Talk:Nationalization of history

Is this a fork?

This new article seems to overlap significantly with the existing article, Historiography and nationalism. rather than create a content fork, might it be wise to integrate this material into the existing article.

Comments welcome. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

National history does not have to be nationalistic. That is main difference with Historiography and nationalism.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – There is opinion that this article is maybe a fork. I wrote my argument why I believe it is not. Comments are welcomed, but since I am very much convinced that this is not fork, if not commented within a week I will consider this solved, especially because I added significant number of national histories (that are not to be mistaken with nationalism, of course) links in "see also" subtitle. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see your distinction between Nationalization of history and nationalist historiography. The topics found in this article: The establishment of national states, the creation of national identities, the demarcation of frontiers, the establishment of national curricula, the providing a basis for national awakenings and mythologies, are all elements of what is commonly known as nationalist historiography.

Perhaps we're having language problems or different regional perceptions: Eastern Europeans tend to see nationalism as a "good thing" in opposition to Soviet internationalism while, since the defeat of Nazi Germany, Americans and Western Europeans have tended to see nationalism as a "bad thing" associated with various racist movements.

In any event, it seems that both articles are discussing nationalist historiography, its causes and consequences. A merger still seems like a good idea. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am inexperienced user on en wikipedia and I guess I need help about this matter. There certainly is term "nationalization of history" that is used in historiography. I think I listed quite credible sources to support this. If there is a term used in historiography that describes process of separation of national histories from Universal histories, then existence of this term should not be ignored and I believe that this term deserves article that defines and describes it. Significant part of article Nationalism and historiography describes nationalism and national histories (not historiography, except fourth subtitle), and it is quite well written. Maybe it would be good idea to move part of the text from Nationalism and historiography into this article? I propose to consider that idea because title of the article (Nationalism and historiography) does not fully corresponds with its text (it is not describing historiography, but mainly history), therefore parts (first three subtitles) that are not connected with historiography, but with history itself, maybe should be moved to this article? It seems to me that it would be more logical to move text that deals with history to article that deals with history, then to move text about history to article about historiography. Comments are welcomed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

History is not my profession but only my field of interest and of course, my english is not my advantage. Thanks in advance for your patience. My point is that I see history and historiography as two distinctive items that both can be influenced by nationalism. If I am right, then such influence deserves different articles, one that deals with nationalism and its effect on history, and another that deals with nationalism and its effect on historiography. Based on your userpage, SteveMcCluskey, I conculde that I can trust your final decision (please consider what I wrote here about difference between history and historiography) and whatever you propose, I will accept.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please dont mind me adding one more statement. Maybe it can help my point to state that there are few other terms used in historiography to describe processes connected with effect that nationalism had on history. If there is denationalization of history and re-nationalization of history, there have to be nationalization of history. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

IMO readers would have better access to the information with just one article on the topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Unless those sections of article are too big for this article denationalization of history and re-nationalization of history should remain in one article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicization?

Since term ethnicization has been mentioned in only few articles and books, I am going to delete it from the first sentence, also according to comment on peer review page.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What a dumb thing to say

Nationalist discourse in Croatia presents the Bleiburg tragedy as an event where only Croatians suffered and died just because they were Croatians

LOL no, nobody claims that victims were only Croats and that they died just because they were Croats. Actually, nationalist discourse highlights the fact that many murderers were Croats brainwashed by communist ideology. And that many modern leftist politicians had family members among these murderers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.124.28 (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

I was trying to fix a couple things up here, but for this one sentence, I really don't know what the intention was : "In cases when history was reinterpreted and filtered by the media and official orthodoxy there is a situation in which nationalization of history leads to its denial". In particular, I'm confused about what "its" refers to (and I'm sure a lot of other readers would be too). What is being denied?--Yalens (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nationalization of history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213141742/http://www.uni-leipzig.de/zhsesf/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=29 to http://www.uni-leipzig.de/zhsesf/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=29
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123234924/http://doaks.org/publications/doaks_online_publications/Nature/natur010.pdf to http://www.doaks.org/publications/doaks_online_publications/Nature/natur010.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge Nationalization of history and Nationalist historiography

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge on the grounds of no consensus in support of the merge, clear opposition based on arguments of independent notability, and discussion stale. Klbrain (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

---

The articles Nationalization of history and Nationalist historiography cover the same topics in different ways and should be merged. A much improved article could then be built, perhaps positioned as a sub-article to Nationalism studies, with reference to similar concepts such as Ethnosymbolism and Primordialism. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Antidiskriminator, Ruhrfisch, SteveMcCluskey, and Dbachmann: as major contributors to these articles and related previous discussions. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - The topic is not the same. One covers the process and other covers the result. Ie Serbianisation and Serbs. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I recognize you wrote this article. The other article does not cover the result, it covers the process, just in a different way. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The topics of Nationalist historiography corresponds to its name, which is the result of the process of Nationalization of history.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

So you agree the other article is about the process. And the first sentence of this article says "Nationalization of history is the term used in historiography to describe the process...".

In the thread at the top of this page you appeared to agree that one article might serve the reader better.

The article underwent a peer review in 2010; the peer reviewer stated "this looks like it could be a fork to me"

Rather than continuing a semantic debate, perhaps we can discuss some detail:

• This article has a clear scope. The other article is a bit of a mess at the moment, and its intended scope it unclear. The name "Nationalist historiography", to which it was unilaterally moved last year without discussion, makes little sense.
• This article would benefit from the scholarly discussion at Nationalist_historiography#Origins_of_national_histories and Nationalist_historiography#Study of nationalist historiographies. The points in there are missing here and are critical to any description of the nationalization of history
• The examples given at Nationalist_historiography#Nationalism_and_ancient_history would fit perfectly into the current narrative here.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Onceinawhile (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. One article describes the result and the other process. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I also disagree that the new title of Nationalist historiography has little sense. It clarified the scope of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It did not clarify, it purportedly changed the scope but without changing the article. In the year since the move was made there have been zero changes to the text of the article.

Anyway, to be specific:

The other article's content covers a lot of ground, including "the process" (per the sections I linked above) not just "the result" as you keep saying.

This article has a large section on "the result" called Nationalization_of_history#Legacy_of_nationalization_of_history

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not say just the result. Its normal that article about the result also presents short bacground about the process. That does not mean that it covers both topics.

I think I gave a clear explanation for my position and I don't think there is more to add to it at this point of discussion. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Support merge on the grounds of both overlap and context, noting that it is helpful to discuss the end result as well as the process by which is this achieved, as long as the combined article is not too big. Current pages are at 36k and 18k, so even if we don't consider consolidation the merged page would be of reasonable size. Klbrain (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not think that subjects have a large overlap. The process of Nationalization of history precedes Nationalist historiography. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose related but non-identical concepts. One is a method by which the other occurs. --Calthinus (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nationalization of history merge

Some expert eyes at Talk:Nationalization of history#Merge Nationalization of history and Nationalist historiography would be appreciated; the question is whether Nationalist historiography is a sufficiently distinct topic to warrant treatment separately from Nationalization of history. The discussion has gone on for some time, but with few contributors, and consensus is unclear. Klbrain (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

8 Oct 24

Hi @Andrevan, hope it’s okay to ping you.

Just regarding the recent edit, I do understand your concern regarding the eurocentrism, although that is the predominant view of nationalist scholars. My problem with the sentence as it was (and now is again) is that the idea “national” history can be traced to all parts of history is itself a symptom of the nationalisation of history (and is itself unsourced).

That said, I wonder if there is a way we can work around that to incorporate the other changes, the additional info and copy edits. The prose in that section is quite poor as is. Yr Enw (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree the whole portion was largely unsourced, but I'd rather you remove all of it than just remove part of it and leave another unsourced part as the sole sentence. I also don't agree about the French Revolution theory of national history applying to all cases of history. While that is certainly a common one, there are also contrasting views. For example, some are later, such as former Soviet Republics. Some are earlier. Andre🚐 06:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

How would you feel about removing the entirety of the first para and just starting from the edits I added? Yr Enw (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the entirety of the first para, but I don't agree with the removals of the Georgia/Ukraine stuff, because those are important counterpoints to the idea that nationalization of history was an entirely 18th/19th century phenomenon. The nationalization of Ukrainian history is recent, like the 1980s-1990s[1][2] And I think NPOV means we need to seek out some balancing material to explain how nationalization of history was different for different groups. I agree that much of the source material talks about Western European nationstates, but not everyone supports the modernist view[3] For example, this article [4] about Bulgarian history seems pretty relevant, if specific. These are just a few ideas. I think some of your edits were improvements and I agree with removing the unsourced para, but please keep an eye on the balance. Andre🚐 20:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

From memory, I did retain the Georgia Ukraine stuff, but I’d have to check. I’ll have a think about wording and get back to you. Thanks for the reply. Yr Enw (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, you’re right, I did. But that’s because I thought they’d fall under the same banner as the Revolutions of 1989 and post-USSR sentence. Yr Enw (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I do think the Georgia Ukraine stuff is subsumed under the post-communist/1989 sentence. I'm not sure those specific examples necessarily warrant special mention, but I suppose we could work some text out if you'd rather they did. So, the changed sections would read:

Many various reasons, depending on the circumstances, caused the nationalization of history. Romantic nationalism played an important role. In some countries, nationalization of history was part of the "invention of tradition," while in others, it was an element of the so-called "national renaissance" or "national awakening." The efforts of 19th-century historians provided the intellectual foundations for both justifying the creation of new nation states and the expansion of already existing ones. As Georg Iggers notes, nineteenth-century historians were often highly partisan and "went into the archives to find evidence that would support their nationalistic and class preconceptions and thus give them the aura of scientific authority." Even for nationalisms still without states, historians sought historical bases for claims to nationhood to justify the creation of such states.

...

With the emerging of national states, a global universal approach to writing history lost ground to the nation-state and was very much captured by it even in a significant part of the 20th century. The professionalization and institutionalization of history that occurred during the 19th and first half of the 20th century was closely connected with the process of history's increasing nationalization. The nationalization of history was additionally entrenched by the development of national curricula in schools based on "monumental and prestigious" series of "authoritative" national stories, often written in an insular style and often in a justificatory manner.

After the First World War, the principle of national self-determination was institutionalized through border demarcation. Therefore, it was felt necessary to establish the national historical character of certain territories and settlements, for example Germany and Poland, where numerous historians prepared short studies in an attempt to support certain territorial demands.

...

After the Revolutions of 1989, the nationalization of history was used as a tool for resisting former communist historiography in favor of national "rediscovery" Yr Enw (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)