Chapter 31 Part 1 Development Chapter 7 Nationalism 2

2 However, outside the modern bourgeois world, there are popular uprisings against alien rule (generally ruled by different religions rather than different nations), which sometimes seems to indicate the direction of future national movements.Such campaigns refer to battles against the Turkish Empire, the Caucasus against the Russians, and India against the invading British rulers.It is inappropriate to put a lot of modern nationalism into the understanding of this kind of national movement, although in the backward areas where armed and aggressive farmers and herdsmen live together, tribal groups are organized, and tribal chiefs, green forest heroes Or the resistance waged by the Prophets against foreign (or rather distrusted) rulers took the form of a people's war quite different from the elitist national movement, but closer to its true meaning.However, in fact, the anti-British movements launched by the Marathas (Mahrattas, a feudal military group in India) and the Sikhs (a military religious sect) in 1803-1813 and 1845-1849 respectively were not the same as those of the later Indian nation. had little to do with nationalism, and they did not develop a nationalism of their own. (The Sikh movement remains largely sui generis. In Maharashtra, the local tradition of militant struggle made that region an early center of Hindu nationalism and provided some of the earliest and Very traditional leaders, especially B.G. Tilak; but this is mostly a regional rather than dominant current in Indian national movements. Like Maratha nationalism things, which may still exist today, but whose social basis is the vast Marathi working class and the unprivileged lower middle class against the economically and until recently linguistically dominant Gujarati [ Gujeratis].) The barbaric, heroic, feuding Caucasian troops, in the pure Islamic faction of the Muridism, temporarily found a bond of unity against the Russian invasion, and found Shamil (1797- 1871) this important leader.But until today, the Caucasians have not yet formed a nation, but only a small group of mountain people in a small republic in the Soviet Union (Georgians and Armenians, who have modern national significance, did not participate in the Shamir movement).The Bedouin, who were swept away by pure religious sects such as the Wahhabi in Arabia and the Senussi in Libya today, opposed taxes, sultans, and cities for the sake of pure belief in Allah. cheating and fighting to maintain a simple pastoral life.But Arab nationalism as we know it today (a product of the 20th century) arose from cities, not nomadic encampments.

Even the insurrections of the Balkan states, especially those of the less tamed southern and western mountain peoples against the Turks, should not be explained too simply in terms of modern nationalism, although many bards and warriors (both Often the same people, such as the poet-warrior-bishop of Montenegro), would recall the glory of quasi-national heroes like Skanderbeg in Albania, and the The tragic defeat against the Turks in the Battle of Kossovo.Wherever there was a need or a will, it was perfectly natural to revolt against the local regime or to weaken the Turkish Empire.However, it is only because of the common backwardness of the economy that we regard the so-called Yugoslavs today as a whole, even including their fellows living in the Turkish Empire, but the concept of Yugoslavia is the intellectuals of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. products of activity rather than the desired outcome of those who actually fight for freedom. (Interestingly, today's Yugoslav regime has split the nations formerly classified as Serbia into more realistic sub-national republics and administrative units: Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Kosovo-Metohija [Kossov-Metohidja]. According to the linguistic standards of 19th century nationalism, they belong mostly to the same unit of "Serbian" ethnicity, only the Macedonians who are closer to the Bulgarians, and the Albanian minority in Kosmet Except. But in fact, they never developed into a single Serb nation.) The Orthodox Montegorians were never conquered, and they fought the Turks, but fought with equal zeal against the suspicious, Catholic The Albanians, the equally suspicious but united Slavs, and the Islamic Bosnians.The Bosnians revolted as willingly as the Orthodox Serbs of the Danube plain, and with greater zeal than the Orthodox "Old Serbs" of the Albanian frontiers, against the Turks of the same religion as their majority. The first Balkan peoples to revolt in the 19th century were the Serbs under the leadership of the heroic pig merchant Black George (1760-1817), but in the initial stages of his uprising (1804-1807) he did not even propose Slogans against Turkish rule; conversely, support for the Turkish sultan against the malpractice of the local rulers.In the early history of uprisings in the mountains of the western Balkans, there is hardly any record that local Serbs, Albanians, Greeks, and other nationalities were already dissatisfied with the non-ethnic self-governing principalities in the early 19th century. It was once established in Epirus by the powerful governor, Ali Pasha (1741-1822), known as the "Lion of Yanina".

Once, and only once, the sheep herder and the forest hero merged with the ideas of middle-class nationalism and the French Revolution in their protracted battle against any government in existence.That was the Greek War of Independence (1821-1830).No wonder, then, that Greece became a myth and an inspiration to nationalists and liberals everywhere.For only in Greece did the whole people rise up against their oppressors in a manner which seemed to be the same as that of the European Left; very important help. Most Greeks were very much like other forgotten warriors, peasants and tribes in the Balkans.However, a portion of the Greeks constituted an international trading and administrative class, and they also settled throughout the Turkish Empire in colonial and minority communities, as well as outside it; The language used was Greek, and its leadership was Greek, headed by the Greek Bishop of Constantinople.Transformed into a Greek administrator dependent on the prince, he ruled the principalities of the Danube (now Romania).In a sense, in the Balkans, the Black Sea region, and the Levant, all educated and commercial classes, regardless of national origin, were Hellenized by the very nature of their activities.In the 18th century, the process of Hellenization was stronger than ever.Mainly because of the obvious development of the economy, which expanded the diaspora and contacts of Greeks abroad.The new and prosperous corn trade in the Black Sea brought them into the commercial centers of Italy, France, and England, and strengthened their ties with Russia; the expansion of the Balkan trade brought Greek or Hellenized merchants to Central Europe.The first Greek newspapers were published in Vienna (1784-1812).The émigré community was further strengthened by the regular emigration and re-migration of peasant rebels.It was in this diaspora, found all over the world, that the ideas of the French Revolution (liberalism, nationalism, and the political organization of Masonic secret societies) took root.In the early days, Rigas (Rhigas, 1760-1798), who was not very prominent and was more or less the leader of the pan-Balkan revolutionary movement, not only spoke French, but also adapted "La Marseillaise" into a Greek version.The secret Patriotic Society Society (Philike Hetairia) that launched the 1821 riot was founded in 1814 in Odessa, a new Russian grain port.

Greek nationalism is to some extent comparable to elite movements in the West.No other analogy can be given to the uprising of the Danubian principalities for Greek independence under the leadership of the local Greek authorities; and intellectuals.Naturally, that uprising failed miserably (1821).Fortunately, however, the Comrades also began to recruit greenwood heroes, outlaws, and tribal chieftains in troubled times in the Greek mountains (especially the Peloponnese), and (at least after 1818) were more likely to recruit local greenwoods than others who also wanted to recruit local greenwoods. The southern Italian aristocracy, the Carbonari, won even greater success.It is rather doubtful how much such a concept as modern nationalism meant to these "members of the Armed Forces of Greece", although many of them had their own "scholars" - respect for book knowledge and Hobbies are a relic of ancient Greek culture—these scribes wrote manifestos in Jacobin terms.If they represent anything, it is the enduring ethos of the peninsula.The task of being a man is to become a hero, and a green forest hero who stands on the mountain to resist the government and fight injustice for the peasants is the political ideal in the world.For the uprisings of people like the cattle dealer Kolokotronis, Western-style nationalists provided them with a model of leadership and gave them a pan-Hellenic rather than a purely local scale.Western nationalists, in turn, derive from them that uniquely formidable power, the uprising of an armed mass people.

Emerging Greek nationalism was enough to win Greece independence, although that movement, which combined middle-class leadership, armed group rebellion, and great-power intervention, produced some caricatures of Western liberal ideals—the kind that would later emerge in countries like the Latin Areas like the Americas will become extremely familiar.But this nationalism also had the paradoxical effect of confining Hellenistic culture to Greece, thereby creating or reinforcing the underlying nationalism of other Balkan peoples.Hellenization was in progress when being Greek was nothing more than a professional requirement of the literate Orthodox Balkans.As soon as being Greek meant political support for Greece, Hellenism began to regress, even among the assimilated Balkan intelligentsia.In this sense, Greek independence was an important prerequisite for the development of other Balkan nationalisms.

Outside of Europe, it is difficult to speak of nationalism at all.The borders of the Latin American republics that replaced the Spanish and Portuguese empires (more precisely, Brazil, which had been an independent monarchy from 1816 to 1889) generally reflected no more than the distribution of the territories of the great nobles who supported the various leaders , thus forming different national boundaries.These republics came to have vested political interests and territorial ambitions.The original Pan-American ideals of Bolivar in Venezuela and San Martín in Argentina were impossible to realize, although this ideal went on to become a powerful revolutionary current in a region linked by the Spanish language, just as the Pan-American Like Balkanism, it probably still exists today as a successor to the Orthodox Union against Islam.Geographical vastness and diversity, each independent of the uprising centers of Mexico, Venezuela, and Buenos Aires (which determined Mesoamerica), and the unique problems of Spanish colonialism in Peru (liberated from the outside), led to Latin American automatic division.However, the Latin American revolution was the work of a few groups such as nobles, soldiers, and French progressives. The poor white people who believed in Catholicism were still in a passive state, while the Indians were indifferent or hostile.Only the independence of Mexico was won by the initiative of the peasant masses, where the Indians, led by the banner of the Virgin of Guadalupe, launched a movement for independence that set Mexico on a path unlike any other in Latin America. , and a more advanced path politically.However, even among the small group of Latin American elites who play a decisive role in politics, only Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and other countries have sprouted the germs of "national consciousness" during the period of this book. , would be an anachronism.

Something like proto-nationalism prevailed in Eastern European countries, but paradoxically, it took a conservative rather than a nationalist orientation.The Slavs were everywhere oppressed, except in Russia and a few unconquered Balkan fortresses, but, as we have seen, the oppressors they faced directly were not despots, but German or Hungarian landowners, and city exploiter.The nationalism of these people also does not allow any room for the existence of the Slavic nation: even in the radical program of the Germanic United States proposed by the republicans and democrats in Baden (in southwestern Germany), only the capital is in Ries in Italy. The Illyrian (i.e. Croatia and Slovenia) Republic in Porto, the Moravian Republic with its capital in Olomouc, and the Bohemian Republic led by Prague.The Slavic nationalists could therefore only pin their immediate hopes on the Austrian and Russian emperors.The various calls for Slavic unity showed a Russian orientation and attracted many Slavic rebels (even anti-Russian Poles), especially in moments of frustration and despair like the one after the failed uprising of 1846.Croatian "Illyrianism" and moderate Czech nationalism showed Austrian leanings, and both received the prudent support of the Habsburg rulers, whose chief administrators, some (Kolov Kolowrat and the police chief Sedlnitzky) were themselves Czechs. Croatian cultural zeal was protected in the 1830s, and by 1840 Kolovrat had de facto assigned a Croatian military commander to maintain the military border with Hungary as a counterweight to the recalcitrant Magyar A force of man.This proved to be very beneficial later in the Revolution of 1848.To be a revolutionary in 1848, therefore, was effectively to oppose the national aspirations of the Slavs; and the hidden conflict between "progressive" and "reactionary" peoples largely doomed the failure of the 1848 Revolution.

It is difficult to find anything resembling nationalism outside the above-mentioned areas, because the social conditions that produce nationalism do not exist.In fact, if there are any forces that later produce nationalism, they are usually at this stage opposed to that combination of tradition, religion, and popular poverty, which, in combination, is precisely the resistance to The strongest central pillar of the conquerors and exploiters of the West.Elements of the local bourgeoisie, which are rising up in various Asian countries, are at this time carrying out such operations under the aegis of foreign exploiters, as exemplified by the Parsee community in Bombay.Even those educated "enlightened" Asians who were either compradors or foreign rulers or petty clerks in foreign companies (not unlike the Greeks in the Turkish diaspora) had their first priority to promote Westernization and introduce The idea of ​​the French Revolution and technological modernization, and thus against the combined resistance of traditional rulers and traditional ruled (a situation not unlike that of the Squire-Jacobins in southern Italy).So they cut themselves off from their fellow men on both sides.Nationalist myths often obscure this disunity, partly by concealing the link between colonialism and the early local middle classes, and partly by giving earlier xenophobic resistance a more recent nationalist tinge.But in Asia, in the Islamic world, and even more in Africa, enlightened thought and nationalism, and their union with the masses, did not emerge until the twentieth century.

Eastern nationalism is thus the last product of Western influence and Western conquest.The connection is perhaps most evident in Egypt, a thoroughly Eastern country, where the groundwork for what became the first modern colonial nationalist movement (outside Ireland) was being laid.Napoleon's conquests brought Western ideas, methods, and techniques to Egypt, the value of which was quickly recognized by the able and ambitious local soldier Ali.During the chaotic period after the French withdrawal, Egypt gained great power and de facto independence from Turkey, and then Ali, with the support of France, established a Westernized and efficient autocratic government with foreign (mainly French) technical assistance.In the 1820s and 1830s, the European left hailed the enlightened despot and threw themselves at his service when the reactionaries in their own countries were disheartened.A special branch of the San-Simonian sect, hesitant between advocating socialism or promoting industrial development with the investment of bankers and engineers, temporarily provided Ali with collective assistance and organized economic development plans for him.Such aid also laid the groundwork for the Suez Canal (built by de Lesseps, a Saint-Simonian), and for the Egyptian rulers' fatal dependence on large loans from competing European swindlers.This made Egypt later a battleground for imperialism and the center of an anti-imperialist uprising.Ali was by no means more nationalistic than other Eastern despots, but his Westernization, not his or his people's zeal, laid the groundwork for later nationalism.If Egypt started the first nationalist movement in the Islamic world, Morocco was one of the last.This is because Ali (due to well-known geopolitical reasons) is on the main channel of Westernization.However, the isolated and self-enclosed Muslim emirates living far away in the west have no such geographical relationship, and have not made any attempts in this regard.Nationalism, like many features of the modern world, is a product of this dual revolution.