4 ms·

This comes off as painfully naive to me. The nation state does not exist because we learned it.

by anm89 6y ago

rapsey 6y ago
The OP assumes everyone is like him and enjoys meeting others from other cultures and gets along with everyone. Painfully naive indeed.
- softwaredoug 6y ago
  It’s more the point that NOT everyone feels this way and we’re sorting those who like multiculturalism into cities more and more efficiently. So the political divisions are not between nation states but between increasingly aligned urban centers and everywhere else (the hinterlands.)
  - rbecker 6y ago
    *In the US. You won't find quite as much multiculturalism in the cities of India, China, Japan, Turkey, or most of Africa (including North Africa).
    - softwaredoug 6y ago
      That’s likely true, but I still feel the prevalence for cities to be relatively more cosmopolitan (for a variety of reasons) still holds. The incentives are for them to become more aligned with other cities than their own nations.
Ma8ee 6y ago
It’s a relatively new concept (in the history of ideas). it’s neither necessary or ubiquitous, so we can certainly do without it.
- funcDropShadow 6y ago
  Yes, let's return to tribal states. Let the strongest be our chieftain. /sarcasm off It is always easy to dismiss something, which is not perfect --- and what is perfect? But nothing is just removed from society. Something else always takes its place. So usually it is naive and bad idea to concentrate on what is going wrong. If you want to improve the world you have to concentrate on what should be done better and how should it be done better? In this case, what is the alternative to nation states that you envision? Kingdoms? Anarchism? A Star-Trek like utopia? A global communist state? Or simply a failed state, like Afganistan or Somali? If I look at this list, I see nothing that is even remotely as good as western nation states. Although, they have obvious flaws.
  - robotron 6y ago
    So it should be beyond examination or critique?
  - Ma8ee 6y ago
    I don’t think you know what a nation state is. If you did, it would be obvious to you that there are other alternatives.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Your comment would be more useful if you listed some, instead of just mocking the GP for being ignorant.
minimuffins 6y ago
Why does it exist?
drewcoo 6y ago
The nation state does not exist because of boundaries occurring in nature. The nation state does not exist because it describes the places where different ethnic groups live. The nation state does not exist to circumscribe natural regions of trade. The nation state does not exist because someone's gods decreed it. If it's not learned, then how exactly do you think the notion of the nation state came to be? Is your problem that it's defined by powerful cabals via force? Is that your complaint? That we can't "unlearn" the point of someone else's gun? In that case, I suppose I agree.
- rbecker 6y ago
  > The nation state does not exist because it describes the places where different ethnic groups live. It comes very close a lot of the time, or decays to that. See the 92% Han China, or the split of Czecho-Slovakia and Yugoslavia along ethnic lines. A split of you're lucky, genocide if you're not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
  - emteycz 6y ago
    About Czechoslovakia... You know there was a numerous ethnic minority of Germans before the aftermath of second world war, right? We pushed them out because of nation state ideology, which gained prominence after first and then especially second world war. Before then, people were Bohemians, and they spoke like and culturally were Germans, Austrians, Moravians, Czechs, Silesians, Slovaks, etc.
    - rbecker 6y ago
      "It comes very close a lot of the time" doesn't imply the fit is perfect, so minorities are to be expected. And your implication that before WWI, different ethnic groups coexisting peacefully in shared states was the norm, couldn't be more wrong. Even in antiquity, there's examples of one ethnic group banding together to vanquish another, such as the ancient Hebrew genocides of Amalekites [1] and Canaanites [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek#Amalekites_in_the_Hebrew_Bible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek#Amalekites_in_the_Hebre... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan#Hebrew_Bible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan#Hebrew_Bible
softwaredoug 6y ago
As I wrote in the article, there’s increasingly not a shared identity or values between people in the same nation state. I think the burden of the proof needs to be on “why should nation states exist?” in that kind of environment. Especially considering how new the idea of a nation state is in history.
- rapsey 6y ago
  You are extrapolating something out of an extreme situation that only exists where you live. The US is in the early stages of disintegration/civil war/collapse. Who knows what is going to happen, but it is not going to be pretty. Plenty of peaceful countries do have a "a shared identity or values" even across the conservative/liberal spectrum.
  - softwaredoug 6y ago
    Also Poland, Turkey, the UK, Germany, and every other country having issues with a radical right. Even Canada https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/canada-political-compass-veering-190421204243047.html https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/canada-political-c... The US w/ Trump may have its extremes, but this pattern is playing out in a lot of places.
- anm89 6y ago
  My argument would be that the nation state exists as a useful tool/ mechanism for collecting and organizing power for people at the top. It justifies it's existence through might not right, so saying it shouldn't exist because it's not right misses the point. It is there because they want it to be there and to get rid of it, you need to create something more powerful to overcome that other thing. This historically is possible but just turns into its own state. Power vacuums are a very real thing though intangible. But simply having the subjects of a state lose faith in it is not itself sufficient to topple it. I mean look at current congressional approval ratings in the US. They are approaching single digits but it means nothing because there is no real structure in place to challenge it. I apologize if the initial post was condescending. It's a well written article but I still perceive it as naive to the larger structures which hold this stuff in place. There's a great YouTube video (imo) on the topic of state level power dynamics if you are interested https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

This comes off as painfully naive to me. The nation state does not exist because we learned it.

by anm89 6y ago

This comes off as painfully naive to me. The nation state does not exist because we learned it.

The OP assumes everyone is like him and enjoys meeting others from other cultures and gets along with everyone. Painfully naive indeed.

softwaredoug 6y ago
It’s more the point that NOT everyone feels this way and we’re sorting those who like multiculturalism into cities more and more efficiently. So the political divisions are not between nation states but between increasingly aligned urban centers and everywhere else (the hinterlands.)
- rbecker 6y ago
  *In the US. You won't find quite as much multiculturalism in the cities of India, China, Japan, Turkey, or most of Africa (including North Africa).
  - softwaredoug 6y ago
    That’s likely true, but I still feel the prevalence for cities to be relatively more cosmopolitan (for a variety of reasons) still holds. The incentives are for them to become more aligned with other cities than their own nations.

Ma8ee 6y ago

It’s a relatively new concept (in the history of ideas). it’s neither necessary or ubiquitous, so we can certainly do without it.

funcDropShadow 6y ago
Yes, let's return to tribal states. Let the strongest be our chieftain. /sarcasm off It is always easy to dismiss something, which is not perfect --- and what is perfect? But nothing is just removed from society. Something else always takes its place. So usually it is naive and bad idea to concentrate on what is going wrong. If you want to improve the world you have to concentrate on what should be done better and how should it be done better? In this case, what is the alternative to nation states that you envision? Kingdoms? Anarchism? A Star-Trek like utopia? A global communist state? Or simply a failed state, like Afganistan or Somali? If I look at this list, I see nothing that is even remotely as good as western nation states. Although, they have obvious flaws.
- robotron 6y ago
  So it should be beyond examination or critique?
- Ma8ee 6y ago
  I don’t think you know what a nation state is. If you did, it would be obvious to you that there are other alternatives.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Your comment would be more useful if you listed some, instead of just mocking the GP for being ignorant.

minimuffins 6y ago

Why does it exist?

drewcoo 6y ago

The nation state does not exist because of boundaries occurring in nature. The nation state does not exist because it describes the places where different ethnic groups live. The nation state does not exist to circumscribe natural regions of trade. The nation state does not exist because someone's gods decreed it. If it's not learned, then how exactly do you think the notion of the nation state came to be? Is your problem that it's defined by powerful cabals via force? Is that your complaint? That we can't "unlearn" the point of someone else's gun? In that case, I suppose I agree.

rbecker 6y ago
> The nation state does not exist because it describes the places where different ethnic groups live. It comes very close a lot of the time, or decays to that. See the 92% Han China, or the split of Czecho-Slovakia and Yugoslavia along ethnic lines. A split of you're lucky, genocide if you're not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
- emteycz 6y ago
  About Czechoslovakia... You know there was a numerous ethnic minority of Germans before the aftermath of second world war, right? We pushed them out because of nation state ideology, which gained prominence after first and then especially second world war. Before then, people were Bohemians, and they spoke like and culturally were Germans, Austrians, Moravians, Czechs, Silesians, Slovaks, etc.
  - rbecker 6y ago
    "It comes very close a lot of the time" doesn't imply the fit is perfect, so minorities are to be expected. And your implication that before WWI, different ethnic groups coexisting peacefully in shared states was the norm, couldn't be more wrong. Even in antiquity, there's examples of one ethnic group banding together to vanquish another, such as the ancient Hebrew genocides of Amalekites [1] and Canaanites [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek#Amalekites_in_the_Hebrew_Bible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek#Amalekites_in_the_Hebre... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan#Hebrew_Bible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan#Hebrew_Bible

softwaredoug 6y ago

As I wrote in the article, there’s increasingly not a shared identity or values between people in the same nation state. I think the burden of the proof needs to be on “why should nation states exist?” in that kind of environment. Especially considering how new the idea of a nation state is in history.

rapsey 6y ago
You are extrapolating something out of an extreme situation that only exists where you live. The US is in the early stages of disintegration/civil war/collapse. Who knows what is going to happen, but it is not going to be pretty. Plenty of peaceful countries do have a "a shared identity or values" even across the conservative/liberal spectrum.
- softwaredoug 6y ago
  Also Poland, Turkey, the UK, Germany, and every other country having issues with a radical right. Even Canada https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/canada-political-compass-veering-190421204243047.html https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/canada-political-c... The US w/ Trump may have its extremes, but this pattern is playing out in a lot of places.
anm89 6y ago
My argument would be that the nation state exists as a useful tool/ mechanism for collecting and organizing power for people at the top. It justifies it's existence through might not right, so saying it shouldn't exist because it's not right misses the point. It is there because they want it to be there and to get rid of it, you need to create something more powerful to overcome that other thing. This historically is possible but just turns into its own state. Power vacuums are a very real thing though intangible. But simply having the subjects of a state lose faith in it is not itself sufficient to topple it. I mean look at current congressional approval ratings in the US. They are approaching single digits but it means nothing because there is no real structure in place to challenge it. I apologize if the initial post was condescending. It's a well written article but I still perceive it as naive to the larger structures which hold this stuff in place. There's a great YouTube video (imo) on the topic of state level power dynamics if you are interested https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs