5 ms·

> The pedestal contemporary people put national identity on is just that, contemporary. As opposed to the pedestal people put supra national institutions such

by 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
- factsaresacred 8y ago
  > nation state identity is equally as arbitrary and artificial as a continent identity. It's not though. A person in Stockholm has lot more in common with a person in Malmo than he does with a person in Sofia. Nation-states spring from a collection of ethnically similar tribes in proximity. In most cases the tribes volunteer to be a part of a nation (those that don't end up creating new nations or separatist movements). It may be 'artificial' but it's certainly not arbitrary.
  - DubiousPusher 8y ago
    They can be fairly arbitrary. There are many places in this world where peoples separated by a border, even a very old border, look more like each other than either looks like the people in their respective national capitals. Sure, a modern resident of Stockholm will fit in better with a group from Malmo than Sofia. But what about a city like St. Petersburg which was long thought too Russian by Europeans and too European by Muscovites. What of cities that have long sat across a border from each other or which have been long divided? Are their residents less similar to each other than they are to cities hundreds of miles away? Now unwind the clock a bit. Go back to 1500 when in most places, people 100 miles apart didn't speak the same language, before national campaigns to settle the language, the grammar, the history, the traditions (many traditions we hold dear come from pro nationalist propaganda campaigns). You're looking at people after 200-300 years of shaping with a nationalist's chisel. Again, my point is not that nations are bad or that multi-national powers are good, it is only that many of the criticism thrown around about multi-national governments were also employed against nationalism in another time. National identity isn't totally arbitrary, in some places it has alonger history than others but the strident form we know of it today is invented and lots of people didn't think in terms of it before or during its emergence.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "nation state identity is equally as arbitrary and artificial as a continent identity." I would disagree. Nation states are formalizations of ethnic groups and they did arise naturally. They are not arbitrary. 'Sweden' is where the 'Swedes' live, essentially. And they have for a very long time. There is not much arbitrary about the nation states of Europe, they mostly have clear historical orientation. The Habsbourg Empire - now that is an 'artificial state'. Spain, Netherlands, Austria, Hungary etc.. It faded ultimately because it was arbitrary. WW1 - which has it's roots in turmoil within the Austro-Hungarian Empire (read: the succession of Habsbourg dynasty) - was caused at least in part by this 'arbitrary' mapping. 'Europe' is surely where 'Europeans live' - but - the 'EU' is not Europe. Many citizens (in some cases majorities) voted against the Treaty of Lisbon which gave the EU it's most powerful legal status, and most citizens didn't really have a vote. The EU is a body politic, a rather undemocratic one, it's not quite the same as 'Europe'. The legislation in question should be a pan-European concern, and I believe it belongs at the level of the EU, even if the EU is oddly constructed and has way too much power. I don't think it's really a national issue in any sense, there doesn't seem to be any clear boundaries on this. There are ideological advocates on all sides, and very specific economic forces from a few different nations acting as impetus.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    You're assuming that ethnic nation-states were the norm in human history. They were not - most states originate from rulers that unified them, and their original citizenship was basically people who swore fealty to that ruler and not the other. Most modern nations didn't exist then, either, except as numerous separate tribes that had to be forcibly unified, and their distinct identities erased, to make them into those nations. We see the legacy of this process even today, e.g. in how many European countries treat their various regional languages and dialects.
adrianN 8y ago
Germany can be seen as a supranational entity. Until quite recently Germany was a bunch of almost independent states, reasonably similar to what the EU is now. So far increased integration seems to have worked out for Germany.
- nec4b 8y ago
  They all speak the same language and have the same culture and not at all similar to the EU.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    Language in the EU is of course a problem, but I think you overestimate the cultural similarity between a Prussian and a Bavarian, or you underestimate the similarity between a German and a Frenchman.
    - nec4b 8y ago
      Any German person has an order of magnitude more in common with an another German person than it has with any other person from a different EU country. It has nothing to do with overestimating or underestimating similarities when the effects are an order of magnitude apart. I encourage you to travel around Europe and interact with locals to see the difference yourself.
      - adrianN 8y ago
        I have traveled and interacted with the locals, which is where I got my opinion from. Travel and interaction is so much easier now than when Germany was split into different states that cultural similarity in Europe is much greater now than it has ever been.
        nec4b 8y ago
        For me the experience is the opposite from what yours is. Cities, homes, food, temperament in my experience change completely when you cross a border from Germany to France. There really is no parallel between unification of German states to EU integration. For example do you really feel that someone from Munich is culturally as similar to someone from Venice as to someone from Leipzig?
DubiousPusher 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? I never claimed large regional authorities were natural, good nor special in any way. But the OP implied that national identities deserved special status or were some how superior. I'm simply pointing out that they aren't special and were once viewed with just as much suspicion as people now view larger political structures. >> 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. This is obviously incorrect. You can have large institutions which are fairly Democratic, (the U.S. House of Representatives) and small institutions which are utterly totalitarian like Rafael Trujillo's Dominican Republic. > What is better? more tyranny,bureaucracy or more democracy? I prefer democracy to tyranny. But I contest the implication that centralized authority is inherently less democratic. And I'm not so sure we can assume bureuocracy is bad out of hand. > 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. That's pretty vague. There are always winners and losers. Competing nation states create winners and losers. Totalitarian regimes create winners and losers. As does free market capitalism. You've read a lot into my comment. I do not really have an opinion about the quality of the EU as an institution. That's way beyond my knowledge. But I do contest the misunderstanding that the nation state has been ubiquitous throughout history and that it's some obviously superior socio-political construct.
sitkack 8y ago
Please don't be so combative with comments like > All societies are man made constructs, what your point? You understood the parents point of giving historical context.

by aikah 8y ago

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
factsaresacred 8y ago
> nation state identity is equally as arbitrary and artificial as a continent identity. It's not though. A person in Stockholm has lot more in common with a person in Malmo than he does with a person in Sofia. Nation-states spring from a collection of ethnically similar tribes in proximity. In most cases the tribes volunteer to be a part of a nation (those that don't end up creating new nations or separatist movements). It may be 'artificial' but it's certainly not arbitrary.
- DubiousPusher 8y ago
  They can be fairly arbitrary. There are many places in this world where peoples separated by a border, even a very old border, look more like each other than either looks like the people in their respective national capitals. Sure, a modern resident of Stockholm will fit in better with a group from Malmo than Sofia. But what about a city like St. Petersburg which was long thought too Russian by Europeans and too European by Muscovites. What of cities that have long sat across a border from each other or which have been long divided? Are their residents less similar to each other than they are to cities hundreds of miles away? Now unwind the clock a bit. Go back to 1500 when in most places, people 100 miles apart didn't speak the same language, before national campaigns to settle the language, the grammar, the history, the traditions (many traditions we hold dear come from pro nationalist propaganda campaigns). You're looking at people after 200-300 years of shaping with a nationalist's chisel. Again, my point is not that nations are bad or that multi-national powers are good, it is only that many of the criticism thrown around about multi-national governments were also employed against nationalism in another time. National identity isn't totally arbitrary, in some places it has alonger history than others but the strident form we know of it today is invented and lots of people didn't think in terms of it before or during its emergence.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
"nation state identity is equally as arbitrary and artificial as a continent identity." I would disagree. Nation states are formalizations of ethnic groups and they did arise naturally. They are not arbitrary. 'Sweden' is where the 'Swedes' live, essentially. And they have for a very long time. There is not much arbitrary about the nation states of Europe, they mostly have clear historical orientation. The Habsbourg Empire - now that is an 'artificial state'. Spain, Netherlands, Austria, Hungary etc.. It faded ultimately because it was arbitrary. WW1 - which has it's roots in turmoil within the Austro-Hungarian Empire (read: the succession of Habsbourg dynasty) - was caused at least in part by this 'arbitrary' mapping. 'Europe' is surely where 'Europeans live' - but - the 'EU' is not Europe. Many citizens (in some cases majorities) voted against the Treaty of Lisbon which gave the EU it's most powerful legal status, and most citizens didn't really have a vote. The EU is a body politic, a rather undemocratic one, it's not quite the same as 'Europe'. The legislation in question should be a pan-European concern, and I believe it belongs at the level of the EU, even if the EU is oddly constructed and has way too much power. I don't think it's really a national issue in any sense, there doesn't seem to be any clear boundaries on this. There are ideological advocates on all sides, and very specific economic forces from a few different nations acting as impetus.
- int_19h 8y ago
  You're assuming that ethnic nation-states were the norm in human history. They were not - most states originate from rulers that unified them, and their original citizenship was basically people who swore fealty to that ruler and not the other. Most modern nations didn't exist then, either, except as numerous separate tribes that had to be forcibly unified, and their distinct identities erased, to make them into those nations. We see the legacy of this process even today, e.g. in how many European countries treat their various regional languages and dialects.

adrianN 8y ago

Germany can be seen as a supranational entity. Until quite recently Germany was a bunch of almost independent states, reasonably similar to what the EU is now. So far increased integration seems to have worked out for Germany.

nec4b 8y ago
They all speak the same language and have the same culture and not at all similar to the EU.
- adrianN 8y ago
  Language in the EU is of course a problem, but I think you overestimate the cultural similarity between a Prussian and a Bavarian, or you underestimate the similarity between a German and a Frenchman.
  - nec4b 8y ago
    Any German person has an order of magnitude more in common with an another German person than it has with any other person from a different EU country. It has nothing to do with overestimating or underestimating similarities when the effects are an order of magnitude apart. I encourage you to travel around Europe and interact with locals to see the difference yourself.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      I have traveled and interacted with the locals, which is where I got my opinion from. Travel and interaction is so much easier now than when Germany was split into different states that cultural similarity in Europe is much greater now than it has ever been.
      - nec4b 8y ago
        For me the experience is the opposite from what yours is. Cities, homes, food, temperament in my experience change completely when you cross a border from Germany to France. There really is no parallel between unification of German states to EU integration. For example do you really feel that someone from Munich is culturally as similar to someone from Venice as to someone from Leipzig?

DubiousPusher 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? I never claimed large regional authorities were natural, good nor special in any way. But the OP implied that national identities deserved special status or were some how superior. I'm simply pointing out that they aren't special and were once viewed with just as much suspicion as people now view larger political structures. >> 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. This is obviously incorrect. You can have large institutions which are fairly Democratic, (the U.S. House of Representatives) and small institutions which are utterly totalitarian like Rafael Trujillo's Dominican Republic. > What is better? more tyranny,bureaucracy or more democracy? I prefer democracy to tyranny. But I contest the implication that centralized authority is inherently less democratic. And I'm not so sure we can assume bureuocracy is bad out of hand. > 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. That's pretty vague. There are always winners and losers. Competing nation states create winners and losers. Totalitarian regimes create winners and losers. As does free market capitalism. You've read a lot into my comment. I do not really have an opinion about the quality of the EU as an institution. That's way beyond my knowledge. But I do contest the misunderstanding that the nation state has been ubiquitous throughout history and that it's some obviously superior socio-political construct.

sitkack 8y ago

Please don't be so combative with comments like > All societies are man made constructs, what your point? You understood the parents point of giving historical context.