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