Rating: 
Summary: Suberb, arguably Hobsbawm's best single book.
Review: "...no serious historian of nations and nationalism can be a committed political nationalist...Nationalism required too much belief in what is patently not so. As Renan said: `Getting its history wrong is part of being a nation.' This bold and principled comment, which is duly qualified in the ellipsis I left out, is near the beginning of one of the most liberating books on modern nationalism. This is a vital book which puts nationalism into its historical context, and it reminds us of the vital truth that Yugoslavia and Rwanda were not doomed by something called "irreconcilable ethnic strife," to fall into the hell that the First World has done its part to condemn them to."The basic characteristic of the nation and everything with it is its modernity." Even the very vocabulary of nationality is relatively new. Especially invaluable is Hobsbawm's chapter on popular proto-nationalism as he discusses all the elements that supposedly "cause" nationalism and finds them all insufficient. Many Central and Eastern European peasants did not view themselves so much as members of particular nationalities but as peasants. The term "Estonian" for instance only came into use in the 1860s. Languages appear stronger, yet dialects were so common up until the late nineteenth century that only half of the French in 1789 spoke the language, while only 2.5% of pre-unification Italy spoke what is now Italian. Nationalists often had to write their own grammars and dictionaries, and in the process the various Yugoslav groups turned three major dialects into the language we now know as Serbo-Croat. And where "there are no other languages within earshot, one's own idiom is not so much a group criterion as something that all people have, like legs." Ethnicity is not an undisputed concept: some of the most clearly defined ethnic groups are those like the Scots highlanders, or the Berbers or Afghan Pushtus who are hostile to any state. Many of the greatest fighters for Greek independence were Albanians, while Hungary's greatest 19th century poet, Petofi, was in fact a Slovak. Religion has its own ironies: many of the leaders of the Arab independence movement were Copts, Maronites and other Christians. Religions try to be universal so often they will separate Lithuanians from Russians, but not from Poles. The Catholic Church was the only all-Italian institution in 1859, but Italian nationalism had to make its way without it. Many pre-modern revolts against foreign invaders are less nationalistic than social and religious. When the citizens of Berlin offered to defend that city, Frederick the Great told them to mind their own business and let professionals handle the job. Hobsbawm goes on to discuss how the modern state in the nineteenth century had its own reasons to encourage patriotism and national consciousness. He discusses how nationalist movements in Georgia, Armenia and Finland were dominated by socialists. "What would the future of Hebrew have been, had not the British mandate in 1919 accepted it as one of the three official languages of Palestine, at a time when the number of people speaking Hebrew as an everyday language was less than 20,000?" After discussing the rise of fascism, the Popular Front and the end of the Cold war, Hobsbawm ends memorably with this image: "The owl of Minerva which brings wisdom, said Hegel, flies out at dusk. It is a good sign that it is now circling round nations and nationalism."
Rating: 
Summary: Eric, your communism is showing
Review: Eric Hobsbawm, as a person with a deeply-held belief (communism) that is opposed to the subject he purports to carefully examine, was unable to overcome his own debilitating point of view and write neutrally on the topic of nationalism. The book is replete with his attempts to dimish or demean the various forms of nationalism, and it is only logical to assume that his animus is due to communism's ultimate denial of national sentiment. To top it off, at the end of Chapter one Hobsbawm hypocritically lectures his audience about the importance of detachment and impartiality in the study of nationalism. So read the book for a quick, interesting overview of various national movements, but always remember that what you're reading is not as scholarly as it claims to be.
Rating: 
Summary: Eric, history is not supposed to be science fiction
Review: Eric Hobsbawm, dedicated to applying the none too convincing idea of "scientific" Marxism in its traditional petrie dish of history, wields the critic's pen more like a butcher's cleaver than the rapier with which he believes, a la Don Quixote, he is thrusting. So it falls upon this reviewer to stand in faithfully as Hobsbawm's Sancho Panza. As such I appeal to you, Eric, not to begin a work of historical analysis with an invocation to an intergalactic historian, for it is the most preposterous thing I have ever encountered. Perhaps you were intrigued with the Greeks' romantic, albeit "unscientific," appeal to the muse for inspiration? How else can we, your faithful followers in the pursuit of truth, justice and the human way in the study of history, explain this unhistorical incantation? Have courage, though! We know that your unwavering adherence to the "scientific" precepts of Marxism will excuse everything. In short, Eric, we know that you have been writing too much while watching Star Trek.
Rating: 
Summary: Nationalism as progams and policies
Review: Hobsbawm is a masterful historian, with the chops and interests to take on a variety of important topics. This book is his contribution to the Birth-of-Nationalism literature. Nationalism is often associated with questions of personal commitments or identity politics. This aspect of consciousness, however, is easy to assume, but more difficult to demonstrate, and even harder to historicize. As a result Hobsbawm begs off this question some, and turns his attention instead to the ways that governments (states in search of nations) and national elites (nations in search of states) have invoked or pursued the concept of nation. This work is particularly useful and importnat for its attention to language and education as technologies of nation building. Those who confuse a critical perspective with bias, or cannot overcome their own Marxiphobia, may want to stick to tamer works. For the rest of us, Hobsbawm has provided a readable and compelling exploration. While it has its limits, this is a valuable and important work.
Rating:
Summary: Nationalism as progams and policies
Review: Hobsbawm is a masterful historian, with the chops and interests to take on a variety of important topics. This book is his contribution to the Birth-of-Nationalism literature. Nationalism is often associated with questions of personal commitments or identity politics. This aspect of consciousness, however, is easy to assume, but more difficult to demonstrate, and even harder to historicize. As a result Hobsbawm begs off this question some, and turns his attention instead to the ways that governments (states in search of nations) and national elites (nations in search of states) have invoked or pursued the concept of nation. This work is particularly useful and importnat for its attention to language and education as technologies of nation building. Those who confuse a critical perspective with bias, or cannot overcome their own Marxiphobia, may want to stick to tamer works. For the rest of us, Hobsbawm has provided a readable and compelling exploration. While it has its limits, this is a valuable and important work.
Rating:
Summary: Hobsbawm At His Best - Once Again!
Review: Hobsbawm's 'Nations and Nationalism' reveals once again the author's genius. Splendidly written, it is, first of all, a pleasure to read. With a wide range of examples, the British historian shows a truly cosmopolitan view of a rather narrow-minded phenomenon. Much more importantly, however, he unveils one of the great myths of populist rhetoric: that nations have always existed. Not only are they fairly recent developments, argues Hobsbawm, but their conceptions have changed significantly over the last 200 years or so. From time to time, the author may be a little bit too idealistic in his judgments. But over all, 'Nations and Nationalism Since 1780' is an extremely valuable book. Read it as an introduction, or read it as polemic: both ways, you will most probably enjoy it!
Rating: 
Summary: Not a good introduction to the study of nationalism
Review: Hobsbawm's contribution to the study of nationalism is, I believe, overrated, simply because it has become something of a starting point for people who want to familiarize themselves with this complex subject. Not to criticize Hobsbawm excessively; I think he's one of the finest living historians who writes in the English language, and his four "Age of..." books are among the finest historiographical works on the last two centuries. But in this book his anti-nationalist bias shows, and the work suffers for it, especially the conclusion. Hobsbawm has an explicitly critical stance on nationalism, and his entire argument in this book seems to be aimed at showing that as a historical phenomena nationalism is on its way out. While I share, to some extent, Hobsbawm's distaste for nationalism, I can't agree with this conclusion--and the events of the last decade definitely contradict this view. Whatever one may think of nationalism, it is a very important political and social phenomenon, and it deserves more serious and careful consideration than it gets in this book. Even so, I give it a three-star rating, because like all of Hobsbawm's books, it is very well written and engaging, and he provides some interesting insights into the ways nationalism became a political force during the late 19th century.
Rating:
Summary: Confirmation for Marxists, but not much analysis
Review: Hobsbawm's metaphysical system, communism, ultimately denies national sentiment. So we can expect, and we do indeed receive, considerable attempts throughout the book to diminish, degrade and put down nationalism -- everything from the anti-intellectual argument that nationalism only began when the word "nation" appeared, to an exegesis of its evils in the 20th century. This bias is made worse by high-handed, hypocritical lecturing at the end of the first chapter about how the social scientist is supposed to be "objective." Phffft! Eric is one of the last people in the world to lecture us on objectivity.
Rating:
Summary: The red menace?
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: The red menace?
Review: 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.
|
