"Finally, I cannot but add that no serious historian of nations and nationalism can be a committed political nationalist, except in the sense in which believers in the literal truth of the Scriptures, while unable to make contributions to evolutionary theory, are not precluded from making contributions to archaelogy and Semitic philology. Nationalism requires too much belief in what is patently not so."
E.J. Hobsbawm. "Nations and Nationalism since 1780."
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein.
"Nationalism is the hand maiden of racism".....
Hmmmm....
As someone who would have called themself a "committed political nationalist" I need to think about this.....
Hobsbawm is comparing belief in nationalism or a nation to belief in a religion.
I just reckon that the bottom line is that if there is a group of people who share a culture, then this group should be allowed self-determination.
----
We all have our foibles: Hobsbawm himself is, or was, a Marxist, Leninist, Marxist-communist and maybe a Trotskyist too (?).
All of these things are fantasies as well.
----
Most conventional historians of nationalism, including Hobsbawm, more or less insist that nationalism as an ideology roughly began in 1789 along with the French Revolution.
My first reaction is "How can this be so?"
[to be continued]
....
Hobsbawm's contention seems to be that before about 1789, the ethnic or cultural group was never necessarily identified with or associated with a source of political power.
Once again I say, "How can this be so?".
Intuition says "How can this be so?".
....
Can nationalism ever be progressive and left-wing?
....
-----------------
This must ultimately mean something like -
E.J. Hobsbawm. "Nations and Nationalism since 1780."
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein.
"Nationalism is the hand maiden of racism".....
Hmmmm....
As someone who would have called themself a "committed political nationalist" I need to think about this.....
Hobsbawm is comparing belief in nationalism or a nation to belief in a religion.
I just reckon that the bottom line is that if there is a group of people who share a culture, then this group should be allowed self-determination.
----
We all have our foibles: Hobsbawm himself is, or was, a Marxist, Leninist, Marxist-communist and maybe a Trotskyist too (?).
All of these things are fantasies as well.
----
Most conventional historians of nationalism, including Hobsbawm, more or less insist that nationalism as an ideology roughly began in 1789 along with the French Revolution.
My first reaction is "How can this be so?"
[to be continued]
....
Hobsbawm's contention seems to be that before about 1789, the ethnic or cultural group was never necessarily identified with or associated with a source of political power.
Once again I say, "How can this be so?".
Intuition says "How can this be so?".
....
Can nationalism ever be progressive and left-wing?
....
-----------------
"...the....assumption, that national identification is somehow so natural, primary and permanent as to precede history, is...widely held..."
Top Marksist Apostle - Eric Hobsbawm.
"Nationalism requires too much belief in what is simply not so."
Eric Hobsbawm.
This must ultimately mean something like -
LES NATIONS SONT DES FANTASIES.....