Tag Archives: Nationalism

Autarky & Nationalism

Posted on by

In Schivelbusch’s fourth chapter titled “Back to the Land,” the author discussed the term “autarky,” or national economic self-sufficiency, which became the watchword of the 1930s. More than just an economic concept, the idea of autarky was applicable to nationalism as well. Schivelbusch noted that by 1933, nationalism was more than one hundred years old, and its popularity rose and fell in cycles corresponding in contrast with cosmopolitanism. ((Wolfgang Schivelbusch, “Back to the Land,” in Three New Deals – Reflections on Roosevelt’s America, Mussolini’s Italy, and Hitler’s Germany, 1933-1939) (New York: Picador, 2006), 104)) However, the Great Depression led to the rediscovery of the nation and its embodiment (the state). The chaotic times incited a movement of nations looking inward and becoming more introverted and defensive, in hopes of achieving a self-sufficient economy immune to crises like the Great Depression.

Various initiatives were introduced to instill a sense of community and the rebuilding of domestic infrastructure. In general, all three governments hearkened back to times of pre-industrialization and advocated regionalism, decentralization of economic institutions, and the re-agriculturalization of the society.  These initiatives were categorized collectively under the ‘back-to-the-land’ movement. The obsession with autarkic ideals was short lived however. While at the time of the collapse of capitalism it was logical to question whether or not industrialization had been a mistake, the presence of this mentality was brief. According to Schivelbusch, the reason for decline in these projects could be attributed to an ebbing in hostility by the middle class towards capitalism and industrial giants (( Wolfgang Schivelbusch, Three New Deals,133 )).

One reason why these initiatives were attempted was to further the development of nationalism by first focusing inward. A quote that I found particularly interesting was spoken by Mussolini about “nationalizing” people. Regarding this question, Mussolini said “After we’ve created Italy, the next task will be to create Italians.” (( Wolfgang Schivelbusch, Three New Deals, 109 )) Do you agree with this idea that the creation of a nation must come before the “creation” of a people? Why or why not? Can you cite other historical examples that demonstrate either side of this argument?

 

Autarky Envisioned

Posted on by

The idea of autarky was present throughout all of Europe as each nation was affected by the Great Depression.  As the Depression impacted each nation’s economy, a new ideology needed to be introduced to the capitalist society.  Individuals were against the rapidly growing materialistic and capitalistic world as it could be the only explanation for the Depression.  But how was autarky envisioned in the totalitarian state such as Germany and Italy, alongside the democratic United States?  In Schivelbusch’s Three New Deals, autarky can be explained beyond the economic standpoint.  ((Wolfgang Schivelbusch, Three New Deals, (New York: Picador, 2006) )).

As the Depression hit, the rush to create a self-sufficient economic was significant.  If a nation was unable to support themselves the nation would suffer even more.  Regionalism was introduced as well as inner colonization.  This inner colonization as Schivelbusch explains brought forward the importance of nationalism.  The nation must find opportunities in which individuals could become an nation and develop a sense of national pride.  Propaganda and public works projects financed by the state were established to find this national pride within the community.  Individuals were brought to live in small communities in where there were able to develop a sense of family within the state.

Establishments of public works projects and state-funded propaganda gave the government a new view of nationalism and the impact it could make to suppress the effects of the Depression.  While several of these public works projects failed such as the settlements located on the outskirts of major cities, nations were able to develop a national pride that allowed them to gain strength that was needed in WWII.

Blut und Boden — Primordialism in Schivelbusch’s Three New Deals

Posted on by

Primordialism is an ancient form of nationalism that is rooted in mono-ethnic relations. As opposed to modernists who promote an imagined, mental conception of nationalism that is possible between multiple ethnic groups, primordialists assert that nationality is based on a common gene pool which creates physical attachments in a singular people. Beyond imagined community asserted by modernists, primordialists believe blood relations tie individuals together through the bonds of kinship, clanship, and tribalism founded on communal inheritance. Do you believe primordialism (mono-ethnic groups connected through blood ties) or modernism (multi-ethnic groups that feel an affinity for each other through created traditions, e.g. The Pledge of Allegiance) is a more cohesive form of nationalism?

As Schivelbusch discusses in his 4th chapter, “Back to the Land”, ((Wolfgang Schivelbusch, “Back to the Land,” in Three New Deals – Reflections on Roosevelt’s America, Mussolini’s Italy, and Hitler’s Germany, 1933-1939) (New York: Picador, 2006), 104)) primordial nationalism played a large part in the rise of authoritarian regimes of the 20th century. After liberal politics and laissez-faire capitalist economies seemed to lead to the crash of 1929, rejection of industrial and international mechanisms that went along with them was the norm thereafter. To Schivelbusch, loss of public trust in democracies because of the Great Depression was essential for charismatic leaders like Mussolini and Hitler to establish rule through authoritarianism in the 1930s. ((Schivelbusch, Three New Deals, 106)) Nations turned inward instead of outward during national revivals in place of imperialist expansions. The quest for Lebensraum and Fascist colonization would only seem possible after domestic rebuilding and communal reconnection.

In an attempt to imitate the past successes of simpler, pre-modern times regionalism, decentralization, reagriculturalization, and the “organic citizen and society” were all promoted as a return to primordial ties of the homeland in the ‘back-to-the-land’ movement. The Nazi ideology “Blut und Boden” (blood and soil) epitomized this ideology — eugenic authenticity of a naturally superior Volk living on collectively-worked territory. ((Schivelbusch, Three New Deals, 112)) Handicrafts and labor tied to the land were promoted as the basis of an autarkic economy. Mechanical and artificial constructions of industrialization were deemed part of a ‘pseudo-community’ that must be reversed for a return to a more elemental, natural national life. ((Schivelbusch, Three New Deals, 120)) After a complete return to pre-industrial ways of life was eventually rejected as industrialization was increasingly seen as an irreversible mass movement, “a Utopian vision of a new, crisis-resistant synthesis of town and country, industry and idyll” ((Schivelbusch, Three New Deals, 126)) was promoted, espoused particularly by the concept of a non-specified laborer (farmer-factory worker) and Roosevelt’s term ‘rural-urban industry’ which he believed “would be crisis-proof and crisis-resistant”. ((Schivelbusch, Three New Deals, 127)) Do you agree with Roosevelt’s assertion that the most stable, balanced, self-sufficient industry would effectively maintain a bureaucratically controlled equilibrium of natural and artificial products?

Rupert Brooke’s Great War Poetry

Posted on by

Author: Rupert Brooke was born in England, in 1887. Brooke, renowned for his World War I poetry, attended Cambridge University on a scholarship and was eventually commissioned to Britain’s Royal Naval Division. His premature death was the result of a mosquito bite that gave him septicemia on April 23, 1915.

Content: The content of Brooke’s poetry is striking. There is a stark contrast between the majority of Great War poets who lent their prose to engraving our imaginations with repugnant images of trenches, diseases, and death, to Brooke’s stanzas that could make a man or woman leave the comfort of their home to rather charge through no-man’s land with bayonet in hand. He is extremely optimistic about the war.

Language: Poetry of this caliber is difficult to read. The language is flowery, and the line breaks sometimes make it hard to complete the whole image which Brooke’s is trying to portray. Perhaps the language would come more easily had it been read by an Englishman one hundred years ago.

Audience: All of England. This is very romantic, pro-nationalist poem that is written for anyone who is scared of, or willing to help the war effort.

Intent: Brooke’s intent is to motivate. Also, to elicit a sense of national pride and honor which can be achieved through sacrificing yourself for England.

Message: Choose glory over life; for there is nothing greater than fighting for England. “But, dying, has made us greater gifts than gold.” He also implies that death is release from this world, which Brook’s seems to think is somewhat dreaded, and that the manner in which you die on the battlefield makes one “Rich” in a sense that is more significant that monetary wealth. Simply put, Brooke’s message is that dying for England is greater than merely living for England.

 

Imperialism – Hobson

Posted on by

Imperialism

A. John Hobson (1902)

  • English economist
  • Critic of imperialism
  • Wealthy family and well educated

C.

  • One of the most famous critiques of the economic bases of imperialism
  • Middle of 2nd IR
  • Britain had lost its monopoly on the world market

L.

  • Intelligent, enlightened, somewhat complex

A.

  • Britain’s leaders

I.

  • Inform Britain not only that imperialism is unnecessary, but it wastes Britain’s resources on peoples that can never become part of Britain instead of fixing internal problems

M.

  • Meaning of the word imperialism shifts through manipulation
  • Nationalism has had both unifying and dividing effects
  • Nationalism set the momentum for expansionàimperialism
  • Imperialism was unnecessary until Britain lost its monopoly of the world market
  • As other nations such as Germany, Belgium, and the US encroached upon Britain’s markets, Britain had to find new markets
  • Must be undeveloped
  • Safest means of developing these new markets is establishing protectorates
  •  Imperialism is not inevitable like many people think
  • If Great Britain focused on bettering itself, they wouldn’t need to seek our undeveloped markets to exploit
  • Neglecting agriculture
  • Overpopulation
  • Poor education system
  • New markets they are seeking cannot be assimilated to Britain
  • Imperialism driven by class interest
  • Must cut imperialism at its economic roots to be effective

Fichte, To the German Nation

Posted on by

I chose the first passage of Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s To the German Nation. He was a great patriot and believed that it was important that the German population embrace their culture. As a reformer and supporter of the French Revolution, he had nationalist ideals and strongly believed that language and history bind a country together.

In the second line he states, “Those who speak the same language are joined to each other by a multitude of invisible bonds by nature herself, long before any human art begins; they understand each other and have the power of continuing to make themselves understood more and more clearly; they belong together and are by nature one and an inseparable whole.” This relates to the topic of nationalism that we have been discussing in class. The people of a country are bound together by a common language, and although different dialects may emerge, they are still united by this factor. By saying “they belong together and are by nature one and an insuperable whole” reinforces the fact that although different groups, factions or regions of a population are created, in the end they all share the same history and background. Another line reads, “men dwell together-and, if their luck has so arranged it, are protected by rivers and mountains-because they were a people already by a law of nature which is much higher.” Every country has a history that is shared amongst its people. Even though they may go through different experiences, and at times may be divided, their common history and language unites them and allows men to overcome these differences.

Count Cavour and Nationality

Posted on by

In “The Program of Count Cavour” from 1846, around the beginnings of the Italian Unification, Count Cavour expresses that “no people can attain a high degree of intelligence and morality unless its feeling of nationality is strongly developed. This noteworthy fact is an inevitable consequence of the laws that rule human nature”. As a powerful figure in the unification of Italy, Cavour makes purposefully strong statements such as these to fuel a sense of determination and obligation in the peoples of Italy. In order to prompt in his people a feeling of duty, Cavour subtly suggests that those who have not cultivated a sense of nationality will not achieve intelligence or morality. He insinuates that a sense of nationality and belonging has always been present in human nature, and that awareness of this sense of nationality has always been the key to reaching “a high degree of intelligence and morality”, or in other words, enlightenment. In this manner, Cavour cleverly encourages nationalism in Italians. In a way, he makes those lacking in nationalistic values out to be ignorant and unconscionable. Cavour chooses to tie morality to nationalism because one who is patriotic has a sense of loyalty to a greater population, rather than just himself. Therefore when someone thinks only of himself, and not of his country too, he has a lower standard of morality.

I definitely understand Cavour’s sentiments in relating intelligence and morality to nationalism, but it definitely is not true in many situations. Nations which employ immoral practices should not feel entitled to feelings of nationalism from its people, particularly if there are laws or policies that do not protect the welfare of its people. Sometimes the most intelligent and moral people are those who speak out against a nation, questioning certain practices and systems in place. A sense of nationalism can also be a detrimental thing for a nation’s people. Governments can convince and/or force its people to perform immoral, inhumane acts in the interests of the country. Nationalism may be the best thing for an individual country, but may hurt its people and affect other countries in a negative manner. Is Cavour right in saying that nationalism is tied to high levels of intelligence and morality? Is this relevant in any nations today? Was it only relevant at the time for Italy?

Day by Day Nationalism

Posted on by

“Nationalism has become general; it grows daily and it has already grown strong enough to keep all parts of Italy united despite the differences that distinguish them.”

-Count Cavour (Camillo Benso)

While this quote from Benso, who would become Prime Minister of Piedmont-Sardinia, applies to Italy it could be applied to many different countries in Europe at the time.  Nationalism is no longer a fad at this time, it is assumed now.  Unity is now a key word in the development of new countries.  Giuseppe Mazzini wrote “unity is a necessity in the world.”  As Count Cavour wrote unity has become strong in Italy but it is needed everywhere.  Unity comes with nationalism and the two words are very important together. Count Cavour touches on it briefly and the important part of his quote is that nationalism is continuing to grow.  It is growing on a daily basis, the people are becoming more unified.  Mazzini also wrote “The question of Nationalities, rightly understood, is the Alliance of Peoples”.  This quote is the basis for what Cavour is seeing put into action.  Cavour says nationalism has become general but he is thinking too general.  While he is looking just at Italy, many other places in Europe are becoming more unified.  This is not a separated occurrence in Italy, many people are taking Mazzini’s words to heart.  Count Cavour did not know it but his writing was a base point of what nationalism is.  Italy is just one of the many in Europe who were “unified despite the differences that distinguish them.”

Are children raised by nations?

Posted on by

My task for class tomorrow is to lead a discussion on the relationship between the “nation” and the child, and so I will begin that discussion in this post. After reading Stearns book “Childhood in World History” I walked away with two major conclusions, and many minor ones.

Although I already suspected this, I concluded that the nation (meaning, for the most part, the government) has an incredible influence on the concept of childhood within its borders. Stearns outlines several shifts in global history that heavily impacted childhood across the globe, and I think that governments were responsible for many of these shifts. Industrialization, for instance, was the reason that in the 19th Century  children began working jobs just like adults, and industrialization was strongly supported by governments.  So too were further technological advancements in mechanization, which resulted in machines displacing children from the work place. And so childhood shifted yet again to emphasize school rather than labor. Governments had a huge role ushering in this new age of childhood that focused on schooling. Japan created a mandatory education system by the turn of the 20th Century. The Japanese government believed that their population would be of no value if it was illiterate, therefore the future wealth of the country depended on the education of children. Governments also sought to control how adults conducted “parenting,” especially because these cultures believe in the innocence of children at birth. The corruption of a child comes from ill-treatment at the hands of adult and bad societal influences.

My second conclusion is this: because of the influence a government has on childhood within a nation, it is only logical that the concept of childhood differs from country to country. In some cases, like amongst Western countries, these differences may be slight, however I am certain they exist. This ties back to readings from last week that highlighted geography as a key determinant of childhood. Each government, backed by cultural traditions, has tried to maintain some aspects of their traditional way of life or their ideological thinking that they believe is important for society to keep, and these cultural nuances are different everywhere. For the Soviet Union, they wanted to stress Marxism in the classrooms and instill a sense of duty towards the collective good, meaning the state. China, Japan and the Soviet Union all, to a certain degree, stressed a sense of loyalty or duty to the state, however in Japan it was more in line with nationalism than with Communist ideology.

The role of the state with regards to the development of childhood should not be overlooked; in fact, I think the answers to many “whys?” and “hows?” can be found by looking towards the nation.

Nationalism and La Marseillaise

Posted on by

Nationalism, according to Halsall, is the “most successful political philosophy of the modern era”. In order to be considered a nation, a state or group of states must have a language, tradition, or common history that binds the people, which, as stated by von Herder, must be honored by the ruler. Also, a nation is considered more legitimate in its basis than other forms of government labeled “theocracies”, “empires”, and “dynastic rights”. As a German himself, von Herder recognizes Germany’s characteristics to compile those which resemble a nation, but discerns that they are unique, “peculiar”, and different from typical attributes of a nation. Von Herder takes pride in the distinct character of his country, and believes that Germany is unparalleled in its originality and its archetype.

France distinguishes itself as a nation in a manner different from Germany. At the time of the French Revolution, nationalism is powerful in France. After having overthrown the monarchy and establishing more rights and freedoms for its people, France’s pride is at an all-time high. The French Revolution inspires the poem and national anthem “La Marseillaise”, which can be considered the embodiment of France’s status as a true nation. Through the writing of this poem, and later, France’s adoption of it as its national anthem, a type of patriotism is born. Written in French with lyrics speaking of a common history of the people, de Lisle legitimizes France as a nation. However, the national anthem is not the only factor that validates France’s standing as a nation. When Napoleon Bonaparte takes control of France, he establishes a strong and powerful army. With the foundation of an army, a nation becomes more legitimate. It can wield more power and express its character through its actions. Furthermore, the unification of a large group such as an army creates a strong identity for a country. Although he did not willingly leave his position as military leader, Napoleon strengthened France’s identity among the European nations and increased its status as a nation.

Questions to consider: Because Napoleon’s conquests were spread so far and wide, did it delegitimize France’s status as a nation? In order to be considered a nation, does a country’s population and/or geographic size need to be under a certain limit? As a nation increases in size, does it lose its identity, its respect for common history? Do greater populations result in more dialects and languages, eliminating the common language that binds a nation’s people?