5 ms·

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

by 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.
- rntz 9y ago
  > This has happened over and over again in human history, native American civilizations serve as a great example. A crucial point of contention here is: what counts as a "nation-state"? States of various forms have certainly existed and come into existence repeatedly through human history, since about ~11,000 years ago. (That said, it's an interesting question why exactly states formed; there's some reason to think it required rather unusual conditions. The book Against the Grain by James Scott tries to tackle this topic.) On the other hand, as the video describes it, a nation state is a state with a collective identity tied to a shared language, "race", and set of borders, usually maintained by a collective mythology which imagines this shared identity has deeper roots than it actually has. (For example, Joan of Arc is an important figure in the mythos of the French nation-state; but would most people living in what is now France in the 15th century have identified themselves primarily as "French"?) I don't know much about native American history. Do you think most native American civilisations fit this description? I can think of plenty of states which don't. Examples of states which are not nation states would include: feudal states (medieval Europe); city-states (ancient Greece); empires of conquest (the Alexandrian empire, the Mongol Khanates); and empires united by religion (the early Caliphates).
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Rome, Greece (especially during and after Alexander the Great), Ancient, Egypt The Kingdom of Israel, Ancient China, Ancient Persia.... Pretty much every example you gave even the Mongols were about a shared identity and were essentially a nation state. And if we just take Rome then Civis Romanus Sum is the epiphany of national identity in the ancient world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civis_romanus_sum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civis_romanus_sum
- slowmovintarget 9y ago
  Civilizational advance has at its current top-level nationalism. Self: I look out for my own advantage. Everyone else is of lesser status, possibly and enemy or opponent. Clans: I look out only for my own family's advantage. Everyone not in my family is of lesser status, possibly an enemy or opponent. Tribes: I look out only for my tribe's advantage. We may not all be family, the tribe may be made from many clans, but we are one tribe. Everyone not in my tribe is of lesser status, possibly an enemy or opponent. Nations: I look out for my nation's advantage. We are not all one family, one clan, or one tribe, but we are one culture. Everyone not a member of my nation is of lesser status within my borders, and may be an enemy or opponent. This is overly simplistic, of course, but nationalism has been the most advanced form of cultural organization we've achieved for a very long time. It's led to the notion of human rights, the idea of rule by law, and the formalization of trade (which has reduced global conflict by a large measure). Nations and nationalism are good things. They are social constructs, yes, but they are better than degeneration back to tribalism or clannishness. We can observe those regressions in the turmoil of the Middle East.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
lucas_membrane 9y ago
>> "likely to arise in any culture, perhaps in any species that's able" << History suggests a variation on this: Nation-states are likely to arise in a species that practices intra-species warfare when warfare is too costly to be sustained by any smaller unit.

by rntz 9y ago

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.

rntz 9y ago
> This has happened over and over again in human history, native American civilizations serve as a great example. A crucial point of contention here is: what counts as a "nation-state"? States of various forms have certainly existed and come into existence repeatedly through human history, since about ~11,000 years ago. (That said, it's an interesting question why exactly states formed; there's some reason to think it required rather unusual conditions. The book Against the Grain by James Scott tries to tackle this topic.) On the other hand, as the video describes it, a nation state is a state with a collective identity tied to a shared language, "race", and set of borders, usually maintained by a collective mythology which imagines this shared identity has deeper roots than it actually has. (For example, Joan of Arc is an important figure in the mythos of the French nation-state; but would most people living in what is now France in the 15th century have identified themselves primarily as "French"?) I don't know much about native American history. Do you think most native American civilisations fit this description? I can think of plenty of states which don't. Examples of states which are not nation states would include: feudal states (medieval Europe); city-states (ancient Greece); empires of conquest (the Alexandrian empire, the Mongol Khanates); and empires united by religion (the early Caliphates).
- dogma1138 9y ago
  Rome, Greece (especially during and after Alexander the Great), Ancient, Egypt The Kingdom of Israel, Ancient China, Ancient Persia.... Pretty much every example you gave even the Mongols were about a shared identity and were essentially a nation state. And if we just take Rome then Civis Romanus Sum is the epiphany of national identity in the ancient world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civis_romanus_sum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civis_romanus_sum
slowmovintarget 9y ago
Civilizational advance has at its current top-level nationalism. Self: I look out for my own advantage. Everyone else is of lesser status, possibly and enemy or opponent. Clans: I look out only for my own family's advantage. Everyone not in my family is of lesser status, possibly an enemy or opponent. Tribes: I look out only for my tribe's advantage. We may not all be family, the tribe may be made from many clans, but we are one tribe. Everyone not in my tribe is of lesser status, possibly an enemy or opponent. Nations: I look out for my nation's advantage. We are not all one family, one clan, or one tribe, but we are one culture. Everyone not a member of my nation is of lesser status within my borders, and may be an enemy or opponent. This is overly simplistic, of course, but nationalism has been the most advanced form of cultural organization we've achieved for a very long time. It's led to the notion of human rights, the idea of rule by law, and the formalization of trade (which has reduced global conflict by a large measure). Nations and nationalism are good things. They are social constructs, yes, but they are better than degeneration back to tribalism or clannishness. We can observe those regressions in the turmoil of the Middle East.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

lucas_membrane 9y ago

>> "likely to arise in any culture, perhaps in any species that's able" << History suggests a variation on this: Nation-states are likely to arise in a species that practices intra-species warfare when warfare is too costly to be sustained by any smaller unit.