5 ms·

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 i

by 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.

by Sammi 8y ago

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.