(2) Why nationalism?

[Innocentius]

The original thread got locked pretty immediately, so I'm trying a more diplomatic approach here.

As the topic indicated; why nationalism? Not a nationalist myself, I'm having difficulties understanding what makes a person love his or her country simple because. What triggers this? Is it a need for security and the feeling of belonging somewhere? To me it's just a geographic area inhabitated by certain people that happened to end up there thanks to history.

To not make this a thread entirely for nationalists to write in, it'd be interesting to see some kind of debate also. What is good and what is bad with this social phenomena? My, rather biased, opinion - that got the first thread locked - can be read in the link at the top of the post. It's all yours.

[Divinus Arma]

It's not the Nation. It's the values of my culture and my people.

I once wrote on these forums that I consider Britain to be very close to the States and that, as a man of arms, I would fight and die alongside the British for their country as well as my own. Of course, between the two, I logically favor my own nation.

You see, it is first the love of my family that drives me to a protective and proud disposition. This then extends to my community and neighborhood, and naturally to my country after that.

[Marshal Murat]

Nationalism is the best way to preserve the peace inside a country. Before the rise in nationalistic feelings, you had a more feudal-oriented society, and more violent society. For example.

The United Kingdom wasn't formed as soon as Scotland and Wales was conquered because they weren't British (many probably still aren't) and 'England' wasn't entirely pro-England either. There were Cornish, Northumbrians, Welsh, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, then the Scottish and Welsh. Your not going to have a fully-functioning government like it is today (it's an example) with the various Welsh, Cornish, Northumbrian, Danes, Jutes, Angles, Irish, and English all vying to grab power.
Germany was divided up until the Prussians joined them together and said "You are now Germans." There were Saxons, Brandenburgians, Frankfurters, Hamburgers (?) who were all different, culturally. With nationalism the entire german-speaking population was able to join together into a cohesive unit.

Austria-Hungary got the backlash of this rise in nationalism...
gtg, maybe add more later.

[Odin]

na·tion·al·ism –noun

1. national spirit or aspirations.
2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.
3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.
4. the desire for national advancement or independence.
5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
6. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.
7. a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation.

The bolded items pretty much cover it for me.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The United Kingdom wasn't formed as soon as Scotland and Wales was conquered because they weren't British (many probably still aren't) and 'England' wasn't entirely pro-England either. There were Cornish, Northumbrians, Welsh, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, then the Scottish and Welsh. Your not going to have a fully-functioning government like it is today (it's an example) with the various Welsh, Cornish, Northumbrian, Danes, Jutes, Angles, Irish, and English all vying to grab power.

Not to mention the fact that Scotland consisted of Norse (in the Islands, germanic?), Gaels (north-west, q-celtic), Picts (north-east, p-celtic), Saxons (south-east, germanic), and Britons (south-west, p-celtic).

And yet look how strong nationalism is there nowadays.

I think nationalism will be strong for a long time to come. People feel at home in the surroundings where they have grown up. They know its their culture and their heritage, and so they are proud of it.

EDIT: Or maybe the Squibbons will ambush us from the forests...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squibbon#Squibbon

[Rodion Romanovich]

Two interesting control questions that I think make the difference between an extremistic nationalist/patriot, and a non-extremistic one:
1. Assume a surrender of your forces to an outside occupying force would allow for an easy revolt against the occupant in less than 10 years. What would you do?
a. surrender, then revolt in 10 years, and win with a minimum of bloodshed
b. fight like a maniac no matter what out of principle, i.e. acting by rule-ethics

2. Let's say we see that eliminating talibans in one place makes them pop up elsewhere. Assume that there are plenty of people who reason there must be somewhere in the world where sharia law is to be tolerated, and are prepared to die for this. Assume you're part of a nation whose cultural values are very different from taliban life style. What is the best thing to do to defend these values? If talibans attack you, you have the 3 standard options:
1. seek to eliminate talibanism in response
2. seek to find a way of assuring that peaceful talibans will be able to have a taliban state somewhere that you respect
3. surrender
You now have 2 options:
a. choose no. 1 out of "principle" always
b. the one that gives you best kill-loss ratio compared to the talibans
c. choose the one of these 3 alternatives that minimizes your own bloodshed in the long run, including all indirect effects

The answers I prefer to hear are obviously:
1a, 2c
It's mainly those who would answer 1b, 2a/2b that I think deserve to be called prejudiced. Basically if your goal is to seek long term preservation of your people and/or your culture (with preference to important things such as juridical ideas over things such as hanging balls in a fir tree in the winter), most of the time you won't have to do anything unethical.

--

The nationalism idea in itself doesn't really state any of these extreme things. It calls for people to move between nations until the nations have homogenous populations in terms of political opinions, but nobody is forced to move. This movement will make it more democratic than the 51-49% elections in very heterogenous populations, where all countries basically end up having almost exactly the same politics. Instead, there will be different places to go for people with different opinions on how the state should be organized, and life should work. However, the failure came when this idea was turned into an ideology.

One reason was how easy it was to turn into disrespect as soon as it was exaggerated just a little bit, as ideologies (as opposed to weak principles among others) always tend to become eventually (this was one of the main flaws of making nationalism a full-fledged ideology instead of a principle). The second reason for failure was when they started basing the "homogenousness" on race, culture, religion or other insignificant properties that have nothing or little to do with political opinion. Then came the implementations, which were even further away from the original idea: it was more often used as an excuse to conquer and annex foreign lands, than of trying to give more people political decisions that were more liked by them. In fact it even got hypocritical enough to be implemented by dictatorship regimes!

In short, I think nationalism received the same fate as communism: it is built on clever but not 100% finished or generally true principles (they are not generally true enough to be basis for a full-fledged ideology). Then its "implementation" was just a number of incredibly evil dictatorship regimes who took its name to sound like they represented the good things the ideology was based on (though as I said above I wouldn't call either communism or nationalism an ideology, but just a set of ideas and analyses meant to be used more as principles and insight, than to be used as political ideology), and from them the original ideas got a bad reputation, even though its original form had little to do with the implementations.

[Don Corleone]

Question to the nationalists:
Assume a surrender of your forces to an outside occupying force would allow for an easy revolt against the occupant in less than 10 years. Would you still fight like a maniac instead of surrendering to cause minimum bloodshed?

Same question put differently - are you simply a "rule ethics/prejudiced nationalist", or a person who truly wishes to protect your own culture?

Then another interesting hypothetical question. Let's say we see that eliminating talibans in one place makes them pop up elsewhere. We may assume there are plenty of people who reason there must be somewhere in the world where sharia law is to be tolerated, and are prepared to die for this. Assume you're part of a nation whose cultural values are very different from taliban life style. What is the best thing to do to defend these values? To try to extinct (read: more or less genocide) all who like taliban life style, or to make sure there's some place the talibans can be, as long as they stay there and won't interfere with your business? I.e. if talibans attack you, would you seek to eliminate talibanism, or make sure you can find a compromise as soon as possible with as little bloodshed as possible that 1. makes them not interfere with you again and 2. makes so there's some place those who like sharia (but not those who both like sharia, and hurting your country) can live undisturbed in return? Would you try to seriously choose the best of these 3 alternatives (that minimizes your own bloodshed), or the one that gives you best kill-loss ratio compared to the talibans?

In other words - are you a patriot who truly wish your own cultural values to exist, or are you a "patriot" who more strongly wishes to eliminate all competing cultural values? I.e. a patriot who by default makes a paranoid assumption that all others want you dead without reason, or a patriot who tries to understand the conflict and solve it with minimum bloodshed (which in some cases will be to attack and win, in some cases to find a way of satisfying the enemy's needs, and in some cases be to surrender, all depending on situation)?

It's mainly those who would answer the extreme answer to one or both of those questions (assuming the answer was honest) that I think deserve to be called prejudiced.

--

The nationalist ideology in itself doesn't really state any of these extreme things. It calls for populations moving between nations until the nations have homogenous populations in terms of cultural and political opinions, but nobody is forced to move. This movement will make it more democratic than the 51-49% elections in very heterogenous populations, where all countries basically end up having almost exactly the same politics. The failure of the nationalism ideology lies in the fact that it was exaggerated and resulted in intolerance of anything but the own culture, as well as basing the "homogenousness" on race, culture, religion or other insignificant facts that have nothing or little to do with political opinion. And that, when used as a full-fledged ideology instead of a weak principle among others, keeping it from becoming extremistic was impossible. It was more often used as an excuse to conquer and annex foreign lands, than of trying to give more people political decisions that were more liked by them. In fact it even got hypocritical enough to be implemented by dictatorship regimes. In short, nationalism received the same fate as communism: it is built on clever principles, it was never meant to be a full fledged standalone ideology but a principle and source of insight, and its implementation gave the "ideology" (though as I said I wouldn't call either an ideology) a bad reputation.

I'm not certain, but somewhere in there, I think there's a question. It's hard to tell, because Legio imparts so heavily on the editorialism and answering his own question by putting words in people's mouths. Maybe if he really wants an answer, he'll simplify the above into a form even a ranting crackpot like me can understand.

As for the concept of Nationalism, let me ask a different question. Let's assume you have a job and a family to care for, Innocentius. Do you pay your taxes, then donate the remainder to the local state aid agency... when your kids get hungry you send them into the soup kitchen you helped fund and when they need clothes, send them down to the Salvation Army store? No, you take care of your children first, then with what's left, you do your part to help take care of others that might need help. Nationalism is an extension of that. Sure, people are people and we should try to help everyone as best as we can. But there's those that believe charity begins at home, and those that don't. One thing I find strange... most people that decry Nationalism and scorn those that adhere to it are perfectly willing to accept the positive benefits of it. I don't see too many Americans that are opposed to Nationalism donating their last possession and dollar and moving to a slum in Lagos.

[Conradus]

Nationalism is the best way to preserve the peace. Before the rise in nationalistic feelings, you had a more feudal-oriented society, and more violent society. For example.

The greatest war humanity has known come after the advent of nationalism. Have we forgotten them? The society certainly didn't become less violent with nationalism.

I can't say I know anything about nationalism. I'm not nationalistic in any case. I can't see why I should love my country more because I happen to be born in it. For the same reason I can't see why other men should love their country enough to die for it. After all, it are just borders that were once drawn.
Of course I'd hate to live in a country where they don't share the cultural values I'm accustomed too, but that's because I've raised with them. And I consider them to be better than most. But I'm probably biased. As sort of cultural nationalism then.

am I showing nationalistic feats?

[seireikhaan]

Well, I am not nationalistic. I hear so often, people saying we should support the war, support our president, etc... I ask why, and they give me some kind of incredulous look like I'm some kind of traitor, and they say, "well, because you're American and should support Americans". Again, I ask why I should uphold that belief that I should support Americans just for being Americans. They never seem to get any answer that adequately answers. Additionally, the ways in which nationalism can be twisted and warped can result in terrible, destructive events, and to bigotry and racism as well. Simply, I see no reason to be a nationalist, and I'm far too wary of the potential consquences of it to support it.

[Don Corleone]

"My country, right or wrong" is definitely not my motto either, GK. But that's not the only version of Nationalism out there. You could argue that anybody that doesn't believe in a 1-world government is inherently a Nationalist. Why should Americans get to control America's great wealth and resources? Shouldn't the good people of Myanamar have as much to say about the running of the New York Stock Exchange as the SEC? I mean, after all, the SEC is very exclusionary... only Americans are in it. That's very Nationalistic.

[Boyar Son]

The greatest war humanity has known come after the advent of nationalism. Have we forgotten them? The society certainly didn't become less violent with nationalism.

Well the Greeks united using nationalism to defeat the persians a couple times, and by doing that they saved their particular form of society which we use today

Nationalism isnt all that bad, but when everyone has it and tesions start to rise as to who's better and who should have this and that...then we have another world war (I).

[Conradus]

Well the Greeks united using nationalism to defeat the persians a couple times, and by doing that they saved their particular form of society which we use today

You care to tell me when this was?
At Marathon, it were only the Athenians who fought. They received no help whatsoever from other city-states.
10 years later, Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataeae, not even half of all Greek city-states supported the Greek army fighting the Persians. The Greeks certainly weren't nationalistic in a Greek way, the Hellenic world wasn't considered a 'nation'. Each polis was however a nation. You can't call it nationalism that triggered their response to Persian actions.

He did say that it has prevented violence WITHIN a nation, not without. Which is entirely true. Nationalism has brought peace and stability on the inside, but created huge barriers towards other nations, resulting in a bunch of wars and ethnic cleansing of "the others".

Indeed, he said inside, should've read that message more carefully before responding. Although, after nationalism we still had the expulsion of outsiders. The Jews and Roma in particular suffered then.

[HoreTore]

The greatest war humanity has known come after the advent of nationalism. Have we forgotten them? The society certainly didn't become less violent with nationalism.

He did say that it has prevented violence WITHIN a nation, not without. Which is entirely true. Nationalism has brought peace and stability on the inside, but created huge barriers towards other nations, resulting in a bunch of wars and ethnic cleansing of "the others".

Also, I don't see what Socialism has to do with being generous at all.

A common error people make, learn to live with it... As I see it, socialism is best described with the words of our former union leader; "do your duty, demand your right". I suppose the misconception is due to the fact that we want to help the people who are not doing their duty, not punish them, to make them do what they should(in the interest of ze glorius red reich, etc etc)...

And you know Don, that I hate lazy brats just as much as you do

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You see, it is first the love of my family that drives me to a protective and proud disposition. This then extends to my community and neighborhood, and naturally to my country after that.

Try a reading of Heilein's Starship Troopers. He takes Div's basic statement here and expands on it rather well.

"Breathes there a man with soul so dead....."

[atheotes]

I have always wondered abt it too... my guess is that basically we like to be with people that are similar to us... people who we can relate to in terms of culture,language,appearance and whatnot... something to make us feel we not alone...and as DA says it extends to nationalism...

I am not sure if it is all natural human tendency or something that we pick up as we grow.

Anyways we seem to forget differences only when there is a greater threat... so the world maybe united only when the giant octosquids attack us

[Innocentius]

It's not the Nation. It's the values of my culture and my people.

But doesn't that mean you assume your entire culture share the same views? At least I have difficulties even identifying with my own culture (capitalism, consumerism, not so much imperialism, but other western countries contribute on that part).

You see, it is first the love of my family that drives me to a protective and proud disposition. This then extends to my community and neighborhood, and naturally to my country after that.

Loving your family and the ones close to you is a very natural and human (note: not humane) thing to do, and most people without psychological disorders do that to some extent. I can even understand how you could consider the welfare of your neighbourhodd to be valid to your interests, but an entire country? People you don't know, who might not identify with you or share your views, people who might actually hate you for your views - and you are willing to die for this? I don't see how love for your family naturally extends to your entire country, it's not like your country has ever done anything for you specifically. A country is incapable of feeling love as it is not a living being, and therefore I don't see why it should be worth defending and protecting. You may be pleased by the way things are in your country and in your current position, but many others in your country are probably not experiencing the same. Is it worth killing for your own welfare and for the poverty of people who, thanks to an imaginative border, apparently have something in common with you? What if you'd be better off elsewhere or under a different regime or culture?

Nationalism is the best way to preserve the peace. Before the rise in nationalistic feelings, you had a more feudal-oriented society, and more violent society. For example.

I'm afraid that's not entirely true. Differencies and alienation has always lead to conflicts, and while keeping the peace may have become easier with the invention of nations in the 19th century (I know of no evidence for this), war certainly gets a lot worse with a nationalistic theme. Also, nationalism in itself often leads to chauvinism and war (which happened in Germany in the 1920ies and 30ies).
Nations are just stronger, bigger and more violent versions of medieval kingdoms, which in turn are just stronger, bigger and more violent versions of prehistoric tribes. War has always been around, but it certainly hasn't become any more pleasant with the arrival of nation states.

As for the concept of Nationalism, let me ask a different question. Let's assume you have a job and a family to care for, Innocentius. Do you pay your taxes, then donate the remainder to the local state aid agency... when your kids get hungry you send them into the soup kitchen you helped fund and when they need clothes, send them down to the Salvation Army store? No, you take care of your children first, then with what's left, you do your part to help take care of others that might need help. Nationalism is an extension of that. Sure, people are people and we should try to help everyone as best as we can. But there's those that believe charity begins at home, and those that don't. One thing I find strange... most people that decry Nationalism and scorn those that adhere to it are perfectly willing to accept the positive benefits of it. I don't see too many Americans that are opposed to Nationalism donating their last possession and dollar and moving to a slum in Lagos.

You answered in my place regarding your question. Anyway, I don't think nationalism is a neccessary extension of the will to protect what's your's and those you love. I must be able to love my family, pay my taxes etc, without being ready to die for some abstract culture that is called my country. Also, what gives I should like to help everyone in the same cultural "sphere" as me? I know of people in Sweden who think everyone not ready to die for Sweden should, well, die.
Anyway, I'm not much for charity. I know I'm egoistic, but we all are, I'm just open about it (which might surprise some as I tend to argue in favour of more leftish ideologies, in fact according to all political tests I've done I'm a socialist... I just like to argue I guess). I basically agree with Stirner on the subject.

[Don Corleone]

You answered in my place regarding your question. Anyway, I don't think nationalism is a neccessary extension of the will to protect what's your's and those you love. I must be able to love my family, pay my taxes etc, without being ready to die for some abstract culture that is called my country. Also, what gives I should like to help everyone in the same cultural "sphere" as me? I know of people in Sweden who think everyone not ready to die for Sweden should, well, die.
Anyway, I'm not much for charity. I know I'm egoistic, but we all are, I'm just open about it (which might surprise some as I tend to argue in favour of more leftish ideologies, in fact according to all political tests I've done I'm a socialist... I just like to argue I guess). I basically agree with Stirner on the subject.

It was a rhetorical question, but if you really would send your kids off to the soup kitchen to be fed, by all means, feel free to correct me.

Not much for charity, but you believe in Socialism. So in other words, you're all about being generous with other people's money, just not your own. Interesting perspective. You've got my vote for honesty, I'll give you that.

[Don Corleone]

I guess Legio really is looking for answers.

On question 1, its a nonsense question. There's no way you could completely and utterly submit, with confidence that after 10 years of slavery, you'd be able to throw off your shackles and oppress your overlords (who you weren't able to beat at the peak of your power, let alone after 10 years of bondage). What moronic conquerers are these that once they enslave a population, they disarm themselves and expect their slaves to obey them without threat of violence.

On question 2, again, a nonsense question. The Taliban don't fight to see to that Sharia is tolerated in some little corner of the world. They fight to impose it wherever they can. I would actually try to answer the nuances of your second question, but I cannot understand your second question.

In any case, you appear to be building a case in your own mind for calling people like me, those that would take military action to defend their own way of life, predjudiced. So be it. Call me any name you want. I'm not really concerned with your opinion of me or what names you can come up with.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I guess Legio really is looking for answers.

On question 1, its a nonsense question. There's no way you could completely and utterly submit, with confidence that after 10 years of slavery, you'd be able to throw off your shackles and oppress your overlords (who you weren't able to beat at the peak of your power, let alone after 10 years of bondage). What moronic conquerers are these that once they enslave a population, they disarm themselves and expect their slaves to obey them without threat of violence.

The communists, for example. And the nazi occupation of Germany. Most unwanted occupation doesn't result in strengthening of the occupying side, but rather the opposite. Some East European nations got away quite well with this strategy during the cold war, seeing as they weren't receiving any other help than pure talk from the west. They were true patriots who endured a few years of occupation in order to give their children a better life, and wait until all states broke off more or less simultanouesly in 1989, which made it militarily impossible for the USSR to retake the lost land - the combined power of the many simultanous rebels/freedom fighters was too great. And now their nations are able to improve their economy, military and societies a lot, and have a much larger population than if they had just fought even when at inferior strength. If they had fought when at inferior strength, they would have been taken one at the time, lost plenty of lives, and would hardly have had the strength to coordinate the massive 1989 revolution and prevent the USSR from resisting it and retaking the land. Similarly, the Free French were a far more effective force, than the French resistance force. The French resistance had much smaller impact on the war fortune than the Free French. Had the Free French tried to land in France right away in 1941, they would have been slaughtered, and the war prolonged.

On question 2, again, a nonsense question. The Taliban don't fight to see to that Sharia is tolerated in some little corner of the world. They fight to impose it wherever they can. I would actually try to answer the nuances of your second question, but I cannot understand your second question.

Not all talibans do. Some of them are devout followers of Islam or particular major directions of Islam. Quite interesting, there are as much as 20,000 talibans in Afghanistan now, fighting for the establishing of a taliban state. Not all of these are USA-haters. Then we have the rise of the new taliban-like government in Ethiopia. Ethiopia, who have cooperated and coordinated military operations with the USA recently (in Somalia). Need I mention that also Osama and the Afghani talibans - the Mujaheddin - once cooperated with USA? The amount of land with taliban law hasn't really increased much. The talibans in Afghanistan arose when others fell, and when they fell, the talibans in Ethiopia arose.

In any case, you appear to be building a case in your own mind for calling people like me, those that would take military action to defend their own way of life, predjudiced.

I call those prejudiced nationalists who regardless of whether there's proof that using military action to defend a mere piece of cloth called a flag will hurt your culture and people more in the long term than another solution would, you will always choose to use military force as a prejudiced principle.

Another hypothetical example to illustrate the difference between the "just because" behavior and being a true defender of ones culture and people. Div said he thought British culture was so similar to US culture that he would be ready to die for Britain as well, as long as it wasn't US culture vs British. Now, if Britain doesn't cause the same feelings for you, replace Britain below with another country that does. Then say a Hitler-like person would become US president by fooling the voters, then being able to step by step sneakily extend his power and use terror and the army against opposition, by somehow gaining popularity among the troops. He declares war on Britain. With this dictator as your leader, you are less like the US culture you want to defend, than Britain is similar to those values. Thus British occupation would be more like life with your cultural values, than would life under the dictator. And it is also not certain (but rather unlikely) that Britain would maintain occupation of your country after victory, but instead confine their operations after victory to overthrowing the maniac, and reestablishing democracy. In this scenario, would you support Britain in overthrowing this leader, or would you fight for the US side and try to crush Britain?

A good example of when such an early military defeat and surrender gives the greatest victory, is Italy in ww2. To such a point, that Italy was a greater winner of ww2 than both Britain and France - if not even USA as well!

So be it. Call me any name you want. I'm not really concerned with your opinion of me or what names you can come up with.

I wonder how and when you got the impression that my post was directed as an attack on you, since my initial post had no references or quotes to your post and didn't come below it. Suddenly I'm attacked and accused of "calling you names". Since I have not directed any word directly at you until now, I'm very curious how you got into the picture. There are other people in this world - and in this forum - than you. Am I supposed to, whenever I say something, expect Don Corleone to think the post is directed at him? Do I have to explicitly write it is not, when it isn't? This is exactly the type of paranoia and constant search for a fight that I'm referring to. If there's any fight or flame war, it's quite obvious that you started it. Or maybe you're trying to diminish the factual content and points of insight in my post by "poisoning the well"? I don't like the tone and would prefer a more peaceful and mature discussion.

[Innocentius]

I knew the question was rhetorical and only stated the obvious.

I never said that, did I? Don't put words in my mouth, please.

Not much for charity, but you believe in Socialism. So in other words, you're all about being generous with other people's money, just not your own. Interesting perspective. You've got my vote for honesty, I'll give you that.

Nah, I don't believe in Socialism as I'm way too aware that people are too egoistic for such a society to work (some would call it cynisism). Also, I don't see what Socialism has to do with being generous at all.

In any case, you appear to be building a case in your own mind for calling people like me, those that would take military action to defend their own way of life, predjudiced. So be it. Call me any name you want. I'm not really concerned with your opinion of me or what names you can come up with.

Well, on the subject of Talibans, they didn't really cause any trouble to the average American before the US decided it was a good idea to put troops in the Middle East and deal with weapons with various countries. Of course, why would you be so desperate (paranoid?) about defending your way of life that you go for a pre-emptive strike against a militant religious sect hundreds of kilometres away?

[Don Corleone]

I knew the question was rhetorical and only stated the obvious.

I never said that, did I? Don't put words in my mouth, please.

Like I said, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I was thinking out loud about what a normal person would do. If your argument is that you would in fact send your kids off to the soup kitchen to fetch a meal (or are currently doing so), consider me properly chastised.

Nah, I don't believe in Socialism as I'm way too aware that people are too egoistic for such a society to work (some would call it cynisism). Also, I don't see what Socialism has to do with being generous at all.

Hahaha, you don't know how right you are. Socialism is about taking everyobdy's money away from them, then handing it out as the government sees fit, after they get their cut. Similar to the generosity of charity, it is one way to see to it that nobody starves, though nobody excels either (well, nobody outside the government, that is).

[Don Corleone]

Well, on the subject of Talibans, they didn't really cause any trouble to the average American before the US decided it was a good idea to put troops in the Middle East and deal with weapons with various countries. Of course, why would you be so desperate (paranoid?) about defending your way of life that you go for a pre-emptive strike against a militant religious sect hundreds of kilometres away?

I don't consider responding to this as being desparate, paranoid, or pre-emptive, but by all means, feel free to rewrite history if it makes it easier for you. [/sarcasm]

[Odin]

Well, on the subject of Talibans, they didn't really cause any trouble to the average American before the US decided it was a good idea to put troops in the Middle East and deal with weapons with various countries.

I attempt to be respectful of other people on the board. I dont use terms like "euro weenie" because I know it bothers people.

Your quote above bothers me, while Im sure you will reply with the requsite "think whatever you like" blah, blah.... The respect I had for you as a conversationalist/someone worth the time has expired.

Sadly here in the backroom I cant use colorful language, and technology hasnt progressed to the point where I can reach through the screen.

What I do have are these ridiculous simlies.

Its comments like yours, that are unchecked, biased and clearly hostile that lends to apathy and a general frustration with what appears to be at times an inequity in correcting posters tone.

[Marshal Murat]

I guess I needed to edit my above post.
When I said 'preserving the peace' I referred to inside the nation in question.
Also, while the wars aren't as pleasant, there aren't as many.

The current United States.
Northerners, Southerners, Westerners, Texans, they all have different viewpoints on subjects. Georgians are mostly Christian, conservatives. Mostly.
Californian people are mostly liberals. They are both Americans though, and thats probably the only thing keeping the two states in the same union is nationalism. There was the Civil War yes, but that was before everyone identified themselves as Americans.

If there was no nationalism, then it would be on family and regional values, not by country. The US would be similar to 17th Century Germany with everyone speaking English, but all very different.

Everything in moderation, that's the best way to do things.
To much nationalism leads to a pre-WW1 situation. To little would probably cause more regionalistic tendencies. Evidence?
Modern Sudan.
There are the Darfur residents and the Sudanese in northern Sudan. The northern Sudanese don't identify the Darfur residents as 'Sudanese' but as a seperate people. People are less likely to involve themselves in a civil war if they identify the other combatant as a person like themselves.

Nigeria.
Muslim north, Christian south. They are Nigerians, but in name only. They are separate groups with separate values and ideals. Conflict results.

Iraq.
Kurd north, Sunni center, Shi'ite everywhere else. If they identified themselves as 'Iraqis' rather than by clans and religion, then it would be like the Taliban, a terrorist group seeking to regain former glory. Now it's sectarian and divided.

All 3 examples could be resolved if the combatants didn't separate into religious or ethnic groups but joined as part of their nation. No longer identified as 'Sunni' or 'Christian' but as Sudanese or Nigerian.

A historical example of non-nationalism?
Poland in the 18th century. While everyone was 'Polish', there were Lithuanians, Poles, Germans, Ruthenians, Cossacks, etc. They weren't united and when they were partitioned, they didn't rise up immediately because they didn't identify themselves as a part of a larger nation, but as an ethnic group. The Poles did rise up (continuously) because they believed in 'Poland' as a nation. All the years later, many people in Poland consider themselves Polish, rather than Pomeranian German or Ruthenian.

[rant]
Nationalism has probably prevented more modern-day imperialism because no-one would accept that they are 'American' or 'Russian' or 'British'. Economic imperialism would be the only way now, with puppet regimes of some sort.
I would prefer the WW2 nationalism, cause then America could get more done without everyone trying to be independent and peaceful, trying to be so individualistic that they forget they are Americans.
[rant]

P.S.
Legio, there were to many assumptions about what a person would do or what you could do. It's to iffy for me to respond.

[Soulforged]

why nationalism?

People tend to like being part of something greater than themselves. Go to a football match of any nation and you'll understand why, notice that I'm not even talking about something serious, like a war in wich the very essence of what makes a nation is at stake, in wich case one is made into a nationalist if one wants to survive. Sometimes we do it because we care for others and those others share some common root with ourselves. Notice the difficulty on defining nations this days...

What triggers this? Is it a need for security and the feeling of belonging somewhere? To me it's just a geographic area inhabitated by certain people that happened to end up there thanks to history.

Geography is not necessarily determinant. My country (Argentina) is known for having a rather large territory, but there's many nations within it and it's very hard to talk about argentinian nationality outside of legal boundaries. The feeling that one has of belonging to a certain community is an start to defining what makes a Nation, is the subjective element. Then you can add a common culture, common customs, common past, common roots, wich are all objective elements. If you've one subjective element and one objective element together you've got yourself a Nation.

What is good and what is bad with this social phenomena?

It's good because it unites people, and it does so much more the more a Nation is in danger. It's good also because it gives a sense of variety to the world, if there were no Nations then it's probably because there's no different cultures to talk about.

It can be bad in those cases in wich Nation is confused with State, there's a few cases in wich that was truth (like France a century ago) but it may lead to jingoism. As always the problem is on taking it to the extreme. As long as you're not blinded by your feelings it's ok to feel something for your community.

[Incongruous]

The original thread got locked pretty immediately, so I'm trying a more diplomatic approach here.

As the topic indicated; why nationalism? Not a nationalist myself, I'm having difficulties understanding what makes a person love his or her country simple because. What triggers this? Is it a need for security and the feeling of belonging somewhere? To me it's just a geographic area inhabitated by certain people that happened to end up there thanks to history.

To not make this a thread entirely for nationalists to write in, it'd be interesting to see some kind of debate also. What is good and what is bad with this social phenomena? My, rather biased, opinion - that got the first thread locked - can be read in the link at the top of the post. It's all yours.

History, is a strong word, people have connections with history. Some increadibly personal, this a natural thing and no phenomena. If you want to question that then you'll be questioning strongly ingrained assumptions of the Human mind. Nations are far more than a Geographical area inhabited by certain people. In some countries there are more than just a certain type of people, but they are usually of the same nationality. I assume you are in fact talking about nation-states/ states? The Kurds consider themselves a nation but they are not a state. It is natural for people to group together, ever since the dawn of history. We have seen a general progression in the size of these groupings, thus history tells us they will only get bigger. Eventually I reckon the Earth will be our only gouping, but it takes time, evolution rather than revolution.