I want to give a huge thank you to everyone who supports me through Patreon and channel memberships. Without their enduring support, making videos this time and resource intensive would not be possible. If you want to chip in you can find it here: https://www.patreon.com/rchapman. Video notes below.

For those wondering why I focused on France and not the United States, remember that this video was about nationalism. Nationalism was not a significant force in the United States during its founding period. A nation was founded when the United States was created (a newly conceived one American people as a body politic) but it was a nation that emphasized federalism: a federation of states. Political identity and political power, at the time of the revolution was still mostly conceived through those states. In the revolutionary period people still called themselves Virginians, for example, and not Americans. They were generally wary of coming together as one nation, and it was a project that they were generally ready to abandon (for example if the slavery issue was pressed too hard, or if national power was generally seen as being too strong).

There was nothing like a single sovereign nation that held virtually unchecked domestic power like you had in France, or a leading popular movement that glorified such a development. Something like Article 3 in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man would have been heresy in the United States. The structure of the American government was actually designed with the premise that such a singular national power was tyranny. They framed their government thinking that national level had to be broken up and constrained as much as possible. I'm describing something like anti-nationalism here.

In short, a nation was formed in the United States in the late 18th century, but the nation was a tentative one and you didn't have a clear demonstration of nationalism.

Other notes:

There seems to be a popular misunderstanding in France that the 'impure blood' line in La Marseilles actually refers to the blood of common French people. They're impure because they're not royal. This interpretation claims that the French were excitedly chanting about charging into battle and watering their own fields with their own blood in a defensive war for democracy.

Two main points why it doesn't work: 1) would be a strange army indeed, full of soldiers getting hyped up for war over the prospect of shedding their own blood, not the enemy's, and 2) Lisle (the author) was a royalist and was imprisoned for his beliefs. It doesn't make sense that he would glorify a republican cause as a royalist. It makes even less sense that the republican government would imprison him for royalism if he had just written a popular anthem glorifying republicanism.

Unless I'm missing something, it seems like this interpretation is an attempt to make La Marseilles socially acceptable in the modern world and is not based in facts or reality. I believe what I stated in the video about the 'impure blood' being foreign was correct, however unpolitically correct that is now.

A note for the Pledge of Allegiance section: some seemed to think that I thought I was reciting the 19th century Pledge and pointed out how it had been modified since then. I considered modifications to the Pledge to be an unnecessary detail considering the scope of the video. I was aware I was reciting the modern version of it, and if you were too, then great. I figured that if people didn't realize that it had been changed, it didn't really affect anything and wasn't worth extending the video to address.

Last note - I saw some say I made a mistake categorizing nations in the first section of the video, and say I was actually talking about nation-states. I think if you study the subject and listen closely to what I said you'll find no such mistake occurred. I used the language that is typically used when explaining nationalism. Nations are the broadest unit of the subject and nation-states are the smaller unit within that. When people talk about the spread of nations around the world, they are also talking about the spread of nation-states. When we talk about nations meeting, for example, in the UN, we're talking primarily about a group of people: the nation. When we talk about a representative of the nation of Kenya, we're talking about a representative for a group of people: Kenyans. That nation possesses, or wants to possess, a state. We can also talk about the spread of nation-states, and that's a parallel, closely related story. I talked, for example, about a 'nation of China coming into being,' we're primarily talking about a group of people that politically are recognized as a nation, and also talking about a state that they created. It's correct vernacular. I could have also said 'when the nation-state of China came into being,' but that's a smaller story, specifically referring to China's state. Hope that cleared things up.

- Ryan

Crazy what humans did before arguing in the comments section

I love the purely educational view that you have on these topics, especially with how controversial they are in today’s political climate

It doesn’t matter how bad of a day I’m having, it makes my whole week when Ryan Chapman uploads

I'm Puerto Rican and my family moved us to the US for a few years in my childhood and then moved us back to PR. But I do remember the entire pledge of allegiance specifically because in 2nd grade I was kindnof just tossed into a classroom without speaking the language very well so I'd never heard it before, but I had a teacher that used to give out daily 'tasks' to all of us and they would rotate so everyone got a turn and they were simple things like lead the class to the lunchroom or take attendance and one of them was lead the class in the pledge of allegiance. So finally it came my turn and I panicked because I didn't know the pledge, like nothing I didn't know what we were saying or what it meant and the day before I had to do it I went and told the teacher, hey you might want to change this one with someone else for the week, I don't know the pledge of allegiance. And she looked at me like omg I forgot you weren't born here and had another kid sit next to me the entire week to teach me the pledge and what it meant. I still remember that dude, his name was Robert Bean, but everybody called him Bob and he was cool as shit cuz he sat there with me and patiently taught me this pledge over and over for the week even though I could barely understand him and he could barely understand me. This all happened in the early to mid-90's before the internet was a thing and I've never seen Bob or heard from him again after I moved back to the island so I wasn't able to stay in touch the way kids today can stay in touch. Im not so sure how I feel ahout the US and PR relationship, but Bob was cool and he was good people. Thanks for the help, Bob. You were such a cool dude to me and welcomed me to the country, I hope you're doing well in life!

Mr. Chapman, I am a 43 year old graduate student of American History, and your organization of these concepts are the best I've seen.  Keep it up man!

One thing I wished Ryan would discuss in this video is Nationalism as a reaction to Colonialism. It's the main catalyst for colonized countries to rebel for their independence. It's been very successful in bringing people together and even creating a new international shared identity that is "postcolonialism" which also became the basis for many multinational organizations like Non-Aligned Movement, Asian-African Conference

Babe wake up new Ryan Chapman video dropped

I hope you make a video on "what is conservatism?". You've already made great in-depth videos on socialism, fascism, american liberalism and now nationalism, but not conservatism yet.

In my opinion, nationalism is like a knife. It's morality is not defined by it's existence, but by for what it's used. Is used to prepare a meal, to operate a patient or is it used to slash someones throad. It is an essential and universal tool, that is of great use to those who have it, but should not be used for all the purposes, it can perform.

Nothing more beautiful when nationalism is used with the right intention and only correct intention. Self love and love for your nation

Ryan, these video essays are absolutely needed in this day and age. Most professors would not dare go into deep details what you put in, just the simple base subjects you hear a thousands times in history class but not how it came to be.

I can't begin to describe my gratitude for your work. Terms are thrown around these days without care or understanding, and I love it when you break down each political ideological term, showing history, the idea, and where it can go in extreme forms. You are so clear and neutral in your videos that I truly feel like I'm receiving an education

Nationalism is sooooo back in 2025

Just came from the Johnny Harris video and I must say that this is much better. No fast jump cuts, no jarring effects and transitions. Just pure, raw information.

This is too good to be true. Vague, meaningless philosophical, scientific and political videos no longer intrigues me. But these objective, detailed, well written videos of Ryan truly grasp my attention for an hour straight. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ryan! 😊 I’ve studied this stuff my whole life, across a 10-year academic career—but always a bit of it in an art survey course, a bit in a political science course, a bit in an English lit course, etc. The way you weave these threads together in a way that brings coherence and clarity to a concept never ceases to astound and inspire me. I got so much from this! Thank you for raising my consciousness! You da man. :)

Every day there's a Ryan Chapman video is a day the world gets a little better. Super happy this channel exists!

I love these videos where you chart the evolution of an idea. When you set it out like this, I'm able to recognise some sloppy thinking that I've had around these topics. Nationalism in particular has ideas that seem obvious, but are clearly historically contingent.

halfway though this video i had to stop and remember i am watching a production edited and stiched together to present a set of ideas. it was that immersive. the art, the storytelling, the concepts were all very well woven together. bravo! subscribed.