What is a Nation? (Qu'est-ce qu'une nation?)[1] is an 1882 lecture by French historian Ernest Renan (1823–1892), known for the statements that a nation is "a daily referendum", and that nations are based as much on what the people jointly forget, as what they remember. It is frequently quoted or anthologized in works of history or political science pertaining to nationalism and national identity. Renan wrote "What is a Nation" in order to symbolize the nationalism which was born in France as a result of the French Revolution of 1789.[2]
Nationhood in antiquity and in Renan's time
Renan begins his essay by noting that there is frequent confusion between the idea of nationhood and of racial or linguistic groupings, a form of confusion which he says can produce "the gravest errors". He promises to conduct an autopsy-like examination, "in an absolutely cold and impartial fashion" nations existing at the time of writing in 1882, such as France, Germany, England and Russia, will continue to exist for hundreds of years, and that any nation trying to dominate them will be quickly pushed back to its own borders, by a coalition of other nations. "The establishment of a new Roman empire, or a new empire of Charlemagne, has become impossible." Renan observes that the idea of a nation, as currently used, basical area there could be no real shared identity of its subjects.[clarification needed]
Renan believed that nations developed from the common needs of the people, who consisted of different social groups seeking a "collective identity". He praises the eighteenth century for its achievements in regards to humanity and the restoration of the pure identity of man, one which was free from misconceptions and socially established variances. Renan discredits the theory that race is the basis for the unification of people. It is important to note that France was quite ethnically diverse during the French Revolution and the rule of Napoleon Bonaparte, but it nevertheless managed to set the stage for nationalism. Renan also asserts that neither language nor religion are basis for solidarity because language “invites people to unite, but does not force them to do so” and "religion has become an individual matter" For example, the United States and England both speak English but do not constitute a single, united nation and countries no longer operate on the notion of religions operating against each other, forcing people to choose between one or the other.
Renan noted that a unique element of the European nation-forming experience was the mixture of races, origins and religions, where conquering people often adopted the religion and manners, and married the women, of the people they conquered. He notes that France was quite ethnically diverse during the French Revolution. For example, "at the end of one or two generations, the Norman invaders were indistinguishable from the rest of the population". Nonetheless, they had a profound influence, bringing with them "a nobility of military habit, a patriotism" which did not exist before
Hi! I am a robot. I just upvoted you! I found similar content that readers might be interested in:
https://infogalactic.com/info/What_is_a_Nation%3F
done sir
Ok