Month: October 2020

In Duties to Country, Giuseppe Mazzini speaks in support of a utopian Italy that upholds liberty and freedoms in all regards, including systematically, where in his view other European nations fail to live up to their teachings. He states:

“There are countries in Europe where Liberty is sacred within, but is systematically violated without; peoples who say, Truth is one thing, utility another: theory is one thing, practice another. Those countries will have inevitably to expiate their guilt in long isolation, oppression, and anarchy. But you know the mission of our country, and will pursue another path.” (pg. 5 in the .pdf doc, bottom of 286 to the top of 287 in the document itself)

He continues by saying how Italy will lead the way on the international stage and be looked up to as a shining example of a truly free nation. This exposes a judgmental view of other nations, something along the lines of saying that “they just aren’t doing it right, but we’re better, so we can succeed where they failed.” He associates Italy doing well with humanity doing well as a whole, which says a lot to his sense of national/nationalistic pride and perception of Italy’s role in the world. His definition of a nation, the idea of a “concord of labour towards a single end,” clarifies that the freedom and liberty he so enthusiastically emphasizes, or perhaps the union with that as the goal, is the ultimate objective. His constant usage of fraternal terms like “brothers” and “fathers” lends a sort of propaganda aspect to his piece, much like we later see with Germany and Russia. This is further corroborated by the usage of phrases like “Your duties to your country,” which convey a sense of inherent loyalty.

Two questions that arise in view of these factors are:

What do his nationalist views have in common with others of the period, and later, which sought to unify their nations or work towards that goal?

The fact that he puts his hypothetical Italian state on a pedestal, predicting they it will be greater and more powerful than the Catholic Church under the Pope or the Roman Empire under Caesar, shows a great confidence in this movement. Is it simply talk or language to rally more supporters to his cause?

In Renan’s What is a Nation, he attempts to define the principles that create a nation. Renan provides multiple counter-arguments against the claim that nations are natural and permanent rather than constructed and dynamic. For instance, Renan criticizes the belief that one shared religion, ethnicity, or language creates a nation because he fears that this belief can justify violence to force assimilation onto different groups of people who do not wish to unite with another group. (Renan, 51-52) Also, Renan mentions that no one belongs to only one racial group due to mixing. For example, he mentions that the french are made up unacknowledged racial groups that have mixed over time, such as, the Franks, Burgundians, and Gauls. (Renan, 49) Also, Renan mentions that languages are constantly changing in a region and cannot define a nation. (Renan, 50) Thus, Renan believes that a nation can only be formed by a “spiritual principle,” which he describes by stating, “One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form.” (Renan, 52) Thus, he claims that a nation is formed when groups of people have shared experiences that spark a desire inside of themselves to unite under their ancestors’ shared struggles. Also, Renan states, “I spoke just now of “having suffered together” and indeed suffering in common unifies more than joy does.” (Renan, 53) Renan claims that a nation is united by shared grief and the desire to heal together. However, a few questions are raised. For instance, Renan does not describe what is considered a form of suffering, nor does he mention how to determine if the experiences of groups are shared. What form of suffering can unite people under one nation? How can it be proven that all people truly desire to unite if one group decides to dominate the conversation?

When theodor Herzl is writing about the newest wave of anti-Semitism in eastern Europe he writes “We are what the Ghetto made us. We have attained pre-eminence in finance, because mediaeval conditions drove us to it. the same process is now being repeated…” in the same paragraph he also says “Educated Jews without means are now rapidly becoming Socialist. Hence we are certain to suffer very severely in the struggle between classes…”(485). The thing that is begin describe for the issues of anti semitism can be see time and time again throughout history. they continually put minorities on the end of the system and once the minorities get any sort of footing it is used against them in some form. my question is why is propaganda reused to fuel the same kind of hate to a people? secondly why, are the people that are reusing said hate unable to see that this is something that has already occured time and time again?

The unification of Germany was a landmark achievement that was mostly headed by Otto Von Bismarck along with others who helped to form the new nation. While many critique Bismarck’s methods in unification it does appear that everything he did was in hopes to create the strong nation he believed in. In one of his speeches, Bismarck himself says, “We want to serve the people. But I make the demand on Herr Bamberger that he act as my co-shoemaker in order to make sure that no member of the public goes barefoot, and to create a suitable shoe for the people in this crucial area.” (page 420) He goes on to criticize Herr Bamberger for not doing what is necessary, but was Bismarck innocent, or did he fail to see his own faults? Does he fall victim to the common mistake of a lack of insight within his own methods, or do you believe that Bismarck’s actions were justified in all situations?

The overarching question in Ernest Renan’s What is a Nation is whether or not there is something with which we can measure the validity of a nation or state. He brings up several examples, but it essentially boils down to the distinctions being something that we (humanity) made up. He first looks at race and ethnicity. If we were looking at it from a purely scientific view, the differences between people on a genetic level translate to visually different at best to indistinguishable. Historically, people banded together for survival, and as time went on and technology improved, those social connections stuck. How people defined themselves was with who they lived with. Renan says that it ultimately does not play a part in defining a nation, “The truth is that there is no pure race and that to make politics depend upon ethnographic analysis is to surrender it to a chimera” (Renan, 48).

He then goes on to talk about language and religion. Language is essential to communication, but it does not always rely on ethnic or racial lines, or even geographical ones. So that in and of itself cannot define a nation. Religion is also a factor. When people defined themselves based on who they lived with, religion was entirely identical among any group. However, when people began interacting outside of their immediate surroundings, it had to change. To get to the time when this was written, religion was no longer a cultural or societal identifier, it became personal and individual. So we can no longer base a nation on a particular religion either because states are now composed of multiple religious groups.

All of this is to say that what makes a nation is the people who are there. Nationality is a social construct that we use to identify ourselves and others. I would like to clarify that just because something is a social construct doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It still has influence and power. For example money, time, and language are constructs but our lives are very much affected by these things. Do you agree with Renan? Is there something with which we could determine a nation, or is it only up to the people of a particular area to decide their own nationality? Is there a way to bring about nationalism, or is it something that happens organically?

In this Speech on the Law for Workmen’s Compensation, the Chancellor of the German Empire, Otto Von Bismarck, is grappling with questions about the role of the government or the “state” in both the private sector and the individual lives of its citizens; “does the state have the responsibility to care for its helpless fellow citizens, or does it not?” (422). He ultimately argues that yes, it is the state’s role, at least to some degree, and he goes on to give examples on what that impact might be on the private companies and citizens as well. Bismarck is appealing to those who might otherwise turn toward Socialism, arguing that socialist leaders grow more powerful when there are more dissatisfied workers. In fact, he points to France’s failures to legislative protections for its poor workers as the reason for their “social conditions” being “unsettled” (423) and he predicts that it is unavoidable for France to continue on the same path of “distance[ing] themselves so far from socialism that poor laws do not exist at all” (423). In the vast majority of my experience, the ideas being proposed by Bismarck, for a larger governmental role in the lives of citizens, are usually found on the left side of the political spectrum, have you had the same experience? How do you evaluate these ideas coming from a conservative figure opposed to a progressive one? What are the key distinctions to be made with the changes that Bismarck is proposing compared to others we have looked at in the past?

In Ernest Renan’s What is a Nation?, he writes on behalf of asking the reader the question, “what makes a nation a nation?” In the introduction of the document, he said, “It is a delicate thing that I propose to do here, somewhat akin to vivisection; I am going to treat the living much as one ordinarily treats the dead. I shall adopt an absolutely cool and impartial attitude.” (Renan 42) He talks a lot about race, religion, language, and ethnicity regarding nationality throughout. He seems to have an opinion about all of them. Throughout the text, do you think Renan has a ‘cool and impartial attitude’ regarding the topics he talks about? Do you think he has bias towards certain people, cultures, religions, etc.?

In the address by the Hungarian parliament and Demands of the Hungarian people, citizens wanted change to occur and therefore demanded for twelve demands to be fulfilled. Due to the government’s lack of following constitutional direction which prevented the development of the constitutional system in Hungary it would be difficult for change to happen. But If the Hungarian people got their demands, which do you believe would be the hardest to attain? And why? Also do you think some people would argue against these demands?

While 19th century Europe was filled with many revolutions, they all had different results and levels of success. Some revolutions, like the French Revolution of 1848, resulted in the overthrow of a monarch. However, others like the Budapest uprising in 1848 Hungary were suppressed before they could become significant. “Although the ensuring revolution was ultimately crushed…” (page 419). The fact that there were so many revolutions during the 19th century, along with the varying degree of success among all of them, raises the question, is there a specific formula to a successful revolution, or is it just a matter of some armies acting quick enough to suppress the revolution before it can begin?

In the Address by the Hungarian Parliament and Demands of the Hungarian People, many requests are made for political freedom. The author of this work gives the Hungarian government many reasons why these people deserve their freedom. The author says, “we are likewise of opinion that the time has arrived for granting political rights to the people.” Along with reasons why they should get political freedom, the work gives the 12 demands of the Hungarian citizens. Do you think that Hungary would be able to carry out all of the requests if they were supported enough? Which do you think would come into play the easiest? Which of the demands do you think would be the hardest for Hungary to carry out?