5 ms·

Not that it's going to change anyone's mind, but to me nationalism of any kind is one of the most pernicious scourges on humanity, which has led to the murder o

Not that it's going to change anyone's mind, but to me nationalism of any kind is one of the most pernicious scourges on humanity, which has led to the murder of hundreds of millions throughout history and is likely to do so again. --- In the comments multiple people are making the mistake of thinking that nationalism is the belief that nations should exist. That's not nationalism. People can be against nationalism and still believe that nations should exist. Gandhi was just such a person, and he was murdered by a Hindu nationalist. Nationalism is the belief that the group you're part of (usually tied to some national identity myth) is superior to others, and usually goes hand-in-hand with xenophobia, racism, bigotry, and fascism. From the article: ""Godse did the right thing by killing Gandhi," said Devendra Pandey, 53, national secretary of Hindu Mahasabha, the Hindu nationalist organisation behind the memorial library. He was vocal in his belief that India should be declared "a country rightfully for Hindus" and that its 200 million Muslims should move to Pakistan." Those 200 million Muslims who live in India and are part of the Indian nation, yet they're not Indian enough for the nationalists, just like German Jews were not German enough for the Nazis. There are close parallels in other nationalist movements from all over the globe, in calls for "America for the Americans" where you have to "love it or leave it" and calls for English to be made the national language and Christianity the national religion... very much like Hindu nationalists in India calling for Hinduism (their own version) to be the national religion to the exclusion of Muslims and other minorities. Violent repression of people outside the in-group is another feature of nationalism, and again it has nothing to do with believing that nations should exist, but has everything to do with feeling superior to the people being murdered, tortured, robbed, discriminated against and driven out of their homes. This is why Neo-Nazis are "white nationalists", and you're more than a little confused if you think they are some sorts of defenders of the right of nations to exist and not bigoted, hateful, violent oppressors of everyone not exactly like them. This is why nationalism is pernicious, whatever the flavor.

taeric 6y ago
Is this even that controversial of a take?
- ryder9 6y ago
  on here, you'd be surprised
- techwizrd 6y ago
  Unfortunately, it is. Nationalism has surged in popularity across the globe, and I think they would disagree with this take. I do not think nationalism would be as popular as it is if the GP's comment was uncontroversial.
- igorkraw 6y ago
  If you follow it to it's conclusion to abolish nation states and create a world level confederacy ala EU or a politically binding UN, yes very much so. Usually people try to give some defense of patriotism or "acceptable" nationalism, but in my opinion the truth is that until we have the whole planet in a multilayer jurisdiction where local problems are solved locally but there's a clear path towards escalation into global jurisdiction, nationalism will continue to fuck us.
  - oa335 6y ago
    This is an idea that I have been kicking around in my head for several years and I’m interested in learning more about it. Do you have any recommendations on writers that expound on what the world would look like without nation states?
    - haunter 6y ago
      The Project for Perpetual Peace, written in the 18th century but still timeless https://www.amazon.com/Abridged-Version-Project-Perpetual-Peace/dp/999327237X https://www.amazon.com/Abridged-Version-Project-Perpetual-Pe...
    - robin21 6y ago
      Super interesting thought. Seems like it would make a good book. Something like Sapiens, looking through history but with a focus on why nation states arose and fell, and then extrapolating. The EU is a great modern case study. The topic of [Federation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation) is a good starting point to, because to get to world like that would involve several steps of federation, or some all-encompassing treaties.
kabouseng 6y ago
Well sure, but that is a bit of a simplistic take on the matter. If you could trust in the goodness and decency of external actors, or if all of humanity was super-rational, then there would be no need for nationalism or perhaps even nation states. But humanity is not super rational, politicians will use sentiments including nationalism to gain power, and just wishing it away will not make it so that all humans suddenly become trustworthy or super rational, thus the need for nationalism and nation states to bring about a hopefully stable balance of power.
pulkitsh1234 6y ago
What would you do if you provide shelter during a downpour to some people? And instead of thanking and trying to integrate (and understand) the way you live in your home, these people start thinking that they own your home and YOU should be the one who should be tolerant of their actions. You even cook food for them and provide them a safe space. They insist on getting particular cuisines and criticize you for being closed-minded if you don't know how to cook individual dishes. They find books in your home which do not align with their thought bubble, so they start tearing them (or burning them). They find rooms which they find do not follow the "correct" architectural patterns, so they proceed to "renovate" your rooms and windows. They see your taste in art absurd, so they take markers and start scribbling over the paintings on the wall. They start forcing you and your relatives to do a particular set of actions because, according to them, that's the "right" way to live. What/When will be your tipping point? (if any). Contrast this to a situation where those people realise the rules of the house, and just change themselves to integrate and live peacefully or realise the failure in doing so and just leave. Will you think that the rules in living my house are somehow "superior" ? Of course no. These are just some set of rules and ideals which makes the most sense for you. There is no value proposition on the superiority of one rule being better than another. Just whatever works for YOU.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "What would you do if you provide shelter during a downpour to some people? And instead of thanking and trying to integrate (and understand) the way you live in your home, these people start thinking that they own your home and YOU should be the one who should be tolerant of their actions." This is a fantasy. The people who "refuse to integrate" are usually marginalized and oppressed, and have no realistic future in the society that insisting that they "integrate". Not to mention that "integration" usually means losing one's own historical, religious, and ethnic identity, from language to customs, which those people in the majority who insist that minorities should integrate would themselves be outraged by if they had to give up their own identities in the same way. People who are all gung-ho about integration rarely have even the faintest idea of what it's like to live long-term as an immigrant or an outsider in a society very different from their own. They think it's a piece of cake to integrate. They should give it a try themselves sometime in a radically different place and see how they like it. Yet many immigrants do just that, if not by the first generation, then in later generations when their children forget the old ways and do anything to fit in, and yet that's not enough for the bigots and xenophobes (ie. nationalists). They have to be of "pure blood" down to the nth generation (especially ironic in the US where virtually everyone descends from immigrants of not so very long ago).
kabouseng 6y ago
*Response to your edit "That's not nationalism." No, what follows is your definition of nationalism. From the Oxford dictionary: Nationalism: the desire by a group of people who share the same race, culture, language, etc. to form an independent country Scottish nationalism (sometimes disapproving) a feeling of love for and pride in your country; a feeling that your country is better than any other. "Nationalism is the belief that the group you're part of (usually tied to some national identity myth) is superior to others, and usually goes hand-in-hand with xenophobia, racism, bigotry, and fascism." The rest of your argument is a straw man. Obviously anyone would denounce xenophobia, racism, bigotry, and fascism and all the other vile actions you mention. And please don't edit your original comment to change the context, continue the conversation down stream in the comments section.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  Read the definition more closely: "the desire by a group of people who share the same race, culture, language, etc. to form an independent country Scottish nationalism" Emphasis on the "share the same race, culture, language, etc". That's very different from the simple notion that nations should exist. At the root of this are feelings of superiority to those that don't share those aspects -- the out-group -- as illustrated again and again and again by the oppression of the out-group by the in-group. "Obviously anyone would denounce xenophobia, racism, bigotry, and fascism and all the other vile actions you mention." Obviously not anyone, or they would not be so popular.
  - kabouseng 6y ago
    Ok so please enlighten me on what basis nations should form? The whole basis of a nation is the creation of an in group and an out group.
    - pmoriarty 6y ago
      "on what basis nations should form?" Free association. As the inscription on the Statue of Liberty says, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". It's variety of people, customs, cultures, and opinions which make for a healthy nation, not a monoculture of brainwashed xenophobes.
rufus_foreman 6y ago
>> Those 200 million Muslims who live in India and are part of the Indian nation, yet they're not Indian enough for the nationalists What's the difference between that and a religious war then? Nationalism in the US originally meant that American Protestants were going to be Americans first and Protestants second, and American Catholics were going to be Americans first and Catholics second. Nationalism was about putting national identity above other forms of identity. White nationalism isn't nationalism, it's just racism. Nationalism means that those people who you have nothing in common with? Well, now you have this one thing. Not to be sound all pro-nationalist here, I'm more of a city-state guy, most problems don't need national solutions. But nationalism, at its best, is a way to combat the bigotry you are talking about, not to exacerbate it.
- plumble 6y ago
  What does it matter what some historical US nationalist movement was going for? "Ethnic nationalism" is clearly what's gaining traction the world over, and being discussed. They use the not-unfamiliar conflation of race/religion/nationality based on some ethnic mythos, to equate patriotism with purity of a local monoculture. Is there some "true nationalist" group out there of any prominence?
- dan-robertson 6y ago
  This is a pretty one-sided view of nationalism. You make it sound like a unifying thing when a key point is usually creating a cohesive identity which excludes certain groups. Though it is true that much nationalism in America has been civic nationalism, which is mostly formed around citizenship and shared values (but note also the southern nationalism formed around different shared values, and the nativism starting in the middle of the 19th century). Here is a study of contemporary American nationalism: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bonikowski/files/bonikowski_and_dimaggio_-_varieties_of_american_popular_nationalism.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bonikowski/files/bonikowsk... The nationalists being talked about in the article are Hindu nationalists. They explicitly want to create a shared identity that excludes Muslims.
robin21 6y ago
> nationalism of any kind is one of the most pernicious scourges on humanity...That's not nationalism. I would suggest instead of using an `-ism` just say what you mean. It just leads to needless arguments otherwise. X are Ys. Ys believe Z. Therefore Xs believe Z. The fallacy is that not all X's believe Z, but painting everyone with the same brush is a much easier way to channel one's anger. You inflame the discussion when you say "whatever the flavor" and "of any kind", because there are clearly many kinds and different interpretations as exemplified in this discussion. Also try the definition from Wikipedia: > Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people), especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Seems to counter your definition quite extensively, which is why I direct you back to my original suggestion.
- datameta 6y ago
  You manage to focus on the language of the message and attempt to use that to dispel the messenger's argument without addressing it? If we talk about the content here - what is being mentioned is the existence of a historical precedent in which those calling themselves nationalist are hateful toward the minority and supportive of selective homogeneity of the population - which is commonly accompanied with segregation, oppression, and violence.
  - robin21 6y ago
    > those calling themselves nationalist are hateful toward the minority and supportive of selective homogeneity of the population This is a much better claim for debate because we can now review all those who self-identify as nationalist and see if they were all hateful. But it’s a completely different topic than was posted.

taeric 6y ago

Is this even that controversial of a take?

ryder9 6y ago
on here, you'd be surprised
techwizrd 6y ago
Unfortunately, it is. Nationalism has surged in popularity across the globe, and I think they would disagree with this take. I do not think nationalism would be as popular as it is if the GP's comment was uncontroversial.
igorkraw 6y ago
If you follow it to it's conclusion to abolish nation states and create a world level confederacy ala EU or a politically binding UN, yes very much so. Usually people try to give some defense of patriotism or "acceptable" nationalism, but in my opinion the truth is that until we have the whole planet in a multilayer jurisdiction where local problems are solved locally but there's a clear path towards escalation into global jurisdiction, nationalism will continue to fuck us.
- oa335 6y ago
  This is an idea that I have been kicking around in my head for several years and I’m interested in learning more about it. Do you have any recommendations on writers that expound on what the world would look like without nation states?
  - haunter 6y ago
    The Project for Perpetual Peace, written in the 18th century but still timeless https://www.amazon.com/Abridged-Version-Project-Perpetual-Peace/dp/999327237X https://www.amazon.com/Abridged-Version-Project-Perpetual-Pe...
  - robin21 6y ago
    Super interesting thought. Seems like it would make a good book. Something like Sapiens, looking through history but with a focus on why nation states arose and fell, and then extrapolating. The EU is a great modern case study. The topic of [Federation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation) is a good starting point to, because to get to world like that would involve several steps of federation, or some all-encompassing treaties.

kabouseng 6y ago

Well sure, but that is a bit of a simplistic take on the matter. If you could trust in the goodness and decency of external actors, or if all of humanity was super-rational, then there would be no need for nationalism or perhaps even nation states. But humanity is not super rational, politicians will use sentiments including nationalism to gain power, and just wishing it away will not make it so that all humans suddenly become trustworthy or super rational, thus the need for nationalism and nation states to bring about a hopefully stable balance of power.

pulkitsh1234 6y ago

What would you do if you provide shelter during a downpour to some people? And instead of thanking and trying to integrate (and understand) the way you live in your home, these people start thinking that they own your home and YOU should be the one who should be tolerant of their actions. You even cook food for them and provide them a safe space. They insist on getting particular cuisines and criticize you for being closed-minded if you don't know how to cook individual dishes. They find books in your home which do not align with their thought bubble, so they start tearing them (or burning them). They find rooms which they find do not follow the "correct" architectural patterns, so they proceed to "renovate" your rooms and windows. They see your taste in art absurd, so they take markers and start scribbling over the paintings on the wall. They start forcing you and your relatives to do a particular set of actions because, according to them, that's the "right" way to live. What/When will be your tipping point? (if any). Contrast this to a situation where those people realise the rules of the house, and just change themselves to integrate and live peacefully or realise the failure in doing so and just leave. Will you think that the rules in living my house are somehow "superior" ? Of course no. These are just some set of rules and ideals which makes the most sense for you. There is no value proposition on the superiority of one rule being better than another. Just whatever works for YOU.

pmoriarty 6y ago
"What would you do if you provide shelter during a downpour to some people? And instead of thanking and trying to integrate (and understand) the way you live in your home, these people start thinking that they own your home and YOU should be the one who should be tolerant of their actions." This is a fantasy. The people who "refuse to integrate" are usually marginalized and oppressed, and have no realistic future in the society that insisting that they "integrate". Not to mention that "integration" usually means losing one's own historical, religious, and ethnic identity, from language to customs, which those people in the majority who insist that minorities should integrate would themselves be outraged by if they had to give up their own identities in the same way. People who are all gung-ho about integration rarely have even the faintest idea of what it's like to live long-term as an immigrant or an outsider in a society very different from their own. They think it's a piece of cake to integrate. They should give it a try themselves sometime in a radically different place and see how they like it. Yet many immigrants do just that, if not by the first generation, then in later generations when their children forget the old ways and do anything to fit in, and yet that's not enough for the bigots and xenophobes (ie. nationalists). They have to be of "pure blood" down to the nth generation (especially ironic in the US where virtually everyone descends from immigrants of not so very long ago).

kabouseng 6y ago

*Response to your edit "That's not nationalism." No, what follows is your definition of nationalism. From the Oxford dictionary: Nationalism: the desire by a group of people who share the same race, culture, language, etc. to form an independent country Scottish nationalism (sometimes disapproving) a feeling of love for and pride in your country; a feeling that your country is better than any other. "Nationalism is the belief that the group you're part of (usually tied to some national identity myth) is superior to others, and usually goes hand-in-hand with xenophobia, racism, bigotry, and fascism." The rest of your argument is a straw man. Obviously anyone would denounce xenophobia, racism, bigotry, and fascism and all the other vile actions you mention. And please don't edit your original comment to change the context, continue the conversation down stream in the comments section.

pmoriarty 6y ago
Read the definition more closely: "the desire by a group of people who share the same race, culture, language, etc. to form an independent country Scottish nationalism" Emphasis on the "share the same race, culture, language, etc". That's very different from the simple notion that nations should exist. At the root of this are feelings of superiority to those that don't share those aspects -- the out-group -- as illustrated again and again and again by the oppression of the out-group by the in-group. "Obviously anyone would denounce xenophobia, racism, bigotry, and fascism and all the other vile actions you mention." Obviously not anyone, or they would not be so popular.
- kabouseng 6y ago
  Ok so please enlighten me on what basis nations should form? The whole basis of a nation is the creation of an in group and an out group.
  - pmoriarty 6y ago
    "on what basis nations should form?" Free association. As the inscription on the Statue of Liberty says, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". It's variety of people, customs, cultures, and opinions which make for a healthy nation, not a monoculture of brainwashed xenophobes.

rufus_foreman 6y ago

>> Those 200 million Muslims who live in India and are part of the Indian nation, yet they're not Indian enough for the nationalists What's the difference between that and a religious war then? Nationalism in the US originally meant that American Protestants were going to be Americans first and Protestants second, and American Catholics were going to be Americans first and Catholics second. Nationalism was about putting national identity above other forms of identity. White nationalism isn't nationalism, it's just racism. Nationalism means that those people who you have nothing in common with? Well, now you have this one thing. Not to be sound all pro-nationalist here, I'm more of a city-state guy, most problems don't need national solutions. But nationalism, at its best, is a way to combat the bigotry you are talking about, not to exacerbate it.

plumble 6y ago
What does it matter what some historical US nationalist movement was going for? "Ethnic nationalism" is clearly what's gaining traction the world over, and being discussed. They use the not-unfamiliar conflation of race/religion/nationality based on some ethnic mythos, to equate patriotism with purity of a local monoculture. Is there some "true nationalist" group out there of any prominence?
dan-robertson 6y ago
This is a pretty one-sided view of nationalism. You make it sound like a unifying thing when a key point is usually creating a cohesive identity which excludes certain groups. Though it is true that much nationalism in America has been civic nationalism, which is mostly formed around citizenship and shared values (but note also the southern nationalism formed around different shared values, and the nativism starting in the middle of the 19th century). Here is a study of contemporary American nationalism: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bonikowski/files/bonikowski_and_dimaggio_-_varieties_of_american_popular_nationalism.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bonikowski/files/bonikowsk... The nationalists being talked about in the article are Hindu nationalists. They explicitly want to create a shared identity that excludes Muslims.

robin21 6y ago

> nationalism of any kind is one of the most pernicious scourges on humanity...That's not nationalism. I would suggest instead of using an `-ism` just say what you mean. It just leads to needless arguments otherwise. X are Ys. Ys believe Z. Therefore Xs believe Z. The fallacy is that not all X's believe Z, but painting everyone with the same brush is a much easier way to channel one's anger. You inflame the discussion when you say "whatever the flavor" and "of any kind", because there are clearly many kinds and different interpretations as exemplified in this discussion. Also try the definition from Wikipedia: > Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people), especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Seems to counter your definition quite extensively, which is why I direct you back to my original suggestion.

datameta 6y ago
You manage to focus on the language of the message and attempt to use that to dispel the messenger's argument without addressing it? If we talk about the content here - what is being mentioned is the existence of a historical precedent in which those calling themselves nationalist are hateful toward the minority and supportive of selective homogeneity of the population - which is commonly accompanied with segregation, oppression, and violence.
- robin21 6y ago
  > those calling themselves nationalist are hateful toward the minority and supportive of selective homogeneity of the population This is a much better claim for debate because we can now review all those who self-identify as nationalist and see if they were all hateful. But it’s a completely different topic than was posted.