Nationalism

[CapelDodger]

Looking down at the world from the moral high ground (where I like to spend my afternoons) I notice that many of its problems are either caused by nationalism or made more difficult to solve by nationalism. The idea of drawing lines on maps and assigning absolute sovereignty to the nations thus defined will have to be discarded if humanity is going to have any chance of peace and prosperity (and perhaps survival).

Organisations like the League of Nations and the UN have been attempts to move on from this model, and (not coincidentally) have been created after major conflicts in which nationalism played a major part. But they are fundamentally flawed since they are composed of sovereign nations, and the rulers of sovereign nations are not well-disposed to seeing that sovereignty diluted. If the US decides to act unilaterally against another sovereign nation (which may happen, who knows) the UN is powerless and nations that oppose the action are left with only two options - put up with, or good old military action. Is this where we are in the 21stCE? Must it always be this way - nations lavishing blood and treasure on warfare and living in fear of everybody else's weapons?

Environmental problems of regional or global importance are left to fester as nations follow their own perceived self-interest (as nations are expected to do). Rivers pass through a variety of nations, each concerned only with its own needs and the actions of those upstream (be warned, water wars are going to be a feature of the near future if things don't change). Scientific projects that require multi-national input are halted by arguments about which nation gets to host it. Natural economic zones are disrupted by having national borders running through them.

Nationalism leads to patriotism, which ranks with religion as a means of persuading people to behaviour they would never contemplate in their private lives. While it's an easy trick to persuade young men into "righteous" violence (and there will always be people around who want to do that), why make it easier by regarding patriotism as righteous? It should be consigned to the dustbin of history, like racism and sexism.

I'll mention Israel because it is a particularly egregious example of the damage nationism does, and because I expect to use this thread to absorb a continuing but intermittent debate with the esteemed Cleopatra over the nature of the zionist project. My contention is that the Jewish State was conceived as a nationalist project; Cleopatra feels otherwise.

What the world needs is a new political model. The United States was an experiment in this direction (the Constitution is actually a treaty between sovereign states). The Constitution provides guarantees of certain rights and minimum democratic standards but within those limits states have sovereignty. Citizens of the states can appeal to the centre for protection of their rights and the centre can enforce its decisions. I would like to see a global equivalent, a central authority which enforces standards of human rights but leaves local decisions to local people. This local control could be exercised in nations, where that makes sense, or regions or cities or whatever is rational.

 

[Segnosaur]

I would like to see a global equivalent, a central authority which enforces standards of human rights but leaves local decisions to local people. This local control could be exercised in nations, where that makes sense, or regions or cities or whatever is rational.

I'll support it if you make me president.

 

[Cleopatra]

Ok Capel Dodger. Let's play. The rules are simple. Only you and I are allowed to "insult" each other and troll ( a bit) the rest must behave themselves.

Thanks for starting this thread I was bored with the Histoire d' "O". The JREF version is worse than the original book if this is ever possible...

Let me bring my books and notes....

 

[Skeptic]

Looking down at the world from the moral high ground (where I like to spend my afternoons) I notice that many of its problems are either caused by nationalism or made more difficult to solve by nationalism...

...as I read the first paragraph, I wondered to myself: "hmmm... one guess as to which country he will recommend should give up its nationalism first in order to advance the 'world peace' project..."

I'll mention Israel because it is a particularly egregious example of the damage nationism does...

...and, of course, I was correct.

By sheer coincindence, the "particularly egregious" example of nationalism CapelDodger finds is not, say, the ones in Africa (where unending tribal wars killed millions) or in the Arab world (where chauvinistic Islamism and Arabism destroyed the previously-pluralistic societies of the middeteranean when the Arab nations emerged after WWII, "clearing" most Arab countries of jews and Christians who lived there for centuries) or Yugoslavia (you know the story) or India (millions of refugees), to say nothing of fascist Italy or Nazi Germany or dozens of others I could name.

No, all of that can wait; by sheer coincidence, the #1 "nationalistic" (and therefore, "bad" or "problem") nation in the entire world is, as usual, israel; and--presumably--it is it which must be the first to become non-nationalistic and see how that sort of thing works out in practice. Otherwise, israel deserves continuing criticism for daring to be nationalistic when that interferes with yet another "save the world thought world government" project. Yes, I'm sure that it is a mere coincidence that all previous attempts at such a utopian world had ended with disaster, and if only israel gives up its nationalism first, this time the project will succeed.

(Hmmmmmm.... come to think of it, wasn't it the jews' fault that the previous utopian world-government projects failed, too? I distinctly remember talk about how "jewish Bolshevists" are stopping the Aryan heaven in the east, and how the "jewish plutocrats" are slowing the advance of the Communist paradise of the workers. But I digress.)

Tell you what, CapelDodger. You first. Why don't you demand that your nation stop being nationalistic before you start talking about israel? It would be easy, for instance, to declare that from now on your capital city belongs to all the nations in the world as international territory, allow open immigration from all over the world, stop teaching your nation's history or exploits at school lest children become infected with the "patriotism" bug, and forbid the flying of the national flag, and so on.

Once you defeat the evil of nationalism in your own country--and have the results to prove it improved things--then you can come to israel with demands, or criticize its nationalism. It is rather rude to make demands of israel when your nation still is nationalistic, is it not?

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by capelDodger:
Organisations like the League of Nations and the UN have been attempts to move on from this model, and (not coincidentally) have been created after major conflicts in which nationalism played a major part. But they are fundamentally flawed since they are composed of sovereign nations, and the rulers of sovereign nations are not well-disposed to seeing that sovereignty diluted.

You might find that the common people of said sovereign nations have something to say on the matter too.

Environmental problems of regional or global importance are left to fester as nations follow their own perceived self-interest (as nations are expected to do).

Examples?

Scientific projects that require multi-national input are halted by arguments about which nation gets to host it.

I know, how long are we waiting for the first draft of the human genome? Oh, hang on a minute..........

Natural economic zones are disrupted by having national borders running through them.

I've a feeling that national borders are irrelevant. Barriers to trade, investment and employment are the problem.

Nationalism leads to patriotism, which ranks with religion as a means of persuading people to behaviour they would never contemplate in their private lives.

I believe Georges Clemanceu that said "A patriot loves his country, a nationalist hates all others". Don't assume that does of us who feel patriotic about our respective countries engage in irrational and destructive behaviour as a result.

While it's an easy trick to persuade young men into "righteous" violence (and there will always be people around who want to do that), why make it easier by regarding patriotism as righteous? It should be consigned to the dustbin of history, like racism and sexism.

And Islam? I've noticed people doing very strange things lately in the name of Islam.

What the world needs is a new political model.

Probably the last thing we need is a "new political model", considering the harm wrought by "new political models" like fascism and communism.

The United States was an experiment in this direction (the Constitution is actually a treaty between sovereign states).

Would I be right in saying that in theory, so was the soviet block?

This local control could be exercised in nations, where that makes sense, or regions or cities or whatever is rational.

What would happen in the event of their being a conflict between the local and the central as to what makes sense, what is rational, or to the exact demarcation of rights between the two entities?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I'll mention Israel because it is a particularly egregious example of the damage nationism does, and because I expect to use this thread to absorb a continuing but intermittent debate with the esteemed Cleopatra over the nature of the zionist project. My contention is that the Jewish State was conceived as a nationalist project; Cleopatra feels otherwise.

If one is going to be an anti-nationalist crusader, wouldn't it be best to start with a nation that has the least to lose by giving up its national identity?

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Re: Nationalism

If one is going to be an anti-nationalist crusader, wouldn't it be best to start with a nation that has the least to lose by giving up its national identity?

...or one's own nation?

 

[Cleopatra]

Skeptic I do not wish to defend Capel Dodger but we have been discussing to have this thread since I joined this forum ( in fact it was in my 10th post that I provoked him to start this thread ). In the mean time that matter [Zionism that is] kept re-appearing in every discussion we had, so we thought to discuss it.

So, I have thrown the glove regarding two issues: Nationalism as a phaenomenon and Zionism as an expression of Nationalism. This is the reason why Capel Dodger referred to Israel. We thought to avoid including the word Israel or Zionism in the title of the thread in order to keep the resident trolls away.

Now.

Contrary to what Capel Dodger believes I am persuaded that Nationalism has been a vehicle of progress for the Western Societies regardless the problems that created and keeps creating. There is no such a thing as a perfect system anyway.

The idea of National identity is not as modern as many people believe. It was born in Greece in the early 5th ce B.C. The Greeks were the first who understood that their language and their lifestyle ( civilization) made them different from the people that surrounded them and those they traded with.

So, very soon in Greek texts appears the idea of " US" versus the " barbarians". As barbarians were defined those who didn't embrace the Greek lifestyle, they didn't share the same genealogical and mythological background and of course "they did not speak the language of people who think": Greek.

Sophocles in the famous Antigone goes as far as talking about "Our country" that describes it as a ship that travels in the ocean and the existence of its passengers is totally dependable on the "well being" of this ship.

So, even if they didn't talk about a Nation, they described one and they described what constitutes the very philosophical idea of a Nation: The Identity and the feeling of belonging to a group.

The feeling and the need was always there. It's absurd to suggest that nationalism doesn't address real and existent needs, Capel Dodger. Tell me that this is not the case and I will bump this thread about Wales.

Jewish Nationalism though is different as a phaenomenon. It didn't spring from the necessity to describe an identity. However much it shocks you Capel Dodger, Jews and Israelites all around the world are above all Jews. Maybe in a 1000 years they will become something else but above all they feel Jews.

Jewish Nationalism did not srping from the need to define an identity but from the need for security.

Being born in Wales Capel Dodger you have never felt a pariah in your society. This is what Jews were experiencing for almost 2000 years until the 19th century. The emancipation of the Jews took place under the most dramatic circumstances ( I am willing to agree that this was the case in most societies although between the two of us CD you know that this wasn't the case...) and only 50 to 80 years later the Holocaust came to justify Herzl and his basic idea that the Jews will never become citizens of the western countries and they needed a country of their own.

The Jews didn't create a country in order to learn who they were but in order to live their lives in safety.

I think that this is enough for an introduction. Of course I could be talking for hours but there is no rush.

 

[evildave]

The U.S. is fairly egregious in its nationalism.

It seems to be simply assumed that we're "the best", even as Wal*Mart rapidly becomes the biggest corporation in the world, a retail outlet that doesn't *produce* anything, whose primary function is to destroy any local competition, turn shopping districts into ghost towns, and fund it all by selling cheap foreign labor camp imports while waving a flag claiming it sells 'Made In America' products.

Sort of a model of America.

http://www.endgame.org/corps-ranked.html

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

'Nationalism' is not a single entity because different cultures (and sub-cultures) have different notions of nationalilty.

I would consider myself a patriot and perhaps therefore a nationalist.

Yet I believe I have nothing in common with those nationalists of any type who define nationality in terms of 'race'. And in Europe, that seems to be what is meant by nationalist.

 

[Cleopatra]

Re: Re: Nationalism

Yet I believe I have nothing in common with those nationalists of any type who define nationality in terms of 'race'. And in Europe, that seems to be what is meant by nationalist.

Huh? In Europe nobody discusses about races although it is in Europe that has been born and survived for the longest period of time one of the worse forms of racism;antisemitism.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Re: Re: Re: Nationalism

Huh? In Europe nobody discusses about races although it is in Europe that has been born and survived for the longest period of time one of the worse forms of racism;antisemitism.

Careful, Cleo, you almost said something nice about Europe. You made a great save at the end, though. BTW, why is antisemitism worse than other forms of racism?

In regard to nationalism, I too expect (hope) this concept will disappear within the next few hundred years. I think the concept was a natural development from hunter-gatherer status to farmers to cities and then to nationhood. It has however IMO outlived its usefulness.

 

[evildave]

Well, Europeans did actively and successfully exterminate the Moors in Spain, for instance. Various other successful historic pogroms simply eradicated cultures for being various beliefs and ethnicities from Europe. They carried on with these traditions into the Americas and Africa, and everywhere else. The Jews just happen to be one of the few persecuted groups that survived into modern times with their culture fairly intact.

To pretend all of this is 'in the past' is simply inviting it to happen again in the future.

There are a lot of different people in the world, and there is a lot of profit (financial and political) to be made by stirring people against other people by magnifying those 'differences'.

Example:
1. Bad old Iraqis who torture and rape people, and have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

2. We GOOD Americans (TM) better go in and overthrow these bad guys! We use some of our abundant supply of Weapons of Mass Destruction to do so.

3. Good Americans proceed to torture and rape people, and then take self-incriminating photographs to share among themselves. Wave the flag, be proud! Not only 'bad', but STUPID. Must be 'bad apples'. Don't look at the chain of command, please.

At least the 'bad old Iraqis' must've had the sense not to produce incriminating evidence against themselves - that is if they were engaged in the practices they were accused of. Much of this happened while America was 'good friends' with the Iraqi regime, during their long war with Iran, anyway.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by evildave
Example:
1. Bad old Iraqis who torture and rape people, and have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Are you seriously arguing that the United States went to war with Iraq out of racism?

 

[Cleopatra]

Ahem...

Please do not derail this thread. The topic is vast anyway!!

Sorry but I will insist on that.

 

[evildave]

No, we went to war with them to secure petroleum.

We justified it to the American people using racism and nationalism.

America is SO GOOD, we deserve to invade Iraq!

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Skeptic I do not wish to defend Capel Dodger but we have been discussing to have this thread since I joined this forum ( in fact it was in my 10th post that I provoked him to start this thread ). In the mean time that matter [Zionism that is] kept re-appearing in every discussion we had, so we thought to discuss it.

That seems to me to be a pretty clear affirmation of Skeptic's point.

That CD feels that Zionism is a "particularly egregious" form of nationalism among all the various forms of nationalism that have resulted in the deaths of tens of millions in the 20th century illustrates the narrowness of his point of view. You're only pointing out that this narrowness of view doesn't begin with this thread.

It seems to me that if one wants to speak against nationalism, one should be able to offer an alternative. There is in the Middle East another nation that very recently lost a government and is in the process of figuring out how to replace it. At the moment the consensus seems to be towards some sort of democracy, but we could, just as an intellectual exercise, discuss how CD's anti-nationalism could be used towards its benefit.

 

[demon]

Don`t want to derail this thread so just a few remarks...

"It should be consigned to the dustbin of history, like racism and sexism."

Only in theory, and only then in the west. Racist policies are pursued as vigorously and cruelly as ever by the west in Africa and other third world countries IMO. See the uproar about depriving white Zimbabweans of their (?) land and the relative silence about the same thing in Palestine. Also the illegal testing of drugs on people in the third world on the one hand and the refusal to supply affordal drugs on the other by pharmaciticals. Willingness to allow millions to die of starvation, to profit by supplying arms to regimes that can not even afford to feed their citizens,etc etc.

Nationalism is all dependent upon which nation you come from, it is mainly a western perspective too I think.
Both the "World" Wars were European wars of colonisation, imperialism and domination. The fact of existing imperial territory in the thirdworld meant that they had the luxury of using what they saw as gormeless Indians and Africans as meatsacks to throw at the opposition. This was realised to some extent by people like Netaji (the First Indian President) who tried to align India with the Nazis in order to free it of the "decent" Brits.

The American isolationist trait, ignoring the fact of their profiting from the genocide of that continent's original inhabitants (who unfortunately had a less warlike culture than Europeans), was a desire to avoid European wars.

Global government in theory and in practice (the UN/League of Nations) is a most dangerous idea.
Theoretically, the greater the aggregation of power (and it can't really get any greater than One World Government) the more damage corrupt leaders and cliques can do.

Finally, I don't think it is accurate to refer to "nations" having "self-interests." The "interests" are actually those of the various centers of power, such as corporations, military etc. Any other interests are secondary.
It`s always, I believe, a deception to talk of a "nation's interest", since it obscures the actual players within the power game.

 

[charley_bigtime]

Re: Re: Re: Nationalism

Huh? In Europe nobody discusses about races although it is in Europe that has been born and survived for the longest period of time one of the worse forms of racism;antisemitism.

Are you seriously suggesting that one form of racism is more preferable than another?

Can you give us a run down of what - in your opinion - the "top ten" is?

 

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra of the Eminent Priority:

Just to wave my erudition, I'll quote Aristotle to Alexander ("Big Al" to you other people) : "The relationship between Greeks and people of other races is like that between human beings and animals". What a nice chap. Of course, the primary example of "other races" was the Persian Empire, for which the Greeks had no great fondness.

There have indeed been pockets of nationalism here and there through history, but the general political experience has been of multi-ethnic Empire. The classical Greek experience was peculiar because Greece was remote and retained its independence until the Romans - assuming Macedonians are accepted as Greek. Alexander certainly thought of himself as Greek, but a lot of Greeks disagreed. They regarded the Macedonians as a mongrel race less worthy than the Scythians; if Aristotle shared that opinion he was clever enough not to show it, obviously.

Defining nationalism is a problem in itself. Where is the divide between nationalism and tribalism?

The nationalism that governs thinking these days is a product of 19thCE Europe. I am prepared to be unequivocal on that. It was finalised in Germany to suit German requirements, and was originally a progressive, left-wing idea. What was needed in Germany was an alternative to the existing hereditary ideology that left Germany so fractured and weak and hampered the progress of the people as a whole (particularly its middle class). There were nations in existence already - Britain (a whole argument in itself), France, Spain, Greece in a way - two of which were doing very well in the modern age, as was that peculiar Union across the Atlantic, and there were a lot of Germans who wanted the same thing. The "nation" they effectively came up with involved a defined geographical extent, sovereignty and a common culture and language ("ethnicity"). That seemed to encapsulate the nature of the existing nations and would bring together all the parts of Germany where this thinking was going on - Saxony and surrounds. If achieved in Germany it would wipe away the hereditary system and allow the creation of a representative government sensitive to the needs of the people. When everybody was part of such a nation rivalries would cease, since each nation existed within its natural boundaries and would recognise the natural nature of their neighbouring nations. Imperialism would be dead, war would be a thing of the past, peace, prosperity and progress (a naive century, the European 19th) would be universal.

The problem is, that model doen't even work for Germany. The western boundary with France is well-defined but there is no eastern boundary. The North German plains carry on through Poland, Russia and the Ukraine with a gradual fade from German to Slav. Bismarck and the Prussians brought Germany into existence, but Prussia was almost half Slav. (Austria was left out because it would bring its empire with it, utterly screwing up the national ideal.) Other places that took the idea on, such as the Balkans, were even less suited for it, but German political and philosophical ideas had a deservedly high status. People strugging against oppressive empires saw nationalism as the alternative ideology but that required definition of ethnicity. So Orthodox Balkan Slaves gained the name Serb, Catholic Slavs became Croat, Muslim Slavs became Albanian or Bosnian. We all know how badly nationalism has performed in the Balkans.

But the same nationalism is to be imposed on Iraq once again. There's a sanctity attributed to a nation that was drawn up by the British in the 1920's. Kurds, Sunnis and Shias (and the rest) all thrown together under the "national" umbrella, all assuming that one or other will dominate when they get the chance. And sovereignty means that when they do, the outside world will be of no help. Only if a cross-border threat is involved will the world community intervene - because national sovereignty is sacrosanct. Why try to create this monster in the first place? Why worry about Iraq breaking up - why not look to managing the process instead of going down the same old tired path?

Sorry, Cleopatra, this has become a statement of position rather than a response.

The feeling and the need was always there. It's absurd to suggest that nationalism doesn't address real and existent needs, Capel Dodger. Tell me that this is not the case and I will bump this thread about Wales.

Don't entirely follow that, but as to the needs, I think they are satisified by tribalism, not nationalism. The nation is too big a concept to be really grasped, which is one reason why it can be perceived as transcendent. Just like religion, it can be manipulated by clever people because it is so mysterious. Family, clan, tribe, sentient being. That last might seem a bit of a jump, but it works for me. (Welsh Nationalism is very silly.)

Jewish Nationalism though is different as a phaenomenon.

I'll come to that separately, if you'll indulge me.