NationStates Jolt Archive

well this isn't really about internationalism, but a rant against nationalism - a topic not covered that much on here (at least not as much as religion and/or george bush...)

i'll start by asking what does nationalism achieve?



lets look at the history books, in a nice & simplified manner, shall we?

1. throughout medieval europe national fervour was used as a political tool by monarchs and the political elite to substantiate their power, keep control, and, along with a dose of xenophobia, justify warfare.

2. medieval history is littered with wars - the 100 years war between Britain & France, the hegemony of the Hapsburgs, Napoleon, and countless others.

3. while many international politics theories state that warfare is justified as being a tool for ambition and the driving of national interest (especially in Realist theory), these theories don't say that war is either necessary in this goal, nor does it account for the fact that in Europe's history there has rarely been a decade without some war going on somewhere.

4. the Papacy and Republica Chrisitana used nationalism (under a cross-european/religious context) as both motivation, cause, and justification for the crusades, causing countless deaths and suffering, and a lasting destabalisation of the middle east.

5. the imperialistic nature of many European powers was supported by high levels of nationalistic pride and superiority back home

6. prior to the First World War nationalism and the assumed importance of the nation state were high, as was militarism. just look at what happened next.

7. the inter-war period saw a return to the glory and importance of the nation-state, as well as a return to Realist belief that self-preservation and self-interest should be what drives the state. plus a rise in isolationist thinking.

8. this nationalism was used by the great orator, Hitler, in Germany and turned into a powerful destructive force that embraced militarism, and lead to the deaths of millions of soldiers in the most destructive war the world has yet seen, and the deaths of millions of pursecuted minorities, particularly the Jews, by Nazi hands in the Holocaust.


i argue this is where rampant nationalism stopped for Europe. in an effort to 'never allow it to happen again' internationalist european integration was encouraged, with nationalism being espoused, and national sovereignity being reduced for the common good. since then there have been no inter-European wars, effectively for the first time in over two thousand years. evidently this is not all down to european integration - NATO and world climate are also other factors - but a decline in nationalist thinking certainly was a major issue.




so my question is this: has nationalism ever really done anything good for the world? it may have done some nations who harboured the thinking some good - given them some advantage - in the short term; but in the long-run of history can we not see that nationalism achieves nothing and is the first step towards xenephobia, warfare, and potentially much, much worse (re: Hitler, Stalin, Mao)
i believe nationalism to be a force for evil. there, i said it.


and for the record, i'm not referring to patriotism, although i do think, if left unchecked or allowed to foster and grow, this innocent pride in one's own country can easily lead to nationalism and the evils that follow.
however i do also think patriotism is illogical - one can be proud of aspects of one's own country, but being proud of the country itself doesn't make sense to me. you were born in your country of origin by chance, nothing more, and you had nothing to do with the 'decision'. lets say there are 6 billion people on the planet, and 1 billion of those live in 'first world' or affluent countries. in this simplified way, you had a 1 in 6 chance of being born in a prosperous country. the flip side of that is that you had a 5 in 6 chance of being born into potential poverty.
being patriotic towards one's country doesn't make sense, but being thankful for this, and proud of the institutions and ideas on which your country works and is based has to be a good thing.



and a final note in this rant. from an outsider's perspective, only being able to go on word of mouth and what is fed to me from the news media, it seems that America, long a patriotic country, is heading down the path towards nationalism, xenephobia, and yet increased militarism. where will this lead?
making this more contemporary, i believe this is one of the reasons the 'rest of the world' is angry at George Bush and the way America is reacting to many global issues - some would argue using nationalism to whip up public support to further imperialistic goals (although note that modern imperialism is largely based on business, not strictly conquest) and insitgate militaristic aims... the rest of the world is scared. Europe has been through this and we know where these things can lead if not tempered...



rant over. flame me all you wish

Nationalism HAS done some good things over the years. Think about this; when being dominated by a foriegn power, nationalist pride can allow the oppressed to rise up. This is part of empowerment; allowing nations to take possession of what has been taken away by a bullying power.

Nationalism is a tool. It can be used for good or ill.

Oh and Europe most certainly did not end its love affair with nationalism after WW2. Look at the attempted French annexation of Monaco under Du Gaulle, or the British taking a stand in the Falkland's war.

Pride is not always what blinds you, sometimes it makes you stand up for your rights. Britain beat back the aggressive power and stabilized the Falkland islands. France tried to annex Monaco, but the Prince deftly married an American Star to create massive press attention to his nation, effectively puting Fance's dark ambitions in the daylight.

So yes, Nationalism has done a whole lot of harm, perhaps even more harm than good, but it HAS done good for the people of the world.

There were no nations during the medieval age or at the time of the crusades...

Be patient. Nationalism is simply one step on a long, long road. We've gone from clan to tribe to fiefdom to nation. The next step is to region, as with the EU, then to a truly planetary paradigm.

At each stage there are always those who will resist change to their dying breath. As we move more and more into space, there will be a pardigm shift in perception which will ( hopefully! ) involve all of us finally realizing that we are brothers and sisters.

Nationalism HAS done some good things over the years. Think about this; when being dominated by a foriegn power, nationalist pride can allow the oppressed to rise up. This is part of empowerment; allowing nations to take possession of what has been taken away by a bullying power.

Nationalism is a tool. It can be used for good or ill.

Oh and Europe most certainly did not end its love affair with nationalism after WW2. Look at the attempted French annexation of Monaco under Du Gaulle, or the British taking a stand in the Falkland's war.

Pride is not always what blinds you, sometimes it makes you stand up for your rights. Britain beat back the aggressive power and stabilized the Falkland islands. France tried to annex Monaco, but the Prince deftly married an American Star to create massive press attention to his nation, effectively puting Fance's dark ambitions in the daylight.

So yes, Nationalism has done a whole lot of harm, perhaps even more harm than good, but it HAS done good for the people of the world.
fair enough, good points i hadn't considered (it was one of those off-the-cuff rants ;))

nationalism is a tool, agreed (as i said), but i believe it is simply perverted and used for ill more often than not. when there is need for it in the name of the greater good or freedom, then it can be good. when this isn't the case and there is no need for it, thats when it gets twisted to achieve evil.
another example of good nationalism: indipendence of India and the nationalisic beliefs of Gandhi, which went on to inspire further nationalist movements for freedom from the British Empire. but it is worth noting that Gandhi didn't resort to violence in his nationalistic pursuits, unlike many others (in non-diplomatic channels)

and nationalism can be a tool against hegemony - such as the nationalism that was required to keep national unity strong and morale up for the Allies during the World Wars.


as for nationalism after WW2, it may not have gone away completely, but it has certainly decreased.


but ultimatley i still believe the evils that rampant nationalism have brought upon the world far outweigh the good

There were no nations during the medieval age or at the time of the crusades...
which is why i said republica christiana.

and the nations that existed before Westphalia may not have been nation states in the modern sense, but they were largely indipendent, mostly self-autonomous states with monarchs as heads of state. the "largely" and "mostly" are there because of the influence of the church at the time.




and a :fluffle: to Eutrusca for those wize words :)

fair enough, good points i hadn't considered (it was one of those off-the-cuff rants ;) )

but ultimatley i still believe the evils that rampant nationalism have brought upon the world far outweigh the good

Yeah, I was just pointing out that nationalism has good points. Don't get TOO down on it, 'cause its saved a lot of opressed people. Its also been used in some of the greatest tragedies of human history.

Considering we humans document our history by wars and the rise and fall of empires, I find it rather unsurprising that nationalism is used for ill more than good. But that's the rub, ain't it?

We're human, we're prone to violence and nastiness, nationalism is just one tool to promote the good or ill facets of humanity. In truth, the same could be said about any tool on the planet, from guns to spades and plows.

No world wars could exist without nationalism, but no extended wars could exist without agriculture being used to create foodstuffs for the armies. So is the plow responsible for the deaths of millions? Kinda. But its pointless to argue the issue.

But... self-autonomy isn't the issue here, it is whether there was an established national identity.

Fair point in mentioning the "republica christiana", I guess I just glossed over it the first time around.

from an outsider's perspective, only being able to go on word of mouth and what is fed to me from the news media, it seems that America, long a patriotic country, is heading down the path towards nationalism, xenephobia, and yet increased militarism. where will this lead?
making this more contemporary, i believe this is one of the reasons the 'rest of the world' is angry at George Bush and the way America is reacting to many global issues - some would argue using nationalism to whip up public support to further imperialistic goals (although note that modern imperialism is largely based on business, not strictly conquest) and insitgate militaristic aims... the rest of the world is scared. Europe has been through this and we know where these things can lead if not tempered...
I agree with this part. America definitely looks more nationalist/jingoistic since 9/11. Mind you imperialism has always been about business.

Not all imperialism is bad either. For example, the Iraq war helped to liberate an oppressed people from a murderous dictator, and install a democracy. That's internationalism.

I would still agree that most Americans who support Bush's wars seem to be armchair Rambos motivated by nationalist feelings and testosterone.

Oh and Europe most certainly did not end its love affair with nationalism after WW2. Look at the attempted French annexation of Monaco under Du Gaulle, or the British taking a stand in the Falkland's war.

Apart from isolated events like this, nationalism really did pretty much disappear, or at least vanish into the background, after WW2 in Europe and Japan.

There were no nations during the medieval age or at the time of the crusades...
Yes, there were. Not all in the same form as they are today, but there were nations back then.

... and a :fluffle: to Eutrusca for those wize words :)
Awwww! [ blushes ] :D

Yes, there were. Not all in the same form as they are today, but there were nations back then.

Explain.

Apart from isolated events like this, nationalism really did pretty much disappear, or at least vanish into the background, after WW2 in Europe and Japan.

You know what? I really do disagree with you on this. I think it merely took a back burner to other issues for a while.

I honestly believe that we could see a resurgance of nationlism fairly easily in any of the ww2 powers. If you look at Japan for example, their hard-core nationalists have gained a brief resurgance due to N. Korea's aggressive posturing. It only takes the right conditions for nationalism to take hold again.

It is possible that Europe will develop a pan-European supernationalism, a regional identity of somekind, but I doubt it will happen soon. Still, something to look for.

Apart from isolated events like this, nationalism really did pretty much disappear, or at least vanish into the background, after WW2 in Europe and Japan.

Are the deaths of 3000+ of your and my countrymen one such 'isolated event'?

Are the deaths of 3000+ of your and my countrymen one such 'isolated event'?
9/11 was an isolated event. There has been no similar event in the US since that day.

You know what? I really do disagree with you on this. I think it merely took a back burner to other issues for a while.

I honestly believe that we could see a resurgance of nationlism fairly easily in any of the ww2 powers. If you look at Japan for example, their hard-core nationalists have gained a brief resurgance due to N. Korea's aggressive posturing. It only takes the right conditions for nationalism to take hold again.

It is possible that Europe will develop a pan-European supernationalism, a regional identity of somekind, but I doubt it will happen soon. Still, something to look for.
You're right with these. But I mean to say, that for the most part, Europeans are not very nationalistic people these days. Except for the French!

9/11 was an isolated event. There has been no similar event in the US since that day.

Sorry: I was thinking that you were located in Ireland: the WTC was not that to which I was refering.

Sorry: I was thinking that you were located in Ireland: the WTC was not that to which I was refering.
You're referring to Northern Ireland. The events up there were not isolated and yes, partly motivated by nationalism, but aside from isolated cases like Northern Ireland and Basque country, Europeans have not been violently nationalist since WW2.

Nationalism HAS done some good things over the years. Think about this; when being dominated by a foriegn power, nationalist pride can allow the oppressed to rise up. This is part of empowerment; allowing nations to take possession of what has been taken away by a bullying power.

Nationalism is a tool. It can be used for good or ill. It's a good way to control a certain population. You divide people who otherwise would have similar desires and could possible work together for change (like indigenous peoples) and split them up, convince them that they hate each other, and sit back and watch while they fall apart and are unable to deal with your repression in any functional way.

So yes, Nationalism has done a whole lot of harm, perhaps even more harm than good, but it HAS done good for the people of the world. I would agree that it is not entirely EVIL...but I argue that is has done good 'for the people of the world'. It has done good for SOME people of the world. Others consistently lose out when, despite being part of a nation, they are never truly counted as 'one of us'. Again, I point to indigenous people. Now, a case can be made for nationalism as a force that has aided some indigenous people... but ONLY when indigenous people are truly integrated and accepted in that nation as a contributing member of society (think Panama). If they are the underclass (as is most often the case), they are NOT represented in the nation state. Too often, a Mapuche native in the South of Chile has more in common with the Inuvaliut of Northern Canada than either group does with the citizens of the country in which they have found themselves residing.

It's a good way to control a certain population. You divide people who otherwise would have similar desires and could possible work together for change (like indigenous peoples) and split them up, convince them that they hate each other, and sit back and watch while they fall apart and are unable to deal with your repression in any functional way.

I would agree that it is not entirely EVIL...but I argue that is has done good 'for the people of the world'. It has done good for SOME people of the world. Others consistently lose out when, despite being part of a nation, they are never truly counted as 'one of us'.

Well of course Nationalism is bad if one uses it for repression. However I point out that sometimes it is used to fight back AGAINST oppression. For example, of the colonial powers that subjegated the native peoples...many were forced to grant their colonies independance thanks in part to a resurgance in nationalism in the colonies after WW2.

Now, its an imperfect example, many colonies were cobbled together peoples of various indigenous factions with a mix of colonial overseers...but in some cases the results of nationalism allowed self-determination to arise. These cases are where nationalism did "good" allowing people to gain the right of self-determination.

Look at Vietnam, hardly a shining example of freedom, nor could anyone accuse it of having a clean break from foriegn powers...but it did managed to assert its independance thanks in large part to a feeling of nationalistic pride. This allowed the Vietnamese to throw off the French yoke, and eventually drive out the US as well.

Nationalism can be a horrible, dirty affiar, but it can secure rights and responsibilities for people that would otherwise be denied them. That's the key statement, not that nationalism IS good, just that it CAN be good.

Nationalism can be a horrible, dirty affiar, but it can secure rights and responsibilities for people that would otherwise be denied them. That's the key statement, not that nationalism IS good, just that it CAN be good.
this i certainly agree with :)

but unfortunatley it is more often used for ill by state leaders to further their own twisted goals, than its used for good :(
or at least the effects of when it is used for evil are far more profound & devastating than otherwise

You're referring to Northern Ireland. The events up there were not isolated and yes, partly motivated by nationalism, but aside from isolated cases like Northern Ireland and Basque country, Europeans have not been violently nationalist since WW2.

Was the Bosnian war an isolated event too?

Well of course Nationalism is bad if one uses it for repression. However I point out that sometimes it is used to fight back AGAINST oppression. For example, of the colonial powers that subjegated the native peoples...many were forced to grant their colonies independance thanks in part to a resurgance in nationalism in the colonies after WW2.

Hmmmm...but I am starting to suspect that nationalism is not just a single, easily definable thing (as in, I'm proud of my country, ra, ra)...your example is a good one. This feeling of 'nationalism', let's say in India (and then ironically in Pakistan, breaking Ghandi's heart) was an expression of self-determination, right? Yet imagine if the Dalits of India, tired of being the eternal underclass decided to band together to fight off the oppressive Brahmins, and created a "Dalit Nation"?

I think every group wants the right to self determination. The question is...can they all have it within a nation? Can nationalism fulfill this desire for all, or forever only for a few? Might we descend once again into warring states created and divided along ethnic boundaries? Or would regionalism truly allow all players at the table?

I'm not sure...interesting topic...

Was the Bosnian war an isolated event too?

If we're thinking of the same one, that wasn't so much nationalist as genocidal.

And I think, in this instance, that 'isolated event' implies it provoked nationalism in a small area. In WWII, and other wars, the whole of Europe was fiercely national. I don't recall the Bosnian war provoking people into being mad about being British. [Cheerfully ignores the existance of the BNP]

Was the Bosnian war an isolated event too?
:headbang:

Alright you've proven your point, but my point was,
when do you see the majority of the citizens of France, Germany, Spain, Italy, UK, Poland, etc, etc in a nationalist frenzy? It's rare. Nationalism exists, but it's nowhere near the level of the USA in most parts of Europe.

:headbang:

Alright you've proven your point, but my point was,
when do you see the majority of the citizens of France, Germany, Spain, Italy, UK, Poland, etc, etc in a nationalist frenzy? It's rare. Nationalism exists, but it's nowhere near the level of the USA in most parts of Europe.
I wonder if that's because the US hasn't had to learn to live with other nations the way Europeans have had to...ubernationalism in Europe is going to scare the crap out of your neighbours, and make them start thinking of how to deal with you. In the Americas, the US knows Canada isn't going to do anything, and ditto for Latin America...so there is nothing to curtail it, really.

Alright you've proven your point, but my point was,
when do you see the majority of the citizens of France, Germany, Spain, Italy, UK, Poland, etc, etc in a nationalist frenzy?

One word answer: football.

In the Americas, the US knows Canada isn't going to do anything...

Canada could, or course, just be very cunning and very good at biding its time.

Canada could, or course, just be very cunning and very good at biding its time.
SHHHH!!! Don't even suggest that! The whold plan rests on no one knowing there IS a plan....ARGGHHHH!!!! *dragged away by native shock troops*

http://images.43things.com/profile/00/00/13/4902l.jpg
bump, why not

one last
http://www.outsetmedia.com/Images/Main%20Page%20Images/Tah%20Dah%20Games/BUMP-L.gif

so you being a good pont up but i think i have tacld these one before.but o will here i go agen. i dont see way we need national borders any way doues these get us any were? we keep conplaning about war and stuff will not just make the world in to a replaec gov and give ech contanet a repersentaive. and same on down the leter.and stop all of these nonsence about you being a cedozion of one nation but we are all human way cant we just repsect one another and get along. havent we cousd enoffe anger and haet.truly hasent nationalism be the couese of the problem and we send men off to war becoues of are national interst.we we espect to lose some of them.and do any of you find these kinda brutell? not to menchen stoped.waen can we stop and look at these brutalatey that we have put on are self's. i just view myself as a cedozion of the world and ont of just one nation waht afects me will addvenchly afect you too.thank you for reeding

Nationalism can be beneficial. Organizing behavior to assist or provide for the ability of a community to benefit against outside forces is something people should not brush off because of idealistic yet unrealistic opinions.

Patriotism doesn't equal nationalism. But depending on the context of Nationalism, it CAN greatly help a nation in the long term as well as short term. Communities and governments have the inate right to look out for their best intrests.