Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eosp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!robison
From: robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Nationalism
Message-ID: <1062@eosp1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Aug-84 12:52:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: eosp1.1062
Posted: Thu Aug 16 12:52:10 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Aug-84 01:19:34 EDT
Organization: Exxon Office Systems, Princeton, NJ
Lines: 31

References:

>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

With the possible exceptions of China and Ancient Egypt, the examples
listed were not nations.  People in the past did not transfer their
loyalty from family to "nation"; that really is a modern idea.
Even entities like the Roman Empire consisted of smaller units which
were responsible for local loyalty.  "Israel", if the ancient kingdoms
are referred to, existed for only a short time as an undivided single
kingdom with centralized loyalty.  The loyalty was more to
the Jewish religion and G-d, than to any concept of "Nation".

Although China practiced centralization in a formal way relatively
early, there is still a question of whether the Chinese citizens had a
concept of national loyalty.  A special feeling for the Emperor, yes;
but otherwise, weren't there strongly divided geographic and ethnical
groups with little feeling that they, and the others, belonged to a
nation?  Will an Asian scholar pls comment?

- Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
allegra!eosp1!robison
decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison