Tweet
Nations are simply cultural-linguistic groups. They've always existed to some extent, even if they weren't a primary form of identification until basically the 19th century.
-
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon -
xpost
Resident Filipina Lady Boy Expert.Comment
-
To some extent? What does that mean in a time when nobody cared about them?Originally posted by Ramo
Nations are simply cultural-linguistic groups. They've always existed to some extent, even if they weren't a primary form of identification until basically the 19th century.BlahComment
-
nation != ethnic group. Nation implies at least SOME national consciousness, even if "nationalism" isnt required. I would say it implies a shared salient political history, but I think that may not be a value neutral definition - IE it stems from my own sympathy for moderate, liberal nationalism.Originally posted by Ramo
Nations are simply cultural-linguistic groups. They've always existed to some extent, even if they weren't a primary form of identification until basically the 19th century."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
I wouldn't say that nobody cared about nations. Differing customs and languages have always divided people.
Nonetheless, nations existed at the time, and if Ninot means a cultural-linguistic identity in particular, using "nation" is entirely appropriate."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
nation != ethnic group.
I've always thought of "ethnic group" of having a "racial" connotation."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
He propelled the people towards their own unique identity, led the population with ability in a time of opportune circumstance, and defended his people against the war weary pillaging Danes, and thus he is reflected upon as a great king.
If you change 'the population' to 'his subjects', and leave out 'war weary' (which I don't think the pillaging Danes of the time ever were
), I think you've got it nailed. 
Now do the essay and have it posted here by Sunday morning at the latest!
Comment
-
war weary is neccesary. if i can find a synomim phrase or way to put it, i will.Originally posted by Winston
He propelled the people towards their own unique identity, led the population with ability in a time of opportune circumstance, and defended his people against the war weary pillaging Danes, and thus he is reflected upon as a great king.
If you change 'the population' to 'his subjects', and leave out 'war weary' (which I don't think the pillaging Danes of the time ever were), I think you've got it nailed.
Now do the essay and have it posted here by Sunday morning at the latest!
thanks for the tips. I'll have it for you by Wednesday
Resident Filipina Lady Boy Expert.Comment
-
King Alfred lead his subjects with ability in a time of opportune circumstance, propelling his subjects towards their own identity while defending them against the pillaging Danes, for this he is reflected upon as a great king.Comment
-
If you read studies about medieval persons it turns out that they often have various overlapping religious and non-religious identities, but - at least according to the stuff I read (which wasn't about England though) - they hardly ever care much about bigger "units" like kingdoms or even the Holy Roman Empire or their own people there as general group. Even the reglious identity as being Christian is mostly not a general one, rather they feel much closer to their own diocese and see others as strangers even if they are Christians as well.Originally posted by Ramo
I wouldn't say that nobody cared about nations. Differing customs and languages have always divided people.
Nonetheless, nations existed at the time, and if Ninot means a cultural-linguistic identity in particular, using "nation" is entirely appropriate.
Similar the non-religious IDs - those people are much more focused on their own region, village, town than on anything larger. Of course people in Northern Germany (11/12th century for example) notice differences to "the Danes" or "the Slavs" but this does not mean that therefore they see themselves as "the Germans" - rather as Saxons for example. So from their own perspective (which is the important one here IMO) the "nation" aspect plays hardly a role.BlahComment
-
So from their own perspective (which is the important one here IMO) the "nation" aspect plays hardly a role.
Why is their perspective the important one? Their perspective could be wrong. After all, from the perspective of Americans in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Irish were 'black' (and deserved the rights of other blacks).
The concept of a nation encompasses those groups, whether they believed in a 'nation' or not. I'm sure, for example, their Kings believed in a nation.
Example:
The first recorded use of the word "nation" was in 968, when Liutprand, bishop of Cremona, while confronting the Byzantine emperor on behalf of his patron Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor, boldly declared in his report, "The Land": I answered, "which you say belongs to your empire belongs, as the nationality and language of the people proves, to the kingdom of Italy." (emphasis added)[1]
The term derives from Latin natio and originally described the colleagues in a college or students, above all at the University of Paris, who were all born within a pays, spoke the same language and expected to be ruled by their own familiar law. In 1383 and 1384, while studying theology at Paris, Jean Gerson was twice elected procurator for the French nation (i.e. the French-born Francophone students at the University). The Paris division of students into nations was adopted at the University of Prague, where from its opening in 1349 the studium generale was divided among Bohemian, Bavarian, Saxon and various Polish nations.Last edited by Imran Siddiqui; November 4, 2005, 16:36.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
"Ability" is still vague - it's just a synonym for skill, not a more precise term."The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
"you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
"I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - DissidentComment
-
The wiki thing also says later:
"Most theorists reject this as simplistic, and treat nations as a relatively late human social grouping. The most widely quoted theories place their origin in the late 18th and 19th century, although this dating is very disputed."
So it is disputed, but most agree with the later dating.....anyway - if Ninot wants to use it, I can't hinder him, I just think it can easily lead to misunderstandings
You mean they were a nation, but didn't know it? (the Irish probably did, but not those medieval guys)Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So from their own perspective (which is the important one here IMO) the "nation" aspect plays hardly a role.
Why is their perspective the important one? Their perspective could be wrong. After all, from the perspective of Americans in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Irish were 'black' (and deserved the rights of other blacks).
As LOTM said, a nation without having national consciousness can hardly be called a nation. Then we are just using a modern term - quasi from "outside" - for something, without actually looking if the "reality" of those people had something to do with our modern terms.
Oh, I'm off for today.....BlahComment
-
You mean they were a nation, but didn't know it?
Of course they knew it. Their Kings spoke of it. The people, while they never saw or knew much of the men on the other side of the realm, knew it existed and that they were part of the same realm.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
"Why King Alfred roXXored!"
His military acumen, precise timing of opportunist military raids, and the rare ability to unite the people behind him alll combined to ensure that he "pwned teh n00b Danes!"
You may prefer to leave out/alter the sections in speech marks.
Comment
Comment