Nationalism

[Athanasios]

Though you are all making interesting points for either side, you're missing one key concept in any discussion about nationalism. The difference between Ethnic Nationalism and Civic Nationalism. They are starkly different and each have different advantages/disadvantages. In this thread it seems like we are all using these two terms interchangeably or synonymously, and they are neither interchangeable or synonymous.

 

In several of the posts one person will be discussing Ethnic Nationalism, like in Germany, and counter it with an argument that is linked to Civic Nationalism, like what we see in France. But those are two different types of Nationalism and should be treated and discussed differently.

 

In my personal opinion, I think that Ethnic Nationalism has been used as excuse for exclusion, discrimination and hate, and Civic Nationalism has been used as excuse for imperialism and colonialism. I personally feel neither is good, and nationalism as a whole does more harm than good, but it's important to recognize and distinguish between the two in a discussion like this. Read the article below, I think its around 7 pages, if you want a brief look at Brubaker's dissertation and book on Civic vs. Ethnic Nationalism and how they influence the modern nation-state and the modern world.

 

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=acls;cc=acls;rgn=full%20text;idno=heb01814.0001.001;didno=heb01814.0001.001;view=image;seq=00000013;node=heb01814.0001.001%3A3

Edited October 20, 2014 by Athanasios

[Emperor Ifee II]

I wrote an essay on the growing problems of the US trying to become some sort of imperialistic power. I believe that nationalism is never good in the ethnic nationalist sense Athanasios was talking about, as for civic nationalsin it is very useful for growing pride, though every country since the end of WW2 seems to take it to far, causing tensions and imperialism. To me the United States is at a point where we are getting slightly to big for our breeches we pretty much are already the worlds policeman, now we want to be the world's military as well which breeds a lot of contempt overseas.

 

In addition to ethnic and civic nationalism, I believe there is a third Religious nationalism, nowadays we could form a new religion and then try and split away from a country under the grounds that it's a 'holy war'. That's an excuse that's been used for ages, I mean just look at Israel.

[Hereno]

the US trying to become some sort of imperialistic power

LMAO

 

yeah bro they aren't trying

[Ayayay]

LMAO

 

yeah bro they aren't trying

We are a peaceful nation, we only intend to bring peace to the world. But how can you bring peace if not at the end of a gun? Only through death can peace be attained!

[Dietrich]

You kinda convinced me on the value of nationalism as an alternative to sectarian violence and fuzzy borders. Still, as nations progress nationalism should be used to promote globalism. A pride in ones nation contributing to the condition of all people.

 

I used to hold a similar belief - although I would never claim to support "globalism" in any sense of the word - and I still sympathize strongly with the idea that once a nation has attained all of its own needs, it should set aside some resources in order to help another nation, and preferably a nation in a strategically useful position, to achieve a similar condition. For example, once poverty in Germany - and not proletarianism, mind you, but true poverty, in which a family cannot afford to live with dignity - is conclusively eliminated, it would be appropriate for Germany to set aside some of its own resources in order to aid Romania or Bulgaria.

 

Hindu nationalism in India probably does more good than harm in the short run. It enables the Indian government to attempt to cement dozens of ethnic groups into a single national identity. However, it's also responsible for conflict with Pakistan and Bangladesh. By seeking to create a nation for the Hindi (Hindustan) the Muslim minority was alienated and sought its own state. Actions taken to benefit the Hindi at the expense of the Muslims has resulting in decades of conflict. But as long as significant sub-nationalist sentiments exist in areas of India, Hindu nationalism will continue to be a net good.

 

In case of China, the failure of the Chinese to get the Uyghur, Tibetian, and Mongolian peoples to consider themselves Chinese by this point, the international criticism drawn by their actions in Tibet, and the fear generated by their loud demands in the south China sea means that Chinese nationalism is a net harm to the country. Focusing on economic development and international cooperation are far more effective for China than internal efforts of Sinicization and external efforts to increase their control of the south China sea.

 

Arab nationalism was a nice idea, but is at this point dead. Nationalism in the potentially constituent countries will prevent it from returning to relevance any time soon, maybe forever. 

 

The African union is a great idea, and barring the effects of nationalism in its constituent countries, it could one day form a great state.

 

I find it interesting that you believe that Arab nationalism is dead because of nationalism within individual Arab countries, but African nationalism is a great idea despite nationalism within individual African countries. This stance seems inconsistent; if anything, geography at least lends itself to Arab nationalism, and the Arabs share common ethnic, religious, and cultural ties, while the Africans... well, to say "the Africans" is as misleading as to say "the Europeans", because the only thing that an Orthodox Christian Ethiopian, a Sunni Muslim Somalian, and an animist Zimbabwean have in common is the color of their skin. These divisions run so deep that they often prevent effective national governance, as demonstrated by the rebellions which regularly break out within the artificial borders drawn by Europeans almost a hundred and fifty years ago.

 

Here's what I think about nationalism: if it's natural, then it's good, but if it's imposed, then it's bad.

 

German nationalism is natural, as is Arab nationalism, Chinese nationalism, and Indian Hindu nationalism; therefore, these incarnations of nationalism are good. These nations have natural boundaries, and share a common ethnicity, language, and religion, with some variations in each, but not enough to historically divide the nation, except perhaps in the case of India, although I would say that India is similar to Germany in that it would have been united sooner or later. No African or Arab state today has natural boundaries, and there are natural boundaries within Africa, which prevents African nationalism from arising naturally. African nationalism is nothing more than a reaction against a century of European colonialism; modern Arab nationalism has similar roots, but is distinctly more natural due to a shared language, a shared history, a shared religion (with the small exception of Shi'ite minorities, which isn't a major hindrance for reasons too complex to discuss here and now), and a shared geography (although I hesitate to say that the geography is perfect, because Sinai does divide North Africa from Arabia, but this is only a geographical hiccup, as the Alps are to Germany uniting with Switzerland and Austria).

 

As for Chinese nationalism, I don't see it as relevant whether or not Uyghurs, Tibetans, and Mongolians consider themselves Chinese, because they aren't Chinese, and I don't see international criticism as a net harm to the country, because this criticism has not evolved into effective action against China. From China's perspective, its Sinicization policies are working perfectly fine as Han Chinese steadily displace and marginalize native minorities, and its assertiveness in the South China Sea is proving a wise course of action in that it is the only thing keeping the rich natural resources in that region under its control. China's economic development is not hindered by international criticism, and at the end of the day, domestic politics within nearby Asian countries are more likely to affect Chinese diplomacy than criticism levied from continents away by the U.S. and its Western. Abe represents a threat to cordial relations with Japan, and Modi represents an opportunity for closer relations with India; Obama represents a far-away spectator who is more concerned with radical Islamism and Russian aggression than anything taking place in China's sphere of influence at the moment.

 

The most interesting and healthy nationalism is that like exists in the US, because it is more likely to be based on ideas and multiculturalism rather than on history or racial identity.

 

That's not nationalism; it's patriotism (or, as some would prefer to call it, civic nationalism; but there's little practical difference). Very little nationalism has ever arisen in the U.S.; I would cite Southern nationalism and Texan nationalism as the strongest and most well-known examples, and although I'm aware that at one point New English nationalism and Californian nationalism held some weight, I think that they're essentially gone nowadays, because a desire to detach one's liberal region from the country's conservative regions doesn't qualify as nationalism.

 

Though you are all making interesting points for either side, you're missing one key concept in any discussion about nationalism. The difference between Ethnic Nationalism and Civic Nationalism. They are starkly different and each have different advantages/disadvantages. In this thread it seems like we are all using these two terms interchangeably or synonymously, and they are neither interchangeable or synonymous.

 

In several of the posts one person will be discussing Ethnic Nationalism, like in Germany, and counter it with an argument that is linked to Civic Nationalism, like what we see in France. But those are two different types of Nationalism and should be treated and discussed differently.

 

In my personal opinion, I think that Ethnic Nationalism has been used as excuse for exclusion, discrimination and hate, and Civic Nationalism has been used as excuse for imperialism and colonialism. I personally feel neither is good, and nationalism as a whole does more harm than good, but it's important to recognize and distinguish between the two in a discussion like this. Read the article below, I think its around 7 pages, if you want a brief look at Brubaker's dissertation and book on Civic vs. Ethnic Nationalism and how they influence the modern nation-state and the modern world.

 

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=acls;cc=acls;rgn=full%20text;idno=heb01814.0001.001;didno=heb01814.0001.001;view=image;seq=00000013;node=heb01814.0001.001%3A3

 

Whatever is at the other end of that link is unavailable to non-members. I've actually been wanting to read Brubaker's Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany, but I haven't gotten around to obtaining a copy of it, as I don't have a chance to read as much as I used to nowadays.

 

Anyway, whenever I say "nationalism", I refer to what you call "ethnic nationalism"; I acknowledge that civic nationalism exists, but it is almost indistinguishable from patriotism, and it is fundamentally different from nationalism.

 

There are historical examples of both in France, but many people mistake French nationalism for civic nationalism, because they have generally coexisted without a problem; the French tend to support France no matter what, despite the fact that its government convulsed and completely changed shape half a dozen times in the 19th century alone. No other nation's government has been so unstable without its borders becoming equally unstable. One could say, I suppose, that the French are just particularly intense civic nationalists, but this seems unlikely, since obviously there was enough civic discontentment to fuel the revolutions that brought about each change in government. I think that the French are just particularly intense French nationalists; French people love France, and they love being French, and they'll fight for both.

 

I think that French nationalism is perceived more positively than, for example, German nationalism, because it has never led directly to any form of fascist government, has only rarely ignited major wars of expansion, and has only in recent years begun to take on a more racist perspective, largely because France has only in recent years ceased to be racially homogeneous. Nonetheless, French nationalism has as much to do with French ethnicity as German nationalism has to do with German ethnicity: everything.

 

In addition to ethnic and civic nationalism, I believe there is a third Religious nationalism, nowadays we could form a new religion and then try and split away from a country under the grounds that it's a 'holy war'. That's an excuse that's been used for ages, I mean just look at Israel.

 

Israeli nationalism is about Jewish ethnicity, not Jewish religion. Most Israeli Jews are non-religious, or at most only somewhat religious, and the most devoutly religious among them - the Orthodox Jews - actually tend to oppose any form of Israeli nationalism and typically advocate a return to Europe until God determines that the time is right for Israel to be returned to the Jews (or something like that; I don't claim to understand Jewish theology very well).

 

Anyway, I suppose one could try and formulate a historical argument indicating the existence of religious nationalism, but to me it would be a hard sell; after all, once we start drifting away from the original (ethnic) definition of nationalism, what's to stop us from discussing economic nationalism (bourgeoisie vs proletariat), or geographic nationalism (Rocky Mountains vs Great Plains), or even special nationalism (humans vs pigeons)? Those conflicts are not nationalistic in nature; your religion is not your nationality. For example, we don't call the Islamic State a group of Islamic nationalists, because there's already a word for their ideology (Islamism).

[SoS]

Yep, agreed on Israeli nationalism.

 

I don't believe globalism is currently much separated from nationalism, but I believe we are evolving all the time. Globalism still needs to develop and not be Germany aiding Bulgaria, but Germans realizing that an improvement in the condition of Bulgarians will improve the condition for all.

[Greatnate]

I find it interesting that you believe that Arab nationalism is dead because of nationalism within individual Arab countries, but African nationalism is a great idea despite nationalism within individual African countries. This stance seems inconsistent; if anything, geography at least lends itself to Arab nationalism, and the Arabs share common ethnic, religious, and cultural ties, while the Africans... well, to say "the Africans" is as misleading as to say "the Europeans", because the only thing that an Orthodox Christian Ethiopian, a Sunni Muslim Somalian, and an animist Zimbabwean have in common is the color of their skin. These divisions run so deep that they often prevent effective national governance, as demonstrated by the rebellions which regularly break out within the artificial borders drawn by Europeans almost a hundred and fifty years ago.

 

Here's what I think about nationalism: if it's natural, then it's good, but if it's imposed, then it's bad.

 

German nationalism is natural, as is Arab nationalism, Chinese nationalism, and Indian Hindu nationalism; therefore, these incarnations of nationalism are good. These nations have natural boundaries, and share a common ethnicity, language, and religion, with some variations in each, but not enough to historically divide the nation, except perhaps in the case of India, although I would say that India is similar to Germany in that it would have been united sooner or later. No African or Arab state today has natural boundaries, and there are natural boundaries within Africa, which prevents African nationalism from arising naturally. African nationalism is nothing more than a reaction against a century of European colonialism; modern Arab nationalism has similar roots, but is distinctly more natural due to a shared language, a shared history, a shared religion (with the small exception of Shi'ite minorities, which isn't a major hindrance for reasons too complex to discuss here and now), and a shared geography (although I hesitate to say that the geography is perfect, because Sinai does divide North Africa from Arabia, but this is only a geographical hiccup, as the Alps are to Germany uniting with Switzerland and Austria).

 

As for Chinese nationalism, I don't see it as relevant whether or not Uyghurs, Tibetans, and Mongolians consider themselves Chinese, because they aren't Chinese, and I don't see international criticism as a net harm to the country, because this criticism has not evolved into effective action against China. From China's perspective, its Sinicization policies are working perfectly fine as Han Chinese steadily displace and marginalize native minorities, and its assertiveness in the South China Sea is proving a wise course of action in that it is the only thing keeping the rich natural resources in that region under its control. China's economic development is not hindered by international criticism, and at the end of the day, domestic politics within nearby Asian countries are more likely to affect Chinese diplomacy than criticism levied from continents away by the U.S. and its Western. Abe represents a threat to cordial relations with Japan, and Modi represents an opportunity for closer relations with India; Obama represents a far-away spectator who is more concerned with radical Islamism and Russian aggression than anything taking place in China's sphere of influence at the moment.

 

As weird as it seems, the difference between Pan-Arabism and Pan-Africanism is that at this point African states have a lot more to gain by pulling together than the Arab states. The African states need each other to develop in any coherent and independent manner. An argument like this could've been made for the Arab states in the 1950s, but not now. The Egyptians see themselves as Egyptian, not arabs. An Islamic union is more likely than a pan-arab union, and most of the arab governments would rather retain independence than form a new caliphate.

 

No nationalism is natural. All nations are constructed ideas. The natural state of humanity is tribalism, all organization above that revolves around find similarities and using those similarities to unite smaller groups to gain competitive advantage over slightly different groups. Germany hasn't had a common religion since 1517 AD. If it wasn't for the development of vernacular bibles in that same period, they wouldn't even have a common language. There was no German ethnicity until there was a common German language. The national identities of the Swiss people as Swiss and the Austrian people as Austrian are more of a hindrance to them uniting with Germany than the alps. The would be more likely to unite with Switzerland and Austria by forming a new national identity than trying to reassert the German identity that has been mostly abandoned in those countries.

 

The Uyghurs, Tibetans, and Mongolian are just as not Chinese as the Miao, Tujia, Dai, and Manchu. China is composed of 56 ethnic groups, it is incredibly relevant which of these groups are assimilating and which are not. The fact that the government is trying so hard to Sinicize the Uyghurs and Tibetans should be evidence of that. Their aggressive actions in the South China sea aren't going to result in any real change in control of undersea resources, delays the extraction of those resources, and reduces the likelihood of Chinese corporations being able to extract them.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Nationalism is the epitome of "rooting for the home team".  Its the most basic "us versus them" mentality.  Nationalism is a way for craven politicians to distract their constituencies from the real issues at home and funnel their anger at an outsider.  Nationalism is a sickness for weak minds.

 

When the cards fall badly though, we all revert to Nationalism.  Its like a psychological weakness.  Actually, its seemingly a positive evolutionary trait to want to murder strangers and take their stuff.  Those without that trait, got killed and didn't pass their genes on.  Its up to us now to break the bonds of a million years of stranger killing.  

[SoS]

I consider the "kill a stranger" trait to be the "soul" trait. Our instincts evolved into emotions, into emotional predicting/planning, into social bonds based on emotional predicting/planning.

 

The way forward is to include all the ethnicities and peoples in our circle of concern, not fear or hate. We can then work on the criminals together.

Edited October 24, 2014 by SoS

[WISD0MTREE]

Can I not wave a !@#$ing American flag without people calling me a bad person? 

[Redrum]

Blind faith in ones country is never a good thing... a real patriot questions the government at every turn to make sure they are really doing what is best for the people.

[WISD0MTREE]

Blind faith in ones country is never a good thing... a real patriot questions the government at every turn to make sure they are really doing what is best for the people.

A real patriot doesn't let their rights go away. 

[SoS]

Blind faith, obedience, allegiance...politicians could lead you to anything.

[Solomon]

Can I not wave a !@#$ American flag without people calling me a bad person? 

I have no problem with you waving a flag of any country. However, humans are by and large rational so we usually do things for a reason, even if it's not always immediately apparent to us what that reason is. Do me a favor and ask yourself why waving a flag is important to you.

[Odin]

We don't need nationalism, we need a good portion of patriotism and rationalism to fight our current Zeitgeist problem : political correctness and Gutmenschentum ( dont know english translation ... Political correctness + anti-traditionalists "humans" on crack? )

 

 

Nothing worse then people and especially politicians acting out of idealism then by rationalism.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Wilhelm II

[SoS]

I think they like to call themselves progressives.

 

The worst thing is a person that is rational and exploits others emotions. Is that what you were saying? Being exploited is the risk to avoid.

[Ashland]

Yo, though, I heard that the Nazis were nationalist.  And since they did it, you know it's bad no matter what.  Science has proven.  Statistically speaking.

[WISD0MTREE]

Yo, though, I heard that the Nazis were nationalist.  And since they did it, you know it's bad no matter what.  Science has proven.  Statistically speaking.

A little off topic, but it has been good. (See Cold War, allies in WWII)

[Emperor Ifee II]

In my earlier post I should have made it more clear when I mentioned Isreal I meant look at the people(religions) trying to take over it. Christians had countless crusades to try to take it, Muslims had countless crusades to take over it and Jews have had some. I wasn't trying to say anything about the Israeli people I was talking about religious groups fighting over that 'Holy Land'

[Ashland]

In my earlier post I should have made it more clear when I mentioned Isreal I meant look at the people(religions) trying to take over it. Christians had countless crusades to try to take it, Muslims had countless crusades to take over it and Jews have had some. I wasn't trying to say anything about the Israeli people I was talking about religious groups fighting over that 'Holy Land'

So what you meant was "Jews did 9/11 and I want the terrorists to win.  I also support puppy cancer."  Just making sure I'm getting it.

[Ayayay]

So what you meant was "Jews did 9/11 and I want the terrorists to win.  I also support puppy cancer."  Just making sure I'm getting it.

I love this guy.

 

Side note: !@#$ isn't censored anymore?

 

Edit: The plural form isn't

Edited October 29, 2014 by underlordgc

[Ashland]

I love this guy.

 

Side note: !@#$ isn't censored anymore?

 

Edit: The plural form isn't

I stumbled my way upon a loophole in the censorship.

 

Anyway, back to Nationalism, I guess.  Nationalism, I suppose, is just pride in country.  Nothing inherently wrong with that.

[Odin]

No, patriotism is pride in his country. Nationalism is pride in his folk/race. Paired with chauvinism and socialism it gets National Socialism.

You could say Patriotic-socialism is good, and NS is bad... at least for people outside the folk/race.

[Ashland]

Wait, then what do you call it when people who aren't Americans take pride in their country?  Because it's an American-centric word.

[Odin]

Patriots, people who are proud of their country.

Patriotism wasn't invented in america, you know?^^

 

Nationalismus is more complicated then thinking Nation + alism = ...

Nationalism in its most known form took its roots in Europe, especially Germany and Italy and Yugoslavia area, since they were the last states to unite.

The people wanted an united country, thats why Nationalism, the urge to get a Nation.

And today maybe its Kurds etc. who are nationalistic, or people who demand older frontierlines, like the Russians.

 

State-driven nationalism comes mosten in form of fascism. Since people voted for those partys out of revanchism.

To set the own country above others and their thoughts about border-disputes.

National-socialism is tricky. Normally the words National aren't bad, and Socialism aren't bad.

Bad is though was the NSDAP made out of it, it was more Socialchauvinism.

Well, since they were the first and only NS-Party worth to talk about, they set how Nationalsocialism is today seen as^^

Edited October 29, 2014 by Wilhelm II