World History: Nationalism

Germania, the symbol of German nationalism

Through many of our recent World History posts, we have a list down below, the topic of nationalism has crept up repeatedly. Nationalism has evolved and changed over the years, and differs greatly where you like at it - German nationalism in 1870 will look very different from Indian nationalism in 1900. In this post today we're looking at the forms of nationalism which emerged in the 1800s until the early-1900s; during this period states in Europe, the Americas, and Asia began a drive to forge the idea of a nation state. Today we will look at these varieties, and how they evolved from largely minority pressure groups to widespread movements. 

Imagined Communities

One of the most influential works on the evolution of nationalism and the forging of 'nations' is Imagined Communities (1982) by Benedict Anderson. Of course, Anderson's theory does fall into universalising nationalism across the world, and when we look at nationalism and decolonisation in the future we will definitely see this with African nationalism. The basis of Anderson's theory is that nations - a state encompassing of a people sharing the same identity - are 'imagined communities'. Practically, nothing connects a labourer in Calais to an artist in Paris, but they can feel connected thanks to the idea of a nation - this connection is imaginary forming an imaginary community. Anderson explains the nation with three terms: limited, sovereign, and community. There are issues with this, different regions experienced different and evolving versions of nationalism which didn't fit into Anderson's model. Anderson argues that the nation is limited as 'no nation imagines itself as coterminus with mankind'; sovereign as it is not divinely-ordained and controlled by an absolute monarch claiming divine rule; and community, the perception that it is a horizontal comradeship, 'not so much to kill, as willingly to die for such limited imaginings'. In particular, selective readings of history, national anthems, statues, military conscription, and shared language are often used to forge this imagined community. Anderson writes that we imagine the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier without issue, but we have difficulty imaging the 'Tomb of the Liberal' or 'Tomb of the Marxist'. 

The Rise of Nationalism

Forms of nationalism have existed for centuries before the 1800s, Eric Hobsbawm described this as 'proto-nationalism'. Many of them were based on religious identity, for example the Russian tsars tried to portray Russia as 'Holy Russia' where the 'Russky' became interchangeable with 'krestianin-christianin' (peasant-Christian). Even earlier the Jewish Revolt against Roman rule began thanks to Roman persecution of Jews. The Jews of Palestine, based on their religious identity, saw themselves as a community against an alternate community trying to destroy their way of life. Furthermore, several states had what can be described as a 'homogeneous population' leading to some form of national identity. It should be noted that none of these cases were truly homogeneous, even in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries so-called 'homogeneous nations' are not in fact that homogeneous. The ancient Greeks used 'barbaroi' to describe non-Greek speakers and China regularly referred to non-Han peoples as barbarians. As we saw when we looked at racism, Ming China had the book Luochong Lu which tried to catalogue 'naked creatures'; in reality this othered non-Han peoples. Japanese were described as 'dwarf bandits', and Huns as having different 'breeds'. In Europe the French Revolution inspired the rise of modern nationalism across Europe. With the emphasis on rationality and the guillotining of the French monarch French nationalism took two forms. The first, was that the French borders were wrong being based on arbitrary and irrational lines drawn by dynastic negotiations. They argued, instead, that the French borders should be 'natural' being based on mountains and rivers. At the same time, French nationalism could be inclusive. Enlightenment ideas of universal liberty made many French Revolutionaries to open nationhood to people previously not viewed as French. If you could speak French then you became French, but, on the other hand, the French state (even to this day) instituted rigid French linguistic uniformity. Dialects were discouraged in favour of the French spoke in Paris. 

One of the major reasons why nationalism emerged was the othering of different communities. The French Revolution spread across Europe, and later Napoleon continued the revolutionary trend. While supporters of the revolution implemented the reforms of the revolutionaries, opponents became solidified in their opposition to French occupation. Napoleon planted his family members and close allies on the thrones of various European states which inflamed local elites, and local peoples became enraged by heavy-handed rule and forced conscription. After Napoleon's defeat local elites reversed reforms based on opposition to the French; a good example was the rise in antisemitism in Germany after Napoleon's defeat. French Revolutionaries had emancipated Jews, so Jewish emancipation became associated with the foreign French. Elsewhere, conflict and the other influenced the rise of nationalism. Misrule by British and Spanish Empires in the Americas led to their respective revolutions, and in Spanish America the fear of the subaltern influenced their revolutionary movements. Although Simon Bolivar had admiration for the Haitian Revolution it made others fearful, and elites became nationalists to oppose a possible subaltern revolutionary movement. This is seen in Mexico. The initial War of Independence was led by indigenous and mestizo communities, when they were crushed, and Spanish misrule continued, creole elites became nationalists.

From Elite to Mass Movements

Women in the swadeshi movement

Nationalist movements largely did not emerge as mass movements - instead it took years to develop. Miroslav Hroch identified three stages of the nationalist movement. These stages are far from universal, but they are useful to imagine the development of nationalism. The first, an elite movement looking at cultural and linguistic revival emerges. Elites begin thinking, what makes us different? Educated elites have easier access to histories and languages, as well as the ability to communicate with other intellectuals, and begin attempts to revive their culture. During the 1848 Revolutions Czech nationalists gathered in a Prague theatre, and leading Czech nationalist Frantisek Palacky joked that 'Gentlemen, if the roof collapsed on us now Czech nationalism would be destroyed'. The second, a minority starts to agitate for cultural revival and national emancipation. These were wide and varied in nature. In 1893 the Gaelic League in Ireland directly tied Irish independence, or Home Rule, to Gaelic restoration, and in 1886 the Can Vuong in Vietnam was made of scholars campaigning for restoration of Vietnamese traditions and the monarchy. The rise of readily available print media greatly influenced the development of nationalist movements - despite press censorship hundreds to thousands of nationalist papers were published. Italian nationalist Count Cavour after 1848 published Il Risorgimento to campaign for Italian independence, unification, and economic reforms. Finally, elite movements give way to mass movements which are the ones who bring about independence. The example of India is a good example of this. The Indian National Congress, formed 1885, quickly grew from an elite movement to one of the largest movements in history thanks to the swadeshi movement after 1918. A British officer reporting on the Egyptian Revolution in 1919 said 'Street boys, lower-class natives and seed vendors chanted songs in colloquial Egyptian which insulted British officials and called for the British to leave.' 

Forging a Nation

Disbanded Waverley by J. Pettie (1893)

As we have already mentioned, several ideas and imagery are used to help forge the idea of national communities. Thanks to the rise of capitalist press and media these images could be widely distributed so two individuals on the other side of a state could view themselves as being part of a nation. A key part of this is language. Post-revolutionary France tried to enforce a strict form of the language to silence regional, or possibly separatist, languages in Normandy, Brittany, and Corsica. For 'nationalities without nations' language revival became a way to unite disparate peoples. The Irish Gaelic League was a good example - Irish nationalists united around learning their language which had been ruthlessly suppressed by the British state. Romanticism of individuals and histories was integral to nationalism. Scottish revivalism, not full nationalism, relied on the romanticism of the Highlands and Jacobites - kilts, Gallic, and tartan had been previously banned and limited to the Highland Scots. In the late-eighteenth century and early-nineteenth century Scottish writers reinvented these images to be universal to all of Scotland. Walter Scott is a good example whose novels like Waverley (1814) and Rob Roy (1817) romanticised the Scottish past to turn it to a point of pride. In the 1880s and 1890s Japan romanticised the samurai as noble warriors honouring bushido as a way for Japan to find a unified past, despite the fact that the samurai for two hundred years were bureaucrats and had been demonised just twenty years prior. Figures, both alive and dead, became integral to national identity. Uniting several South American countries was Simon Bolivar, who helped lead them to independence, and after his death his image was used to unite Latin Americans. Despite his dream of a united Gran Colombia territorial nationalism broke the state apart and Bolivar became despised, but with his death and the uncertainty of the future the several states banded together over his image. While still living Giuseppe Garibaldi became the romantic image for Italy. A key figure in the 1848 Revolutions, a dashing fighter in Latin America, a romantic marriage with Brazilian revolutionary Anita Garibaldi, and a humble image of being a farmer he was perfect to unite Italian nationalists. His landing in Sicily in 1860 to begin the fight to unite Italy had become central to Italian nationalism despite the fact that he would only land when he was sure that the expedition had little chance of failure. 

Women were integral to nationalism, despite being subjected to intense misogyny. It is in the nineteenth-century that ideas of the 'Motherland' came into being, and Spain and Latin America started using patria. This means 'homeland' but is a feminine word. The nation was seen as birthing the people, so patriots were seen as honouring the mother. This was not the case everywhere - Germany specifically used 'Fatherland' and Japan made the emperor as the fatherly figurehead of the nation. Furthermore, women became the symbols of nations - quite ironic considering many nations barred women basic rights. Germany was represented by Germania, Britain by Britannia, France had Marianne, and India had Mother India. On the other hand, Mexico used women in a negative way to build national identity. When Hernan Cortes invaded Mexico in the 1520s he used an indigenous woman called Malintzin, (she was also called Malinche, Dona Marina and Marina), as his negotiator, translator, and sexual slave. After independence in the 1820s Mexican intellectuals portrayed Malintzin as the betrayer of the nation and a sexual seducer; this image lasts to this day although since the 1960s feminists have tried to challenge this view. This was done as Mexico tried to romanticise the pre-Conquest Aztec Empire - the Aztecs, in this narrative, only fell because of betrayal from a wilful woman. Finally, women were involved deeply in nationalist movements. We have already mentioned Anita Garibaldi, but there were many others. By looking at history from below we can see the importance of women. British officials in 1919 reported how Egyptian women were at the forefront of the anti-British protests, and several women were leaders in the anti-French resistance in Vietnam. Two peasant women, Co Bac and Co Giang, even led peasant resistance in 1873.

German and Italian Unification

Giuseppe Garibaldi

We're going to quickly look over some various forms of nationalism as a case study. Germany and Italy largely represent 'nationalism from above' or uniting historical regions. Italian and German nationalism had long been divided, and had been dominated by foreign powers. Germany was divided between two major power blocks - Prussia in the north and Habsburg Austria in the south. Meanwhile, Italian states were subjected to division by other European states - most notably the Spanish, French, and Austrians. Nationalist movements had largely been limited to elites, albeit progressive elites like Giuseppe Mazzini who founded the Young Italy movement in 1841. The Revolutions of 1848 sparked the first attempts to unify the two nations, but both failed. The Frankfurt Assembly collapsed over the issue of non-Germans (Palacky famously rejected the Czech invitation to the Assembly), and other whether to include Austria in a future Germany (Grossdeutschland) or not (Kleindeutschland). The Italians, including Mazzini's and Garibaldi's attempts to form the Roman Republic, were soon crushed by conservative monarchs and the Austrians. From 1848 nationalism became a firmly elite and top-down movement. Mazzini's attempts to foster uprisings were collapsed and the German National League reached only 25,000 members. Instead local conservative leaders began using nationalism to disrupt popular movements. Prussia used an economic quasi-union called the Zollverein to attempt to unite the economies of the various German states, and Count Cavour, the Piedmontese prime minister, began a series of reforms making it the strongest of the Italian states. When Austria became isolated following the Crimean War Cavour sought an alliance with Napoleon III of France to oust the Austrians. When Garibaldi led his anti-Bourbon revolt in Sicily Cavour managed to secure control over him to prevent mass movements when nationalists started flocking to Garibaldi. In 1861 enough of Italy was under Piedmontese control that the King of Italy was declared, and when Austria and France were defeated by the Prussians over the 1860s they used it to seize control the rest of the peninsular. Otto von Bismarck became Prussian chancellor in 1862 and he started building up the Prussian army to dominate Central Europe. Nationalists debated which state German unification should happen under - Protestant Prussia or Catholic Austria. Through a series of wars Bismarck defeated the Austrians and French crowning the Prussian king as the German Emperor in 1870.

Nationalism did not end with unification in 1861 and 1870. Italy remained deeply divided on regional lines with Venice, Sicily, Sardinia, and the south remaining culturally different to the north. The south in particular remained poor and distant from the centre of power in the north, and the veneration of Mazzini, Cavour, and Garibaldi we see in the north does not exist in the south. This was similar in Germany. The newly founded empire was dominated by Prussia, and Catholic regions remained disgruntled over unification. Bavaria disliked Prussian political domination as well as Protestant domination over the largely Catholic region. This was made worse by Bismarck's Kulturkampf. Some parts nationalist policy, some parts over power the Kulturkampf aimed to limit the power of the Catholic Church in the German state. Bismarck was keen to make Germany a Protestant power, so the power of the Church had to be curbed - enraging the Bavarians. Furthermore, with the Kulturkampf Bismarck whipped up antisemitism to build German nationalism. As racial thinking made Judaism a race Jews were seen as aliens polluting Germany. Jews, Roma, and Poles were seen as infecting the German nation, and would therefore be seen as potential subversives. 

Zionism

Theodor Herzl

This is a curious form of nationalism as it was a nationalism among a diaspora. Religious Zionism had existed for centuries, but political Zionism is a much more recent identity - in contemporary Israel there is a sect of Zionists who oppose Israel for being made by secular forces and not the divine. Modern Zionism has been seen as originating with Theodor Herzl whose pamphlet Der Judenstaat is seen as popularising Zionism. Herzl was inspired by the rise of antisemitism in Central Europe, and the Jewish Enlightenment reinvigorating Jewish culture. The premise of Zionism was that Jews had to build their own state in Palestine, they had to recreate the old state of Israel. Initially, Zionism was not widely received among Jews. For one, Herzl only managed to communicate with Jews in Western and Central Europe - Jews in Eastern Europe, the Americas, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Palestine were largely disinterested at this moment in time. There were also the issues of the Jewish community being a diaspora. Unlike the Indian or Irish diaspora who had recent contacts with the 'homeland', the Jewish community had not been united for almost two thousand years creating a very diverse community. In Western and Central Europe Jews spoke national languages and only spoke Hebrew in prayer - Prague's Jews spoke German, and sometimes Czech, day to day. In Eastern Europe Yiddish was more widely spoken. Especially in Germany and France, to Herzl's anger, most Jews disliked the idea of Zionism as they saw themselves as citizens of the nations they lived in. There was also a major issue - people, including Jews, already lived there. What made Zionism a popular movement was the Dreyfus Affair, which we discussed when we looked at racism. As Dreyfus was an Alsatian Jew he was seen as the perfect scapegoat, and a natural traitor. France, thanks to the legacy of the French Revolution, had been seen as a country safe for Jews, but the Dreyfus Affair shattered this view. A view emerged that Jews needed their own state to be safe from persecution.

Indian Nationalism

Elphinstone College

We will look in greater detail at Indian independence movements when we look at decolonisation, but we will make a start here. In order to better run their administration the British started opening educational institutions, like Elphinstone College, to raise a new generation of administrators. By doing so it exposed elite Indians to liberal and nationalist writings from across the world - ranging from Japanese reformers to John Stuart Mills. Figures like Dadabhai Naoroji, who taught for Elphinstone, would use this to criticise British misrule. His 'drain theory' criticised Britain for draining the wealth from India to profit the UK. However, the main nationalists were those who wanted to reform religion - such as improving the rights of women, ending child marriage, and challenging caste. As a result, Indian nationalism largely became divided along the lines of religion thanks to this. Syed Ahmad Khan's Aligarh University aimed to reform Indian Islam which resulted in the creation of the Muslim League in 1906. Meanwhile, elite Hindu reformers formed the Indian National Congress in 1885. Under Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru the Congress would become a much larger movement not specifically for Hindus, but the legacy of this would cut deep. The nationalist movement became divided about what the language should be - sectarian splits meant that Hindus chose Hindi and Muslims Urdu. Today, India's main national language is Hindi and Pakistan Urdu.

Conclusion

Nationalism was one of the key driving movements in the 1800s - only socialism or industrial capitalism can possibly rival it. It shook up the world, and set the stage for more destructive forms of nationalism of the twentieth century. Most importantly, looking at nationalism explains why we have to study history. History and imagery is regularly used, or misused, to construct national identities, but this could be to the detriment of marginalised groups. For example, today in Britain Winston Churchill has been vaulted as a national symbol despite his genocide in Bengal - this paints an image that British Indian experiences are less important than nation building. These debates occurred in the 1800s and still are relevant today.

The sources I have used are as follows:

-Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire, 1875-1914, (London: 1987)

-Kumari Jayawardena, Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World, (London: 1986)

-Liah Greenfeld, Nationalism:Five Roads to Modernity, (Cambridge, MA: 1992)

-Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, (London: 1983)

-Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality, (Cambridge: 1990)

-Sumit Sarkar, Modern India, 1885-1947, (London: 1983)

-Mary Fulbrook, (ed.), German History since 1800, (New York, NY: 1997)

-Stuart Woolf, (ed.), Nationalism in Europe, 1815 to the Present, (London: 1996)

-Christopher Duggan, The Force of Destiny: A History of Italy since 1796, (London: 2007)

Thank you for reading. Our next World History post will look at feminism, and for other World History posts we have a list here. For other posts please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.