I. Activating Prior Knowledge

People have used various forms of political systems throughout world  history. Modern nation-states developed in Europe in the 1600s and 1700s.  Absolute monarchs with vast power and wealth ruled countries such as France and Russia. At the same time in England, attempts were made to limit royal power and  to protect the rights of some of the people. There was tension between  absolutism and this limited form of democracy. Each of these systems of  governments had its advantages and disadvantages.

II.  Setting A Purpose for Reading
As you read this excerpts, what form of government was most effective –
democracy or absolute monarchy – for the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in  Europe? 

III. Reading the Text (Read, Re-read, and Read Again)

Excerpt #1. – Niccolo Machiavelli – The  Prince, 1513 (adapted)
For all men in general this observation may be made: they are ungrateful, fickle,
and deceitful, eager to avoid dangers, and avid for gain, and while you are useful to them they are all with you, but when it [danger] approaches, they turn  on you. Any prince, trusting only in their works and having no other  preparations made, will fall to ruin, for friendships that are bought at a price  and not by greatness and nobility of soul are paid for indeed, but they are not  owned and cannot be called upon in time of need. Men have less hesitation in  offending a man who is loved than one who is feared, for love is held by a bond  of obligation which, as men are wicked, is broken whenever personal advantage suggests it, but fear is accompanied by the dread of punishment, which never  relaxes.

Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read  the passage. According  to Machiavelli, what type of ruler must the prince be? Why is it necessary for  him to rule in this manner?

Excerpt  #2. – King James I of England in 1609
The state of the monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God’s lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God Himself  they are called gods…Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a  …divine power upon earth…God hath power to create or destroy, make or unmake at His pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all, and to be judged nor  accountable to none; to raise low things, and to make high things low at His pleasure…And the like power have kings.

Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read
the passage. What  type of government does King James describe? Why does he believe it should be organized in this way?

Excerpt #3 – King Louis XIV of France in 1660.
The head alone has the right to deliberate and decide, and the functions of all the  other members consist only in carrying out the commands given to them. …The more you grant … [to the assembled people], the more it claims … The interest of the state must come first. 

Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read
the passage. What  type of government does King Louis describe? What analogy does King Louis use to  make his point? Why does he recommend this type of  government?

Excerpt #4 – Voltaire, a French philosopher of the 1700’s.
I  may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say
it … The best government seems to be that in which all ranks of men are equally
protected by the laws…

Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read
the passage. What  type of government does Voltaire recommend? What specific freedom does he feel  is essential?

Excerpt #5 – Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, 1748 (adapted).
Although the forms of state –monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy – were united in English government, the powers of government were separated from one another. There can be no liberty where the executive, legislative, and judicial powers are united in one person or body of persons, because such concentration is bound  to result in arbitrary despotism.

Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read
the passage. What type of government does Montesquieu describe? Why does he believe it should be organized in this way?

IV. Personal Reflection - Respond  to the following questions in your blog. Be sure to include quotes from the text  to support your response.

Part 1 Response – Based on your reading of these excerpts and other documents, what is the best form of government? Be sure to give the name of the philosopher and his belief that most  influenced your opinion.

Part 2 Response  – If you could create an ideal or perfect government, how would it  work?

Part 3 Response  – Historians and political scientists often discuss the “Divine Right of Kings.”  What is meant by the “Divine Right of Kings?” Be sure to use information from  the excerpts to support your response.

 V. Peer Reflection – Read  one classmates’ reflections and respond to what they have written. You may  choose to agree or disagree with their response. However, you must give  sufficient and supported reasons for your opinion.

Source:  Noonan, Theresa C. Document-Based  Assessment for Global History. Portland: Walch, 2007. 85-89.

Picture Source: www.goodreads.com

I. Activating Prior Knowledge

Johann Gottfried von Herder (1774-1803) was a philosopher and cultural anthropologist. He was one of the first to discuss in detail nationalism and its importance. Since Herder’s writings were originally in German, we will be reading an essay by Richard White of Creighton University, entitled Herder: On the Ethics of Nationalism.
Source:
White, Richard. Herder: On the Ethics of Nationalism. Humanitas. 18.1-2 (2006). http://www.phillwebb.net/history/modern/Herder/Herder.htm
 
II. Setting A Purpose for Reading
 
As you read this article, you need to compare these ideas to those of the Enlightenment. How were Herder’s ideas and beliefs similar or different from those espoused by Enlightenment thinkers?

III. Reading the Text (Read, Re-read, and Read Again)
 
Excerpt #1.
J.G. Herder was a leading thinker in what Isaiah Berlin has described as the “Counter-Enlightenment.” Herder was not opposed to the scientific and political  progress celebrated by Enlightenment thinkers like Hume, Voltaire, and Kant. But he was committed to the absolute value and integrity of all the different  peoples of the world, and instead of proclaiming a universal model of progress  and civilization, he insisted on the need to understand each culture on its own  terms and as an organic unity: “Each nation has its centre of happiness within  itself, just as every sphere has its own centre of gravity.” And, he explains, “human nature is not the vessel of an absolute, unchanging and independent  happiness, as defined by the philosopher; everywhere it attracts the measure of  which it is capable: it is a pliant clay which assumes a different shape under  different needs and circumstances.”…Herder believes that the nation is the  natural basis of the state, and so he supported the right of any given people to  self determination.

Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read the passage. What  are the similarities and differences between Herder and the Enlightenment  thinkers?

Excerpt  #2.
Herder affirms the ontological priority of the different peoples or nations of the  world: “It is nature which educates families: the most natural state is, therefore, one nation, an extended  family with one national character.” He argues that each nation is the  embodiment of a unique culture and a particular way of live, and in this way  each culture may be viewed as a unique expression of humanität  (or the human essence). He also claims that it is the nation (or Volk)
that provides the most basic and original horizon for understanding and  interpreting the world, and it is only insofar as we belong to a particular  people that we can begin to make sense out of life. Thus, to be exiled or alientated from one’s Volk can be spiritually disastrous, for the individual is nothing without the community that  has nurtured and supported her and from which she takes all her bearings. Indeed, “Some sensitive people feel so intimately close to their native country, and so much attached to its soil, that they can scarcely live if separated from it.” Hence the evil of forcing Africans to leave their homeland to work as  slaves in America; hence the danger, also cited frequently by Herder, of
rootless cosmopolitianism and spiritual abandonment;

Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read
the passage. Based on what you have read, how does the concept of “nation” impact our daily lives?

Excerpt #3.
In specifying what it is that constitutes the essence of a nation, Herder admits  the influence of climate, like Montesquieu and others before him, but he argues  that a nation is really made one by common traditions, an enduring way of life  and a collective memory that is ultimately grounder in a particular language.  And the latter is the natural power that integrates people within a particular  community and provides the ultimate horizon of all meaning and understanding for  them. “For every distinct community is a nation,” he writes, “having its own national culture as it has its own language. The climate, it is true may imprint  on each its peculiar stamp, or it may spread over it a slight veil, without  destroying, however, its original national character.” 
 
Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read
the passage. According  to this passage, what are the characteristics of a
“nation?”

Excerpt #4.
For the most part, before Herder, modern philosophers sought to justify the state
through the fiction of a social contract conceived in terms of individual  self-interest. According to Hobbes, Locke, and Kant, this meant that the state  was a necessary evil but not a positive good. For Herder, on the other hand, the  nation is the ground of the state, every different nation or people should have  its own state, and without a common national identity the state must be a “cold  monster” that imposes its rule from without. Once again, Herder grasped the  necessity of a shared community which involves more than just the equality of  rights and procedures, for the latter can never create a common sense of loyalty  and belonging. For Herder, it is the nation that provides us with a positive  sense of association, and it is a natural, not an artificial, unit of humanity.  The final point is Herder’s emphasis on cultural diversity as the natural and  best state of affairs. Each people has its own genius and provides a uniquely  valuable expression of humanität.  There is no universal culture of humankind, and the so-called “underdeveloped” or “primitive”cultures should in no way be regarded as irrelevant or having been superseded by the European enlightenment ideal.

 …What Herder understood, and what the Enlightenment thinkers did not, is the
importance of a sense of belonging. And the latter exists only insofar as we  live within a particular culture in a particular place and at a particular time  in history. Every people and every culture, we should say, draws its own horizon  around itself; and in the context of this particular framework of myths,  customs, traditions, and language, they continually re-create themselves and the culture to which they belong. Thus Enlightenment philosophers, like Kant, may  pride themselves on their universal concepts of human nature, but these are  really nothing more than their own particular ideals; they are an expression of  modern European culture, which the supporters of the Enlightenment wanted to  foist upon all other peoples.

Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read
the passage. Summarize the difference between Herder’s views on the “state” compared with those of the  Enlightened thinkers of the time.

Excerpt #5.
Summarized from the text. – There were three main problems with Herder’s ideas on  nationalism. 

1. Herder believed that nations are mostly culturally homogeneous. While his ideas allowed for cultural diversity, they were predicated on the fact that there was  a dominant culture that all members could acknowledge and accept. 

2. Herder placed a great deal of emphasis on “cultural determinism” with very  little consideration to the role that government and economy play within the  development and organization of a nation. Herder did not allow for the  interrelationship between nations with regards to trade and  security.

3. Herder placed too much emphasis on the importance of the nation and nationalist  sentiment and did not allow for the fact that people may identify with more  than one group or subgroup and that these relationships may take on more  importance than the nationalist identity at any given point in time or  situation.

Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read  the passage. Given  the problems with Herder’s arguments, would he see the United States of America  as a nation?

IV. Personal Reflection - Respond to the following questions in your blog. Be sure to include quotes from the text  to support your response.

Part 1 Response – Based on  your reading of this and other documents, what is a “nation?” Be sure to give  the name of the philosopher and his belief that most influenced your  understanding of a “nation.”

Part 2 Response – According to Herder’s beliefs, can we consider the United States of America “a nation?”If so, what common cultural elements do we all share? What does it mean to be an “American?”

Part 3 Response – There are two common analogies used to describe the nationalistic tendencies of the United States of America. The first is the “Melting Pot.” This maintains  that people from all over the world come to this country, bringing their unique  cultural flavor, and that it gets cooked together to form the “American Soup  (American Culture).” The second is the “Salad Bowl.” This maintains that people  from all over the world come to this country, bringing their unique cultural  flavor, and they are tossed together – each maintaining their individual  culture but form the “American Salad (American Culture).” Which analogy do you  see is the best way to describe America’s sense of “nationalism?” What are some  of the problems with the analogy you selected? How do we as a country deal with  these problems?

V. Peer Reflection – Read one classmates’ reflections and respond to what they have written. You may choose to
agree or disagree with their response. However, you must give sufficient and
supported reasons for your opinion.