Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Nationalism a product of modernity

Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 3:07:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, I was thinking on my bed and something struck me; nationalism, ironically, came up as a true creed in the 19th Century. I also realized that nationalism seemed to have developed faster in more "modern" society, like Germany and Spain; both of them colonial powers at the time, while African Nationalism (try to think of this as not African Independence) developed much as a slower pace that I could have.

So I was thinking, and then it sprung up to me: is Nationalism a product of modernity?
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 4:42:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 3:07:56 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
Well, I was thinking on my bed and something struck me; nationalism, ironically, came up as a true creed in the 19th Century. I also realized that nationalism seemed to have developed faster in more "modern" society, like Germany and Spain; both of them colonial powers at the time, while African Nationalism (try to think of this as not African Independence) developed much as a slower pace that I could have.

So I was thinking, and then it sprung up to me: is Nationalism a product of modernity?

It's a product of western civilization if that's what you call modernity. It's evolved from the humanism idea, provide alternative to former system of patronage and religion administration, permitting a stronger and more unified nation state. And replacing an older decentralized feudalism.

So yes, it's required more sophisticated political philosophy and also the idea of humanism which happened to be developed in the west so it is natural that it was quickly adopted by the western nation than the east.
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 4:43:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 4:42:10 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 1/18/2014 3:07:56 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
Well, I was thinking on my bed and something struck me; nationalism, ironically, came up as a true creed in the 19th Century. I also realized that nationalism seemed to have developed faster in more "modern" society, like Germany and Spain; both of them colonial powers at the time, while African Nationalism (try to think of this as not African Independence) developed much as a slower pace that I could have.

So I was thinking, and then it sprung up to me: is Nationalism a product of modernity?

It's a product of western civilization if that's what you call modernity. It's evolved from the humanism idea, provide alternative to former system of patronage and religion administration, permitting a stronger and more unified nation state. And replacing an older decentralized feudalism.

So yes, it's required more sophisticated political philosophy and also the idea of humanism which happened to be developed in the west so it is natural that it was quickly adopted by the western nation than the east.
Wait are you Thai?
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 4:47:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 4:43:18 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
At 1/20/2014 4:42:10 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 1/18/2014 3:07:56 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
Well, I was thinking on my bed and something struck me; nationalism, ironically, came up as a true creed in the 19th Century. I also realized that nationalism seemed to have developed faster in more "modern" society, like Germany and Spain; both of them colonial powers at the time, while African Nationalism (try to think of this as not African Independence) developed much as a slower pace that I could have.

So I was thinking, and then it sprung up to me: is Nationalism a product of modernity?

It's a product of western civilization if that's what you call modernity. It's evolved from the humanism idea, provide alternative to former system of patronage and religion administration, permitting a stronger and more unified nation state. And replacing an older decentralized feudalism.

So yes, it's required more sophisticated political philosophy and also the idea of humanism which happened to be developed in the west so it is natural that it was quickly adopted by the western nation than the east.
Wait are you Thai?

well, yes.

let's me guest, you look at my name :D
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 4:52:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 4:47:01 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 1/20/2014 4:43:18 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
At 1/20/2014 4:42:10 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 1/18/2014 3:07:56 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
Well, I was thinking on my bed and something struck me; nationalism, ironically, came up as a true creed in the 19th Century. I also realized that nationalism seemed to have developed faster in more "modern" society, like Germany and Spain; both of them colonial powers at the time, while African Nationalism (try to think of this as not African Independence) developed much as a slower pace that I could have.

So I was thinking, and then it sprung up to me: is Nationalism a product of modernity?

It's a product of western civilization if that's what you call modernity. It's evolved from the humanism idea, provide alternative to former system of patronage and religion administration, permitting a stronger and more unified nation state. And replacing an older decentralized feudalism.

So yes, it's required more sophisticated political philosophy and also the idea of humanism which happened to be developed in the west so it is natural that it was quickly adopted by the western nation than the east.
Wait are you Thai?

well, yes.

let's me guest, you look at my name :D

And I'm also Thai.....oh yeah!
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 5:14:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 3:07:56 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
Well, I was thinking on my bed and something struck me; nationalism, ironically, came up as a true creed in the 19th Century. I also realized that nationalism seemed to have developed faster in more "modern" society, like Germany and Spain; both of them colonial powers at the time, while African Nationalism (try to think of this as not African Independence) developed much as a slower pace that I could have.

So I was thinking, and then it sprung up to me: is Nationalism a product of modernity?

No.

In east Asia, nationalism was already a distinct concept. Perhaps they were called "empires" or "dynasties"...regardless, they're called nations today, and they are almost the exact same entities as they were pre-modernity, i.e. China, Japan, Korea. For them, "nationalism" is just a fur pelt put on the same animal.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 5:18:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 5:14:51 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2014 3:07:56 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
Well, I was thinking on my bed and something struck me; nationalism, ironically, came up as a true creed in the 19th Century. I also realized that nationalism seemed to have developed faster in more "modern" society, like Germany and Spain; both of them colonial powers at the time, while African Nationalism (try to think of this as not African Independence) developed much as a slower pace that I could have.

So I was thinking, and then it sprung up to me: is Nationalism a product of modernity?

No.

In east Asia, nationalism was already a distinct concept. Perhaps they were called "empires" or "dynasties"...regardless, they're called nations today, and they are almost the exact same entities as they were pre-modernity, i.e. China, Japan, Korea. For them, "nationalism" is just a fur pelt put on the same animal.
I'm not so sure I know what you mean
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 5:23:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 5:18:52 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
At 1/20/2014 5:14:51 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2014 3:07:56 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
Well, I was thinking on my bed and something struck me; nationalism, ironically, came up as a true creed in the 19th Century. I also realized that nationalism seemed to have developed faster in more "modern" society, like Germany and Spain; both of them colonial powers at the time, while African Nationalism (try to think of this as not African Independence) developed much as a slower pace that I could have.

So I was thinking, and then it sprung up to me: is Nationalism a product of modernity?

No.

In east Asia, nationalism was already a distinct concept. Perhaps they were called "empires" or "dynasties"...regardless, they're called nations today, and they are almost the exact same entities as they were pre-modernity, i.e. China, Japan, Korea. For them, "nationalism" is just a fur pelt put on the same animal.
I'm not so sure I know what you mean

IMHO there's nothing magical about the term "nationalism". My understanding is that it cemented in the West out of the de-emphasis on theocratic rule. In east Asia, there was no theocratic rule...there was always a much more secular emphasis on governorship. So, in east Asia, you already had "nations" before what was formally called "nationalism".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 5:32:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 5:23:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/20/2014 5:18:52 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
At 1/20/2014 5:14:51 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2014 3:07:56 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
Well, I was thinking on my bed and something struck me; nationalism, ironically, came up as a true creed in the 19th Century. I also realized that nationalism seemed to have developed faster in more "modern" society, like Germany and Spain; both of them colonial powers at the time, while African Nationalism (try to think of this as not African Independence) developed much as a slower pace that I could have.

So I was thinking, and then it sprung up to me: is Nationalism a product of modernity?

No.

In east Asia, nationalism was already a distinct concept. Perhaps they were called "empires" or "dynasties"...regardless, they're called nations today, and they are almost the exact same entities as they were pre-modernity, i.e. China, Japan, Korea. For them, "nationalism" is just a fur pelt put on the same animal.
I'm not so sure I know what you mean

IMHO there's nothing magical about the term "nationalism". My understanding is that it cemented in the West out of the de-emphasis on theocratic rule. In east Asia, there was no theocratic rule...there was always a much more secular emphasis on governorship. So, in east Asia, you already had "nations" before what was formally called "nationalism".

I think I disagree with you: nationalism was first used by Herder to describe his views on German identity in the 1800s, and in East Asian nations, if there was nationalism before the 19th Century, then why did no country, except for Japan, fall into the hands of Far-Right nationalism? In countries where the rulers isolated themselves, there seem to be much of a larger sense of national identity, as traditions and cultures were curbed into perfectness there.

Example: Japan and China.
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 5:36:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 5:32:56 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
At 1/20/2014 5:23:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/20/2014 5:18:52 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
At 1/20/2014 5:14:51 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2014 3:07:56 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
Well, I was thinking on my bed and something struck me; nationalism, ironically, came up as a true creed in the 19th Century. I also realized that nationalism seemed to have developed faster in more "modern" society, like Germany and Spain; both of them colonial powers at the time, while African Nationalism (try to think of this as not African Independence) developed much as a slower pace that I could have.

So I was thinking, and then it sprung up to me: is Nationalism a product of modernity?

No.

In east Asia, nationalism was already a distinct concept. Perhaps they were called "empires" or "dynasties"...regardless, they're called nations today, and they are almost the exact same entities as they were pre-modernity, i.e. China, Japan, Korea. For them, "nationalism" is just a fur pelt put on the same animal.
I'm not so sure I know what you mean

IMHO there's nothing magical about the term "nationalism". My understanding is that it cemented in the West out of the de-emphasis on theocratic rule. In east Asia, there was no theocratic rule...there was always a much more secular emphasis on governorship. So, in east Asia, you already had "nations" before what was formally called "nationalism".

I think I disagree with you: nationalism was first used by Herder to describe his views on German identity in the 1800s, and in East Asian nations, if there was nationalism before the 19th Century, then why did no country, except for Japan, fall into the hands of Far-Right nationalism? In countries where the rulers isolated themselves, there seem to be much of a larger sense of national identity, as traditions and cultures were curbed into perfectness there.

Example: Japan and China.

I have no idea what you mean by "far right nationalism". As it is, Korea was a distinct polity based upon historical ethnicity. So was Japan. So was China. These are nations. They were nations before nationalism even entered the political lexicon. The main reason the West makes a big deal out of "nationalism" is because of movement against the Church and the monarchies that supported it. In east Asia, there were no such concerns.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 7:04:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think I disagree with you: nationalism was first used by Herder to describe his views on German identity in the 1800s, and in East Asian nations, if there was nationalism before the 19th Century, then why did no country, except for Japan, fall into the hands of Far-Right nationalism? In countries where the rulers isolated themselves, there seem to be much of a larger sense of national identity, as traditions and cultures were curbed into perfectness there.

Example: Japan and China.

I have no idea what you mean by "far right nationalism". As it is, Korea was a distinct polity based upon historical ethnicity. So was Japan. So was China. These are nations. They were nations before nationalism even entered the political lexicon. The main reason the West makes a big deal out of "nationalism" is because of movement against the Church and the monarchies that supported it. In east Asia, there were no such concerns.

I think it's different, Nationalism in the west occurred after the formation of Nation State and serves a specific tool that the state can used to govern and bring large group of people together.

Nationalism in Asia is developed before the formation of nation state and never play the same role as what the modern Nationalism (aka western) did to geopolitical landscape. Nationalism in the east is only involved with the dimension of language, clan, cult of personality, and religion to some extent (in the form of divine rule).

As far as I know, the concept of people (not person) of certain race and culture to be the ruler of their own groups never exist until the development of modern Nationalism in the west.

As for his question, I believed he means why did so many nations embraced Nationalism during the post war period (from the note that it isn't happening in Japan) when a great deal of resources were invested in developing a countries in Asia. And in contrast, the same thing occurred at a mush less intensity in a underdeveloped nation that isolated themselves from the rest of the world (there are several cases, but I believe Bhutan is what on his mind).

For me an answer is simple, Cold War. Countries turn more totalitarian in the face of opposing ideology.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 7:10:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 7:04:17 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I think I disagree with you: nationalism was first used by Herder to describe his views on German identity in the 1800s, and in East Asian nations, if there was nationalism before the 19th Century, then why did no country, except for Japan, fall into the hands of Far-Right nationalism? In countries where the rulers isolated themselves, there seem to be much of a larger sense of national identity, as traditions and cultures were curbed into perfectness there.

Example: Japan and China.

I have no idea what you mean by "far right nationalism". As it is, Korea was a distinct polity based upon historical ethnicity. So was Japan. So was China. These are nations. They were nations before nationalism even entered the political lexicon. The main reason the West makes a big deal out of "nationalism" is because of movement against the Church and the monarchies that supported it. In east Asia, there were no such concerns.

I think it's different, Nationalism in the west occurred after the formation of Nation State and serves a specific tool that the state can used to govern and bring large group of people together.

Again, east Asia already had this long before the West stumbled upon this.

Nationalism in Asia is developed before the formation of nation state and never play the same role as what the modern Nationalism (aka western) did to geopolitical landscape. Nationalism in the east is only involved with the dimension of language, clan, cult of personality, and religion to some extent (in the form of divine rule).

As far as I know, the concept of people (not person) of certain race and culture to be the ruler of their own groups never exist until the development of modern Nationalism in the west.

But this is exactly what had occurred for hundreds if not thousands of years in east Asia. The reason it did not occur in Europe was because of allegiance to the Pope.

As for his question, I believed he means why did so many nations embraced Nationalism during the post war period (from the note that it isn't happening in Japan) when a great deal of resources were invested in developing a countries in Asia. And in contrast, the same thing occurred at a mush less intensity in a underdeveloped nation that isolated themselves from the rest of the world (there are several cases, but I believe Bhutan is what on his mind).

For me an answer is simple, Cold War. Countries turn more totalitarian in the face of opposing ideology.

For east Asia, the post war period of nationalism was more or less the same as what occurred before the war. There was no "transition to nationalism" in east Asia that mirrored what happened in Europe, because there was no need to usurp a theocratic monarchical system in east Asia. This is also why "liberalism" is somewhat irrelevant to the east Asian experience, because there was no dogmatic religious institution to overthrow. In east Asia, it had always been the state that was in control, a secular power.

This is why the borders in east Asia are the same...they were ALWAYS based upon ethnic borders.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 7:12:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I mean, I could be wrong in all this. This is my understanding of the issue, given this region was my major in university.

We never talked about "nationalism". It simply wasn't a relevant term to describe what occurred there.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 7:42:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
As for his question, I believed he means why did so many nations embraced Nationalism during the post war period (from the note that it isn't happening in Japan) when a great deal of resources were invested in developing a countries in Asia. And in contrast, the same thing occurred at a mush less intensity in a underdeveloped nation that isolated themselves from the rest of the world (there are several cases, but I believe Bhutan is what on his mind).

For me an answer is simple, Cold War. Countries turn more totalitarian in the face of opposing ideology.

For east Asia, the post war period of nationalism was more or less the same as what occurred before the war. There was no "transition to nationalism" in east Asia that mirrored what happened in Europe, because there was no need to usurp a theocratic monarchical system in east Asia. This is also why "liberalism" is somewhat irrelevant to the east Asian experience, because there was no dogmatic religious institution to overthrow. In east Asia, it had always been the state that was in control, a secular power.

This is why the borders in east Asia are the same...they were ALWAYS based upon ethnic borders.

The east asia version of Nationalism is based on 'person' not 'people' who rules the land. To my opinion, it's more of cult of personality rather than a true sense of nation state in the west.

The Mongol did not conquered Burma because they are the same ethnic group or speak the same language, the troops did it for loots, the general did it because of Khan. The Qing did not rule China because they are of the best interest of Manchurian people, they rule it for the interest of Qing dynasty.

It's not Nationalism per se, the Scott are always claim to be different than the Brit even before the emerged of Nationalism no? I believe this primitive form of nationalism are occurring every where but it first refined in to a tool of the modern nation state by western civilization who first developed the concept.

Eastern civilizations are in mush better states under their ancient regime but that doesn't make them a modern nation state though. Since modern nationalism is designed for a modern nation state, you need to first have nation state to create one.

Given time, I think we might as well be able to develop it but it's like a race to the space, you did it first. And that is snowballed in to gigantic western success we've seen today.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 12:04:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 7:42:27 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
As for his question, I believed he means why did so many nations embraced Nationalism during the post war period (from the note that it isn't happening in Japan) when a great deal of resources were invested in developing a countries in Asia. And in contrast, the same thing occurred at a mush less intensity in a underdeveloped nation that isolated themselves from the rest of the world (there are several cases, but I believe Bhutan is what on his mind).

For me an answer is simple, Cold War. Countries turn more totalitarian in the face of opposing ideology.

For east Asia, the post war period of nationalism was more or less the same as what occurred before the war. There was no "transition to nationalism" in east Asia that mirrored what happened in Europe, because there was no need to usurp a theocratic monarchical system in east Asia. This is also why "liberalism" is somewhat irrelevant to the east Asian experience, because there was no dogmatic religious institution to overthrow. In east Asia, it had always been the state that was in control, a secular power.

This is why the borders in east Asia are the same...they were ALWAYS based upon ethnic borders.

The east asia version of Nationalism is based on 'person' not 'people' who rules the land. To my opinion, it's more of cult of personality rather than a true sense of nation state in the west.

This makes no sense. Most east Asian dictates on governance take the people into consideration.

"Cult of personality" is Western double-speak to describe people they do not like, like Qaddafi or Kim Jong Il. It's a term that can also easily describe Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, or Barack Obama.

The Mongol did not conquered Burma because they are the same ethnic group or speak the same language, the troops did it for loots, the general did it because of Khan. The Qing did not rule China because they are of the best interest of Manchurian people, they rule it for the interest of Qing dynasty.

The underlined is simply false.

It's not Nationalism per se, the Scott are always claim to be different than the Brit even before the emerged of Nationalism no? I believe this primitive form of nationalism are occurring every where but it first refined in to a tool of the modern nation state by western civilization who first developed the concept.

And what differentiates it from what had already been commonplace in east Asia? Secularism? No, east Asia was already secular. "Nationhood"? No, east Asia already had very well-defined borders. "Ethnicity"? No, that was also well-established in east Asia.

Eastern civilizations are in mush better states under their ancient regime but that doesn't make them a modern nation state though. Since modern nationalism is designed for a modern nation state, you need to first have nation state to create one.

The entire point of my rebuttal is to refute the OP, that nationalism is not a product of modernity. So, to say that you're advocating "modern nationalism" is irrelevant to the OP and my rebuttal.

Nationalism is a product of the West's need to counter the influences of the Church.

Given time, I think we might as well be able to develop it but it's like a race to the space, you did it first. And that is snowballed in to gigantic western success we've seen today.

The main reasons why the West succeeded had to do with colonialism and their lack of exposure to Mongol domination. All "nationalism" is is a peculiar by-product of the West's drive to modernity, one they had to undergo because church dogma was counterproductive to development at a certain point.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 1:34:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The east asia version of Nationalism is based on 'person' not 'people' who rules the land. To my opinion, it's more of cult of personality rather than a true sense of nation state in the west.

This makes no sense. Most east Asian dictates on governance take the people into consideration.

"Cult of personality" is Western double-speak to describe people they do not like, like Qaddafi or Kim Jong Il. It's a term that can also easily describe Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, or Barack Obama.

There is one significant different though while cult of personality is an absolute loyalty to the particular person, it fall down with that person or dynasty they are belong to. While nationalism will go on from one leadership in to the other regardless of his ancestry or family background.

Arguably, Hitler and Bismark are both nationalistic and effectively it to govern people, even though are from entirely different factions and political background. You can't do that under the early concept of eastern nationalism in China or even in Thailand. an emperor need to come from an imperial dynasty, and a new imperial dynasty can't be established without uprooting the old one.

The Mongol did not conquered Burma because they are the same ethnic group or speak the same language, the troops did it for loots, the general did it because of Khan. The Qing did not rule China because they are of the best interest of Manchurian people, they rule it for the interest of Qing dynasty.

The underlined is simply false.

elaborate?

It's not Nationalism per se, the Scott are always claim to be different than the Brit even before the emerged of Nationalism no? I believe this primitive form of nationalism are occurring every where but it first refined in to a tool of the modern nation state by western civilization who first developed the concept.

And what differentiates it from what had already been commonplace in east Asia? Secularism? No, east Asia was already secular. "Nationhood"? No, east Asia already had very well-defined borders. "Ethnicity"? No, that was also well-established in east Asia.

East Asia border doesn't seem to be defined ethnically to my eyes, not in a sense that the government had been actively seek out a land populated by people of the same race and culture and blocking off those from the different group. The Mongol wage war of conquest far away from their homeland in to the middle east and eastern europe without discrimination. They seek fealty of king not the people, to respect their authority but not fused in to one.

In fact, this practice is well familiar and widespread in both the East and South East Asia. Our kingdom act like a micro empire where hundred of thousand of principality (and sometime even bishopric!) act like a city states with a duty to pay tribute to the imperial capital and send troops in time of war. It is a feudalism not a nation state. Our border are far from being well defined and because of this reasons, many of our territory had been lost to the western imperialism. If you want to see an example, look at our stand-off at the Cambodia border.

Eastern civilizations are in mush better states under their ancient regime but that doesn't make them a modern nation state though. Since modern nationalism is designed for a modern nation state, you need to first have nation state to create one.

The entire point of my rebuttal is to refute the OP, that nationalism is not a product of modernity. So, to say that you're advocating "modern nationalism" is irrelevant to the OP and my rebuttal.

.... I am pretty sure that the modern nationalism is what the OP is advocating for. As a fellow Thai I can clearly see what he is point at, our study in the concept of nationalism is limited to only the German Unification (and in rare case Napoleon), a legacy of Thai-Victorian education.

He would most certainly have no idea of where you're going.

Nationalism is a product of the West's need to counter the influences of the Church.

Given time, I think we might as well be able to develop it but it's like a race to the space, you did it first. And that is snowballed in to gigantic western success we've seen today.

The main reasons why the West succeeded had to do with colonialism and their lack of exposure to Mongol domination. All "nationalism" is is a peculiar by-product of the West's drive to modernity, one they had to undergo because church dogma was counterproductive to development at a certain point.

And so did all of the conservatism. In the west it is the Church, in the East, sometime it is the Emperor and sometime it is the inability to adapt their traditional philosophy.

Catholic is as bad as Confucianism when it come to the adaptability.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 1:56:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 1:34:30 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
The east asia version of Nationalism is based on 'person' not 'people' who rules the land. To my opinion, it's more of cult of personality rather than a true sense of nation state in the west.

This makes no sense. Most east Asian dictates on governance take the people into consideration.

"Cult of personality" is Western double-speak to describe people they do not like, like Qaddafi or Kim Jong Il. It's a term that can also easily describe Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, or Barack Obama.

There is one significant different though while cult of personality is an absolute loyalty to the particular person, it fall down with that person or dynasty they are belong to. While nationalism will go on from one leadership in to the other regardless of his ancestry or family background.

It's the same in America. The institution has a different name, but it is still an institution. Instead of "dynasty", you have "political parties".

If what you're saying is that the most significant difference between nationalism and east Asian stewardship is heredity, IMHO that's a very minor point.

Arguably, Hitler and Bismark are both nationalistic and effectively it to govern people, even though are from entirely different factions and political background. You can't do that under the early concept of eastern nationalism in China or even in Thailand. an emperor need to come from an imperial dynasty, and a new imperial dynasty can't be established without uprooting the old one.

In Japan, they had a quasi-caste system with the samurai on top. The samurai routinely adopted in order to "continue the bloodline", i.e. it was not heredity that was nearly as important as the "name". This is very close to Western aspects of corporatism and such that you're citing. It may not have applied to the emperor, but it doesn't apply to England's monarchy today either.

The Mongol did not conquered Burma because they are the same ethnic group or speak the same language, the troops did it for loots, the general did it because of Khan. The Qing did not rule China because they are of the best interest of Manchurian people, they rule it for the interest of Qing dynasty.

The underlined is simply false.

elaborate?

The Qing were the Manchus. So, to rule in the interest of the Qing is to rule in the interest of the Manchus. The Qing moved a lot of Manchus to Beijing, which was where most of the wealth from the empire flowed into.

It's not Nationalism per se, the Scott are always claim to be different than the Brit even before the emerged of Nationalism no? I believe this primitive form of nationalism are occurring every where but it first refined in to a tool of the modern nation state by western civilization who first developed the concept.

And what differentiates it from what had already been commonplace in east Asia? Secularism? No, east Asia was already secular. "Nationhood"? No, east Asia already had very well-defined borders. "Ethnicity"? No, that was also well-established in east Asia.

East Asia border doesn't seem to be defined ethnically to my eyes, not in a sense that the government had been actively seek out a land populated by people of the same race and culture and blocking off those from the different group. The Mongol wage war of conquest far away from their homeland in to the middle east and eastern europe without discrimination. They seek fealty of king not the people, to respect their authority but not fused in to one.

This is true of the West too via colonialism. Colonialism was part of the nationalist movement in the West. There's no discernible difference. Both the Mongols and the European colonial powers stressed racial superiority.

In fact, this practice is well familiar and widespread in both the East and South East Asia. Our kingdom act like a micro empire where hundred of thousand of principality (and sometime even bishopric!) act like a city states with a duty to pay tribute to the imperial capital and send troops in time of war. It is a feudalism not a nation state. Our border are far from being well defined and because of this reasons, many of our territory had been lost to the western imperialism. If you want to see an example, look at our stand-off at the Cambodia border.

I don't know enough about Thailand to comment. My comments were specific to east Asia, not SEA.

Eastern civilizations are in mush better states under their ancient regime but that doesn't make them a modern nation state though. Since modern nationalism is designed for a modern nation state, you need to first have nation state to create one.

The entire point of my rebuttal is to refute the OP, that nationalism is not a product of modernity. So, to say that you're advocating "modern nationalism" is irrelevant to the OP and my rebuttal.

.... I am pretty sure that the modern nationalism is what the OP is advocating for. As a fellow Thai I can clearly see what he is point at, our study in the concept of nationalism is limited to only the German Unification (and in rare case Napoleon), a legacy of Thai-Victorian education.

Yes, that's my understanding too. Regardless, most of the monarchies that were deposed by the nationalist movements were very closely tied to the Church in one way or another. Some created their own Church, like the Anglican Church.

In the east, there were none of these concerns. They already had concepts of nationhood that were much closer to modern conceptions of ethnic states than religious vassals.

He would most certainly have no idea of where you're going.

Nationalism is a product of the West's need to counter the influences of the Church.

Given time, I think we might as well be able to develop it but it's like a race to the space, you did it first. And that is snowballed in to gigantic western success we've seen today.

The main reasons why the West succeeded had to do with colonialism and their lack of exposure to Mongol domination. All "nationalism" is is a peculiar by-product of the West's drive to modernity, one they had to undergo because church dogma was counterproductive to development at a certain point.

And so did all of the conservatism. In the west it is the Church, in the East, sometime it is the Emperor and sometime it is the inability to adapt their traditional philosophy.

Catholic is as bad as Confucianism when it come to the adaptability.

That's incredibly difficult to believe. Even neo-Confucianism has roots much closer to something like Plato's philosophy than an actual religion.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?