| |
| | Ernest Renan, "What is a Nation?" |
 | | That is, Renan appears to agree with Hobsbawm, although R. thinks they date back perhaps to the Treaty of Verdun of 843 (which, according to the Columbia Encyclopedia, “represented the beginning of dissolution of Charlemagne’s empire into political units that foreshadowed the nations of Western Europe. |
 | | Renan writes later [204] that “Nowadays it is a good, and even a necessary, thing that nations should exist” and thus appears to be arguing that it is justified to create a false history as an exercise in nation-building, an odd thing for someone who elsewhere praises “reason, justice, truth” [197] so highly. |
 | | We are told by certain political theorists that a nation is, above all, a dynasty representing a former conquest that has been at first accepted, and then forgotten, by the mass of the people. |
| spruce.flint.umich.edu /~simoncu/385/Renan.htm (1058 words) |
|