Is it possible to get rid of nationalism?

[Winner]

^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).

It wasn't one city. Nearly all major German cities were bombed to smithereens; that people actually lived in them? Who cares, they're German, kill'em! They shouldn't have started the war. What, you say they're mostly women, children and old men, because all the others are out fighting? Bah, all Germans are enemies, regardless of their age, sex, or ideology. You see, we're fighting for democracy, we can't discriminate.

/sarcasm

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.

The difference is fuzzy. The Allied planners sometimes tried to justify all this by saying they're bombing factories and railway stations and other relevant industrial/transportation infrastructure. In reality, this was so close or within major population centres that any bombing campaign would inevitably lead to massive civilian casualties.

This has only become palatable due to nationalistic thinking. The other nation is seen as a monolithic bloc, the enemy, and the workers in factories and women in homes and their children in schools are all contributing to the enemy war effort, therefore they're legitimate targets.

The impersonality of modern industrial warfare only makes this insanity easier to stomach. I wonder how many of the pilots who bombed Tokyo or Hamburg would be capable of looking every single person they killed in the eye and then pour petrol on them and set them on fire, or suffocate them with their own hands, or club them to death, or shoot them in cold blood. I would hope not many.

Although, many Germans who in their ordinary lives were civilized, sensitive people, ended up shooting unarmed men, women and children kneeling in ditches in Russia. It was for the good of the German nation, after all...

When you start pondering all the logical consequences of adhering to the nationalist mindset, it gets nasty and depressing very quickly.

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.

It took a long time, though.

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.

Because the shared European identity isn't construed as exclusive in terms of "these other people are our enemies".

And yes, I get the argument - we are just constructing a bigger nation, the principle is the same, yadda yadda. And partially you are correct, the principle looks awfully similar. The main difference as I see it is the attempt to make people transcend the nation state. Even if "European identity" was essentially a nationalist idea, it also subverts 28 other national projects and teaches people to consider the bigger picture.

It is this very same process that could, eventually, lead people to embrace a global identity and construe an universal "human" nation. And yeah, I realize how it sounds - the disease is also the cure. But it may be so - after all, an antidote is often just a watered-down version of the poison it protects against.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Not sure what you are on about, Winner, i remember specifically mentioning how the allied command who ordered the firebombing of Dresden probably thought, and that it most likely had little to do with the fair pan-european sentiment of disgust at those germans who pretty much maimed the continent and created endless deadly fields irrigated by the blood of their victims.

And sorry, 'two' german cities being bombed as 'reprisal' is not enough either as reaction to their slaughter. I maintain that they should have ended as a country after their inhuman epic of horror in ww2. I suppose that their fate was not as immediate as ancient Assyria's was not at all down to any positive reasoning, but probably to a continuation of the same game, till the next ww.

 

[Borachio]

And sorry, 'two' german cities being bombed as 'reprisal' is not enough either as reaction to their slaughter. I maintain that they should have ended as a country after their inhuman epic of horror in ww2. .

But why?

If you were to ask me, in the cold light of day with a following strong wind, the German country*, as a country, has been no better and no worse than any other.

*If by country you mean nation state.

But as our chum Hitler said: "It is not truth that matters, but victory."

 

[Phrossack]

^Not sure what you are on about, Winner, i remember specifically mentioning how the allied command who ordered the firebombing of Dresden probably thought, and that it most likely had little to do with the fair pan-european sentiment of disgust at those germans who pretty much maimed the continent and created endless deadly fields irrigated by the blood of their victims.

And sorry, 'two' german cities being bombed as 'reprisal' is not enough either as reaction to their slaughter. I maintain that they should have ended as a country after their inhuman epic of horror in ww2. I suppose that their fate was not as immediate as ancient Assyria's was not at all down to any positive reasoning, but probably to a continuation of the same game, till the next ww.

It was a hell of a lot more than two cities that were bombed. And Germany's improved dramatically since WWII; the Germans are peaceful, even pacifistic now, and Germany is an excellent place to live. Besides, should Japan have been dismembered for its extreme atrocities between 1910 and 1945? The murder of millions of Chinese, the enslavement of the Koreans, the horrific treatment of POWs, the use of "comfort women", and Unit 731? There is nothing inherently evil about Japan or Germany; it was circumstances and the decisions of their leadership in certain periods. I'm sure you would have loved to see the sheer madness of the Morgenthau Plan, but that would have killed or displaced tens of millions. Or maybe Kaufman's disgusting plans.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Because the shared European identity isn't construed as exclusive in terms of "these other people are our enemies".

Nationalism in its more liberal forms (see also "nationalism" vs "patriotism") is also quite agreeable, at least at the first glance, and people who were guided by the motivation of "I want to make my great country better" did many admirable things. You'd say, and I would agree, that it's idealistic to think that "benevolent nationalism" could exist without its dark sides, but the same applies to your idea of Europe - in fact, we can see the development of benevolent and malevolent versions of that whole "Europa" concept right now.

It is this very same process that could, eventually, lead people to embrace a global identity and construe an universal "human" nation.

Well, good luck with that. Personally, I think that this is fairly close to thinking that creating a global megacorporation is a first step to eliminating competition between companies.

And sorry, 'two' german cities being bombed as 'reprisal' is not enough either as reaction to their slaughter. I maintain that they should have ended as a country after their inhuman epic of horror in ww2.

Interesting, go on...

 

[Hygro]

And sorry, 'two' german cities being bombed as 'reprisal' is not enough either as reaction to their slaughter. I maintain that they should have ended as a country after their inhuman epic of horror in ww2. I suppose that their fate was not as immediate as ancient Assyria's was not at all down to any positive reasoning, but probably to a continuation of the same game, till the next ww.

oh this is rich. This logic is so surprisingly similar to that which drove the war in the first place.

 

[Tahuti]

And sorry, 'two' german cities being bombed as 'reprisal' is not enough either as reaction to their slaughter. I maintain that they should have ended as a country after their inhuman epic of horror in ww2.

Well actually, that's exactly what happened. Thing is, Germany got re-established.

 

[Rashiminos]

It will be unlikely since there are plenty of parties interested in maintaining use of the concept.

 

[GoodGame]

I suspect we could probably replace any ism with any other ism via education and reinforcement.

In short the medicine would either be substitution or modify the strength of response to nationalism.


This is an interesting question, because I've been reading about the Spanish civil war today.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I doubt it unless you find a way to make humans not human. I guess I can't rule that out.

Nationalism may mutate into something else entirely, granted, but it won't simply "poof" away. Religion never really disappears either, IMO. It just gets smeared around and redirected into ideological fervor and other similar outlets. I expect nationalism will be much the same. Perhaps it will be more like SMAC where people all kill each other over pure ideology instead? ( As if we aren't already good at that. ) The only thing am fairly certain about is that we'll continue to fight over something.

The only way I can imagine the whole planet acting as one unified, peaceful political will is if:

1) Severe repressive measures are taken by some kind of authoritarian super-state
2) It is no longer the only planet inhabited by man
3) Somebody tweaks the human species at a basic, physical level

EDIT: Not that anyone should hang on my opinion

 

[Lone Wolf]

I doubt it unless you find a way to make humans not human. I guess I can't rule that out.

Nationalism is fairly demonstrably not inherent to human condition, it needs to be propagadized to first-graders (and varieties of nationalism that are propagated during the early school years can be quite insidious, when you look at them objectively).

It's true, however, that our current society is a society of conflict.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Are they instilling nationalism or simply fleshing it out? I tend to suspect ( though I won't claim I can prove it ) that the tendency would emerge in some form even without indoctrination.

 

[Lone Wolf]

It may not be inherent to the condition of a single human, but what if it's eh, how do I say this, inherent in gatherings of people?

I don't think that it's inherent in large gathering of people, either. I don't think that you'll find much nationalism in ancient Mesopotamia or medieval Occitania. You'll find tribalism and group conflict in these places for sure. But each time generic human tendency to "pick teams" goes mad, its causes are much more then just "humans are picking teams, duh". When nationalism goes really mad, like in Nazi Germany, its madness stems from concrete socio-historical factors.

And of course, nationalism is ideological in itself.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Ah, fair enough I guess.

I suppose I'm guilty of conflating the very specific concept of nationalism with the larger idea of "teaming up and fighting."

 

[Lone Wolf]

I don't think that "generic tribalism" will ever go away, since it, unlike nationalism, seems to be transhistorical. But it can, under right circumstances, be limited in its social relevance.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Through out the history we have seen different form of organisation of people to come and go. Nation and nationalism is just one of them. The formula of nationalism still has its strenght and is likely going to survive for couple more of centuries and it may linger on even longer just like in some parts of the world tribal society is still existent but it will not likely be the main organising force in the future mankind. Eventualy it will be replaced by people uniting on different basis which will simply take into account the most efficient possibility of organisation of the future era and its particular needs.


That said Czechia no.1

 

[Yeekim]

Well, is the question about whether it's possible to get rid of this tribal behaviour of which nationalism is the most prominent example (arguably?)

That is hardly possible. Certainly not within next few thousand generations.

or about whether it's possible to shift to instead expressing tribal behaviour in terms other than the nation?

That might be possible, but I don't think it would be much of an actual improvement.

It is this very same process that could, eventually, lead people to embrace a global identity and construe an universal "human" nation.

So I understand you prefer civil wars to regular ones?

 

[Hygro]

it's weird seeing so many of you argue that nationalism is part of "human nature" when according to most historians is an entirely modern concept that would have seemed silly to those who came before it.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

it's weird seeing so many of you argue that nationalism is part of "human nature" when according to most historians is an entirely modern concept that would have seemed silly to those who came before it.

I think human nature is social (starting from family) and possesive (attachment to a piece of land) and expansive (trying to increase family, land). Nationalism is reflection and widening of these basic atributes in large colective ego.

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

"healthy competition".