1848 and Aftermath -Nationalism

 The year 1848 can be considered as the beginning of the modern Europe.
In an obscure German paper Karl Marx published
the Communist Manifesto. It was a challenge to the entrenched order
that was at best benevolent but despotic and exploitative.

It all began with violent
changes across the channel. In England was the Chartism and in Franc
Louis Philippe had been removed from the French throne in February 1848,
and revolutions
were soon to convulse other European capitals.

In early 1848 none of the greater states of Europe functioned as democracies. Britain, where about one-in-five adult males (in England) had voting rights, and France, where voting rights were allowed to very wealthy men, amounting to about one-in-two-hundred of all adult males, were the least undemocratic. The other greater states of Éurope – the “Austrian” Habsburg Empire, Prussia and Russia operated as absolute monarchies where such Assemblies of Notables, Congregations or Diets, as were authorised to convene were understood to have administrative or consultative roles rather than political or legislative powers.   The European Revolutions of 1848 represent a widespead emergenc of situations, across much of Europe, where populist human aspirations variously sought constitutional, liberal, nationalist or socialistic changes in society often at the cost of traditionally influential dynastic or religious authorities. In February 1948, the British historian Lewis Namier (1888–1960) delivered a lecture commemorating the centennial of the European Revolutions of 1848. In this lecture Namier presented facts about the historical developments and themes evident in 1848 and reached the conclusion that:- “1848 remains a seed-plot of history. It crystallized ideas and projected the pattern of things to come; it determined the course of the following century.” Heartened by the French example a national revolt under the legendary Lajos Kossuth demanding a parliamentary government for Hungary and constitutional government for the rest of Habsburg Empire. As a result number of revolts sent Metternich out of power and ripples as far as Italy. The movement for Hungarian Independence lost by two reasons. Austria and Prussia despite their long running feud closed their ranks to protect the divine rights of their rule, Secondly the Czechs ,Romanians and Serbs within the empire resisted thus proving the ethnic minorities were the Achilles heel in the body of Nationalism. Cluster principle shows how impossible Nationalism is at heart. How can one divide mankind into labels? If Nationalism goes about to create a nation instantly there shall be cluster of divisions by the same argument that shall be on ethnic, sectarian lines. Here we see a paradox that works even this day. Hungarian nationalism of Kossuth was generously liberal; in combating the national feelings of the Slavs and other minorities in their midst the Hungarians were as illiberal as nationalists elsewhere. Earlier the Enlightenment and the French Revolution had declared the rights of man. “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.” But it was another principle that spurred the Nationalism. “The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body or individual can exercise authority, if it does not take its origin from the nation.” This is what Hitler as der Fuehrer demanded from the Germans and got.The exaltation of nationalism had set a conflagration in order to create great catastrophes. Shall Putin treat Ukraine as Hitler did in his time?(ack: age of the sage.org) benny

 

Read Full Post »