7 ms·

The pedestal contemporary people put national identity on is just that, contemporary. National identities didn't arise naturally. Many of them were very thought

The pedestal contemporary people put national identity on is just that, contemporary. National identities didn't arise naturally. Many of them were very thoughtfully and intentionally invented. For most of human history, the idea that people over a geography the size of Engalnd would see themselves as one people would've been ridiculous. It's really only in the last 200-400 years that people have accepted the nation as their identifying place. Previously people's place identity came the much smaller geography of their county, kingdom, principality or hamlet. Joining these smaller identities into larger national identities was a big win that came with many benefits. Of course it meant that these places had to give up some autonomy. Just as there are many benefits of nations giving up some autonomy to act collectively in a regional power structure. It's only our contemporary bias that tells us that the subordination of the political will of the hamlet to the nation is good and that the subordination of the national will to a continental or regional will is bad.

TadaScientist 8y ago
Oh really? National identities didn't arise naturally? Ask the Greeks and the Italians
- grokys 8y ago
  Italy was unified in 1871, in part by force. And many parts of Italy still resent that and consider themselves Sicilian, Napolitan etc rather than "Italian". I can't speak for Greece, but Italy is a really BAD example of a "naturally arisen" national identity. In fact the (now second party) Northern League's sole purpose until Matteo Salvini was to split Northen Italy from the south.
  - luckydata 8y ago
    Can confirm some of this is true, but it would be overstating the division. It's a LONG conversation that I would be happy to have with a couple beers, but as a mixed Piemontese-Sicilian person living in the US I have a little more perspective on that than the average person :)
    - grokys 8y ago
      Ah yes, apologies if I overstated. I should perhaps have said "some people in many parts of Italy still resent...". I'm often told by friends from the south about how the north treated the south during and after unification, and from what I understand there is still a lingering resentment there. I think the point still stands that Italy is not example of a "naturally arisen" national identity anyway. Source: British person living in Northern Italy with many friends from the South.
      - oAlbe 8y ago
        You didn't really overstate it, IMO. The Northern League political party (which at present goes just by The League) stated agenda AND main purpose was to obtain (enforce) fiscal federalism over Italy, in a way that would have effectively split the north from the south economically. That was the agenda, then of course there are a lot of declinations the whole thing took. Like, as an example, members and sustainer of the Northern League considering the people from the south as "not Italians", derogatorily addressing them as "terroni" and so forth. Then along came Salvini, who switched the focus from the south of Italy to the refugees, making them the enemy now. And the rest is pretty much in the daily news. So no, sir, you did not overstate it.
- sotojuan 8y ago
  Italy is probably the worst European example of this. For most of history the country was split into nation states that warred with each other. Even after unification, there's a strong cultural divide between the north and the south.
  - gpderetta 8y ago
    And Italian really didn't become the primary language untill the invention of the television.
- DubiousPusher 8y ago
  You almost couldn't have picked two worse examples. Italy, for most of its history was divided into regions or even into smaller city states depending on the era. Even during the Roman hedgemony the peninusala did not act as a single political entity. There was significant disagreement about who outside of Roman was "Roman". This came to a head when Rome fought a war against it's neighboring cities and villages over the issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_(91%E2%80%9388_BC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_(91%E2%80%9388_BC) It wasn't until the early 1800s that a group of nationalists and aristocrats started a nationalist movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy#Italian_unification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy#Italian_unification Greek nationalism developed around the same time. Before that, the territory that is modern Greece passed in large pieces between different empires and the Catholic church. Previous to that the Polis or city state was the highest political authority and the unit of place identity. There was some flirtation with larger alliances like those that fought the Peloponnesian War but they were loose and did not last after outside conquest.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Actually he picked good examples. "Greek nationalism developed around the same time." This not true. While the 'nation state' as a legal formalism didn't arrive until recently - the 'Greek identity' existed in antiquity. Not only that - Greek identity was maintained throughout 2000 years of occupation! That's how strong and 'not arbitrary' their cultural foundation is. If smaller Greek states were 'arbitrary' - they would have evaporated during Roman occupation. But an entity the Romans called 'Graecia' (sound familiar?) changed hands several times throughout history - more or less intact as a people and culture. Though Greece was a collection of smaller states, and never a unified entity - they shared very similar cultural foundations, which were distinct from those around them (most of which changed and/or evaporated). When the Persians invaded 'Greece' - the infighting Greek states bound together and acted more or less as an entity to push out the invaders. Point being: 'Invading Persians' was not the same thing as 'Spartans invading Athens'. Nation states were not arbitrarily formed, they are mostly ethnically oriented, and some of the boundaries have not changed in eons. The thesis that 'nation states are arbitrary' is easily dismissed by having a look at maps of Europe throughout time. The state of Sweden is not some random thing, it's where 'the Swedes' live - roughly. If the lines were 'arbitrary' - we'd see a mishmash of weird lines, crossing ethnicities - much like the somewhat arbitrary divisions between Syria, Iraq, Kuwait etc.. But they are not. Funny enough, I think the legal IP questions of this article have nothing to do with this issue! For once, we're dealing with a more secular, legal thing, I think. Summary: 'Graecia' was Greece literally more than 2000 years ago, the formation of a 'Greek state' is not arbitrary.
- walterstucco 8y ago
  Italy didn't even exist until the unification in 1861. That actually was 1871, when Rome was annexed and became the capital.
TACIXAT 8y ago
Comments like this remind me how much I like California. It's nice to be in a place that doesn't conflate regional identity with race or religion. It was a surprise to me when living on the east coast how often people asked about my heritage. My people are whoever comes down to Old Muscle Beach to work out, whoever is at the skate park. I'm super happy that those crowds are varied.
- justtopost 8y ago
  They do, just not locally. Ask an average californian about the average person from tennessee, and the bigotry is just as real.
- porpoisely 8y ago
  Are you talking about the California of the LA Riots? The california of constant race riots in high schools? A california with the largest white supremacist population, the largest ethnic mexican gangs, largest asian-ethnic gangs, largest black ethnic gangs, etc? A california of ethnic neighborhoods and segregation? https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rothstein-segregated-housing-20170820-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rothstein-segreg... Not that we are any better on the east coast, but you must be living a very sheltered life if you think california is some racial paradise.
  - TACIXAT 8y ago
    Not a racial paradise, but a relatively young place where there is less adherence to that stuff. LA riots were a long time ago. Largest white supremacist population? So what's that mean, a few thousand? My high school had what was labeled as a race riot by some media. [1 for a link to the event] On the other hand, looking past a shitty week, that high school was incredibly diverse, and I'm thankful I got to hang out with a mix of people. Maybe the subset of friends I had at the beach was sheltered, but that place was global. Friends from Iran, Russia, white, black, Asian, you name it. From millionaires to homeless. So yea, I'm pretty thankful for California. There are still barriers, but I think they're a lot lower out here. 1. https://smmirror.com/2005/04/last-friday-at-samohi-it-was-a-scary-day-two-students-tell-what-they-heard-and-saw/ https://smmirror.com/2005/04/last-friday-at-samohi-it-was-a-...
aikah 8y ago
> The pedestal contemporary people put national identity on is just that, contemporary. As opposed to the pedestal people put supra national institutions such as the EU? Rome? Napoleon's Empire? all failed eventually. > National identities didn't arise naturally. Neither did the European Union. All societies are man made constructs, what your point? > It's only our contemporary bias that tells us that the subordination of the political will of the hamlet to the nation is good and that the subordination of the national will to a continental or regional will is bad. Well, the EU is more power concentrated in the hands of fewer people. By nature it will always be less democratic than governance at a smaller scale. And these structures tend to seek even more power as time goes, not less. What is better? more tyranny,bureaucracy or more democracy? Ignoring local cultures and socio-economics specificities by trying to impose arbitrary rules to an entire continent? In that case there will always be winners and losers.
- Sammi 8y ago
  I think the parent comment is trying to make the point that nation state identity is equally as arbitrary and artificial as a continent identity. People like identifying with a group. It seems like an innate craving of humanity. I think we should learn to be careful not to be exploited for this craving. Whether it is a nation, the EU, a religion or a soccer team, one should be very very careful.
  - aikah 8y ago
    And my point is more power concentrated in the hand of fewer people only leads to the tyranny of a bureaucratic elite and less democracy. > I think we should learn to be careful not to be exploited for this craving. You mean "we shouldn't trust the people with their intelligence", that's how every elite thinks. Well I hope someday there is enough democracy left for the people in Europe to undo the EU bureaucracy peacefully. For the record I was pro EEC.
    - walterstucco 8y ago
      Élite vs the people is a very boring debate I don't know who invented it or why it keeps popping up, but it's stupid
deogeo 8y ago
> the idea that people over a geography the size of Engalnd would see themselves as one people would've been ridiculous Yet they were related people, ethnically, linguistically, and culturally. It's like saying the idea of a family would've been ridiculous, because brothers used to fight and bicker.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Not that related. Conquered and homogenised. Some of today's regional identities and dialects can be seen in this 1,100 year old map. Britain after Alfred's restoration of London: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Britain_886.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Britain_886.jpg
eecc 8y ago
Mah, my take on the resurgence of Nationalism is that it is simply a reaction/struggle to Neoliberal Globalization. Previous attempts at developing an international counterpoint to Neoliberals’ “End of History” have either fizzled on their own or were smashed apart (GenovaG8, World Social Forum, Occupy.) The latest attempt at interpreting displeasure for TINA comes from the Right, which in Europe has meant rejecting the “Global Village”, unearthing very unpleasant forms of chauvinism and racist rhetoric, longing for a “gilded age” of Nations (where Countries and People - as in, homogeneous ethnic groups - identify.) And the most recent - and counterproductive - development has been the disdainful elitism of the EU technocrats and their political supporters (in the last 10–20 years, the former gained a lot of respect and power at the expense of the latter.) They are literally shouting “There Is No Alternative to us and our policies, you stupid crowd of gullible populists!” I can’t see this going anywhere good

TadaScientist 8y ago

Oh really? National identities didn't arise naturally? Ask the Greeks and the Italians

grokys 8y ago
Italy was unified in 1871, in part by force. And many parts of Italy still resent that and consider themselves Sicilian, Napolitan etc rather than "Italian". I can't speak for Greece, but Italy is a really BAD example of a "naturally arisen" national identity. In fact the (now second party) Northern League's sole purpose until Matteo Salvini was to split Northen Italy from the south.
- luckydata 8y ago
  Can confirm some of this is true, but it would be overstating the division. It's a LONG conversation that I would be happy to have with a couple beers, but as a mixed Piemontese-Sicilian person living in the US I have a little more perspective on that than the average person :)
  - grokys 8y ago
    Ah yes, apologies if I overstated. I should perhaps have said "some people in many parts of Italy still resent...". I'm often told by friends from the south about how the north treated the south during and after unification, and from what I understand there is still a lingering resentment there. I think the point still stands that Italy is not example of a "naturally arisen" national identity anyway. Source: British person living in Northern Italy with many friends from the South.
    - oAlbe 8y ago
      You didn't really overstate it, IMO. The Northern League political party (which at present goes just by The League) stated agenda AND main purpose was to obtain (enforce) fiscal federalism over Italy, in a way that would have effectively split the north from the south economically. That was the agenda, then of course there are a lot of declinations the whole thing took. Like, as an example, members and sustainer of the Northern League considering the people from the south as "not Italians", derogatorily addressing them as "terroni" and so forth. Then along came Salvini, who switched the focus from the south of Italy to the refugees, making them the enemy now. And the rest is pretty much in the daily news. So no, sir, you did not overstate it.
sotojuan 8y ago
Italy is probably the worst European example of this. For most of history the country was split into nation states that warred with each other. Even after unification, there's a strong cultural divide between the north and the south.
- gpderetta 8y ago
  And Italian really didn't become the primary language untill the invention of the television.
DubiousPusher 8y ago
You almost couldn't have picked two worse examples. Italy, for most of its history was divided into regions or even into smaller city states depending on the era. Even during the Roman hedgemony the peninusala did not act as a single political entity. There was significant disagreement about who outside of Roman was "Roman". This came to a head when Rome fought a war against it's neighboring cities and villages over the issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_(91%E2%80%9388_BC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_(91%E2%80%9388_BC) It wasn't until the early 1800s that a group of nationalists and aristocrats started a nationalist movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy#Italian_unification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy#Italian_unification Greek nationalism developed around the same time. Before that, the territory that is modern Greece passed in large pieces between different empires and the Catholic church. Previous to that the Polis or city state was the highest political authority and the unit of place identity. There was some flirtation with larger alliances like those that fought the Peloponnesian War but they were loose and did not last after outside conquest.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Actually he picked good examples. "Greek nationalism developed around the same time." This not true. While the 'nation state' as a legal formalism didn't arrive until recently - the 'Greek identity' existed in antiquity. Not only that - Greek identity was maintained throughout 2000 years of occupation! That's how strong and 'not arbitrary' their cultural foundation is. If smaller Greek states were 'arbitrary' - they would have evaporated during Roman occupation. But an entity the Romans called 'Graecia' (sound familiar?) changed hands several times throughout history - more or less intact as a people and culture. Though Greece was a collection of smaller states, and never a unified entity - they shared very similar cultural foundations, which were distinct from those around them (most of which changed and/or evaporated). When the Persians invaded 'Greece' - the infighting Greek states bound together and acted more or less as an entity to push out the invaders. Point being: 'Invading Persians' was not the same thing as 'Spartans invading Athens'. Nation states were not arbitrarily formed, they are mostly ethnically oriented, and some of the boundaries have not changed in eons. The thesis that 'nation states are arbitrary' is easily dismissed by having a look at maps of Europe throughout time. The state of Sweden is not some random thing, it's where 'the Swedes' live - roughly. If the lines were 'arbitrary' - we'd see a mishmash of weird lines, crossing ethnicities - much like the somewhat arbitrary divisions between Syria, Iraq, Kuwait etc.. But they are not. Funny enough, I think the legal IP questions of this article have nothing to do with this issue! For once, we're dealing with a more secular, legal thing, I think. Summary: 'Graecia' was Greece literally more than 2000 years ago, the formation of a 'Greek state' is not arbitrary.
walterstucco 8y ago
Italy didn't even exist until the unification in 1861. That actually was 1871, when Rome was annexed and became the capital.

TACIXAT 8y ago

Comments like this remind me how much I like California. It's nice to be in a place that doesn't conflate regional identity with race or religion. It was a surprise to me when living on the east coast how often people asked about my heritage. My people are whoever comes down to Old Muscle Beach to work out, whoever is at the skate park. I'm super happy that those crowds are varied.

justtopost 8y ago
They do, just not locally. Ask an average californian about the average person from tennessee, and the bigotry is just as real.
porpoisely 8y ago
Are you talking about the California of the LA Riots? The california of constant race riots in high schools? A california with the largest white supremacist population, the largest ethnic mexican gangs, largest asian-ethnic gangs, largest black ethnic gangs, etc? A california of ethnic neighborhoods and segregation? https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rothstein-segregated-housing-20170820-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rothstein-segreg... Not that we are any better on the east coast, but you must be living a very sheltered life if you think california is some racial paradise.
- TACIXAT 8y ago
  Not a racial paradise, but a relatively young place where there is less adherence to that stuff. LA riots were a long time ago. Largest white supremacist population? So what's that mean, a few thousand? My high school had what was labeled as a race riot by some media. [1 for a link to the event] On the other hand, looking past a shitty week, that high school was incredibly diverse, and I'm thankful I got to hang out with a mix of people. Maybe the subset of friends I had at the beach was sheltered, but that place was global. Friends from Iran, Russia, white, black, Asian, you name it. From millionaires to homeless. So yea, I'm pretty thankful for California. There are still barriers, but I think they're a lot lower out here. 1. https://smmirror.com/2005/04/last-friday-at-samohi-it-was-a-scary-day-two-students-tell-what-they-heard-and-saw/ https://smmirror.com/2005/04/last-friday-at-samohi-it-was-a-...

aikah 8y ago

> The pedestal contemporary people put national identity on is just that, contemporary. As opposed to the pedestal people put supra national institutions such as the EU? Rome? Napoleon's Empire? all failed eventually. > National identities didn't arise naturally. Neither did the European Union. All societies are man made constructs, what your point? > It's only our contemporary bias that tells us that the subordination of the political will of the hamlet to the nation is good and that the subordination of the national will to a continental or regional will is bad. Well, the EU is more power concentrated in the hands of fewer people. By nature it will always be less democratic than governance at a smaller scale. And these structures tend to seek even more power as time goes, not less. What is better? more tyranny,bureaucracy or more democracy? Ignoring local cultures and socio-economics specificities by trying to impose arbitrary rules to an entire continent? In that case there will always be winners and losers.

Sammi 8y ago
I think the parent comment is trying to make the point that nation state identity is equally as arbitrary and artificial as a continent identity. People like identifying with a group. It seems like an innate craving of humanity. I think we should learn to be careful not to be exploited for this craving. Whether it is a nation, the EU, a religion or a soccer team, one should be very very careful.
- aikah 8y ago
  And my point is more power concentrated in the hand of fewer people only leads to the tyranny of a bureaucratic elite and less democracy. > I think we should learn to be careful not to be exploited for this craving. You mean "we shouldn't trust the people with their intelligence", that's how every elite thinks. Well I hope someday there is enough democracy left for the people in Europe to undo the EU bureaucracy peacefully. For the record I was pro EEC.
  - walterstucco 8y ago
    Élite vs the people is a very boring debate I don't know who invented it or why it keeps popping up, but it's stupid

deogeo 8y ago

> the idea that people over a geography the size of Engalnd would see themselves as one people would've been ridiculous Yet they were related people, ethnically, linguistically, and culturally. It's like saying the idea of a family would've been ridiculous, because brothers used to fight and bicker.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Not that related. Conquered and homogenised. Some of today's regional identities and dialects can be seen in this 1,100 year old map. Britain after Alfred's restoration of London: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Britain_886.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Britain_886.jpg

eecc 8y ago

Mah, my take on the resurgence of Nationalism is that it is simply a reaction/struggle to Neoliberal Globalization. Previous attempts at developing an international counterpoint to Neoliberals’ “End of History” have either fizzled on their own or were smashed apart (GenovaG8, World Social Forum, Occupy.) The latest attempt at interpreting displeasure for TINA comes from the Right, which in Europe has meant rejecting the “Global Village”, unearthing very unpleasant forms of chauvinism and racist rhetoric, longing for a “gilded age” of Nations (where Countries and People - as in, homogeneous ethnic groups - identify.) And the most recent - and counterproductive - development has been the disdainful elitism of the EU technocrats and their political supporters (in the last 10–20 years, the former gained a lot of respect and power at the expense of the latter.) They are literally shouting “There Is No Alternative to us and our policies, you stupid crowd of gullible populists!” I can’t see this going anywhere good