Comments on: At Least He Acknowledged Local Government

By: Michael PS

Michael PS — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 06:42:12 +0000

Dave

That is at the heart of Fichte’s demand that frontiers should depend, not on dynasties and treaties, but on language and nationality.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 22:09:58 +0000

On “nation” some definitional clarity is needed here, too: formally, a nation is a people–with common language, ethnicity, history, and/or culture.

It is not a polity. Unfortunately, we often use it that way, perhaps because the dominant form of organization today is the nation-state, in which one people are coextensive (more or less, at as imagined) with one government unit.

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:49:54 +0000

I tried to tell my Polish friends that there was no Polish nationality between 1793 and 1918, but for some reason they didn’t buy it. (and I don’t think all of their ancestors were happy “belonging” to the Russian, German and Austrian governments, either)

By: David G

David G — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 22:13:31 +0000

The chains of captivity must rest very lightly on those who defend the statement that we belong to the government. Aside from the fact that I have to submit to its power and that I feel kinship with its other citizens, I in no way belong to it. And although we are a republic, I rarely have the feeling that it belongs to me.

By: Eli

Eli — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 21:17:25 +0000

“But Pan-Germanism presupposed the existence of German nationality…”

Sorry, this is just wrong. Show me your sources and maybe we can talk, but don’t go around making random assertions.

By: Michael PS

Michael PS — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 16:56:00 +0000

But Pan-Germanism presupposed the existence of German nationality, as something neither revocable nor attainable at will and, hence, of the German nation as a unit of common descent and blood and not of voluntary adherence and association.

Without this underlying assumption, their claim to political autonomy and self-determination makes no sense.

By: Eli

Eli — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 23:29:54 +0000

“Does this mean that neither the German nor the Italian “nation” existed before 1870?”

Pretty much, yeah; read your history. That’s why there had to be such a thing as pan-Germanism, for example. If they were already one nation, the idea of pan-Germanism would’ve made no sense.

“…who considered themselves part of the German nation for all that”

Yeah, okay, and fans of our football team who live in LA still call themselves “part of Steelers nation.” I am, nonetheless, *fairly* confident that this doesn’t count.

By: Michael PS

Michael PS — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 17:21:41 +0000

Eli asks “cause, like, what is a nation without a government?”

Does this mean that neither the German nor the Italian “nation” existed before 1870?

Then, again, there were many German communities living outside the frontiers of Bismark’s German Empire, the subjects of other powers (the Dual Monarchy, Russia &c) who considered themselves part of the German nation for all that. And, then, there was “Italia Irredenta.”

By: Eli

Eli — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:04:15 +0000

Okay, point taken, although there is some plausibility to the idea that belonging to a nation entails belonging to the government (cause, like, what is a nation without a government).

But, um, if that’s the best you can come up with as an argument? Then I’m sort of tempted to just let it go. Switching “nation” for “government” is a lot less mendacious than, say, switching “blastocyst” for “unborn child.”

By: peg

peg — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:16:44 +0000

“The remark was meant in the sense that “we’re all a part of our nation,” in which sense children and felons and resident aliens *do* belong.”

Probably, but as Dave mentions above, clarity would help. Why not say “nation”, or “society”, if that is what he meant? Or does he think government and nation (or society) are identical? I wonder if this is merely sloppy vocabulary or also sloppy thinking.

The proper use of words and names matter, as Confucius and Orwell have noted.