5 ms·

Nationalism. This has been rising up like a plague in recent years and it isn't going away any time soon. When ego and emotion come into play, the question of

• kiliancs 8y ago
  Not only nationalism. Current conflicts are rooted in the same prejudices as a hundred years ago. The root cause (this idea that somehow my nation/religion/race/etc is superior) hasn't been resolved, only more or less patched, and thus these conflicts are bound to reappear and escalate sooner or later until we recognize that that despite the valuable diversity humanity is essentially one and align the political and economic structures of this world with this reality.
  • mistermann 8y ago
    > Not only nationalism. Current conflicts are rooted in the same prejudices as a hundred years ago. The root cause (this idea that somehow my nation/religion/race/etc is superior) Honest question: is it possible in your opinion for someone to not believe "my nation/religion/race/etc is superior" yet still be opposed to globalism? To me, this is what nationalism means, international cooperation while unequivocally maintaining the right to national democratic self-determination.
    • GavinMcG 8y ago
      Not the person you asked the question of, but I think there are reasonable anti-globalist positions that don't have anything to do with superiority. A sort of Ludditism could do. And I actually do think people can be strongly attached to identity without a belief of superiority. Couldn't non-democratic societies be nationalist? Was nationalism off-limits to Imperial Japan, for example?
      • mistermann 8y ago
        > A sort of Ludditism could do. Is it necessary? Is primary Nationalism, but with a willingness to trade and cooperate internationally in a mutually beneficial manner, inherently worse than enthusiastic globalism with no regard for the well-being of one's own individual country? I hear most everyone talking this talk on the world stage, but I don't see a lot of people walking the walk (for example, everyone seems to bargain quite strongly in a self-beneficial way in trade talks, even though that is apparently considered immoral).
    • vermilingua 8y ago
      Yes, by disillusioning yourself that any of those things matter. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what god you pray to, because prayer is personal; doesn’t matter what nation you call your own, because emigration is easier than ever; and doesn’t matter what colour your skin is, because it doesn’t define you. Obviously all that is easier said than done, but really if you stop letting any kind of tribal attachment define you as a person, life becomes a lot simpler.
      • mistermann 8y ago
        > doesn’t matter what nation you call your own, because emigration is easier than ever Are there any fiscal consequences to that, at all? For example, I often read about the advantage of socialized medicare in Canada versus the US, is this difference a figment of people's imagination? Is that a tribalist belief, or acknowledgement of physical & fiscal reality? > Yes, by disillusioning yourself that any of those things matter. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what god you pray to, because prayer is personal; doesn’t matter what nation you call your own, because emigration is easier than ever; and doesn’t matter what colour your skin is, because it doesn’t define you. Are you saying it doesn't, or it shouldn't? Because from what I see on the news and read in psychological studies, it seems like there are significant numbers of people, some of whom are scientists, who don't share this interpretation of reality. > Obviously all that is easier said than done, but really if you stop letting any kind of tribal attachment define you as a person, life becomes a lot simpler. Is this a fact or a theory? And I don't mean that flippantly or offensively, I think it's a perfectly valid question considering the current political climate.
      • refurb 8y ago
        You’re completely ignoring national identity, which has and always will be, a major part of people’s identity.
        • ionised 8y ago
          Speak for yourself.
      • threatofrain 8y ago
    • tareqak 8y ago
      I don't see how nationalism includes international cooperation. At best, it seems to me that international cooperation is a choice a nationalist might consider amongst protectionism, isolationism, imperialism/colonialism, and outright xenophobia.
      • mistermann 8y ago
        Do nationalists not engage in mutually beneficial trade out of spite or something? Is there historical evidence of this?
        • tareqak 8y ago
          You can see the Wikipedia page for isolationism or any of the other *isms I listed above [0]. To say that there was no beneficial mutual trade in at least some of the cases is probably a stretch. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism
          • mistermann 8y ago
            So now you do see how nationalism might also include international cooperation?
            • tareqak 8y ago
              I think we are misunderstanding each other, but we both agree. My understanding of what you are saying now is that it is possible to have nationalism with international cooperation, but I read your initial comment as nationalism requiring international cooperation. What I am saying is that nationalism and international cooperation are two choices that a nation-state can make that are almost completely independent from each other. Sorry for any lack of clarity on my part.
    • ip26 8y ago
      Wouldn't that just be anti-globalist?
  • mynameishere 8y ago
    somehow my nation/religion/race/etc is superior "Somehow". The answer is found quite simply by this formula: "My [whatever] is the [whatever] I belong to." Even if you prove without a doubt that Islam is worse that Christianity, or that one race is worse than another, you won't likely convince the members that they therefore deserve less than they have, or that they should surrender to another. The core tautology still holds true.
    • redleggedfrog 8y ago
      It's quite refreshing, and not a little bit amusing, when you don't belong to anything. The world appears mostly insane.
      • mattnewton 8y ago
        I’m afraid of tribalism as much as the other guy, but it’s naive to assume it’s maladaptive. Many people are blind to how many groups that try to protect them in the United States, whether or not they identify as such. Tolerance and peace are luxuries purchased off tribal conflict in some cases.
      • mistermann 8y ago
        I like belonging to a country with socialized Medicare, it is refreshing to not have to worry about that cost.
      • Aeolun 8y ago
        I see you’ve joined the group of the ‘sensible ones’. Your opinion of all other factions has been reduced by 20.
  • sheepmullet 8y ago
    > The root cause (this idea that somehow my nation/religion/race/etc is superior) This isn’t really the root cause. It is possible and common to think your group is superior without wishing any harm onto others and without trying to control others. For example plenty of developers believe static typing is superior to dynamic typing but there are only a few that believe dynamic typing should be banned / driven out of the workplace.
• fhfjgjfducucuf 8y ago
  I feel this is too reductive in some senses. WWI was a war directed by imperialists sacrificing other people's children to profitier and try to grab power and influence for the elites in each country. Yes some elites did demonstrate egoism and inflame predjudice but that's the show for the rubes to get them to sacrifice their children and labor for the imperial project. Egoist leaders can only get their way if theirprogram works for enough of the people implementing their decisions. Eugene Debs went to jail in America for imploring the working class not to fighta rich mans war and many soldiers walked away completely disgusted. Just a few miles from the trenches filled with death, the war profitiers were making a killing offering hotels and foodstuffs to soldiers on leave. We still have a command economy based on war and our imperial project is still ongoing. We should take the lessons of world war one to heart and refuse to fight and fuel wars of domination and conquest. I can't recall the last time the western world was called to fight a defensive war after WW2, perhaps the only "good" war in our history. https://www.marxist.com/first-world-war-a-marxist-analysis-of-the-great-slaughter.htm https://www.marxist.com/first-world-war-a-marxist-analysis-o...
  • bzbarsky 8y ago
    Your theory about WWI is hard to reconcile with the fraction of the upper classes in the relevant age brackets who were in the army and were casualties, especially on the western front. In WWI, a lot of the people making the decisions in fact ended up sacrificing their own children. Or to make this concrete, the prime minister of the UK in 1914 (and through 1916) was H. H. Asquith. Looking at the wikipedia articles about his sons: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Asquith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Asquith -- killed in action in 1916. 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Asquith_(poet) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Asquith_(poet) -- served in the artillery in the British Army. 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Asquith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Asquith -- wounded four times, lost a leg. 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Asquith,_Baron_Asquith_of_Bishopstone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Asquith,_Baron_Asquith_o... -- was in the army, but not on the Western Front. 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Asquith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Asquith -- was 12 years old when the war started, 16 when it ended: too young to serve. I have a hard time seeing Asquith here as "sacrificing other people's children", or at least any more so than sacrificing his own. That said, I agree that there's way more war-making going on recently than there should be and that it's no longer in style for the upper class to actually put their own skins on the line. But WWI is just not a good example of that tendency.