What's wrong with Nationalism?

[Stevicus]

I think that the word Nationalism is one of the most misinterpreted words nowadays, People use it in Politics...whereas it was a Philosopher, Herder who spoke of it first. The concept of nation, evolved thanks to German philosophy and can be, without doubt, considered the foundation of the European identity.
It's this concept that created the exigence to safeguard the right of peoples to self-determination,. It is thanks to this right, that lately, Montenegro could become independent. That Crimea joined Russia. That Catalonia declared its own desire of independence.

I think there's nothing greater in this world than to safeguard European nations, their identity, their culture and their language,. Europe is exactly that: that's why Europeans are more united than ever...because we understood that.


Peace in the various European languages
View attachment 20679

Even setting aside some of the more malignant forms of nationalism we've seen, one thing to keep in mind is that nations/tribes never remain static or unchanging. It's problematic to "safeguard" national identities, cultures, and languages because they're ever-changing and will likely be totally different in 500-1000 years.

 

[M83]

Nationalism isn't going away anytime soon. Humans are naturally tribalistic animals and will always group together to form the US vs THEM mentality.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It is helpful to make a distinction between nationalism and jingoism, as it is between religion and religious extremism.

Criticisms of nationalism are usually criticisms of jingoism. Nationalism can be a positive force, while jingoism is a negative one.

Good points.

A cohesive society is likely to find better support for policies that promote the common good, rather than self-interest.

I can see that.

I think the biggest problem is ignorance of other countries which leads to misrepresentation of other countries, but at the same time cultures are better than others, and cultures are not always compatible. They can't always be in the same space. Either its shoes off in the house or shoes on. Its one thing to respect other people and another to equate all ways of life. They aren't all equal and are not all compatible in the same space.

 

[Estro Felino]

As I expected most people totally misinterpreted the meaning of this thread, even if I write short OPs (as short as possible) to induce people to read carefully.
Nationalism is a philosophical and juridic concept (nation is a concept explicitly stated in the International Law...otherwise the UNO wouldn't be called that way).

Unfortunately people here confuse the word with Imperialism (or more specifically with Economic Imperialism) that is what suppresses the rights of the single nations (and what some, not all European nations did. For example, Finland or Czech Republic have never invaded any other country, but were invaded).
Not to mention that I condemn the economic exploitation of world powers towards weaker countries.

I started this thread simply because the concept of nation is still disrespected in Europe. Some peoples are not given their legitimate right to self-determination. Or their sovereignty is not respected. I will give some examples. (even if the examples would be numerous).

Catalonia: It is a Region (Comunidad Autònoma) of Spain, whose population speaks another language, Catalan, which is completely different than Spanish. They showed their undeniable desire to become a independent republic through a referendum in 2014 (the 80 % of voters expressively manifested their will to be independent). The Spanish government ignored the result, and we all know what happened in 2017.

South Tyrol: The only province of Italy where German-speaking people are the great majority, because it deals with a historical territorial entity (Grafschaft Tirol) which belonged to Austria for 5 centuries. German people express their desire to be independent through protests, and local parties fight for this right. This sign across the border stands for this struggle
http://ilpiccolo.gelocal.it/polopol...mage.jpg_gen/derivatives/detail_558/image.jpg

Much like religions, anything that tends to separate us from others is not exactly conducive for peace and harmony - in my view.

I don't understand how preserving one's national identity should imply a "cultural separation" from other European countries, given that I speak five European languages and I'm learning a sixth.

Maybe the respect towards "the other" is less credible if the person in question speaks English only.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

You Europeans certainly didn't care for the right of "self-determination" of people all over the world. Now all of a sudden you're all about that as your birthrates plummet and you have to become more welcoming to "non-whites" in your countries (it was apparently okay for you to go their countries but if they go to yours, it's awful)

This right here....

 

[Epic Beard Man]

As I expected most people totally misinterpreted the meaning of this thread, even if I write short OPs (as short as possible) to induce people to read attentively.

Nationalism is a philosophical and juridic concept; it is a juridic concept too (nation is a concept explicitly stated in the International Law...otherwise the UNO wouldn't be called that way).

Unfortunately people here confuse the word with Imperialism (or more specifically with Economic Imperialism) that is what suppresses the rights of the single nations (and what some, not all European nations did. For example, Finland or Czech Republic have never invaded any other countries, but were invaded).
Not to mention, that I condemn the economic exploitation of world powers towards weaker countries.

I started this thread simply because the concept of nation is still disrespected in Europe. Some peoples are not given their legitimate right to self-determination. Or their sovereignty is not respected. I will give some examples. (even if the examples would be numerous).

Catalonia: It is a Region (Comunidad Autònoma) of Spain, whose population speaks another language, Catalan, which is completely different than Spanish. They showed their undeniable desire to become a independent republic through a referendum in 2014 (the 80 % of voters expressively manifested their will to be independent). The Spanish government ignored the result, and we all know what happened in 2017.

South Tyrol: The only province of Italy where German-speaking people are the great majority, because it deals with a historical administrative division which belonged to Austria for 5 centuries. German people express their desire to be independent through protests, and local parties fight for this right.

Scotland: The question of independence was resolved in 2014, when the Scots expressed their will not to become independent through a referendum.

Nationalism and Imperialism historically went hand in hand...

 

[joe1776]

I think that the word Nationalism is one of the most misinterpreted words nowadays...

Words mean, in context, whatever most people think they mean. Dictionaries report common usage.

 

[Augustus]

Group pride is disguised arrogance. We know intuitively that the man who is exceptionally proud of being Irish and Catholic would be just as proud if he had, by some twist of fate, been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran. It's not that he thinks of his groups as wonderful, it's that HE is wonderful and they are HIS groups.

Can say the same about the desire for "global citizenry". As with all universalist ideologies, it is a belief that "I'm right so everybody else should think like me".

 

[Mock Turtle]

I started this thread simply because the concept of nation is still disrespected in Europe. Some peoples are not given their legitimate right to self-determination. Or their sovereignty is not respected. I will give some examples. (even if the examples would be numerous).

Catalonia: It is a Region (Comunidad Autònoma) of Spain, whose population speaks another language, Catalan, which is completely different than Spanish. They showed their undeniable desire to become a independent republic through a referendum in 2014 (the 80 % of voters expressively manifested their will to be independent). The Spanish government ignored the result, and we all know what happened in 2017.

South Tyrol: The only province of Italy where German-speaking people are the great majority, because it deals with a historical administrative division which belonged to Austria for 5 centuries. German people express their desire to be independent through protests, and local parties fight for this right.

Scotland: The question of independence was resolved in 2014, when the Scots expressed their will not to become independent through a referendum.

So you don't see an issue with being separate from others rather than being a part of a larger whole as being likely to promote more friction rather than less? I think history probably is against you. Plus the fact that it just makes life harder - having so many differences to contend with.

It's understandable that peoples want to preserve their culture/nationhood, but it often just gets in the way of progressing societal matters, like freedom, equality, etc. etc. We should be looking at the bigger picture - by now.

 

[joe1776]

Can say the same about the desire for "global citizenry". As with all universalist ideologies, it is a belief that "I'm right so everybody else should think like me".

1. The concept of global citizenship isn't a universalistic ideology. It's simply an attitude one might easily adopt toward humanity;

2. Global citizenship is the opposite of arrogant because seeing oneself as being an equal among the members of the global community is implied;

3. To believe one is right about global citizenship isn't a sign of arrogance anymore than your belief that you are right in making the above comment marks you as arrogant. It doesn't. It simply marks you as wrong.

 

[Augustus]

1. The concept of global citizenship isn't a universalistic ideology. It's simply an attitude one might easily adopt toward humanity;

"My belief that everyone should consider themselves a global citizen isn't universalistic or ideological".

2. Global citizenship is the opposite of arrogant because seeing oneself as being an equal among the members of the global community is implied;

"My belief that my personal ideology is the paradigm for all of humanity is the opposite of arrogant"

3. To believe one is right about global citizenship isn't a sign of arrogance anymore than your belief that you are right in making the above comment marks you as arrogant. It doesn't. It simply marks you as wrong.

"My lack of arrogance is further demonstrated by my absolute confidence that anyone who disagrees with my utopian universalist ideology is wrong."

 

[Stevicus]

As I expected most people totally misinterpreted the meaning of this thread, even if I write short OPs (as short as possible) to induce people to read attentively.

Nationalism is a philosophical and juridic concept; it is a juridic concept too (nation is a concept explicitly stated in the International Law...otherwise the UNO wouldn't be called that way).

Unfortunately people here confuse the word with Imperialism (or more specifically with Economic Imperialism) that is what suppresses the rights of the single nations (and what some, not all European nations did. For example, Finland or Czech Republic have never invaded any other countries, but were invaded).
Not to mention, that I condemn the economic exploitation of world powers towards weaker countries.

I started this thread simply because the concept of nation is still disrespected in Europe. Some peoples are not given their legitimate right to self-determination. Or their sovereignty is not respected. I will give some examples. (even if the examples would be numerous).

Catalonia: It is a Region (Comunidad Autònoma) of Spain, whose population speaks another language, Catalan, which is completely different than Spanish. They showed their undeniable desire to become a independent republic through a referendum in 2014 (the 80 % of voters expressively manifested their will to be independent). The Spanish government ignored the result, and we all know what happened in 2017.

South Tyrol: The only province of Italy where German-speaking people are the great majority, because it deals with a historical administrative division which belonged to Austria for 5 centuries. German people express their desire to be independent through protests, and local parties fight for this right.

Scotland: The question of independence was resolved in 2014, when the Scots expressed their will not to become independent through a referendum.

One thing to note is that these and similar situations were the result of nationalism vs. nationalism. Malignant nationalism carries the idea that strong nations dominate weaker nations, as if it's some kind of natural or divine right. Nations which were conquered and became part of a multi-national empire might still harbor nationalistic sentiments, but then it would clash and conflict with the nationalistic sentiments of their conquerors.

For example, when the Tsar wanted to implement a policy of "Russification" throughout the multi-national Russian Empire, it met with some strong resistance. What he did to advance the cause of Russian nationalism clashed with nationalist sentiments from the other national groups within the empire.

That's one of the problems with nationalism, since they're also competing and clashing with each other - and wanting to make their nation bigger and stronger. Some Germans thought that if they could build up a bigger empire for Germany, they would be just as great as the British and French Empires, which spanned the entire globe.

The other problem is where to draw the borders and what to do with those of the other nationality who end up on the wrong side of the border.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think that the word Nationalism is one of the most misinterpreted words nowadays, People use it in Politics...whereas it was a Philosopher, Herder who spoke of it first. The concept of nation, evolved thanks to German philosophy and can be, without doubt, considered the foundation of the European identity.
It's this concept that created the exigence to safeguard the right of peoples to self-determination,. It is thanks to this right, that lately, Montenegro could become independent. That Crimea joined Russia. That Catalonia declared its own desire of independence.

I think there's nothing greater in this world than to safeguard European nations, their identity, their culture and their language,. Europe is exactly that: that's why Europeans are more united than ever...because we understood that.


Peace in the various European languages
View attachment 20679

People do indeed have a right to idenity. Nationalism is the collective equivalent as I see it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nationalism isn't going away anytime soon. Humans are naturally tribalistic animals and will always group together to form the US vs THEM mentality.

I agree. I'd go so far to say it's instinctive to gravitate towards like-minded qualities and attributes that form nationalist communities of people.

 

[Estro Felino]

One thing to note is that these and similar situations were the result of nationalism vs. nationalism. Malignant nationalism carries the idea that strong nations dominate weaker nations, as if it's some kind of natural or divine right. Nations which were conquered and became part of a multi-national empire might still harbor nationalistic sentiments, but then it would clash and conflict with the nationalistic sentiments of their conquerors.

For example, when the Tsar wanted to implement a policy of "Russification" throughout the multi-national Russian Empire, it met with some strong resistance. What he did to advance the cause of Russian nationalism clashed with nationalist sentiments from the other national groups within the empire.

That's one of the problems with nationalism, since they're also competing and clashing with each other - and wanting to make their nation bigger and stronger. Some Germans thought that if they could build up a bigger empire for Germany, they would be just as great as the British and French Empires, which spanned the entire globe.

The other problem is where to draw the borders and what to do with those of the other nationality who end up on the wrong side of the border.

I understand perfectly that for an American it is almost impossible (or at least, very difficult) to understand the spiritual meaning of European peoples' identity.

It's also very tough to explain, it is something innate. Each European nation carries with itself a Volksgeist, that is anthropologically the result of its own history.

European diversity is not a limit, it is an enrichment. I don't think it is a crime we want to preserve it, and to keep it pure, because each one is unique and unrepeatable.
For example, I wouldn't like Germany to look like Italy or viceversa.
Each of the two have different colors, different flavors...and their beauty consists in this diversity.

Germany

Italy

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don't understand how preserving one's national identity should imply a "cultural separation" from other European countries, given that I speak five European languages and I'm learning a sixth.

Maybe the respect towards "the other" is less credible if the person in question speaks English only.

Typical are you? I doubt it. Few are as proficient as yourself. The borders and the flag-waving that often accompany these have been the issues over perhaps a millennia fuelling disputes and friction - according to any atlas showing country or nationhood boundaries over this period - not to mention all the numerous wars. Do these tend to cause more conflict than within countries? I would think so, but perhaps I'm wrong. And even a language difference is often enough to cause less understanding, so it does help to speak a language of one's neighbour but how often is this the case.

Edit: There are many ways to see the 'us' in our grouping and the 'them' in others, but nationality is by far the easiest, and often we do not even get to vote when aggression breaks out between neighbours - which is equally pernicious.

 

[Augustus]

The borders and the flag-waving that often accompany these have been the issues over perhaps a millennia fuelling disputes and friction - according to any atlas showing country or nationhood boundaries over this period - not to mention all the numerous wars. Do these tend to cause more conflict than within countries?

Research has shown that the saying "good fences make for good neighbours", might well be true for cultural groupings. Much as some people like to think in terms of 'one big happy family', human society is too complex to work in that way.

This is why I believe that the best way to a more harmonious society lies not with utopian 'global citizenship', but the precise opposite, decentralisation to self-governing culturally cohesive groupings. We get on much better with our neighbours when their decisions don't affect us, and vice versa.

Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence

We consider the conditions of peace and violence among ethnic groups, testing a theory designed to predict the locations of violence and interventions that can promote peace. Characterizing the model's success in predicting peace requires examples where peace prevails despite diversity. Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups, allowing for partial autonomy within a single country. In Switzerland, mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas. Political canton and circle (sub-canton) boundaries often separate religious groups. Where such boundaries do not appear to be sufficient, we find that specific aspects of the population distribution guarantee either sufficient separation or sufficient mixing to inhibit intergroup violence according to the quantitative theory of conflict. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and that region has experienced significant violent conflict, leading to the recent creation of the canton of Jura. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world.


Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence

 

[LuisDantas]

If there is an upside for nationalism, it has so far eluded my perception.

There are many upsides for actual communities. But nations, at least during my living time, are nothing but very unsubstantial, artificial labels that are all too often used as an attempt at justifying the unjustifiable.

 

[LuisDantas]

Research has shown that the saying "good fences make for good neighbours", might well be true for cultural groupings. Much as some people like to think in terms of 'one big happy family', human society is too complex to work in that way.

This is why I believe that the best way to a more harmonious society lies not with utopian 'global citizenship', but the precise opposite, decentralisation to self-governing culturally cohesive groupings. We get on much better with our neighbours when their decisions don't affect us, and vice versa.

How well does that idea correlate with what is currently understood as nations, by your reading?

It seems to me that, even leaving aside the not-insignificant matter that it may well be all-out impossible to have some community's decisions fail to influence its neighbours, even deciding what should be considered a community is to some extent an arbitrary, even ideological call. There is no magical factor enabling people who live in the same geographical vicinity to understand and accept each other particularly well, even when they have been uniformly raised side by side (which is increasingly less often the case to boot).

One of the reasons why nationalism is on the rise, perhaps paradoxically, is because it is a bold if empty promise of "going back" to what may well have never been: a community where disagreements are somehow rare and undramatic enough to never be much of a bother. The irony of it is that nationalism is all about emphasizing disagreements to the level of supposedly legitimate sources of identity.

 

[ChristineM]

Group pride is disguised arrogance. We know intuitively that the man who is exceptionally proud of being Irish and Catholic would be just as proud if he had, by some twist of fate, been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran. It's not that he thinks of his groups as wonderful, it's that HE is wonderful and they are HIS groups.

The intelligence of that creature known as a crowd is the square root of the number of people in it.
Terry Pratchett

Substitute crowd for group