If capitalized it is a movement within Christianity from the 19th century, which eventually led to the Unitarians. That is for the purpose of our debate irrelevant.
As we are using it here it basically describes the belief that there are universal characteristics of human society and politics that supercede the national aspects. Nationalism and universalism are not mutually exclusive, but you could arguably say that they are in some ways conflicted. Most nations on Earth embrace a degree universalism in as much as that they cooperate and support the UN, which could be said to be the embodiment of universalistic belief.
Internationalism is anything that binds together people politically over and beyond national borders.
Communism embraces Internationalism, as does Corporate Globalism on the opposite end of the political spectrum.
Internationalism is obviously the opposite of Nationalism and as such was the main target of destruction for misters Hitler, Mussolini, Franco et al. Hitler grouped the Jews under the Internationalist label and held that the Jewish people were the source of all thing Internationalist including Bolshevism, in fact that’s what they thought they were fighting the war against, and the Allies were ultimately agents of Internationalism (they were never very good at keeping the distinctions clear, much of the confusing Nazi hogwash re this goes back to the views of H described in that heinous piece of literature that the little guy produced in prison in 24).
For the record I am not an Internationalist and I do not subscribe to any of the political denominations that adhere to it, although I do agree with some of the theories encapsulated in Corporate Globalism.
As for the rest I will be replying to the points brought up shortly, although for now much deserved kip awaits.
Nice try, but it doesn’t fly. Why don’t you try to either refute or agree with the points made, rather than dismiss them based on my supposed lack of English skills? If you look closely, I actually asked you a question, i.e. why should Americans adopt your point of view? As it currently stands, I disagree with it, but maybe you could try to change some minds? Whatever your POV is, doesn’t it make more sense to convice people otherwise rather than wholesale dismissal of different POV?
Well, I’d argue that’s not true. The Peace of Westphalia creates a bunch of petty states, but they’re not nation states. They’re still dynastic in orientation. If I’m a Bavarian, for example, it’s because I’m a subject of the King of Bavaria. I don’t have any sort of innate “Bavarianness”, and, except for my overlord, don’t see myself as all that different from somebody from Wurtenburg. Bavaria’s not a nation at that point. It’s just a bunch of land the reigning Wittlesbach inherited, won in war, or got as a result of a favorable marriage. Look at Prussia, for example. In the 18th century, in addition to controlling what we now think of as Prussia, in Poland and Eastern Germany, Prussia also owned a strip of land touching the Rhine, and also a big chunk of land in southern Germany. Then, of course, there’s the example of Austria, which has been referred to “not as a country but an inheritance”. The Hapsburgs during that period controlled Austria, Spain, Portugal, Bohemia, Moravia, Flanders, Brabant, chunks of northern Italy, including Venice for a while, Slovakia, and alot of other land. You don’t really get the concept of “nationhood” in Central Europe until the French revolution and Napoleonic war, which shows that monarchs can be overthrown, and that average people can and should have a voice in their own affairs. Those are the conditions that make it possible for nationalism to exist, because nationalism is, at its root, a populist movement. The 17th century King of Bavaria I referred to above doesn’t really want the Bavarians thinking about government, or identity, or what it means to be Bavarian. Thinking about that is dangerous to the king. As long as they stay quiet, work, and pay taxes, that’s enough. Nationalism, on the other hand, says, “Get up. You have a stake in your future. This is your country, not just your leader’s country.” That’s why governments in the 19th century tried so hard to crush nationalist movements. Nationalism isn’t always democratic. It wasn’t under Hitler, for example, but it is participitory. You’re supposed to feel it.
If you ever get the chance, read Eugen Weber’s “Peasants into Frenchmen”, which is a look at French nationalism. He argues, actually, that rural France didn’t really get a national French identity until the time period from 1870-1914, as the French goverment used its loss in the Franco-Prussian war to try to create a sense of “Frenchness” in the previously quietist countryside.
Nationalist- I believe that my nation is good, and that I benefit from that.
Universalist- I believe that all humanity bleeds red, and that should bond us more than your concept of “nation”.
Rodney King- Can’t we all just get along?
The problem with this debate is that, at some point, folks drag out the beast that is the past. Horrible things have been done in the past, based on Nationalism. And as someone else already stated, bad things have been done in the past under pretty much any ‘-ism’.
So I have a question to you Sparc- What makes Nationalism bad? When we get that answer, we can begin the debate with FEELING!
Captain Amazing, I think that I am aware of when nationalism arose. I still maintain that the Peace of Westphalia laid the foundation in no insignificant way. That it took another 200 years until nationalism was well established and another 250 years until Europe was really aflame thanks to it, is obvious. During that period there is a continuous development towards it, but of course it’s a floating point in history when it really takes root. Solid arguments have been made for the Time of Enlightenment (mid 18th) upon which amongst others Goethe starts codifying national character in literature and so on. As usual it starts with the intellectuals and as you say, before the rural population gets a feeling of nationality it takes quite some time, mid 19th century is not unreasonable, I’d say even later in many cases.
If one needs a hard and fast date I would apply the revolutions of 1848 as a time when we can be sure that the concept of nationality was established across many parts of Europe. However, we still need to move another 50 years forward to have a full-blown movement of all Europe towards nationalism as such, which as we know was instrumental in launching the conflicts of 1914. Note that the word ‘nation-state’ was invented in 1918, which is really the first time such units are codified into law in any significant numbers (England, the UK, Sweden, France, the US etc. etc. were not nation-states originally since they collected other states under one nation. In fact the UK and US have never become nation-states).
My next post shall expound on what I believe is wrong with nationalism as a reply to the posts so far.
I’ll agree with Sparc that the Peace of Westphalia signalled the beginning of the Age of Nationalism. Because while the idea of “national identity” was not yet fully formed in the mind of every Wurtemburger or Milanese, the concept was crystallizing in the minds of the jealous dynasts that had helped tear apart Europe. The Elector of Saxony in earlier decades was torn about his duty to the Empire. After 1648 it was all about Saxony ( and Poland for Augustus the Strong, I guess ). Some nations, like in Scandinavia, already had something of a nationalist identity before 1648, some developed it during the course of the war ( I’d argue not just the Netherlands, but also Portugal which regained independance in 1640 and France to some extent fall into this category ), some, like, say, Anhalt, may never have developed it fully before ceasing to exist. But 1648 is a good a date as any and better than 1779 IMHO.
I’ll note I once had a professor that argued for the union of the Spanish Crown under Ferdinand and Isabella as being the herald the beginning of European nationalism. But I thought he was full of crap on that point then and still do now ;).
I shall start with some clarifications on my part.
Love of a nation does not nationalism make. Culturally I love many places that happen to be nations; like Morocco, France, Italy, the US, Italy and so on. As political units I hold close to my heart for instance the US and Germany (yes, I believe strongly in federalism as some of you know). None of them have a place above the other in my book. None of the names of those nations is printed on my passport.
Believing that the nation is a useful political division does not nationalism make. You have to believe in the concept of nation-states before it becomes true nationalism. This might appear to be semantics, but it is far more than that; look at the definition of nation-state (definitions below). That is the legally codified structure of nationalism. It is for instance obvious that nations have existed for a couple of thousand years without nationalism, while the nation-state only arose as a result of the Age of Nationalism. While nations allow the grouping of several nationalities into a political union, the nation-state makes membership exclusive to the nationality it encompasses.
Sovereign-principles and self-determination do not nationalism make. To believe that all people within a political unit have the right to self-determination and to hold sovereign-principles inalienable by other peoples, political units or any other grouping is not nationalism per se.
If you believe that these rights are based on place of residence it remains a simple fact of democracy and human rights (in which case, for practical purposes residence has to be defined in some way as to protect those rights from being violated by election on foot, but that on the other hand is a whole other debate). If you apply the idea of nationality to achieve those principles and rights you are closer to nationalism. If you believe that nationality and hence the rights are exclusive by birthright you are absolutely nationalist.
To believe that the sovereign-principles are not only inalienable, but can be expressed and exercised above any other peoples sovereign rights is nationalism in extreme. To understand that those sovereign rights are subject to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the equal rights of all other nations to co-exist under the same caveat is universalism. To say that the UDHR implicitly demands a moral and ethical responsibility to co-operate in the safeguarding of those rights beyond the national borders is deep universalism.
I note, once again that most nations in the West, actually the majority of nations on Earth have in the last 50 years embraced some degree of universalism. This is especially true of the United States and the UK as forerunners in creating the international community of nations that is the UN, and a few of the states of the EU who have since embraced deep universalism.
I have before implied it and I will now say it outright: the United States of America is the most universalistic nation on Earth, but in a somewhat schizophrenic way it also promotes nationalism as apart of that universalism. The EU aims to be a nation that also embraces the principles of universalism, with the difference of actively denouncing nationalism in not only a few ways. It remains to be seen if this is possible or if a hundred years down the line a surviving EU has embraced a new form of European nationalism, there are some signs to the effect that this is a risk already.
Now to my argument.
I shall attempt to expose my viewpoint by expounding on the three evils of nationalism, which I posited in the OP.
Note that I am not positing that these evils must follow from nationalism, but I am positing that they are bound to follow at some point, in parts of the constituency of a nation that actively promotes nationalism.
Nationalism promotes distrust
Nationalism promotes a static view of the concept of nation by basing itself on ‘our nation’ instead of ‘our principles’. By holding membership in the nation exclusively on one nationality, nationalism runs the risk of creating barriers between peoples that coupled with the inherent cultural problems of communication and the competitive nature of human society can lead to questioning the motives of the other nation. By not actively promoting a higher level of rights embodied in the principles and rights of universalism and not being actively inclusive of others that embrace those same principles this questioning can lead to distrust. Universalism staves this distrust by clearly defining that nations are equal and have the inalienable right to their sovereign-principles as long as they embrace the forenamed superceding principles as a base to hold those sovereign-rights. If we do not trust our fellow nations to be equal and equally justified this inhibits our capacity to cooperate across national borders, this in turn has effect on our capacity to promote the basic human rights as a universal principle and hence the principles that we hold as base for our and everyone’s sovereign-right. Lack of trust in our equals will also lead to the delusion that we are better and more justified.
Nationalism fosters supremacist delusions
By nationalisms exclusive nature in keeping with the idea that the sovereign-rights are not subject to any higher moral code than the one embodied in them nationalism runs the risk of creating the illusion that these principles are better held than others. Although most constitutions in the free world are in full keeping with the UDHR (the US Constitution is even in parts a template for it) to be effectively equal demands the active understanding that the sovereign rights are held under the caveat that they are indeed subject to the rights embodied in the UDHR. With that active understanding it becomes easy to see that other nations are equally justified and equally free as long as they too adhere to the same principles. The moment we actively embrace that idea we have abandoned nationalism in favor of universalism. Without that active understanding we run the risk of getting the false idea that we are, better, or freer, or more justified than the other nation. This runs the risk of creating an environment where we can justify our actions on other nations expense based on the delusion that our rights and freedoms are better held. This can lead to a destabilized world arena were one nation competes with the other to assert their sovereign rights over the other.
Nationalism leads to isolation
Distrust and supremacist ideas leads to an ‘us and them’ mentality than can lead to conflict and isolation. By not being inclusive of other peoples and nations and holding our rights for exclusive and superior to the universal rights we run the risk of pursuing politics that are protectionist to safeguard ourselves from the perceived threats to our sovereign-rights. This isolates our nation out of a cultural, economic and social viewpoint. This isolation in turn leads to an increased distrust and it damages our capacity to develop and grow as an economy, a society and a culture.
Conclusion
Nationalism is in itself not an evil; some of the principles at its core are essential for democratic rule and freedom such as the right to self-determination and sovereign-rights. However, by emphasizing ‘the nation’ instead of ‘the principles’ and by not actively and outspokenly subjecting itself to the universal principles laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the implicit moral obligation to uphold those beyond the nation, it opens up to a risk of thwarting the chief goal of the nation which must be the freedom and the well-being of the citizens.
A lot of yous (I live in Brooklyn and that’s how we say it over here!) seem to miss the nature of the American beast. It’s founded on federalist principals, a balancing act between self-determination and cooperation. Many in the United States are quick to deplore the idea that some Arab or European prosecutor in Den Hague could have the capacity to indict US citizens. The most common argument seems to be that the US is a sovereign nation and no institutions outside of its boundaries should have the right to impose its will on us should we disagree. This baffles me as an argument. Why? Because that would be like saying the US Supreme Court has no right to impose its opinions on lower courts or that John Ashcroft has no right to meddle in the prosecution of crimes committed within Illinois. There are perhaps some extremists in this country that believe the Union should indeed be undone. Fortunately, most of that drivel were defeated in a long and bloody civil war some 150 years ago!
There is indeed an argument against the current concept of an ICC (International Criminal Court). The current concept is not adequately based on a trial before peers. This is were I see the greatest impasse for superceding the Union with a supra-national government a la UN: a profound disagreement on the fundamentals of how to exercise law. Many Europeans, for example, believe it is wiser to leave criminal judgment to a panel of professional judges. Americans, however, believe that they should be judged by peers. And in this respect I am profoundly American. I do not have an American citizenship. I was born in Sweden and raised in France and Germany. Yet, I consider myself a true American. Why? Because I believe in the principals on which the U.S. Constitution was founded. Not race, origin or geographic habitat defines me. Belief defines me. Belief in the Constitution. And it’s the principals of this constitution that paved the way for the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
Sparc is absolutely right in noting that the US isn’t a nation-state. And nationalism has no place in the U.S. Indeed, the US is profoundly universalist. The Union is a federation to promote the commonwealth of its member states. It does so by delicately balancing sovereignty against cooperation. There is no argument against superceding the Union with something wider that honors the same principals of equality millions of men and women have lost their lives for over the last 226 years. Long live the Union (or rather its principals)!
I think we agree on this one Sparc, on everything but the defiintion of nationalism - you’ve admitted that love of a nation, self-determination and sovereign principles aren’t wrong, but even perhaps a positive thing, and when you combine those all together in my eyes you get moderate nationalism. Of course it needs to be balanced with universalism, something which I’d have to disagree with you about - the US does not to me seem particularly good at it.
I’m not quite sure what your point is here. Do you want people to identify by their principles and not their nationality? For practical reasons it’s a lot easier to do the second. I like to express it as : I’m proud of my country because of it’s principles. That tends to be the way the language works - we are not so much proud of the concept of bravery in the friend (it’s very tricky to phrase this so the meaning is clear) as we are proud of the friend due to his/her bravery.
I have to say that as a citizen of the US I’ve seen many people around me adopt the attitudes of the Merriam-Webster kind of nationalism. It’s real, prevalent, and worthy of the sort of criticism that Sparc has made.
These finer points of multi-culturalism resulting from recognizing nations are fine enough. I don’t think the world is ready for “One World Government”. But generally, the “rally round the flag” mentality that pundits and politicians make is the bad kind of nationalism which does foster mistrust, xenophobia, and justifies overzealous military actions.
We almost agree, yet we do not agree in a most essential way. I might not have been very clear in my stance. I am saying that even a mild form of nationalism promoted in any way will inevitably lead to some parts of a constituency drifting into the harsher forms. Even without promotion this is likely to happen to some degree. If mild nationalism is embraced as an ideal that founds the nation it is inevitable that the harsher form will in part influence government policy and actions carried out in the name of the nation. The US is a case in point. Take JFK, who embraced the ideals first;
and compare that stance to the actions of the Bush regime as re the UN today. The current policy is inspired by ‘the nation’, while JFK’s was inspired by ‘the principles’. I am saying that the current policy is inevitable as long as ‘the nation first’ remains a mainstream and acceptable way forward.
I think that in comparison to other nations on the globe, the US stands out as a paragon in creating, promoting and enforcing the ideals of universalism. You mistake the evils that I have here described that unfortunately coexist with that spirit as being dominant.
The examples of American universalism are abundant: the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, involvement on the side of universalism in conflicts not their own such as WWI, WWII, Korea, Lebanon, the Gulf War and the Balkans, co-founding the UN, co-authoring the UDHR, a naturalization process that at least in theory embraces nationality as an inclusive thing, the Marshal Plan to rebuild the enemy lands after WWII, etc. etc. Yes there are other examples that have the exact opposite value, but show me another nation on Earth that has done even a fraction of the previously listed for the good cause of equality, freedom and prosperity of all mankind.
You have struck at the core point where we disagree. The nation is not a friend; you are the nation. You can go ahead and be proud of being you if you like, but forgive me if I call you at best myopic and at worst an egomaniac in that case. Be proud of your actions and the principles that you uphold for the better of your fellow humans and you will gain my respect instead. Other nations that embrace the same principles are your friends, be even more proud of them and you shall gain my admiration as well.
It is not just a question of being practical. If you actively understand that the nation exists only as an extension of the universal principles it is founded upon your love for the nation has become conditional while the love for the principles is unconditional. Emotionally it makes a world of difference in passing judgment on others and ourselves, as we so unfortunately must. It is also the first step in understanding that nation-hood need not be a static thing.
I know that ETHIC took the big OWG word out and I know that he believes strongly in it (he’s my brother). Correct me if I am wrong though ETHIC, but I take it that you do still believe that this is more or less what we have and that you are only saying that nations need to subject themselves more to the causes they claim to serve, rather than paying lip service to the UN charter (with the caveat of your oft repeated and IMHO correct wider interpretation of freedom of movement stipulated in the UDHR)?
In any case I mostly agree with perspective in saying that we are not ready for a “One World Government”. I think that it is inevitable that universalism must lead to pan-national cooperation that needs to be institutionalized in some way. I do not think that it is practical or necessary to make a full-fledged government out of that at this point in human history, maybe it never will be. The UN as a cooperative organization, with the ultimate goal to safeguard the universal principles it is founded upon should be enough. What I do believe OTOH is that the governments of the world need to be more active in promoting that view and showing their citizenry that they are willing, and dedicated to the altruistic causes of humanity rather than the egotistic causes of the nation.
Just FYI, I am very, very much in favour of OWG eventually. I am completely at a loss to suggest how to go about it, however. (The only thing I will say is that I do not think a USE will help).
That happens with practically every philosophy - I still don’t think this means we should reject the more mild version.
Agreed. I don’t think nationalism has to intail this, however. Or, in other words, while I do believe in the UK first as I believe in capitalism, that does not mean I would not do things which are in the world’s interest just as I believe in free education, health care and so on.
Wrong. There are more than 60 million people in my nation, not just me! Is it wrong in another example to be proud of one school due to it’s environment and teaching principles?
I understand your point, but I still disagree. Yes, unconditional love for your nation in the present is wrong. But I don’t think it is so much so if associated with the heritage and people. To risk Godwin (again) I would not say that a German in 1942 would be wrong to be proud of being German; I might think differently if he was proud of being Nazi.
I think that I have finally understood your position and I will attempt to show you where we disagree and how I think that your argument is flawed both in respects nationalism and the EU (BTW will you please stop calling it the ESU, that was a rhetorical statement by Winston in 1946, no-one says that nowadays with serious intent - it confuses the nature of the EU even a fully federalized EU terribly by implicitly equating it with the US, for which no plans exist). First some short comments on the previous post though:
And when we know how to avoid such hijacks, should we not adopt the remedy?
First of all I was being metaphorical. Second of all and more importantly the metaphor cannot apply to your school since I would be surprised if the institution in question is a democracy. As part of your nation you elect the government and you subject yourself to the will of the majority by agreeing to be part of the nation. Hence the nation is an extension of you and naturally the other citizens of the nation.
Don’t worry about Godwin so much. If you start equating my person or what I propose with H and the NSDAP (without it being actually equal), then you have invoked his paradigm. To examine the nature of that beast does not invoke Godwin in any way; hell if it did about 30% of my posts would be Godwin fodder since I am somewhat passionate about analyzing the beast in question.
Anyway, your example is most adequate, but not for your position I am afraid. First of all we seem to agree that by the universal ideals of humanity our German fellow in 1942 has little to be proud of in the then present state of affairs in his nation. Then you posit that he should have something to be proud of in his German-ness from the past.
Three problems arise with that proposition. First of all being proud of something that was once a beautiful garden of flowers, but has now become full of weed is nostalgic and serves no purpose in real politics, it is also rife with the danger of serving as a way to argue for acceptance of present errors.
Second of all the majority of our German fellows walking the face of the globe in 1942 will not have been around at any time that didn’t directly influence the state of Germany at that date, hence they’d be taking pride in something they didn’t do, actually had nothing to do with and might as well be proud of the next nation yonder or a planet in the next star system as far as being proud about something that relates to their person. If you say we need to take into account our ancestors… oh boy I’m in trouble then considering that a part of my direct ancestry was directly involved in rape, pillage and mass murder in the 17th century and how should I deal with the shame, or is there a moratorium? Let’s not even think about the Germans!
Third of all and most importantly; in 1942 Germany had been around for exactly 71 years, which in this case provides us with a hard and fast date for what there is to proud of even theoretically. Notwithstanding that during those years only the 20 first were remotely benign to the rest of the world, this serves well to indicate how absurd pride in one’s nation just for the sake of pride is. Had Germany existed longer it would still be the same problem, Take any nation on earth, run history back a human lifetime and you’ll find a completely different nation, I can admire it or loath it, but be proud of it?
If this is going to be your argument, you must be ready to accept the consequences that it entails in reverse, the shame and guilt to be assumed for passed errors made in the name of your nation. What about all the nasty stuff perpetrated in the name of England and the UK during 900 years of warfare, oppression, ethnic cleansing, colonialism, empire building and what-not and what about ‘my nation’ and the most brutal and savage war in European history before 1939 as I mentioned earlier? Should we bow our heads in shame and maybe even go cut stones with balls and chains around our feet? That doesn’t fly very well though as I imagine you would agree and hence the positive reverse has to go down the drain as well.
So much for rehashing what we have been discussing so far, now to something new.
Here lies the crux. You are mixing apples and oranges. Capitalism is the belief in a market economy where fair play competition is largely self-regulatory and serves the greater good by ensuring prosperity through the natural evolution of economy that must follow. Capitalism frowns on state regulation including trade barriers, does not concern itself with which market is concerned as long as it is fairly built and it takes no responsibility for the creation of a welfare state.
By the standards of capitalism the UK being a nation is not an economic player on par with the private actors on the market and should hence stay the hell off the field. Capitalism sometimes uses the nation state as a definition of a market only to ensure a fair and even playground. The opportunistic character of Capitalism in practice will of course entail that any advantage that can be gained will be sought including barring other players from market entry through national trade barriers, but again this is frowned upon when speaking of the pure ideology. Capitalism tacitly admits that a state is needed as a counter balance to this opportunistic behavior that can otherwise lead to abuse of the market, but nowhere and never does it admit for a statement like “I do believe in the UK first as I believe in capitalism…”
To the contrary Capitalism strives for as large and inclusive a market as possible, this is why Capitalism has given birth to Corporate Globalism , an ideology that strictly opposes the nation as a the highest order of government. In less dramatic flavors Capitalism supports Libertarianism and Federalism since these create more free and larger markets to act on. You have to chose were you stand MrT. As I read it you are arguing for Liberalism with a twist of nationalism, which of course embraces some of the dynamics of capitalism in part, but is indeed naturally opposed to federalism and a One World Government. You can’t have it all, so what’s it going to be?
When speaking about world governance, there’s this idea that it would replace all national governments and that it doesn’t (in some limited form) already exist. The UN may not be the most effective organ, but it does by all means serve as a medium for regulating how international affairs are conducted today.
Sparc is right in assuming that I believe member states need to better honor the principals set forth by the UDHR. And more powerful bodies need to be created that make sure they do. The truth is that, like it or not, we are already on our way to creating global governance. We’re being forced by situations like the Middle East which risk destabilizing whole regions and thereby affecting even the guy working the plants in Detroit. Oh, sorry, that would be Mexico now…
Sparc, you ignore the fact that by being proud of one’s nationality, one is in fact embracing a stereotype of ethics and behavior. Germany may have been a fictional creation at some point. But today, we think of a certain type when we think of someone as being German. The quality “Germaness” is known to all of us, including those who live in Germany. In individual cases, the stereotype is often wrong and we may reject it as “that’s not what I’m about”. Nonetheless, the fictional stereotype hovers over the arbitrarily defined piece of geography we today call BRD, continuing to shape its destiny. It’s a self-fulfilling identity based on an originally nebulous (an most often erroneous) characterization. Welcome to the quagmire of sociological studies…
So if I proclaim to be proud of being a German, I am in fact incarnating fiction, making it as real as it was previously fake. Also, even if I can’t take credit for what Goethe wrote, by exclaiming my pride in it, I am reinforcing certain ideals. I think your interpretation of “pride” and why we can’t engage in it (if we’re not directly involved) is a bit meek. Of course, I see what you mean but you fail to prevent me from feeling all warm about little Lucy taking on the big mean world. Or ashamed of the almost extinct condor of the Great Canyon.
That said, I think nationalism usually does represent xenophobic principals based on hog-wash notions about what and who we are.
A well made point ETHIC. It certainly weakens my explanation along the example of MrT’s German fellow in 1942, but it also fits very well with the flaws of nationalism that I have posited as basis for my stand in this discussion. Although the phenomena of created identity is innocuous as such it serves the purpose of building barriers by reinforcing the perception of differences instead of focusing on similarities. Now, if one accepts that culture to some degree comes from arbitrary lines drawn on a map, which then along the dynamics ETHIC describes take root as imagined identity, nationalism will indeed serve the purpose of enforcing that process and thereby in effect increase the imagined differences between people outside of the group.
The conscious exploitation of perceived identity or ‘identity politics’ is in social anthology circles viewed as a threat to stability, especially in the third world. The social anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen is one of the leading scholars in the field.
Here he describes a conscious exploitation of perceived uniqueness and imagined shared culture in order to create a base for external conflict. He also argues that the negative effects of identity politics can be turned inwards and serve the purpose of maintaining class like differences within the group.
This of course applies more to developing nations, but it is still significant as an indication that the factors that unite on the surface should not be underestimated in their capacity to corrupt the good they could otherwise bring by uniting people across ethnic differences.
It seems that such aspects of cultural identity are at least equally strong as imagined national identity and resist this process in the early stages of nation building. Eriksen has conducted studies on these phenomena by studying the cultural processes in amongst other places Mauritius while this island state has gravitated towards nationhood over the last 30 years. Mauritius provides a unique opportunity to study melting pot phenomena and identity politics since the island population is composed of a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds that have moved in or been moved in over the 200 years, most in the previous century. In several studies Eriksen has shown the difficulty in striking a balance between particularism and universalism while creating a viable state free of ethnic conflicts that could otherwise tear it asunder.
Mauritius has so far managed to strike a delicate balance in an effort to create a multi ethnic society that is yet free of violent conflict. They are also trying to avoid creating an overtly nationalist state, since they are highly dependent on close ties to several mainland economies and the tourist industry. With no other political framework that can provide an opportunity for autonomy and self determination than the nation-state they have no choice but to attempt to go on walking along this delicate line. In the absence of viable alternatives this is what we have to live with and it poses a significant threat to much needed integration efforts between nations.
In order to create viable alternatives the US and the EU have an opportunity to lead the way towards something better by continuing to tear down the walls between peoples by embracing the ideals of universalism not only as an ideal, but as practical and real politics…
Sparc
PS. Here is Thomas Hylland Eriksen’s archive (some texts are in Norwegian, but many are available in English) for those interested, it’s worthwhile to read the excerpts he has published on the net if you are interested in the dynamics of ethnicity vs. nationality vs. universalism and the effects this has on modern nationalism and globalization, from a socio cultural perspective. DS.
First of all, I apologise but this is going to have to be my last or maybe second to last post for a while - tomorrow I’m going off on holiday for 2 weeks.
On with the arguing :
Sparc -
(Sometime will you give me your definition of the whatever-you-want-to-call-it, then?)
<shrug> I call it that to differentiate between the EU now and, well, a USE. I’m sorry but I don’t have a better term, and it seems to me to be used quite a bit (but that is from the Eurosceptics, so you may have a point).
Uh… depends on what the remedy is. To be contraversial, religion does a lot of harm (some would say more than good) but that doesn’t mean we wipe it out or say it’s bad. You try and negotiate with extremists, and move on like that.
Well, yes, but part of democracy is being able to disagree with the majority.
I see your point, but let me alter my metaphor a little. You’re proud of the school due to it’s friendly atmosphere. Now if you’re a pupil there you help to create that very atmosphere, but I don’t think that doesn’t mean you can’t be proud of it.
It might inspire you enough to want to get the garden back, perhaps?
That’s a problem with the particular metaphor, not the principle. Change it to … I don’t know… someone in the British Empire and slavery. Whatever. Anyway, you go on to address this very point.
You take the good with the bad, and find a balance.
Look, I don’t know anything about your life, but I do know that in my own (hang on, let’s change someone else as you don’t like being proud of yourself) - okay, Einstein’s life he probably did many, many bad things. He also did a lot of good things. But we tend to forget the bad and focus on the good, because we are (or strive to be) merciful, forgiving and postive. Doing the opposite is no way to live.
To take a very nationalist stance and defend my country quickly:-
"What about all the nasty stuff perpetrated in the name of England and the UK during 900 years of warfare, oppression, ethnic cleansing, colonialism, empire building and what-not and what about ‘my nation’ and the most brutal and savage war in European history before 1939 as I mentioned earlier? "
warfare - that’s rather human nature
oppression - slowly working away from
ethnic cleansing - misguided… alright, no excuse there
colonialism - good intentions, some of the time
empire building - again, some good intentions originally, did quite a bit for the countries, and in the end gave it all up
brutal and savage war in 1939 - yes, what about that war… and who was (more or less) standing on their etc.
Look, every country’s done terrible things, and I’m not trying to say that anything above is in any way good. I was being mostly flippant. But (as I explained before) I try to look on the good side - UK has created much of the finest literature, scientists and inventions. It helped to create democracy and eradicate slavery. Nowadays, I feel we’re more or less on the ‘good’ side.
Now you will say “Why have you any reason to be proud of that?” and to that I can only repeat what I’ve said before (search for “slippery slope”) and point out what Ethic said. It’s an ideal, maybe, but so are many things in this world (love, f’instance, honour, family…)
Ahem - I think you’re the apple and orange one what with taking something completely out of context from a metaphor and using it in a completely different argument.
But, if you want to go there, okay. Yes - free market equals good. Some shared fundamental morals also equals good. To take the example of the UK and EU, that’s what the British mostly thought they were signing up for and they didn’t mind. What they don’t like is when it goes further than that, which is a completely different issue.
And why exactly not?
In my experience being moderate on most issues (in between) seems normally to be the most correct. Grey rather than black and white.
Yes, I’m natonalistic enough not to want to just a ‘USE’ (I’m sorry, it’s just the best term that I know). That’s because, perhaps, I don’t ‘feel’ European. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t want the UK one day to join a world government - true, there’d be some of the same problems, but I don’t think one can deny that one is an Earthling. (Is there a better non scifi term for this?)
On second thoughts, probably better if you ignored from “warfare” through to “etc.” I really, really wasn’t being serious there, but I’m not sure that quite came out.
As you might have noted I posted a reply to some of your most recent points just before you posted. I am afraid that I won’t have time to post a proper reply to what wasn’t addressed in there before you leave for your holiday. In any case, you’ll have something to read upon your return.
Well put and quoted, Sparc. But unfortunately you are also digging up the positive aspect of nationalism by attempting to point out its negative aspects.
The whole idea of national identity is indeed centered around an us and them construct. But such a construct is central to any concept of self, whether it refers to a group or an individual. Without it, there can be little if any group cohesion, a vital part of human success. You, yourself, use it in every day life to define who you are. I, the film maker. Them, the audience. I, the knowing, he the unknowing. We the enlightened Great Debates posters, them the superficial In my Humble Opinion crowd. Differentiation highlights communalities within the group. Americans very often define themselves in the context of “NOT SOCIALIST EUROPEAN”.
In times of crisis, people who feel they have a stake in group will join forces. It is irrelevant here whether they do or not. What matters in a sociological contest is what we “think”. Could we rally around and use a PRINCIPAL written on a piece of paper in tuff times? We could. But we also need more tangible artifacts. Being the highly sensual creatures we are, a flag or a hymn is a much more powerful thing than a invisible notion hovering in our minds. But the cohesion the group feels must at least to some extent be nurtured before hardship comes our way, in times of peace. And this is where a light, benevolent form of national pride serves its purpose.
Eriksen describes these dynamics of “artificial unity”. He seems to contend they are more harmful (as do you) than constructive (correct me if I’m wrong). I’d rather say that forming a national identity is a double edged sword.
). Some nations, like in Scandinavia, already had something of a nationalist identity before 1648, some developed it during the course of the war ( I’d argue not just the Netherlands, but also Portugal which regained independance in 1640 and France to some extent fall into this category ), some, like, say, Anhalt, may never have developed it fully before ceasing to exist. But 1648 is a good a date as any and better than 1779 IMHO.
are quick to deplore the idea that some Arab or European prosecutor in Den Hague could have the capacity to indict US citizens. The most common argument seems to be that the US is a sovereign nation and no institutions outside of its boundaries should have the right to impose its will on us should we disagree. This baffles me as an argument. Why? Because that would be like saying the US Supreme Court has no right to impose its opinions on lower courts or that John Ashcroft has no right to meddle in the prosecution of crimes committed within Illinois. 
There are perhaps some extremists in this country that believe the Union should indeed be undone. Fortunately, most of that drivel were defeated in a long and bloody civil war some 150 years ago!
: