and control.
Modern slavery
Italian here.
The idea of Italy as a distinct entity has deep roots, reaching back to the Roman era, although Italian identity has evolved and transformed over the centuries.
As early as the Republican era, the Romans used the term "Italia" to refer part of the peninsula-initially only the southern part, later expanding to include all of it during the imperial period. By the Augustan age, Rome had consolidated the concept of Italy as the heart of the Roman world, a distinct geographical and cultural entity separate from the provinces. This idea was reinforced by the Romanization of Italic peoples and the granting of Roman citizenship to all inhabitants of the peninsula. Thus, Italy was perceived as a privileged land, with a unique status within the Empire. Although the concept of a nation-state did not yet exist, there was a sense of cultural unity due to Roman citizenship and the prestige of being "Italic" within the Empire.
However, with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, this identity fragmented. During the Middle Ages, Italy became a patchwork of independent kingdoms, duchies, republics, and city-states, with strong local identities rather than a unified national consciousness. The Italian territory became a battleground for foreign powers and local forces, including the Holy Roman Empire, the Normans, the Byzantines, and later the major European monarchies. Each city and region developed its own identity, and people primarily identified with their own city or commune (Florence, Venice, Milan, etc.).
Nevertheless, the spirit of belonging to a "land of Italy" did not disappear completely. Writers and poets like Dante Alighieri, Francesco Petrarca, and Niccolò Machiavelli expressed a strong desire for unity and a sense of an Italian homeland. Although these were primarily cultural and literary ideals, these early sentiments of national unity foreshadowed the Risorgimento, when the dream of a united Italy became a concrete political project, led by figures like Giuseppe Mazzini, Camillo Benso di Cavour, and Giuseppe Garibaldi.
In summary, there existed a sense of Italy as a cultural and geographical entity dating back to the Roman era. However, this awareness underwent significant changes: during the Middle Ages, it weakened and fragmented into regional identities, and only with the Risorgimento did the idea of an Italian identity take political shape, transforming from an abstract concept into a unified national state.
I'm Greek and we were calling ourselves Romans (Romioi) up to 20th century. Even today in some songs and poetry the term is still used, mostly to describe the Greek identity rather than the Imperial citizenship.
Im interested to know, did the people in different parts of italy before the unification realy speak different languages, or was it just different dialects?
@arassadeghi3998 Before unification, Italy was linguistically fragmented, with each region speaking its own distinct language or dialect, often quite different from others, but with basically all of them having the common root in Latin. Tuscan eventually became the basis for modern Italian due to its literary prestige (the Divine Comedy, for example, is written in vulgar Tuscan, the same with the Decameron), but most Italians continued speaking regional languages until the 20th century, when education, media, and urbanization spread standard Italian across the country.
I'm from Ferrara, a city in northeastern Emilia-Romagna, and my grandparents' generation still speaks in dialect. My parents and people my age, of course, speak Italian, though most people can still understand the dialect. In the most southern cities, the vast majority of people still have a strong dialectal influence.
@@danthblackwinter8635 thanks for the information : )
What I found the most weird claim in the video was the language thing. I find it very hard to believe that in 1950, only 20% of Italians spoke "Italian". I mean dialects ofc. are a thing, but different language? Ofc, what is a language and what is a dialect, is often very handwavy. My native language Finnish, has really strong dialects based on old "tribal borders", but we still think all of the people are speaking the same language. We can fully understand each other, aside of some corner cases, which are maybe comparable to teens having their own words that the older folks don't understand, but on a regional level.
A lot of what he's saying is contextually deceptive.
For example, in the same early 1800s there was one "french" as far as the world was concerned, which Thomas Jefferson and the kings of Spain and England also spoke as a diplomatic language...the other "languages" were mostly french with what we'd today consider very thick dialects of French.
They could understand each other across much of France, despite those various "languages".
He also is being deceptive when he conflates country with nation.
A country is a top-level political division.
A nation is an ethnicity/culture that identifies together as a group.
Countries are as old as recorded history.
But nations, while being a concept as old as time, only became normalized as a way to form a country in the 19th century.
Nationalism, during the romantic era, was about cultural nations forming their own countries, governing themselves.
This is also what the Springtime of Nations was about, in 1848, when all across Europe various ethnicities overthrew their arbitrary rulers and formed their own states.
Thank you.
good critiques! yes there was a common french that diplomats communicated with and that was known broadly, but as an identity that language was mostly used and identified with by elites. The major point here is that the modern day idea of a unified group of people within borders (ie the psychological "nation" as you pointed out) is a fairly new concept, a construct that was fortified mostly over the last hundred or so years, which at least for me was surprising. I thought this sort of unity of people within borders existed in this form for much longer. You're right that I use nation and country interchangeably which, within political science literature, would be technically wrong since both have a useful definition within that context. But I'm not writing for an academic journal here. I'm trying to convey the broad concepts for the audience and hopefully they found this useful!.
Thanks for thoughtful pushback.
Exactly
I think it used to be more of a dialect continuum, where a place at the border of one nation *might* be considered a dialect of that nation if you squint enough, but it's really similar to another dialect of a different language just across the border. So you could have drawn the borders differently and still say that everything in that border is a dialect of one language. Where you put an end to one language and what you consider a dialect vs. a different language is arbitrary, and dictated by politics. As someone said, "a language is a dialect with an army and navy".
@@johnnyharrisWhat a fantastic way to respond to a critical comment! I wish more RUclipsrs would follow your professional example, Johnny. It increases trust in your research and intentions.
Edit: by the way, I say this as a person who often sees quite differently from Johnny's political points of view. His demeanour makes it easy to be open to the way he sees things and to consider his conclusions with deeper thought. I've been a subscriber for a while, and I will continue to look forward to each video he comes out with!
This boy never heard of Peace of Westphalia and establishment of sovereign nations.
1920: In the future, we will have flying cars!
2024: Countries aren’t real.
they arent
@@WilliamLi-nd4lzContries are real. Abstract constructs are real.
'Countries are malleable'
Vladimir Putin endorses this idea
3:39 “you look at the distribution of red hair, for example, and you see that it never lines up with national borders” while showing a map where Wales, Cornwall, Scotland, and literally all of Ireland are noticeably darker than England lmfao. Edit: I actually went back and you can make out Brittany in France too
You miss the point. Where is the nation, whose defining trait is Red hair? None, it doesn't exist, every nation is born by belief and politics, not genes.
Ah but the "country" is the UK in their heads
All of those identities are also modern and are places where much of the population identifies with another national identity, especially in the case of Cornwall and Brittany where very few people identify with that nation at all.
@@slothbirdbeard6996well yeah that was the point being made in the video. People in France previously identified more with their local areas and cultures, but then got brought into these larger groups. Modern Scottish and Welsh nationalism is also very new.
@@spe3dy744 I’m simply making the point that the example they chose very clearly doesn’t do a very good job at supporting what they’re saying, and that it’s frankly comical how closely aligned at least these national borders are with the distribution of red hair
Watch out, dont confuse nationalisme and patriotisme. Like Charles De Gaulles said: nationalisme is the hate of other countries while patriotisme is the love of values incarnated by our country
Next video: Here's why the US needs to worry about China.
Johnny: this is how China is preparing to invade Taiwan and why the US will need to get involved
Also Johnny: we need to defund the military. It’s too big.
lol, lmao
It does tho
@@ambatubelo we have donald trump back in office now mfs arent worried about china 😂😂 we gotta be more worried about how many more bombs biden is gonna authorize ukraine to strike on russia before ww3 happens
Title changed from Why Countries Aren't Real
Thank you for you immensely beneficial comment. My life has improves exponentially. I have never felt so enlightened by such an outstanding piece of information you just provided.
I still have this exact title now
I noticed immediately after posting a comment stating that the video is really about nationalism, that the video's title had changed to "Nationalism, explained".
Hes always changing titles and thumbnails 🥸🔎
@@unapaulogeticit’s to see what ones perform better, if it’s still happening after a few days/weeks it’s to trick people into thinking it’s a new upload for the clicks
Is it just a video about why France doesn't exist ?
Let’s just say French centralization and language enforcement is proof of how artificial national identity is.
Nah, it's just a video promoting the destruction of France. It's called brainwash. Don't worry.
@@AstroBear11 but France do not exist. It is muslim at the bottom and african in the center with some French people here and there trying to not to be attacked.
The reason why French history is such a big part of this video is because it played a really crucial role in the emergence of nationalism as an ideology as the video lays out
it's free real estate 😏
"Nations aren't real."
*immediately introduces the j e w who put the idea in his head.*
Oh. Okay. Of course.
"They don't share an ethnic identity"
Yes, they absoilutely do.
The ethnic ties to my original national population are less close than between my mom and me.
But they're a lot closer than between me and India, Somalia or Afghanistan.
Yes .
Not all countries are built around ethnic borders
@ I agree that there are some artificial countries , that’s true , but not all countries .
@@Natsional_Sotsialisticheskiy All countries are artificial nowadays.
@ Most countries today don’t base themselves on the same principles they were established due to secularism and globalism , I’ll give you that . But the home of what the original countries were does exist . And even the modern countries can still be called States because as long as they don’t fall into anarchy , they are a real political entity .
Did you know that Napoleon was from Corsica (which joined France 1 year before Napoleon was born)? He also had a huge Italian accent when he spoke French!
and?
It is just an anecdote. If you are not interested, please do not comment. Thanks
@@sculptor8752and he’s the biggest figure in French history besides Louis the 13th, and Charlemagne and the anecdote further explained their point
Sry, not a fan of this video... The terms "country" and "nation" constantly get mixed up. The focus on "one language for one country" seems weird since it certainly isn´t a requirement for an united country/nation- for example Switzerland, Belgium, Italy (the North is german speaking) the UK, Canada etc. they all have several different languages used within their borders- meanwhile there are for example several german-speaking-countries, spanish-speaking-countries etc. next to each other that didn´t unite....
Cultural and religious identity predate countries and nations (old greeks, Romans, christian and muslim culture etc.). Countries were born by uniting several smaller pieces to one big (standing armies, one law etc.). Nations were born thanks to fixed borders, laws and rulership based on the cultural identity of the many people instead of those of a few nobles (feudal sytem, monarchy...) (-> cultural differences between North and South Korea, China vs Taiwan etc.). In Europe many modern nations were born from the bottom up (Revolutions in France and Germany, rebellions of the Dutch, Swiss, Scots etc.) - while many African nations were created from the top down (colonialism)- hence why many african countries have civil wars within their borders. Nationalism often comes from the top down though, it is a policy to gain control.
(There is btw. a reason why the flags of many of many european nations/countries have the colors used by the revolutionists that fought for freedom/independence against the top/rulers decades ago.)
The example of Napoleon is kinda bad since Napoleon reintroduced the monarchy ? After defeating the Austrians he claimed the(ir) title of emperor (there is a reason why most rulers were kings/queens and didn´t claim emperorship during the middle ages etc. in Europe). That title was for hundreds of years pretty much limited to the Holy Roman Empire and Austria. In the HRE kings/nobles voted for an emperor which was crowned by the pope and was supposed to protect the pope/church (HRE/Austria for the western/catholic church. Russia for the eastern/orthodox church). The religious meaning got lost more and more over the centuries since the catholic church lost more and more power and meaning. The identification with the culture became more important instead - nations, nationalism, freedom of religion, standards for the languages etc. were born. But Napoleon certainly wasn´t the cause....(he went back to the monarchy).
Later on nationalism, fascism, the ethnic identity etc. get all mixed up. Fascism is born in Italy and basically based on the national identification as heirs of the roman Empire. Nazis didn´t go after minorities because it was a threat to nationalism- they went after specific minorities because of racism, often outside the borders of their nation. White non-jewish French, Italians etc. for example were valued by them and left alive after they conquered those lands. Black people from the colonies were not seen as equals but also not hunted down....
The european identity can be based on the continent or the EU. Both are not national identities - so the comparison isn´t good. The identification as Europeans is not based on culture and values - hence why Russia or Turkey might not be seen as "european" by many "Europeans", or why Brexit was such a shock for many people in other EU-countries, or why Hungary under Orban isn´t liked by many Europeans... The EU is a unique thing and developing more and more to something like a european nation, resulting in younger generations starting to identify more and more as Europeans over time. For, maybe, the first time in history a new identity is growing without any wars, conquering, rebellions, revolutions etc.. Exclusion in the EU is very much a thing, it just isn´t forced by armies (the EU doesn´t have an army anyway) but courts and policies (for example when values don´t align anymore - Poland, Hungary etc. for example)
Nation is a fake thing like he trying to explain how nation were presented.
I agree the video felt kind of disspointing having such a complex topic, I understood the point but many were missing
Good summary but many African people in colonies were killed by colonial authorities deliberately for example Namibian genocide and Congo Free State genocide so you should not say they were not hunted down
I agree. I understand the intent of this video, but it is very disappointing. I'm noticing the same issues with his other videos. The tone also is getting condescending. 😢
one critique. countries did try to unify other countries that spoke the same language. its literally what Adolf did before and during world war 2. it is what the soviet union did and what Russia is now doing in many countries for example ukraine. all the arab speaking countries were mostly united before until the world wars where the allies defeated the big empire and broke it apart.
The thing is
Even animals have borders. For example wolf packs have their territories and might kill a wolf from a different pack if it enters their land
When you see how people identify themselves as a citizen of a country, the concept of country for my country, India becomes interesting to me. We are people who has no common language, common culture, common religion, common ethnicity, common DNA, common food habits, but still have been being united for 77 years by democracy (which is more shocking). It is like 18% of the world's population, 5th largest economy in the world, pretty important, and united... just CRAZYYYY!!!
DNA
"democracy"
"united'
That’s a great observation. Thanks for sharing. Yeah, I’m not sure what selection criteria Johnny Harris had in mind when choosing to talk about some countries but not others. India, as the world’s largest democracy and most populous country, would have been a fascinating example to consider. Do most Indians think of themselves first and foremost as citizens of a nation called India or would they consider their religious, ethnic, or linguistic identity more important?
Lmfaoo
First, it was race, then sexuality, then gender, and now you're telling me that countries are fake too?
Here is what I know.
Countries are man made calling them fake is... Irrational to say the least. That is like saying a language is fake...
There is one race. The human race. If you have no noticed. WE CAN ALL F GLOBALLY and make babies...
You could use ethnicity, but that falls apart too... What would the ethnicity of a kid from an American, a Sweden, an Indian and a Korean person be?
Serious what the F do you mean by race here? I never understood that American concept...
As for gender/sex well there are Male and Female that encompass 98% with 2% Intersex. For the latter of Think rare genetic anomalies like how some ppl got testies instead of ovaries some born with no PPs among others things...
There is also approximate sex change operations for ppl with severe dysphoria. The tech is improving but is still far from ideal... There are no laws of physics that prohibit the tech from being perfected so it is a matter of time. Transhumanism in general will go MUCH father than just changing sexual organs if you ask me...
PPl will change EVERYTHING you can think of about the human body until the very definition of human would have to be hard set. Think all manner of extra organs or limbs or colours etc...
As for sexuality (I will assume you mean attraction) There are the classics hetero/homo/Bi/A sexual. Observed and recorded in human history and WELL DOCUMENTED in many... Websites for corn farmers.
Some like Gender fluidity and Pan sexuality. I really don't understand. I never looked into them they could be legit or not.
The rest of the "sexualies" I think of as basically kinks or made up by ppl who want to be special on social media as they make little to no sense at all...
Finally, PDFs are a blight.
Correct me if got anything wrong if you know better that is.
@aziouss2863 There are many different definitions of race in America. Race is usually either between the color of your skin or where you come from. For example, pale europeans may be considered white, but pale Israelis would not be considered white. This is because of a difference in culture, religion, and history. Back in the 1900s, not all pale europeans were considered white, and Italians and Irishmen were discriminated against for being Catholic. To this day, white Americans are usually only considered to be pale-skinned protestants with Anglo Saxon or Germanic heritage. Black Americans also have a bit of a controversial meaning. While anyone with dark skin could be called black, being black is more of a cultural identity limited to African Americans. This means that very dark-skinned Hispanics, Asians, and other groups would not be considered black in America. Asians are people usually from either China, Korea, or Japan, but can extend down to people from southeast Asia as well, like people from Vietnam, Thailand, and the Phillipines. When it comes to Asians, race isn't so much as defined by the color of a person's skin but instead from a person's country of origin. This is also the same for Hispanics. The US Cenaua Bureau has races listed as the following: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders. This covers about 81.6% of the racial makeup in America, with the other 18.4% being mostly Hispanics who either identify with none of these or more than one of them.
So, to review, what is race? Race is a person's country of origin combined with a similar cultural identity and appearance. To be a part of a certain race, you have to fill all these qualities. For example, a pale-skinned Italian may be considered white by the US government, but because they don't have that shared cultural identity as other white Americans, they would not fit in this category.
He's leftist. Everything is a social construct for them. Nothing exists.
They aren’t fake
yes, they are fake, so are everything you just listed
Portugal is the only uniform nation in Europe. Our borders have been the same for almost a millennium and all of us have allways spoke the same language, with regional accents.
mirandese: 👁️🫦👁️
just say thanks catalans
The behavior of IDENTITY within the society-nation is fascinating. In the end we will globalize the entire world, tear down borders and unite humanity. For the simple fact that the human being is a NOMAD and it is in his DNA, it is in his nature.
I feel like the biggest divide at the moment is urban vs rural. Most countries aren't at war with each other anymore so the need to all gather together to be safer as one unit to protect ourselves from our neighbours isn't as relevant. Right now countries are feeling more polarised because the "us vs them" is the cities vs everybody else - I feel like the natural next step is the evolution of city-states and more independence when it comes to megacities like NYC and London, Sydney/Melbourne, Montreal, regions like Catalonia etc. Berlin and Hamburg for example already are city-states within Germany
I think it's just right vs left everywhere. Not city vs rural.
Or the poor and working class vs businesses and the ultra wealthy
"most aren't at war with each other"
Lemme stop you right there kiddo
State warfare is as relevant today as ever and unfortunately might become even more relevant in the following years
You have remember Peasants for centuries were slaves who mostly lived in rural areas and Lord's lived mostly in cities.
A week ago, you believed in a nation. Today you went full globalist 😂
It's because he's a world economic forum "agenda contributor" - he's literally listed on their website.
Maybe he went anarchist or imperialist?
I'm joking. The video's claim isn't that nations should be dissolved; it's just describing the recent developments in the history.
lol this
@@sampdbiz u can hijack a nation and its policies
I do believe you meant to say, "globalisht."
Trump gets elected and Johnny goes Sovereign Citizen on us. 😂
He sees people as the idiots they are, who would appoint Matt Gaits as attorney General.
@@michaeladkins6 are you counting yourself among them?
@@michaeladkins6 you know, those checks from the Democratic Party probably won’t clear… you can drop the tough guy act. Don’t call people idiots, don’t be a sore loser
@@michaeladkins6gaetz is the most transparent AG we'll ever have. and dems know that thats why they have to constantly bring up a CLOSED DOJ investigation that resulted in gaetz being INNOCENT in order to fear monger people into not liking gaetz. but luckily for america we turned red and left the dems in the dust for them and their false allegations to live only among them and not america anymore bc we've woken up
@LRO1986 you mean Gayts
Crazy how a Johnny Harris video never fails to piss me off
yet you decided to click and watch lol
@ yea I’m a nice human being interested in giving people a chance
Well done for challenging yourself with other viewpoints. Respect.
Humans have always lived In communities. That’s how we are wired. Our communities just got larger and more organised.
Exactly
People were killing and discriminating because they didn't know each other very well in the past so we should still be stupid and kill strangers today?
"just" is doing a lot of heavy lifting though. It's the process by which that happened that is both interesting and a little disturbing. Hiding all that behind "just" is to miss the point of the video
this comment implies it "just" happened naturally lol. it happened because the elites made it happen. people didnt just collectively decide to all speak the same language and wave the same flag
By more organised you mean via genocide and atrocities.
Countries and nations are real, and here's why: money is just silly pieces of paper. But we all agreed, or were forced to interact with the majority who agrees, that we assign a value to paper money, even if it's a distant iteration of "two chicjens make a sheep, two sheeps make a cow". At the very least, countries and nations exist in that way - and that's a very powerful way.
But again, just because something as an effect on you, does not make it real. If we collectively stop believing in money or contries, they cease to exist and have no effect anymore. If we stop believing in the comet that comes to destroy the earth, it will still destroy the earth. Thats why a comet is real and nations are not.
He didnt say it isn't real in that sense, he only talks about the concept of nations..
Its just a title
nations don't exist as physical entities, they're merely social constructs we all agree to uphold
I think what he meant was more that they're a social construct, not that they aren't real. Yes, they're real, but they were made up by humans.
Nationalism vs globalization
Yes, Jonny is showing his bias
@@nathanburck5574 How? Everything in this video has been the mainstream historical consensus on nationalism and the nation state for almost a century.
Their not really direct comparisons. Nationalism is based mostly in shared history and culture, globalism is primarily based on trade.
@@ThatGuyWayOverThere well, globalism works in opposition to the ideology of nationalism, which generally prohibits international trade and movements of people.
@@ThatGuyWayOverThere a century ago people had a very different historical consensus
Countries are basically organizations. If you look at SSN cards in 1936, it used to say “Employee signature”. From those lenses, countries are just big companies that manage a territory and build industries.
Before nations, empires existed, before empires, kingdoms existed, before that city states existed, before that villages existed, before that tribes and tight-knit communities existed.
To say that nations are made up just because of a lack of a homogenous genetic makeup is stupid, one just has to look at the light map border between India-Pakistan or North Korea-South Korea, to know that despite them being genetically similar, their independent nationhood is very real.
He's not saying that they don't exist. At least I think he'd walk off that point if pushed on it and mostly says it for clickbait and simplification.
He is saying that the idea of a nation state and a national identity that belongs to a nation state that is shared between the majority of people in that nation state is an artificial concept.
It's real, but it's artificial, not natural.
Doesn't mean it's bad or good. The nation state has been quite successful in my opinion, it's resulted in the most peace and prosperity we've ever seen, but it's important to understand that it is an artificial concept which knowledge of that could dissuade people from some of the worst nationalistic tendencies like war and "cleansing" of people of another ethnicity.
Think of it this way.. a Frenchman isn't born French. There is nothing objective in the universe that says he is French. You cannot look at his DNA, you cannot look at anything. Being French, and belonging to the French identify, considering yourself French and being considered French by others and feeling a connection to other people who have that same label is a learned and artificial behavior. That's far from it being fake... but it is a social construct.. to use the term that triggers people who like things to be simple black and white.
The French identify doesn't exist objectively in the universe. It exists inter-subjectively in the minds of those who believe it exists. And that makes it very real.
You’re mistaking “made up” with “not real”
You bring up a good point that family, tight knit village, tribalism, then eventually several groupings later, a country is what dictates a social identity of the people. Countries and eventually the greater “nation” is a political construct. In your example, Pakistan did not exist as a country in 1945 but then in 1949 its a new country. In that sense,
Nationalism as a nation-state as we know it today is political and not “real”. Organic clusters on people bonded by beliefs, culture, language, religion are what bond people. In this video, Johnny said that France was a cluster of peoples that then later united under an empire. With the advent of literacy and mass communication the idea of a unified grouping, either natural or unnatural was born. I do believe nations can be wholly artificial and its main motive and driving force, politically motivated. In the late 1948s, “nations” just sprouted, with a national identity. Some were more organic like Pakistan- India where religion was the motivator, but culturally it was homogeneous, while there were also inorganic nations sprouted, where European colonists moved in an claimed a land by savory or unsavory means, and called it a nation. I think true nationalism is, local, family, tribe, tight knit community and it grows outward. Its borders organic and sometimes ebbing and meshing. The nomadic tribes of Afghan/ Pakistan Kochi tribe, exist and are recognized and they migrate north to south continually. They are an anomaly because their borders are temporary and dynamic. They temporarily cohabit more than stake a land. Foreign drawn, politically motivated borders are not real.
@@JoshBOfficial2001 I mostly agree with your points in the first paragraph, but regarding the second paragraph. There is something very real in being french, german, indian or likewise any other nationality. This may sound a bit unrelated to the video, but bear with me. It's the mark we, as nationals leave on the land. There is a very stark difference between the scale of the mark left between a nation and a smaller tribal group. Nations build international highways, train systems, postal services and likewise. That is what defines a nation, the fact that the mark on the land extends to its edges, and only go the nation's edges, not beyond it.
And I think this is why the concept of nationhood has been very popular and lead to prosperity at a scale unheard of before it, because there are clearly drawn milestones. Okay, say we want inter-nation rail in our country, we know exactly where to stop, it's a clear milestone. We can draw tributaries within the system, but the edges are clearly defined, articulated by treaties. The clear definition of these edges translates over to nature even if we were to disappear, somebody could clearly tell just by looking at that rail system, that here is where a nation stops.
I agree though that it's impossible to describe the reality of a nation without abstraction. A nation is not only it's people, but the brick and mortar they produce as well.
@@genosingh The problem is, your definition doesn't extend to cover extra-national peoples or displaced peoples. Emigrant communities still often hold their parent country identities long after any truly physical connection exists. For example, let's take the italian-american community. Many identify as Italian, despite having never had any impact, or often much knowledge of, the country of Italy. They may not even speak Italian. They may not have much, or even any, Italian ancestry.
Or, take the chinese diaspora. Many of those communities date back to over a hundred years ago, and have little to no connection to even the Nationalist government, much less the Communist government. And yet, they identify as, and are identifiably, chinese.
Even if countries aren't real, humans will still find other ways to group themselves and fight for resources with other groups. Humans are tribal by nature and conflicts are inevitable.
Human nature means whatever the argumenter wants it to be... as every person has a different definition for it...
That's why "human nature" arguments are hacks.
That's a very biased viewpoint.
@@Floedekage But real and true.
Human nature means whatever you want it to be...
@@dv8ug take a look outside of your narrow world view. Take a look at the history of Scandinavia. There's never been internal wars or struggles, but wars between nations.
If what you say is true we would have fought internally when resources were scarce, but what you see instead is communities helping each other through the last 1500 years.
This is also a point again this video, there's been nations that have existed for longer than Johnny thinks without civil wars, resolutions or a fall of empire.
You entirely forgot about Japan, or Thailand - had constant borders and one lineage ruler for thousands of years. Nationalism is a new concept in the modern world, but existed for thousands of years.
True
See, he is leaning into the concept part hard. Gravity has been a thing since well, everything else, yet we didn't start calling it gravity until someone observed it and studied it (shout-out to Isaac Newton.)
Not entirely true. Both of the areas that we now think of as Japan and Thailand historically held many different ethnic groups who were gradually absorbed into whatever group was dominant at a particular time... so the notion that nations are made up still stands. Even now there are a bunch of ethnic groups in both Japan and Thailand that try very hard to keep their own cultures and languages alive in countries that employ mass media and language policies to push the idea of a nation on the few remaining outliers. Japan is slowly giving more freedom to smaller ethnic groups there, like the Ainu, but it is still tough for them. In Thailand there are the Isaan (fun fact: the northeast used to belong to Laos until Thailand annexed it, but the people there speak a language more akin to Laotian than Thai) or the various mountain tribes in the northern parts who still get discriminated against by the dominant Thai group.
Title changed from "Countries Aren't Real, Here's Why" -> "Nationalism, Explained"
What drives these title choices, what to start with, and where to change them to? What data are y'all tracking?
I prefered the original title
Probably clickbait
@@railroadforest30
Doesn't he say the same phrase in the video?
Probably poor understanding of concept of what's real, or defined.
Otherwise his next video will be: "money aren't real here's why"> "money, explained"
@@kaseywahl probably because countries and nations are real, just like how money is real, and that they are far older than this video is trying to suggest
My title says "The idea we're all willing to die for"
6:08 “Thats everywhere” is a stretch. Look at Portugal since the 12th century only two languages (one used by 0.01% of the population since that time), borders fixed and 90% same genetic identity. Well before it was an empire
But that just means that the social construct of "Portugal" was created earlier, but it doesn't negate the fact that it wasn't created in the first place.
@@mhjy9394 the language you are using is a social construct, does it exist?
Same in Estonia lol. Long history or slavery and being tied down to land has crated a strong link between culture, language and genetics
I feel each nation has their own story...Personally I believe that countries "exist", I guess the difference is how long they have existed...the idea of a nation being a social construct is kinda out there...
@@MrTriple3D a standardised language? sure. But what makes someone a certain ethnicity has never, ever been standardised.
"Thats everywhere"
"Everywhere"
Meantwhile, Portugal has become nowhere according to these guys🤷♂
Also, you choose the worst countries in Europe as example.
France, Italy and Germany!
France which on its feudalistic prime, was an empire.
Italy and germany, both parts in the Holy roman empire, had to go through an unification war to form.
This idea falls apart when you choose countries that are culturally homogeneous, like Portugal, Denmark, Greece, Estonia ...
Removed Hungary. Forgot about the Romanian and Croatians
Old Hungarian kingdom being homogenous culturally? I don't know about what you are speaking, as a inhabitant of former part of Austro-Hungarian province of Transilvania I can tell you that you are wrong, this was the most diverse culturally and ethnic region in the world before the American colonization.
@@theOrionsarms There is also the croats within. Removed Hungary from that list. But I can say that the Portuguese were a mix of people before the late middle ages, that originated around the 1200's and 1300's into a very homogenous people. I believe that a country does not make so much sense in terms of borders, but more into language and culture. The Hungarians were quite diferent from all the other groups that co-existed in hungary, specially by language. There are portuguese people speaking portuguese and its creoles, spread all over the world outside of portugal and with other nationalities, but they share a lot of cultural and social ties.
@miguelguerreiro5280 yeah, that was my point, Hungary is homogeneous culturaly today (ignoring century of mixed origin)only after decade of ethnic cleansing and even genocide, I mean what happened with Hungarian Jewish at the end of WW2 , they can pretend that are pure , but historical facts say otherwise. PS. Also even some groups that considered itself as Hungarian from centuries, like Secuii (Szekely) and Ceangăii are culturally and linguistics different from the rest of Magyar, so so called historical uniformity is a recent evolution created in the last centuries and a half by modern Hungarian state institution .
@@miguelguerreiro5280exactly my thoughts when watching the video.
"The greatest illusion of this world is the illusion of separation. Things you think are seperate and different, are actually one and the same. We are all one people, but we live as if divided."
- Guru Pathik, Avatar the Last Airbender
what makes it even more complicated is the fact that it's intertwined with our emotions and we act based on it
I think this is what Johnny really means to point out. How we are willing to kill someone for a concept.
You missed one thing about Italy...Italian is a made up language. Literally nobody spoke the language, it was just a literary creation (Dante Alighieri, Alessandro Manzoni and others), made up from pieces of different languages of the peninsula (mainly Tuscan and Lombard languages) and a lot of newly invented words inspired by Latin. At one point, since all of the Kingdoms didn't have a common language to speak, they started using this language that was only used in literature. That's why in 1861 only 2% of the people spoke it, it was just the high-end of society. French at least was a real language spoken by real people...that's also why it took longer for Italy to build a national identity. And to this day some communities still don't see themselves as Italian. Some in Sardinia for example, but the main ones are the people from South Tirol, who still speak German as their first language and their knowledge in Italian is straight out BAD.
Many modern languages came up in a similar way.
@@citrusandseasalt Such as? I don't know honestly, I thought Italian was a bit of an exception. Maybe not the only one but I believed it was quite rare.
@@am.perronace That first sentence of yours, "Italian is a made up language. Literally nobody spoke the language", you could replace "italian" with any language of the world in any time in history.
Tens of thousand years of history, empires, lands, social groups, languages etc ... and you thought your language is exceptional ?
Daverro Perronace, ti manca prospettiva.
If you want a more concrete example. You could use modern hebrew.
@@am.perronace every single language on this planet is "made up". Ever since we came up from Africa exploring, we created new languages. When the Roman Republic broke down Latin was a source of words for new languages to be used.
Even in the medieval period, people in France were united by their loyalty to the French crown and the defense of the kingdom, creating a shared political identity that transcended regional and linguistic differences. The idea of "France" as a unified entity was already in place through royal authority and common struggles, even if it was not yet defined by modern concepts of ethnicity or language. This early sense of unity laid the foundation for the development of a national identity in later centuries.
we can go back up to Vercingetorix who united the Gauls tribes against the Romans as the "proto-France"
Governments in medieval times were far more decentralized than their modern counterparts. The crown in Paris had very little relevance to most people's daily lives.
@@hello855 " The crown in Paris had very little relevance to most people's daily lives" You can say the same for today's republican monarchy
@@kam7r882good point
@@kam7r882 Not really though, there are massive cultural and demographic changes that happen in Gaul after Vercingetorix gets defeated
Why can't our collective identity be just 'human'?
fr
The idea that France is a nation is much older than the 1789 Revolution. This idea came from France's victory in 1453 at the end of the Hundred Years' War with England. A consensus that England was the enemy solidified after the Hundred Years' War, and it continued to define French national identity until the Crimean War in the middle of the 19th century when France and Britain finally began to fight on the same side (and of course continued to do so in the 20th century). Because of her ability to inspire, Joan of Arc saved France from England during the Hundred Years' War and continued to be a very important symbol of the French nation afterwards.
That is nationalist history. They take previous historical events and frame them in the larger national story.
@@ThatGuyWayOverThere alright, what is your history then?
@@thesupergamer43430 A series of wars that lasted over 100 years was far more complicated than how it can be described in one paragraph. Also, think about things from the perspective of the average people, not just kings and nobles. The average medieval peasant had no clue what national identity is.
@@hello855 They did otherwise during People's Crusade tens of thousand peasant wouldn't walk half of Europe to go to fights Saracens, or Germans would not have genocided the Slavs who occupied modern Germany etc. There are so many examples its not even worth mentioning.
@@hello855 Joan of Arc was a peasant. She also made it very clear that she wanted France to be free and not occupied by England. You do have a point - the Hundred Years' War is too complicated to fully understand with just one paragraph. However, the only point I was making is that French national identity is older than the 1789 Revolution. The life of the peasant Joan of Arc and its legacy (as well as the nearly continuous conflict between England and France after the Hundred Years' War until the middle of the 19th century) are enough evidence to conclude that France became a nation before it abolished its monarchy.
I have travelled to a lot of countries in the world (80+), and lived in four different nations, and this feeling of belonging, of nation/group/tribe, language, culture, is common. It is what I call a "Narrative", people grow up studying its nation/tribe history books and language in a somehow manipulated way so people feel patriotism and proud of their nation/tribe.
It tends to be more aggressive in poor, new countries and super powers, it is part of a narrative to keep people united. The narrative can also include blaming other nation or group of people as a threat, or there is something that unite us, like a religion, past or language.
This is a very interesting topic.
It is an interesting topic, but it makes sense. We cannot know everyone and everyone's intentions. As such, we gravitate towards the safety of those that we know.
This video is different. I feel like it's trying to explain it to an 8 year old. Tone is odd.
That's because it's target audience is for people with an eight-year-old's understanding of the world. They're called 'Americans'.
What you're feeling is the polite but subtly hectoring condescension of someone that feels morally superior. Once you notice it for what it is, it's everywhere.
His tone sounds so patronizing.
@@Whiterabbitdigital That's because it is. He's discovered something he thinks sets his worldview apart from "everyone else"
It’s because it’s portrayed as a conversation/interview but they are both reading off scripts so their reactions are feigned
Bulgaria is perhaps one of the oldest countries in Europe. Shall we talk about it?
France:
The modern state of France began with the Frankish Empire, founded in 481 AD by Clovis I.
The Frankish Empire became the foundation of modern France.
France officially emerged as a monarchy in 987 AD with the coronation of Hugh Capet.
Bulgaria:
The Bulgarian state was established in 681 AD when Khan Asparuh founded the First Bulgarian Empire.
Bulgaria is one of the oldest countries in Europe that has kept the same name throughout history.
China as a unified nation is indeed not that simple.
As a Chinese Singaporean, I am descended from Hokkien forefathers from Quanzhou City in Fujian province, while my maternal relatives, came from somewhere in the old Chaozhou prefecture, in Guangdong province, and identify as Teochews, not Cantonese.
If you thought my ancestors saw themselves as "Chinese" brothers, and worked together harmoniously when they came to Singapore, you would be wrong. When the Hokkiens and Teochews arrived en masse in the 19th century, multiple fights and riots broke out between the two groups. On identity documents, the British and the people themselves did not write "Chinese", they wrote "Hokkien", "Teochew" or "Cantonese". They saw themselves as Chinese, yes, but their local identity was far stronger than the national identity.
Fujian province alone can be split into people from Quanzhou City, Zhangzhou City, Putian City, Fuzhou Provincial capital and Fuqing City. Each city speaks its own version of the "Hokkien" dialect, which can be somewhat understood by people outside of that city. So people would split even further, from province down to the local city level to identify themselves.
The Teochews speak a language different from the rest of Guangdong Province, closer to Hokkien than Cantonese, but they don't like this comparison with the Hokkiens. The Teochews were in their own prefecture , separate from Guangdong, before being merged into it, hence the different language and culture. They do not identify with being Cantonese, despite being in the same province.
Even family surnames can be used to divide people. My ancestral village is in Xiangyun town, NanAn County, which is another way to differentiate myself from others in the same City of Quanzhou, or those of the same surname. Immigrants to Singapore used to group themselves first by province, then city, then town and family surname. If I am told that someone of the same surname came from another village, I knew he was an outsider, a non relation who shares only my surname.
Thus, these people, who outwardly look the same, from an outside point of view, did not differ much in their way of life and their reasons for coming, ended up breaking themselves into petty groups for support. China was a faraway concept to them, practically and literally.
Thus, the whole China as a totally unified nation is truly a modern invention. Every province has its own culture and traditions, which people identified with first, while acknowledging they were Chinese, at least in theory.
The idea of Imperial China always seem more like a piece of administrative tool than a nation of any kind. Even the written Chinese language was more of a tool than part of anyone's identity. People were left alone and even the Imperial officials didn't care who identified as what as long as they behave. As long as the dynasty was functional, no one cared who ruled. As long as the people didn't stir up troubles and people of any culture is left alone.
Bro yall do have history
@@ArchOfWinternot to mention it seems like they lacked any reason to differentiate themselves from anyone else as the central power and progenitor culture that all their neighbors were influenced by, so what need would there be to be a modern nation state?
There is a very fitting saying that has applied to China since its founding, ‘’天高/山高，皇帝遠‘’。A simple phrase that translated literally means that Heaven is high up or the mountains are high, and the Emperor is far away.
The local people did not receive much interference from the imperial government, basically because they were too far away and / or too remote.
Which meant that the local government had leeway to govern as they needed....and corruption could go unnoticed.
Please stop using a marginal minority to represent the majority of the Chinese nation.
I assure you that countries are quite real.Just because they fail to meet your arbitrary definitions doesn't make them disappear.
He meant that countries are made up, a story (we fought the oppressors and won) that justifies borders, armies and money, (which are real)all of which are controlled by a small group of people.
There is usually no unifying history, if you realy look at it. Most of the time there are significant minorities like the Scots in the UK that are not part of that myth.
3rd, nations lead to nationalism and empires, both bad things. I think his argument is perswasive .
@@andreaslind6338 Why do you reject the reality of nations, but accept equally socially constructed concepts as real like "borders", "armies" and "money"?
@@testname3829 technicaly those things are imaginary too, money is just paper after all, it has no inherent value, borders are just lines on a map, but a border GUARD is real, the gin he will shoot you with if you try to cross the line is real.
Its a fiction that shapes reality, sorta like how Islam is just a religion, a story, but the fact millions go to Mecca is real, jihad is real.
Same with countries.
This video says more about the American school system than it does any fundamental truth about nation states. What do you even learn in school? Most Americans don't even study a second, let alone a third, language so you have all this extra time for other subjects but the most basic historical concepts are completely foreign to you?
That's exactly what I thought. When I was in high school in Turkey we were taught about how nationalism was spread and how nation as a concept came to fruition. But it appears that Americans only know about it after they are 30.
Exactly... As a French, he was so vague and inexact... Embarassing.
Indeed. It was a display of Yankee ignorance
I think a big element being omitted in this video (which I believe is central to this conversation) is that the idea of the nation is embedded with violence to impose itself. My grandfather was born in Alsace in 1935, so he was born French, then became German, and then became French again during World War II. While his mother tongue was Alsatian (a Germanic language), it was forbidden for him to speak it in school (or even in the street). When he became German, he had to change his name to a German one, and then it was forbidden to speak French in school or on the street. At the end of the day, Alsatian as a culture and language is dying because of this kind of institutional violence of nationalism, and I believe this story can be found in many different places...
That's an exaggeration. Yes there are countries that are mostly made up, specially in Africa. But there are countries that are very old and homogeneous. Like Portugal, has the same borders for over 800 years, same language, national identity, etc.
If a country's borders are consistent for long enough, some cultural homogenization is likely to occur.
All this means is you did not understand. And it was invading, enslaving, robbing Europeans who forced nationhood...meso and south American as well as Africa. Of course, humans are the one race...had not a Chinese and a Japanese emperor each decided on CLOSING BORDERS EXCESSIVELY...you might be writing in a very different way.
Portuguese identity wouldn't exist, at least not in the same way as today, if a random count didn't separate from a larger kingdom because of feudal politics 800 years ago. That region would have unified with the other Iberian kingdoms.
Walk a bit north from the border and you'll come across Galicia, where people speak nearly the same language but identify as Spanish. In fact the most infamous Spanish nationalist, Francisco Franco, was a Galician.
Even in Africa, as much as the lines are recently drawn and have been changed. You can still feel the difference between being in South Africa amongst South Africans and Zimbabwe amongst Zimbabweans. As much as the lines are not accurate the nations and cultures are very much real.
This is the earliest I've been to a Johnny Harris video.
Ok but I still think it’s more peaceful to have 200 countries than 20000 tribes .
Good point
@@mydogisbailey Not one tribe ever nuked another. 😅
Best analogy I can think of is if you've ever worked for a big company. You work in an open plan office where some desks are in team A and some are in team B. One week you get told "oh now these desks are also for team A".... or "you guys now ultimately fall under a different executive for reporting"... it doesn't really affect you at all, your identity is still more rooted in your job role and the people who you deal with more immediately - this would be how nationalism WAS before the modern country idea
A person from another family, therefore another identity, marries another person from another family/identity and they create a new family and kids, therefore new identity...SO, ALL OF THIS IS NOT NEW...HAS BEEN GOING SINCE FOREVER.
Ask Max Fisher what he thinks about Israel
*by **_1206, Mongols were already a unified Nation-State_** with a:*
*- Single unified script aka Mongol script.*
*- Single legal codex known as the Yassa.*
*- Postal system aka the first pony express called the Yam.*
*- Diplomatic passports called the Gereg.*
*- Electoral mechanism aka Khuraldai where Khans were picked by the people.*
*- Defined territory of Mongolia.*
*- Standardized mongol military machine and industrial complex.*
*- Annual census and tax collection.*
*- Kharakhorum capital city.*
*- Administration and imperial seal.*
*The seismic book, "Nomadic Leviathan" by scholar Lhamsuren reexamines the sedentary-centric conception of a nation-state.*
Yeah, but these describe nation-states as tool of administration. The video talks about nations as an identity. During Mongol rules, they didn't care if their subjects identify themselves as Mongol, they were left to their own devises as long as they paid taxes and didn't stir up troubles. They didn't force everyone under their rule to speak the same language, practice the same costume, to express only the same culture, and to worship the same religion. Heck, they didn't even demand loyalty outside of their armies. They didn't care if who they ruled over identified as.
@@ArchOfWinter Yuan Dynasty was literally split into ethnic castes. And their differences were what led to its collapse.
@@leonenjoyer so? there were different ethnic groups, but its not like we have an objective criteria of what makes someone part of an ethnic group. As the nation is based on such a shaky foundation you can only come to the logical conclusion that it is completely made up.
@@thesupergamer43430 Nation is not a based on shaky foundation. It's literally based on groups trying to project as much power with as little people. This is the story of modern humans. Also I'm sure they were able to tell who was Chinese and who was Mongolian lol
@leonenjoyer of course humans are tribalistic, but the metrics we choose to divide ourselves are completely arbitrary. For example, im pretty sure Chinese living in Beijing are closer genetically to people from Mongolia than their fellow Chinese in Hong Kong. Northern Italians have more in common with the French across the border than with Neapolitans.
Johnny: "Napoleon turned France into France perhaps more than any other Frenchman."
My nerdy mind: "He's Corsican."
Cosmopolitan identity tends to be parasitical, a tendency to move to the next fun location rather than having ‘skin in the game’ of caring about a community and working long term to make it better.
The cosmopolitan identity (world citizen) is mostly based on being wealthy enough to be able to move anywhere, and be wanted there.
Cosmopolitanism is really just the same as nationalism except that cosmopolitans are "nationalistic" toward humanity rather than their own nations 🤷♂
@@romeyjondorf can't see much evidence for a benevolent cosmopolitan elite playing constructive roles in the communities they live in, but do see a lot of parasitical behaviour, hopping from one city to the next depending on which community has made themselves more appealing.
@@romeyjondorf Thats not how nationalism works.
@@dna9838 Yeah, I'm not pro-cosmopolitanism at all, I'm actually against it; I was merely calling out the hypocrisy of those people who call themselves cosmopolitans who are supposedly against nationalism.
i heard that WEF pays well.
what do you think Johnny?
In the past 1,000 years, the longest period of China's division was during the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period from around 900 AD to around 960 AD. As history progresses, this period of division is getting shorter and shorter. The most recent time was during the period of the Republic of China, which was only about ten or twenty years.
the line "people might share simular traits, for example red hair" instantly made me know he knew Ireland existed
Globalism, a love story.
A nation is not a myth, it’s an ideal. And most of your French section can be debated as there was a French kingdom united under a king under god for thousands of years. Or in the Roman Empire most people spoke Latin for administration related things that led to the widespread of Latin. And all the “languages” in the France of 1700 came from Latin and shared basic grammatical basis. And nation and empires like the Egyptian one existed really early. And most importantly a nation can be religiously strengthened and still be a nation. It’s a very recent phenomenon the separation of state and church.
Right, the idea of a nation came about from the Neolithic Revolution, right at the beginning of the Holocene. A time when we finally didn't have to constantly run around and remain in one place, and where we could keep track of who's offspring is who's so we can pass on the 'ownership' of said piece of area that we have remained in.
What other languages were spoken in France.
exactly
@@polishherowitoldpilecki5521 undestand the French language roots, the Spanish, German, Ukrainian and Italian ones. Look up who lived in e.g. Berlin during the rise of the n26is. Then you understand more. Same as with Holy Roman Empire, ancient greece... the old Egyptians...
You can see this is Afghanistan and Pakistan too. The Pak-Afghan border literally runs through the Pashtun ethnicity homeland. North Afghanistan is more Tajik populated then actual ethnic Afghans (Pashtuns). And west Pakistan is Iranic and completely different from east Pakistan, which is more Indian.
True, because of how the British split these countries.
Partially explains why they need to hold on to religious nationalism so fervently.
@@jhonklan3794 Exactly
And whats even more funny is that the word India, comes from the indus river which is almost entirely in Pakistan, as well as the indus valley civ, While the major river in India is the ganges, and gangetic civillization was its own seperate thing, the people call the country baharat, not to mention that country historically has been a fragment of different ruling kingdoms for most of its history
HECK, even the word Hindu basically comes from Sindhu, and before the islamic and european conquests referred to the people of Indus valley, ie Pakistanis, the real name for the religion is Sanatan dharam/vedic religion
You can't, because what you just stated is an opposition of nationalism as for one state for one culture.
Quality of Harris videos has crashed into the ground. Half the people who kept their subs stayed to hate watch & I love it haha
thats what happens when TDS takes over these peoples brain. watching his trump video and his kamala video he doesnt even hide the bias against trump and towards dems
@@neenarman Why do you want him to hide his bias? Everybody has a bias, those who say they don't are most likely lying to you.
@@fonsleduck3643 wtf are u talkin about if bias is a factor in how u research (which this is 1000% the case) it creates doubt about the legitimacy of the research. people obviously how bias but im pretty sure its possible to create videos without bias ...😂
@@neenarman It is possible to try to be as balanced and fair as possible yes. But to act like one can be unbiased is absurd. I'd be more wary of youtubers that try to act as if they are unbiased than those that make their pov obvious and don't try to hide it. He's a globalist, so you can understand his motivations with a video like this and know to take certain things with a grain of salt.
@@neenarman 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Are human rights also made up since their identification is purely drawn from agreement between people to recognize them?
yeah.. did we not have slavery?
duh, human rights changed over time, something that is illegal now, might have been perfectly legal few centuries ago, do you think a supreme being made human rights millenia ago, and they have been the same ever since?
OSHA regulations are all social constructs as well, and yet a violation of certain ones can mean certain death for you or others...
Iceland, Japan, Portugal, san marino etc are all very old nation-states
just because these kingdoms had very homogeneous populations doesn't mean they were what we nowadays call a nation-state.
@ to the letter, maybe not. But speaking the same language, having the same culture, and having a notion of a common political entity that in most senses was very much like the one we have in modern nation-states? Surely.
San marino has been a republic since the Roman Empire… Portugal has the same people, borders, language, religion, since the XII century, with very explicit sentences in historical records were the king was the king “of the Portuguese”. Japan, although politically split until 1600s by feudal lords with their clans, had already one unified kingdom since the 1000’s/1100’s (legend says 660, but that’s disputed).
Nevertheless, several centuries of a recognised “collective identity”.
You know Johnny isn't taking the election results well when he's questioning the very necessity of the concept of a country!
This is just in-group/out-group dynamics. Our in-group has expanded as technology allows us to reach more people. As technology improves, barriers reduce and those included within the in-group increases