Top ten innovations of the last 250 years

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap
What Che is saying is that working for the good of the commoner

Who's talking about commoners? You're the dope if you don't understand how Elizabethans defined the Common Weal. I can guarantee you it had nothing to do with how the common man as we think of him today was faring.

What I said was that the state must enbody the needs of the Nation, the Nation being defined as a a common ethno-liguistic cultural group.

i.e. the Common Weal

If widespread totalitarian terror iw aht is necessary to keep the nation strong, if a long, drawn out war is what is needed to bring about the UNity of the naton, those actions are fully in support of Nationalism, and has little to do with "good of the commonwealth

Funny that you mention unity. The Tudors were unity fanatics, and after the mess made by the Wars of the Roses so was most of the nation. England in the 16th century saw the nation's unity as paramount to the Common Weal. Fear of dynastic struggles had created a common consensus that Englishmen were English first and foremost, and that pride in the nation rested in obedience to a strong central government embodied in the monarch. This spirit of English nationalism was to wane slightly in the face of religious struggles in the 17th century, but it was never to disappear again.

[Odin]

Nationalism in the modern sense originated with the French Revolution and matured with the German Romanticists. There was patriotism, and loyalty to your king before then, but not true nationalism.

[Kuciwalker]

It'd be nice if you backed yourself up rather than repeating what five other people have said.

[GePap]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Funny that you mention unity. The Tudors were unity fanatics, and after the mess made by the Wars of the Roses so was most of the nation. England in the 16th century saw the nation's unity as paramount to the Common Weal. Fear of dynastic struggles had created a common consensus that Englishmen were English first and foremost, and that pride in the nation rested in obedience to a strong central government embodied in the monarch. This spirit of English nationalism was to wane slightly in the face of religious struggles in the 17th century, but it was never to disappear again.

The very idea that it was a monarch that embodied anything shows the trouble of using the modern notion of Nationalism. What was the basis of the legitimacy of said monarch? On what basis did the Crown exist? If you think God had any role in that, then you are not a Nationalist.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap


The very idea that it was a monarch that embodied anything shows the trouble of using the modern notion of Nationalism. What was the basis of the legitimacy of said monarch? On what basis did the Crown exist? If you think God had any role in that, then you are not a Nationalist.

The dynastic wars had exactly removed God from the equation. Though the forms might be maintained to the present day, the support of the monarch was based around his strength and the fear of disunity.

Personal fealty and the divine right of kings were dead in England. The kingmaker Warwick had seen to that well-enough.

From the prologue to Bindoff's "Tudor England":

"But anarchy is a dangerous pastime, and every year saw its crimson stain spread a little further across the fabric of English society. A Crown which had become a football was ceasing to be a referee, and a game which begins without a referee runs a risk of finishing without a ball. Right was beginning to yield to might at all levels and in all relationships of society, and four centuries of heroic effort by kings and statesmen to establish the reign of law seemed in danger of being brought to nought amongst a surfeit of kings and a shortage of statesmen. Was the victor of Bosworth to be just another king, dressed in a little brief authority as the captain of a sinking ship with a mutinous crew? Or was he, after all, the Messianic statesman who could deliver both Crown and Kingdom from bondage to a bankrupt political system?"

[GePap]

Wow. nice quote- not a single mention of the English Nation in it though.

Here seems the most important quote: "Or was he, after all, the Messianic statesman who could deliver both Crown and Kingdom from bondage to a bankrupt political system"

Which implies the source of legitimacy lays simply of maintaining order and unity, but says nothing about what sort of unity, nor does it make any claims that the legitimate boundaries of this Unity are the English "Nation", however you decide to define that and with whatever bounderies you draw.

So, where is the NATION in all of this? (The Nation as the common ethno-lingustic grouping, not as the Common Weal, which might very well included individuals not of the Nation) That is what you and Molly have yet to show.

[-Jrabbit]

I'm amazed at how certain people have a seemingly endless ability to jack/devolve interesting threads into political - historical ranting.

[KrazyHorse]

26 pages later:

"Language has always been one of the most powerful of unifying, and dividing, forces, and these regional differences of speech must have contributed much to the strength of local, and to the weakness of national, loyalty. In this respect, however, the sixteenth century was to mark a turning-point. For it was then that the English of London, itself an amalgam of three or more rigonal dialects (East Midland, Southern and South Eastern), began to exploit the prestige which it had been building up since the time of Chaucer and to gain recognition as 'standard' English."

Or how about the fact that the Church of England was established in the 1520s with Henry VIII as its supreme head?

The Tudors were a tremendous unifying influence. By the time Elizabeth was done with it Englishmen as a whole would never again place any concern higher than the common good of England.

[GePap]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
26 pages later:

"Language has always been one of the most powerful of unifying, and dividing, forces, and these regional differences of speech must have contributed much to the strength of local, and to the weakness of national, loyalty. In this respect, however, the sixteenth century was to mark a turning-point. For it was then that the English of London, itself an amalgam of three or more rigonal dialects (East Midland, Southern and South Eastern), began to exploit the prestige which it had been building up since the time of Chaucer and to gain recognition as 'standard' English."

Which means that the creation of a unified English nation may have BEGUN then. That still does not get you to the theory of Nationalism.

Or how about the fact that the Church of England was established in the 1520s with Henry VIII as its supreme head?

So? Making the head of state head of the Church is an old tactic. Heck, others went to so far as to make the ruler an object of worship of his own.

The Tudors were a tremendous unifying influence. By the time Elizabeth was done with it Englishmen as a whole would never again place any concern higher than the common good of England.

And I am sure not many Roman Citizens would have placed anything above the Good of Rome, specially after the long rule of Augustus and the creation of the Empire, to end all the Civil Wars of the late Republican Era.

That still does not give you the theory of Nationalism. Is that so hard to ****ing accept!?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap
That still does not get you to the theory of Nationalism.

Who needs theories? Nationalism existed as a force to be contended with. The steam engine was around before theoretical thermodynamics was invented. Doesn't mean we count the invention of the steam engine as having been made by Kelvin, Gibbs, Carnot etc. It was an accepted part of political life that the highest cause was that of the nation. They might not have called it nationalism, but that's what it was.

So? Making the head of state head of the Church is an old tactic. Heck, others went to so far as to make the ruler an object of worship of his own.

The fact that it was acceptable to the majority of Englishmen without too much convincing was a sign of how far they'd come to dislike being ruled by a "foreign prince".

And I am sure not many Roman Citizens would have placed anything above the Good of Rome, specially after the long rule of Augustus and the creation of the Empire, to end all the Civil Wars of the late Republican Era.

Rome was obviously an Empire. England in 1600 was not. Political forms might change, but loyalty to the nation did not, after the Tudors were through.

[Ramo]

European nationalism could be traced back to the Hundred Years War, Hussite Rebellion, the Dutch Rebellion, etc. Of course it didn't become all that important a political force until the 19th century, but that's because it (like liberalism) is a middle class ideology, and so requires a certain level of economic development to catch on.

[BeBMan]

It's usually called Nationalism just from the time when it became a major force, as you said. Before there were certainly "national" elements playing a role here and there, but they weren't as decisive as later from the time of the French Revolution onwards. Therefore it is justified not to speak explicitly of "nationalism" earlier. The Hussite Rebellion for example was certainly not primarily "nationalist", even if those national elements can be found there.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GePap
Molly:

For all your "evidence", I still fail to see where you equate a feeling of English Patriotism to the idea of Nationalism, specially since you stick to Tudor England,

Err, since my argument is that the Tudor dynasty is where English nationalism began.

Coincident as it was with the almost total exclusion of English interests from mainland Europe (with the exception of Calais, lost in Mary I's reign, and the temporary occupation of Boulogne).


I'm not quite sure how else you would view the concept of Englishmen being patriotic not only for the dynasty, but their country, as being anything other than evidence of a growth of nationalism.

English Roman Catholics by and large supported the rulers of England- even when that monarch was an Anglican.

Catholic risings failed in the Pilgrimage of Grace and the Rising of the North; Protestant risings failed with Wyatt's rebellion against Mary, and Essex's against Elizabeth I.

Regional risings failed with the crushing of the West Country's prayer book rebellion and the failure of the northern Earls.

The identification of Englishmen (and Welshmen and Irishmen) began to be not with their own region, but with the idea of England- through such coercive measures as the Act Of Union, the Acts Of Supremacy and Uniformity and even Elizabeth's new coinage.

It permeates from high to low, from the Dukes and Earls who stayed loyal to the Crown and country, to the playwrights, artists, merchants and sailors and educators who took pride in being English and having an English culture.

Elizabeth I actually had more 'English' blood than any monarch since Harold Godwinsson.

Why, even foreigners noted this change...

John Knox noted her distancing from the two main strands of Continental religious causes:

"...neither good Protestant nor resolute Papist."

The continual opposition of the Papacy in her reign and Spain's active hostility ensured that England would remain isolated- that along with Elizabeth's natural distaste for expensive foreign entanglements.

Paul Hentzner: "...[the English are] good sailors and better pirates; cunning, treacherous and thievish. They are powerful in the field, successful against their enemies, impatient of anything like slavery, vastly fond of noises that fill the ear, such as the firing of cannon, drums and the ringing of bells...If they see a foreigner very well made or particularly handsome, they will say 'it is a pity he's not an Englishman' ."

1558, Maitre Estienne Perlin has this to say:

" These villains hate all sorts of Foreigners and although they have a good country they are constantly wicked...proud, seditious, with bad consciences and faithless to their word."

The Venetian ambassador, Andrea Treviso says in 1497:

" [the English possess]... an antipathy to foreigners... [believing that] ...foreigners never come into these islands but to make themselves masters of it and to usurp their goods."

Paolo Giovio in 1548:

" The English are commonly destitute of good breeding and are despisers of foreigners, since they esteem him a wretched being and but half a man who may be born elsewhere but in Britain, and far more miserable him whose fate it should be to leave his breath and his bones in a foreign land."

The Tudor era saw England's merchants in places where few or no Englishmen had previously been seen- from Moscow to Aleppo, the Safavid Empire to the Moghul Empire, from Bokhara to Newfoundland.

The common people profitted from association with the Crown and the country- Cardinal Wolsey was a butcher's son, Thomas Cromwell a lawyer of no great social standing, Cecil, Lord Burghley of plain yeoman stock ( aristocratic opponents alleged his descent from a tavern-keeper).

The Tudors introduced a Parish Poor Rate, which in essence outstripped any kind of national poor relief in contemporary Europe.

The power of local magnates was reduced, not simply by measures such as the crushing of the Rising of the North, nor the dissolution of the Welsh Marcher Lords' power, but by the maintenance of a culturally influential court in London, and the presence of great Lords in their houses along Strand, or in Osterley or Richmond, close to the court and the City of London.

Rather earlier than Louis XIV's similar efforts at centralization in Versailles...

Avowedly nationalist plays were performed- from 'Henry VIII' and the great history plays of Shakespeare, to xenophobic anti-Spanish plays such as 'A Game At Chess', which unprecedently ran for 11 days, before the Spanish ambassador's diplomatic protests had it taken off.

Even plays about the history of mediaeval England received contemporary nationalist Protestant dialogue:

'Cousin, away for England: haste before;
And ere our coming, see thou shake the bags
Of hoarding abbots; their imprison'd angels
Set them at liberty; the fat ribs of peace
Must by the hungry now be fed upon.'

King John, Act III, sc.3

..but I fail to see you then go to the English bringing in William of Orange, or then the Georgian period

William of Orange- husband of Mary II Stuart, Queen of England and daughter of James II:

[William and Mary]...offered the throne as joint monarchs.

They accepted a Declaration of Rights (later a Bill), drawn up by a Convention of Parliament, which limited the Sovereign's power, reaffirmed Parliament's claim to control taxation and legislation, and provided guarantees against the abuses of power which James II and the other Stuart Kings had committed.

The exclusion of James II and his heirs was extended to exclude all Catholics from the throne, since

'it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist prince'.

The Sovereign was required in his coronation oath to swear to maintain the (Anglican, i.e. English) Protestant religion.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page100.asp

The Dutch had been English allies on and off since their Eighty Years' War with Spain- foreigners were welcome in England if they happened to be religious refugees, like the Dutch or Huguenots, or Jews.

The Anglo-Dutch wars were more about trade than anything else.

As to the Hanoverians-

Sophia, Electress of Hanover
Twelfth child of Frederick V, elector palatine of the Rhine and king of Bohemia, and Elizabeth, daughter of James I of England. She married the elector of Hannover in 1658. Widowed in 1698, she was recognized in the succession to the English throne in 1701, and when Queen Anne died without issue in 1714, her son George I founded the Hanoverian dynasty.

The Hanoverians were also non-Catholic and related to the English royal family through Sophia, Electress of Hanover. George II was the last king of England to personally lead his men into battle- at Dettingen, if memory serves.

if Nationalism was rampant in England, one has to wonder about the history of the English republican period, since Nationalism if it really existed back then would have had a fair amount of influence

It did. You should read up on the history of the English Commonwealth, and how the 'British Empire' began militarily with Oliver Cromwell's 'Western Design' and the taking of Jamaica from Spain:

England demanded freedom of religion and free rights to trade for all Englishmen in Spanish-held territories. These demands were calculated to provoke hostilities with Spain in the West Indies, though not necessarily to start a war in Europe. Cromwell's plan was influenced by the advice of Thomas Gage - a renegade Dominican who had once been a missionary in the West Indies and had published The English-American: A New Survey of the West Indies in 1648

http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/military/western-design.htm

England rejected a Scottish Presbyterian religious settlement- and then militarily defeated Scotland, and reduced the power of the independently minded Irish Catholics, causing them to flee abroad and swell the ranks of Europe's other states.

...a United Kingdom, a move which would never sit with real nationalist, be they English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish.

And why wouldn't a 'United Kingdom' suit a nationalist Englishman ?

See for instance the English Tudor dynasty's Act For The Union Of England And Wales. This wasn't a federation, or equal partnership. It was the establishment of an 'Englished' home empire in all but name.

Under an English crown, centred on the English capital....


George II, at Dettingen.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GePap
Molly:

For all your "evidence", .

Oh that's just me- a dancin' fool for 'evidence' like relevant dates, quotes from contemporary Tudor and Stuart literature, facts, figures and the names of Acts of the English parliament.


See, to my mind, they support and clarify arguments much better than airy unsupported claims, don't you think ?


Richard Mulcaster (c.1530 (?)- 1611) :

"For is it not in dede a mervellous bondage, to becom servants to one tung for learning sake, the most of our time, with losse of most time, whereas we maie have the verie same treasur IN OUR OWN TUNG (my emphasis), with the gain of most time ? our own bearing the joyfull title of our libertie and fredom, THE LATIN TUNG (again, my emphasis) remembring us of our thraldom and bondage ? I love Rome, but London better; I favor Italie, but England more; I honor the Latin, but I worship the English."

1582, a plea for a dictionary of English.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by duke o' york


thereby undermining the whole idea of England as in any way special. Not a good quote to support this idea Molly.

Err, John of Gaunt is saying that the realm in the play is no longer 'special' because it is given over to civil war and rebellion- a situation all too familiar to the Tudors and the audience for Shakespeare's plays.

The point of course being that out of the dynastic and 'party' squabbles of the Wars of the Roses we are delivered by the Tudors who unite the white rose and the red rose, England and Wales and Ireland all under one crown, one unifying power.

Mythmaking in Shakespeare's plays necessitates after all the demolition of the characters of Richard III and of Macbeth, and the absurd portrait of Henry VIII in the play of the same name.