Is it possible to get rid of nationalism?

See the thread title.


  • Total voters
    48
Nationalism is certainly not something innately intristic to human condition. It exists and is supported by concrete historical phenomena. While I think that sentiments relatively close to nationalism existed before XVIII century, they were far from universal.

Whether or not "generic tribalism" is something innate, I am not sure of. Origins of really harmful tribalism, though, often have fairly identifiable socio-political cases at work. People may naturally define their own group and groups outside them, but when nations start warfare with each other, when members of two youth subcultures violently clash etc. it's stupid to state that they did so "because humans are naturally tribalistic, duh".

Not only do I think it's possible, I think it is as near to inevitable as things can get.

It's not a question of "how can Humans ever cast off nationalism" it's a question of "How long will humans make nationalism work?"
I don't like the phrasing in your first sentence, since I don't think that anything is "inevitable". If nationalism disappears, it will do so because of human agency - unless it dissapears because humanity disappears itself.

Not really. The very fact that it reaches above national identity and fosters a transnational, continental identity that's reasonably non-exclusive makes it (potentially) a model for getting rid of nationalism globally.
I think that's a flawed analogy. When many companies merge into one, and when these companies merge in various ways to form a transnational corporation, is it a model for "getting rid of capitalistic competition"? Capitalism has both a unificatory and a competitive aspect, each are its major "features". Nationalism seems to operate in the same way - in fact, these two are mutually dependent, even though I think that vaguely nationalistic concepts occasionally existed before capitalism.

Hm. I think VRCWAgent is on to something with his separation of ethnic/socio-lingual nationalism and civic nationalism.
Hmm, how do you separate "socio-lingual" and "civic"? Anyway, nationalism in its "pure civic" form I find to be quite rare - almost an ideal type then an actual reality.
 
That's the problem with the old world. They've got the tech advances okay, but they still haven't completely shed themselves of that whole ethnicity mindset. The new world is free of such backwards thinking. Our nations are truly nations independent of all that "oh well my bloodline stretches back a gazlillion generations so I'm a -true- German/Frenchman/Russian/etc" nonsense.

So what will happen when you do have bloodlines stretching back a gazlillion generations.
 
Hm. I think VRCWAgent is on to something with his separation of ethnic/socio-lingual nationalism and civic nationalism. In fact the differences between the two seem so large that it almost doesn't make sense to use the same word for them both.

At least if we accept the latter as part of nationalism that it is indeed possible for something like European nationalism to exist. Although at the moment, such a thing is mostly an academic construct that doesn't really permeate our societies.

I agree that civic nationalism is at least preferable to its cousin that this thread seems to be mainly targeting.

Well, actually, the barriers between nationalisms are quite vague, as you can even separate ethnic nationalism into cultural-linguistic nationalism and blood and soil nationalism based by ancestry (which in practice is only practiced by neo-nazis et. al), the former of which is quite close to civic nationalism again.

What is often forgotten - and I now restate my assumptions - is that nationalism also a matter of political ideals (i.e. Liberalism, Democracy, Free Trade vs. Protectionism).

To give a number of examples, the Netherlands was founded partially as a response to the perceived overtaxation, overcentralisation and Catholic fanaticism of the Spanish Empire, with cultural matters hardly playing any role and the Dutch national identity coming into existence much later. Belgium was founded to the perceived economic neglect by the Dutch, and so doing united Flemish with the Walloons.
The USA was founded with "No taxation without representation". Israel fears the Palestinian right of return not just due to cultural reasons but just as much due to fears that a Palestinian majority would destroy the relatively socially progressive character of Israel compared to its neighbors, and become an Arab Nationalist state.

So nationalism is quite often intertwined with political issues. When a certain geographical area is a hotbed by for certain political opinions, and those clash with majority issues of other areas, such an area may begin to view itself as a nation. And spawn separate language and cultural traditions in the process. I can easily imagine San Francisco wanting to become a separate country if it suddenly finds itself in Jesusland.
 
Hmm, how do you separate "socio-lingual" and "civic"? Anyway, nationalism in its "pure civic" form I find to be quite rare - almost an ideal type then an actual reality.
Look at Switzerland.
 
Look at Switzerland.

Virtually all Swiss speak either German, French, Italian or Romansh, and many speak more than one of those languages.
 
^That country stayed mostly there so as to prevent any of the old powers expanding and getting new borders with their main antagonists (eg Austria-Hungary and France). It is as artificial as countries go, which is why it is good for them that their economy is working well, since if things got bad i would not bet on the country remaining in one or two or even three parts.

I read it has a number of very nice cities, and some of my favorite artists were Swiss (Klee, R. Walser, and to a degree also Giger).
 
I don't think that tribalism will go away anytime soon, if that is what your are basing your projection of nationalism on. I present the formation of gang activity which is alive and well despite any nationalistic projection.

IMO, nationalism is just a rallying point to present to the rest of the world a united front. The only way nationalism will disappear is when people place their trust in other people and take down the walls that would seem to make nationalism a thing to begin with.
 
^That country stayed mostly there so as to prevent any of the old powers expanding and getting new borders with their main antagonists (eg Austria-Hungary and France). It is as artificial as countries go, which is why it is good for them that their economy is working well, since if things got bad i would not bet on the country remaining in one or two or even three parts.
Not exactly- Switzerland has been around since the late middle ages and was only conquered once. A truly artificial country would be like Nigeria, Kenya, or Jordan.
 
I invite you to watch the documentary I linked, or at least the first episode starting with:

*snip*

Just think about it. The causation is really obvious.

No, no, no and no. There's no such a causation and the proof is that total war is no longer around but nationalism still is.

Total war owes its appearance to things that have absolutely nothing to do with nationalism, and these reasons are mainly military and logistic. What led to the appearance of total war was this birth of conscription-based armies in the 17th century and their rapid ascent in the 18th century. These concription-based armies were massive armies that also required massive amounts of resources, which subsequently led to the appearance of a massive logistic needs that could only be fulfilled by the complete involvement of civilians, which meant that civilians did also became military targets.

Once post-WWII technology allowed much cheaper and effective alternatives, total war was abandoned and the last big wars that show total war features (Korea and Vietnam) bear witness if its end. As you can see, none of this has anything to do with nationalism.

Not really. The very fact that it reaches above national identity and fosters a transnational, continental identity that's reasonably non-exclusive makes it (potentially) a model for getting rid of nationalism globally. One step at a time. Once you train your mind to see beyond the traditional defining features of national identity (the same language, appearance, customs, etc.) and accept other Europeans are your "brothers", maybe your children or the children of their children will be able to do the same with people from other regions.

Continental identity? Accepting other europeans as my brothers? That's exacly what nationalsim does. All your transnationalism does is adding another layer of nationalism, not "getting rid" of it. If you want to "get rid" of nationalsim you've to look for a better framework in which organize public life other than the nation, not using the exact same tools that natonalism used to build nation-states to build a transnation-state.
 
No, no, no and no. There's no such a causation and the proof is that total war is no longer around but nationalism still is.

Who says it isn't? The fact that we're enjoying a lull in the killing here in Europe because we managed to reign in nationalism following an utterly devastating war caused by nationalism and narrowly avoided a war that would have obliterated most of humanity in a few hours (because surely, our country's freedom is more important than the lives of its inhabitants...) doesn't mean it won't happen again.

So far as humanity is split between sovereign nation states which act on the illusion of national self-interest, war remains a possibility.

Total war owes its appearance to things that have absolutely nothing to do with nationalism, and these reasons are mainly military and logistic. What led to the appearance of total war was this birth of conscription-based armies in the 17th century and their rapid ascent in the 18th century.

You haven't seen the thing I linked, have you? Mass conscription was possible only because the advent of nationalism. Wars were turned from "gentlemanly" quarrels between rulers and their mercenary armies to fights between whole nations

These concription-based armies were massive armies that also required massive amounts of resources, which subsequently led to the appearance of a massive logistic needs that could only be fulfilled by the complete involvement of civilians, which meant that civilians did also became military targets.

You have it all backwards. Nationalism was the impulse which made people even attempt industrial war. Common sense would dictate to never even think about it at all; WW1 demonstrated why. WW2, with a slightly more advanced technology, showed the extension of the nationalist idea of a total war of nations - wars are waged against the people of the other side. Distinctions between combatants and non-combatants are erased. Firebombing the Germans and the Japanese is justified, because they're the enemy - every woman, man and child; throwing V2 on London is fine, because what's important is the morale of the English civilians; slaughtering Slavs by the millions is okay because they're not human at all. Etc. etc. etc.

All of it was a logical extension of the nationalist ideology.

Once post-WWII technology allowed much cheaper and effective alternatives, total war was abandoned and the last big wars that show total war features (Korea and Vietnam) bear witness if its end. As you can see, none of this has anything to do with nationalism.

On the contrary. The only reason why there wasn't another major war was the fact that neither side thought it could win it. Even so, we only narrowly avoided it in 1962 and 1983, with other less serious escalations along the way.

In the meantime, "mini" total wars have been waged around the world between countries and "nations". In Europe, whenever you let nationalism to run free, what follows are massacres and ethnic cleansing (Yugoslavia, Caucasus, etc.).

Continental identity? Accepting other europeans as my brothers? That's exacly what nationalsim does.

No it isn't. I do not think there is such a thing as a European nation. I think there is a community of people with shared history, culture and interest in freedom and security. It isn't exclusive; it doesn't require people's obedience and adherence and relinquishing of their other identities.

This form of transnationalism is a blueprint for the eventual global transnational identity and the abolishing of the nation state.
 
^I wouldn't put the firebombing of one german city (Dresden) on the same sentence as the atomic bombing of two Japanese towns, nor of the mass murder of civilians in occupied Europe (mostly a german thing too).

In law there is a very old notion, that of "the common feeling of justice". I am pretty sure that the firebombing of Dresden was mostly* about that, in the end it did not amount to nation-wide destruction although obviously many common people died during it. In my view Germany pretty much should have stopped existing after ww2.

*by which i do not mean those who ordered it had to care about justice or ethics or any such thing, and they more than likely did not. I mean that the feeling of disgust that most of Europe had with germany had to be extinguished a bit, and this meant such a random bombing.
 
Not exactly- Switzerland has been around since the late middle ages and was only conquered once. A truly artificial country would be like Nigeria, Kenya, or Jordan.

Switzerland started its existence essentially as a mini-EU: It was a very loose regional organization of Cantons who pooled military and economic resources to stay independent from others and evolved into a nation-state of its own. This should be food for thought for those who believe that EU can never form a coherent identity.
 
Distinctions between combatants and non-combatants are erased. Firebombing the Germans and the Japanese is justified, because they're the enemy - every woman, man and child; throwing V2 on London is fine, because what's important is the morale of the English civilians; slaughtering Slavs by the millions is okay because they're not human at all. Etc. etc. etc.

The link you provided was interesting.

I wonder how far it's legitimate to consider all civilians as actual targets though. I mean, in practice.

The Germans blitzed the British quite substantially - with it seems very little effect on the military industrial output, and Londoners came through it all pretty unmoved.

A friend of mine was actually sitting, downstairs in front of a open fire, in a four storey house when the upper two stories were completely obliterated by a bomb. She said all the soot from the chimney and coals from the fire shot out onto the floor in front of her. But she and her family were unhurt and not at all psychologically affected. They just moved somewhere else - and then got bombed out again.

So, following this unsuccessful attempt by the Germans to bomb the British population (mostly consisting of my friend and a few other people I know) into submission, Bomber Command thought it would be a wonderful, and oh so logical, thing to try on the Germans. By all accounts the German population remained uncowed and industrial output was unaffected.

Then the Americans tried bombing the Japanese into submission. And it wasn't until the two atomic bombs were dropped in quick succession that the Japanese were persuaded they might be defeated.

Then, a lot later, the Americans tried bombing North Vietnam into submission. Did it work?

Then, a bit later still, the Americans thought they'd bomb the mountains of Afghanistan. I believe the mountains are still there.

Isn't this getting a bit tedious, by now?

That's not to say air power isn't important tactically, of course. But attacking civilian populations just doesn't seem to have much of an effect.
 
That's not to say air power isn't important tactically, of course. But attacking civilian populations just doesn't seem to have much of an effect.

It never had. Strategic bombing is only useful if you can ruin the war economy or destroy important military installations, and targeting civilians won't accomplish either. There is a world of difference when civilian deaths are unfortunate collateral damage, or is a purposeful aspect of it. In which case should not be labeled strategic bombing but terror bombing.
 
Nationalism is beautiful and has done more good than harm. It keeps competition healthy even if that competition does devolve into warfare from time to time. Warfare and nationalism are part of the tribal human instinct which allows us to be progressive.

And Europa is such a beautiful land and I am proud to be from it.
 
Hmm.

Nationalism is nasty and has done more harm than good. It stifles cooperation between peoples living in different locations, even if that cooperation tends to make people complacent.

Cooperation and universal good-will are part of human nature, which allows civilization to flourish in an atmosphere of security.

And Europa is a beautiful land, equal in beauty to every other beautiful continent.
 
Hmm.

Nationalism is nasty and has done more harm than good. It stifles cooperation between peoples living in different locations, even if that cooperation tends to make people complacent.

Cooperation and universal good-will are part of human nature, which allows civilization to flourish in an atmosphere of security.

And Europa is a beautiful land, equal in beauty to every other beautiful continent.

Every civic participation involves some degree of nationalism. And when the burdens of lack of cooperation become too much, nationalisms are merged, like in the example of Switzerland.
 
No it isn't. I do not think there is such a thing as a European nation. I think there is a community of people with shared history, culture and interest in freedom and security. It isn't exclusive; it doesn't require people's obedience and adherence and relinquishing of their other identities.
Why it doesn't? "Civilizational" ideological justifications for Nasty Things are pretty common. Even the Nazis occasionally used "Europe of the Fatherlands" rhetorics. See also Huntington and his "Clash of Civilizations". Bellicose characters both in and outside the West use similar concepts to justify themselves each time.

All your transnationalism does is adding another layer of nationalism, not "getting rid" of it. If you want to "get rid" of nationalsim you've to look for a better framework in which organize public life other than the nation, not using the exact same tools that natonalism used to build nation-states to build a transnation-state.
Is the distinction between "Good" and "Bad" transnationalism the same as the distiction between liberal and illiberal nationalism, also sometimes framed as distinction between nationalism and patriotism?
 
Oh wow! "I know you are but what am I?" What a great reply! 10/10 I have been truly schooled, practically private schooled LOL how great!

Wut? Where? When? Who? How?

What are you on about?

I have been truly baffled.

Spoiler :
For my part, I was just entertaining myself with producing a contrary viewpoint. Nothing more.

A great many technological advances are indeed owed to the pressures of warfare. Probably too many to mention. Radar,... er... nuclear bombs....rocketry...and such like.

edit: Er... what else is there? Reconstructive plastic surgery?
 
Top Bottom