How Nations Make Up National Identities | NYT - The Interpreter

Nationality feels powerful, especially today. But the idea of identifying with millions of strangers just based on borders is relatively new. We explain why it was invented — and how it changed the world.

More from The New York Times Video:

----------

Whether it's reporting on conflicts abroad and political divisions at home, or covering the latest style trends and scientific developments, New York Times video journalists provide a revealing and unforgettable view of the world. It's all the news that's fit to watch.

[ShadeShake]

Just watching this because of online classes

[IssaMorphic]

Y'all need to credit Benedict Anderson

[BananaLTVostok]

I used be very patriotic of my country until i became an adult. I then began to realize how hollow this feeling was, hollow as a rotten tree. You can conform with the masses or live as individual, but either way you are on your own and the only thing you can physically identify with is family.

[sjenner]

A few points of sharp critique. First, the nation state is not a failure. It’s a stunning success. It has resulted in more material prosperity and stability than anything tried before. Indeed, if it did not it would not have proliferated. The world today is richer and more peaceful than probably any other time in human history. The cited examples of the nation state as failure point to what happens when nation states become empires, and substitute nationalism for patriotism. As such the example demonstrates the horrors that are possible when nation states fail by failing to respect the integrity of the next nation state. Of course, Gengis Khan never had a nation state. And he butchered millions using swords and arrows. And medieval cities certainly were no picnic for Jews. Perhaps it’s less the nation state and more the grotesqueries of the human animal combined with the darker side of technology that explains what happened in the 20th Century.

Second, the Soviet Union wasn’t a country. It was an empire. In ignoring the integrity of the nation states forced to be part of that monstrous enterprise, the USSR in fact proved the opposite of the core proposition advanced in this video.

Third, the silly claim that America didn’t quite work ... cut to video of silly people ... there argument done is hardly compelling. The United States is the only nation thus far that has posited a workable model for large scale and sustained immigration. Even at our worst, we’re far more diverse than any other major modern country. As of 2010, the U.S. was 12.9 percent foreign born. It may be claimed that Australia and Canada are higher. But when U.K. (and indeed, other Western European) nationals are excluded, their numbers are no better than the U.S. and are likely lower. Just as importantly, the combined populations of Australia and Canada are less than 20 percent that of the U.S., meaning that much lower overall immigration numbers have far more impact statistically. The U.S. is a true success on the concept of open liberal society. It isn’t perfect. But, if perfection is the requirement, then we might as well just trash the whole universe. None of it’s perfect.

[malucinada]

Did someone know if it's possible to see this video with french or spanish subtitles please ?

[NoGodsNoMasters]

A neoliberal critic might argue that large, multinational corporate interests have replaced both the power of religion and government. I wonder what will take their place.

[jameshiler]

The best thing about this video was all the footnotes.

[vietmypham]

Anyone know the name of a painting at 02:31 ? I like it :))

[pedroroque]

The world is run on stories. Identities, entertainment, social media, mainstream media, cinema, radio, music, politics, sales and business - All based on storytelling

[MrMobe]

1:11 never heard of a language called Fleming. Do you mean Flemish?!

4:15 come on the Romans have been integrating people from other regions ages ago!

[duesen]

No matter what, I will always love my countries. I had the pleasure to grow up within two cultures. I'd say that I have another view on nationality than other people do. I respect all cultures and dont feel that my countries are superior in any way. But I still love my homes and always will.

[ozgeuslu]

Where can I find the mentioned study concerning American's attitudes towards movies?

[hiitsme]

Yet alone knowing this fact does make one feel different. Unfortunately, it does not change anything. However, this is a great video to demonstrate what's the most powerful and destructive weapon of humanity. Thank you for this video I will always keep it in mind.

[amatya.rakshasa]

Can you guys please suggest some books, papers, and other sources which explore these ideas? Thank you!

[mattyhartley]

Nations are the biggest success in uniting a group of people together, more so than religion and bigger than any tribe, clan ever can be. I agree some nations are completely made up and usually lead to it not working or a war until military force or pure exhaustion from conflict forces it to make or break such as Yugoslavia breaking up...BUT a lot of nations have formed more naturally, where a shared struggle and history, sense of commonality makes it one big community. Shared language, values, ethnicity (sometimes quite loosely). We have yet to make anything else work better, the USA is doing well as a "anyone can become american" type nation and i hope it works out, but it will be severely tested as a nation over the next century...im optimistic though!

[haydensmith]

I've noticed they invoke several images of Napoleon when specifically referencing French national identity. Could someone please enlighten me?

[vehement-critic_q]

Nationality and nationalism in some states is a way to liberate people from dictator rulers and fascist regimes. Nationality and nationalism is a preservation of people's heritage in a certain region. Nationality and nationalism is not a myth, but the birth of a new united identity that reflects the sovereign of a particular community.

[epaburke]

Nation-states are not new. You can read about them in history going back more than 2, 000 years. Even modern Western European nations are generally considered to have origins that go back about 1, 000 years. Germany and Italy are the most notable exceptions to this-- Germany and Italy unified as nations in the late 19th century. The problems the narrator cites--dictatorship, racism, and genocide--were not caused by the German people defining themselves as citizens of a nation. They were caused by their refusal to do this. They wanted to continue to define themselves racially--to remain tribal--which won't really work in any large modern state, as none are homgeneous enough for that. Defining oneself as a citizen of a nation, and a member of the society that makes up that nation, is the basis for civilization and the rule of law. Deciding to give it up, in favor of defining oneself only as a member of a religion, ethnic, professional or political group would take us back thousands of years, not forward.

[max]

I agree with everything this video says 'xcept one. It is implied that diversification in race, religion or culture is enough to avoid nationalism. The question is, is there any way to fight against it ?

[souvikdeb]

Loved this video. I sort of had a similar theory in my mind but this video encapsulated the ideas wonderfully!