9 ms·

National Identity Is Made Up [video]

52 points by gkya 9y ago

ThomPete 9y ago
True but trivial. Everything is understood in a context. That doesn't mean that the context isn't useful. The human bran economizes everything also how it looks at the world. It's a solid enough concept to understand ourselves in a bigger context and like most other things it has good and bad sides. I think postmodernism has a lot of useful perspectives, but it always annoys me when it gets misused politically like this disguised as some great antrophological insight.
- gkya 9y ago
  That trivial truth has killed tens of millions hasn't it? Not that trivial, then.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    What does that have to do with whether it's made up or not? What is your alternative?
    - gkya 9y ago
      For the first part, that mean we can make up a better thing. Also, many people have trouble seeing that's a decision we make, and thus many types of extremism/fundamentalism come around. For the second part, I don't have an alternative, and I believe I don't have to have one before discussing the flaws of what we have at hand.
      - ThomPete 9y ago
        Then you are proving my point. It's politics disguised as some big aha moment. A much more useful and precise way of looking at national identity is that it has emerged as a consequence of more complex social structures. It's not something you get to decide it's made up because there is an infrastructure and a reality that supports it. You can discuss the flaws till the cows come home for all I care, just not sure what the point is if you can't actually point to anything concrete to do about it.
        danans 9y ago
        > just not sure what the point is if you can't actually point to anything concrete to do about it Oppose oppressive policies whose basis (whether stated or not) is nationalism.
        ThomPete 9y ago
        What policies are you talking about specifically?
        danans 9y ago
        Here are a few proposed new laws in the US (introduced by the most openly ethno-nationalist member of the House of Representatives): H.R.997: English Language Unity Act of 2017 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr997 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr997 H.R.140: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2017 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr140 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr140 H.R.3600: Census Accuracy Act of 2017 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr3600 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr3600
        ThomPete 9y ago
        Those hardly make it up for national identity as that's a much broader spectrum. I was looking for fundamental things in our national identity, not fringe cases.
        danans 9y ago
        > I was looking for fundamental things in our national identity Actually, you asked for examples of nationalist policies to be opposed, which I provided. What in the content of those pieces of legislation is "fringe"? If anything, the fact that they are even on the legislative agenda indicates a normalization of nationalist policy proposals.
        9y ago
joe5150 9y ago
I'm reading Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities right now and I recommend it for anybody looking for a deeper dive into nationalism than a video series can do.
- tsieling 9y ago
  Came here to recommend that very book. It's a sober and thoughtful read, and changed how I see nations and other communities.
- selimthegrim 9y ago
  I recommend chasing this with Ernest Gellner
hprotagonist 9y ago
This was eloquently covered by Kwame Appiah in his Reith Lecture from a few years ago. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07zz5mf https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07zz5mf The philosopher and cultural theorist Kwame Anthony Appiah argues against a mythical, romantic view of nationhood, saying instead it should rest on a commitment to shared values. He explores the history of the idea, born in the 19th century, that there are peoples who are bound together by an ancient common spirit and that each of these nations is entitled to its own state. He says this idea is a mistaken one, illustrating his argument through the life story of the writer who took the pen name Italo Svevo - meaning literally Italian Swabian. He was born a citizen of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and became a citizen of the new republic of Italy, all without leaving his home city of Trieste. Appiah argues that states exist as a set of shared beliefs rather than membership of some sort of mythical and ancient group. "What binds citizens together is a commitment," he says, "to sharing the life of a modern state, united by its institutions, procedures and precepts." The lecture is recorded in front of an audience at the University of Glasgow. The series is presented and chaired by Sue Lawley. Future lectures will examine the themes of colour and culture.
- rvo 9y ago
  The idea of "Nation" being a people goes back thousands and thousands of years. I don't think it was born in the 19th century...
  - mcguire 9y ago
    (Oh, you've unsealed a tin of whoop-ass now. I've dragged out my OED, vol VII, N-Poy.) "An extensive aggregate of persons, so closely associated with each other by common descent, language, or history, as to form a distinct race or people, usually organized as a separate political state and occupying a definite territory." This usage dates in English back to the 1300s, with a first example that I won't type because I'm not sure where the letter thorn is hiding; the second is "All naciun and lede aglit vr lauerd for to drede," from Crsor M, 1300. (Geeze, I need a magnifying glass or better cheaters.) It enters English from French, and before from Latin (that is an 'L', right?): nation-em, "breed, stock, race, nation", from nasci, "to be born". But it goes on to say, "In early examples the racial idea is usually stronger than the political; in recent use the notion of political unity and independence is more prominent." An example is from 1872, "In Switzerland four languages are spoken; yet the Swiss certainly make one nation." From reading David Reynolds, my understanding is that the use of "nation" to mean a culturally-related (or "racially", or "historically", or something) group of people that ought to be a political unit, and vice versa, that a political unit ought to be a somehow-related group of people, is a relatively recent thing, possibly a gift of Woodrow Wilson following WWI. (Think of the phrase "nation-state".) [Word of the day: "Natiform": Resembling or having the form of buttocks. Thanks, OED!]
User23 9y ago
Nations are a logical consequence of heritability and therefore this headline is provably false.
- ianmcgowan 9y ago
  The first part of your statement is a pretty bold claim, especially when the nation is not a collection of tribes.
  - User23 9y ago
    It's easy to get confused because of how nation, state, and nation-state are often conflated. The defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people tied by birth and anyone with a high school or better understanding of English etymology should know that. Language, culture, and other ancillary features are also all strongly heritable.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > The defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people tied by birth No, the defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people united by a shared identity grounded in any or all of descent, culture, history, or language. > and anyone with a high school or better understanding of English etymology should know that. Anyone with a high school or better knowledge of language should know that etymology may suggest meaning, but is not a reliable guide to it.
      - User23 9y ago
        > No, the defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people united by a shared identity grounded in any or all of descent, culture, history, or language Wrong. > Anyone with a high school or better knowledge of language should know that etymology may suggest meaning, but is not a reliable guide to it. Right.
    - ianmcgowan 9y ago
      You had me at the etymology of nation (I cannot be a native of the US, because I wasn't born here, and that's what being native means). So treating nation different from state, got it. E.g. Navajo Nation is a thing, distinct from the US states that happen to be around it at a given time. But then you lost me with language and culture being heritable (as opposed to strongly influenced by the people you grow up around, who of course are usually related to you). Your comments seem to be objecting to the term "Nation" (which comes across as a pedantic nit-pick), as well as a nativist argument around heritable traits (which sounds vaguely racist, but dressed up in fancy language).
InitialLastName 9y ago
Granfalloonery like this is what humans are best at. Everything we involve ourselves in is "made up", but that doesn't keep it from existing. The book Sapiens suggests the word "intersubjective" (I don't know if this came from somewhere else) for things that exist entirely because a quorum believes they exist: - National identity - Nations as a whole - Tribes - Religion - Money - Civil rights
- rvo 9y ago
  Of course. It's what separates us from the beasts and animals. Sapiens also talks about how humanism is completely made up. Who says a human deserves rights? Why should humans not own other humans? Because we built up a moral system on made up beliefs, largely religious in origin. And that is good. Otherwise why protect weak humans? Why not just behave more "naturally", like animals?
  - betenoire 9y ago
    Tribalism seems to be pretty animalistic. I assume superstitious behavior is common too, who knows what kind of internal barking goes on when the bells ring.
  - InitialLastName 9y ago
    I'm absolutely not being critical of any of this. I think it's pseudo-magical that we've built a moderately-functional society out of 10 billion humans spread over an entire planet.
    - ygaf 9y ago
      I absolutely appreciate your post for exposing the threadbare premise of the video.
  - adventured 9y ago
    The beauty of longer term surplus, storage, savings, preservation, investment, etc. That's fundamentally why we can do it and animals can't. If humans were unable to store or save, billions of people would die off rapidly. As a species we'd largely stop being so generous & kind with each other. Famines would be common (again). We'd never be able to successfully support such an immense population scale. Operating by a year to year razors edge, is incredibly risky and difficult. Inevitably the mistakes will hammer you. Instead of 10 steps forward and 9 steps backwards (leading to quite slow net population growth), today we're able to make 10 steps forward and maybe 1-2 backwards, leading to immense success overall (whether we're talking about % that make it to old age, or % that survive infancy). If other animals could store their productivity (including surplus productivity) for 50%-100% of their life span (or more), much less widely distribute/trade it for further self-benefit, it seems like it would lead to fascinating consequences over many generations of evolution.
cannedslime 9y ago
Like religion, Money, laws and just about anything else that makes a functioning society.
- rntz 9y ago
  Most people will admit that laws are made up; that they are only good insofar as they produce a good society; that laws serve society, rather than society existing to serve law. Money is a little harder, but IME most people eventually acknowledge that the value of money is simply that we all acknowledge it has value. Whether people admit that nations are "made up" depends on how you press the point. That the precise boundaries of nations are a product of messy history rather than some ideal truth, most people will admit. But most people will push back if you insist on a broad sense of "made up"; for example, that no privilege ought to be given to "what's good for the country" in national policy, but only what is good for humanity, is a fairly unusual position. Consider Kennedy's famous line, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country". To someone who thinks countries are made up, this is nonsense. Countries are valuable if they serve humanity, not vice-versa. People are least likely to admit that their own religion is made-up; almost all religions claim legitimacy by asserting they reveal some sort of fundamental truth.
ygaf 9y ago
TLDR: National identity is only as old as... nations themselves. Wow! The rest of the video constitutes a bait and switch (nationalism is bad mmkay).
- EliRivers 9y ago
  A national identity is much younger than its nation, though.
ng12 9y ago
The scope changes, national identity does not. You don't really identify with your fellow Italians until the Lombards invade. You don't identify with your fellow Christians until Muslims are at your border. You don't identify with fellow Earthlings until Martians show up. As humans we simply round up to the most immediately useful tribe.
- curun1r 9y ago
  I think the question becomes, at what point do we use cross-cutting concerns to identify our tribes? Class is the obvious example...when do middle-class people of different national, ethnic or political backgrounds band together to realize that their interests are far more aligned than they are with people who share those other traits but have a different financial reality, either because they're much poorer or much wealthier? I'd argue that for the upper class, that distinction has already been made. Rich people already view themselves as trans-national and move their money, resources and influence to wherever they feel it best suits them. They hold meetings in ritzy Swiss mountain towns to discuss common concerns and have residences all over the world, regardless of which country or countries issued them passports. The reason the discussion about national identities matter is that it creates a useful fiction by which certain groups can be oppressed or otherwise taken advantage of. The US army goes around the world acting in the best interests of many wealthy business owners. The soldiers doing their bidding don't come from those wealthy families, they come from lower classes who view their involvement through the lens of nationalism...they're serving their country. It would be one thing if those wealthy business owners footed the bill for the massive military spending that's representing their interests around the world. But that burden falls largely on the country's middle class while those with the most wealth exert influence to reduce their tax burden. This may seem like it just describes the US, but it's equally true of the situation in some other countries. Russia's involvement in the Ukraine and Syria is equally carried out by its poorer citizens at the behest of those who will make billions off those wars. And while China has managed to steer clear of active engagements much more so than the US or Russia, their military still protects the interest of their ruling class much more so than it does the interests of the lower classes who inhabit its ranks. So while everything you've said is true, it's also important to have this conversation to better recognize when these tendencies towards tribalism are being abused by those that understand them. Yes, our natural tendency is to seek a simple heuristic that separates an us from a them and to adjust that heuristic in response to the things that threaten us. That simple formula has worked well over the majority of human history. But as our social structures have become increasingly complex, it stops working well for those that aren't actively exploiting it.
ixtli 9y ago
A lot of comments saying "money and laws and religion are made up, too!" This is absolutely correct but avoids dealing with the spirit of the claim. The reason this is worth saying is because so many people believe that tribalism and its artifacts are essential parts of being human. But it's worth discussion because it's no more "natural" than anything other mythology we create to make a consistent narrative of our history to justify our actions. Having grown up in America this is a practical matter because many people are convinced that America is right implicitly because it's America.
- mcguire 9y ago
  "...people believe that tribalism and its artifacts are essential parts of being human..." Out of curiosity, can anyone find any examples of groups of humans which do not experience tribalism and its artifacts?
  - allemagne 9y ago
    Humans have always been social and have probably always had some kind of "us" and "them." That's probably what most people mean by tribalism. That's always been there. But wouldn't rewinding the clock to the very beginnings of our species get rid of basically everything that could divide people into groups based on social constructs? I think that's what the parent comment was getting at by "artifacts of tribalism". In that sense it's trivial to consider an ancestor who has never thought of any number of things that split us today. How many potential ways of defining our "tribe" are we ignoring today that were crucial to our ancestors or will be crucial to our descendants? How do you really define experiencing an artifact of tribalism anyway? Once you've invented or have taught the concept of "being French", does it count as experiencing it? Even if you don't believe that concept has merit, or if you're only distantly affected by historical events surrounding France?
    - ixtli 9y ago
      Yes you are correct about what I meant by artifacts: stuff that flows from tribalism. Your question about what we're ignoring is super interesting and while I don't have great answers this reminds me of a super interesting concept discussed in "The Story of B" called The Great Forgetting ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_B#The_Great_Forgetting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_B#The_Great_Forge... ) TL;DR: The majority of time humans have existed we've actually been a loose federation of hunter gatherers. When we banded together into towns and cities we very quickly lost tens of thousands of years of learning because the nature of our lives changed and we hadn't previously been writing anything down. Another thing that occurs to me is that complete mutual aid (which required abandonment of tribalism) may very well be "unnatural"! However, if the goal is total equity in society, this isn't an excuse: we're capable of complex problem solving and as a result we're likely capable of "overcoming" our baser instincts, if tribalism can be counted among them. A quotation from The Dispossessed comes to mind, when UKLG is describing the world of an anarcho-communist faction that had, instead of being subjugated, gone to a barren planet and eked out a life there for centuries despite its very harsh climate: "They cut back very hard indeed, but to a minimum beneath which they would not go; they would not regress to pre-urban, pre-technological tribalism. They knew that their anarchism was the product of a very high civilization, of a complex diversified culture, of a stable economy and a highly industrialized technology that could maintain high production and rapid transportation of goods. However vast the distances separating settlements, they held to the ideal of complex organicism. They built the roads first, the houses second. The special resources and products of each region were interchanged continually with those of others, in an intricate process of balance: that balance of diversity which is the characteristic of life, of natural and social ecology." (pp. 95-96)
whatshisface 9y ago
Here are some arguments in favor of national identity being "real": (as in, likely to arise in any culture, perhaps in any species that's able - in a Chomsky recursion sort of way) - You have a greater interest in reaching consensus with people in the same democracy as you, because their votes determine the laws you follow and vice versa. - People who live in the same country as you fund the same programs and projects, and therefore share with you some sense of ownership over space programs, universal healthcare, or whatever else your government is spending money on. - People who live in the same (democratic) country are co-responsible with you for whatever good or evil your government does. (See: points one and two.) It's not a direct, and the responsibility is spread thin, but however little power Americans have over US actions, foreign nationals have even less! - Game theory explains a lot of this. National identity isn't an arbitrary fiction, nor an arbitrary reality. You can think it's good or bad, but it's here for reasons stouter than "someone came up with it."
- rntz 9y ago
  You define 'real' as: "likely to arise in any culture, perhaps in any species that's able". That's a strong claim. Look at your arguments supporting it: > You have a greater interest in reaching consensus with people in the same democracy as you... > People who live in the same country as you fund the same programs and projects... > People who live in the same (democratic) country are co-responsible with you... These all have the form: if democratic nation-states already exist, people will have reason to identify with them. This is plausible, but does not prove that nation-states are "likely to arise in any culture, perhaps in any species that's able". What it means is that nation-states are a relatively stable arrangement - that, once extant, they by and large convince people to go along with their existence. But there have been many forms of social organization which were stable for long periods of time before modern nation-states came along. Why shouldn't there be many others succeeding it?
  - whatshisface 9y ago
    If nation-states don't already exist, then someone will invent them. This has happened over and over again in human history, and native American civilizations serve as a great example. If you have a single, global state, then all of the same identity arguments apply to the new global identity. So, it sounds like the choices are between many national identities, one (global) national identity, and anarchy from which many national identities will arise given time. Finally, if you're going to hold the universal single-state together, you would have to crush all civil wars or faction divides before they even started. To do this preemptively is the central tenant of fascism, and to not do it at all will just lead back to having multiple states. So, in the long-term, you'll end up with multiple national identities.
stevenh 9y ago
Why do you suppose the New York Times wants us to believe something like this?
dropit_sphere 9y ago
"At this point I’ve gone from wanting to praise these inventors as bold libertarian heroes to wanting to drag them in front of a blackboard and making them write a hundred times “I WILL NOT CALL UP THAT WHICH I CANNOT PUT DOWN” National identity is indeed made-up. Would the Times prefer, say, racial identity? Religious identity? Corporate identity? Political faction identity?
- webkike 9y ago
  how about human identity?
  - mcguire 9y ago
    I seem to recall hearing once that the names of most of the native American nations translate to "Humans" in their own language.
  - krastanov 9y ago
    I will go a bit further: "general intelligence capable of empathy" identity.
  - dropit_sphere 9y ago
    Indeed. How about it? Has naive adoption of such ever been achieved, without being ultimately detrimental to the host? There is nuance, of course. Paying my taxes and helping my neighbor doesn't preclude sending aid to Africa. But nuance is precisely what the title (article is behind a paywall, so I can't read it) dispenses with. There is no balancing of obligations between self, kin, kith, town, state, nation, and humanity as a whole. "Just drop that whole 'national' thing, post-haste." The reality is: humans are social animals. Groups will form identities, or be dissolved and split into groups that do. And as long as the prisoner's dilemma and tragedy of the commons are things, there will be multiple competing groups, rather than one big one. This doesn't mean "therefore, genocide." Quite the opposite: good fences make good neighbors. I wonder if those who are so free with their ingroup designations exercise the same fast-and-loose mentality when writing put options. Just as hedges allow investors to take on more risk (because they can take only the risks they want to), fences allow neighbors to share vegetables over the side wall without worrying about finding Fido in the petunias or whatever. It's sad to see the perfect made the enemy of the good, especially when the good is really good.
gt_ 9y ago
Is anyone else unable to find the video? I don’t want to see it very bad, but I’d like to know if there is clear reason I’m unable to see it.
- gkya 9y ago
  uBlock interferes with it, even when disabled. Had to use my second Firefox profile that I keep around for misbehaving websites.
vinceguidry 9y ago
It's always been that way. Ethnicity is how you describe how people self-identify. Nationality is the political identity you build on top of that because ethnicities are too granular to form effective political blocs.
bitL 9y ago
This is a weird argument ignoring the main reasons for nationality - locality and familiarity, i.e. a group of people living next to each other speaking the same language (even with dialects).
- gkya 9y ago
  What's a dialect and what's a language is quite hazy. Bulgaria and Macedonia speak nearly the identical language, and are quite similar culturally, but are considered different nations. From Northern Italy to Sicily the linguistic variation is so much that a dialect can be more similar to a different language than a dialect at the other side of the country. Many nations speak multiple languages that they recognise, e.g. Belgium, Switzerland, Norway, Spain (not sure if recognised), many have multiple native languages in their own borders, but do not recognise, e.g. Turkey, France. In many nations the culture of certain areas are more similar to close areas across a border than to another part of the country. Many nations have multiple large religious groups, e.g. Lebanon, Bosnia & Herzegovina, India, Ethiopia.
scalarpro 9y ago
Was it just me or did the narrator's tone make it seem like he was talking to a child?
- oh-kumudo 9y ago
  Sounds too woke to me.
oh-kumudo 9y ago
Made up? Consider: 1. Your nationality decides the lower threshold of your social security. 2. Your nationality decides where and how easy you can travel. 3. Your nationality decides the justice system you are in. 4. For many people, your nationality, decides your ethnic background, what language you speak, what culture you are raised up...etc It is of course not made up, at least for modern people who grow up in a world that is organized by nation, already. Of course, it was constructed, because 2 to 3 hundred years ago, the technology we have at the time is not sufficient to organize and control a population of modern nation. When that technology is in place, boom, the national identity comes with it. It is not coming out of nowhere.
- debt 9y ago
  Something can be both arbitrarily made up and seriously alter the course of your life. The latter being the most frustrating of the two.
- pmarreck 9y ago
  Spotted the chinaman
- jackfraser 9y ago
  It seems that some people have conflated the idea of "socially constructed" with something not being real. Nations are composed of people and power structures; while these may have been designed by people, in no way does it mean that they don't exist, or that they don't create distinctions and differences between groups people over long periods of time. People naturally feel like their history and the shared history of their kin is part of their identity, something they can lay claim to in an abstract sense. The events of the past influence your birth and life, as they did for the generations preceding you. There is such a thing as a healthy variety of pride in your identity; obviously we know what it looks like when taken too far, but the cries to eliminate it completely seem to me to be dangerous propositions.
  - oh-kumudo 9y ago
    My thought exactly. Such claims as the one from the video, in fact, are attractive, partially because they are catchy and counter intuitive, a lot like conspiracy theories. While extreme nationalism is dangerous, nationalism is an effective way, not the most effective, to establish order and reach consensus to tens and hundreds of millions of people. And it is awkward to see that the creator of the video highlight the US exceptionalism to end their argument, which by itself, IMHO, is pretty nationalistic.
nashashmi 9y ago
Quran: We have made you into nations and tribes so you may know one another. (not dislike one another, and find thyself). National identity is not made up. It is human nature. If you don't identify yourself by one thing, you will identify yourself by another. And nation is formed around that.
- gkya 9y ago
  - It's nice to openly cite a verse when referring to well-known sources Koran, Bible, Iliade, etc. - The idea of "nation" before the second half of the second millennium and after that point is quite different. Nation as in nascere, in the biblical sense, denoting bloodline, is quite different from how modern nations define being a national.
  - nashashmi 9y ago
    Modern nations have a different version of national. It is more like a certificate you can apply for. By that definition, national identity is made up. The other def, national identity is carried by the bloodline through the father. But I believe that one way or another every society converges to a nation anyways. By the bloodline. When there are enough marriages several generations later.
Caveman_Coder 9y ago
I'd check out "The Concept of the Political" by Carl Schmitt...it presents a different argument about national identity and nation states [1][2]. [1] https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2017/SOC286/um/Schmitt_1996_-_Concept_of_the_Political.pdf https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2017/SOC286/um/Schmitt_1996_-... [2] https://fee.org/articles/carl-schmitt-the-philosopher-of-conflict-who-inspired-both-the-left-and-the-right/ https://fee.org/articles/carl-schmitt-the-philosopher-of-con...

52 points by gkya 9y ago

True but trivial. Everything is understood in a context. That doesn't mean that the context isn't useful. The human bran economizes everything also how it looks at the world. It's a solid enough concept to understand ourselves in a bigger context and like most other things it has good and bad sides. I think postmodernism has a lot of useful perspectives, but it always annoys me when it gets misused politically like this disguised as some great antrophological insight.

gkya 9y ago
That trivial truth has killed tens of millions hasn't it? Not that trivial, then.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  What does that have to do with whether it's made up or not? What is your alternative?
  - gkya 9y ago
    For the first part, that mean we can make up a better thing. Also, many people have trouble seeing that's a decision we make, and thus many types of extremism/fundamentalism come around. For the second part, I don't have an alternative, and I believe I don't have to have one before discussing the flaws of what we have at hand.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      Then you are proving my point. It's politics disguised as some big aha moment. A much more useful and precise way of looking at national identity is that it has emerged as a consequence of more complex social structures. It's not something you get to decide it's made up because there is an infrastructure and a reality that supports it. You can discuss the flaws till the cows come home for all I care, just not sure what the point is if you can't actually point to anything concrete to do about it.
      - danans 9y ago
        > just not sure what the point is if you can't actually point to anything concrete to do about it Oppose oppressive policies whose basis (whether stated or not) is nationalism.
        ThomPete 9y ago
        What policies are you talking about specifically?
        danans 9y ago
        Here are a few proposed new laws in the US (introduced by the most openly ethno-nationalist member of the House of Representatives): H.R.997: English Language Unity Act of 2017 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr997 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr997 H.R.140: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2017 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr140 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr140 H.R.3600: Census Accuracy Act of 2017 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr3600 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr3600
        ThomPete 9y ago
        Those hardly make it up for national identity as that's a much broader spectrum. I was looking for fundamental things in our national identity, not fringe cases.
        danans 9y ago
        > I was looking for fundamental things in our national identity Actually, you asked for examples of nationalist policies to be opposed, which I provided. What in the content of those pieces of legislation is "fringe"? If anything, the fact that they are even on the legislative agenda indicates a normalization of nationalist policy proposals.
        9y ago

joe5150 9y ago

I'm reading Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities right now and I recommend it for anybody looking for a deeper dive into nationalism than a video series can do.

tsieling 9y ago
Came here to recommend that very book. It's a sober and thoughtful read, and changed how I see nations and other communities.
selimthegrim 9y ago
I recommend chasing this with Ernest Gellner

hprotagonist 9y ago

This was eloquently covered by Kwame Appiah in his Reith Lecture from a few years ago. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07zz5mf https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07zz5mf The philosopher and cultural theorist Kwame Anthony Appiah argues against a mythical, romantic view of nationhood, saying instead it should rest on a commitment to shared values. He explores the history of the idea, born in the 19th century, that there are peoples who are bound together by an ancient common spirit and that each of these nations is entitled to its own state. He says this idea is a mistaken one, illustrating his argument through the life story of the writer who took the pen name Italo Svevo - meaning literally Italian Swabian. He was born a citizen of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and became a citizen of the new republic of Italy, all without leaving his home city of Trieste. Appiah argues that states exist as a set of shared beliefs rather than membership of some sort of mythical and ancient group. "What binds citizens together is a commitment," he says, "to sharing the life of a modern state, united by its institutions, procedures and precepts." The lecture is recorded in front of an audience at the University of Glasgow. The series is presented and chaired by Sue Lawley. Future lectures will examine the themes of colour and culture.

rvo 9y ago
The idea of "Nation" being a people goes back thousands and thousands of years. I don't think it was born in the 19th century...
- mcguire 9y ago
  (Oh, you've unsealed a tin of whoop-ass now. I've dragged out my OED, vol VII, N-Poy.) "An extensive aggregate of persons, so closely associated with each other by common descent, language, or history, as to form a distinct race or people, usually organized as a separate political state and occupying a definite territory." This usage dates in English back to the 1300s, with a first example that I won't type because I'm not sure where the letter thorn is hiding; the second is "All naciun and lede aglit vr lauerd for to drede," from Crsor M, 1300. (Geeze, I need a magnifying glass or better cheaters.) It enters English from French, and before from Latin (that is an 'L', right?): nation-em, "breed, stock, race, nation", from nasci, "to be born". But it goes on to say, "In early examples the racial idea is usually stronger than the political; in recent use the notion of political unity and independence is more prominent." An example is from 1872, "In Switzerland four languages are spoken; yet the Swiss certainly make one nation." From reading David Reynolds, my understanding is that the use of "nation" to mean a culturally-related (or "racially", or "historically", or something) group of people that ought to be a political unit, and vice versa, that a political unit ought to be a somehow-related group of people, is a relatively recent thing, possibly a gift of Woodrow Wilson following WWI. (Think of the phrase "nation-state".) [Word of the day: "Natiform": Resembling or having the form of buttocks. Thanks, OED!]

User23 9y ago

Nations are a logical consequence of heritability and therefore this headline is provably false.

ianmcgowan 9y ago
The first part of your statement is a pretty bold claim, especially when the nation is not a collection of tribes.
- User23 9y ago
  It's easy to get confused because of how nation, state, and nation-state are often conflated. The defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people tied by birth and anyone with a high school or better understanding of English etymology should know that. Language, culture, and other ancillary features are also all strongly heritable.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > The defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people tied by birth No, the defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people united by a shared identity grounded in any or all of descent, culture, history, or language. > and anyone with a high school or better understanding of English etymology should know that. Anyone with a high school or better knowledge of language should know that etymology may suggest meaning, but is not a reliable guide to it.
    - User23 9y ago
      > No, the defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people united by a shared identity grounded in any or all of descent, culture, history, or language Wrong. > Anyone with a high school or better knowledge of language should know that etymology may suggest meaning, but is not a reliable guide to it. Right.
  - ianmcgowan 9y ago
    You had me at the etymology of nation (I cannot be a native of the US, because I wasn't born here, and that's what being native means). So treating nation different from state, got it. E.g. Navajo Nation is a thing, distinct from the US states that happen to be around it at a given time. But then you lost me with language and culture being heritable (as opposed to strongly influenced by the people you grow up around, who of course are usually related to you). Your comments seem to be objecting to the term "Nation" (which comes across as a pedantic nit-pick), as well as a nativist argument around heritable traits (which sounds vaguely racist, but dressed up in fancy language).

InitialLastName 9y ago

Granfalloonery like this is what humans are best at. Everything we involve ourselves in is "made up", but that doesn't keep it from existing. The book Sapiens suggests the word "intersubjective" (I don't know if this came from somewhere else) for things that exist entirely because a quorum believes they exist: - National identity - Nations as a whole - Tribes - Religion - Money - Civil rights

rvo 9y ago
Of course. It's what separates us from the beasts and animals. Sapiens also talks about how humanism is completely made up. Who says a human deserves rights? Why should humans not own other humans? Because we built up a moral system on made up beliefs, largely religious in origin. And that is good. Otherwise why protect weak humans? Why not just behave more "naturally", like animals?
- betenoire 9y ago
  Tribalism seems to be pretty animalistic. I assume superstitious behavior is common too, who knows what kind of internal barking goes on when the bells ring.
- InitialLastName 9y ago
  I'm absolutely not being critical of any of this. I think it's pseudo-magical that we've built a moderately-functional society out of 10 billion humans spread over an entire planet.
  - ygaf 9y ago
    I absolutely appreciate your post for exposing the threadbare premise of the video.
- adventured 9y ago
  The beauty of longer term surplus, storage, savings, preservation, investment, etc. That's fundamentally why we can do it and animals can't. If humans were unable to store or save, billions of people would die off rapidly. As a species we'd largely stop being so generous & kind with each other. Famines would be common (again). We'd never be able to successfully support such an immense population scale. Operating by a year to year razors edge, is incredibly risky and difficult. Inevitably the mistakes will hammer you. Instead of 10 steps forward and 9 steps backwards (leading to quite slow net population growth), today we're able to make 10 steps forward and maybe 1-2 backwards, leading to immense success overall (whether we're talking about % that make it to old age, or % that survive infancy). If other animals could store their productivity (including surplus productivity) for 50%-100% of their life span (or more), much less widely distribute/trade it for further self-benefit, it seems like it would lead to fascinating consequences over many generations of evolution.

cannedslime 9y ago

Like religion, Money, laws and just about anything else that makes a functioning society.

rntz 9y ago
Most people will admit that laws are made up; that they are only good insofar as they produce a good society; that laws serve society, rather than society existing to serve law. Money is a little harder, but IME most people eventually acknowledge that the value of money is simply that we all acknowledge it has value. Whether people admit that nations are "made up" depends on how you press the point. That the precise boundaries of nations are a product of messy history rather than some ideal truth, most people will admit. But most people will push back if you insist on a broad sense of "made up"; for example, that no privilege ought to be given to "what's good for the country" in national policy, but only what is good for humanity, is a fairly unusual position. Consider Kennedy's famous line, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country". To someone who thinks countries are made up, this is nonsense. Countries are valuable if they serve humanity, not vice-versa. People are least likely to admit that their own religion is made-up; almost all religions claim legitimacy by asserting they reveal some sort of fundamental truth.

ygaf 9y ago

TLDR: National identity is only as old as... nations themselves. Wow! The rest of the video constitutes a bait and switch (nationalism is bad mmkay).

EliRivers 9y ago
A national identity is much younger than its nation, though.

ng12 9y ago

The scope changes, national identity does not. You don't really identify with your fellow Italians until the Lombards invade. You don't identify with your fellow Christians until Muslims are at your border. You don't identify with fellow Earthlings until Martians show up. As humans we simply round up to the most immediately useful tribe.

curun1r 9y ago
I think the question becomes, at what point do we use cross-cutting concerns to identify our tribes? Class is the obvious example...when do middle-class people of different national, ethnic or political backgrounds band together to realize that their interests are far more aligned than they are with people who share those other traits but have a different financial reality, either because they're much poorer or much wealthier? I'd argue that for the upper class, that distinction has already been made. Rich people already view themselves as trans-national and move their money, resources and influence to wherever they feel it best suits them. They hold meetings in ritzy Swiss mountain towns to discuss common concerns and have residences all over the world, regardless of which country or countries issued them passports. The reason the discussion about national identities matter is that it creates a useful fiction by which certain groups can be oppressed or otherwise taken advantage of. The US army goes around the world acting in the best interests of many wealthy business owners. The soldiers doing their bidding don't come from those wealthy families, they come from lower classes who view their involvement through the lens of nationalism...they're serving their country. It would be one thing if those wealthy business owners footed the bill for the massive military spending that's representing their interests around the world. But that burden falls largely on the country's middle class while those with the most wealth exert influence to reduce their tax burden. This may seem like it just describes the US, but it's equally true of the situation in some other countries. Russia's involvement in the Ukraine and Syria is equally carried out by its poorer citizens at the behest of those who will make billions off those wars. And while China has managed to steer clear of active engagements much more so than the US or Russia, their military still protects the interest of their ruling class much more so than it does the interests of the lower classes who inhabit its ranks. So while everything you've said is true, it's also important to have this conversation to better recognize when these tendencies towards tribalism are being abused by those that understand them. Yes, our natural tendency is to seek a simple heuristic that separates an us from a them and to adjust that heuristic in response to the things that threaten us. That simple formula has worked well over the majority of human history. But as our social structures have become increasingly complex, it stops working well for those that aren't actively exploiting it.

ixtli 9y ago

A lot of comments saying "money and laws and religion are made up, too!" This is absolutely correct but avoids dealing with the spirit of the claim. The reason this is worth saying is because so many people believe that tribalism and its artifacts are essential parts of being human. But it's worth discussion because it's no more "natural" than anything other mythology we create to make a consistent narrative of our history to justify our actions. Having grown up in America this is a practical matter because many people are convinced that America is right implicitly because it's America.

mcguire 9y ago
"...people believe that tribalism and its artifacts are essential parts of being human..." Out of curiosity, can anyone find any examples of groups of humans which do not experience tribalism and its artifacts?
- allemagne 9y ago
  Humans have always been social and have probably always had some kind of "us" and "them." That's probably what most people mean by tribalism. That's always been there. But wouldn't rewinding the clock to the very beginnings of our species get rid of basically everything that could divide people into groups based on social constructs? I think that's what the parent comment was getting at by "artifacts of tribalism". In that sense it's trivial to consider an ancestor who has never thought of any number of things that split us today. How many potential ways of defining our "tribe" are we ignoring today that were crucial to our ancestors or will be crucial to our descendants? How do you really define experiencing an artifact of tribalism anyway? Once you've invented or have taught the concept of "being French", does it count as experiencing it? Even if you don't believe that concept has merit, or if you're only distantly affected by historical events surrounding France?
  - ixtli 9y ago
    Yes you are correct about what I meant by artifacts: stuff that flows from tribalism. Your question about what we're ignoring is super interesting and while I don't have great answers this reminds me of a super interesting concept discussed in "The Story of B" called The Great Forgetting ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_B#The_Great_Forgetting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_B#The_Great_Forge... ) TL;DR: The majority of time humans have existed we've actually been a loose federation of hunter gatherers. When we banded together into towns and cities we very quickly lost tens of thousands of years of learning because the nature of our lives changed and we hadn't previously been writing anything down. Another thing that occurs to me is that complete mutual aid (which required abandonment of tribalism) may very well be "unnatural"! However, if the goal is total equity in society, this isn't an excuse: we're capable of complex problem solving and as a result we're likely capable of "overcoming" our baser instincts, if tribalism can be counted among them. A quotation from The Dispossessed comes to mind, when UKLG is describing the world of an anarcho-communist faction that had, instead of being subjugated, gone to a barren planet and eked out a life there for centuries despite its very harsh climate: "They cut back very hard indeed, but to a minimum beneath which they would not go; they would not regress to pre-urban, pre-technological tribalism. They knew that their anarchism was the product of a very high civilization, of a complex diversified culture, of a stable economy and a highly industrialized technology that could maintain high production and rapid transportation of goods. However vast the distances separating settlements, they held to the ideal of complex organicism. They built the roads first, the houses second. The special resources and products of each region were interchanged continually with those of others, in an intricate process of balance: that balance of diversity which is the characteristic of life, of natural and social ecology." (pp. 95-96)

whatshisface 9y ago

Here are some arguments in favor of national identity being "real": (as in, likely to arise in any culture, perhaps in any species that's able - in a Chomsky recursion sort of way) - You have a greater interest in reaching consensus with people in the same democracy as you, because their votes determine the laws you follow and vice versa. - People who live in the same country as you fund the same programs and projects, and therefore share with you some sense of ownership over space programs, universal healthcare, or whatever else your government is spending money on. - People who live in the same (democratic) country are co-responsible with you for whatever good or evil your government does. (See: points one and two.) It's not a direct, and the responsibility is spread thin, but however little power Americans have over US actions, foreign nationals have even less! - Game theory explains a lot of this. National identity isn't an arbitrary fiction, nor an arbitrary reality. You can think it's good or bad, but it's here for reasons stouter than "someone came up with it."

rntz 9y ago
You define 'real' as: "likely to arise in any culture, perhaps in any species that's able". That's a strong claim. Look at your arguments supporting it: > You have a greater interest in reaching consensus with people in the same democracy as you... > People who live in the same country as you fund the same programs and projects... > People who live in the same (democratic) country are co-responsible with you... These all have the form: if democratic nation-states already exist, people will have reason to identify with them. This is plausible, but does not prove that nation-states are "likely to arise in any culture, perhaps in any species that's able". What it means is that nation-states are a relatively stable arrangement - that, once extant, they by and large convince people to go along with their existence. But there have been many forms of social organization which were stable for long periods of time before modern nation-states came along. Why shouldn't there be many others succeeding it?
- whatshisface 9y ago
  If nation-states don't already exist, then someone will invent them. This has happened over and over again in human history, and native American civilizations serve as a great example. If you have a single, global state, then all of the same identity arguments apply to the new global identity. So, it sounds like the choices are between many national identities, one (global) national identity, and anarchy from which many national identities will arise given time. Finally, if you're going to hold the universal single-state together, you would have to crush all civil wars or faction divides before they even started. To do this preemptively is the central tenant of fascism, and to not do it at all will just lead back to having multiple states. So, in the long-term, you'll end up with multiple national identities.

stevenh 9y ago

Why do you suppose the New York Times wants us to believe something like this?

dropit_sphere 9y ago

"At this point I’ve gone from wanting to praise these inventors as bold libertarian heroes to wanting to drag them in front of a blackboard and making them write a hundred times “I WILL NOT CALL UP THAT WHICH I CANNOT PUT DOWN” National identity is indeed made-up. Would the Times prefer, say, racial identity? Religious identity? Corporate identity? Political faction identity?

webkike 9y ago
how about human identity?
- mcguire 9y ago
  I seem to recall hearing once that the names of most of the native American nations translate to "Humans" in their own language.
- krastanov 9y ago
  I will go a bit further: "general intelligence capable of empathy" identity.
- dropit_sphere 9y ago
  Indeed. How about it? Has naive adoption of such ever been achieved, without being ultimately detrimental to the host? There is nuance, of course. Paying my taxes and helping my neighbor doesn't preclude sending aid to Africa. But nuance is precisely what the title (article is behind a paywall, so I can't read it) dispenses with. There is no balancing of obligations between self, kin, kith, town, state, nation, and humanity as a whole. "Just drop that whole 'national' thing, post-haste." The reality is: humans are social animals. Groups will form identities, or be dissolved and split into groups that do. And as long as the prisoner's dilemma and tragedy of the commons are things, there will be multiple competing groups, rather than one big one. This doesn't mean "therefore, genocide." Quite the opposite: good fences make good neighbors. I wonder if those who are so free with their ingroup designations exercise the same fast-and-loose mentality when writing put options. Just as hedges allow investors to take on more risk (because they can take only the risks they want to), fences allow neighbors to share vegetables over the side wall without worrying about finding Fido in the petunias or whatever. It's sad to see the perfect made the enemy of the good, especially when the good is really good.

gt_ 9y ago

Is anyone else unable to find the video? I don’t want to see it very bad, but I’d like to know if there is clear reason I’m unable to see it.

gkya 9y ago
uBlock interferes with it, even when disabled. Had to use my second Firefox profile that I keep around for misbehaving websites.

vinceguidry 9y ago

It's always been that way. Ethnicity is how you describe how people self-identify. Nationality is the political identity you build on top of that because ethnicities are too granular to form effective political blocs.

bitL 9y ago

This is a weird argument ignoring the main reasons for nationality - locality and familiarity, i.e. a group of people living next to each other speaking the same language (even with dialects).

gkya 9y ago
What's a dialect and what's a language is quite hazy. Bulgaria and Macedonia speak nearly the identical language, and are quite similar culturally, but are considered different nations. From Northern Italy to Sicily the linguistic variation is so much that a dialect can be more similar to a different language than a dialect at the other side of the country. Many nations speak multiple languages that they recognise, e.g. Belgium, Switzerland, Norway, Spain (not sure if recognised), many have multiple native languages in their own borders, but do not recognise, e.g. Turkey, France. In many nations the culture of certain areas are more similar to close areas across a border than to another part of the country. Many nations have multiple large religious groups, e.g. Lebanon, Bosnia & Herzegovina, India, Ethiopia.

scalarpro 9y ago

Was it just me or did the narrator's tone make it seem like he was talking to a child?

oh-kumudo 9y ago
Sounds too woke to me.

oh-kumudo 9y ago

Made up? Consider: 1. Your nationality decides the lower threshold of your social security. 2. Your nationality decides where and how easy you can travel. 3. Your nationality decides the justice system you are in. 4. For many people, your nationality, decides your ethnic background, what language you speak, what culture you are raised up...etc It is of course not made up, at least for modern people who grow up in a world that is organized by nation, already. Of course, it was constructed, because 2 to 3 hundred years ago, the technology we have at the time is not sufficient to organize and control a population of modern nation. When that technology is in place, boom, the national identity comes with it. It is not coming out of nowhere.

debt 9y ago
Something can be both arbitrarily made up and seriously alter the course of your life. The latter being the most frustrating of the two.
pmarreck 9y ago
Spotted the chinaman
jackfraser 9y ago
It seems that some people have conflated the idea of "socially constructed" with something not being real. Nations are composed of people and power structures; while these may have been designed by people, in no way does it mean that they don't exist, or that they don't create distinctions and differences between groups people over long periods of time. People naturally feel like their history and the shared history of their kin is part of their identity, something they can lay claim to in an abstract sense. The events of the past influence your birth and life, as they did for the generations preceding you. There is such a thing as a healthy variety of pride in your identity; obviously we know what it looks like when taken too far, but the cries to eliminate it completely seem to me to be dangerous propositions.
- oh-kumudo 9y ago
  My thought exactly. Such claims as the one from the video, in fact, are attractive, partially because they are catchy and counter intuitive, a lot like conspiracy theories. While extreme nationalism is dangerous, nationalism is an effective way, not the most effective, to establish order and reach consensus to tens and hundreds of millions of people. And it is awkward to see that the creator of the video highlight the US exceptionalism to end their argument, which by itself, IMHO, is pretty nationalistic.

nashashmi 9y ago

Quran: We have made you into nations and tribes so you may know one another. (not dislike one another, and find thyself). National identity is not made up. It is human nature. If you don't identify yourself by one thing, you will identify yourself by another. And nation is formed around that.

gkya 9y ago
- It's nice to openly cite a verse when referring to well-known sources Koran, Bible, Iliade, etc. - The idea of "nation" before the second half of the second millennium and after that point is quite different. Nation as in nascere, in the biblical sense, denoting bloodline, is quite different from how modern nations define being a national.
- nashashmi 9y ago
  Modern nations have a different version of national. It is more like a certificate you can apply for. By that definition, national identity is made up. The other def, national identity is carried by the bloodline through the father. But I believe that one way or another every society converges to a nation anyways. By the bloodline. When there are enough marriages several generations later.

Caveman_Coder 9y ago

I'd check out "The Concept of the Political" by Carl Schmitt...it presents a different argument about national identity and nation states [1][2]. [1] https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2017/SOC286/um/Schmitt_1996_-_Concept_of_the_Political.pdf https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2017/SOC286/um/Schmitt_1996_-... [2] https://fee.org/articles/carl-schmitt-the-philosopher-of-conflict-who-inspired-both-the-left-and-the-right/ https://fee.org/articles/carl-schmitt-the-philosopher-of-con...