I want to give a huge thank you to everyone who supports me through Patreon and channel memberships. Without their enduring support, making videos this time and resource intensive would not be possible. If you want to chip in you can find it here: www.patreon.com/rchapman. Video notes below. For those wondering why I focused on France and not the United States, remember that this video was about nationalism. Nationalism was not a significant force in the United States during its founding period. A nation was founded when the United States was created (a newly conceived one American people as a body politic) but it was a nation that emphasized federalism: a federation of states. Political identity and political power, at the time of the revolution was still mostly conceived through those states. In the revolutionary period people still called themselves Virginians, for example, and not Americans. They were generally wary of coming together as one nation, and it was a project that they were generally ready to abandon (for example if the slavery issue was pressed too hard, or if national power was generally seen as being too strong). There was nothing like a single sovereign nation that held virtually unchecked domestic power like you had in France, or a leading popular movement that glorified such a development. Something like Article 3 in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man would have been heresy in the United States. The structure of the American government was actually designed with the premise that such a singular national power was tyranny. They framed their government thinking that national level had to be broken up and constrained as much as possible. I'm describing something like anti-nationalism here. In short, a nation was formed in the United States in the late 18th century, but the nation was a tentative one and you didn't have a clear demonstration of nationalism. Other notes: There seems to be a popular misunderstanding in France that the 'impure blood' line in La Marseilles actually refers to the blood of common French people. They're impure because they're not royal. This interpretation claims that the French were excitedly chanting about charging into battle and watering their own fields with their own blood in a defensive war for democracy. Two main points why it doesn't work: 1) would be a strange army indeed, full of soldiers getting hyped up for war over the prospect of shedding their own blood, not the enemy's, and 2) Lisle (the author) was a royalist and was imprisoned for his beliefs. It doesn't make sense that he would glorify a republican cause as a royalist. It makes even less sense that the republican government would imprison him for royalism if he had just written a popular anthem glorifying republicanism. Unless I'm missing something, it seems like this interpretation is an attempt to make La Marseilles socially acceptable in the modern world and is not based in facts or reality. I believe what I stated in the video about the 'impure blood' being foreign was correct, however unpolitically correct that is now. A note for the Pledge of Allegiance section: some seemed to think that I thought I was reciting the 19th century Pledge and pointed out how it had been modified since then. I considered modifications to the Pledge to be an unnecessary detail considering the scope of the video. I was aware I was reciting the modern version of it, and if you were too, then great. I figured that if people didn't realize that it had been changed, it didn't really affect anything and wasn't worth extending the video to address. Last note - I saw some say I made a mistake categorizing nations in the first section of the video, and say I was actually talking about nation-states. I think if you study the subject and listen closely to what I said you'll find no such mistake occurred. I used the language that is typically used when explaining nationalism. Nations are the broadest unit of the subject and nation-states are the smaller unit within that. When people talk about the spread of nations around the world, they are also talking about the spread of nation-states. When we talk about nations meeting, for example, in the UN, we're talking primarily about a group of people: the nation. When we talk about a representative of the nation of Kenya, we're talking about a representative for a group of people: Kenyans. That nation possesses, or wants to possess, a state. We can also talk about the spread of nation-states, and that's a parallel, closely related story. I talked, for example, about a 'nation of China coming into being,' we're primarily talking about a group of people that politically are recognized as a nation, and also talking about a state that they created. It's correct vernacular. I could have also said 'when the nation-state of China came into being,' but that's a smaller story, specifically referring to China's state. Hope that cleared things up. - Ryan
Let those who want to make videos quickly do so. I go to your videos for something deep, well-researched and well-understood. And that is well worth the time it takes 😁.
I can only speak for myself, but I do not expect you to produce videos frequently. I appreciate the quality of your content and it should be obvious to everyone, that it takes time to do the research. Thus, I don't mind waiting for weeks or even months for the next upload as long as the quality remains excellent.
@@avoicecalling3455 People give too much power to neer do wells just trying to derail conversation/debate about anything outside current mainstream thought.
Ryan, these video essays are absolutely needed in this day and age. Most professors would not dare go into deep details what you put in, just the simple base subjects you hear a thousands times in history class but not how it came to be.
I can't begin to describe my gratitude for your work. Terms are thrown around these days without care or understanding, and I love it when you break down each political ideological term, showing history, the idea, and where it can go in extreme forms. You are so clear and neutral in your videos that I truly feel like I'm receiving an education
He might sound clear but he's def not neutral .. he's informed by 'western' forms of knowledge, like categories, definitions, ontology, episteme and similar. He's def speaking from a certain point of view.
I'm Puerto Rican and my family moved us to the US for a few years in my childhood and then moved us back to PR. But I do remember the entire pledge of allegiance specifically because in 2nd grade I was kindnof just tossed into a classroom without speaking the language very well so I'd never heard it before, but I had a teacher that used to give out daily 'tasks' to all of us and they would rotate so everyone got a turn and they were simple things like lead the class to the lunchroom or take attendance and one of them was lead the class in the pledge of allegiance. So finally it came my turn and I panicked because I didn't know the pledge, like nothing I didn't know what we were saying or what it meant and the day before I had to do it I went and told the teacher, hey you might want to change this one with someone else for the week, I don't know the pledge of allegiance. And she looked at me like omg I forgot you weren't born here and had another kid sit next to me the entire week to teach me the pledge and what it meant. I still remember that dude, his name was Robert Bean, but everybody called him Bob and he was cool as shit cuz he sat there with me and patiently taught me this pledge over and over for the week even though I could barely understand him and he could barely understand me. This all happened in the early to mid-90's before the internet was a thing and I've never seen Bob or heard from him again after I moved back to the island so I wasn't able to stay in touch the way kids today can stay in touch. Im not so sure how I feel ahout the US and PR relationship, but Bob was cool and he was good people. Thanks for the help, Bob. You were such a cool dude to me and welcomed me to the country, I hope you're doing well in life!
That’s so sweet! I migrated from Dominican Republic and I will always remember Sarah, she taught me English and was so patient also my same age at the time - 10 years old
@@nicoleaideth Sarah sounds like good people. I have since moved back to the US as an adult, I miss Puerto Rico every day tho. I hope your experience is going well too.
As a non-American, the idea of making children swear a pledge of allegiance to your country / flag feels like something straight out of China or North Korea.
@@zeenuf00 I guess it’s just different cultural values between our countries. That kind of enforcement of obedience feels like something you’d expect from a military dictatorship, not a democracy.
One thing I wished Ryan would discuss in this video is Nationalism as a reaction to Colonialism. It's the main catalyst for colonized countries to rebel for their independence. It's been very successful in bringing people together and even creating a new international shared identity that is "postcolonialism" which also became the basis for many multinational organizations like Non-Aligned Movement, Asian-African Conference
Agree, though it was kind of touched upon at around 23:39 . I find this type of Nationalism to be the case for my country (the Philippines). In the wars to expel colonizers (against the Spanish, Americans, and Japanese), nationalism was the rallying cry. Unsurprisingly it's even included in the national anthem, where it says something like, "We are happy if there are invaders, because then we could die for you (the Motherland)"
That's wrong. Imperialism is still there, Nationalism doesn't work to get rid of the parasites. The countries should embrace socialism and understand that a country is made of people, and not by the leading class. You can find on your own what I'm talking about my friend, I'm talking about the ted scare from the west while doing coup d'etats everywhere, Iraq Iran Cile Guatemala Nicaragua are some, and let's don't talk about the presence of France in west Africa with the Franc CFU. Search about unequal exchange, it's a real stuff, the west hides it because their imperialism furls their economical world view (Capitalism). Socialism is the real political view that the nations suffering parasites should embrace. China rose to superpower in few decades, lifting people 800 MILLION people out of poverty, that's unheard, that's one of a kind accomplishment. China is and was socialists, letting capitalism in made the west to not ostriches china (as the west always do to socialist countries) and China used the west greed for it's own benefit. China is, was and will be socialist, China approach is the best one since we can see with our own eyes how the quality of life of Chinese people increased dramatically.
@@JRAS_ I am annoyed by the apparent double standard. Polish and especially German nationalism is deliberate and chosen to be anti-foreign occupation or rule. No clearer example would be from the Asian and American colonial experiences, and perhaps contrasted with the African colonial and national experiences. Would this not be happening in parallel in some cases historically, unless it isn't a nation unless it starts in Europe or something... which I don't believe Ryan Chapman subscribes to. I'll just say this isn't one of his better videos.
@@ghostlightning Of course it's been going on since we were monkeys living in family groups in the trees. Maybe earlier. There's safety in numbers and in the face of danger/attack, you rely on your tribe to defend itself and its interests. But it's in Europe that the idea of the Nation State takes over from tribal fiefdoms, city states, or kingdoms ruled by a so-called nobility. And then seeks to maintain the idea of National Identity, even in the face of tribal differences (real or perceived). See how the Scots, Irish and Welsh feel about the English, for example.
halfway though this video i had to stop and remember i am watching a production edited and stiched together to present a set of ideas. it was that immersive. the art, the storytelling, the concepts were all very well woven together. bravo! subscribed.
Thank you, Ryan! 😊 I’ve studied this stuff my whole life, across a 10-year academic career-but always a bit of it in an art survey course, a bit in a political science course, a bit in an English lit course, etc. The way you weave these threads together in a way that brings coherence and clarity to a concept never ceases to astound and inspire me. I got so much from this! Thank you for raising my consciousness! You da man. :)
I hope you make a video on "what is conservatism?". You've already made great in-depth videos on socialism, fascism, american liberalism and now nationalism, but not conservatism yet.
@@realryanchapmanCan you please also do a video on liberalism in general and how it developed because you did only American Liberalism while the other ideologies got a general one?
If you go back to the fascism video that should explain It perfectly for you!😊 Conservatism,Liberalism have no definition Einstein because everyone has a different opinion of what they think it is or should be and that goes for those or any other ideology. As far as the conservatives go though I'll tell you one thing they all seem to agree on is greed!
This channel is the best Intro to Political Science course you could ever find. This channel illustrates RUclips's educational potential at it's very best.
I love these videos where you chart the evolution of an idea. When you set it out like this, I'm able to recognise some sloppy thinking that I've had around these topics. Nationalism in particular has ideas that seem obvious, but are clearly historically contingent.
I've never thought about how taken for granted the ideals of nationalism are. Loved the video! I like your content, I wish I could make videos as in-depth and balanced as you do!
I can' t remember ever experiencing a more excellent lecture. The structure and clarity of you work is exceptional. I look forward to watching all of your videos.🎉
He forgot to mention that in 1 century of unification the germans had committed 3genocides and 2world wars while the French abolished slavery spread the civil code and the metric system
This video made so many concepts click into place for me! It's like I loosely had most of the pieces and this helped finally line them all up to give an outstanding social perspective. Great work through and through my man!
Your videos keep getting better with each release. I've watched your channel grow from when you just had a few videos. Your work is incomparable. Extraordinarily high-quality educational material. This is the youtube medium at its best, in my opinion.
This is too good to be true. Vague, meaningless philosophical, scientific and political videos no longer intrigues me. But these objective, detailed, well written videos of Ryan truly grasp my attention for an hour straight. Thank you very much.
An amazingly well structured video. What I liked in particular was the amount of sources that you used, the way you quoted them and gave names and authors of the sources. Thank you
Love it! Couple of months ago i struggled really hard making an amateur article about Nationalism. So hard i hated my own finished article, it felt like an unfinished product that i released because of dead lines. Watching your video gave me a chance to peek on how a well researched, well written and well narrated articles could have become. I was a bit down before and kind of stop writing articles for awhile, but after this i want to start writing again. I want my article to be this good. I want to be better. Thank you! 😉
Love your videos as always! I wanted to show this to my friends and discuss it with them, but sadly none of my friends are interested in these kinds of topics.
This is truly incredible. Fantastic technical standards and wonderful production values. It is comprehensive and anticipates my questions before they are clearly formed in my own mind.
This channel is pehaps the most important source of history and political understanding the world over has. Ryan, you have created yet another darling diamond amongst the backdrop of a corrupted world with those bent on twisting, spinning, and mangling hisory to their personal will for their personal gain. I don't know how you're able to curate such objective teachings so consistently, but I am thankful in just how much effort, hord work, and soul you impart into each of your productions. I know you've been personally struggling with what to do with this channel from time to time, but all I can do is give thanks, have hope for you, and apologize. I thank you for all you have already taught us, I hope you continue to follow your passions regardless whether or not this channel is a part of that endeavor, and I apologize for imparting any further pressure with my flattery; it is the most sincere and not in vain.
Hearing you touch on philosophy, even briefly, makes me think of how great it would be for you to do videos on different philosophies in your objective, educational style. Would love to hear your breakdown on Hagelienism for instance
Love the new understanding of the word nation, that you provide in the beginning. I have always come to the understanding that when people say, someone died for their nation/country, they mean that the person died for the people in that country, not actually an abstract idea that enables a political system.
The small group, the people you personally know and perhaps your home town, would be that sort of group I think. The army is about making you function with oddballs from all over. The mass conscript army we had during the Cold War had to bunch a cutout of a whole generation and stick them in a platoon.
There is something genuinely unparalleled about your content. The clarity and purpose put into every moment as you explain a subject is is outstanding. Keep it up.
I absolutely love these break down video essays. They are so beautifully crafted and you are truly phenomenal. Please continue to do more ideologies! I can't wait for the Conservatism or Communism or maybe even Libertarianism!
Hey great video! One comment though on the Marseillaise, the « impure blood » is not the one of the ennemy, but the one of the French people sacrificing themselves for the nation. It is said « impure » in opposition to the nobility’s so-called « pure » blood. The marseillaise is not a call for agressive war, but one to rise in defense of the ideals of democracy against monarchy :)!
Hey, thanks! I'm looking into the 'impure blood' line. Do you have a reference for what you're saying? I thought the standard understanding was how I framed it in the video. Also Lisle was a royalist, no? Or was at least imprisoned for being a suspected royalist. If the song was understood to be in the point of view of the republicans and glorifying their cause, how does that square?
HI@@realryanchapman ! Fair point! I had a deeper look and it turns out that while what I told you is the way many people interpret it nowadays in France, and something that I had accepted as truth without really checking on it, it is acutally wrong. I just looked into it and it is actually very easy to trace this back to an attempt to change the original meaning of the song and make it more acceptable nowadays. We should always be as honest as possible owning our history and properly remembering it in order not to make the mistakes of the past, even if it is embarassing to try to explain to our neighbours why the French hymn is so aggressive. So I stand corrected thanks for pushing back :)! And thanks again for all your wonderful videos that help us make better sense of the modern world.
@@Gailurin1 Hi, thanks for being open minded! Is the original comment yours? For the sake of the educational purpose of the channel it would be best if the OP could update it to make it factually accurate.
Thank you sir for your work. Presentation is well done. I never learned about nationalism in this context. There is a limit to how much education can be injected into students in primary school, high school and even college. But it seems that our schools could find an hour somewhere to share this information to everyone as they grow up.
Oh Ryan! This was the essential but absent lecture of the Enlightenment module in my uni Humanities course. At the end of that module our Tutor asked "What do we think of Rousseau?", and went around the room. You have articulated why I answered that it would have saved millions of lives had his mother been smothered at birth. The Tutor was shocked, so I cited The Reign of Terror, The Napoleonic Wars, The Bolshevik Revolution, Stalinism, Fascism, Nazism, Maoism and Pol Pot. She had been a particular admirer of The Cultural Revolution in China... My marks for later modules took a dive, and I suspect that she has been in therapy ever since. Thank you for a wonderfully balanced and thorough exposition of a very complicated subject. 🙏
Yes. In hindsight it's so obvious that they should have just kept the king. I can't even imagine how brainwashed people would have to be to say otherwise. Nothing good came out of liberal-nationalism except failures humanity can potentially learn from.
Linking Pol Pot to the French enlightenment deserves a failure. Unless you want to do a very broad history of state terror. And then you would probably need to start with the assyrians.
Fantastic video! The ideas introduced by nationalism have become so deeply ingrained that any world view depend on it. Those quotes from Rosseau are incredible. It is a blueprint for the following 3 centuries of political and cultural developments. And the idea of being able to alter the minds of millions of people and how they view themselves and the world, with the effect of much greater political unity, must have seemed outlandish at the time. But it worked! Nationalism today often presents itself as defending cultural identities against globalization, for example within the EU, but those identities are themselves made from the ashes of the endless diversity that it assimilated into something completely new. So many dead or dying languages. In a world ruled by Nationalism, Catalonia can't exist without becoming its own nation. Nationalism will always result in replacing something organic with something inorganic, but given enough time we forget all that the world lost.
I disagree. If nationalism, in your words, is an inorganic construct, then the organic opposite would be imperalistic internationalism, that would simultaneously ignore cultural borders, as well as enforce metropolitan unity. Its a self defeating idea to call nationalism as "inorganic" to the functions of the humanity, for the primitive form of nationalism is tribalism, and if you dismiss tribalism as "inorganic", you agree that imperialism is the organic opposite of it, again. For imperialism doesnt care for national borders, imperialism seeks a metropolitan standard. Imperialism is anti-nationalist and destroys boundaries of nations. In such a case - is it natural, or erosive, that imperial states conquer nation states? A nation state does not have an ambition to enforce itself wholly unto another nation state, the extent of conflicts between nation states is about boundaries of nations, rather than strategic interests. If there was a way to describe the nation-empire dichotomy in natural, nations are prey, and empires are predators. It is false and anti-intellectual to assume either of them as inorganic, for both have existed always, and the former has always fallen prey to the latter predator. Tl;dr - i find you calling "nations" as "inorganic" offensive and historically false.
@@konstancemakjaveli I think that it depends. For example, taking the case of Catalonia, Catalan nationalism (like any other nationalism) created many national symbols to build its nation. One of them is the national dance of Catalonia, the Sardana. But the Sardana was not THE dance of Catalonia at all. It was present in some parts of the region and it was not a distinctive and well-known element of all Catalans. But because in the 19th century the Sardana was chosen as a national symbol of Catalan identity it spread to the entire Catalonia. Nowadays the Sardana is not that popular specially among younger people. Those that means that something that is organic, natural and "has always existed" as part of Catalan identity will disappear ? Maybe it wasn't as organic as we may think in the first place. Many national identities and symbols all around the world are just like that. But that doesn't make them fake. We all live in nations states and they will influence and affect our worldviews without doubt. And just expanding what the first comment said, the main idea is that many nationalisms have already destroyed many languages, identities and other nations that existed inside their state. Usually a state is created by a majoritarian central nationalism. But because the borders of this new state are not "natural" or "organic" there are other languages, cultures and peoples inside this state that are different or not even part of the main nationalism that dominates the state. Then what does this nationalism in order to truly say that it is something "organic" and "natural" ? It tries to homogenize and erase these other identities and nations that may pose a problem to the the statement of "one state = one nation". Such process of nationalization is what the France has done with the Occitan language for example. Or China is doing with Tibetans, Uyghurs and Mongolians. Spain with Catalan, Basques and Galicians. Turkey with the Kurds. The Japanese with the Ainu people. Russia with all its vast east regions (Russians are already the majority in many "ethnic" republics of the Russia Federation). The UK also did it with Ireland, there is a debate if maybe that was more a colonialism thing because it happened before the 19th century romanticism. In India now the Hindu BJP wants to create a more Hindu India, against all the other Indian languages and specially Indian Muslims. Even in pre colonial states like Canada or many Latin America countries you can see the same process but now against the native americans who had to change and adapt to western culture, clothes and customs. Almost in every nation state you will see the same will and need of nationalize and homogenize its population. It has to be said that nowadays more states are more open to have a more diverse identity (like New Zealand and the Maori people), but it's more difficult to happen. So yeah, nationalisms and nations are not organic or natural, as well as their borders. Of course, in my view even if these are modern phenomena you can still see a kind of continuation in human history. Take for example Catalonia again. You can observe a similar polity or political entity that exists during different eras (the first counties, the Aragon crown, the Spanish monarchy and finally the Spanish nation-state) and you can see similar actions and a similar "identity" and group of people that has its role in the politics of the peninsula and the Mediterranean. Or also with the transformation of the Frankish Kingdom into the French monarchy, that maintained the similar space despite the years. But again, to speak of nations here is very difficult, almost impossible.
@@Aurekbeshisk i disagree, again. What you describe is metropolitan imperialism. There are far too many examples of true nation states that never were imperial metropolitans, that never have conducted anything similair, even some post-imperial legacy nation states such as Poland or Turkey dont do that, at least to the extent Russia/soviet union, France or Spain has
@@konstancemakjaveli I could see a very powerful nation-state acting with a very universalist imperialist view. That's true. A nation that ironically claims universalism. But I think that the examples that you refer are still examples of nation states that have tried a policy of nationalization (or metropolitan imperialism, as you describe it). Turkey has a very famous history of trying to create a Turkish state. The Anatolian peninsula has both the kurds and the Armenians. There are many Armenian cities which had a huge importance for the history of that nation and now they have Turkish names and no Armenian population. Needless to mention the Armenian Genocide and the long armed conflict of the Kurdish State and the PKK. And as for Poland, it was a very multi-ethnic country in the past, just like many other eastern European countries. But with the second world war and the past wars with Russia the country's demographics changed a lot. The borders moved hundreds of kilometers and the German minority was deported to Germany (after the defeat of nazism). Now Poland is one of the most homogeneous countries in the world. I think you are confusing nationalism with universal imperialism. Some countries like France, the US, the UK or Russia have reivindicated a claim of being universal or representatives of civilization beyond being a mere state. Maybe you are thinking about that. Because nationalism could be thought as the opposite, except maybe these more imperial nations.
@@Aurekbeshisk you are confalting "nation" and "state". When i say nation, i mean a state that bases its identity in some nationality, with certain borders. When i say empire, i mean a state that sees itself as expansionist and without a central identity. One would say ancient empires have a central identity, making them a state but i wouldnt call it that, since they were autocratic god-king empires that ruled over 100s of nations with a metropolitan grip. Meanwhile, the modern Turkish state, for example, didnt do any metropolitanism, at least afaik. Yes, they commited genocide. Yes, they supprress Kurds. But they dont assimilate, like France, Russia/USSR, China or Spain. This is the ugly truth of the nation - it exterminates, not assimilates. Thats what sets itself apart from empire. Even though i support the 21st century post-imperial nationstates, i have ti admit - it is a much more bloody construct than a empire ever could be. We only need to look at the national socialists of germany, who attempted a racial socialist utopia, not from metropolitan assimiliation, but through bloody extermination. And thats why i dont support your interpretations. Extermimations are very organic, they are *darwinian*, and claiming that nations are inorganic is on the same level as holocaust denial.
How did this just become my favorite RUclips Channel? I'll tell you how. Thorough unbiased and valuable knowledge imparted by a well-spoken narrator whose passion for the history of humanity is palpable not through spectacle but through his steady hand and concise yet in-depth analysis. No filler or clickbait here. Thank you for these gems of wholesome intellectual content sir.
I met my wife in Poland and was completely taken with the deep cultural pride that her countrymen have of the Polish nation. To see kids wear their national military uniform in a shopping mall as a Canadian kid might wear their local hockey team's jersey was astounding to me, and I was one of those kids as a cadet! I feel a sense of responsibility to help shape nationalism for our children now in an uncertain world. I want them to identify the importance of keeping a defined nationality alive for Canada and Poland... But also know where the brake handle is when emotions start getting involved with their perception of "proper national conduct".
Your videos keep getting better with each release. I've watched your channel grow from when you just had a few videos. Your work is incomparable. Extraordinarily high-quality educational material. This is the youtube medium at its best, in my opinion.
These videos are a gem, really. Too often do you hear nationalism being conflated with a irridentism or collectivism. While that might hold true for some versions of it, it is not a given. In the same way that there are many versions of socialism or conservatism.
Hi Ryan - I really appreciate your great videos. I find them really accessible yet thorough, helping a ‘layperson’ like me understand some very complex concepts. I have come across recently “anarcho-capitalism” and would you do a video on that one at some stage (if you have not already)? No worries if not, whatever you do will be interesting. Cheers C
thank you for displaying the text with foot notes to the author and publications from which you gather your ideas. that's a really good technique. to my way of thinking nationalism begins with the printing press and the the willingness of people who can understand one another to work together. i got the 30 years war to back me up on that.
Another excellent video!! Thank you for consistently creating videos that are so well-researched and edited with the goal of being balanced. All the topics are timely and help me gain deeper context into current politics! Will be taking notes on this video and looking into the texts you referenced :D I always finish your videos feeling excited to learn more and make new connections.
Thank you for making this video that clarifies nationalism very well. I can see that such content and presenting comes only from a person that has a deep understanding of the topic 👍👍
So you've studied this topic before yet you still don't realize he defined the word nation completely wrong? And that this video is just full of wrong shit. Where are you, and this guy and all the other people in the comments getting your information from? Because it seems almost everyone has been misguided and fed false information their whole lives. I mean most people in general don't know what the word "nation" means but I'd think people who actually even slightly studied the topic would know. I mean shit I don't advocate using the dictionary to define political philosophies because they are so much more complex than that bit when it comes to WORDS like "nation", it takes 2 seconds to google "definition of nation' and see that this guy has no clue whatsoever what he's talking about. He's just like saying shit that he thinks sounds right. He probably read some shit on Wikipedia and watched a history Channel documentary and made this video.
Very enlightening! Thank you so much for this. I am Nigerian and I, few years ago, started wondering how we started having our problems and I traced it all back to nationalism and this answers my question on how and why nationalism came into place in the world.
Fantastic video. It seems to be me we have melted nationality down to the point where it's almost totally replaced community. Civic participation is waaaay down. Regular citizens mostly think their job is to vote and that's it and if their community is failing its the governments fault or a larger issue of the nation when in fact it's their own doing.
It's all intertwined. We are atomized and isolated by our physical environment, and our time is monopolized by jobs that frequently don't pay a living wage, so it's hard to muster the energy for building community. Plus both major American parties serve capital instead of the people who work to create it, and third parties aren't viable under our current voting system, at least nationally. Voting is most effective locally, but those elections are the ones with the least fanfare and investment, and turnout is poor.
I never watch an hour long videos on RUclips. I honestly didn’t know it was an hour long. I thought it was 20-25 minutes long until I saw the time. I’m freaking out. That’s amazing man
You will be hard pressed to find a person who is not a national of some nation, so swear word is far fetched, it has also been a swear word from the moment of it's conception because it is anti nation-state somewhat by design and that is a big nono, which the nation requires it has no nations within (that desire sovereignty) or it will split figuratively and literally(the confederacy),
@@ГеоргиГеоргиев-с3г my friend the word you're speaking of is "nationality" which is very different. Nationalism is the political ideology that states that there is such a thing as a united people, who possess a common will and common identity, and in whose interest alone the institutions of power must act. In most European liberal democracies, such an ideology is reserved for the hardest of right wing parties
@@sanssucreajoute6554 are you sure you are a nationalism, you edited the wrong thing, it ought to be a nationalist, the -ism is reserved for the ideologies the -ist 's are for the people following them. And they do have a point, one is the head one is the tail of the same beast (nazi being the folk talk for fascist), just depends on the will of the "people"(nation, because nations don't consider all people within them as their people) and the coin can flip. 10-20 years of the wrong kind of schooling, regardless of place (home, public or private, religious because it can be all three or secular) , is enough, that is why critical thinking(the science kind, not the "i know it all, so i will tell you how to think" kind, not everyone understands the scientific method and they tend to use the term incorrectly) is so important in schools, so you don't raise a bunch of beefy cattle that does whatever the nation wants, because that way you get the cult of fascism in which only the head(cult leader/governing body) has a functional mind. This is why most countries dislike religious schools, and go for secular (1 it gives potential rise of micro nations within a nation wich is unacceptable because it can shatter a nation, but mostly 2), the unique god figure without opposing viewpoints tends to make cults out of most folk that follow, leading to national religious racism(the fear of the "other", because they don't think like you, or because you feel they do think like you which perspective is dangerous for all involved). See video above for information.
This was a very comprehensive video explaining nationalism as an ideology, I personally hadn't looked at it this way and so kudos for expanding our knowledge on such an elusive topic, Ryan (especially with the authors you cited)! I would like to present another viewpoint though which could perhaps explain how we see nationalism today (As a political scientist, I've been studying it in contexts of minority language, regionalism and resistance movements). I personally view the concept as a movement more than as an ideology, but it's pretty fair to say that it can (and does depending on the specific historical context, time and nation) encompass both. I couldn't help but think that the nationalism as you describe in the early stages of the French Republic (of the many to come) was just another way of saying nation-building as you did at some point. To say that nationalism is an ideology in this certain context however, I think would be leaving out the fact that nationalism as we see it today, in nation-states well established such as the United States, México, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, etc., is seen more as a form of patriotism and sense of belonging (sometimes as populism) to a singular well-established and enforced national identity. What makes this topic pretty elusive is partly what you suggest through the characterization of it in two ways, by the modern logical/rational/empirical/scientific thought of the Enlightenment period and that of Romanticism. You could argue that although France in the political development that largely spans before its official or modern history, which obviously contributed to it into becoming a consolidated nation-state and democratic republic but, was also inherently tied to a so-called "nationalist ideology" (many elites of which were not willing to support or advocate), the same way many modern nation-states had been succumbed to as well throughout their histories of not even being nation-states, that nationalism could then be thought of as an objective/goal or dream (utopic in nature) to come by which the political and ruling elite of each society (those that composed of each of them in their respective territories before each modern nation-state was even established) were trying to achieve. As far as how and what each of those ruling class/elites accomplished (and advocated for) is what makes me believe that nationalism can't solely be thought of as an ideology, at least in the French and German historical context that you described. Basically what I'm trying to say is that nationalism as a concept is too broad and fragmented (and therefore inadequate) to even be considered an ideology in comparison to the others you mentioned, much less responsible for the creation of the modern nation-state. One great example that puts this into perspective which was mentioned in the video is Italy. As far as we can tell from the works of Dante Alighieri, Francesco Petrarca, and Giovanni Boccaccio (scholars which are also classified as members of the political elite, not so much the ruling class), the possibility of the "unification" of Italy as we know it today is contributed largely in part to these three fathers of the Italian language. This implies that many languages were already present in the Italian peninsula and that these languages were not mutually intelligible with each other, giving rise to problems of communication and the desire of a single language that everyone could learn and use. However, the unification of Italy can also be accounted for by regional geopolitical interests which focused on extending and maintaining power over the other political entities that historically occupied the Italian peninsula. Not to mention that there was a general interest in ousting and keeping foreign powers not native to the Italian peninsula away. These are narratives that point to different reasons (surely there are many more) as to the unification and eventual establishment of an Italian nation-state. Insofar as we clarify who is responsible or a partaker in the "nationalist ideology", it's possible to see just how minuscule of a role it can play, depending on each case and time-frame, in the establishment of a "nation-state", and therefore, in the sense of nationhood shared by all inhabitants. It must be said that nationalism, at this point, can be generally and simply described as a tool that served to gain power and domination, of which was proposed and advocated for by the certain political and elite classes of their times (in mi opinion, before the official establishment of most modern nation-states). In this time frame, it can be described more accurately as a discourse which, depending on the historical era and case, differs significantly (that is also why I consider it contemporaneously as a movement, there is no need for it to be promoted and imposed aggressively, at least in the same way it was during the early histories of each modern nation-state). To contrast the nationalism you describe in the French case, a similar type can also be identified in 11th century (and beyond) what today is now known as France. The royal class was very much in favor of promoting and establishing a French national identity on the basis of a purely French Parisian language and culture (ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts and the great ordinance of 1254 under the reign of Charles IV, for example). Yet, as you also described in your video, many communities far from the urban centers were not thrilled, so much so that it was dangerous at one point for French to even be imposed as a language. There was a counterbalance here which saw the interests of the ruling elite class and those of the regional groups at odds. This doesn't mean that nationalism ceased to exist or that it was even an ideology to begin with, simply put, the ruling elite class had an agenda and it came to finally succeed when the political conditions (and political consensus as the French Revolutions would show us) united all the popular interests of the territory that was being established as one or, as that of the general will/people, however you'd like to call it. It was never meant to actually unite all of the distinct interests that existed, nor did these so-called nationalism efforts even attempt to do so. Yet, despite the lack of suffrage that constituted the newly formed republics, not just France, the political circumstances mixed with the nationalist efforts to unify and homogenize the populations of their territories was so effective that people from the regional communities had no other choice than to side with those who were closer to them ethnically and culturally speaking. There is much more that could be said but I think the complexity and elusiveness of nationalism as showcased leaves us with a major takeaway: Its classification can and does differ depending on the certain historical periods, nations and people involved. Nationalism as an ideology doesn't necessarily explain why many French political and royal elite who fell under this category advocated it with caution, not to mention many were outright against the advocacy of nationalism. In my opinion, nationalism as an ideology can be identified properly as such till after the official and successful establishment of the nation-state, but as an ideology mostly of the State, not so much of the nation (this changes over time); it is a process of nation-building which is still fiercely active in many, many countries today (Then there are countries like Canada, the United States, among others which seem to harbor a very weak sense of nationhood or national identity, yet assimilate so well).
4:06 Fun fact, that word 'nemtsi' is actually a pan-slavic word that often refers to Germans. In Polish, the word is "Niemcy" (pronounced very similarly) and means Germans/Germany.
Another fun fact: the word "nemtzi" is based on the word "nemoy" or "nemiy", which means "mute". That is how local people viewed foreigners - as mute people, or people who can't talk.
I just found your channel I already delved into John Locke, Adam Smith, modern politics. I would be so interested in a full break down of Libertarianism. Regardless I hope to interview you some day.
A very well thought out piece! I think an often-overlooked aspect of this term in modern historical-Political discourse is how Nationalism was intrinsically tied to Liberalism for its first 150 or so years. As a counterweight to the old Multi-Ethnic Empires that dominated the world during the French Revolution, the idea that those Empires should be split up into nations, and those nations should ideally be Republics, seemed to naturally go hand in hand in opposition to the old order. Its only recently that the term nationalism seems to find itself more at home in the right, and I would construe that as being a product of the fact that conservative and liberal, right and left, and to some extent nationalism, socialism and the rest are all relative terms, that may be given basic definitions, but in reality, the practice of those definitions look widely and almost incoherently different depending on the time, place and culture they find themselves in. In a world where Liberal ideas dominate, what is Conservativism? How can it be anything other than the preservation of those original liberal values that our ancestors fought for 200 years ago? It's such thoughts that make me resent those who treat these ideas as absolutes, an effort to lump contradictory policies under one banner, and to treat one side as "good" and the other as "bad" when the reality is far more complex.
Thankyou for this. Your videos educate me while my hands are busy. I get to share these with my partner, then have discussions over lunch about the topics you've raised. Genuinely grateful for the effort you put in to each essay, to teach us laypeople what I wouldn't've had the patience, context, or time to appreciate if taught formally. Subscribed, and appreciative ❤
I like Yuval Noah Harari's explanation of nationalism. "1. Imagined Communities: Harari explains that nations are essentially "imagined communities" where people feel a shared sense of identity and belonging, even though most of them have never met or interacted with the majority of their fellow citizens. He emphasizes that nations are not natural or objective entities but are constructed through cultural, political, and historical narratives. 2. Myths and Narratives: Harari argues that nationalism often relies on myths and narratives that create a sense of common history, culture, and destiny. These narratives are used to reinforce the idea of a unified nation and can be both powerful and dangerous when taken to extremes. 3. Modern Nationalism: Harari discusses the rise of modern nationalism, which he attributes to the decline of traditional communal bonds, such as religion and local communities, and the emergence of the modern state. Nationalism became a unifying force in a world where older sources of identity were eroding. 4. Double-Edged Sword: Harari acknowledges that nationalism has played a significant role in shaping the modern world, contributing to political stability, social cohesion, and economic development in many cases. However, he also highlights the dark side of nationalism, including conflicts, wars, and discrimination, often driven by the exclusion of "others" who don't fit the national narrative. 5. Nationalism in the 21st Century: Harari discusses the challenges and transformations facing nationalism in the 21st century. He notes that globalization, technology, and migration are reshaping the way people perceive and experience nationalism. Additionally, he warns about the potential dangers of extreme nationalism, which can lead to xenophobia, isolationism, and intolerance. Overall, Harari's perspective on nationalism is complex. He recognizes its historical significance and its role in human development but also emphasizes the need for a critical and nuanced understanding of nationalism in the modern world, given its potential for both positive and negative consequences."
@@vulpex4105 Copy this text and you will get to his book, or just read it. "The coming technological bonanza will probably make it feasible to feed and support people even without any effort from their side. But what will keep them occupied and content? One answer might be drugs and computer games. Unnecessary people might spend increasing amounts of time within 3D virtual-reality worlds that would provide them with far more excitement and emotional engagement than the drab reality outside. Yet such a development would deal a mortal blow to the liberal belief in the sacredness of human life and of human experiences. What’s so sacred about useless bums who pass their days devouring artificial experiences?"
i think what contributed to your videos being amazing is that listening to you is just an absolute pleasure. i’m not dozing off for a second. you could put this up as a podcast
I love your neutral explanation of a concept that has become a “dirty word” in recent years. Believing in nationalism does not coincide with bigoted or racist ideas as certain people would have you think.
Well, the fundamental assumption of nationalism is that the world is divided into distinct peoples, races or nations by nature. It's not a far step to racism. And then one would have to ignore the history of nationalism, i.e. the history of colonialism and the fact that fascism was the most visible form of nationalism in modern times.
@@in.der.welt.sein.The concept of race can be used to help to define a nation, although it is too general a concept to be the sole defining aspect of it. Ethnic and linguisc groups often correlate with racial features on average. Languages can be adopted, but their ethnic basis is the prior truth which nationalism can be based on.
"is that the world is divided into distinct peoples, races or nations by nature" - @@in.der.welt.sein. Are you trying to say the world isn't made up of distinct peoples, races or nations by nature? lmao.
@@GARBAGE_MUSIC no, who would deny that these things exist? But it's absurd to act as if these things exist merely by nature and not as the product of socially constructed histories. My claim is that nationalism as an explanation of these differences gets cause and effect backwards, and it doesn't explain these differences inasmuch as it assumes them, takes them for granted as a natural fact ignoring the social history of these concepts, and then in the final analysis, justifies the domination and subordination of some nations, peoples, or races by others.
Год назад+1
I appreciate that you take the time necessary to produce quality content. I can't wait to watch your next video.
I've learnt so much from these condensed nuggets of objective information. Watch as many of these as you can before objective information becomes a thought crime.
And grouping together with like-minded people who share your values, culture, traditions, political ideals, etc is completely natural and good. You will never fit the diversity of humankind under a single rule.
Thanks for this excellent and thorough coverage of nationalism. It clarified my understanding. especially with regard to fascism. I have supported your work in the past on Patreon, and as soon as my financial challenges are resolved, I will resume that support. Your work here is an extremely valuable resource for developing a general understanding of our nation and a variety of the elements that support and maintain it. We can not hope to be an effective leader of nations if our people do not understand correctly the elements of our democratic republic, their limitations and the history of their development. Historical understanding leads to wiser decisionmaking, and empowers citizens to hold their leaders, and themselves, accountable.
An interesting current item to regard is whether we should discuss the current conflict as "Gaza-Israel war" or "Hamas-Israel war". On one hand, "Hamas-Israel" war feels more book accurate, because Gazans have not actually voted about launching an attack. On the other hand, such constructions belie the fact that the monopoly of power in Gaza truly is only held by one institution, which is the government, which is Hamas.
Commenting for the algorithm, as this video (and this channel) deserves a wider audience. On the video itself; I'm noticing some interesting parallels between the 'dream of a nation' that were the inspiration for the French revolution, and a similar sentiment echoed in Socialist ideas. That is; a dream of everyone in a Nation being equal, and holding equal power to everyone else. The problem, of course (and the reason socialism is growing in popularity) is that the concept of the 'modern western democracy' has created the very thing it was trying to replace - a "ruling class" (monarch>>politician) with all the political power (or an oversized share at least) and a "peasant class" with none/very little political power. Now I'm not saying the voting public in present day western nations have NO political power, but given how the political class are demonstrably abysmal at representing the interests of the voting public (see Mr Beat's video on "Corporate Welfare" or PF Jung's video on "A new chapter in online politics") thus we have a similar SENTIMENT to revolutionary France.
In my opinion, nationalism is like a knife. It's morality is not defined by it's existence, but by for what it's used. Is used to prepare a meal, to operate a patient or is it used to slash someones throad. It is an essential and universal tool, that is of great use to those who have it, but should not be used for all the purposes, it can perform.
I was initially worried you might be biased but God dam you gotta love a nice clean educational video that doesn't pull the creators opinions in too heavily
I think you are missing out on deeper forces. In anthropology the nation is linked, as the etymology of the word implies, to the notion of birth. A nation, like its counterpart the ethnicity (from the Greek 'ethnos') is "People of one's own kind". Essentially, the sentiment upon which the nation is built, is that of the sibling and the common ancestry. It entails that what nationalists try to solicit in citizens' minds, is the notion - often fictitious in a cosmopolitan society - that they belong to the same biological family. Nationalist ideologues rely on the core markers of the human experience to bolster this sentiment : A common language and a common reminiscence. This is the very reason the thinkers of the Enlightenment sought to promote cosmopolitism as a means to strip nationalism of its potential for hegemony. But liberal idealism until recently, didn't anticipate the notion put forth by Hegel, that the propensity to form a common teleological end, would be equally as strong as unity by birth. It entails that "People of one's own kind" also means "People who share one's own goals". This is the reason all political discourse, and most saliently among those, populist discourse, emphasize a simple common goal, as much as a common ethnic identity in non-cosmopolitan societies. If you analyze present-day Indian, Chinese or American nationalism, you will see various degree of reliance on common ancestry. Whereas Modi can play the biological and religious identity card easily in India, in the US, Trump has to balance these tropes with a teleological end, American Exceptionalism. You will notice also that to further seal the efficacy of these discourses, all nationalists enhance the contrast of their propositions by designated a common enemy. It works like a charm and it need not be provable ; it only needs to be sustained and loathsome.
Religion does exactly the same. It unifies a large number of disparate people under one commonality, with a figurehead (real, imaginary, mythologized), and with a common enemy (the Devil).
I think local patriotism was more common in the early modern period. The crown is far away, your in-group is much smaller. Like your town, your nomad tribe, your village league etc. And sometimes the slightly different peasants just across a shifting border.
It is curious that the word 'nation' had such a different and flexible meaning before the French Revolution. Another word I've come across that also had very different and curious meaning centuries ago was 'race', where it mean a specific family line. "I am the last of my race" = last of my family line. Apparently such usage was fairly common at one point. Always interesting to see the evolution of words over time like this.
Nation has never meant what he says it means. A "nation" doesn't have borders. Where are the borders for the kurds? Where are the borders for the Pashtu nation? A state has borders and states today tend to be "nation-states" but a nation state isn't a nation. Like Israel has borders and its a nation state but the Ashkenazi Jewish nation don't have borders.
@@McCarthy1776 As an ashkenazi jew, I don't know anyone who see it as a nation. People debate the existence of a jewish nation, Israeli nation, palestinian nation, or arab nation, but Ashkenazi nation is news to me.
conservatism socialism nationalism and liberalism are not all mutually exclusive with each other. In fact "conservatism" isn't even an ideology, it's an adjective that describes a given set of beliefs in relation to sociohistorical norms. For example, when the youth in the USSR were demanding economic freedom, while the old wanted to keep the communist system, who were the conservatives? You would obviously describe the old people as "conservative", not as a noun, but as a temperament. Being a "conservative" has wildly different meanings depending on if you're from China, Western Europe, America or any other society that exists. Those 4 ideologies are not distinct from each other. There is too much overlap depending on the culture in context to claim that the world is objectively divided into those 4 camps. They are not platonic categories, they are simply adjectives. We are all individuals, and we all have our own unique philosophy. There are infinite ways you can choose to categorize the beliefs that currently exist in the world. Left/Right, liberal/conservative, socialist/capitalist, nationalist/globalist, it doesn't matter. Those are only temporal heuristics to make sense of the world. They are not idealist objective boxes that you can place each individual into. ok. done with my rant. everyone should try to study epistemology
I am a fairly conservative social democrat, and to me it's the libertarians and the new crop of weird wannabe conservatives who are the funky new kids.
Hi, I want to point out something regarding nationalism in China. Chang Kaishek was not the one actually formulated the ideals of nationalism in China. He should be Sun Yetsun (孙逸仙), a figure revered both in mainland China and Taiwan. Both ROC and PRC claim legitimacy from Sun. But the actual idea of Chinese nation was much more older than Sun as well. For example Liang Qichao formulated the idea of 中华民族（the Chinese Nationality）, which came decades earlier.
Hi, yes but I didn't claim anything in the video to the contrary. I showed two slides of Sun throughout the video, one in the intro and the other when talking about nationalism spreading into Asia. When I was talking about Chiang Kai-Shek in the video I wasn't framing him as the inventor of Chinese nationalism. I picked him because he was a clear case of a man with a hybrid ideology that was nationalist, liberal, and romantic. I think he's clearer in that regard than Sun.
"The fact is that following that of the USA, the Greek Revolution was the first liberal and national movement to succeed in Europe and developed simultaneously with similar movements in South America, while it preceded the well-known large national unifications in Europe, of Italy and Germany. The Greeks did not invent the nation-state, but they were the first in Europe to implement it." Roderick Beaton, "The Greeks: a global history", New York: Basic books 2021
@@smal750 You seem to ignore the fact that the French revolution of 1789 was eventually UNSUCCESFULL. The first republic didn't last long, later on Napoleon utterly lost and the Bourbon monarchy was reinstated for another 80 or so years. Even during Napoleon's reign one can't speak of a French Nation-state but of an empire with an emperor. Napoleon was the leader of the French Republic as First Consul from 1799 to 1804, then of the French Empire as Emperor of the French from 1804 until 1814 and briefly again in 1815... And then the Bourbons took over again. So basically the French Nation-state lasted until 1804. When the Greek nation-stated was created in 1830 there was no French nation-state. That's why Beaton states that "did not invent the nation-state but were the first in Europe to implement it".
This is the kind of history lesson that creates a real sense of understanding... mostly because of the quotations of thinkers urging new conceptions of society and new methods of shaping it. I'm reminded of Confucius' solution to the Warring States problem in ancient China... you have to wonder if Rousseau et al were educated about that history. It looks positively plagiarized.
I want to give a huge thank you to everyone who supports me through Patreon and channel memberships. Without their enduring support, making videos this time and resource intensive would not be possible. If you want to chip in you can find it here: www.patreon.com/rchapman. Video notes below.
For those wondering why I focused on France and not the United States, remember that this video was about nationalism. Nationalism was not a significant force in the United States during its founding period. A nation was founded when the United States was created (a newly conceived one American people as a body politic) but it was a nation that emphasized federalism: a federation of states. Political identity and political power, at the time of the revolution was still mostly conceived through those states. In the revolutionary period people still called themselves Virginians, for example, and not Americans. They were generally wary of coming together as one nation, and it was a project that they were generally ready to abandon (for example if the slavery issue was pressed too hard, or if national power was generally seen as being too strong).
There was nothing like a single sovereign nation that held virtually unchecked domestic power like you had in France, or a leading popular movement that glorified such a development. Something like Article 3 in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man would have been heresy in the United States. The structure of the American government was actually designed with the premise that such a singular national power was tyranny. They framed their government thinking that national level had to be broken up and constrained as much as possible. I'm describing something like anti-nationalism here.
In short, a nation was formed in the United States in the late 18th century, but the nation was a tentative one and you didn't have a clear demonstration of nationalism.
Other notes:
There seems to be a popular misunderstanding in France that the 'impure blood' line in La Marseilles actually refers to the blood of common French people. They're impure because they're not royal. This interpretation claims that the French were excitedly chanting about charging into battle and watering their own fields with their own blood in a defensive war for democracy.
Two main points why it doesn't work: 1) would be a strange army indeed, full of soldiers getting hyped up for war over the prospect of shedding their own blood, not the enemy's, and 2) Lisle (the author) was a royalist and was imprisoned for his beliefs. It doesn't make sense that he would glorify a republican cause as a royalist. It makes even less sense that the republican government would imprison him for royalism if he had just written a popular anthem glorifying republicanism.
Unless I'm missing something, it seems like this interpretation is an attempt to make La Marseilles socially acceptable in the modern world and is not based in facts or reality. I believe what I stated in the video about the 'impure blood' being foreign was correct, however unpolitically correct that is now.
A note for the Pledge of Allegiance section: some seemed to think that I thought I was reciting the 19th century Pledge and pointed out how it had been modified since then. I considered modifications to the Pledge to be an unnecessary detail considering the scope of the video. I was aware I was reciting the modern version of it, and if you were too, then great. I figured that if people didn't realize that it had been changed, it didn't really affect anything and wasn't worth extending the video to address.
Last note - I saw some say I made a mistake categorizing nations in the first section of the video, and say I was actually talking about nation-states. I think if you study the subject and listen closely to what I said you'll find no such mistake occurred. I used the language that is typically used when explaining nationalism. Nations are the broadest unit of the subject and nation-states are the smaller unit within that. When people talk about the spread of nations around the world, they are also talking about the spread of nation-states. When we talk about nations meeting, for example, in the UN, we're talking primarily about a group of people: the nation. When we talk about a representative of the nation of Kenya, we're talking about a representative for a group of people: Kenyans. That nation possesses, or wants to possess, a state. We can also talk about the spread of nation-states, and that's a parallel, closely related story. I talked, for example, about a 'nation of China coming into being,' we're primarily talking about a group of people that politically are recognized as a nation, and also talking about a state that they created. It's correct vernacular. I could have also said 'when the nation-state of China came into being,' but that's a smaller story, specifically referring to China's state. Hope that cleared things up.
- Ryan
Let those who want to make videos quickly do so. I go to your videos for something deep, well-researched and well-understood. And that is well worth the time it takes 😁.
I can only speak for myself, but I do not expect you to produce videos frequently. I appreciate the quality of your content and it should be obvious to everyone, that it takes time to do the research. Thus, I don't mind waiting for weeks or even months for the next upload as long as the quality remains excellent.
Its not a philosophy
the "philosophy" is a way to explain a natural happening. Nations will always form among common people.
@bastiat4855 thats not what nationalism means.
@@hia5235 Do you believe it's impossible for both to be true? Namely, nations are natural things, and nationalism is a specific ideology/philosophy?
I love the purely educational view that you have on these topics, especially with how controversial they are in today’s political climate
Yes! He is a beacon in the darkness
Yea because the world had to go to war to put down several countries that adopted it and wished to wipe the rest of us out
are people scared to discuss nationalism?
@@josephdeneka666 In the US, any discussion on ruling philosophy gets heated real quick. Especially on nationalism or socialism or even liberalism
@@avoicecalling3455 People give too much power to neer do wells just trying to derail conversation/debate about anything outside current mainstream thought.
Ryan, these video essays are absolutely needed in this day and age. Most professors would not dare go into deep details what you put in, just the simple base subjects you hear a thousands times in history class but not how it came to be.
"most professors" is never true in this context..
It doesn’t matter how bad of a day I’m having, it makes my whole week when Ryan Chapman uploads
It may make your whole week but it makes my hole weak.
@@RobExNihilo😟😳😟
Hear, hear!
**quietly backs out of room*
Right here with you!
I can't begin to describe my gratitude for your work. Terms are thrown around these days without care or understanding, and I love it when you break down each political ideological term, showing history, the idea, and where it can go in extreme forms. You are so clear and neutral in your videos that I truly feel like I'm receiving an education
Please get your information from better sources this guy may sound smart and sound like he knows what he's talking about but he's wrong.
@@McCarthy1776 elaborate?
He might sound clear but he's def not neutral .. he's informed by 'western' forms of knowledge, like categories, definitions, ontology, episteme and similar. He's def speaking from a certain point of view.
I suppose I see what you're saying. Do you have better sources? Please share@@Mr.Jasaw13
@@Mr.Jasaw13A westerner will have a western view of the world
How insightful you are 🤓
I'm Puerto Rican and my family moved us to the US for a few years in my childhood and then moved us back to PR. But I do remember the entire pledge of allegiance specifically because in 2nd grade I was kindnof just tossed into a classroom without speaking the language very well so I'd never heard it before, but I had a teacher that used to give out daily 'tasks' to all of us and they would rotate so everyone got a turn and they were simple things like lead the class to the lunchroom or take attendance and one of them was lead the class in the pledge of allegiance. So finally it came my turn and I panicked because I didn't know the pledge, like nothing I didn't know what we were saying or what it meant and the day before I had to do it I went and told the teacher, hey you might want to change this one with someone else for the week, I don't know the pledge of allegiance. And she looked at me like omg I forgot you weren't born here and had another kid sit next to me the entire week to teach me the pledge and what it meant. I still remember that dude, his name was Robert Bean, but everybody called him Bob and he was cool as shit cuz he sat there with me and patiently taught me this pledge over and over for the week even though I could barely understand him and he could barely understand me. This all happened in the early to mid-90's before the internet was a thing and I've never seen Bob or heard from him again after I moved back to the island so I wasn't able to stay in touch the way kids today can stay in touch. Im not so sure how I feel ahout the US and PR relationship, but Bob was cool and he was good people. Thanks for the help, Bob. You were such a cool dude to me and welcomed me to the country, I hope you're doing well in life!
That’s so sweet! I migrated from Dominican Republic and I will always remember Sarah, she taught me English and was so patient also my same age at the time - 10 years old
@@nicoleaideth Sarah sounds like good people. I have since moved back to the US as an adult, I miss Puerto Rico every day tho. I hope your experience is going well too.
As a non-American, the idea of making children swear a pledge of allegiance to your country / flag feels like something straight out of China or North Korea.
@Fredreegz as an American, if you don't want to say the pledge of allegiance you can give your citizenship to someone who deserves it
@@zeenuf00 I guess it’s just different cultural values between our countries. That kind of enforcement of obedience feels like something you’d expect from a military dictatorship, not a democracy.
Mr. Chapman, I am a 43 year old graduate student of American History, and your organization of these concepts are the best I've seen. Keep it up man!
One thing I wished Ryan would discuss in this video is Nationalism as a reaction to Colonialism. It's the main catalyst for colonized countries to rebel for their independence. It's been very successful in bringing people together and even creating a new international shared identity that is "postcolonialism" which also became the basis for many multinational organizations like Non-Aligned Movement, Asian-African Conference
Agree, though it was kind of touched upon at around 23:39 . I find this type of Nationalism to be the case for my country (the Philippines). In the wars to expel colonizers (against the Spanish, Americans, and Japanese), nationalism was the rallying cry. Unsurprisingly it's even included in the national anthem, where it says something like, "We are happy if there are invaders, because then we could die for you (the Motherland)"
That's wrong. Imperialism is still there, Nationalism doesn't work to get rid of the parasites. The countries should embrace socialism and understand that a country is made of people, and not by the leading class.
You can find on your own what I'm talking about my friend, I'm talking about the ted scare from the west while doing coup d'etats everywhere, Iraq Iran Cile Guatemala Nicaragua are some, and let's don't talk about the presence of France in west Africa with the Franc CFU.
Search about unequal exchange, it's a real stuff, the west hides it because their imperialism furls their economical world view (Capitalism).
Socialism is the real political view that the nations suffering parasites should embrace.
China rose to superpower in few decades, lifting people 800 MILLION people out of poverty, that's unheard, that's one of a kind accomplishment.
China is and was socialists, letting capitalism in made the west to not ostriches china (as the west always do to socialist countries) and China used the west greed for it's own benefit. China is, was and will be socialist, China approach is the best one since we can see with our own eyes how the quality of life of Chinese people increased dramatically.
@@JRAS_ I am annoyed by the apparent double standard. Polish and especially German nationalism is deliberate and chosen to be anti-foreign occupation or rule. No clearer example would be from the Asian and American colonial experiences, and perhaps contrasted with the African colonial and national experiences. Would this not be happening in parallel in some cases historically, unless it isn't a nation unless it starts in Europe or something... which I don't believe Ryan Chapman subscribes to. I'll just say this isn't one of his better videos.
@@ghostlightning Of course it's been going on since we were monkeys living in family groups in the trees. Maybe earlier. There's safety in numbers and in the face of danger/attack, you rely on your tribe to defend itself and its interests. But it's in Europe that the idea of the Nation State takes over from tribal fiefdoms, city states, or kingdoms ruled by a so-called nobility. And then seeks to maintain the idea of National Identity, even in the face of tribal differences (real or perceived). See how the Scots, Irish and Welsh feel about the English, for example.
@@ghostlightningExactly!
halfway though this video i had to stop and remember i am watching a production edited and stiched together to present a set of ideas. it was that immersive. the art, the storytelling, the concepts were all very well woven together. bravo! subscribed.
Thank you, Ryan! 😊 I’ve studied this stuff my whole life, across a 10-year academic career-but always a bit of it in an art survey course, a bit in a political science course, a bit in an English lit course, etc. The way you weave these threads together in a way that brings coherence and clarity to a concept never ceases to astound and inspire me. I got so much from this! Thank you for raising my consciousness! You da man. :)
I hope you make a video on "what is conservatism?". You've already made great in-depth videos on socialism, fascism, american liberalism and now nationalism, but not conservatism yet.
Conservatives remember a Golden Age that never happened, and liberals dream of a Utopian Future that never materializes.
Definitely! I plan on making a video on conservatism that's similar to the one here on nationalism.
@@realryanchapmanCan you please also do a video on liberalism in general and how it developed because you did only American Liberalism while the other ideologies got a general one?
If you go back to the fascism video that should explain
It perfectly for you!😊
Conservatism,Liberalism have no definition Einstein because everyone has a different opinion of what they
think it is or should be and that goes for those or any other ideology. As far as the conservatives go though I'll tell you one thing they all seem to agree on is greed!
This channel is the best Intro to Political Science course you could ever find. This channel illustrates RUclips's educational potential at it's very best.
Are these, contents, fact-proof?
I love these videos where you chart the evolution of an idea. When you set it out like this, I'm able to recognise some sloppy thinking that I've had around these topics. Nationalism in particular has ideas that seem obvious, but are clearly historically contingent.
I've never thought about how taken for granted the ideals of nationalism are.
Loved the video! I like your content, I wish I could make videos as in-depth and balanced as you do!
I really appreciate the time and effort put in these videos.
Every day there's a Ryan Chapman video is a day the world gets a little better. Super happy this channel exists!
Babe wake up new Ryan Chapman video dropped
Sup dude
just how I feel
I thought this today.
Ryan is the most underrated history RUclipsr on the planet
I love your vids❤
I can' t remember ever experiencing a more
excellent lecture. The structure and clarity of you work is exceptional. I look forward to watching all of your videos.🎉
He forgot to mention that in 1 century of unification the germans had committed 3genocides and 2world wars while the French abolished slavery spread the civil code and the metric system
@@babauaski3928
obviously that would make the french look good this inferior hater cant accept that
This video made so many concepts click into place for me! It's like I loosely had most of the pieces and this helped finally line them all up to give an outstanding social perspective. Great work through and through my man!
Your videos keep getting better with each release. I've watched your channel grow from when you just had a few videos. Your work is incomparable. Extraordinarily high-quality educational material. This is the youtube medium at its best, in my opinion.
Hear hear
This is too good to be true. Vague, meaningless philosophical, scientific and political videos no longer intrigues me. But these objective, detailed, well written videos of Ryan truly grasp my attention for an hour straight. Thank you very much.
An amazingly well structured video. What I liked in particular was the amount of sources that you used, the way you quoted them and gave names and authors of the sources. Thank you
Love it! Couple of months ago i struggled really hard making an amateur article about Nationalism. So hard i hated my own finished article, it felt like an unfinished product that i released because of dead lines. Watching your video gave me a chance to peek on how a well researched, well written and well narrated articles could have become. I was a bit down before and kind of stop writing articles for awhile, but after this i want to start writing again. I want my article to be this good. I want to be better. Thank you! 😉
Love your videos as always! I wanted to show this to my friends and discuss it with them, but sadly none of my friends are interested in these kinds of topics.
Same
It’s like your holding our hand while taking us down this rabbit hole. So well done. 👏👏👏
This is truly incredible. Fantastic technical standards and wonderful production values. It is comprehensive and anticipates my questions before they are clearly formed in my own mind.
This channel is pehaps the most important source of history and political understanding the world over has. Ryan, you have created yet another darling diamond amongst the backdrop of a corrupted world with those bent on twisting, spinning, and mangling hisory to their personal will for their personal gain. I don't know how you're able to curate such objective teachings so consistently, but I am thankful in just how much effort, hord work, and soul you impart into each of your productions. I know you've been personally struggling with what to do with this channel from time to time, but all I can do is give thanks, have hope for you, and apologize. I thank you for all you have already taught us, I hope you continue to follow your passions regardless whether or not this channel is a part of that endeavor, and I apologize for imparting any further pressure with my flattery; it is the most sincere and not in vain.
Very happy to see a new video from you, good sir!
Hearing you touch on philosophy, even briefly, makes me think of how great it would be for you to do videos on different philosophies in your objective, educational style. Would love to hear your breakdown on Hagelienism for instance
Love the new understanding of the word nation, that you provide in the beginning. I have always come to the understanding that when people say, someone died for their nation/country, they mean that the person died for the people in that country, not actually an abstract idea that enables a political system.
The small group, the people you personally know and perhaps your home town, would be that sort of group I think.
The army is about making you function with oddballs from all over. The mass conscript army we had during the Cold War had to bunch a cutout of a whole generation and stick them in a platoon.
There is something genuinely unparalleled about your content. The clarity and purpose put into every moment as you explain a subject is is outstanding. Keep it up.
I absolutely love these break down video essays. They are so beautifully crafted and you are truly phenomenal. Please continue to do more ideologies! I can't wait for the Conservatism or Communism or maybe even Libertarianism!
Always appreciate the titles of the books that you get your excerpts from.
It's been months since your last video.😢
It's neutral, objective, and unbiased content. Thanks a lot for all your efforts🙏
Hey great video! One comment though on the Marseillaise, the « impure blood » is not the one of the ennemy, but the one of the French people sacrificing themselves for the nation. It is said « impure » in opposition to the nobility’s so-called « pure » blood. The marseillaise is not a call for agressive war, but one to rise in defense of the ideals of democracy against monarchy :)!
"Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles" is another misinterpreted line.
Hey, thanks! I'm looking into the 'impure blood' line. Do you have a reference for what you're saying? I thought the standard understanding was how I framed it in the video. Also Lisle was a royalist, no? Or was at least imprisoned for being a suspected royalist. If the song was understood to be in the point of view of the republicans and glorifying their cause, how does that square?
HI@@realryanchapman ! Fair point! I had a deeper look and it turns out that while what I told you is the way many people interpret it nowadays in France, and something that I had accepted as truth without really checking on it, it is acutally wrong. I just looked into it and it is actually very easy to trace this back to an attempt to change the original meaning of the song and make it more acceptable nowadays. We should always be as honest as possible owning our history and properly remembering it in order not to make the mistakes of the past, even if it is embarassing to try to explain to our neighbours why the French hymn is so aggressive. So I stand corrected thanks for pushing back :)! And thanks again for all your wonderful videos that help us make better sense of the modern world.
@@Gailurin1 Hi, thanks for being open minded! Is the original comment yours? For the sake of the educational purpose of the channel it would be best if the OP could update it to make it factually accurate.
It was yes not sure why it appears this way. I will edit it!
It's a good month when Ryan releases a video.
I haven't watched it yet, but I'm so excited to!
Thank you sir for your work. Presentation is well done. I never learned about nationalism in this context. There is a limit to how much education can be injected into students in primary school, high school and even college. But it seems that our schools could find an hour somewhere to share this information to everyone as they grow up.
Let’s goooo, Ryan Chapman you are the man!!!
Oh Ryan! This was the essential but absent lecture of the Enlightenment module in my uni Humanities course. At the end of that module our Tutor asked "What do we think of Rousseau?", and went around the room. You have articulated why I answered that it would have saved millions of lives had his mother been smothered at birth. The Tutor was shocked, so I cited The Reign of Terror, The Napoleonic Wars, The Bolshevik Revolution, Stalinism, Fascism, Nazism, Maoism and Pol Pot. She had been a particular admirer of The Cultural Revolution in China... My marks for later modules took a dive, and I suspect that she has been in therapy ever since.
Thank you for a wonderfully balanced and thorough exposition of a very complicated subject. 🙏
Linking Rousseau to all those things is utterly stupid...
Rousseau was right
Yes. In hindsight it's so obvious that they should have just kept the king. I can't even imagine how brainwashed people would have to be to say otherwise. Nothing good came out of liberal-nationalism except failures humanity can potentially learn from.
Linking Pol Pot to the French enlightenment deserves a failure. Unless you want to do a very broad history of state terror. And then you would probably need to start with the assyrians.
Are you stupid? What do you think would happen had he not done all those then?
Fantastic video! The ideas introduced by nationalism have become so deeply ingrained that any world view depend on it. Those quotes from Rosseau are incredible. It is a blueprint for the following 3 centuries of political and cultural developments. And the idea of being able to alter the minds of millions of people and how they view themselves and the world, with the effect of much greater political unity, must have seemed outlandish at the time. But it worked!
Nationalism today often presents itself as defending cultural identities against globalization, for example within the EU, but those identities are themselves made from the ashes of the endless diversity that it assimilated into something completely new. So many dead or dying languages. In a world ruled by Nationalism, Catalonia can't exist without becoming its own nation.
Nationalism will always result in replacing something organic with something inorganic, but given enough time we forget all that the world lost.
I disagree. If nationalism, in your words, is an inorganic construct, then the organic opposite would be imperalistic internationalism, that would simultaneously ignore cultural borders, as well as enforce metropolitan unity. Its a self defeating idea to call nationalism as "inorganic" to the functions of the humanity, for the primitive form of nationalism is tribalism, and if you dismiss tribalism as "inorganic", you agree that imperialism is the organic opposite of it, again. For imperialism doesnt care for national borders, imperialism seeks a metropolitan standard. Imperialism is anti-nationalist and destroys boundaries of nations. In such a case - is it natural, or erosive, that imperial states conquer nation states? A nation state does not have an ambition to enforce itself wholly unto another nation state, the extent of conflicts between nation states is about boundaries of nations, rather than strategic interests. If there was a way to describe the nation-empire dichotomy in natural, nations are prey, and empires are predators. It is false and anti-intellectual to assume either of them as inorganic, for both have existed always, and the former has always fallen prey to the latter predator.
Tl;dr - i find you calling "nations" as "inorganic" offensive and historically false.
@@konstancemakjaveli I think that it depends. For example, taking the case of Catalonia, Catalan nationalism (like any other nationalism) created many national symbols to build its nation. One of them is the national dance of Catalonia, the Sardana. But the Sardana was not THE dance of Catalonia at all. It was present in some parts of the region and it was not a distinctive and well-known element of all Catalans. But because in the 19th century the Sardana was chosen as a national symbol of Catalan identity it spread to the entire Catalonia. Nowadays the Sardana is not that popular specially among younger people. Those that means that something that is organic, natural and "has always existed" as part of Catalan identity will disappear ? Maybe it wasn't as organic as we may think in the first place. Many national identities and symbols all around the world are just like that. But that doesn't make them fake. We all live in nations states and they will influence and affect our worldviews without doubt.
And just expanding what the first comment said, the main idea is that many nationalisms have already destroyed many languages, identities and other nations that existed inside their state. Usually a state is created by a majoritarian central nationalism. But because the borders of this new state are not "natural" or "organic" there are other languages, cultures and peoples inside this state that are different or not even part of the main nationalism that dominates the state. Then what does this nationalism in order to truly say that it is something "organic" and "natural" ? It tries to homogenize and erase these other identities and nations that may pose a problem to the the statement of "one state = one nation".
Such process of nationalization is what the France has done with the Occitan language for example. Or China is doing with Tibetans, Uyghurs and Mongolians. Spain with Catalan, Basques and Galicians. Turkey with the Kurds. The Japanese with the Ainu people. Russia with all its vast east regions (Russians are already the majority in many "ethnic" republics of the Russia Federation). The UK also did it with Ireland, there is a debate if maybe that was more a colonialism thing because it happened before the 19th century romanticism. In India now the Hindu BJP wants to create a more Hindu India, against all the other Indian languages and specially Indian Muslims. Even in pre colonial states like Canada or many Latin America countries you can see the same process but now against the native americans who had to change and adapt to western culture, clothes and customs. Almost in every nation state you will see the same will and need of nationalize and homogenize its population. It has to be said that nowadays more states are more open to have a more diverse identity (like New Zealand and the Maori people), but it's more difficult to happen.
So yeah, nationalisms and nations are not organic or natural, as well as their borders. Of course, in my view even if these are modern phenomena you can still see a kind of continuation in human history. Take for example Catalonia again. You can observe a similar polity or political entity that exists during different eras (the first counties, the Aragon crown, the Spanish monarchy and finally the Spanish nation-state) and you can see similar actions and a similar "identity" and group of people that has its role in the politics of the peninsula and the Mediterranean. Or also with the transformation of the Frankish Kingdom into the French monarchy, that maintained the similar space despite the years. But again, to speak of nations here is very difficult, almost impossible.
@@Aurekbeshisk i disagree, again. What you describe is metropolitan imperialism. There are far too many examples of true nation states that never were imperial metropolitans, that never have conducted anything similair, even some post-imperial legacy nation states such as Poland or Turkey dont do that, at least to the extent Russia/soviet union, France or Spain has
@@konstancemakjaveli I could see a very powerful nation-state acting with a very universalist imperialist view. That's true. A nation that ironically claims universalism.
But I think that the examples that you refer are still examples of nation states that have tried a policy of nationalization (or metropolitan imperialism, as you describe it).
Turkey has a very famous history of trying to create a Turkish state. The Anatolian peninsula has both the kurds and the Armenians. There are many Armenian cities which had a huge importance for the history of that nation and now they have Turkish names and no Armenian population. Needless to mention the Armenian Genocide and the long armed conflict of the Kurdish State and the PKK.
And as for Poland, it was a very multi-ethnic country in the past, just like many other eastern European countries. But with the second world war and the past wars with Russia the country's demographics changed a lot. The borders moved hundreds of kilometers and the German minority was deported to Germany (after the defeat of nazism). Now Poland is one of the most homogeneous countries in the world.
I think you are confusing nationalism with universal imperialism. Some countries like France, the US, the UK or Russia have reivindicated a claim of being universal or representatives of civilization beyond being a mere state. Maybe you are thinking about that. Because nationalism could be thought as the opposite, except maybe these more imperial nations.
@@Aurekbeshisk you are confalting "nation" and "state". When i say nation, i mean a state that bases its identity in some nationality, with certain borders. When i say empire, i mean a state that sees itself as expansionist and without a central identity. One would say ancient empires have a central identity, making them a state but i wouldnt call it that, since they were autocratic god-king empires that ruled over 100s of nations with a metropolitan grip.
Meanwhile, the modern Turkish state, for example, didnt do any metropolitanism, at least afaik. Yes, they commited genocide. Yes, they supprress Kurds. But they dont assimilate, like France, Russia/USSR, China or Spain. This is the ugly truth of the nation - it exterminates, not assimilates. Thats what sets itself apart from empire. Even though i support the 21st century post-imperial nationstates, i have ti admit - it is a much more bloody construct than a empire ever could be. We only need to look at the national socialists of germany, who attempted a racial socialist utopia, not from metropolitan assimiliation, but through bloody extermination.
And thats why i dont support your interpretations. Extermimations are very organic, they are *darwinian*, and claiming that nations are inorganic is on the same level as holocaust denial.
I can rewatch Ryan Chapman any time and always learn something new
This is fantastic educational content on RUclips. Your channel is a goldmine, thank you for sharing these videos.
These videos are so professionally done. I walk away learning a lot and also seeing a great example of critical thinking.
You have a lovely voice with a nice cadence. It's very pleasant to listen to you.
How did this just become my favorite RUclips Channel? I'll tell you how. Thorough unbiased and valuable knowledge imparted by a well-spoken narrator whose passion for the history of humanity is palpable not through spectacle but through his steady hand and concise yet in-depth analysis. No filler or clickbait here. Thank you for these gems of wholesome intellectual content sir.
I met my wife in Poland and was completely taken with the deep cultural pride that her countrymen have of the Polish nation. To see kids wear their national military uniform in a shopping mall as a Canadian kid might wear their local hockey team's jersey was astounding to me, and I was one of those kids as a cadet! I feel a sense of responsibility to help shape nationalism for our children now in an uncertain world. I want them to identify the importance of keeping a defined nationality alive for Canada and Poland... But also know where the brake handle is when emotions start getting involved with their perception of "proper national conduct".
Your videos keep getting better with each release. I've watched your channel grow from when you just had a few videos. Your work is incomparable. Extraordinarily high-quality educational material. This is the youtube medium at its best, in my opinion.
These videos are a gem, really.
Too often do you hear nationalism being conflated with a irridentism or collectivism. While that might hold true for some versions of it, it is not a given.
In the same way that there are many versions of socialism or conservatism.
Hi Ryan - I really appreciate your great videos. I find them really accessible yet thorough, helping a ‘layperson’ like me understand some very complex concepts. I have come across recently “anarcho-capitalism” and would you do a video on that one at some stage (if you have not already)? No worries if not, whatever you do will be interesting. Cheers C
Ryan’s videos are always worth the wait!
Great video. As an italian, I did not know Mazzini had such a universal love for humanity.
Your content is always top-notch. Keep it up Ryan.
thank you for displaying the text with foot notes to the author and publications from which you gather your ideas. that's a really good technique. to my way of thinking nationalism begins with the printing press and the the willingness of people who can understand one another to work together. i got the 30 years war to back me up on that.
Nationalism and nation-states are very dangerous and root cause of all wars in the world.
Another excellent video!! Thank you for consistently creating videos that are so well-researched and edited with the goal of being balanced.
All the topics are timely and help me gain deeper context into current politics! Will be taking notes on this video and looking into the texts you referenced :D I always finish your videos feeling excited to learn more and make new connections.
Thank you for making this video that clarifies nationalism very well.
I can see that such content and presenting comes only from a person that has a deep understanding of the topic 👍👍
This is a stunningly informative video. Thank you, Ryan. Amazing content and balanced delivery. 🙏
Honestly great video, the longest I have gone hearing a essay bout nationalism without putting my head through a wall
So you've studied this topic before yet you still don't realize he defined the word nation completely wrong? And that this video is just full of wrong shit. Where are you, and this guy and all the other people in the comments getting your information from? Because it seems almost everyone has been misguided and fed false information their whole lives. I mean most people in general don't know what the word "nation" means but I'd think people who actually even slightly studied the topic would know. I mean shit I don't advocate using the dictionary to define political philosophies because they are so much more complex than that bit when it comes to WORDS like "nation", it takes 2 seconds to google "definition of nation' and see that this guy has no clue whatsoever what he's talking about. He's just like saying shit that he thinks sounds right. He probably read some shit on Wikipedia and watched a history Channel documentary and made this video.
Ryan is back, talking about nationalist, simply amazing.
Very enlightening! Thank you so much for this. I am Nigerian and I, few years ago, started wondering how we started having our problems and I traced it all back to nationalism and this answers my question on how and why nationalism came into place in the world.
Fantastic video. It seems to be me we have melted nationality down to the point where it's almost totally replaced community. Civic participation is waaaay down. Regular citizens mostly think their job is to vote and that's it and if their community is failing its the governments fault or a larger issue of the nation when in fact it's their own doing.
It's all intertwined. We are atomized and isolated by our physical environment, and our time is monopolized by jobs that frequently don't pay a living wage, so it's hard to muster the energy for building community. Plus both major American parties serve capital instead of the people who work to create it, and third parties aren't viable under our current voting system, at least nationally. Voting is most effective locally, but those elections are the ones with the least fanfare and investment, and turnout is poor.
Most governments destroyed their communities to achieve a nation-state.
Guorilla is more effective than voting
I never watch an hour long videos on RUclips. I honestly didn’t know it was an hour long. I thought it was 20-25 minutes long until I saw the time. I’m freaking out. That’s amazing man
That doesn't really imply anything good about the attention span of modern people.
As always, one more brilliant lecture! Thank you!
A fantastically clear presentation of the history of the notion of Nationalism and how the notion hanged over time.
In a day where nationalism has become a swear word, I thank you for your neutral take
Only by globalists is nationalism a swear word.
So know your enemy, and don't let them take away what is yours because they deem it bad.
You will be hard pressed to find a person who is not a national of some nation, so swear word is far fetched, it has also been a swear word from the moment of it's conception because it is anti nation-state somewhat by design and that is a big nono, which the nation requires it has no nations within (that desire sovereignty) or it will split figuratively and literally(the confederacy),
@@ГеоргиГеоргиев-с3г my friend the word you're speaking of is "nationality" which is very different.
Nationalism is the political ideology that states that there is such a thing as a united people, who possess a common will and common identity, and in whose interest alone the institutions of power must act.
In most European liberal democracies, such an ideology is reserved for the hardest of right wing parties
In my country "France" if you Say that you are nationalism people will call you a Nazi , it's so sad
@@sanssucreajoute6554 are you sure you are a nationalism, you edited the wrong thing, it ought to be a nationalist, the -ism is reserved for the ideologies the -ist 's are for the people following them. And they do have a point, one is the head one is the tail of the same beast (nazi being the folk talk for fascist), just depends on the will of the "people"(nation, because nations don't consider all people within them as their people) and the coin can flip. 10-20 years of the wrong kind of schooling, regardless of place (home, public or private, religious because it can be all three or secular) , is enough, that is why critical thinking(the science kind, not the "i know it all, so i will tell you how to think" kind, not everyone understands the scientific method and they tend to use the term incorrectly) is so important in schools, so you don't raise a bunch of beefy cattle that does whatever the nation wants, because that way you get the cult of fascism in which only the head(cult leader/governing body) has a functional mind.
This is why most countries dislike religious schools, and go for secular (1 it gives potential rise of micro nations within a nation wich is unacceptable because it can shatter a nation, but mostly 2), the unique god figure without opposing viewpoints tends to make cults out of most folk that follow, leading to national religious racism(the fear of the "other", because they don't think like you, or because you feel they do think like you which perspective is dangerous for all involved). See video above for information.
This was a very comprehensive video explaining nationalism as an ideology, I personally hadn't looked at it this way and so kudos for expanding our knowledge on such an elusive topic, Ryan (especially with the authors you cited)!
I would like to present another viewpoint though which could perhaps explain how we see nationalism today (As a political scientist, I've been studying it in contexts of minority language, regionalism and resistance movements). I personally view the concept as a movement more than as an ideology, but it's pretty fair to say that it can (and does depending on the specific historical context, time and nation) encompass both.
I couldn't help but think that the nationalism as you describe in the early stages of the French Republic (of the many to come) was just another way of saying nation-building as you did at some point. To say that nationalism is an ideology in this certain context however, I think would be leaving out the fact that nationalism as we see it today, in nation-states well established such as the United States, México, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, etc., is seen more as a form of patriotism and sense of belonging (sometimes as populism) to a singular well-established and enforced national identity.
What makes this topic pretty elusive is partly what you suggest through the characterization of it in two ways, by the modern logical/rational/empirical/scientific thought of the Enlightenment period and that of Romanticism. You could argue that although France in the political development that largely spans before its official or modern history, which obviously contributed to it into becoming a consolidated nation-state and democratic republic but, was also inherently tied to a so-called "nationalist ideology" (many elites of which were not willing to support or advocate), the same way many modern nation-states had been succumbed to as well throughout their histories of not even being nation-states, that nationalism could then be thought of as an objective/goal or dream (utopic in nature) to come by which the political and ruling elite of each society (those that composed of each of them in their respective territories before each modern nation-state was even established) were trying to achieve. As far as how and what each of those ruling class/elites accomplished (and advocated for) is what makes me believe that nationalism can't solely be thought of as an ideology, at least in the French and German historical context that you described.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that nationalism as a concept is too broad and fragmented (and therefore inadequate) to even be considered an ideology in comparison to the others you mentioned, much less responsible for the creation of the modern nation-state. One great example that puts this into perspective which was mentioned in the video is Italy. As far as we can tell from the works of Dante Alighieri, Francesco Petrarca, and Giovanni Boccaccio (scholars which are also classified as members of the political elite, not so much the ruling class), the possibility of the "unification" of Italy as we know it today is contributed largely in part to these three fathers of the Italian language. This implies that many languages were already present in the Italian peninsula and that these languages were not mutually intelligible with each other, giving rise to problems of communication and the desire of a single language that everyone could learn and use. However, the unification of Italy can also be accounted for by regional geopolitical interests which focused on extending and maintaining power over the other political entities that historically occupied the Italian peninsula. Not to mention that there was a general interest in ousting and keeping foreign powers not native to the Italian peninsula away.
These are narratives that point to different reasons (surely there are many more) as to the unification and eventual establishment of an Italian nation-state. Insofar as we clarify who is responsible or a partaker in the "nationalist ideology", it's possible to see just how minuscule of a role it can play, depending on each case and time-frame, in the establishment of a "nation-state", and therefore, in the sense of nationhood shared by all inhabitants. It must be said that nationalism, at this point, can be generally and simply described as a tool that served to gain power and domination, of which was proposed and advocated for by the certain political and elite classes of their times (in mi opinion, before the official establishment of most modern nation-states). In this time frame, it can be described more accurately as a discourse which, depending on the historical era and case, differs significantly (that is also why I consider it contemporaneously as a movement, there is no need for it to be promoted and imposed aggressively, at least in the same way it was during the early histories of each modern nation-state).
To contrast the nationalism you describe in the French case, a similar type can also be identified in 11th century (and beyond) what today is now known as France. The royal class was very much in favor of promoting and establishing a French national identity on the basis of a purely French Parisian language and culture (ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts and the great ordinance of 1254 under the reign of Charles IV, for example). Yet, as you also described in your video, many communities far from the urban centers were not thrilled, so much so that it was dangerous at one point for French to even be imposed as a language. There was a counterbalance here which saw the interests of the ruling elite class and those of the regional groups at odds.
This doesn't mean that nationalism ceased to exist or that it was even an ideology to begin with, simply put, the ruling elite class had an agenda and it came to finally succeed when the political conditions (and political consensus as the French Revolutions would show us) united all the popular interests of the territory that was being established as one or, as that of the general will/people, however you'd like to call it. It was never meant to actually unite all of the distinct interests that existed, nor did these so-called nationalism efforts even attempt to do so. Yet, despite the lack of suffrage that constituted the newly formed republics, not just France, the political circumstances mixed with the nationalist efforts to unify and homogenize the populations of their territories was so effective that people from the regional communities had no other choice than to side with those who were closer to them ethnically and culturally speaking.
There is much more that could be said but I think the complexity and elusiveness of nationalism as showcased leaves us with a major takeaway: Its classification can and does differ depending on the certain historical periods, nations and people involved. Nationalism as an ideology doesn't necessarily explain why many French political and royal elite who fell under this category advocated it with caution, not to mention many were outright against the advocacy of nationalism. In my opinion, nationalism as an ideology can be identified properly as such till after the official and successful establishment of the nation-state, but as an ideology mostly of the State, not so much of the nation (this changes over time); it is a process of nation-building which is still fiercely active in many, many countries today (Then there are countries like Canada, the United States, among others which seem to harbor a very weak sense of nationhood or national identity, yet assimilate so well).
4:06 Fun fact, that word 'nemtsi' is actually a pan-slavic word that often refers to Germans. In Polish, the word is "Niemcy" (pronounced very similarly) and means Germans/Germany.
Another fun fact: the word "nemtzi" is based on the word "nemoy" or "nemiy", which means "mute". That is how local people viewed foreigners - as mute people, or people who can't talk.
It was definitively helpful. In fact, it's the best video I have seen in years and I have seen hundreds.
I just found your channel I already delved into John Locke, Adam Smith, modern politics. I would be so interested in a full break down of Libertarianism.
Regardless I hope to interview you some day.
Don’t forget to add Hegel and Marx as well. That will round out a good foundation.
@@eldenfindley186 You believe in their philosophy & Ideology?
Stoked! Your work is a blessing, my man.
A very well thought out piece!
I think an often-overlooked aspect of this term in modern historical-Political discourse is how Nationalism was intrinsically tied to Liberalism for its first 150 or so years. As a counterweight to the old Multi-Ethnic Empires that dominated the world during the French Revolution, the idea that those Empires should be split up into nations, and those nations should ideally be Republics, seemed to naturally go hand in hand in opposition to the old order.
Its only recently that the term nationalism seems to find itself more at home in the right, and I would construe that as being a product of the fact that conservative and liberal, right and left, and to some extent nationalism, socialism and the rest are all relative terms, that may be given basic definitions, but in reality, the practice of those definitions look widely and almost incoherently different depending on the time, place and culture they find themselves in. In a world where Liberal ideas dominate, what is Conservativism? How can it be anything other than the preservation of those original liberal values that our ancestors fought for 200 years ago? It's such thoughts that make me resent those who treat these ideas as absolutes, an effort to lump contradictory policies under one banner, and to treat one side as "good" and the other as "bad" when the reality is far more complex.
Nationalism is litterally a leftist idea. Right-wingers defend racial casts.
Thankyou for this. Your videos educate me while my hands are busy. I get to share these with my partner, then have discussions over lunch about the topics you've raised. Genuinely grateful for the effort you put in to each essay, to teach us laypeople what I wouldn't've had the patience, context, or time to appreciate if taught formally. Subscribed, and appreciative ❤
I like Yuval Noah Harari's explanation of nationalism.
"1. Imagined Communities: Harari explains that nations are essentially "imagined communities" where people feel a shared sense of identity and belonging, even though most of them have never met or interacted with the majority of their fellow citizens. He emphasizes that nations are not natural or objective entities but are constructed through cultural, political, and historical narratives.
2. Myths and Narratives: Harari argues that nationalism often relies on myths and narratives that create a sense of common history, culture, and destiny. These narratives are used to reinforce the idea of a unified nation and can be both powerful and dangerous when taken to extremes.
3. Modern Nationalism: Harari discusses the rise of modern nationalism, which he attributes to the decline of traditional communal bonds, such as religion and local communities, and the emergence of the modern state. Nationalism became a unifying force in a world where older sources of identity were eroding.
4. Double-Edged Sword: Harari acknowledges that nationalism has played a significant role in shaping the modern world, contributing to political stability, social cohesion, and economic development in many cases. However, he also highlights the dark side of nationalism, including conflicts, wars, and discrimination, often driven by the exclusion of "others" who don't fit the national narrative.
5. Nationalism in the 21st Century: Harari discusses the challenges and transformations facing nationalism in the 21st century. He notes that globalization, technology, and migration are reshaping the way people perceive and experience nationalism. Additionally, he warns about the potential dangers of extreme nationalism, which can lead to xenophobia, isolationism, and intolerance.
Overall, Harari's perspective on nationalism is complex. He recognizes its historical significance and its role in human development but also emphasizes the need for a critical and nuanced understanding of nationalism in the modern world, given its potential for both positive and negative consequences."
I like Yuval Noah Harari's explanation of pretty much anything. He's a clever lad. 🤩
What about all the useless people that we are going to drug and keep in a virtual reality? Why not slip in some cyanid in their daily drug dose..?
Source?
@@vulpex4105 Copy this text and you will get to his book, or just read it. "The coming technological bonanza will probably make it feasible to feed and support people even without any effort from their side. But what will keep them occupied and content? One answer might be drugs and computer games. Unnecessary people might spend increasing amounts of time within 3D virtual-reality worlds that would provide them with far more excitement and emotional engagement than the drab reality outside. Yet such a development would deal a mortal blow to the liberal belief in the sacredness of human life and of human experiences. What’s so sacred about useless bums who pass their days devouring artificial experiences?"
Is this from "21 Lessons for the 21st Century"?
i think what contributed to your videos being amazing is that listening to you is just an absolute pleasure. i’m not dozing off for a second. you could put this up as a podcast
I love your neutral explanation of a concept that has become a “dirty word” in recent years. Believing in nationalism does not coincide with bigoted or racist ideas as certain people would have you think.
Well, the fundamental assumption of nationalism is that the world is divided into distinct peoples, races or nations by nature. It's not a far step to racism. And then one would have to ignore the history of nationalism, i.e. the history of colonialism and the fact that fascism was the most visible form of nationalism in modern times.
Is nationalism not also the tale of decolonisation?
@@in.der.welt.sein.The concept of race can be used to help to define a nation, although it is too general a concept to be the sole defining aspect of it. Ethnic and linguisc groups often correlate with racial features on average. Languages can be adopted, but their ethnic basis is the prior truth which nationalism can be based on.
"is that the world is divided into distinct peoples, races or nations by nature" - @@in.der.welt.sein.
Are you trying to say the world isn't made up of distinct peoples, races or nations by nature? lmao.
@@GARBAGE_MUSIC no, who would deny that these things exist? But it's absurd to act as if these things exist merely by nature and not as the product of socially constructed histories. My claim is that nationalism as an explanation of these differences gets cause and effect backwards, and it doesn't explain these differences inasmuch as it assumes them, takes them for granted as a natural fact ignoring the social history of these concepts, and then in the final analysis, justifies the domination and subordination of some nations, peoples, or races by others.
I appreciate that you take the time necessary to produce quality content. I can't wait to watch your next video.
We desperately need this in modern America. An actual conversation about these things.
All your lectures are well worth watching. I like the way the text has so many quotes embedded in it which helps avoid misrepresentation.
Nothing more beautiful when nationalism is used with the right intention and only correct intention. Self love and love for your nation
I've learnt so much from these condensed nuggets of objective information.
Watch as many of these as you can before objective information becomes a thought crime.
Simplest deffinition of nationalism: it's tribalism on the larger scale.
True
"There is no good nationalism. It is a wooden iron. Puting your self above a principle."
Superb
And grouping together with like-minded people who share your values, culture, traditions, political ideals, etc is completely natural and good. You will never fit the diversity of humankind under a single rule.
Progressive diversity is a myth that will never work no matter how hard you try to make it happen
Thanks for this excellent and thorough coverage of nationalism. It clarified my understanding. especially with regard to fascism. I have supported your work in the past on Patreon, and as soon as my financial challenges are resolved, I will resume that support. Your work here is an extremely valuable resource for developing a general understanding of our nation and a variety of the elements that support and maintain it. We can not hope to be an effective leader of nations if our people do not understand correctly the elements of our democratic republic, their limitations and the history of their development. Historical understanding leads to wiser decisionmaking, and empowers citizens to hold their leaders, and themselves, accountable.
An interesting current item to regard is whether we should discuss the current conflict as "Gaza-Israel war" or "Hamas-Israel war".
On one hand, "Hamas-Israel" war feels more book accurate, because Gazans have not actually voted about launching an attack.
On the other hand, such constructions belie the fact that the monopoly of power in Gaza truly is only held by one institution, which is the government, which is Hamas.
Commenting for the algorithm, as this video (and this channel) deserves a wider audience.
On the video itself; I'm noticing some interesting parallels between the 'dream of a nation' that were the inspiration for the French revolution, and a similar sentiment echoed in Socialist ideas. That is; a dream of everyone in a Nation being equal, and holding equal power to everyone else. The problem, of course (and the reason socialism is growing in popularity) is that the concept of the 'modern western democracy' has created the very thing it was trying to replace - a "ruling class" (monarch>>politician) with all the political power (or an oversized share at least) and a "peasant class" with none/very little political power.
Now I'm not saying the voting public in present day western nations have NO political power, but given how the political class are demonstrably abysmal at representing the interests of the voting public (see Mr Beat's video on "Corporate Welfare" or PF Jung's video on "A new chapter in online politics") thus we have a similar SENTIMENT to revolutionary France.
In my opinion, nationalism is like a knife. It's morality is not defined by it's existence, but by for what it's used. Is used to prepare a meal, to operate a patient or is it used to slash someones throad. It is an essential and universal tool, that is of great use to those who have it, but should not be used for all the purposes, it can perform.
I was initially worried you might be biased but God dam you gotta love a nice clean educational video that doesn't pull the creators opinions in too heavily
I think you are missing out on deeper forces. In anthropology the nation is linked, as the etymology of the word implies, to the notion of birth.
A nation, like its counterpart the ethnicity (from the Greek 'ethnos') is "People of one's own kind". Essentially, the sentiment upon which the nation is built, is that of the sibling and the common ancestry. It entails that what nationalists try to solicit in citizens' minds, is the notion - often fictitious in a cosmopolitan society - that they belong to the same biological family.
Nationalist ideologues rely on the core markers of the human experience to bolster this sentiment : A common language and a common reminiscence. This is the very reason the thinkers of the Enlightenment sought to promote cosmopolitism as a means to strip nationalism of its potential for hegemony. But liberal idealism until recently, didn't anticipate the notion put forth by Hegel, that the propensity to form a common teleological end, would be equally as strong as unity by birth.
It entails that "People of one's own kind" also means "People who share one's own goals". This is the reason all political discourse, and most saliently among those, populist discourse, emphasize a simple common goal, as much as a common ethnic identity in non-cosmopolitan societies.
If you analyze present-day Indian, Chinese or American nationalism, you will see various degree of reliance on common ancestry. Whereas Modi can play the biological and religious identity card easily in India, in the US, Trump has to balance these tropes with a teleological end, American Exceptionalism. You will notice also that to further seal the efficacy of these discourses, all nationalists enhance the contrast of their propositions by designated a common enemy. It works like a charm and it need not be provable ; it only needs to be sustained and loathsome.
Religion does exactly the same. It unifies a large number of disparate people under one commonality, with a figurehead (real, imaginary, mythologized), and with a common enemy (the Devil).
I think local patriotism was more common in the early modern period. The crown is far away, your in-group is much smaller.
Like your town, your nomad tribe, your village league etc. And sometimes the slightly different peasants just across a shifting border.
Immediately my favourite history teacher. Professor Chapman.
It is curious that the word 'nation' had such a different and flexible meaning before the French Revolution. Another word I've come across that also had very different and curious meaning centuries ago was 'race', where it mean a specific family line. "I am the last of my race" = last of my family line. Apparently such usage was fairly common at one point. Always interesting to see the evolution of words over time like this.
Well this guy got the word nation entirely wrong all together.
Nation has never meant what he says it means. A "nation" doesn't have borders. Where are the borders for the kurds? Where are the borders for the Pashtu nation? A state has borders and states today tend to be "nation-states" but a nation state isn't a nation. Like Israel has borders and its a nation state but the Ashkenazi Jewish nation don't have borders.
Yes it did. The word nation meant tribe at first, then a community. It wasnt linked to the state. Same for race
@@McCarthy1776yes, a nation state is a nation. With a state. The jooz state is Israël. You dont define terms you know ?
@@McCarthy1776
As an ashkenazi jew, I don't know anyone who see it as a nation.
People debate the existence of a jewish nation, Israeli nation, palestinian nation, or arab nation, but Ashkenazi nation is news to me.
Got me binging your videos. Your unbiased, well researched approach is refreshing.
Though I personally have no academic investment in anything related to politics I do love your videos and learn something valuable from each one!
🤦
Mr. Chapman I'm addicted to your videos
conservatism socialism nationalism and liberalism are not all mutually exclusive with each other. In fact "conservatism" isn't even an ideology, it's an adjective that describes a given set of beliefs in relation to sociohistorical norms.
For example, when the youth in the USSR were demanding economic freedom, while the old wanted to keep the communist system, who were the conservatives? You would obviously describe the old people as "conservative", not as a noun, but as a temperament. Being a "conservative" has wildly different meanings depending on if you're from China, Western Europe, America or any other society that exists.
Those 4 ideologies are not distinct from each other. There is too much overlap depending on the culture in context to claim that the world is objectively divided into those 4 camps. They are not platonic categories, they are simply adjectives.
We are all individuals, and we all have our own unique philosophy. There are infinite ways you can choose to categorize the beliefs that currently exist in the world. Left/Right, liberal/conservative, socialist/capitalist, nationalist/globalist, it doesn't matter. Those are only temporal heuristics to make sense of the world. They are not idealist objective boxes that you can place each individual into.
ok. done with my rant. everyone should try to study epistemology
I am a fairly conservative social democrat, and to me it's the libertarians and the new crop of weird wannabe conservatives who are the funky new kids.
Thank you Ryan. You explain topics clearly. Your research is extensive. I appreciate these videos.
Hi, I want to point out something regarding nationalism in China.
Chang Kaishek was not the one actually formulated the ideals of nationalism in China. He should be Sun Yetsun (孙逸仙), a figure revered both in mainland China and Taiwan. Both ROC and PRC claim legitimacy from Sun.
But the actual idea of Chinese nation was much more older than Sun as well. For example Liang Qichao formulated the idea of 中华民族（the Chinese Nationality）, which came decades earlier.
Hi, yes but I didn't claim anything in the video to the contrary. I showed two slides of Sun throughout the video, one in the intro and the other when talking about nationalism spreading into Asia. When I was talking about Chiang Kai-Shek in the video I wasn't framing him as the inventor of Chinese nationalism. I picked him because he was a clear case of a man with a hybrid ideology that was nationalist, liberal, and romantic. I think he's clearer in that regard than Sun.
@haoyang4801 Go work on your listening comprehension skills and then don’t come back.🙄🤦♂️🤡
Always nice to see a level headed explanation
"The fact is that following that of the USA, the Greek Revolution was the first liberal and national movement to succeed in Europe and developed simultaneously with similar movements in South America, while it preceded the well-known large national unifications in Europe, of Italy and Germany. The Greeks did not invent the nation-state, but they were the first in Europe to implement it."
Roderick Beaton, "The Greeks: a global history", New York: Basic books 2021
France did it a century before lmfao
@@smal750 You seem to ignore the fact that the French revolution of 1789 was eventually UNSUCCESFULL. The first republic didn't last long, later on Napoleon utterly lost and the Bourbon monarchy was reinstated for another 80 or so years. Even during Napoleon's reign one can't speak of a French Nation-state but of an empire with an emperor.
Napoleon was the leader of the French Republic as First Consul from 1799 to 1804, then of the French Empire as Emperor of the French from 1804 until 1814 and briefly again in 1815... And then the Bourbons took over again. So basically the French Nation-state lasted until 1804. When the Greek nation-stated was created in 1830 there was no French nation-state.
That's why Beaton states that "did not invent the nation-state but were the first in Europe to implement it".
@@vangelisskia214
first reta*ded debt nationalist spotted
I am perpetually in need of another Ryan Chapman video
Lets fucking go dude! I see the starve maxxing has been paying off!!! Keep it up.
😅
Wow. Multiple questions I had on this and you answered them all 🙏 especially that 3rd estate detail...Awesome job
This is the kind of history lesson that creates a real sense of understanding... mostly because of the quotations of thinkers urging new conceptions of society and new methods of shaping it. I'm reminded of Confucius' solution to the Warring States problem in ancient China... you have to wonder if Rousseau et al were educated about that history. It looks positively plagiarized.