Catalan 'independence declaration' to trigger showdown with Madrid

[Martinus]

I symphatise with the Catalans. They basically finance Spain, while not being Spanish.

Gotta love tribalism. 

[Martinus]

And the US is quite clearly not a nation state - it is the classic counter-example whenever nation states are discussed. Nation state is a state created specifically for a given nation - the US "nation" was created by the state, not the vice-versa.

[viper37]

And the US is quite clearly not a nation state - it is the classic counter-example whenever nation states are discussed. Nation state is a state created specifically for a given nation - the US "nation" was created by the state, not the vice-versa.

I'm pretty sure the Americans felt different than the other British when they decided to go for independance.  By 1775, the felt they were Americans, not just British colonists.  They felt entitles to certain rights, first as British subjects, yes, but eventually as Americans.

But of course, nationhood is not a on/off switch.  It's built over the years, some events triggers it, then it grows up or disapears.

[Martinus]

And the US is quite clearly not a nation state - it is the classic counter-example whenever nation states are discussed. Nation state is a state created specifically for a given nation - the US "nation" was created by the state, not the vice-versa.

I'm pretty sure the Americans felt different than the other British when they decided to go for independance.  By 1775, the felt they were Americans, not just British colonists.  They felt entitles to certain rights, first as British subjects, yes, but eventually as Americans.

But of course, nationhood is not a on/off switch.  It's built over the years, some events triggers it, then it grows up or disapears.

Has nationalism really played any material role during the American revolution? I thought it was mainly about political representation (or lack thereof).

[Razgovory]

Americans didn't think of themselves as Americans at this time.  They thought of themselves as British Virginians, British New Yorker, British Pennsylvanians etc.  The idea of an American nation was cultivated by people like Ben Franklin for political expediency.  What they were really interested in was political change.

[Martinus]

Americans didn't think of themselves as Americans at this time.  They thought of themselves as British Virginians, British New Yorker, British Pennsylvanians etc.  The idea of an American nation was cultivated by people like Ben Franklin for political expediency.  What they were really interested in was political change.

My thoughts exactly. So America clearly wasnt created as a nation state.

[PJL]

Then again you could arguably say the same about the French revolution as well. The whole concept of a nation state wasn't really defined before the late 18th century anyway.

[viper37]

Americans didn't think of themselves as Americans at this time.  They thought of themselves as British Virginians, British New Yorker, British Pennsylvanians etc.  The idea of an American nation was cultivated by people like Ben Franklin for political expediency.  What they were really interested in was political change.

that doest not change anything.  They felt they were no longer British.  Were they tribal?  Were Franklin, Washington and others tribal leaders?

[Valmy]

Then again you could arguably say the same about the French revolution as well. The whole concept of a nation state wasn't really defined before the late 18th century anyway.

Building the French nation was definitely about banging down square pegs into round holes.

[garbon]

I would suggest, viper, that you would do better not to project your hang ups onto other people and times.

[Valmy]

that doest not change anything.  They felt they were no longer British.

I am glad you are confident enough with American History to make conclusive and sweeping pronouncements on very controversial topics.

[viper37]

that doest not change anything.  They felt they were no longer British.

I am glad you are confident enough with American History to make conclusive and sweeping pronouncements on very controversial topics.

You can trace the source of American independance in the 7 years wars as Americans felt more&more disenfranchised.  As time evolved, there was this feeling that they were no longer British and by the time of the declaration of independance, that was a given they would never go back willingly into the British Empire.  That they felt Virginian and New Yorkers instead of American is irrelevant.  Most Québécois felt they were Canadian long before we became Québécois.  The feeling is the same, the description evolves over time: there is us, there is the other.  That a country represents 300 000 000 people or 3 million people does not make it any less of a State or a nation.  There's probably not much cultural differences between a Norvegian and Swede, yet, they are now two seperate countries.  Would you argue there is only one scandinavian nation and insisting on seperate borders is a form of tribalism?  Bigger is better?

As I said before, it's not a on/off switch like you seem to think.  These feelings evolve over time, usually due to problems with the central authority.

If we look at the state of affaires today, not many Canadians would willingly join America, despite having close cultural ties (they watch the same tv shows, the same movie, they have the same language (albeit with local dialects), they eat the same food, they dress the same).  Americans would never willingly submit to another country's authority.  Heck, most Repulicans can't even stand the UN and if there ever was a UN resolution condemning the US on anything it would be ignored by any party holding the government.

I don't see how that is different from any nationalist movement anywhere in the world.  People feel different and they believe they are better at taking care of their things than others who favour another group over them.  Don't blame the nationalists, blame the central authority.

To reuse the example of the American Revolution, if you go back to the 7 years wars, the Americans weren't too kean on fighting another British war.  Only when Pitt started treating them like allies instead of colonials subject to British rule as they see fit did the people rally the army to fight against the French.  Had the British continued to treat Americans like that and gave them autonomy, the colonies would likely have evolved into another Canada, probably faster due to the number of people, but still subject to British rule, with a limited independance.

Instead, there were people like you and Marti in power who tought all these calls for autonomy were a traitor's way and only the central authority would decide what was good or not.  So, eventually, rebellion broke out.  History being written by the victors, these independantists are the good guys.  Every other is a bad guy. That's just silly.

[Valmy]

You can trace the source of American independance in the 7 years wars as Americans felt more&more disenfranchised.

Yes but in a very British way. We demanded to be taken seriously as British subjects and went on babbling about the British Constitution and defending our British liberties many months after we started shooting each other. Many of us decided they still were British and moved to Canada afterwards. It was really similar to what the English had done in the English Civil War.

To reuse the example of the American Revolution, if you go back to the 7 years wars, the Americans weren't too kean on fighting another British war.  Only when Pitt started treating them like allies instead of colonials subject to British rule as they see fit did the people rally the army to fight against the French.

Only when Pitt went along with our interpretation of the British Constitution rather than Parliament's interpretation. But again we had 'virtual' representation and that was not going to fly for proud British subjects. But I don't see how this is relevant to anything going on today. Pitt was a huge supporter of us to the end Godbless him. And then we named a terrible place like Pittsburgh after him. That is gratitude for you.

Instead, there were people like you and Marti in power who tought all these calls for autonomy were a traitor's way and only the central authority would decide what was good or not.

Huh. Are you ignoring everything I have said on this topic on purpose? And in any case it is not nearly as simple as this caricature.

[Valmy]

Besides there were not 'calls for autonomy'. The colonies being autonomous was how it had always been done for over 100 years. Rocking the status quo with radical redefinitions of a political relationship is rarely going to go over well.

[Razgovory]

Americans didn't think of themselves as Americans at this time.  They thought of themselves as British Virginians, British New Yorker, British Pennsylvanians etc.  The idea of an American nation was cultivated by people like Ben Franklin for political expediency.  What they were really interested in was political change.

that doest not change anything.  They felt they were no longer British.  Were they tribal?  Were Franklin, Washington and others tribal leaders?

No, they felt quite British.  They felt neglected.  For both Washington and Franklin there was a personal element.  As a young man Washington wanted a commission in the army that was denied to him and Franklin had been humiliated before the Kings Court.  During the war and and in the aftermath Americans really didn't know what to think of themselves as.  Most didn't think of themselves as Americans.  It took a long time for a new identity to form.  And it's never been very rigid; what an American is has always been hazy.  That's probably why we integrate immigrants so well in this country.  They change to become more like us, and we change to become a bit more like them.  Of all the examples of nationalism you picked one of the worst.