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