Otto von bismarck appointed by king wilhelm otto von

This preview shows page 7 - 8 out of 13 pages.

Otto von Bismarck:Appointed by King Wilhelm, Otto von Bismarck became chancellor of Germany in 1862.“Blood and Iron” agenda:Otto von Bismarck had a “blood and iron” agenda in which he expanded the Prussian army to become Europe’s best. He defeated Denmark, Austria, and France.Unification under the “Second Reich”: Kaiser Wilhelm's declared Prussia (excluding Austria and Switzerland) as the "Second Reich" (the first being the Holy Roman Empire). This signaled a shift from the German nation as an idea to the German nation as a reality. Alsace-Lorraine:Following the Franco-Prussian war of 1871, France had to concede Alsace-Lorraine as a settlement to end the war. France was forced to concede Alsace-Lorraine with their loss of the Franco-Prussian war. German's justified their conquer by arguing that the people who lived there spoke German.Ernest Renan:Renan’s seminal 1882 address, “What is a Nation?” cut down Germanic Nationalism. In doing so, he calls into question what composes a modern state. He argues that the formation of statehood begin with the downfall of the Roman Empire. Nomadic tribes took over power, adopted Latin and Christianity, married the Latin women, and lent their names to regions (France=franks, Lombards= Lombardi, etc); thus forming a mold for natural identifications. He highlights the fact that these settlements are completely arbitrary; there is nothing eternal about them. He points to the Partition of Verdun as evidence of this arbitrary line drawing. Partition of Verdun:The partition of Verdun in 843 following the collapse of the Roman empire was divided up among tribes and each “nation” got their name from their tribe. A crisis of succession erupted between Frankish Empire and what had been the Frankish Kingdoms. They were arbitrarily separated into, what are now known as, France and Germany. Renan uses this as an example of the disparity between myth and reality of what constitutes a state, yet this myth becomes the conscience of the nation Necessity of “historical error”:“Obligated already to have forgotten” the corrosive memory of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of French Huguenots or the Midi massacre. Renan argues that one bust accept (or ignore) a certain amount of historical error to buy into nationalism. It is crucial to the creation of nationalism. If one looks to carefully at history the narrative of nationhood, it unravels quickly.St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre: 1572 was a targeted group of assassinations during the French Wars of Religion. A massacre of 20,000 French Protestants by French Catholics. Renan mentions it casually, as all French are obliged to forget. Not to forget it as a whole however, but simply to remember selective parts- in much the same way the civil war is remembered in the U.S. as a "war among brothers."“Ethnographic principle”:

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture