Nationalism?

[LuisDantas]

I suppose I don't tend to look at it that way, no. I've just seen it as a small component of identity, and an inevitable one at that given all organisms are surrounded by some sort of ecosystem (and for humans, that includes a "cultural" ecosystem or "national" identity).

Are you sure that has much to do with Nationalism? Identity has a whole lot of references, at least potentially. Nation is one of the most artificial of those.

 

[gsa]

And since humans live by myths, it's appropriate that you use a mythic metaphor to express that one.

This giant has, as well, saved endangered cultures and languages from near extinction, and liberated conquered nations from oppressive Empires. Or do you think Tibet should just up and submit to Chinese rule?

None of this nostalgia for the "old world" is new for us, BTW. You can even see it in Beowulf. I, personally, don't have much intention of going to any of my Homelands, because the situations in all of them don't look much better than here, and I'd still be an outsider in any case.

We don't have homelands. Not really. You live and breathe and exist where you do right now, divorced from the anchors of old history, with its forgotten allegiances and enmities. You aren't pulled to England, for example, as a result of some nonexistent collective racial memory that ties you to the land. And it doesn't matter if you are in the old world or the new one, because it is the same. You live where you live, you have the life that you have. There is no organic body of your countrymen that transcends time and space. It is just disparate toiling individuals over time, living their lives, making communities in the here and now, or the then and there if we are talking history.

Nationalism is some strange narrative device that selectively edits the past to create a modern construct of convenience. And unlike other ideologies that exist in more of a vacuum state, this one ties itself to your family and close associates to make it more personally meaningful, to raise the stakes as it were. But it is as illusory as any other abstraction.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This spells out my ultimate opinion on the subject:

 

[Jumi]

I think patriotism is a unique form of brain cancer, that is allowed to spread because a populace enraged at outsiders is a populace ill-armed to question the means by which their own country is governed. I do love my country in the sense that I love the land where I grew up (the actual land, not the idea of it as a island of white capitalist "freedom") and the people I know. Hating someone else's land and people seems so alien to me as to seem like a contradiction in terms. How can I really claim to love the people and land I do without also acknowledging the love that others have for their land and kin? These loves come from the same place, if they are true. If I have an anthem, it's this one:

Although the lyrics are new, interestingly your anthem's original itself comes from a national motivation by composer Jean Sibelius:

Most of the piece is taken up with rousing and turbulent music, evoking the national struggle of the Finnish people. Towards the end, a calm comes over the orchestra, and the serenely melodic Finlandia Hymn is heard.

Here's the original:

It was also adopted the national anthem of Biafra in Africa.

 

[illykitty]

I feel nationalism and patriotism is divisive and for that reason, I don't like it. I never understood being proud of things out of your control, like you didn't chose where you were born. I also feel that it's often fuelled by fear, mainly that of losing cultures. I think because of our past having imperialism which viewed other cultures as inferior and some aspects of globalism, it makes people edgy to think about a world-wide government... Thinking that it would mean that everywhere would be forced to have the same culture and behave the same. We don't have to repeat past mistakes. I do like different cultures, I feel it is something that makes life interesting. Perhaps there's been some failure of communication on all sides, to properly explain what someone means by nationalism and what someone means by one government and such. I suppose it is one reason for making this thread, which I think is a good idea.

We could have world-wide laws (human rights, environmental regulations, etc), economy and/or currency. But with that, we could also have cultural regions which could have some autonomy, with some unique laws (for instance, building regulations for traditional architectural styles which isn't applicable to another region). I don't think this would destroy cultures and perhaps it would even encourage more plurality. I hope I am communicating this right. I typed something longer but I didn't want to derail this. I just want to clear up what I mean by unity and plurality. This is why I am against nationalism, I could be wrong, but I feel there's a different way to look at things which still acknowledges diversity while progressing towards unity.

I'm not so idealistic to think it will happen anytime soon, since there's some countries that still do not have great levels of human rights... But I feel if there's anything to strive for, it should be something like this. After all, we started out as tribes and now we have huge countries. Why would it be such a stretch to think that we could go a few steps further given enough time?

 

[Quintessence]

Are you sure that has much to do with Nationalism? Identity has a whole lot of references, at least potentially. Nation is one of the most artificial of those.

What is this quality of being "artificial?" How does one measure that, and why does it matter? I guess I'm not seeing how this quality of "artificial" is an issue. An "artificial" flower exists and has its beauty as surely as one grown from a plant does (and I'm not sure I'd consider nation to be "artificial" in that way, which is part of why I don't understand how this term applies).

 

[LuisDantas]

What is this quality of being "artificial?" How does one measure that, and why does it matter?

Nationality as I understand it is an arbitrary decree, an imposed stereotype. It intentionally disregards actual ideologies, cultural and ethnic influences in order to provide a convenient, reducionist label that establishes political rights.

Convenient from the perspective of political authorities, that is. Not so much from others.

People can and should learn from others and expose themselves to other cultures. And in so doing, they empty the meaning of their own nationalities. Which is no loss whatsoever.

In reality, people are exposed to a myriad of cultural references and influences and ultimately it is impossible accurately pinpoint which culture they represent or "should" represent. People are raised abroad, live in frontier regions, develop interests in other cultures or fail to be interested in some of their own.

To top it off, nationalities can rarely exist without underplaying both the cultural attributes of its own smaller communities, which can be very constrasting to each other, and the affinities towards other supposedly "foreign" regions.

In reality, people will be all over the place far as national identities go. Their ethnicity and place of birth may be a strong influence, or they may not be. Cultural and familial environments will be much more significant, and of course those tend to be rather heterogeneous and difficult to predict or describe.

The actual significant matters are quite unrelated to those labels. The closest to an objective measure of nationality seems to be a common language - and even there, it is ultimately a very good thing to learn to overcome those barriers as opposed to embracing them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not so idealistic to think it will happen anytime soon, since there's some countries that still do not have great levels of human rights... But I feel if there's anything to strive for, it should be something like this. After all, we started out as tribes and now we have huge countries. Why would it be such a stretch to think that we could go a few steps further given enough time?

With things like the EU, NATO, and UN, I think the next step in the evolution of the state will be something like a "member-state" where states are respected as their own territories with their own ways, customs, traditions, and cultures, but they will belong to a larger governing body that exists to enforce things such as peace and human rights. I think that will be the platform from which a united global state is eventually established.

 

[Quintessence]

Hmm. That's certainly some things to think about.

I have to wonder, though - if one is born in a culture that holds to the idea of nationality, then by virtue of growing up in that environment, the idea comes to hold power. It becomes more of a... real thing for lack of a better way of putting it. It is made significant, and it becomes significant. What do we do with that?

 

[LuisDantas]

Hmm. That's certainly some things to think about.

I have to wonder, though - if one is born in a culture that holds to the idea of nationality, then by virtue of growing up in that environment, the idea comes to hold power. It becomes more of a... real thing for lack of a better way of putting it. It is made significant, and it becomes significant. What do we do with that?

It seems to me that we should seek to honestly teach each other about the advantages and downsides of those concepts and learn to take advantage of them without falling into the traps that they bring.

I personally hope that the end result will be the eventual abandonment or at least strong disregard for the idea, but who knows.

 

[Quintessence]

It seems to me that we should seek to honestly teach each other about the advantages and downsides of those concepts and learn to take advantage of them without falling into the traps that they bring.

I personally hope that the end result will be the eventual abandonment or at least strong disregard for the idea, but who knows.

With respect to how national identity functions for politics and lawmaking, what would replace that for designating citizenship? Does a nation's military become everyone's military? Do all people of the world suddenly have voting rights for all issues pertaining to any area on the planet? Would we render services to people in an area using taxpayer money even if they are not a taxpayer? How would taxes to support public infrastructure even work?

Curious to see what @Saint Frankenstein has to say on this too, given the recent slogan thrown out.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hmm. That's certainly some things to think about.

I have to wonder, though - if one is born in a culture that holds to the idea of nationality, then by virtue of growing up in that environment, the idea comes to hold power. It becomes more of a... real thing for lack of a better way of putting it. It is made significant, and it becomes significant. What do we do with that?

I'd have to ponder that for awhile. For me, it was just learning that the American government is not this magnificent Holy crusader that can do no wrong that I was taught as a kid. I learned our military is used more often to oppress than liberate, our economy means poverty for many in other nations, and we put profits above people. But, it will probably take much more than that to convince others that their state doesn't really give a damn about the values that most people, regardless of nationality, religion, sex, color, and creed, agree to and find ideal and worthy of upholding.

 

[LuisDantas]

With respect to how national identity functions for politics and lawmaking, what would replace that for designating citizenship?

Some sort of mutual support system, I would expect and hope. Something that people might fairly easily decide to leave or enter on their own accord, without necessarily having a clear motive.

Does a nation's military become everyone's military?

While it still exists? I guess so. A major part of it is dissolving national militaries.

Do all people of the world suddenly have voting rights for all issues pertaining to any area on the planet?

Yes. We are already fairly close to it, albeit only informally and with considerable trouble in dealing with that change.

Of course, the challenges here are considerable. Some sort of weight system to take into account the likelihood of people being affected by the decisions more or less directly will be necessary. Hopefully a very informal one.

Would we render services to people in an area using taxpayer money even if they are not a taxpayer?

Most if not all of those services are either ethically mandatory or else truly optional. It seems to me that it is mostly a matter of establishing transparency on the flow of tax money and reconsidering the need and exclusiveness of those services.

How would taxes to support public infrastructure even work?

I wonder if they do at all. It is certainly not a trivial matter.

Even before letting go of nationality as a concept, there seems to be an urgent need to deal in a sober yet mutually cooperative way with the role of taxes and their use. At this point we are effectively in a dispute of narratives about how much tax there should be and how it should be used.

Mainly, I feel that there should be a decentralization of those decisions... but at the same time, that will increase the need for true citizenship, which involves mutual support and the active rejection of isolationism.

Curious to see what @Saint Frankenstein has to say on this too, given the recent slogan thrown out.

Me too.

 

[columbus]

I don't see having a sense of pride, attachment, belonging with your nationality, sex, ethnicity, religion, etc. necessitating negativity towards others or only finding meaning by way of it. It is a very foreign way of thinking to me.

I would take this even further.
As USonians we have huge advantages. That puts a bigger moral obligation to critique our country and it's policies on us than most people.
Same with most first world people. Complaining about your spot on Sugar Mountain when a few billion people are lucky to eat on any given day is ridiculous.
Tom

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

With respect to how national identity functions for politics and lawmaking, what would replace that for designating citizenship? Does a nation's military become everyone's military? Do all people of the world suddenly have voting rights for all issues pertaining to any area on the planet? Would we render services to people in an area using taxpayer money even if they are not a taxpayer? How would taxes to support public infrastructure even work?

Curious to see what @Saint Frankenstein has to say on this too, given the recent slogan thrown out.

The abolition of the State is one of the goals of communism and anarchism. There wouldn't be any money and people would live in what are basically interconnected communes. It's a goal to work towards, not something that happens overnight.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I've been thinking about this topic, and I would hope that if I were a resident of, say, North Korea, I would love my country and my fellow citizens enough to foment rebellion and try to overthrow the oppressive government and military of my land. Would that make me a "nationalist" or a "patriot?" A rebel? A revolutionary?

What if I were North Korean, and loved my country and fellow citizens and decided that the current government of my nation should be supported and maintained, that me and my fellow citizens should sacrifice and do what is necessary to protect and even expand my nation and its influence. Does that make me a nationalist or patriot?

It seems to me that perspective and context has an awful lot to do with our positions on this, how we define and understand patriotism and nationalism, (and rebellion, resistance, revolution, and so on) and how it fits into larger views of the world.

Personally, I don't like the current focus on nation-states, and the talk of a world government frankly chills me. I base my preference for very small government and other organizations on the principles of ecology, which shows that nature works locally, with no central administration and no significant concentration of power or wealth amongst a few. Humans are a social species, but the largest effective groups (where everyone can actually recognize and know their relationship to all others in the community) are less than a thousand people...and that is how I'd prefer to see humans live.

 

[Acim]

This is mostly to satisfy a curiosity of mine, but what do folks around here think about nationalism or patriotism? I've seen some views about this that rather perplex me, and I'd like to give them a space to express themselves. Also, putting this in a debate area because I don't mind if you all start going at it with each other. I don't have strong feelings about the idea one way or another - being an American simply isn't part of how I think of my identity, but nor would I balk at someone who considers themselves a patriot. What about you?

Read the whole thread and was looking for definitions that we'd all be working from. I feel it prudent to provide that, even while I'm thinking there will be some disagreement on that.

Nationalism = patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts

• an extreme form of this, especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries.
  
• advocacy of political independence for a particular country.

Patriotism = a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.

With these definitions provided, I see myself as having some allegiance to both, but questioning myself and others when the extreme forms pop up.

As an American, it is challenging to overcome a sense of nationalism as the country was founded on the second definition under nationalism. I'm certain America is not the only nation on the planet to experience this. Britain, I believe, just experienced advocacy of its own national independence from the European Union.

I do see both terms as a bit arbitrary, but not entirely. Or about as arbitrary as all national laws / founding principles for any existing country. I do think prior to the information age (we are now in) that nationalism was easier to grasp, more well defined. With the information age, globalism has become more prominent. Though given the visible sorting out that is occurring on the planet, it is still not, IMO, easier to grasp than nationalism was (perhaps still is, compared to globalism).

Globalist = a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world.

Globalism currently makes me a bit nervous. Mostly, I think, because there seems to be ever increasing momentum to have people identify with either extreme right or extreme left ideals. So, nationalism and patriotism (in extreme form) are butting against globalism. I think my nervousness stems from idea that a governing body for 'global concerns' and policies could theoretically be under guidance of either right or left objectives, and possibly be aiming toward extreme forms of either. And given that all or most governing bodies have an identifiable leader, I see such a person being readily identified as (extreme) left or right and thus actively resisted by say 30% of the world's population. Perhaps more like 10% who actually are active in their resistance, but claiming to have 3 times more than their actual numbers and no one would really know for sure. Polling less active people would probably show the direction they are in, thus confirming to anyone paying attention which side (or extreme) they belong to.

I'd like to say more, but would start going off into the weeds a bit. Essentially, issues like illegal immigration strike me as hitting the nationalism/patriotism issues on the head. Seemingly uncaring toward those positions (in their mild forms) and aiming at something I feel is intentionally unclear, but masked under naive globalism. Same thing with certain scientific ideals that are heavily influenced by what I identify as leftist politics. I like to think this has nothing to do with actual science (at all) and only how certain politicians are (mis)using scientific data, but some of what shows up makes it seem like this is inevitable aim(s) of science. Like how someone earlier brought up Star Trek (Federation) as what we are possibly aiming for, which is based a bit on science, but a few other things. Politics in that fictional narrative benefited greatly from health care that is currently fantastical to our understandings and from idea that lack of food is impossible and greed no longer makes any sense (unless you're Ferengi). But I bring up science cause issue like vaping/eCigs which I recognize is not on most people's radar, is something that makes me nervous with how it currently plays globally. Essentially anti-smoking activists, resting on laurels of pseudo science and heavy regulation policies (that earn them all the income they have) has spread throughout the globe, such that whatever narrative they spin about vaping, regardless of counter scientific data, is promoted by their leftist operatives across the planet. Science then is suddenly in business of propaganda and countering that is framed as anti-science, rather than say anti-heavy bureaucratic regulations (which again are making certain people fairly wealthy, showing up as other version of greed). I don't see vaping/eCigs as the only issue where this is currently occurring. I also don't see this as having anything to do with nationalism/patriotism, but do see it as whatever the extreme forms are of those two, they are being adapted to globalism in a way that I find way more disgusting that extreme forms of nationalism and patriotism. I would put it on part with a dogmatic theocracy that is suddenly seen as worthy of being guiding force for the entire planet.

 

[suncowiam]

I think anything to support a state is to support a needless division that is causing us far more problems than it does solutions. Until we unite, globally as one people, these states are going to continue to exploit, kill, and destroy each other, with those who aren't even calling the shots paying the most for it.

When you say unite, you really mean conquer?

LOL =P I'm teasing.

What happens if everyone does not want to unite? Then what?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What happens if everyone does not want to unite? Then what?

Eventually, they will.

 

[suncowiam]

Eventually, they will.

That's very hopeful.

And if everyone joins, does that mean they aren't allowed to leave?