In the very dense and lengthy talk by Willian H. McNeil, he gives a global history of the world from the social dynamics of slavery, cultural homogeneity, and the finally to nationalism. In the beginning, he looks into the different societies throughout history, comparing nomadic societies to agricultural societies throughout the Middle East and Asia. Since the advent of agriculture and cities they social dynamics changed as well as the way the structures of society manifested differently. Interestingly, he does mention the factor or disease and the effects it had on societies throughout time.
McNeil briefly touches on Japan and East Asian countries. He stresses that due to Japan's isolation, it allowed for more homogeneity within culture and gave them much more of a basis of nationalistic tendencies than other nations.
What I found fascinating was his analysis on China. With their adoption of Confucian values, McNeil claims that this ideological shift was one of the reasons why Chinese civilizations survived wars and calamity.
In the second portion of his talk, McNeil investigates nationalism and its impact on cultures. In this portion of his talk, McNeil was just way too tangential and convoluted. Jumping from French cultural homogeneity to Britain, then to Irish, then to Holland within a couple of pages was way too superficial and I had no idea where he was going in respects to nationalism. Nevertheless, I think he was trying to state that due to the factors of mass communication, mass militarization, and population growth of a specific locale gave rise to a unitary national identity.
Though he briefly touch based on religion, I would say that religion has a large impact on national identity. In regards to the Orthodox Church (Eastern Churches), national identity is a huge factor of designation as well as the different sects of Islam. In a dialectical argument, I think his argument was that location and ideological shifts as well as social factors such as population and cross-communication with trade gave rise to nationalist tendencies. I would agree to a large extent.
I think religion is important to national culture. Today, in america, religion has taken a back seat. In the past, and in other cultures religion is an important part of the nation. It is why people respond in certain ways, to certain reactions, and why countries have certain laws.
ReplyDelete