American Reacts What even is Europe?
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 03. 2023
- Original Video: • What even is Europe?
Discord: / discord
Watch stuff and learn and chill hi whatsup ⚔️👋🧐
Hi everyone! I'm an American from the Northeast (New England). I want to create a watering hole for people who want to discuss, learn and teach about history through CZcams videos which you guys recommend to me through the comment section or over on Discord. Let's be respectful but, just as importantly, not be afraid to question any and everything about historical records in order to give us the most accurate representation of the history of our species and of our planet!
Having a diverse perspective is crucial to what I want to achieve here so please don't hold back! I want to learn about all I can! Keep recommending and PLEAESE join my Discord :) ( / discord )
Patreon: / mcjibbin
#europe
#europeanunion
#kraut
#history
#politics
#eu
#american
#mcjibbin
#americanreacts
#reaction
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
You’re confusing nationalism, a political movement, with patriotism, an emotional feeling
It's not exactly as simple as that, as one I'd say Europeans are more likely to identify as extremely Nationalist where as yanks would describe themselves as extremely patriotic
Patriotism is when ur proud of ur country, nationalism is when u think ur country is superior
@@tomstorey8559 You can't be a nationalist in relation to a continent m8. Nationalism relates to feelings regarding your country, so to lump all Europeans in as being one or the other is impossible as we aren't all the same just because we're Europeans. Example is you could say Brits are extremely nationalist, but Ukrainians are extremely patriotic. It's going to chop & change depending on which European country you're discussing.
@@AD270479 you've misunderstood what I mean, Europeans are much more likely to identify as nationalist of they're own country
@@AD270479 Nationalism relates to feelings regarding your own people. A nation *is* a people. A nation state is a state run by that people.
EU is not "imagine Europe as one country". That's the point - each country is its own sovereign state that decides over itself and its own future (including leaving). And then we decide together about things, where it's not always easy to agree, but at least we try.
Still, some (including myself) want an European Federation. And renaming the EU economic bloc to Eurasian Union (hopefully if Russia collapse).
@@Denis-Maldonado I'm not entirely convinced, I like the idea but for some European countries that will mean a pretty big sacrifice. Because even though it will definitely be a step up for some countries, it will also be a step down for others. I'm from Norway, so we're not even in the EU, because the people don't want it. And honestly that is for good reasons, for instance Norwegian agriculture is not competitive with continental Europe... so if we didn't have tariffs our own farmers would disappear. I also think our country has been lucky enough to be very well governed for the last 70 years, by both the liberal and conservative governments. That is a huge thing to risk losing by joining a federation, which ties into my next point: We also happen to be extremely wealthy, like ludicrously wealthy. And this wealth is stored in a strictly regulated gov. pension fund, to make sure the wealth is not squandered in one generation, but will sustain and protect us for probably hundreds of years to come. What will happen to this fortune if it suddenly belongs to all of Europe?
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a European federation. I think it would be beneficial for most countries, and frankly it might become necessary in the future to make Europe strong enough to stand it's ground in a world of several pretty dodgy superpowers. It's just hard to see how it will not be a really shitty deal for countries like Norway.
@@TheSaltyAdmiral Frankly, I think that "Norway happens to be extremely wealthy" sums up your point. If you weren't that wealthy you probably couldn't afford staying outside of the UE. As for tariffs... UE actually does pay money to farmers to balance the differences. There's really no losing to other UE countries once you're in. From my point of view the only EU members who are afraid of further federalisation are those think their culture is too weak to survive, and I'm not speaking about countries but rather far right political parties within the UE member states.
@@Denis-Maldonado What do you mean by "Eurasian"? What Asian countries would you like to accept to the EU? Or do you think it'd be a good idea to accept the mega corrupt and ever agressive Russia?
@@sylwiatime Sorry for the long reply, but I enjoy our conversation and It's an interesting topic:)
I think you are completely right in regards to wealth. And I also agree that _generally_ for most countries opposition to EU membership is a far right / nationalistic thing, however I dare argue that Norway is a unique case in that regard. Opposition to EU membership cut's right through the political spectrum. It's actually our two biggest and most centrist parties that are pro EU-membership; Labour(centre-left) and Conservative(center-right). While most other parties are against, especially the far right _and_ the far left, although probably for very different reasons ;)
And among the general population that don't know that much about the politics of it all, I think the best way to describe their stance(mine included) is like this:
*_If it works, don't fix it._*
I think it's that easy, we recognize how privileged our position is and don't belive joining EU is going to make it any better, but potentially make it worse
.
The more official political reasoning is this, quoted from Wikipedia:
_A major issue for Norway is its fishing resources, which are a significant part of the national economy and which would come under the Common Fisheries Policy if Norway were to accede to the EU. Norway has high GNP per capita, and would have to pay a high membership fee. The country has a limited amount of agriculture, and few underdeveloped areas, which means that Norway would receive little economic support from the EU._
It should be noted that even though we have not joined the EU, we are in the EEA.
An agreement that grants us access to the EU single market, but in return we are subject to about 21% of EU's laws.
What's funny though is that I think most Norwegians are actually incredibly pro EU... for everyone else! :D For instance most Norwegians were completely against Brexit, but at the same time we're against joining ourselves. :)
Here is the Wikipedia article if you're interested, it's a short read:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway%E2%80%93European_Union_relations#Membership_debate
Charles de Gaulle (who wasn't pro-EU) once said: "Patriotism is loving your country, nationalism is hating that of others." Which is a bit oversimplified but essentially why nobody except the far right calls themselves nationalist since the late 1800s in France. Even patriot has become a bit of a loaded word in Europe, though it was seen as more inclusive in the past.
I don't think that definition is helpful. Look at a political movement like the Scottish National Party. It is not based purely on a love of being Scottish... it has a political goal, namely of independence for Scotland. But it is not a movement founded on hating the UK or the English (undeniably there are many Scots who hate the English, but that's a separate thing!).
Not true! Scottish and Irish nationalists are often Marxist-Leninists, who are quite literally the exact opposite of what you were saying. What you were saying might be true in the balkans though
The explanation is good, with just the exception asterisk :
"* Except in the case of a party, movement or feeling supporting independence of a region or sub-nation from a ruling nation. But that's more independentist nationalism than real nationalism per se."
All nationalist parties in Europe are far right wing, hence the exclusion / hate of others. The "nationalism" for independence matters is an alternative meaning for supporting the existence of a nation through independence from the current ruling nation that usually encompasses party lines.
By the way, "independentist-nationalist" parties in EU are pro EU and can be either conservative or liberal.
Whereas nationalist parties under the common meaning are all far right, rather authoritarian leaning and eurosceptic to say the least.
Even though the trainwreck that was Brexit seriously calmed the anti-EU rhetoric coming from these parties.
??? National rally? Le Pen has been openly nationalist for years.
Nationalism - is the belief in your nation when it is not sovereign e.g. the Czechs in Austria-Hungary; Poles and Finns in the Russian Empire; the Welsh and Scots in the UK
Patriotism - is the belief in your country when it is already sovereign e.g. the UK, France, the USA
As a vietnamese, that depiction of a mainland chinese way of thinking is absolutely spot on. Truly explain why they're such an @ss to everyone.
Honestly. As a European, it just sounded like someone "particularly smart" would say without understanding the local context one bit.
Also regurgitating Chinese propaganda, as if they had a nation state 3000 years ago, completely ignoring the fact that ''china'' collapsed and reformed countless times in history.
@@eksiarvamus maybe he does, living a bit nearer to China then we do xD
@@eksiarvamus We Vietnamese understand China's mentality perfectly. Our ancestors spent 1000 years as a province of Chinese dynasties, and then another 1000 years as an independent kingdom deeply influenced by China. If *we* don't understand them, nobody else does. You Westerners understand much less
@@d.b.2215 yet you didn't understand one bit what aksiarvamus meant.
It is clear that he is talking about the chinese person, how did you get offended by that as Vietnamese?
You act fast to call us westerners as lesser understanding, while showing how much less your own is.
Btw. it is quite rude and shows your lack of understanding by generalising like you do, yeah surely you clearly know all about us "Westerners"
The idea is that "nations that trade with each other don't go to war with each other". That is the original idea of the EU. So far it has worked fine because it improves prosperity for the nations that join.
Really? Very naive
Today I cannot agree with this anymore. This concept finally didn't work, was an illusion for most of us (me too) to the day Russia invated Ukraine. The idea of an open and pluralistic society in accordance with the rule of law will not find it's way to, let's say Russia, Iran or China, by trading with these countries. Reality is always stronger than wishes or ideas.
The same ideas were flourishing before WW1. All nations were so economically dependent on each other through trade that war was seen as implausible. Not to forget that almost all countries' rulers (including Russia) were cousins through queen Victoria of UK who had loads of children and married them of to the rest of European Royal families.
Yet, the war came.
@@magdalenabozyk1798 It's not really trade that blocks wars from happening, it can do as it's more costly to do war with a country you trade with a lot, but for me, it's the integration on the political and economic front that makes war unthinkable, the cost for one EU country to go to war would be crazy high that it's unthinkable for it to happen.
With that said, never say never, wars can happen at any time, or in this case, it would be more like a civil war.
Either way, I think if Ukraine was part of the EU, Russia would not have attacked them as an attack on one is an attack on all of them and some say that countries want to join the EU for it's economic benefits, that's true and the benefits are big, but I think the real benefits of the EU is political stability and protection from the likes of Russia or China, to get a bit of an idea on that, just look at the UK since it left the EU, other countries around the world are starting to realize they have a better hand and can get more out of the UK then they could when the UK was part of the EU.
@@magdalenabozyk1798 but in 1914 evryboddy wanted war.
KuK to fet rid of Serbien, the Zar to get rid of political Problems, germany to kep rusia down, france to take Elsasslotringen back and britan to take the öil in the middel east and stop germany to build a strong nayvy that coud matsh the brittsh. So war was a matter of time, or in the "great war" manny wars were fight at the same time.
Today if for example Germany declares war on France or vice versa, it would be a collective suicide from the start for them.
To fully understand how war between European states is virtually impossible, you need to learn about the history of the EU and how it worked. 'Cause you don't seem to know anything about what the EU really is.
The motto of the European Union is "United in Diversity". The differences between Europeans aren't a problem, they are a strength.
Exactly. We value the cultural differences in each country and we would most definetly not change our own country or anyone elses. I think EU is magnificent!! Although there are problems ofcourse, but it is still definetly worth it.
That sounds like motto of United Federation of Planets from StarTrek 😀
@@Pidalin for years it was as if European countries were on different planets 🤣
You are correct that the EU is an economic project, but that economic project is hoped to assure peace. The European Coal and Steel Community, where it started, was meant to collectivise these vital industries among countries, so that Germany and France might be prevented from fighting over them (Alsace-Lorraine in particular). This then extended, and the underlying goal was always peace and stability through economic interdependence.
Peace through economic ties is the very oversimplified way of explaining it.
Connor is completely wrong in that it’s the UN that was created for peace in Europe. The EU is the core institution that was created for peace amongs the former warmongering nations. And now there are a lot of things you can say to criticize the EU but what you can’t say is that is wasn’t created for maintaining peace amongs is and that it hasn’t actively been doing that and succeeding at it. The EU is really the main thing that has enabled some stability here for us.
@@melkor3496 Well that and the fact that even us Europeans got the idea of "war bad" after we tried to kill our continent twice within less than 50 years 🤷♂
@@melkor3496 Makes sense that the biggest proponents of EU, the French and the Germans, but especially the Germans were trying this economic peace strategy until the very end with Russia. Where they made a mistake though is to think that Russia is just another state in Europe, and not an Empire with inflated sense of mission and self worth that goes far beyond just economics.
No, he isn't correct -- the EU is not an economic project with peace as a side effect, the EU is a peace project in which economic, political and defense cooperation are means towards an end.
The EU is so much more than just an economic project. The EU is first and foremost a political project, with the goal of uniting different countries and cultures under a common European identity and common core values such as democracy, freedom and human rights.
The problem with "everyone decides how to raise their kids" is firstly that someone may decid to teach their kids their family is superior to the others, or that they have the right to own that piece of garden, or that every decision should be undertaken only if it benefits you, or they may teach them false stuff KNOWING they are teaching something wrong (look at hungary). We really like a saying here, I don't know if it known also in the states, but it is "your liberty ends where the rights of those around you begin" this simple sentence, explain how to have more personal freedom (and this can apply both to a single person or to states) you have to deny the rights of other individuals. The ability to understand that respecting the rights of the others is more important than your personal freedom to harm others is what every european has learned to accept not because imposed, but because it benefits all. In a system where everyone has to agree (wich will change in the really near future with the abolition of the unanimus vote), your decisions may be slower, but they will always be right for the community, thought out and free of relation's breaking points, since everyone has a say. When everyone decides what to teach to the children of everyone, you may not be able to teach them how to fire a gun, or that your son is stronger than the others, or that vaccines causes death, or that nothing matters outside of your profit. What everyone will learn is cooperation, acceptance of diversity (wich will not even be considered as such after a generation or two), they will learn about the home of the other kids, they will learn what they like, what they dislike and why, they will learn to respect the others since they have all grown togheter, they will learn to consider each other brothers and sister, they will learn that communication even when in disagreement is the only way to resolve things, and must be done, always, otherwise, as we have seen in history with nationals and today in the US: political polarization will take place, leading only to ignorant division in the people, wich will hate the other side even just for being of the other side, they will not even try to communicate.
The EU thosen't want to be a political or civil union, we aren't an alliance, we don't want to erase diversity, we are something greater, we want to make it so every european will consider each other a brother, will love each other as such, nations will still exist, but there will be no hate, no division, an understanding of one another needs and desires
I don’t know that it doesn’t want to do that. There are certainly those who welcome aspects of more unity. But I definitely agree that many aspects of diversity are in no way a barrier to cooperation, or even unification. There’s plenty of diversity in the US for example, it just doesn’t have the massive baggage and weight of history it does in Europe so we often assume we don’t see it the same way. Largely out of respect or deferrence I imagine- or awareness of history. But our perspective has certainly rapidly changed this century and there’s no reason to assume others haven’t too.
I think your analogy for the problem of Hungary is definitely on the money, and frankly we have that kind of problem in spades, but for us as much as state politics make the news and some laws the reality is such borders are much harder to define and bled into each other. It took a long time for our federal government to gain the comparative power and respect to the extent that states are often just seen as administrative units (despite the occasional major differences). In the civil war the saying goes we went from “these United States” to “the United States”. Because these kinds of differences seem so contemporary or so specific and resolved long ago (another example being the Deseret Territory changing before it became Utah) that to Americans it seems like they must be intractable - or sort of like the Chinese discord persons perspective, an inevitably overcome obstacle in the long run. Either way I definitely think Krauts idea of interunion cooperation is interesting- resisting the last stabs of Russian and Chinese hegemonic power and letting the US slowly legitimize such things cause it’s been aware for a long time it can’t maintain its dominance forever and that frankly it’d be a lot easier for us if we didn’t have to. Hopefully such cooperation doesn’t have to be solidified in conflict like it often has before.
The relationship between individuals and the state is not equivalent to the relationship between states and higher organizations . The vaccines have documented cases of myocarditis with a simultaneous spike in cardiac related deaths.
In the early start of EU it was mainly a trading cooperative of Steel and coal and stuff like that. When trading those important things amongst your neighbours, it is much harder to start gearing up for another war, which is very steel/iron heavy. So that was an early way of making sure no one was gearing up for another war.
The founding motto of The Common Market, as it was then (1950) by Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann was 'Ever Closer Union'. Make of that what you will.
Worked like a charm for merkel
Nope, sorry. It was WAAAAYYYYY more complex than that. This lie of "it was mainly trading x y z" has stuck but it does only show one small detail of the picture. Right from the beginning the countries of Europe planned for a political and a military union in addition to the economic one. This is always conviently forgotten as it does not fit the narrative the UK and the US promote.
I think your missing the point of the EU. The EU's laws are not set to create a single culture on "how to raise kids" to use your example, but ratehr a common market. Before the EU, UK, France and Germany had different laws on what a car must have in order to be sold. The EU makes a standards so a Franch, British or German car could be sold across all countries.
Imagine if every state in the US had it's own laws what what you need to do before an iPhone can be sold as a phone, and Apple would be forced to produce 50 versions of iPhone for the entire market. Cuture is still a national subject. The EU cannot dictate Germany on how it has to "raise its kids", it can only as an istitution make laws which creates a standard which for example French employers or French schools must accept as well.
French kids in school eat and learn how to eat properly ... it's part of French culture. In Austria they teach you music and classical music; in Norway they might do more trips in the woods. What ever the national "culture" requires.
The EU prevents wars, it makes it possible for people to leave countries like it is in the US to leave states, and most imporantly, it protects the citizens from foreign cartells or major buyouts from foreign countries, while making trade within the union simpler. Walmart has the money to buy out and pick apart any convinient store in a single European country, but especially the small countries cannot defend themselves from that. The EU is being the big body which deals with Google, Microsoft, etc. or any world wide company who could upset the EU market internaly and create a monopoly.
Interesting video. If you compare EU to the US in terms of differences in culture, Greg Poehler, an American actor, said that moving to Stockholm from Boston was less of a culture shock than if he had moved to Alabama. The key to keep the EU alive is that it is not trying to be one country, but to work together where it makes sense but for each country to keep its independence.
"I never want to be a nationalist, but I do want to be a patriot. A patriot is someone who loves his fatherland, a nationalist is someone who despises the fatherlands of others. But we want to be a people of good neighbors, in Europe and in the world.”
―Johannes Rau
Utter nonsense. A nation *is* a people. These are synonyms. Nationalism does not in any way imply a despise of others. If it did, the same would be true for patriotism.
@@herrbonk3635 except for the historical use of the the term and it’s movements.
Same with Fascism, or National Socialism. The words and their associated rhetoric didn’t have to be bad- they turned out to be bad so we shouldn’t trust people who use ideas inextricably linked in them.
@@Souledex With "historical" you probably mean how it was used by the leftist propaganda (in which we all grew up after WW2). I prefer the older original meanings of the words. Fascism was a modified marxism. Just check Mussolini's actual ideals and his intellectual history. He was a true marxist. National Socialism was socialism as well. A totalitarian, collectivistic, and cooperative movement where the individual person was just a brick for building the strong state, just like with communism, and partly even under early social democratic regimes. And just like the other kinds of socialists, it had heteronormative and similar traits that would today be called conservative.
@@herrbonk3635 no I mean how people think of it today. Largely how it got there is irrelevant and the fact that it’s definition exists in contrast to patriotism is a clear line in the sand between an acceptable and a dangerous ideology.
I know all of that, I know a narrative of how it became that and the ways it wasn’t that before like in the formation of Germany (though debatable) and Italy (also still debatable). And unlike you I know that it’s dumb to fight for a word that very accurately has a shitty reputation by its history. Just like Fascism said a lot of things that sounded socialist- and then it turns out all of Mussolini’s followers were angry jackbooted thugs and didn’t much care for any of his actual socialist reforms, and in Hitlers case he killed the party members that cared and coopted their positions as lies to make socialists complacent while they consolidated power. The government did lots of shit sure, authoritarian and corrupt more than it could be described as socialist if you know how they did any if them but yeah the government did things. In the argument of many a radical extension of the values and mindset of capitalism, tied with romantic nationalism as corporations and industry were still very much involved. It’s an important part of their story, a thing to be worried about when conservatives start ever saying they are going to help the people with big sweeping change, but no their crimes and the effects of their ideological virus and the thing that ruined any good their ideology could have done was nationalism, supremacy, and because of their actions- what the definition of fascism became.
Just like it’s dumb to call a government communist- because if it was communist it wouldn’t have a government and they’ve always been single party vanguard socialists. But thats a dumb distinction to have to force in conversations outside of more serious discussions. Try fighting the change of language, I know on some things I haven’t given up a fight - this one isn’t worth it.
@@Souledex I also mean how people (sadly enough) think of it today... That was the main point. The other point was that a propaganda term like "far right" usually imply a form of leftist and collectivist thinking.
It wasn't exacly leftists that enabled gay people to live openly, for instance. That came from the liberal bourgeois class that was hated by the socialist (and murdered by the communists). Such liberal ideas were taken up by the left very recently...
So in a world full of propaganda, even in schools and at universities, a deep historical perspective is a must. Othervise you are lost, and therefore dangerous.
Ahah I love you’re France is such a wildcard. No we are not independent, I am french and I dream of a United States of Europe, We love Europe, but we don’t really want to let go of all the great things we achieved (social rights, military might, etc.) and we hate when other European countries want to rely on others like the US for their safety, cause we cannot trust the US or China or anyone else other than ourselves (Europeans), to defend ourself and our values.
On nation states, you'll have to keep in mind that those are a relatively late invention. There were no nations but kingdoms and land owned by aristocrats. You would have been the inhabitant of an area or city and identified as such. At most you would identify as inhabitant of a duchy or kingdom, but every little thorp could have its own laws and rights inherited throughout time.
Only once servitude collapses under the pressure of the black death labor shortage and new forms of governance start to develop, the notion of a nation state starts to form. It will take until the age of enlightenment for that idea to get any real traction though.
Nationalism is based upon having a state based upon ethnicity and culture of a people. A practical thing to organise with people you understand, but the nasty bit is the exclusion of "others" living in the same area. This implies that nationalism is exclusive and discriminatory in nature.
Being proud of the achievements of your country isn't nationalism. Not having any second thoughts about the methods used to achieve those is. Being a patriot isn't about blindly following some authority figure, but questioning those figures at all times to make sure that they behave in vein with your cultural ethics. It is about sticking up for the good your country has to offer and improving the lives of your compatriots.
the trouble is, the further way those in power get distance wise and class wise, the more difficult it is to up rise against them and string them up in the town square, when they have pushed their luck too much on tax or whatever.
The EU is at the point now where it's barely accountable for anything it does, and it acts like an empire.
We need the rulers of our country in our country, so that we can control them, they are humans like the rest of us and we all need control
That's just word play. A kingdom was very often a nation (another word for a people), although not states or countries in the modern sense of course.
I have seen the following definitions:
Nationalism - those who are not "us" are worth less. Often expressed as hatred towards "others".
Patriotism - love for "us" and who we are. Often expressed as wanting to improve upon what we already have.
Finland was a part of Czarist Russia, then we got our independence through peaceful means in 1917, and pretty soon after we had our civil war in which our reds tried to make Finland a socialist state, and which they lost. I don't exactly know what this "soviet invasion of 1921 into Finland" is though, as to the best of my knowledge the Soviets and Finland didn't go to war until in the winter of 1939.
There was an East Karelian uprising in the Soviet Karelia in 1921 in which Finns took part of, but not Finland as a state.
- But if this is what's talked about in the video it's hardly a Soviet invasion into Finland, as it was us Finns who did the invading into Soviet territory. But again it wasn't Finland who did it, but volunteer Finns who had the idea of a greater Finland.
I agree France is not always rosy (regarding past colonies), but nobody in France still thinks we are an empire
"Nationalism" is difficult to define. Nationalist historians and writers often give the group or state they try to make into a nation an ancient mythified past unifying the current people (like a lot of 19th-century historians did). But most scholars of nationalism, like Benedict Anderson and his famous book "Imagined Communities", agree that it emerged in the 18th century and especially with the French Revolution and subsequent Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars.
Before that, most people were loyal to their monarch and didn't feel a sense of kinship with other people under the monarch's authority. In the 1200s, a person from Paris didn't feel much in common with a person from Provence, even if they were both subjects of the French king. The late 1700s, with the Seven Years' War and especially later the French Revolution, pioneered the concept of the nation as the community of all the people living within the boundaries of the state and bound together by a common past and common aspirations. The Revolution included the idea that all these people were also citizens who shared rights not based on ethnicity or language necessarily, but a social contract passed between all of them.
Nationalism took a more ethnic and racial turn with Germany, ironically during the Napoleonic occupation of the German states, because a lot of "Enlightened" people first favorable to the French Revolution saw it as the French disguising their interests and serving themselves through lofty principles. Most of the nationalism that took hold in the 1800s and caused so much upheaval was about independence from a multiethnic empire (i.e. the Austrian Empire) or uniting disparate states who shared a language and/or a history (i.e. Germany and Italy).
Nationalism is a very complicated business. From the little I have studied I understand the idea about that is that the notion that "nation state" (meaning one country for one people) is primary over other sorts of political loyalty arose in particular during and after the French Revolution, which inspired many other national revolutions. Before the 20thC most people in Europe lived in multinational empires rather than nation states, and even in apparent nation states like France or Spain national loyalty had to compete with regional loyalties to local cultures, and loyalties to feudal superiors. National projects after the French revolution attempted to centralise and consolidate polictical power and to foster and strengthen national loyalty over other sorts of loyalty.
Yes, that's the birth of nationalism. This is why Europe was in such a great turmoil after the Revolution and especially after the execution of the king : he wasn't just a symbol of the country, he WAS the country. French Revolutionnaries had to create an uniting feeling to replace the void, and since the First Republic was created with no President they couldn't focus people's attention on one figure or one position of power. So they had to focus people's attention to the idea of their country, rather than whoever is leading and representing him.
This also explain how Napoleon came to power as well; French people in general wanted a strong leader - it's the only thing they had know for centuries.
Initially in the european project there was surely also an economic interest, but the peacekeeping factor was extremely important and the most prominent one. At first the organization was called the European coal and steel community, because it was an agreement on sharing coal and steel and trading freele these two, and why these two resources in paticular? Because if your coal and steel markets are deeply connected how can you build an army without relying on the other? By doing so the chances of a war between Germany and its western neighbours decreased because Germany had to collaborate with France and Benelux. The founders and promoters of the EU project knew that the UN could have never stopped a war efficiently ,especially in Europe, where all of the members of the Security council with veto had and still have interests, as it is shown today, they were not that wrong afterall.
Great way of simplifying it.
The simple fact is that the EU is the main organisation/institution that is responsible for peace in Europe by connecting the trade which was its main goal from the start.
Definitely not the UN.
Your understanding has dramatically evolved and you ask the right questions. I love seeing your intellectual growth.
Think your next video should be 'what is a peninsula.' Because your initial explanation of what Europe is was way off.
That’s an understatement.
From what Connor said he simply has no clue about what Europe is and doesn’t really seem to have gathered much from this video.
@melkor Perhaps that's the fault of the video.
It wasn't though. Europe is often referred to a peninsula of peninsulas. The reason being it fits the definition of a peninsula, i.e. piece of land surrounded on 3 sides. It is a peninsula of the larger supercontinent.
You don't believe "all this different cultures" could make one country and are living in a country in which the people are descendants of "all this different cultures" and more.
The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)
Signed in Paris on April 18, 1951, the Treaty of Paris establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was concluded for 50 years. Through this treaty, the six signatory countries implement an entirely new form of international cooperation.
This treaty on the initiative of the French politician Robert Schuman.
The EU is much deeper than just economic cooperation, the dealings with Russia was an attempt to develop a relationship, it was work in progress that didn't work out. Sometimes that happens, especially when someone like Putin comes to power. Russia was never a part of the EU but the EU or at least several of it's members were trying to reach out a branch to them. Others questioned the developing gas dependence and dismantling of other energy infrastructure. Now those countries have and will have to continue replacing that Gas dependence. It's not the end of the world, it was more of an inconvenience, the attack on Ukraine with the killing and destruction it brought was far worse.
I really love this video, I’d almost want to do a full reaction to it cause I have so much to say, but on the basis, I 100% agree, Europe is MAINLY and PRIMARILY a peace project, not economic project. The UK leaving is a good example of a country that never understood that properly (the population, not the leaders and especially not current leaders that decided that money was more important than peace)
The concept of the nation itself was created in the 19th century. There were earlier forms in some places (like France for example), but the nation and nation state as the "default" form of a state was created only then. And I use the word created because many nations were actually created by intellectuals who shaped new "high" languages out of regional dialects and invented identities for whole peoples.
One might say that nationalism replaced feudalism.
@@aphextwin5712 ...and even in la République Française the nation's presentation, look pretty feudalistic on the outside. Also the dominance of the capital, like England, is a relict of the feudalistic period.
I'm surprised at how insightful the original video was. Most of these videos analising the EU / Europe don't seem to go deep enough. And btw it would be great if people and countries cared more about human rights than they do about money. And I agree, it was naive of Germany to think that deal would be able to keep Russia in check. :/
How I view the Chinese national (I'm only 3 minutes into the video): assimilating other cultures is right as long as yours comes on top and there's stability in your country. Because China is NOT a good example of a "union" or anything, when there's other cultures, nations and ethnicities being oppressed right now under China's rule. Same happens in some European countries as well, though at a smaller scale. So that's why the idea of a Europe with "one culture" (civilisation-state) is NOT a good idea at all.
You, my friend, are asking the right questions. You re good! - we need to question, attack or/and defend everything, under the rules of a good, strong dialogue.
The main take away of this video should be that a united europe does NOT mean one contry.
What a deep video... thanks for reacting!
the goal of the Europe is to became ad list a disjointed family ,we may quarrel and fight against each other but we are family and if an outsiders should mess with any of us he will face as all
As an italian i believe i can speak for the majority of the people living in europe: russia, even thou deeply interconnect with europe, has never felt like a european country for a myriad of different reasons
Interesting video, but this is about the EU. If it was actually just a video asking, what is Europe? It would last about a second.
What is Europe?
A continent
End
Regarding the soviet Union: Yes, all of those countries they attacked used to be a part of the Russia Empire.
Nationalism indeed emerged only during the 18th Century. Before that, people would identify either through a more regional identity, the noble they served, their religion or language. A common identity based off of a common nationality did not exist. And that nationalism was indeed extremely expansionist. Because the idea of the nation was what was keeping the state together, it was seen with almost religious zeal. As such, the nation had to gain as many resources, as much prestige and glory as possible, in order to justify its continued existence. It did this in the only way it could: conflict
It was Atatürk who formulated the idea of a Turkish state, built around a small, mostly ethnically united core, that would not pursue any ambitions outside of its own borders. This is what modern nationalists usually think off: states, their inhabitants all sharing a common identity, respecting each others' sovereignty, competing and cooperating peacefully.
Lastly, I'm from Germany and study law. I have visited lectures about European law and you do not seem to quite understand how the project is supposed to work.
Initially, the predecessor to the EU was founded to regulate coal and steel, the two most important resources needed to wage war. From there it expanded, to better ensure the peace in Europe, something the UN was utterly unsuited for.
The EU is not meant to be a United States of Europe. It is meant to do exactly what it does: guarantee peace; facilitate trade; and harmonize law.
It is the latter part which I'm best qualified to talk about. To put it bluntly, international law is a mess at the best of times. In which country shall the case be heard? What code of law shall be used? How will the ruling be enforced? There are some agreements, yes, but not everyone signs those, so individual countries usually have their own rules.
I am eternally thankful that the EU Parliament has put rules in place, which at least regulate a lot of these questions for EU member states. Which in turn makes business within the EU far easier.
The EU dies not tell you how to raise your kids. It tells you that you can't interfere with elections. That you can't put discriminatory laws into effect. To go with your little metaphor: you're generally allowed to raise your children as you want, but you're not allowed to teach them to throw rocks at black people, because that's really shitty, we've done that before, it sucked, let's not do the stupid and leave trash like that in the garbage heap of history where it bloody well belongs.
The point being, you're severely overestimating the reach of the EU and its ability to tell its member states what to do.
Pride of your nation is called patriottism, nothing wrong with that. Nationalism however is far more dangerous. I'm Dutch, if I was a nationalist, I would want to see all the Moroccans, Turks, etc. leave my country. And! I would want to 'annex' the territory of the Dutch speaking people in Belgium. Nationalism leads to war. As the late French President Mitterand said: Nationalism c'est la guerre. Brexit is a great example of nationalism. The English think they can manage themselves but disregarded the opinion of the Scots and North Irish
If you're feeling confused by the difference between adherence to an empire and a nation-state, Stefan Zweig's 'The World of Yesteryear' is a great read. He writes of his nostalgia for the old inclusive Austro-Hungarian empire and his horror at the new aggressive powers emerging.
The UN was meant and is still designed to do as you say but it's toothless, the EU on the other hands has powers in a lot of areas and the key difference is the integration of EU countries, both politically and economically, that makes it much harder to go to war with each other as it would do a lot of harm to the country trying to go to war.
Some will say NATO or the US is the reason, they both helped, but the truth is, integration among the EU countries is the key that makes war unthinkable among the EU countries.
We also should remember that EU countries are already integrated a lot that a lot of the laws for the countries are done at an EU level, some say around 50% of the laws, it's not that far off from a single entity already with the members being a bit like US states in the union, but there are differences like the military, foreign policy and so on.
But I am wondering, how many laws and regulations are done at an EU level and at an EU country level and how many are done at a US level or state level?
Thank you for this video, I always like your little rants. If we follow through on the analogy of the neighbourhood and raising children, the European Union would be sending them to an american school instead of paying a governess to teach them (let's imagine you're the USA). Yes, you would gain money but there are also loads of other benefits such as socialisation or their ability to learn about things one person does't know. So yes, you do relinquish some control over what they learn but you still have a say on it through something like a schoolboard.
PS : I'm only going off what I know from the US schooling system to try to get my point across. The main idea = money is far from the only (and in some people's opinion the most important) benefit of the EU for its Member States.
I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that your school system didn’t teach you the history and content of modern and contemporary ideologies. Nationalism is a political principle that appeared at the end of the 18th century. This political principle was opposed to royalty but later gave birth to a far-right ideology: nationalism. I suggest Ernest Gellner's book Nationalism (1997) as a reference.
Sometimes I'm happy to be Irish. Doesn't mean we're immune to this BS, just that the relative geographic isolation tempers a lot of it.
The EU was very much intended to avoid conflict. They used economics as a mean; the idea was to make the most important economies interdependent and commonly regulated, disincentivizing conflict and promoting collaboration.
Regarding nationalism, you seem to conflate it with patriotism or just general loyalty/ingroup preference. In political theory, nationalism is the ideal that states should represent and align with nations (people groups). Germany is the state of and for the German nation. (i.e. the German people), and so on. This was really not a thing in the olden days when people spoke different languages depending on which village they grew up in and borders shifted constantly, i.e. in the days of constantly warring empires inhabited by many different nationalities (e.g. the Austro-Hungarian Empire, inhabited by Austrians, Germans, Hungarians, Slovaks, Jews, Italians, etc.). In those times, people were more likely to identify with their village or region rather than their state. Nationalism as a political force started getting big in the 19th century, which is why you see German and Italian unification happening at that time. In short, modern states first appeared after the peace of Westphalia in 1648. Nationalism started becoming a thing around the French Revolution and peaked in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Thanks for your video. I loved the idea of Napoleon on life support...
Regarding your Russia - Germany statement: Germany and France did "solve" their issues through the EU and its predecessors. German and French economy are linked with one another so heavily, that future conflict becomes very unlikely. And they both have free access to each others assets; no one is blocking the other from something. This all started with the coal and steel treaty, so that the coal and steel industry of both is merged. But this concept being mirrored to Russia failed, because only Germany linked itself with Russian gas and oil, while the other side received money in return. This is absolutely not the same thing and failed for that very reason.
My best guess is, this was Germany starting to develop the same idea with Russia as well and this was just the starting point for future evolution and growth of this very idea. But unfortunately, it never evolved and never achieved the same stage as the French-German story.
Your point that only Germany linked itself to russia is factually wrong. Many other countries within the EU had a very similar percentage of their energy-budget covered by russian energy as Germany. Poland, Italy, Austria, Hungary - just to name a few.
@@dasmaurerle4347 You misread or I expressed myself wrong. My point is that Germany started this process of linking itself with Russia, in terms of trade, business and a dependence on raw and processed goods between each other, while Russia didn't (or at least not to a point where Russia would think twice before risking this relationship with Germany). A one sided relationship.
This has nothing to do with what other European nations did with their own relationship with Russia. You're right, other countries did also invest in a relationship with Russia, just like Germany. No wonder, Russia is a gigant country and a neighbour. Of course you'll end up with a relationship of some sort.
@@dnocturn84 Yeah, i misread you, sorry. You have a point. I wouldn't say that it was one-sided, though. Russia got a lot of positive things from the relationship with Germany, besides bn of €. Germany was very keen on having a 'normal' relationship with russia since the 1990s. And russia was very glad to pick up on that offer. Thousands of russians studied in Germany. russian businesses took the opportunity to open shop in Germany and vice versa. There was a cultural exchange of sorts.
To categorize it as one-sided is false, i think. russians love German stuff, from cars to appliances to shoes. russia was a friendly market, when it comes to German goods. It could have been a win-win scenario. Unfortunately, Germany misunderstood the russian psyche: steal, before getting all busy and do it yourself. Lie, when telling the truth hurts. Betray, when being honest means to make an effort...
That wasn't in the German playbook.
And nationalism isn't necessarily about being superior to others, but it is about being superior to others within the limits of the tribe and it's habitat.
You know, when you're in Finland the expectation is that you speak and behave like the Finns do, as this is the "best way of doing things in Finland". Even though "superiority to others" is almost never mentioned it still is the idea behind the expectation, meaning that the Finnish way of doing things is superior to others in Finland, and it's expected if you don't want to be seen as an outsider, a troublemaker and/or anti-Finnish. This same expectation is present in most countries, at least in Europe, and it's a form of tribalism and nationalism too is a form of tribalism.
How relaxed or tight the rules are about fitting in kinda can determine of how benign or malignant the nationalism is that is being practised.
The worst forms of nationalism stop those who are considered outsiders from ever entering the tribe and if they then are persecuted, put to jails, asylums and even executed, then it's an extreme form malignant nationalism, like nazism for example.
This all can seem that I'm very anti nationalistic, but that's not the case. I am nationalistic about my "own" nation, it's culture etc, but I also see what pitfalls nationalism has and why it can be a tool for extremely vile things if it's hijacked by hateful and violent groups.
National identity meant much less in the middle age. What mattered was who was your lord, king etc. On top of that there were a lot of local cultural specificities, languages within a given kingdom. Some events like the 100 years war created an embrio of national identity. In the XVIII th century nationalism became a revolutionary or even a progressive idea as it was in opposition to the lordship of the aristocratic system. Later in the XX th century, nationalism acquired its fascistic dimension.
While seeing history through someone else's lens is interesting I get that feeling that that Chinese person doesn't really know their own history let alone the extend at which, for example, Mao literally rewrote history books, invented a hegemonic culture out of nothing and pretended it had existed for thousands of years.
Yes, you're right. Patriotism is just feeling of attachment and love for your country while nationalism implies that you think your country is superior and support its interests to the detriment of other nations.
for a new law to be passed in europe, every country votes, and in only one of the core member says no, the law is not pased. we decide toghether
The EU is 100% successful for what it was meant to be. After 2 world wars, Europe went from ruling the world to a pile of ash. They major European countries needed a system to prevent them from fighting each other again. They decided to make their economies one, which would make it detrimental for anybody within the union who tries to go to war with another country from the union. Therefore it is a peace project. And as such, it has worked perfectly. As they went forward, they discovered the numerous economic benefits too, which lead to more and more countries wanting to join. And while it is true that many things are wrong and need to change (which is difficult to do), the benefits of being in the EU are still greater than the negatives. If you are still not convinced that the EU is a good thing, just remember that both Putin and Trump tried to make the EU dissolve. They succeeded with influencing Brexit, but the UK served as a good example and no other country now dares mention leaving any more
You know the Brexit vote came before Trumps term of office right? He didn't have any impact on it, and as for Putin I really don't see how a former KGB midwit could influence the political landscape of the UK.
Regarding your question on nationalism: Actually, no. For most of history poeple weren't usually fervent defenders of some massive political entity like a nation-state or an empire. They were more concerned with the interests of either their individual group of friends and family or maybe their settlement/city (and before those existed their tribe). Allegiance was mostly to charismatic rulers, though throughout the middle ages through an increasingly codified way of engaging with the world, they were ever more obligated to follow their rulers, if they liked them or not. Nationalism turned this system on it's head, as it instead said you should feel allegiance primarily to your nation, the group of people that you share a language and culture with. This threatened and ultimately destroyed the existing system of dynastic rule that had existed for centuries. It took over those same systems of codifying the relationship of ruler and subject, therefore birthing the nation-state.
Of course, this is massively simplified, and just my reading of what happened, but this does provide a history of nationalism.
"it's a peninsula with a bunch of peninsulas on it".... oooooh....ooooh-hoo-hooo....
It wasn’t naive to assume economic interdependency would eventually lead to peace with Russia. This strategy has worked before. Hindsight is 20/20 but before Russia attacked even Ukraine didn’t expect them to launch an invasion. There are things you can reasonably foresee and then there are crazy dictators who plunge their own countries into economic oblivion over a land-grab straight out of a 19th century textbook. To put this into perspective: even the Soviet Union during the Cold War never stopped delivering natural gas to the West. Because they knew once you use this as a tool for extortion that leverage is gone forever. It’s a weapon you can only fire once because no one will ever make new deals with you knowing you won’t honor them. Even the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War wasn’t that crazy. Putin was. And he failed. And now what ever the outcome of this war is, there is no going back to business for Russia.
They are selling more oil and gas than ever, Wake up
@Jason Lane for prices far below what they used to sell for. India is fleecing them and they are in no position to negotiate. They have to take what they can get. That's why Russia is running a massive deficit
European here. Haven't yelled "no, you're totally wrong" so much in a year or so as I did at your commentaries. Sorry, but you've got so many gaps in knowledge I felt like yelling
All european empures where attemps of bringing the idea of rome back. The zar, cesar, kaiser, cesar, the sultans other titke was cesar, the spanish plus ultra, the eagles on everyflag or coat of arms. All goes back to rome.
The eu is that idea minus the killing each other, is closer to the republic of rome. Things like the vetoe, the rotating presidency with short terms, are coming from somewhere.
Also it is true that the nation state in europe is extrrmly complex, for exampme spain and the uk are empires in all but name, owning each 4 to 5 different people groups, such as basques, catalans, scotish, irish etc. France has basically sub saharan africa under economic domination and troops as peace keepers. Spain, the uk, portugal, france own lands which were colonies that by time toguether or more extrem methids where integrated to theur nation state, malvinas, gibraltar, ceuta, french guine etc.
European union is basically eurooe saying lets stop trying to be rome by ourselves and our tanks and start working toguether for a better future, even if you speak polish or estonian you are an equal, that is why for example in spain a catalan politician removed the spanish flag but kept the european one.
I dunno how you can even speak about the thing with raising kids.
US is not a nation state. It's a union, making you all feel nationalism towards a country that is basically empire-size (I'm trying hard here to not say empire, because it would open a totally other can of worms). Each of your states is of a size of a European country. So basically, you have what you are speaking against, without realizing that it's what it is.
The EU is the most important institution for European peace
You are a pessimistic man ! To that day, the EU is already a great success, just think that only 23 years ago, the Euro didn't even exist. In the 80's, we've been regularly told that the Russian tanks could be in Paris within 2 days. The EU nations are collaborating more and more. You are missing one important thing: the EU is still under construction, it's institutions are evolving constantly, with new political ideas (for example one that I like: multiple circles of EU depending on the will of integrations of the nations, the very core could even be a federation). Not to mention that the recent events with the disastrous brexit, and the invasion of Ukraine have really made the Europeans hold the lines closer.
At the end, if the EU comes to be one only nations, that doesn't mean that there will be only one culture, you should see that like the USA, one nation, 50 states (with cultural differences, New Orlean == Anchorage ?), with state laws, and federal ones.
About France's colonial empire: today's France received the legacy of an influence in Africa, that is true, but it is not in the current policy to try to 'dominate' Africa. Actually, France tries now to make its relationship with African countries mutating to some more balanced, but still favorable to France's interests of course, relationship. This is a difficult diplomacy work, but you should understand that France can't just say to this African countries "bye guys, we leave !", and let Russia, China and the USA build their own African empires, this would not be in the interest of France (and therefore the EU), nor the concerned African countries. In fact, right now, the Africans are in quite a good position to negotiate for their best with the world big players, I hope they will do it wisely, it is time for them to rule their countries by themselves (but no democracy without education, no education with corruption, they also have a lot of work to do).
About France and the EU: I think you are wrong here again. Yes France is a proud country, but also a very pro-EU country. For centuries, the major European countries tried to make Europe be a huge empire, none succeed. But when you think about it, you understand that once Europe is united, that doesn't matter who unified it, as long as Europe is a democracy, everyone have its word to say. So, the idea of a EU federation is on its way, slowly but I believe surely. As a French man, I'm not shocked at all that the current commission's president is German (Ursula Von Der Leyen), I could vote for a foreign European person if the project is good.
I spoke to much, anyway, interesting to see you reacting, bye.
21:34 Well, time has already told.
The UK did exactly this thing.
And after they split, they realized how much they have been lied to and that the benefits had been much greater then the disadvantages.
Yes there are disagreements, and not even just little ones.
But the EU has to go through that, it is a make of break process.
For us today, a non united Europe would be a terrible thought.
Because you can not have the benefits of a united europe, without having to give up certain things.
I understand that is a very foreign thought to Americans who grow into the idea of Statehood inside of a Nation like the US.
Nationalism type of thing didn't really exist inside Empires.
Nationalism is a form of tribalism, which empowers the individual as a part of the tribe he/she "naturally belongs to", meaning race, ethnicity, religion, language etc.
Nationalism goes way deeper than any pride for an Empire ever could, as it makes the individual citizen important as a representative of the nation, and the defender of it's supposed values.
- Nothing like that ever existed in Empires, as Empires by their very natures are collections of different peoples inside common borders.
That feeling of individuals being one with the whole nation makes nationalism a very powerful tool for whoever gets to control of the narrative of what/who is good or bad for the nation.
„I feel uncomfortable with cooperation. What do you mean there is no violence involved?“
The UN was meant to promote peace around the globe
The EU was meant as an economic alliance, however it was also meant to try and tie Europe together after WWII, it was to try and keep peace in Europe and keep rivalry to the soccer field and not the battlefields
It's very simple to find unity if you kill(through lives or "education") other cultures like the US(natives) and China succeeded in doing.
Europe in the 19th century was firmly against that and found that people groups had the right to self govern. It was that which basically weakened both Austria-Hungary as well as the Ottoman empire which resulted in their dissolution after WW1.
As every people group cried out for independence and was granted that.
Europe was lucky in that at no point any single nation could succeed like China did.
20:50 and still you send your kids to school quite young age to learn communally agreed topics.
I agree with your nationalism argument, its the same when people say Freud invented psycollogy, as if understanding and analysing the human mind did not exist at all before freud. Its just silly.
What nationalism describes is the inherent feeling of unity through culture and language that forms our modern nations.
Before the rise of nationalism in the 18th century national borders were not really made up by the people who lived there, but rather by the reigning monarch or his family.
Indeed, the UN (or League of Nations at that time) was meant to ensure peace in the world, but by military means
The EU shows that military might only works as a deterrent if you can show it, which the League couldn't. And therefor tries to chain the nations together by trade. Something ever-prevelant.
The thing with nationalism is not that people used to be loyal to an empire and then they became nationalists and thus loyal to a nation or nation state. It was more feudal, people were loyal to people (ordinary people were loyal to the duke or the bishop, who in turn were loyal to the king, who then was loyal to the emperor). Nationalism was this shift from loyalty to people to loyalty to the abstract nation.
The concept of nationalism wasn't something that has always existed at least in Europe, it started in the 1800s because it was at that time that the people of the various nation understood that their loyalty wasn't to the monarch but to their country before that the loyalty was to the monarch, the dynasty or their feudal lord
An example would be when the Asburgic line of Spain was interrupted because the king was without heir so the France took control of that kingdom (well many thing happened but in short one of the Borbone of france was crowned king of Spain) but many people of Spain (and part of Italy too) didn't agreed with that and a part of Spain even revolted against the crown
9:50 - The real point isn't so much the emergence of nationalism, as that's more of a secondary concept. The point is the creation of _nation states._ It's hard to believe today, but they didn't really exist in Europe at the time. They suddenly emerged because industrialization gave them a huge advantage over the previous system with tiny states and huge empires superimposed essentially _randomly_ over the map, almost completely ignoring ethnic and linguistic boundaries.
The idea of the nation state is that all those who have the same language and culture live together in a single state. It follows that nation states will have conflicts over the transition zone where people with two or more languages live together, especially if this transition zone also has natural resources or is otherwise attractive.
The US is almost a nation state in this sense. It would be, if it included Canada (possibly without Québec), or at least were trying very hard to include it. On the other hand, it would clearly not be a nation state if it included Mexico with Mexican states having the same status as currently existing states.
For many centuries, France has been almost a nation state in the same way as the US is now, and the same is true for the UK and Spain. But initially people didn't think of these countries that way, but just as random empires that happened to include pretty much everyone speaking a certain language. A major symptom of that original situation is that people were _not_ flag-wavers at all. The only way you could get them excited about a state was when that state offered them something they were not yet taking for granted. For example, in 1368 the city of Freiburg (in Germany, then a mining city on the edge of the Black Forest) paid a lot of money to buy itself free from the state it belonged to and join Austria, a far-away country that was prepared to give them certain privileges. A major symptom of a state actually becoming a nation state is when they suppress minority languages and make their ethnic minorities speak the majority language. The goal is to create a huge, homogeneous market, where industry can profit from network effects. The bigger the better, so long as you can ensure it stays homogeneous.
What is new about the EU is that it tries to achieve most of the advantages of a nation state while embracing its internal diversity. Some minor loss of efficiency due to multilingualism is accepted. This may change over time, of course. I would bet that in a century from now, everyone in the EU will speak one or two of a tiny number of EU working languages fluently, and the other languages will mostly be treated as dialects. E.g. Dutch and the Scandinavian languages as dialects of German. Similar things happened in the past, e.g. in the Roman Empire with Latin and Greek. It's basically inevitable, and it's the first step towards having only one language and one nation/ethnicity.
11:58 - Nation states probably existed much earlier. But it is typical for an old-style empire that it does not have _citizens_ who can be motivated to fight for their state or work for its benefit in other ways, but subjects who must be _forced_ and will gladly switch allegiance to another empire that offers them better conditions, even if the majority of it has a different culture. This went so far that during the early expansion of Islam, a lot of Christian regions were glad to be annexed by the Islamic forces because it meant they would be granted religious freedom rather than be oppressed as heretics in the East Roman Empire for following a 'wrong' branch of Christianity.
"UK realising its no longer a big power" we already know that! Why do videos like this behave the entire the UK was surprised at this?? Like brexit wasn't a close vote? Like there wasn't infighting between countries in the UK, remainers and leavers arguing and still to this day our own goverment its infighting?
If a huge majority of brits in general voted brexit with this line of reasoning, I get it, but thats not what happened, its so frustrating when videos just ignore the fact that brexit was a extreamly close vote so a large percentage of the UK didn't want this, its so annoying to me when people just lump brits in the same boat and like yep, they all brexiteers. "they were surprised-" no... we weren't, we warned people who voted brexit and they didn't listen.
Also there are other reasons to brexit, I don't agree with them but I understand them. My parents both think EU is trying to become a country it itself and if we didn't get out soon, we would have control over any of our laws. Someone I know just had a horrid life and wanted any kind of change, someone else blamed the things they didn't like about the UK laws on to the EU, someone else believed we were giving the EU too much money, lots of different reasons other than "yeah we can be arrogant and better and do it ourselves" like this video is suggesting, I don't agree with the reasons I mentioned but they're there.
I am not sure Kraut is saying that Europe is becoming one country.
Now I definately see a tendency to try over here.
But what Kraut seems to argue, in my reading, is an alternative to outright unification, and also to utter rivalry.
10:00 in some form nationalism existed always, understood as love of your country or seeing your groups interests as above your own.
What Kraut is describing is the 19th century idea of nationalism that a state should be built around ethnic and cultural boundries,
and how politicians who ascribed to that idea didnt follow it instead creating mini empires and setting boundries on defensive lines and resources rather than ethnic lines li'ke they climed.
(that ideas technically also exited before but wasnt as mainstream as "obey God and the king" wich was dominant before)
11:46 empire explicitly didnt limit themselves to one ethnicity and ruled as much as possible. Monarchies ruled by birthright and werent very concerned with ethnicity, a king could be born in France, rule Scotland and marry a Danish princess and inherit a duchy in Spain
10:17
Nation: Self Governing State that identifies at itself
Empire: Bundle of Countries that identify as themselfs while beeing under the rule of one central National Country (England for the UK / Prussia for the German Empire / Austria for the Austro Hungarian Empire / Russia for the Zar Empire etc)
Even though there was pride in the Empire, People still rather identified themselfs with their country and not with the empire.
If you were to ask anyone in it, they would tell you "I am Irish / Bavarian / Bohemian / Latvian" You were basicly just occupied by a greater entity and people often just accepted it, but did not change their identity about it.
Nationalism as understood here is the 19th century alternative to imperial, patrimonial and in general traditional (and, as in Austria-Hungary's case, multicultural and somewhat cosmopolitan) polities, often rooted in a quasi-mystic hypothetical connection between the soil of the country and the blood of its "true" people; patriotism (or civic nationalism) is attachment to one's homeland, culture and institutions, often independent of ethnic considerations.
As someone who is a Chinese historian and very familiar with Classical history, so understand where the Chinese POV is coming from, whoever it was though made the fundamental mistake (or was taught) that the underlying thinking of the two in both being empires, and in promoting the imperial culture, did so for the same cultural reasons. Nor did the Romans have the same sort of shared sphere of culture, with the possible exception of within Italy itself, with any of the areas that they conquered. They were all culturally different from Rome, even the Greeks that Rome ended borrowing so much from. So Rome was not trying as the Han were to unify what once had been torn asunder in a Warring States period, and then subsequently spread their empire to neighboring kingdoms who had similar cultures as their own. China didn't grow so large by peaceful annexation, it conquered and ate what was nearby- in the Han dynasty. Lost some again. After the Han, the empire fell apart in 220 AD and there was first the Three Kingdoms, then even more dissolution into many small kingdoms of many different ethnicities but generally culturally Chinese, before being unified by Sui 580. It isn't even like the Chinese "unification project" has been smooth sailing once it started.
Same case could be made for his views on European imperialism (conveniently ignoring all of China's efforts of the same) and misunderstanding of the modern state formation vs. China just being a large Empire (or perhaps very big nation- centralized government etc. unlike most historic empires where the was a level of regional autonomy within the imperial framework for various reasons) for most of its existence. China is still just a single nation state. In fact in many ways, despite the change in politics, there are many ways it still functions just as it did when it was an empire- with the chairman replacing the emperor, and the various party factions replacing the court factions. Elites are still elites, in some cases the same old elites as were before, and most people are haves not and have even less say than before.
Europeans have more in common then I think Americans generally realize. But with this, Russia is not apart of this and should not be included in ideas of the EU. When I as a Swede travel around in EU countries like France, Germany, Italy and so on, I feel at home. Getting closer with my European brothers is definitely not something I fear, we’re so strong in our own cultures. I do believe we can be somewhat intimidating to the anglosphere, having unity that transcends language does seem very weird to you.
Good reaction as always! And don't be concerned about pausing too much, in my opinion pausing is only annoying when it's a reaction to a movie or a series, because it breaks up the tension of a scene. On videos like this I wan't to hear your commentary, and I like that you're not just stating it as fact, but more bring up questions we can debate in the comments:)
Regarding nationalism, there are different types / definitions but the most commonly used one is; _"The identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, _*_especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."_*
Patriotism: love for one's place of origin (not necessarily a nation -- the term precedes the concept of nation state)
Nationalism: pride in one's own country (essentially patriotism on a nation basis)
Chauvinism: the belief that one's own group (fellow nationals, ethnic group, etc) is inherently better than all others, destined to survive all others, perhaps even entitled to take from others (land/resources/lives/...).
21:28 Sure, there will always be disagreements and it's always a balancing act. That's called "politics". The point of the EU is that we always sit down and talk about it; we don't try to solve our differences by shooting at one another.
To stick with your analogy: we're a neighborhood association. That can be slow and irritating -- but at least we're not the Hatfields and the McCoys anymore.
The EU isn't Europe, and Europe isn't the EU. They are very different things.
Ok here is the thing. the reason behind this very slow paced progress is, that situation in Europe was very much different than lets say in USA. There new coming settlers, could not play national cards to a big extend (they can play it a bit but not really too much). They depended heavily on each other, so those that did not adapt fast enough, were out of the game.
So apart of almost extermination of original natives in the area, the only big problem USA has was that big civil war (North vs South). And even that one was not advertised too heavily.
Now compare it with literal centuries of squabbles all around Europe. where some regions changed stated they belonged to several time and where it was very very common to dehumanize opponent as well. Trust of some nations / regions against others were high and for long long long time.
So we are talking here about generations upon generations that came to all kind of saying, fairy tales and all the nice things. And to properly ramify it, add to it those 2 big world wars that managed to create army of people on each side with somebody that perished in one of those wars.
Now how do you want those people just to "chill out" and start play nicely with each other. For that to be done you need long enough experience for people to finally forget and move on. You will literally need 3-4 generations to live in such cooperation setup to relax.
But with all things considered, EU has somewhat restarted that clock after end of communistics regimes in Central and Eastern Europe. And they are at best second generation (that is just growing up) in the EU project, where the first one is now in their 30-40ties.
Given how the situation was first half of the 20th century, EU really really improved a lot.
Is it a flawed system? Yes it is. However there is no ideal solution. Solution does evolve with the situation and as the countries learn to play together more and more.
One key parts of European Union is the "strengthening the sovereignty of member states". This is something that a LOT of EU skeptics do not accept or simply do not know.
Because it is incompatible with 'Ever Closer Union'. And whatever happened to the Europe of the Regions?
Old Chinese saying, an empire divided must unite, an empire united must divide. China has had a history not etirely disimilar to Europe in that regard.
good so we agree the EU must dissolve?
@@Drobium77 As a political, governmental entity yes. As a market and community no. We are still neighbours afterall :)
EU is of utmost importance now, and in the future.
@@Drobium77 No, we agree that China has to reunite or to fall further apart again sometime ...
@@ThW5 I think it's dangerous for them to even try, America has it's foot firmly in Taiwan's door, and they will not allow China to take over, lest WW3 is kicked into action 😞
The status quo is the most favourable option
About naïfs you should read about CECA treaties
You don't see a meaningful difference between nationalism and imperialism because - sorry - you are american. Ideally, a nation state consists of residents of an ethnicity, according to the Latin word "natus" = being born; so "Nation" means - those who are born from the same root. An empire, on the other hand, usually consists of residents of different ethnic groups, such as the USSR, the Holy Roman Empire or the Austria-Hungarian monarchy.
So what are the USA?
The United States is a special form: a state that is basically an empire of different ethnic groups, but also permanently generates a nation state. Therefore, you have to constantly celebrate this Pledge of Allegiance because your nation state is not natural, but is generated. Everyone must be committed to it so that it can work.
...
I would not call the attempt to reconcile with Russia as naive. It could have been a historical chance and that was obviously too seductive than should not have been tried. It was wrong. And afterwards many always say that they knew better before.
...
And to answer your question: If there are disagreements in the European Union, which cannot be placed in the part of the EU and which the EU breaks - then it failed. But everyone involved knows that. In this respect, you have to take the chance. There is no other.
But even a nation state like the USA is not immune to this. You have already had a civil war and there is no guarantee that this will be the only one.
- To join the Union, common values (human rights, democracy...) are requested . Impossible for Russia to be accepted.
- SDN was the Société des Nations, created in 1919 after WW1. A failure as WW2 took place. So it was suppressed
- I agree that the Brexit was partly due to the idea that the British had of themselves and kept thinking themselves as a major country and as a ruler (the politicians,, the public opinion, the media). They were very difficult partners to deal with when they were in the Union (they had been refused previously ). IN 2016 they chose to quit by referendum. In 2023 most of them deeply regret it as they are undergoing a major social and economic crisis with many strikes. They have founded out that they had had many advantages when being in the UE.
Today I watched an interview of an old Englisman who had voted in favour of the Brexit (his main motivation : because of too much immigration in England because of the policies of the EU). Before the Brexit, he had retired in South of Spain for the sun , the low cost of living and the free healthcare system (important for him as he has several major pathologies). And he was crying when saying that he realised that he could stay only 90 days in Spain and then had to go away for 90 days before coming back for 90 days (impossible for his earnings). He also discovered that he would not be able to be cured for free in Spain any more. It was amazing watching this man so sincere. He had never thought that he was an immigrant in Spain too. He was not aware at all that he had been enjoying priviledges thanks to his European citizenship. He could not afford a private insurance that was very costly due to his health problems . He was crying he would have voted for remaining in the EU if he had known. His sincerety really puzzled me !! But politicians who drove them to the Brexit are wealthy and do not care about the consequences.
- Concerning France, I had never thought about the remainings of special cooperation with African countries that way in regard of the EU !! (I am French)
- the history of the EU, since the beginning with the steel and coal cooperation between France and Germany, has always been a miracle in itself. So far, it has been a huge success regarding the main goals. Even if many people complain. Even if it is very easy for national politics to explain that their problems are due to Europe. Even if it is very difficult to understand how it works. Even if many Europeans do not vote when the elections stand. I am in my 50's. When I was young I was dreaming of travelling througout Europe with no border. I was so eager to get my first Euro notes and coins (and I still enjoy using them, frequently checking from which country my coins are). I had nether thought Europe institutions and cooperations would develop so quickly in my life time. It is just amazing (and the EU managed to overcome the Greek problem, and the crisis of money too. The EU managed to integrate eastern countries). The most amazing to me is how most citizens now feel part of it, are proud of it (I should check what are the results of polls). Robert Schuman said he would have loved building the Europe of peoples and I have a feeling of achievement considering that topic. Why such a miracle should not last ????? My main concern is more the climate change in the coming decades and how we will be able to deal with it.
i think you misunderstood how th EU works the EU is creating laws to accommodate each country but they fo not have the same laws in every country the EU laws are more like general laws to emphasize the view they want for everybody to live in peace or help with the environment but it does not force political views or anything to do with how people should raise there kids and else every country remains independent in it's laws we are not one entity we are all different but with a same goal and the EU laws are to reach the goal not change the people
28:30-28:36 Did you hear what he said between this or were you too busy not paying attention? Because he actually made a very good point about the future of France in the EU which you seemed to not hear at all.
No need to be rude. Would be far more beneficial if you said something like "I wish you would have paid attention more to this part" or even reiterated the point real quick in the comments.
Have you tried making a point without being a dick about it?
The future of France is in the EU, no political parties want out, even the nationalist far right, thanks to the brexit ! Still speaking of the french empire is a mega 😂 ! It's not because some African states still speak french that they are still in the empire ! The reality is that Russia had a big influence there (Algeria mostly, Mali...)and is or were fighting with Chinese to increase their influence. Do France count on his former colonies ? less and less if not any more.
I felt like Kraut did a disservice explaining Brexit...it wasn't because of nostalgia of the Empire, but more of what McJibbin was saying with the "neighborhood" analogy...they wanted indepence over interdependence. Also he said it in a snobby pro-EU propaganda tone.
EU startet as Montanunion. Montanunion was trading of coal and steel. So if one , Nation tryed to get Reader for war quietly by bilding tanks, the other Nation shoud reconise and stop trade with iron or coal.
Then the Projekt did grow and grow.
The UN trys to give Peace a cance, Burg usualy fail. The buehelmets of the UN are used to freeze wars, like in ex juguslavia.
A girl from Beirut, kidnapped by Zeus from Crete. A typical drunk sailor story.
20:38 you don't have to be unified under a common authority to be able to cooperate. The British Empire was always decentralised, and the WTO and Commonwealth more so.
@ McJibbin Patriotism, Nationalism, Chauvinism, in this order from best to worst, if Im not misstaken.
But not as an individual, emotional feeling only, but as a political concept
as i see it with the nationality thing... before you had tribalism, you stick together as family - an imperialism, with the meaning of one tribe dominates the others, and they have to accept it because they are weaker, and imperias don't usually tell their satellites they have the same rights but have to obey as part of the dominion. nationalism otherwise creates a story of common history to persuade different tribes that they belong together. And as well known from group-building best thing to do is to create a story of an outside enemy to make them stick together...
So a nation is there to overcome the simple devide and conquer of an empire and creating a bigger tribe than a usual tribe, a megatribe. But its hard to have common goals in such megatribes, so your nationalism will end in aggressive colonisation and trying to rule over someone else to overplay or glue the splits in your nation.
But then the EU is only an ultratribe and would perhaps need an outside foe for not to split and stick together. I mean Great britain did split and the EU was short in front of collapsing as it feels sometimes... but now with Russia ans outside foe it can get stronger again. Just lets hope we find better ways of group-building than creating outsiders and rally against them.
The older European countries actually is Spain , GBR and France by order. But but European Reigns, Galicia is in Spain but is one of the older Reign of Europe , 1300 years old like Reign but a few younger than Rusia , for this our flags were similars and Galicia or Gallaecia (Celt Nation) rest a blue line from our flag. Europe it’s more complicated .
Maybe it helps you understand if you look at Star Wars. You have the galactic empire, an entity of power, gathering resources and people from “nations/planets” all over the universe. And in doing so it’s throwing away local cultures and customs because they are not according to imperial standards. And in nationalism people take pride of their own planet/country and want to govern themselves (that’s the self controlling part).
Imagine the collpse of the US as a nation. You now have 50 new nations who each have their own president (or religious leader, military leaders or maybe some of the leaders would make themselves into royalty, who knows) who all have to agree where all the borders are and who controls all the natural resourses. Some of the states would even break into more nations if they have too big cultural and religious differences. Maybe part of the south would want to join Mexico instead, maybe Alaska choose to become part of Canada, or maybe it gets invaded by Russia? That situtation would be highly explosive and cause decades of wars between states. Super rich and populus states like Texas, California and New York would rule that new area of nations based on economic power alone (like the UK, France and Germany are very powerful in Europe). And if New York wanted to claim all of the northern west coast, who are gonna stop them? This was the situation in Europe in the early and mid 1900 (and even as close as the 1990 when Yugoslavia collapsed).
The EU as a concept might be new, but I would say it is the number one reason that Europe is as stable as it can be nowadays. I also highly doubt Russia would have invaded Ukraine if the latter would have been an EU member state, something that I think protects Finland, the Baltics and Poland from open war as well. Creating co-dependence through trading deals and mutual funding of important infrastructure is a major deterrent from invading your neigbours.
Also the idea of national identity was present already during the later stages of the hundred years war.