Speaking of pure races doesnt make sense especially

This preview shows page 21 - 24 out of 34 pages.

speaking of pure races doesn’t make sense, especially when used for justification of a nation -the rational use of race to explain a nation is fiction -points out contradiction of shared memories-a way of providing a cool unbiased critique of nationalism(Driver roll up the) Partition of Verdun-A crisis of sucession erupted in the Frankish Empire and what had been the Frankish Kingdom
-seperated into 3 kingdoms (one for each son) -Renan uses this as an example of the disparity between myth and reality of what constitutes a state, yet the myth becomes a conscious of a nation-agreed to partition land -boundary (Rhine river) would become state lines that seperated Germany and France -Lines were arbituarly chosen but in time each side will see their side of the boundary as THEIR land -partition brought about the arbitrary agreement of Charlemagne -in time each side will consider their side their “land” Necessity of “historical error”-Renan argues that one must accept or ignore a certain amount of historical error to buy into nationalism -THIS IS CRUCIAL TO NATIONALISM-if one looks to carefully at history, the narrative of nationhood then it unravels pretty quickly -people need to have some commonalities-need to forget the past. for the French they needed to forget the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacreSt. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre-Renan says we are obligued to forget this massacre -his references to the massacre include both those who are killed and who killed -Protestants and Catholics raged through northern and central europe in the 16th century-didn’t think of themselves as Frenchmen“Ethnographic principle”-Renan argues that there is mixed blood at the heart of every European nation -Race is basically used to promote unity -However, others can use race against your nation -this leads to racial subjugation -can identify themselves as distinct, superior race and use it against you (sounds like what hitler is gonna do in the 20th century) -Renan critiques notion of using race to explain a nation (b/c real talk “race” isn’t a real thing, its more of a concept)-no pure race that gives ethnographic justification of a nation. -race can build or destroy a nation-people can use their racial identity for whichever best suited themMichelet on the French Revolution-this is an example of historians skewing and messing with history -writes about french revolution 50 years after trying to express what revolutionaries really wanted to achieve -by doing this, imposes own ideas on the nation -said the revolution was a “calling to their soul” -NATIONALISM REQUIRES REINVENTION OF THE PAST Revisionist history
-term coined by Benedict Anderson -saying that history can be made or shaped into whatever we want it to say -Historians put in the position of being able to speak for the dead i.e basically they are saying what they wanted to happen even if it isn’t necessarily true -used to create illusory unity that doesn’t actually exist “Spiritual principle” of a nation-having “common glories in the past, and common will in the present”-

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture