Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

When my family started immigrating around the globe, I started disbelieving in the concept of nationalism. And I think I have good reason why I don’t believe it, but first let us define nationalism.

One aspect about a typical nationalist is that he/she will believe the nation he lives in is absolutely perfect, leading them to listen to their (sometimes) immoral leaders. And they will absolutely believe in whatever statement the leader of that nation will say. For example many Americans have once believed that the Iraq War was justified because of the 9/11 attacks, these people are ignorant and won’t bother giving a quick Wikipedia search of what happened. Essentially their main source of information was the leader or other pro-americans in that nation.

And because they are absolute nationalists, they will develop some form of unjustified prejudice to other nations because it is quite simply not their nation. They absolutely love their nation and don’t want to be in any other nation. An example would be the live-action movie AMERICAN SNIPER where it depicted typical middle eastern people as the “bad guys” and the American war criminals as the “good guys”.

The most obvious point against nationalism is that it limits a person’s thinking. They absolutely believe their nation is perfect and is blinded by it when making moral decisions. For example, can anyone believe that an Israeli nationalist will make moral and flexible decisions despite being an Israeli nationalist? This can be applied to many other countries with MASSIVE problems. For example we have all seen the indian nationalist in the “Designated s******* streets” meme where the person kept praising india despite the stinky problems.

There are many more reasons I can choose but I am going to keep this as a discussion thread.

As this threads very opening post is strawman of all nationalist as brainwashed fanatics, I very much doubt you'll get the debate you want.

Maybe you should try riff raff with a set up like this? You'd at least get more post in line with the quality this presents.

like Graphic T said – with an OP like that I'm not under the impression you actually want to discuss this. You seem to have convinced yourself nationalism is objectively wrong and as much as I'd like to weigh in (geddit because I'm American) I don't see what good it would do.

Since we're deviating from Serious Debate to Riff Raff (seriously, how does the OP pull that off so succinctly), googling the second paragraph of OP's statement also gives you "Failure of African Leadership-- African Holocaust", "The Words of Napoleon and Others", "What America Still Owes the World", and "Islam: A Religion of Terrorism".

Warriorman, when you said you were gonna make this thread in the IRC, what did I say the replies were gonna be?

Exactly what you got, people calling you out on calling nationalism the same as jingoism/over-patriotism.

You're misrepresenting nationalism and your dictionary definition even proves that.

Bait harder, kanith.

@Spider-byte

I really don't care what other people will give me, all I care about is the thread itself. Also can you give me your definition of nationalism? And if you think I am wrong, i would appreciate if you gave reasons why rather than just saying it.

I'd also like to note your section on American Sniper calls the U.S. soldiers "war criminals" and the "typical middle people" bad guys. The "bad guys" are shown to not typical middle eastern people. And calling them war criminals is insensitive. Also, has there ever been any war film where everyone was the good guy?

If it wasn't for nationalism, we would still be living in a colonial world. The fact of the matter is, nationalism was and still is a unifying force that drives groups of people to demand self-agency and self determination.

The old imperial global order collapsed because of the nationalist interests of various sub groups the various colonies would dominate.

For example, India. You think that what Ghandi preached wasn't predicated on a type of nationalism? Of course it was.

You dismiss nationalism as a legitimate force for groups of people to demand self rule and agency? You dismiss history then.

^
Excellent points there Chewybunny. Nationalism played a huge rule in human history not just in recent history but also since ancient times.

However, I think that as of now nationalism has somewhat run its course in how useful it can be to humanity. Many atrocities and wars were done through nationalistic beliefs or nationalistic propaganda. The First World War, The Second World War, The Cold War (and proxy wars of) and The Yugoslav Wars to name a few. While nationalism can bring about revolution against oppression it can also do the opposite of validating oppression against a different culture group. Nationalism does not benefit humanity as a whole nor allow an individual free thought.

I'm still trying to formulate a full opinion on the matter, but what I feel as of now is that Nationalism is Patriotism taken to the extreme. Of course, this has the potential to act as a springboard for some of the worst atrocities mankind has ever bore witness to. We do have to give credit to nationalism for severing the chains of global empires and creating many historically-significant moments in our history. It's a really mixed bag, so we will never know exactly how it will play out every time.

Can yoh really claim nationalism is to blame for all of that? Nationalism alone? Consider that as nationalism has decreased, ideologues and religious extremism has taken over instead.

There's just a fundamental thing that occurs when a bunch of humans gather together. If it isn't a belief in ones territory, then it's belif in ones group. And if it wasn't belief in ones group, it's belief in a belief itself. And without even that, what is there left to keep people from just being sociopathic to one another?

Ism's are a necessary element of society to unite people and to convince them to work together and tolerate one another. Like anything else if you take it too far, it becomes horrible. If a person didn't believe in anything, and disliked all isms, then they'd have no qualm killing people for getting in their way.

The belief that everyone is a human being deserving of respect and the right to live and be free is a direct result of an ism. Specism, which is just nationalism of the entire human race, and those who don't prescribe to it are the crazy folks who think eating chicken is literal murder.

There's something to value in a belief that can unite people to a common purpose. If it isn't an irrational pride in ones country, it's an irrational pride in ones species, or an irrational pride in ones personal accomplishments in the face of how meaningless it is compared to the whole of human history, or pride in ones dead ancestors actions. It's all irrational pride, but at least it's better then having a cold and rational mindset that ones fellow humans have no right or excuse to live other then being allowed to.

And to be honest, having pride in ones country is like having pride in ones home. When you don't give a shit about your home you stop doing shit to keep it nice. Same with a country, in a way. No sense of pride means you don't care how shit your country is, because why the fuck does it even matter? Like, look at a lot of these modern criminal groups. They don't give a crap about their home country. They have, I would argue, no nationalism whatsoever. They've replaced it with narcissism, or religious extremism.

When you have everything in balance, it's a wonderful agent of unification and ethics, heck it's even an engine of progress and progressivism. But I will give thid; nationalism has been abused a lot in the past, and it has been taken far too far in the past. But, I don't believe that should matter, as much as looking at what nationalism is fundamentally.

Because if we're only going to look at these concepts at their worst. Then we need to look at all of these concepts at their worst. Including stuff like egalitarianism and how forced equality is totalitarianism.

Ok, based on the definition in my native language (which could be outdated and/or not correct in English) everyone here is mixing up nationalism and patriotism.

Patriotism is the belief that your country is something to be proud of and to be held high; nationalism is the belief that your country is intrinsically better than every other one. The difference between the two is subtle, but the latter implies that all other nations are worse than yours and therefore every action against them is somewhat justified.

Basically, it's like vegetarians and vegans: every vegan is vegetarian but not all vegetarians are vegans. Nationalism is an extremism of patriotism, and as every other extremism it can be dangerous.

So yeah, not much to add to the discussion, just thinking that it would be helpful to use this distinction.

@Black Graphic T
Well if i remember my history right. The 1st World War was started because the some Serb killed an Austrian prince or something. The Austrians then used that reason to attack the nation of Serbia. Then almost every nation in Europe jumped in. The Second World War was because of German nationalism and Japanese Imperialism. Is this solely because of nationalism? Well no. Nationalism was/is used as a tool by men in power to control the populace into accepting their policies easier. However, since the rise of nationalism, people have viewed their own nation with greater pride than of others and over time people came to hate other nations and their people just by their national identity. That old thinking that the French, English and Germans hate each other came from nationalism. That thinking started two world wars. Now yes, these events are much more complex than what I am saying, but down to the basic concepts nationalism is the root of the tree.

Also let me define patriotism:
(noun)
devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.

"Patriotism is an emotional attachment to a nation which an individual recognizes as their homeland. This attachment, also known as national feeling or national pride, can be viewed in terms of different features relating to one's own nation, including ethnic, cultural, political or historical aspects. It encompasses a set of concepts closely related to those of nationalism."

From how I see it the distinction is nationalism encompasses a nation and is an ideology. Patriotism is one's own feelings of their home nation.

1st World War had a direct cause, the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand, and two indirect causes: Arms/military race and nationalism, especially in the Balkans. Direct cause was merely a pretext. Since arms race was also, in a way, fueled by the rise of nationalism way of thinking (since the very concept of a "nation" is a rather late invention), yes, I suppose that we can blame it for WWI.

WWII is a bit more complex, and nationalism was merely one of the factors, instead the main indirect cause.

When my family started immigrating around the globe, I started disbelieving in the concept of nationalism

Probably because you literally left you homeland behind and your sense of nationalism. Now you live in a foreign land (UK?) and preach about how toxic the idea of nationalism is, effectively advocating a negative effect upon the UK. Do you feel left out? offended by the fact that these people around you are comfortably living out their lives?

You often bring up how "materialism does not bring happiness" is this because your true home country is completely incapable of achieving the same standard of living as the UK?

When you look a bit further you will see that it isn't nationalism you have a problem with but the entire developed western world. You know your a underdog and you hate to see these people happy. You are nothing but jealous of them. Your jealousy is even more apparent when we look at how obsessed you are over the Eurofighter Typhoon, a jet developed by central EU and the UK.

You are a complete joke.

@gleebelglobber

Nationalism does not benefit humanity as a whole nor allow an individual free thought.

What difference would free thought make when the nation is already on the same page? the "right to free speech" is a recent entities that only exist to help integration so that people from different cultures opinions can be accepted as an equal.

Before the EU's enforced "freedom of movement" law most EU countries would have been occupied strictly by there native peoples. That situation naturally breeds a sense of nationalism due to common interests.How can a entirely natural instinct be "running its course"? do you live there?

@warriorman

I am also not bothered in responding to the rest of your drivel like you really know nothing about me laika

I know plenty enough to see that you are a hypocritical fool that is incapable of basic self-awareness, much alike Jolly Jew and that other prat, Lisa Lombardo.

Just look at the opening post, look at how you reply to people. You are nothing but bitter at the accomplishments of the western world, nothing but upset by how you have been utterly trounced by these "imperialists" in the past ages and yet again right here, right now. Your pitiful social skills will never allow you a place in this western land because you will forever be salty and incapable of overcoming it. You know that better than anyone.

Stay mad, warriorman. Maybe when you are a little older you can join ISIS or some other medieval-tier extremist group and realize your new world.

@Laika

Your previous post was funny, this post is now comedy gold. And there are so many things wrong with what you are doing.

1.) You are derailing the thread. I made this thread to be about discussing nationalism, not you or me.
2.)You are providing yourself as an example of what nationalism does to people. I said nationalism justifies crimes and you said this:

You are nothing but bitter at the accomplishments of the western world, nothing but upset by how you have been utterly trounced by these “imperialists”

3.)All you are doing is making petty ad hoc insults directed at me. Like, oh my god this is not Riff-Raff this is serious debate yet you are making constant attempts at "roasting" me.

Are you sure it was nationalism? Are you sure it wasn't the military industrial complex and a treaty system which required nations to jump into a war should one of their allies be attacked? Which occured when austria and serbia declared war on one another and every other nation got dragged into it via treaty? If it was purely nationalism, these nations would have simply done nothing, because why should a superior nation concern itself with the rabble of two inferior nations squabbles? Certainly nationalism fueled some of the fires for so many people joining the war effort within their own nation. But it's not as if every nation in Europe just decided to have a melee to see who was the best.

For that, you need to look at the imperialism ruled age of the 1700's to late 1800's. Just look at what france, england, spain, portugal, and belgium were doing to tear each other apart, for the glory of their home empires and to rub it in each others faces how superior the other was. But I'd say all of this is still secondary to the inherent flaw of humans, that they naturally like to divide themselves into groups and subsets and treat what they see as outsiders differently.

Look at the catholic/protestant wars, for example. It was about religion and not nations, yet thousands still died in wars and civil wars over it. This current era of peace is around because europe was decimated by war, enough that it couldn't afford to keep its old practices up and running and was forced to choose between military actions and basic necessities. I think they choose wisely personally, and the break from competition has done a lot to help boost a sense of pride in being from Europe. But, it's not as if nationalism has dropped off, it just changed from being pride in a single country to pride in a block of countries. The EU, is a nation, and it's people can still experience nationalism within it.

And on the point of patriotism, I'd argue that patriotism is nationalism, simply in the healthy degree I described in my earlier post. Everything in moderation as I like to say. But patriotism is still open to the same abuses nationalism has, and causes the same effect. I feel it's more honest to call it nationalism, and just embrace that the degrees of it are what determines whether its good or bad.

WM asked me about nationalism in a private message and suggested I copy/paste the reply here, so I did that.

I’d say on a macro scale, most examples of nationalism will devolve into this kind of milieu. It’s a problem that’s common to all the “isms” of the modern era: when you put a set of man-made ideas on a platform, you risk turning them into objects of worship. This degenerates into tribalism, where the object of worship ceases to matter and the act of worship is all that’s left: thus, in the “communists vs. fascists” struggle, there’s a certain point where they become interchangeable and it no longer matter what communism and fascism espouse, but rather what individuals call themselves.
I’d say on a macro scale, most examples of nationalism will devolve into this kind of milieu. It’s a problem that’s common to all the “isms” of the modern era: when you put a set of man-made ideas on a platform, you risk turning them into objects of worship. This degenerates into tribalism, where the object of worship ceases to matter and the act of worship is all that’s left: thus, in the “communists vs. fascists” struggle, there’s a certain point where they become interchangeable and it no longer matter what communism and fascism espouse, but rather what individuals call themselves.

Two examples are the Protestant/Catholic schism in Ireland in the late 20th century and the Sunni/Shiite schism in post-Saddam Iraq. In both of those instances, insofar as I know, the issue wasn’t really the theological differences between Protestantism and Catholicism or Sunni and Shiite Islam. Rather, it was about who called themselves what: it had more to do with grouping and identity than the nature of the identity. Thus, in Ireland, you have the Irish Republican Army claiming themselves Catholic from a tribal/ethnic point of view but not adhering to any of the doctrines of Catholicism.

As for imperialism, I’d say the Turks are a good example of an empire breaking up for the sake of nationalism. The Ottomans unified the Middle East (excluding Persia) under the banner of a “Muslim empire,” wherein the ethnicity of the various peoples under Ottoman rule didn’t matter as much as their religion did. When the Ottomans lost World War I and the Allied Powers took away their territories, the Turks withdrew the claim to a region-wide Muslim empire and focused on forming an ethnically-determined nation-state, where a secular government and nation were considered one entity by their Turkish ethnicity and language. While this claim to unity works great for the Turkish people, it causes problems when you consider that various other ethnicities inhabit the Anatolian peninsula-- and some have been there for centuries or even millennia before the Turks came.

As for my own take on Nationalism, I think that taken to its extreme, it becomes idolatry. Government and society must be separate for a country to be healthy, and Nationalism like Fascism and Communism inevitably leads to an idolatry of the state that creates an unhealthy and abused population-- for example, the Chinese after Mao Zedong’s takeover. While it’s good, right, and productive to love one’s country to a certain degree, love of country cannot be the only thing that unifies a people because it puts too much power in the state. In this regard, I think religion, culture, and even ethnicity are invaluable because they can provide a wholly societal order for people to take pride in that has nothing to do with the state.

Just to clarify a couple things in light of this thread, I don't think that nationalism itself is necessarily a bad thing, but worship of the state is dangerous to living in a free society and peaceful international community. I appreciate Black Graphic T's point about how if nationalism didn't exist, we'd still be in a colonial era. I think that's very true and it's something I haven't really thought about before, so thanks for sharing that.

I'd also like to say that I don't really think nationalism is harmful to free thought, either. For example, Heidegger was still allowed to be one of the most important and influential philosophers of the twentieth century even when the Nazis were in charge of Germany. Likewise, the USA has always been nationalistic, but has likewise always produced authors, poets, artists, philosophers, and theologians with poignant and diverse insights about the human experience.

Well, crap. I made a serious post. I was doing so well until now.

This thread was just another attempt at warriorman criticizing the west and then shrugging off every post made at him. This is literally a JJ thread where the origin of the thread is actually a personally issue of the stubborn OP.

And according to the paedophiles warning I am antagonizing you by debating with you. Yet having my country slandered apparently doesn't antagonise me.

This is too good

Now that we're into power abuse discussions, can we move this thread to riff raff?

@Black Graphic T

We are not moving this thread to Riff-Raff.

It's kind of late but if you can read his wall Kourosh basically sums up what I think about it as well. Anything in extreme is just never good and that you have to find value and a way in which you do it that causes the least amount of negative consequences.

But in a way Laika is right (not the blatant racism) this thread is Jolly Jew-esque because you essentially have a stance you don't want to back down from, but you feign the idea that if people give you well thought out posts you will reconsider. Whether it's to make you appear to be a reasonable debater. Except actually to give Jolly Jew credit, he had logical points and tried to use evidence to prove himself. So join the ranks of faux-debaters.

You've deliberately presented the argument in a way that is unfair to someone who disagrees with you. The premise is "I think nationalism is bad, tell me why it's good" rather than any other question that provides a neutral standpoint, like "What do you think about Nationalism" or "At what point do you think someone becomes an extremist Nationalist".

@DCS WORLD
They aren't war criminals. They were trained and sent overseas to fight in a war. This is more personal for me because my uncle fought in iraq.

"What I am talking about is morality itself, sure that nation now has a way of fending itself off from greedy imperialists but now they have taken on a very flawed moral system. Say for example forced marriage is a tribal cultural norm, then nationalism is about taking pride in your culture and pretty much justify in this case, forced marriage. Because it is now part of the culture and people, one of the “great” aspects about that nation."

What morality? The morality that you believe that the people you identify with should have self determination?

As far as the example you gave. You have the assumption that nationalism is some sort of evil by default. I present it as neither, evil or good. It is what it could lead to, and how it is in fact used that determines whether or not it was used for good intentions.

Nationalism can also be born out of grievances that disenfranchised groups feel when they are not accurately represented by their governments. Or worse, when said governments employ a prejudicial system which causes certain groups to no longer have any influence in the affairs of their country.

As such, there are various nationalist independence groups in Spain that feel that the Spanish government and monarchy no longer suits their interest, and they have legitimate grievances by which to demand separation from Spain. Are you going to call the Catalan independence movement evil?

Or how about the Scots who have been essentially a conquered nation within the United Kingdom. They have grievances towards the UK and went as far as to attempt to democratically vote themselves independence. That is born out of Scottish nationalism.

Or Kurdish Nationalism which demands for a Kurdistan to exist? When their host nations have continually done tremendous violence upon them. do you call them evil for wanting to separate?

You see nationalism as something that inherently leads to something evil.
I see it as a arbitrary concept neither good or evil but a great source of glue for people who feel legitimately grieved.

I'm also sure that the scramble for the Balkans as the Ottoman Empire was waning didn't help.

Hey when you own most of the world, a little peninsula right next door that hasn't been touched in 400 years seemes pretty damn fucking great, eh?

shit – been playing too much EU4.

As far as the example you gave. You have the assumption that nationalism is some sort of evil by default. I present it as neither, evil or good. It is what it could lead to, and how it is in fact used that determines whether or not it was used for good intentions.

When it is used to justify evil in one's culture, we can agree that it is evil. But let's assume there is a perfect culture that is perfect and has never done any wrong. A citizen can support that nation with a mindset of "I will support this nation when it is doing good and reject it when it is doing bad". It is not exactly nationalism because you are not supporting every single decision the nation does. With this mindset it will make you "safe from evil" and can be applied to living in all nations (I suppose).

Nationalism can also be born out of grievances that disenfranchised groups feel when they are not accurately represented by their governments. Or worse, when said governments employ a prejudicial system which causes certain groups to no longer have any influence in the affairs of their country.

This is a simplistic scenario you are playing with, because it could be that the government does in fact oppress it's people or the people want to separate over incredibly petty reasons like ethnicity or cultural identity. Ethnicity means absolutely nothing when making moral decisions.

Secondly, do you not know the price of national separation? You will be left with a smaller and weaker nation because a fraction of your military was taken away to the other nation you separated from. This is simply the reason why ethnicity and cultural identity mean absolutely nothing for reasons to separate.

I wouldn't say cultural reasons are always petty. Forcing 2 distinctively different cultures to just deal with each other is what a lot of European leaders are doing right now and it's not working out at all.

DCS WORLD wrote:

It is not exactly nationalism because you are not supporting every single decision the nation does.

Talk about simplistic scenarios, have you ever seen someone who supports everything their country does? Most people will at least have disagreements with what their country is doing.

@Iamslow

If some parts of a nation are culturally diverse, then if they are able to be culturally diverse then why should it split apart for the sake of culture? The price of national separation is a weaker military force and you want cultural groups to split up for the cost of safety?

@Spider-Byte

The “I will support this nation when it is doing good and reject it when it is doing bad” mentality is something pretty much everyone who is sane does when talking about foreign nations. There are nationalists who will disagree with each other on some matters, but compare that to someone who views his/her nation as a foreign nation, nationalists have a tendency to justify a lot of bad stuff (not all) their nation does because they absolutely side with that nation.

You're talking in circles and assuming both cultures in any given scenario would substantially contribute to the military. If a nation is able to be culturally diverse than no. But it's a two way street.

An ideology is a tool, not an actor. It alone cannot bring good nor bad, it requires someone to wield it. The bad is no more atrocious than the good is just imo. For every faction that wields Nationalism to dominate other cultures like the Nazis, we see another wield it as a reason to defend their own culture like the Finnish, the Polish, and even the Americans I'd say.

Nationalism has no merits, it’s responsible for every atrocity in history.

Crazy how a concept originating from the 18th century managed to retroactively cause everything bad ever.

>An ideology is a tool, not an actor. It alone cannot bring good nor bad, it requires someone to wield it. The bad is no more atrocious than the good is just imo. For every faction that wields Nationalism to dominate other cultures like the Nazis, we see another wield it as a reason to defend their own culture like the Finnish, the Polish, and even the Americans I’d say.

Nationalism to counter nationalism isn't typically a noble gesture. I'd say that there were significantly better reasons to stand against the domination of other nations than the fact that their national identities were at risk. You know, like actually giving a damn about fellow human beings. Priests didn't rescue Nazi targets out of nationalism.

>Crazy how a concept originating from the 18th century managed to retroactively cause everything bad ever.

The precursors to nationalism can be found much further back than that. Take Canaan campaigns of the Old Testament, for example. Name a single atrocity not motivated by nationalism.

The precursors to nationalism can be found much further back than that. Take Canaan campaigns of the Old Testament, for example.

I don't know what those are, so I'll presume that they were one tribe of ancient people fighting another, probably over dirt.

What does that have to do with nationalism? Nationalism is the grouping of one group of people together not by family ties, but by other things. Usually it is shared history, culture, things like that.

"A man does not have himself killed for a half pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him."

The Canaan campaigns were wars fought by the Israelites more than three thousand years ago. Tribes of hundreds of thousands destroyed the cities of Canaan (according to the Old Testament, but there is archaeological evidence substantiating this) and killed their inhabitants. This wasn't over family ties, they believed themselves to be God's chosen people, people with a shared culture and history – specifically, the bondage of Egypt. Expecting you to know that is obviously unreasonble, but you've acknowledged your lack of knowledge on the subject and then rejected it because it was convenient when, in reality, it fit your own criteria. That's utter bullshit. Here's a quote from historian Rachel Havrelock: "From this perspective, God fought on behalf of manifest Israel…. Joshua’s vocabulary informed the lexicon of Jewish nationalism." This is an early example of nationalism, one with which most Jews, Christians and Muslims are familiar with. It meets your own criteria. It was nationalistic.

Tribes of hundreds of thousands destroyed the cities of Canaan (according to the Old Testament, but there is archaeological evidence substantiating this) and killed their inhabitants.

Hundreds of thousands of people living in the Israel area during the bronze age? I find that hard to believe.

but you’ve acknowledged your lack of knowledge on the subject and then rejected it because it was convenient when, in reality, it fit your own criteria.

I wasn't expecting you to list a direct example of nationalism and then label it as a precursor to nationalism for no reason whatsoever. So I guess you got me. Want a prize?

603,550 potential soldiers, according to the census performed in Numbers. You can look it up for yourself regardless of how hard you may find it. Nationalism more typically refers to the idea that individuals should value the rights and needs of their own nation over those of others. I'm not dignifying any more of your nonsense.

603,550, according to the census performed in Numbers.

Have you sunk so low to the point where you'd cite the Bible as a historical document?

Nationalism more typically refers to the idea that individuals should value the rights and needs of their own nation over those of others.

I don't see how such an ideology is guarenteed to be evil. It's an extended form of morals most people practice every day. People help their families and friends before strangers, people take interest in bad things happening near them before bad things happen far away, people try to support their country first before others.