Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxx.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!ihuxx!ignatz From: ignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (Dave Ihnat, Chicago, IL) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: American sportscasting : followup. Message-ID: <828@ihuxx.UUCP> Date: Thu, 16-Aug-84 22:00:37 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxx.828 Posted: Thu Aug 16 22:00:37 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Aug-84 00:26:12 EDT References: <816@ihuxx.UUCP> <982@shark.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 68 Really? There was no Athens, no Sparta, no Carthage, no Rome, no Egypt under the Pharoahs, no Israel, no China, before the 17th century? ;-) Nationalism is a result of having nations. People will have loyalty to a family, which at the proper age seems to transfer or extend to a tribe or clan, thence (sometimes) to the identifiable "country" or "king" under whatever system is in place. Hutch (go ducks!) <- loyalty to alma mater == school patriotism Uh, Hutch, but you said it here; and I'm sure I won't get back before someone else does, but, what the hell--although, you know, if we keep on with intelligent discussion and wry humor, we're gonna get thrown off net.flame! Athens..Sparta...Carthage: all CITY-states. Loyalty derived from identification with the city. (Remember, "...before that, increasingly smaller units of geography...", didn't I say? Huh?) Their influence over those outside the immediate area armed men could cover was minimal. The history of all of what was later to be called "Greece" was composed of uncountable conflicts between these small units. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but had you asked any citizen of any of these if they loved Greece, they'd look blankly at you. Egypt under the Pharoahs: You continue to expand on what I said. "...loyalty tended to be to your King...". This was, indeed, a step forward, in that the concept of loyalty had become abstracted from just the land that supported you to the idea of, in this case, a Divine Being in mortal form. But Egypt the state? Through the 17th century, the 'land' was personified in the Monarch. Egypt is an extreme example of this. Israel: Another example, albeit one which can lead to interesting discussion. 'Israel' has been, most often, the People, not the land. The 'nation' of Israel has been an unlanded people far longer than they had land to call their own--a very strong indication that their concept of 'nation' pertained to their Tribes. When they had land, their loyalty was to the King; with special reverence to certain holy sites, such as the Temple. China: Granted, all of us know far less than we should about the fascinating--and LONG--history of this, land of the oldest civilization on the planet. But actually, China was not a nation even after the various nations had been born in the West. Warlords controlled their kingdoms, or bandit chieftans their areas of influence; and even service to the Emperor is not the type of nationalism we are debating. Nationalism refers to the concept of a LAND--"England", my country; NOT "Good Queen Bess", or "King Richard", but the intangible concept that, no matter who's running the show, it is still 'my land'. Interestingly enough, national ensigns appeared at the same time; previous to that, the idea of a single standard for England, or Turkey, or whatever, just...well, wasn't. In closing, I've reached the end of my recollection on this. It isn't my argument, either; I remember this issue from a history course many years ago (before the founding of nations, it seems now...) It might be quite interesting if I had a friend of mine, who actually got a *history* degree, to comment on this to the net. (What does he do for a living? Well, he's a swing shift radio operator for a suburban police force. Not to many jobs for historians, as such.) Ta, Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz