The deep roots of nationalism

 

Keith Woods is a Traditionalist who sometimes posts interesting content on his YouTube channel. In this long presentation (one hour and a half), he summarizes a book by Azar Gat, "Nations", which I unfortunately haven´t read. He also mentions a number of other writers. 

The main thesis is that nations aren´t a product of modernity or an "imaginary community", but have much deeper roots. This isn´t just a matter of definition, since Woods argues that something we moderns would recognize as nations existed already in pre-modern times. A nation is essentially an ethnic group with a strong sense of political community, cultural identity and historical continuity, often expressed in the form of statehood. Ethnic groups in their turn have even deeper roots, which go all the way back to our evolutionary beginnings. Woods seem to believe that sociobiology in its Wilsonian form (group selection) is largely true, and that this constitutes the ultimate origins of nations and nationalism.

The rest of the presentation is an extended argument against the idea that "nations" didn´t exist before circa 1800. Multi-ethnic empires did of course exist, but they were usually dominated by one specific ethnic group, around which the others tended to cluster. The Habsburg empire (which wasn´t) isn´t the historical norm. One common argument against pre-modern nationalism is that nationalist ideology emerged among the elites, and wasn´t diffused in the general population until modern times. The common people in pre-modern society had, at best, a purely local identity. 

Woods points out that this is simply hogwash: there were mechanisms for spreading elite national culture even in pre-literate societies in the form of myths and stories (the wandering Norse bards come to mind here). National and international religions also show that all loyalty or identity can´t have been local. (Once again, I´m reminded of a Scandinavian example: the medieval churches were often financed, controlled and defended by the peasants.) 

It´s also interesting to note that the Icelandic sagas, with their all-Icelandic ethnic or "national" identity, were written at an island marked by constant feuds and political instability, yet Icelandic-ness was taken for granted even in this chaotic situation (the opposite of what you except if all identities are local or clan-based). And why do common people react more negatively to foreign conquerors than to native elites? The theory that nationalism didn´t exist during, say, the Middle Ages seem to suggest that the peasantry should hate both elite groups equally. 

Woods then points to ancient Greece, Egypt and China as examples of early nationalism. The Egyptian case is interesting, since Egyptian identity remaind firmly in place even when the Pharaonic state had collapsed, suggesting that it wasn´t a purely elite phenomenon entirely dependent on a strong political structure. The common people in Egypt must have had a strong feeling of Egyptian-ness and counterposed it to Semitic, Nubian or Persian identities. 

Another obvious example are the Jews - ironically so, since secularized modern Jews often oppose nationalism, fearing its anti-Semitic potential. I agree that there are indeed strong "nationalist" sentiments in the "Old Testament" and the "Apocrypha", certainly from the time of Ezra onwards, including the Maccabean Wars and the forced conversion of the Idumeans. 

This is just some of the highlights. Recommended. Then, reflect over what this could mean for the near and far future of humankind...