Nationalism and the Other

I found this week's readings on Post-Colonialism to tie in to our readings from two weeks ago for race and ethnicity studies. Particularly, the readings on nationalism are relevant to our class discussion from that week when we talked questioned how Shelley treats nationality in Frankenstein. We asked if she is in any way contributing to the development of English national identity, and some of us came to the conclusion that she might be critiquing nationalism through the hybridity of the creature. Benedict Anderson argues in "Imagined Communities" that nationalism is a modern phenomenon - created to fill a need for a connection among people who no longer shared the same religion and made possible through print capitalism. Homi K. Bhaba builds off of this by stressing how nationality is narratively produced and not coming from an intrinsic essence. So I again ask, how does nationality figure in Frankenstein. As a work of writing, it might help to narratively produce national identity, or does it combat against the rising idea of nationalism, as some of us argued a few weeks ago? Is Shelley's nationalism/treatment of the other problematic in any way? Furthermore, I want to point out the description of Frantz Fanon's experience in France given by the editors of the Norton. They say that in France, Fanon "found that his service to the French state made no difference to the whites around him, who regarded black French subjects like himself as the Other - as alien and inferior, yet frightening and dangerous. He came to understand that despoite his intelligence, high level of education, and mastery of the French language, he was regarded not as a human being but as a specimen of an exotic and savage race, viewed through stereotypes developed over centuries of racial prejudice" (1437). This description screamed Shelley's monster to me. Even though he is clearly intelligent, has at least some education, and mastery of language, he is regarded as a savage and not a European. What I wonder is if it's possible that we have an other because nationality is developed? Or has there always been an other? I understand Anderson's argument about the development of nationalism, but didn't people always have a sort of patriotism for their nation? In Roman times, conquered peoples were referred to by the state from which they came. And since Fanon writes about the national identity that needs to be created in de-colonized African countries, would this imply that their lack of national identity prior to being colonized is what made them so easy to colonize? The key for Anderson is that this shared identity is "imagined." So for smaller groups such as African tribes, the sense of community is not imagined? I guess what I'm trying to get to through all of these questions is what is the connection, if there is one, between nationalism and the creation of the other?