Avatar for pgolovatina 12 сентября 2005
pgolovatina

Dear students, this is a topic for an open-up discussion. Try to support your point with some evidences.

#
Avatar for anastasiya спустя 2 дня (14 сентября 2005)
anastasiya

Guess this two things appear simultaneously, if there are two different nations – there is a problem of nationalism

#
Avatar for yakov спустя 54 минуты (14 сентября 2005)
yakov

I believe that nation comes first and nationalism appears only when nation is deprived of its rights. Nationalism to me seems to be more of a defensive mechanism. For example in our week's readings we find origins of Polish nationalism only after the First Partition of Poland in 1775 while Polish nation has formed long before that. But I still can be wrong because there is so much confusion even among the researchers about defining the terms «nation» and «nationalism»...

#
Avatar for annete спустя 2 дня (17 сентября 2005)
annete

Althouth these two notions are really close, i suppose that nations appears before and than people assotiating themselves with one particular nation feel some sort of nationalism. Wnen there is no nation there is no nationalism.

#
Avatar for harmony спустя 1 день (18 сентября 2005)
harmony

I believe that nation comes first. It’s like some kind of basis for the system of ideas, believes and mentality called nationalism. A man kind first of all is a social creature and he has always been trying to live in a group united by some features. Nation is a group of people living on the same territory, using one language, having the same historical and cultural values, etc. Only sharing all this features this group can create such a system that would show their attitude to themselves as a group and other people, reflect their goals, commemorate their “great past”…So I think that nationalism comes from nation.

#
Avatar for avanti спустя 7 минут (18 сентября 2005)
avanti

I reckon it  in the way that : when a group of people marked off by  a common descent, language, history….( that is nation) they create certain values attributed to them only. These values increasingly permeate the society and the feeling of  adherence to it becomes stronger. Thus the nationalism is born.

#
Avatar for nevera спустя 1 час (18 сентября 2005)
nevera

as the majority I also believe that nation came first. But really it's like philosophical question: «What came first egg or hen?» Nobody knows the right answer. We can only gess. But as for me I think that either nation came first, or the formation of those defenitions was a parallel(simultaneous) process.

#
Avatar for vicki спустя 11 часов (19 сентября 2005)
vicki

From my point of view, nation comes firt. At least before nationalizm. I think nation means not only a unity of people with common culture, language and etc., it means also the feeling of belonging to it, facing the same realities and problems. I would agree with Yakov that nationalism is more of a defensive mechanism, when this or that nation is humiliated or deprived of its rights. But as there is no concrete diffenition of these terms I can only suppose.

#
Avatar for anonymous спустя 22 часа (20 сентября 2005)
anonymous

I can not agree with you, dear colleagues. In my opinion at first there should be a theoretical substantiation, and then a subject. It is possible to tell, that occurrence of the nations is a historical tendency. At the initial stage there are local ethnoses (we start to learn history from it), then under certain conditions which can be neighbour's position, cultural traditions, the general enemies, develop the unions. Далее разрабатывают идею. After that the nation arises. In other words, the nation without nationalism is nothing. Word which can be replaced by any other (for example xxx). It is possible to build a chronological circuit: ethnos-nationalism-nation.

#
Avatar for anonymous спустя 54 минуты (20 сентября 2005)
anonymous

I can not agree with you, dear colleagues. In my opinion at first there should be a theoretical substantiation, and then a subject. It is possible to tell, that occurrence of the nations is a historical tendency. At the initial stage there are local ethnoses (we start to learn history from it), then under certain conditions which can be neighbour's position, cultural traditions, the general enemies, develop the unions. Далее разрабатывают идею. After that the nation arises. In other words, the nation without nationalism is nothing. Word which can be replaced by any other (for example xxx). It is possible to build a chronological circuit: ethnos-nationalism-nation. Yurkovets Denis.

#
Avatar for natasha спустя 3 дня (23 сентября 2005)
natasha

I agree with Zhenya that to determinate “what comes first – nationalism or nation” is like to determinate “what comes first – egg or hen”. All depends on the signification. Also the dictionary doesn’t give just one explication of these words - NATIONALISME (DICTIONNAIRE UNIVERSEL, Hachette, Strasbourg, 1993):
1) A political doctrine claiming the first rank of the nation
2) An exclusive attachment of the nation
From this position it’s evident that the principal word is “nation” which is the base of “nationalism”
At the same time this dictionary gives the following (the 3rd explication):
Nationalism – it is the conscience throw the community of rights to form a nation. In this case I agree with Denis that the sense of cultural and historical identity (nationalism) composes a political life of society. But it isn’t a fight for some nation’s identity. It’s just the understanding of  membership of some nation. I think nowadays people confuse these meanings

#
Avatar for andrey спустя 3 дня (27 сентября 2005)
andrey

As far as these occurances are concerned (I consider the etimology of these terms to be a subject od phylological researches), I assume that first nation comes and then nationalism appears. Otherwise. how can nationalism exist without nations. That's just a question of logic. On the other hand, tendenecy to display nationalistic features lives in a human, from my point of view, even before his birth, before he becomes an essential part of a nation. Anyway nationalism is likely to exist forever, because different nations will always exist. As for nationalism itself, I consider it to be indivisible with nation, and on the contrary. It is a common feature of every nation one way or another.

#
Avatar for swansy спустя 9 часов (28 сентября 2005)
swansy

As for me, I guess nation comes first. The reason for this is that for nationalism to arise there should be some kind of base, either ideological or political or some other ones. The nation is a number of people united by the similar outlook and mentality, view of the other nations and people of the world in general, which do, from my point of view, make up the frame of nationalism itself.

#
Avatar for evgeniya спустя 4 дня (2 октября 2005)
evgeniya

Natioanlism is some kind of the conscious superiority of a paricular nation or a t least this nation considers itself to be not as others. That's why nation in a sense is  a base for the ideology (natioanlism).

#
Avatar for lamia спустя 7 дней (9 октября 2005)
lamia

I agree with majority of my colleages that nation comes first and than comes nationalism. What is a nation? If we open a dictionary we will find out that it is a historically formed commonality of people with the common territory, economical relations, language, culture and so on. And nationalism is an ideology and policy wich is coming from ideas of national superiority and opposition of  one's nation to another. But if there have been no nation, there would be no opposition, no ideas of national superiority, no ideology and policy and no nationalism.

#
Avatar for anonymous спустя 243 дня (10 июня 2006)
anonymous

Izvini

Авторизуйтесь или зарегистрируйтесь, чтобы участвовать в дискуссиях.