|
On October 19 2012 06:27 oneofthem wrote:
references to national enemies in this discussion has always been about a violently antagonistic sort, dealing with national level entities. it is obviously different from whatever you think constitute 'national enemies' in western europe.
if this is not moving the goalpost the goalpost is pretty big
The relationship between China and Japan is not exceptionally different from the relationship between EU countries and, say, Iran. In fact, judging from the level of trade and diplomacy conducted, it is a lot better than the relationship between the EU and Iran, the former of which just imposed trade sanctions against the latter.
You appear to think that a couple of Chinese ultra-nationalists calling for the mass genocide of the Japanese is equivalent to the stance of the Chinese government / public, when such manifestations are logically only the hysterics of the furthest extreme - the equivalent of the KKK in the US.
|
On October 19 2012 06:01 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 13:56 CountChocula wrote:On October 04 2012 01:58 Azarkon wrote:On September 29 2012 16:34 CountChocula wrote:On September 29 2012 04:28 Azarkon wrote:On September 29 2012 04:04 CountChocula wrote:On September 29 2012 02:53 Azarkon wrote:On September 28 2012 10:03 CountChocula wrote:On September 28 2012 09:27 Azarkon wrote:
Your inability to accept nationalism as the modus operandi in East Asia and increasingly in the world at large is precisely the problem. The Japanese side practiced nationalism when it decided to nationalize the islands. The Chinese side practiced nationalism when it decided to contest / protest / riot against this decision. Seeking an end to nationalism reminds me of seeking an end to war. The same ivory tower idealism. How is he unable to accept nationalism? He can discuss geopolitics by recognizing nationalism as a factor that influences large swathes of people and at the same time condemn it for being a force that tends to cause wars, doesn't make sense intellectually (label millions of people as good/bad based on their nationality) and is extremely prone to state manipulation. Just because it's difficult to end wars doesn't mean people ought to stop trying. I don't know what you're trying to say there. At least people trying to seek an end to nationalism have a high ideal to aspire to. What's the alternative? Not discuss its moral implications and only discuss geopolitics? I'm not saying that it's a practical or realistic goal for diplomats or completely relevant when people are discussing geopolitics, but I think most educated people who've studied 20th century history recognize the dangers of nationalism, and I feel it's important to be reminded of that once in a while instead of just embracing nationalism (even though we all have moments of weakness). What you dismiss as ivory tower idealism is for me a lighthouse that guides the minds of our generation, so the lives lost in wars during previous generations haven't been in vain and we have something to show for after learning from their mistakes. edit: Please don't think that I hold some personal grudge against you. It's just that when I see a post that is really unfair (in a subtle way as opposed to Endzy's post) and others haven't been calling it out, I feel compelled to refute it lest it influence the minds of some younger posters in this forum who might take correct grammar/spelling to be a sign of valid logic. The worst sort of idealism is one that presumes to understand without understanding, seeks to condemn without reflecting, and aims to guide without knowing where it's going. In the course of this thread, you and your allies have exhibited all three of these qualities: Presumes to understand without understanding: 'nationalism is an infantile disease' and we ought to be rid of it - as opposed to an organizational development that was necessitated by industrialism and the competition between human groups Seeks to condemn without reflecting: the Chinese [nationalists] are mindless followers of CCP propaganda - which is why the open societies of HK and Taiwan, neither of them followers of CCP propaganda, were among the first to protest / demonstrate against Japan Aims to guide without knowing where it's going: the 'correct' solution to this problem is to overthrow the CCP / stop their totalitarian brainwashing - which is why the democratic KMT in Taiwan was the first to play a game of brinksmanship with Japan using its patrol vessels, and democratic South Korea is just as pissed at Japan over the Dokdo conflict I suppose it's my mistake that rather than deny the validity of nationalism and its offspring, the nation-state, I choose instead to understand it. That rather than engaging in useless moral high horsing and condescension, I choose instead to state the practical outcome and solution. I suppose that makes me illogical and in need of a 'refutation' lest I 'influence the minds of youngsters' - because we all know that naive idealism, which breaks upon the first testing, is the best solution to the world's problems. Not sure what you mean by "deny the validity of" nationalism when that's not my axe to grind at all. People can simply deny nationalism on moral reasons. I didn't know one cannot understand something, then reject it based on moral reasons. That's what makes you illogical--that you associate a rejection of nationalism on moral grounds with an inability to discuss nationalism as a factor in geopolitics. Another place where you're wrong is that I didn't claim Chinese nationalists were mindless followers of CCP propaganda or even that this incident was started by CCP propaganda. I'm stating the view espoused in China: Fragile Superpower written by Clinton's Deputy Assistant Secretary of State that Jiang Zemin, for whatever reason, stepped up anti-Japanese nationalist propaganda in education to levels greater than those seen during the rules of Mao and Deng Xiaoping, and now that the proverbial genie has been let out of the bottle, the CCP finds it difficult to keep a balancing act. On the one hand, not pissing off their nationalistic countrymen so much so that they're overthrown and on the other, not pissing off Japan and the rest of the world.Even if Prime Minister Abe actually desists from visiting the Yasukuni Shrine, China will not be able to negotiate a comprehensive resolution of history issues and an overall improvement in relations with Japan unless it can credibly commit to stop criticizing Japan’s wartime history. The South Koreans, who pledged in writing to do so, couldn’t keep their promise because of the same sort of domestic political pressures that roil China. Even if the Politburo Standing Committee somehow could agree to revise Chinese school textbooks and stop commemorating anniversaries, they still cannot control events in Japan or the Chinese tabloids that report on them. “The Foreign Ministry and the Party leaders want to change public opinion about Japan, and leave history behind, but it is too late,” a PLA colonel told me. “We should have tried to change public opinion ten years ago when the Party could still control information. We can’t do it now.”
In any case, it's not a grassroots movement like you speak of. It was started in the 90s by Jiang Zemin and now it's driven by a combination of state propaganda and sensational tabloids that capitalize on anti-Japanese articles bringing huge readership in a vicious feedback loop.
I've already gone through with you why your 'moral criticism' of nationalism is absent of logic. I'm not keen on repeating myself on a subject I've spent pages on already. I can assure you that you did no such thing simply based on the fact that I only mentioned my argument against nationalism on the previous page. Before that, I didn't bother to explicitly give my argument against nationalism, because I assumed it was evident to most people who've lived through the 20th century the dangers of nationalism. I did, however, observe glaring flaws in your argument saying nationalism is an extension of tribalism and hence morally justified, which is what you might be thinking of. Sentiments in Korea are capable of being just as extreme - it's just that Koreans are not drawn to the same style of rioting. However, there are annual protests against Japan in Korea, just as in China, that at times become quite extreme. Also, rioters at protests tend to be young regardless, because older people have a greater sense of their own social responsibility, and you have yet to answer how Jiang specifically targeted Japan in his 'patriotic' education - as my sources say, the target of Chinese rage in the 90s was the US, not Japan. Pretty sure Jiang stepped up anti-nationalism towards Japan while Mao and Deng focused on the US and USSR. Here's an excerpt regarding your question as to how Jiang specifically targeted Japan in his patriotic education: Jiang Zemin succeeded Deng Xiaoping as a compromise choice after Tiananmen and began to take charge in 1994 through 1995 as Deng’s health deteriorated. (Deng died in 1997 at the age of ninety-two.) Unlike Mao and Deng, Jiang lacked confidence. He worried about challenges from rival leaders and doubts from the public—memories of the Tiananmen crisis were fresh—and as a result, was much more attentive to nationalist public opinion. His intimidating face-to-face confrontations with anti-Japan student protestors when he served as mayor of Shanghai during the 1980s may also have made him fearful. When he spoke at his alma mater Jiaotong University in December 1986 to urge students to stop protesting, the students “heckled the mayor for spouting empty platitudes.” [1] And his personal history had left him with bad memories of the Japanese occupation.
Over time Jiang became personally invested in improving ties with Washington, but when it came to Japan, he hammered away at the history issue much more aggressively than his predecessors had. A senior official in the Chinese Foreign Ministry acknowledged, “China used to be quite accommodating to Japan under Mao and Deng,” but is much less so under Jiang. This official blamed the deterioration of Sino-Japanese relations on the dimming of Japan’s economic miracle and Japan’s growing resentment of China’s rise, but others were not so forgiving toward Jiang. “Mao and Zhou had the greatest moral right to hate the Japanese, but they responsibly made good relations with Japan because they thought strategically. Jiang is just playing patriotic games,” a think-tank expert told me.
Under Jiang, as China continued to move toward a capitalist-style economy, nationalism replaced communism as the rationale for people to support the Party. Beginning in 1994 the CCP Propaganda Department’s “patriotic education campaign,” designed to ensure the loyalty of its subjects—young people in particular—by nurturing their nationalist attachment to the state, became the dominant theme in school and media socialization. [2]
As the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II approached in 1995, schools and the media put the history of Japanese aggression against China front and center. President Jiang Zemin and his colleagues attended seventeen official celebrations of the Chinese victory over Japan during the summer of 1995. [3] Because of anti-Japanese feelings stirred up by Jiang’s campaign, relations between China and Japan reached their lowest point in 1995 through 1996 since the reestablishment of diplomatic relations in 1972. [4] A vicious cycle developed. As scholar Gilbert Rozman described it, “China heightened Japan’s alarm and then took that alarm as evidence of nefarious intentions.” [5] China defied Japan’s request to halt nuclear testing and tested three times in 1995. Japan showed its dismay by discontinuing its aid to China, and China cited its historic grievance, saying that the aid was a form of war reparation and therefore must continue. Tension over the Diaoyu Islands reemerged, and Japanese prime minister Ryutaro Hashimoto paid a personal visit to the Yasukuni Shrine, the first visit by a prime minister since 1985. (The visits by Nakasone and Koizumi were official.) [1] George Washington University, September 4, 2003. [2] Alastair Iain Johnston, “The Correlates of Beijing Public Opinion toward the United States, 1998–2004” in Alastair Iain Johnston and Robert S. Ross, eds., New Directions in the Study of China’s Foreign Policy (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2006), 340–378. [3] Global Times, November 14, 2005. [4] See Southern Weekend, March 27, 2003. [5] Study Times, August 16, 2004, FBIS, CPP20040823000245. There are two concrete statements in your quote - the first is that Jiang stepped up patriotic education, which all scholars agree with. The second is that Jiang targeted Japan specifically, which, as my sources show, is far from evident. In fact, the only evidence given in that entire segment is that: Show nested quote +
As the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II approached in 1995, schools and the media put the history of Japanese aggression against China front and center. President Jiang Zemin and his colleagues attended seventeen official celebrations of the Chinese victory over Japan during the summer of 1995.
So basically, on the 50th anniversary of World War II, Chinese schools and media commemorated World War II by keeping the memory of Japanese aggression alive, while Jiang attended multiple celebrations of China's victory over Japan - and this is supposed to be evidence for Jiang's 'anti-Japan nationalism?' I'm sorry, but your threshold for what constitutes nationalism is very low. What did you think the Chinese were going to do - suppress the memory of Japanese aggression for the sake of 'better relations' and not attend celebrations of China's victory over Japan? I don't think that is an appropriate / healthy response. Ever heard of the phrase, 'never forget' when applied to WW II? You don't just forget atrocities that happened fifty years ago.
I was born in China. There really wasn't anything in the curriculum in school that says much about Japanese, instead it's usually the case that the focus was on positives like sacrifice, innovation, and resilience. Most of the anti-Japanese sentiment come from movies and TV shows. Rape and genocide is quite prevalent within many shows. It's a lot like how American movies always use Russians in their movies and now the middle east. The difference is these movies are supposedly based on true stories so we watch them like they're documentaries. The shows usually aren't centered around making the viewers feeling good about the main characters like in American movies, but had admonishing themes like don't be a traitor, don't trust offers from the enemies, and sacrifice for family and fellow countrymen. They also have pretty damn good plot too so they were quite entertaining. I suppose wars that actually happen on your door step makes for great drama.
There are often family tales of suffering from family members attributed to Japanese and western imperialists so that was a part of my psyche as well. It really wasn't anything that was visibly propaganda (like the songs we had to sing about the party and stuff), instead it's pretty much a part of life. I haven't been back in China for a while but based on the popularity of manga scans on the internet, jpop and such I would believe that the younger generation is much more accepting of Korea and Japan and this would have been a much smaller issue given another generation's time. Now we might have to start back at zero. I hope nothing worse happens. If actual fighting occurs, I don't think Japan will be given quarters.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 19 2012 06:35 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:27 oneofthem wrote:
references to national enemies in this discussion has always been about a violently antagonistic sort, dealing with national level entities. it is obviously different from whatever you think constitute 'national enemies' in western europe.
if this is not moving the goalpost the goalpost is pretty big The relationship between China and Japan is not exceptionally different from the relationship between EU countries and, say, Iran. In fact, judging from the level of trade and diplomacy conducted, it is a lot better than the relationship between the EU and Iran, the former of which just imposed trade sanctions against the latter. that is because as ive said the chinese government isn't very genuine in the japan hating. they wont' do dumb things like turning away japanese technology and investment. the chinese government does have a controlling interest in the spread of a unified nationalistic consciousness though. and ernest gellner would agree.
You appear to think that a couple of Chinese ultra-nationalists calling for the mass genocide of the Japanese is equivalent to the stance of the Chinese government / public, when such manifestations are logically only the hysterics of the furthest extreme - the equivalent of the KKK in the US.
they may be a minority, but in calling for this sort of thing they are not condemned. why is that?
|
On October 19 2012 06:39 oneofthem wrote:that is because as ive said the chinese government isn't very genuine in the japan hating. they wont' do dumb things like turning away japanese technology and investment. the chinese government does have a controlling interest in the spread of a unified nationalistic consciousness though. and ernest gellner would agree.
Ernest Gellner would agree that the development of an unified national consciousness in China is a consequence of its Western style industrialization. The government, insofar as it wants to create an unified and formidable nation-state capable of standing on its own, has no choice in the matter.
they may be a minority, but in calling for this sort of thing they are not condemned. why is that?
An independent civil society in China largely does not exist. The only ones capable of such condemnation are therefore linked to the Chinese government, which did officially condemn the violence directed against Japanese property and individuals.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
let's be honest here, chinese cultural policy revolves around the taiwan question. the most dangerous development would be the emergence of the idea that there is a political choice within china. piercing the national veil and thinking about things in terms of political choice within a country, instead of framing everything as a conflict between nations, serves to shield the actual government from alternative challenges. yes, taiwan is a province, and china is one entity with some hostile and unrepentant neighbors. when a racialist and nationalist line is the only way to justify your entire regime, it's no surprise that things will be told along those lines.
the national veil is so very important to these guys, obviously it's to unify the concept of the state with the nation and enforce the ruling authorities. i don't see much interest in not acknowledging this.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 19 2012 06:47 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:39 oneofthem wrote:that is because as ive said the chinese government isn't very genuine in the japan hating. they wont' do dumb things like turning away japanese technology and investment. the chinese government does have a controlling interest in the spread of a unified nationalistic consciousness though. and ernest gellner would agree. Ernest Gellner would agree that the development of an unified national consciousness in China is a consequence of its Western style industrialization. The government, insofar as it wants to create an unified and formidable nation-state capable of standing on its own, has no choice in the matter. yea, all the industrialized parts of the world are also very nationalistic. this is clearly false especially in china.
Show nested quote +they may be a minority, but in calling for this sort of thing they are not condemned. why is that? An independent civil society in China largely does not exist. The only ones capable of such condemnation are therefore linked to the Chinese government, which did officially condemn the violence directed against Japanese property and individuals.
a civil society describes a legal and social norm, not 'public sphere'. it is a fact that people in china accept a shocking degree of hostile nationalism without recognizing them as such. there's even unified and strong sentiment on the tibet question, which is pretty hilarious.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/17student.html?pagewanted=all
but yea of course the chinese government wants to make things seem spontaneous. will of the people is pretty useful, as the people's republic knows too well.
|
On October 19 2012 06:48 oneofthem wrote:
let's be honest here, chinese cultural policy revolves around the taiwan question. the most dangerous development would be the emergence of the idea that there is a political choice within china. piercing the national veil and thinking about things in terms of political choice within a country, instead of framing everything as a conflict between nations, serves to shield the actual government from alternative challenges. yes, taiwan is a province, and china is one entity with some hostile and unrepentant neighbors. when a racialist and nationalist line is the only way to justify your entire regime, it's no surprise that things will be told along those lines.
the national veil is so very important to these guys, obviously it's to unify the concept of the state with the nation and enforce the ruling authorities. i don't see much interest in not acknowledging this.
rofl
you do realize that every time Japan brings up the Diaoyu Islands dispute they bring China and Taiwan closer together?
|
On October 19 2012 06:48 oneofthem wrote:
let's be honest here, chinese cultural policy revolves around the taiwan question. the most dangerous development would be the emergence of the idea that there is a political choice within china. piercing the national veil and thinking about things in terms of political choice within a country, instead of framing everything as a conflict between nations, serves to shield the actual government from alternative challenges. yes, taiwan is a province, and china is one entity with some hostile and unrepentant neighbors. when a racialist and nationalist line is the only way to justify your entire regime, it's no surprise that things will be told along those lines.
the national veil is so very important to these guys, obviously it's to unify the concept of the state with the nation and enforce the ruling authorities. i don't see much interest in not acknowledging this.
The most dangerous development to every state is the rise of ideologies that seek to overthrow / dismantle the state. That is obvious. Prior to nationalism, the principle to beat was the right of kings and emperors to rule by virtue of divine ordinance / military conquest, and this was challenged, successfully, by democracy.
In China's case this is compounded by the lack of democracy. But even in a democratic society, the right of the voting majority to dictate policy springs from the population's submission to a common nationhood. When such ideologies are challenged, civil conflict is the result - as in the case of the American Civil War, which was waged within and between democracies.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
sure, but why do you think japan is playing civilizations with you? the right wingers are probably more worried about their election prospects than 'bringing china and taiwan together'.
maybe the chinese government wants to reign in taiwan with pan-china issues. i'm not sure that will work with the young people of taiwan.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 19 2012 06:56 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:48 oneofthem wrote:
let's be honest here, chinese cultural policy revolves around the taiwan question. the most dangerous development would be the emergence of the idea that there is a political choice within china. piercing the national veil and thinking about things in terms of political choice within a country, instead of framing everything as a conflict between nations, serves to shield the actual government from alternative challenges. yes, taiwan is a province, and china is one entity with some hostile and unrepentant neighbors. when a racialist and nationalist line is the only way to justify your entire regime, it's no surprise that things will be told along those lines.
the national veil is so very important to these guys, obviously it's to unify the concept of the state with the nation and enforce the ruling authorities. i don't see much interest in not acknowledging this. The most dangerous development to every state is the rise of ideologies that seek to overthrow / dismantle the state. That is obvious. Prior to nationalism, the ideology to beat was the right of kings and emperors to rule by virtue of divine ordinance / military conquest. In China's case this is compounded by the lack of democracy. But even in a democratic society, the right of the voting majority to dictate policy springs from the population's submission to a common nationhood. When such ideologies are challenged, civil war is the result - as in the case the American Civil War, which was waged within and between democracies.
ok honest question is gellner the only guy you've read? you are using a very functionalist conception of nationalism, standing in as the most abstract level of politically self determinative community. on this level i agree it's prob a given that some sort of community belonging is needed for any politics, but that's not going to capture the historical phenomenon all that well.
if we are talking about political and legal theory maybe this is aporopriate but here we are clearly talking about the ethnic and identity aspects of the concrete, historical phenomenon of nationalism and not just the political abstraction.
|
On October 19 2012 06:52 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:47 Azarkon wrote:On October 19 2012 06:39 oneofthem wrote:that is because as ive said the chinese government isn't very genuine in the japan hating. they wont' do dumb things like turning away japanese technology and investment. the chinese government does have a controlling interest in the spread of a unified nationalistic consciousness though. and ernest gellner would agree. Ernest Gellner would agree that the development of an unified national consciousness in China is a consequence of its Western style industrialization. The government, insofar as it wants to create an unified and formidable nation-state capable of standing on its own, has no choice in the matter. yea, all the industrialized parts of the world are also very nationalistic. this is clearly false especially in china.
Outside of Europe, industrialized nations tend to be very nationalistic, yes. Europe is a special case because the EU movement has made it the equivalent of a pan-national entity, but whether this experiment in extraterritorial authority and identity succeeds remains to be seen. Such an option is not, however, available to the newly industrialized nations of East Asia due to the lack of a cultural and political unifier, which in Europe was the Anglo-American bloc in the post WW 2 era.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
what do you think about the lack of nationalism in mao's china where industrialisation was very rampant. how about serbian nationalism in overthrowing the ottoman. was that industrialized
|
On October 19 2012 07:12 oneofthem wrote:
what do you think about the lack of nationalism in mao's china where industrialisation was very rampant.
A failed experiment. Communism was supposed to unify the world. In the end, it unified nothing.
how about serbian nationalism in overthrowing the ottoman. was that industrialized
Not every state that later became a nation is required to have been founded by nationalism. Granted, Serbian intellectuals were heavily affected by the nationalist ideologies of industrialized societies around them, and painted the period through nationalist lens. But the rebellion against the Ottomans was not in and of itself nationalistic. It was the sort of peasant / religious rebellion standard to European history.
I'd say that Serbian nationalism took off after the creation of a Serbian state, rather than before, but I'm no expert on the subject.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 19 2012 07:15 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 07:12 oneofthem wrote:
what do you think about the lack of nationalism in mao's china where industrialisation was very rampant. A failed experiment. Communism was supposed to unify the world. In the end, it unified nothing.
the point was, the fall and rise of nationalism with modern china is largely explained by the political direction of the party. not the 'spread of industrialization.'
|
China thinks they own like 99% of the ocean for some reason. It's insane. Obviously this is an exaggeration, but seriously, it's a bit much. I've also heard they own one of (if not THE) largest fleet of icebreakers in the world.
It's insane to think that Canada now has to patrol the artic ocean... because the technology exists to procure natural resources from that region. Suddenly your neighbours hear you have gold in your back yard and they're all like, " uh yeah, that's actually been my yard all along"
Sorry china / russia, that's kind of a dick move imo.
The world has pretty much all been claimed for the most part.... If some country wants to expand, it's not likely going to be through diplomacy. Humans aren't so awesome at that. I'm not looking forward to these potential conflicts during my lifetime =/
|
On October 19 2012 07:26 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 07:15 Azarkon wrote:On October 19 2012 07:12 oneofthem wrote:
what do you think about the lack of nationalism in mao's china where industrialisation was very rampant. A failed experiment. Communism was supposed to unify the world. In the end, it unified nothing. the point was, the fall and rise of nationalism with modern china is largely explained by the political direction of the party. not the 'spread of industrialization.'
I know what you're arguing, and I'm saying your example doesn't show that. The 'party' you're talking about was founded on a competing ideology - that of Communism - yet in the end found that ideology utterly bankrupt, and so turned to nationalism.
The other, competing 'party' was founded on nationalism from the very beginning.
The spread of industrialization is a prerequisite to the success of nationalism. That doesn't = every state becomes a nation immediately upon industrializing. The relationship between nationalism and industrialism is not that rigidly deterministic, but it also isn't merely complementary.
|
On October 19 2012 07:29 Microsloth wrote:
China thinks they own like 99% of the ocean for some reason. It's insane. Obviously this is an exaggeration, but seriously, it's a bit much. I've also heard they own one of (if not THE) largest fleet of icebreakers in the world.
It's insane to think that Canada now has to patrol the artic ocean... because the technology exists to procure natural resources from that region. Suddenly your neighbours hear you have gold in your back yard and they're all like, " uh yeah, that's actually been my yard all along"
Sorry china / russia, that's kind of a dick move imo.
The world has pretty much all been claimed for the most part.... If some country wants to expand, it's not likely going to be through diplomacy. Humans aren't so awesome at that. I'm not looking forward to these potential conflicts during my lifetime =/
You need to read the whole thread again.
|
I really dislike the fact that people that were born after the second world war now act like they were personally hurt.
I don't think that Japan's decisions are better though.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
they turned to nationalism because it is politically useful. a functionalist analysis doesn't explain the ground level mechanisms of these sentiments. they are primitive in themselves, and activate in their particular form by circumstances. the circumstances do not themselves constitute a reason for the idea.
the obsession with industrialization is a faddish thing. certainly mass political movement and unified consciousness is key, but the marxist influence is showing with the industrialization focus. the expansion of print technology, existence of popular resentments, though not necessarily nationalist in origin, always seek for national level or racial level targets to vent. etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
