 [Larger view] | Nations and Nationalism since 1780 : Programme, Myth, Reality
| ||||||||||||
| |
Average user rating:  | |
 The red menace? | |
| I am quite surprise with some reviewers and their obssesion with Marxism. Let me remind you that Berlin Wall has fallen down.The idological preferences of the author are well known, in fact after 1989 he is one of the few who still describes himself as a Communist. You can be agree with him or not, but what Hobsbawn does in this book is a very good analylis of Nationalism. From a marxist point of view? right. Is an option. But the point is, does this book make think about the subject? Absolutely. Was the idea of Nationalism a product of the French revolution?. True. Was it used by the new Burgeois governments to seize power? Yes. I am very tired of the idea that an historian must be absolutely neutral. That is not true. When you prefer Middle ages to Ancient history you are making a choice. An historian cannot be like the Caesar's wife. It is not his job. His job is to create an opinion, and to provoke a discussion. Nationalism in Europe has been a main source of troubles in Europe since 1918. And its new revival in the 80's shows that it has not been solved. I think it is quite an anachronism specially when we are trying to build up the European Union. If really we are living in a global world I think thi sidelogy must die, like many others before it. | |
 A priori bias | |
| You'll never get the straight story about nationalism out of Eric. David Pryce-Jones recently noted: "Quite crudely, he approves of nationalism in countries which proclaim themselves Communist and anti-American, like Cuba or Vietnam, while rejecting nationalism in countries which are not Communist and are pro-American, like Israel." Eric prostitutes his knowledge of history for a corrupt, a priori religion. The only thing saving this book from one star is the fact that Eric is an excellent prostitute. | |
| Confirmation for Marxists, but not much analysis | |
| Hobsbawn's book is quite over rated as a text about nationalism. Those fellow idiological readers who share Hobsbawn's delight in exposing the "myths" of nationalism and nations will of course find it "brilliant and insightful", but one wonders if they admire the analysis, or just agree with his conclusion? Hobsbawm's strongly implied conclusion that nationalism and nations are "on the way out" means for him that so is war and conflict. But one wonders if for all the faults of nationalism and nations if the institutions and arrangements that replace them will be any better. There was war, slavery and injustice long before the 18th century, whether systems were empires or feudal, so why should the successors of nations be any better. Oh, I forgot if we all think like Hobsbawm "we can unite." |
