Originally posted by GePap
English Patriotism, perhaps. NOt Nationalism. Different thing.
The fact Romans were proud to be Romans did not make them Roman Nationalists. Ditto for Athenians, or anyone beforehand.
English Patriotism, perhaps. NOt Nationalism. Different thing.
The fact Romans were proud to be Romans did not make them Roman Nationalists. Ditto for Athenians, or anyone beforehand.
My impression is that the average middle class town dwelling Englishman in say, 1590, is not only proud of the realm and supportive of the monarch, but has a strong sense of NOT wanting to be ruled by a Spanish dynasty, qua Spanish. Elizabeth calls herself "mere (ie pure) English" The attachment to the Tudors, by that point, is about more than dynastic legitimacy - its partly about religion, but even that is driven to some degree by national loyalty.
Now its true theres no articulated ideology relating government to language, culture and other "national" charecteristics. But is that not to some degree a matter of philosophy, as the owl of minerva, crying at dusk - IE describing phenomena AFTER they happen. Surely one wouldnt say that capitalism wasnt invented till Turgot or Adam Smith (the 18thc guy, not the poster)? They DISCOVERED capitalism so to speak, they didnt invent it. Similarly with regard to nationalism I think.
OTOH it could be argued that nationalism, unlike capitalism (but like socialism) IS an ideology, and not a social system, and so its not possible to be unconsciously nationalistic.
Hmm. I think there are arguements both ways.
Comment