Hey guys, this is Cristy.
Just thought i'd open some discussion on Neoclassicism. One of the influences of the neoclassic age was the rise of nationalism. In european history we read Voltaire's opinion on patriotism and how one should aspire to be a "citizen of the world" because "to wish for one's country's greatness is to wish harm to one's neighbors". I don't think we would find many people who would fit voltaire's description of "a citizen of the world" because we all have predjidice and biases that sway our allegiance towards our "fatherland" or another.
Nationalist influence can be found in about every piece of writing in the Neoclassic packet as I'm sure we'll discuss in class. It was confusing to learn last year, in more depth the reasons for america's revolution. Before, I had believed that the reasons to revolt were overwhelmingly just. I didn't imagine that the colonies had any choice but to revolt! Last year as I learned more, the subject suddenly became debatable. In reality, the taxes that are so abominably described to us when we are in elementary school were actually not very high. All other Brittish citizens were paying much much higher taxes. I'm not saying we shouldn't have revolted or that it was wrong, but I felt like my education has been slanted to make me believe the revolution was just and unpreventable. Does Nationalism really result in more hurt like Voltaire believes or does the good outweigh the bad? Does nationalism divide more than it unites? Maybe Voltaire is right, that Nationalism is based on something that doesn't exist. I think that Nationalism in a way is a necessary evil/good because without it we would not be able to see a "bigger picture" and we would just live as an individual on the Earth, and look after our own private interests. But if nationalism didnt exist maybe we wouldn't go to war over things we have in the past.
I think Nationalism is a part of human nature, that we want to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. Still, I was suprised to read U.S. nationalism in the writings of Phillis Wheatley who was abducted from Africa and sold as a slave.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hey, it's Erin.
I think that slanting one way or the another is a reasonable thing to expect. We believe history is as they say but isn't there a saying, something like, the winners write history? I don't think that whoever writes the textbooks for us would basically talk about how wrong we were in revolting. Or if we'd lost the Revolutionary War (even the name's misleading; it's much different than the French Revolution) it would be described differently, as some ridiculous rebellion. As we learned in history today, Napoleon wanted education to inspire nationalism, I guess you could call it propaganda if you want. Obviously there are two sides (or more, I guess) to any issue.
I don't think there is a way for history to NOT be biased. All of our information in history has to come from the verbal world, and this means that SOMEONE had to have written the material in question. And as we discussed earlier in the year, no one is without bias; this means that history must slanted in some way.
As for the topic Cristy brought up, it is still unclear whether or not nationalism brings people together or divides them. I believe that nationalism does necessarily unite individuals so much as it causes them to reject other nations. However, in another sense, nationalism may divide people. Looking back to the French Revolution, the members of the ultra-revolutionary Jacobins (if this is wrong, please let me know; I haven't been paying attention in Euro...) decided the general will of the nation. All others who were not in complete agreement with this plan were considered rebels. This is just one of the myriad of cases where nationalism caused a divide of people of one supposed nation as opposed to joining people who had a common past and a common goal for the future.
hey this is Cristy
"History will be kind to me, because I intend to write it" I love that quote (churchhill)and I think it describes perfectly the issue of History. I have noticed that slanting in history books for example ap euro, is not so much obvious slanting like with snarl and purr words but more with the addition and exception of certain events or facts. Some quirks put into the book may add bias but the absence of some issues are just as much of a statement. Is it unfair to call historians biased? I believe that it would be impossible to state all events that ever happened on both sides. (and then there would still be bias of the reader...etc. it goes on and on)I actually think the different accounts of history add depth to events that are so long in the past that it gives us a much more realistic and insightful look into the viewpoints of those events. We will always have bias everywhere and always. We are human, we have opinions. We each have a voice. I don't mind so much that there is bias, I just care that no voice should ever be silenced for their bias.
You're a revolutionary, until you win the war...then you're a patriot.
Hey, it's Ashley.
The question of whether or not nationalism divides a nation is a very interesting interesting one. Nationalism has certainly been behind some of the most revolutionary movements in history - both progressive and regressive. Since we are discussing AP Euro, I'd like to point out Robespierre's use of nationalism as a justification for terror. In attempt to bind the nation against external enemies and counter-revolutionaries, he created more dissension and fear than that which previously existed. But by simply arguing that nationalism was virtue, and virtue was the primary objective of the will of the people, Robespierre was able to usurp practically all political power! The power of nationalism!
I'm not sure if you could call this "nationalistic" exactly, but I would characterize the time period immediately after September 11th as significantly for patriotic. The unity within the nation was beautiful - people were kinder to each other, more appreciative. Every car had an American flag on it, and people recited the pledge of allegiance with more pride than they used to. But soon this nationalism gave birth to accepted racism. The notion of "them vs. us" sanctioned skepticism of Arab people by Americans. We began labeling people as "terrorists" simply because of their external appearance. Obviously, this is absurd - but again, it's the power of nationalism. I would say that overall, nationalism creates more division than unity.
Post a Comment