Shlomo Sand - "The Invention of" Jewish history

[Challenger]

re shlomo sand big deal any country, any ethnic group, any nation
can be dissected in order to produce a work named

"the invention of the ________people" ...

I agree, most of the modern nation states of Europe didn't exist until the 18th and early 19th centuries. Nationalism and the idea of a "nation" is a modern concept. Sand explains this quite well in his book(s). "Israel" and "Israelis" were invented in 1948.

You are VERY right about nationalism, but i would date to as early as the 16th century in certain respects. It is a renaissance idea.

The Palestinian version goes back to 1848 when they had a revolt.

Rashid Khalidi published a book called The Palestinian Identity that has lots of quotes and primary sources.

I'd agree with you that proto-nation states started to coalesce in parts of Europe in the 16th century but the concept of the modern nation state emerged with The Treaty of Westphalia in 1649.

I thought it was around 1834, but I'd have to look it up? 1848 was the year of revolutions throughout Europe and the rise of modern ultra-nationalism and sadly, the beginnings of political Zionism.

Not read "Palestinian Identity" yet, although I have read "Iron Cage" by him. I'll check it out, thanks.

 

[Challenger]

...Nationalism is not really a "modern concept" however. The Romans of 2000 years ago were INTENSELY nationalistic-----in fact so were the EARLIER greeks. Platp was a bit of a FANATIC greek. In sum----sand wrote a book----he needed a jump off point----upon which to elaborate.

From a Primordialist's perspective possibly, from a historian's, not really. Greek and Roman concepts of loyalty started at family, then tribe, then city and finally King or Emperor. There was no such thing as a Greek or Roman "nation", this concept was superimposed in the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

[irosie91]

...Nationalism is not really a "modern concept" however. The Romans of 2000 years ago were INTENSELY nationalistic-----in fact so were the EARLIER greeks. Platp was a bit of a FANATIC greek. In sum----sand wrote a book----he needed a jump off point----upon which to elaborate.

From a Primordialist's perspective possibly, from a historian's, not really. Greek and Roman concepts of loyalty started at family, then tribe, then city and finally King or Emperor. There was no such thing as a Greek or Roman "nation", this concept was superimposed in the 18th and 19th centuries.

try again challenger----in fact there was no "KING OF GREECE"------and no "country" called "GREECE"--
but there was an ABSOLUTELY DEFINITE concept of
WE GREEKS VS THEM LESSER BEINGS even expressed by Plato
in his writings. In fact the very word BARBARIAN----was coined
to describe any person -----not greek

romans learned it (as they learned just about everything else---from the GREEKS) Your family
and tribe model is true enough for most of the ancient world----and remains sorta true
amongst some left overs like lesser educated kurds

 

[docmauser1]

Shlomo Sand is a professor of history at Tel Aviv University who doesn’t mind going out on a limb. ...

Garbage.

 

[irosie91]

Shlomo Sand is a professor of history at Tel Aviv University who doesn’t mind going out on a limb. ...

Garbage.

Shlomo Sand is a professor who lives the same life that professors in the USA live---
PUBLISH OR PERISH --------whenever reading a work by a professor----
always remember-----to some extent they are DESPERATE (my own
professor brother is busy writing a book ------but he is not a history
professor) What does "going out on a limb" have to do
with the situation? Israel does not execute people
for critical review-----it is not an Islamic country

 

[Challenger]

...Nationalism is not really a "modern concept" however. The Romans of 2000 years ago were INTENSELY nationalistic-----in fact so were the EARLIER greeks. Platp was a bit of a FANATIC greek. In sum----sand wrote a book----he needed a jump off point----upon which to elaborate.

From a Primordialist's perspective possibly, from a historian's, not really. Greek and Roman concepts of loyalty started at family, then tribe, then city and finally King or Emperor. There was no such thing as a Greek or Roman "nation", this concept was superimposed in the 18th and 19th centuries.

try again challenger----in fact there was no "KING OF GREECE"------and no "country" called "GREECE"--
but there was an ABSOLUTELY DEFINITE concept of
WE GREEKS VS THEM LESSER BEINGS even expressed by Plato
in his writings. In fact the very word BARBARIAN----was coined
to describe any person -----not greek

romans learned it (as they learned just about everything else---from the GREEKS) Your family
and tribe model is true enough for most of the ancient world----and remains sorta true
amongst some left overs like lesser educated kurds

It has been sais that "‘England and America are two countries separated by the same language". It appears to be true in our conversation.

Point out to me please where, I said anything about a "King OF Greece"; there were several Kings of Greek city-states as I and as for the use of the word "barbaros" in those days, it was an antonym to "polites" (citizen, member of a specific "polis"(city/city-state)) the word barbaros was used by Greek speakers from one city to refer to Greek speakers from other cities. It was a catch all term for a "stranger" and had nothing at all to do with nationalism. Your connotation of "Barbarian" as uncivilised, inferior, savage, "Us vs. them" arose along with Christianity in the Roman Empire, again , nothing to do with nationalism just religious bigotry.

 

[Challenger]

But you called him and other historians and archeologists who traveled and documented what they saw, "colonialists". Which means when you are fighting a false cause (as you are), with lies and false propaganda, you naturally have difficultly handling the truth. You're just a blabber mouth with absolutely nothing but the same old regurgitated repetitive crap. I bet you think the shit you post here is pretty original. Ha ha ha.

We gave you the correct quotes. Turns out you left out about 3/4 of the Mark Twain description of Palestine. The part where he talks about how LUSH and DENSELY POPULATED it is, wit rich black soul and practically every tillable inch under cultivation.

Now why would you leave that part out?

Mark Twain was a journalist with a discerning eye before he became a fiction writer. He and others who traveled through the area earlier on certainly had eyes to see, and they really didn't see all these Arabs around that you want the viewers to think there were.

This is a silly argument: California has a population of around 38 million people, if you were travelling though, say Death Valley, how many would you expect to see? There are 80 milion people in Egypt, how many would you expect to see in Abu Simbel (not counting tourists?

 

[irosie91]

From a Primordialist's perspective possibly, from a historian's, not really. Greek and Roman concepts of loyalty started at family, then tribe, then city and finally King or Emperor. There was no such thing as a Greek or Roman "nation", this concept was superimposed in the 18th and 19th centuries.

try again challenger----in fact there was no "KING OF GREECE"------and no "country" called "GREECE"--
but there was an ABSOLUTELY DEFINITE concept of
WE GREEKS VS THEM LESSER BEINGS even expressed by Plato
in his writings. In fact the very word BARBARIAN----was coined
to describe any person -----not greek

romans learned it (as they learned just about everything else---from the GREEKS) Your family
and tribe model is true enough for most of the ancient world----and remains sorta true
amongst some left overs like lesser educated kurds

It has been sais that "‘England and America are two countries separated by the same language". It appears to be true in our conversation.

Point out to me please where, I said anything about a "King OF Greece"; there were several Kings of Greek city-states as I and as for the use of the word "barbaros" in those days, it was an antonym to "polites" (citizen, member of a specific "polis"(city/city-state)) the word barbaros was used by Greek speakers from one city to refer to Greek speakers from other cities. It was a catch all term for a "stranger" and had nothing at all to do with nationalism. Your connotation of "Barbarian" as uncivilised, inferior, savage, "Us vs. them" arose along with Christianity in the Roman Empire, again , nothing to do with nationalism just religious bigotry.

not entirely true "challenge" ---- read Plato's "republic"----he makes it perfectly
clear that persons non greek are good for one purpose in the GREEK IDEAL
STATE---------as owned animated tools (aka chattel slaves). Fine with me if
you object to the word "nationalism"-----for a time when that which is our present
concept of "country" did not exist. The fact is that the concept of "other people"---
is at issue and whether or not they are "equal" to "us" Lots of the old religions
which were highly structured had a very strong concept of "others" ----the Japanese
system was not something anyone could just JOIN. Zoroastrianism----the entire
Persian people (of free standing) excludes entrance to the IN GROUP altogether
Strictly speaking-----turning into a HINDU-----was quite a feat to me "tribalism"---
is simply baby "nationalism" ------------why play semantics?

 

[Challenger]

Not sure why you keep referring to Plato, he dealt with concepts and abstracts, there's no evidence that his ideas were the accepted norm of the time. We were discussing the rise of modern nationalism and it is clear you accept, or at least espouse, the "primordialist" view while I espouse the "modernist" view.

In simple and basic terms, Primordialists believe in an organic society based on tribalism, family status, oral tradition, etc, that gradually evolves into a "nation", whereas Modernists see the modern nation state as an artificial construct where social relations are determined by rational "contracts" pursued by individuals to advance their own interests; such societies require a national mythology to strengthen social cohesion, a mythology of shared myth-history and or religious belief usually created by that society's social elite and spread through a formal education system.

I don't claim either theory is more correct or superior to the other, but to me the Modernist approach makes far more sense.

 

[irosie91]

Not sure why you keep referring to Plato, he dealt with concepts and abstracts, there's no evidence that his ideas were the accepted norm of the time. We were discussing the rise of modern nationalism and it is clear you accept, or at least espouse, the "primordialist" view while I espouse the "modernist" view.

In simple and basic terms, Primordialists believe in an organic society based on tribalism, family status, oral tradition, etc, that gradually evolves into a "nation", whereas Modernists see the modern nation state as an artificial construct where social relations are determined by rational "contracts" pursued by individuals to advance their own interests; such societies require a national mythology to strengthen social cohesion, a mythology of shared myth-history and or religious belief usually created by that society's social elite and spread through a formal education system.

I don't claim either theory is more correct or superior to the other, but to me the Modernist approach makes far more sense.

It's a quibble. Your theories turn out to be artificial constructs. NOT THAT I OBJECT
to artificial constructs. Just about all (if not all) theories are artificial constructs----
man made THINGS which describe "ThAT WHICH IS" I believe ---absolutely, that
your construct which describes "nation" ----is very cogent and apt-----and describes
societies dating back many many millennia-----as an example-----the MAYAN NATION,
the EGYPTIAN NATION etc etc etc in sum I AIN't NUTHIN' NEW

 

[irosie91]

PS plato was greek thru and thru-----a PRODUCT OF HIS CULTURE and its ethos

 

[Challenger]

Not sure why you keep referring to Plato, he dealt with concepts and abstracts, there's no evidence that his ideas were the accepted norm of the time. We were discussing the rise of modern nationalism and it is clear you accept, or at least espouse, the "primordialist" view while I espouse the "modernist" view.

In simple and basic terms, Primordialists believe in an organic society based on tribalism, family status, oral tradition, etc, that gradually evolves into a "nation", whereas Modernists see the modern nation state as an artificial construct where social relations are determined by rational "contracts" pursued by individuals to advance their own interests; such societies require a national mythology to strengthen social cohesion, a mythology of shared myth-history and or religious belief usually created by that society's social elite and spread through a formal education system.

I don't claim either theory is more correct or superior to the other, but to me the Modernist approach makes far more sense.

It's a quibble. Your theories turn out to be artificial constructs. NOT THAT I OBJECT
to artificial constructs. Just about all (if not all) theories are artificial constructs----
man made THINGS which describe "ThAT WHICH IS" I believe ---absolutely, that
your construct which describes "nation" ----is very cogent and apt-----and describes
societies dating back many many millennia-----as an example-----the MAYAN NATION,
the EGYPTIAN NATION etc etc etc in sum I AIN't NUTHIN' NEW

Except there was no Mayan Nation, no Egyptian Nation, etc. etc. The USA did not exist before 1783, no Israel before 1948, no United Kingdom of Great Britain (before 1707) and no United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland before 1801. Perhaps you are confusing Nations with "cultures"?

 

[Roudy]

Sure there was a Jewish nation, perhaps if your remove your head from the sand you would find it in the maps of the ancient world:

 

[irosie91]

[


It's a quibble. Your theories turn out to be artificial constructs. NOT THAT I OBJECT
to artificial constructs. Just about all (if not all) theories are artificial constructs----
man made THINGS which describe "ThAT WHICH IS" I believe ---absolutely, that
your construct which describes "nation" ----is very cogent and apt-----and describes
societies dating back many many millennia-----as an example-----the MAYAN NATION,
the EGYPTIAN NATION etc etc etc in sum I AIN't NUTHIN' NEW[/QUOTE]

Except there was no Mayan Nation, no Egyptian Nation, etc. etc. The USA did not exist before 1783, no Israel before 1948, no United Kingdom of Great Britain (before 1707) and no United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland before 1801. Perhaps you are confusing Nations with "cultures"?[/QUOTE]


nope----we are just quibbling over the word "nation" ------to me a land mass---named ---
with a government, ---a people with a language---an educational system --government---
a judiciary----laws---etc ---is a "NATiON" in Hebrew the word for a people of a common
culture is "AM"----for a people which can potentially be an organized military force it is "GOY"---
both words translate to "NATION" if you happen to feel like translating---but you do not agree---
you have a more specific criteria

 

[amity1844]

Except there was no Mayan Nation, no Egyptian Nation, etc. etc. The USA did not exist before 1783, no Israel before 1948, no United Kingdom of Great Britain (before 1707) and no United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland before 1801. Perhaps you are confusing Nations with "cultures"?

It is perfectly proper to speak of the "the Egyptian nation" in b.c.238. Doesn't have to be a modern nation state.

 

[amity1844]

Sure there was a Jewish nation, perhaps if your remove your head from the sand you would find it in the maps of the ancient world:

Back in the time period depicted by these maps, my ancestors were in
a) Scandinavia
b) central Europe
c) Britain.

I hope you don't think that entitles me to go back there and take over any of those three places?