The Politics of Propaganda: Nationalism
I.
Nationalism defined. Nationalism is a modern notion:
A. nationalism defined—According to Encarta Dictionary, nationalism is three things:
1. desire for political independence: the desire to achieve political independence,
especially by a country under foreign control or by a people with a separate
identity and culture but no state of their own
2. patriotism: proud loyalty and devotion to a nation
excessive devotion to nation: excessive or fanatical devotion to a nation and its interests,
often associated with a belief that one country is superior to all others
B. The growth of the nation-state in the nineteenth century—this is important,
because nationalism is not dated in the OED until 1836; that is, first known usage
of the term only begins during the period we have discussed intensively of new
imperialism, scientific racism AND the development of the Balance of Power in
Europe. It’s also important when we discuss the growth of indigenous
nationalism in various colonized areas in the 20th century.
1. Now you might be asking yourself this question: didn’t nations, like
England, France, China and Japan PREDATE this period. Yes, that’s true,
but the idea of the nation as an object of adoration, of becoming a patriot,
of defining oneself in relation to political borders, language and shared
history really begins in the nineteenth century in ways that it couldn’t
under large empires like the Ottomans.
2. Nationalism includes the following elements:
a. a desire to live in a “historic homeland”
b. common language and ethnicity
c. common culture (like religious and other cultural practices)
given these elements of nationalism, we see how there will be a lot of
transitioning going on in the nineteenth century and how ignoring these
desires will lead to some pretty intense nationalist feuds. The idea of the
“nation” is part of Enlightenment, or late eighteenth-century, ideals.
Emerged in a VERY basic form with the American and French
Revolutions, but it really took off in the late nineteenth century with the
rise of imperialism and the creation of two European states, Italy and
Germany. Part of nationalism is drawing borders around “desires”—of
creating an “us” vs. “them” (or self vs. other) mentality in order to unify
the people in one location based on shared customs and traits.
Nationalism tended to unify people under the idea of a “nation” rather than
getting (or giving) allegiance to a dynasty (kind and queens and such) or
to a city-state (a kind of localism). So, to redescribe the desires:
There were certain desires of people to mesh culturally with others like
them, to unify a group of people as a “nation”: These desires are
encapsulated into three categories:
1. to live with those of the same ethnicity—very much a racial category.
nationalism/propaganda
page 2
Germans in the 19th cetnruy wanted to live with other Germanic peoples,
not with Slavs (Bosnians, etc.) or any other group
2. to live with those who speak the same language—they also wanted to be
united linguistically. While there may be many dialects, there are certain
characteristics of a language (like French or German or Italian) that one
could conceivably call a “mother tongue.”
3. to live on a “historic” homeland—nationalists, especially political
nationalists, wanted to bring the cultures together on a homeland that they
belived has some type of historic significance. It also shows how culture
(first two) meshes with boundaries. Thus, in the 19th century, Germanic
peoples and Italian peoples wanted to unify under single nation-states
rather than live in lots of separate principalities. This unification occurred
in 1861 (Italy) and 1871 (Germany) Moreover, other ethnic groups in
Europe at the time fought for national self determination. For example,
the Austro-Hungarian Empire ruled by the Habsbugs was a multi-ethnic
empire ruled by a German minority/dynasty. The declining Ottoman
Empire based in Istanbul was also a multi-ethnic empire that included
Southern Europeans, North Africans and Arabs as part of their
constituents. Thus, Hungarians and other Eastern and Southern Europeans
fought for the right to have their own nation, comprised of their own
peoples in their homeland—and NOT be subject to the rule of someone
“different” from them.
II.
III.
How propaganda?
A. Propaganda defined—according to the OED, propaganda is defined as
B. Rise of access to this kind of information
i. the world shrinking
ii. associating with large community
iii. unified language
iv. pledges to help
Case Study: Yugoslavia
A. "Pre" history – 1918
The Balkans under the Ottomans and the Austro-Hungarians
Remember that the Ottoman Empire (a Muslim state) was very large at one point and was
VERY multi-ethnic. It allowed people of other religions and ethnicities to live safely in
their empire with only a nominal penalty (yearly taxation).
Well, from the 17th century, the Ottoman Empire began to break down, and the Serbs (in
the area known as Serbia) ousted the Ottomans from the Balkans in the nineteenth
century.
Who lived in the Balkans?
Serbs (Orthodox, Cyrillic alphabet, had an independent nation in "Serbia")
Croats(RC, Roman alphabet, lived in Croatia as a province of the Hapsburgs)
Bosnians(Muslim, but turf was inhabited by Serbs, Croats and Muslims), in 1908
annexed by Austria.
nationalism/propaganda
page 3
Serbs and Croats spoke the same language, they understood each other, they just wrote it
down differently. In the nineteenth century, greatly influenced by the emergent ideology
of nationalism. To be free of foreign rule, to live with others of the same ethnicity and to
occupy a "historic homeland"
PAN-SLAVISM, is a part of this nationalism, connected to Russians as their little sibling
in a way, quite similar to Japan/China idea. Serbs saw themselves as the people to unite
other "South Slavs into a single state
After WWI, the victors (the Allied Powers) created a "South Slav" state comprised of all
of these ethnicities and called it "Yugoslavia." It's a confederation of all the South Slav
groups
Lived all mixed in cities, for example, Sarajevo had c. 40% of marriages that were mixed.
WWII Germans set up a puppet gov't under the Croatians (RC, so close ties to Germany)
and there was lots of resistance by the Serbs
B. Tito and CommunismTito—Unity is really maintained under Marshal Tito and
the Communist Party. Before, we had Serbs and Croats on opposite sides of the
war, he established a confederation The Communist Party—Yugoslavia became,
through indigenous developments, and not forced by Stalin or whatever, a oneparty state. Moreover, Tito was very cautious of the ethnic stuff. He established
a new "national" language called Serbo-Croatian, united the already linguistically
united groups. Furthermore, he divided territory over which ethnic group was
the largest and gave lots of autonomy to those regions. It was a delicate balance,
obtained by having gov't officials of "other" ethnic backgrounds installed in these
regions as well.
The Cold-War Contenders—Additionally, Yugoslavia held a supreme spot as a
sort of middleman between East and West during the Cold War. As a communist
state, it was part of the Soviet bloc, but it was also independent. Once the Cold
War ended in 1991 with the breakdown of the Soviet Union, this prime position
no longer existed and it showed in the economy of the country
C. Collaboration
D. Tito Unified ethnics, post 1945
E. Death of Tito, death of unityThe Serbian-Croatian disputes—in 1990, the new
leader of the Croatians, Tudjman, blamed all the problems on the Serbians. He
wanted to ban the cyrillic alphabet, which was a big gesture (but only a gesture,
since not used by a lot of people). Did this in response to the new leader of
Yugoslavia Slobodan Milošević. He saw himself as the new unifier and to do
that required repression. Anyway, the rise of Milošević led to increased ethnic
divisions.
Ethnic Divisions once Tudjman declared a desire to get rid of Cyrillic, this played
on overseas ethnic pride, and therefore stirred Serbain fears. For a long time though
(1987-1990) these crude ethnic appeals didn't dell well. There was a reservoir of
hatred, especially in rural areas, but also a strong tradition of mixing together. But all
that changed once Croatia and Slovenia declared independence. They were soon
followed by Bosnia and Herzogovina and Montenegro. The problem is here, 'cause
once the principle of an ethnic state is set up, it shows that no minority is safe. Big
cities like Sarajevo for awhile continued to resist, but what happened is that a steady
nationalism/propaganda
page 4
stream of refugees from the various small towns and villages started to pour in. Then
they began to take their identity more seriously
F. The Bosnian WarsEthnic "cleansing" and the Bosnian war—Ethnic cleansing is
what we see now and was a major part of the creation of these ethnic independence
movements. For the most part, the Serbs have been blamed, but we do see it on other
fronts as well. Ethnic cleansing is not just killing people, although that is a major part
of it. It is three things.
1. Coercion to leave—life is made uncomfortable for you til you leave. Story of the
kids and the guns
2. Forcibly removed from your homes. What we are seeing in the past two weeks is
evidence of this. They are being forced to leave Kosovo under threats of death.
Many reports of killings are coming out of the area. Being wakened in the middle
of the night or hiding in a basement until the police find you and throw you out
and put you on a train.
3. Killing. Lining people up and killing them. Taking the men and adolescent boys
to prevent the creation of a present or future army and killing them. Putting
people on trucks, telling them they are going to a camp and then opening fire on
one of the trucks killing everyone inside. A feeling that you are never safe.
4. From Dayton Accords to "Crisis in Kosovo"—The Dayton Accords, 1995—The
Dayton accords marked the end of the Bosnia War. It was a UN forced truce to
stop the fighting. The problem with the Accords however is that they, like the
independence movements that helped precipiate the war announced that there
WERE ethnic states. Once they said that, there is no future of peace.
5. Any peace? How do you eliminate everyone to obtain a "purely" ethnic state? A
general consensus that if the UN ever leaves the area, the same thing will happen
again. And note, the UN began pulling out last year and we saw immediately
occurring in the province of Kosovo, and it is still going on. Now we have NATO
in there.
6. NATO recriminations—it's tougher having NATO and NOT the UN since it's
only a European alliance that is forcing the Serbs to back down, not the alliance of
the world's nations
IV.
How related to us?
A. nationalists use the media. I'm providing a case study of the generation of
nationalism. This is context for the film we'll be viewing next week so you'll
have background information before we watch it.
B. we're moving beyond the confines of historical writing