The bane of Nationalism

[GePap]

I consider myself a complete anti-Nationalist. I despise the notion that sovereignty needs to come from the general will of a group of individuals that are linked by a shared ethno-cultural experience, as opposed to say, coming from some univeral political ideal.

That said, was the age of nationalism that followed the French Revolution crucial in the creation of modern Liberal democracy in Europe, or could modern Liberal Democracy in Europe have developed in Europe without it, driven by the forces of the Industrial and Agricultural revolutions?

[VetLegion]

Given Europe's extreme diversity, primarily that of language, which was/is too impractical to overcome, and given geographical concentration of speakers of each language, nationalisms were inevitable.

Were they a bad thing? I think that today's supranational EU is possible only because for a period nationalisms of its members were lived to the full (unfortunately, some gruesome things also happened).

[GePap]

Nationalist violence in the 20th century replaced the religious violence of the 17th century, and it has now gone worldwide, killing a lot more people.

The simplest problem is that a "nation" is an artificial modern construction. There is no real basis for say a Burgundian and a Britton having to be part of the same state as someone from Bordeaux, all joined together uder Parisian rule, anymore than its rational for a Swabian and a Saxon living under the same rule as a Prussian, a Hessian, a Bavarian, but not an Austrian, so forth and so on. Therefore, this artificial construction of nationalism can be (and has been) abused for political gains.

[VetLegion]

Nationalism is anything but an artificial construction. Language barrier in particular is very real.

[GePap]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Nationalism is anything but an artificial construction. Language barrier in particular is very real.

YOu are mistaking Language for Nation. They are not the same thing, as is self-evident by the fact the Arab league is made up of 22 states, and Latin America also has multiple republics. Then of course the Welsh and the Brittons are supposedly part of the same "nation" as the French (Parisians) and Spanish (Castillians) respectively.

[VetLegion]

Here is a historical example of the strength of nationalism: World War I. Communists expected the workers of all nations to rise as one class against those who are forcing them to fight. Instead, these same workers happily marched off to die for nation, not for class. Even communist parties became supporters of the war.

[Ramo]

Kind of funny - I was about to make a thread along these lines. Particularly, why were liberalism and nationalism so intimately connected?

I'd argue that it could be largely explained by class. Liberalism was the ideology of the ascendant middle class during the 19th century, and so was nationalism. One could argue that in places where it was not in the interest of bourgeois to promote policies like protectionism (like the mid-to-late 19th century Brits), nationalism becomes more associated with conservatism. There are a few other exceptions (in the 19th century) such as Spain, but by and large, this correlation holds. 'Course, this correlation goes to hell in the post-industrial 20th century.

[Odin]

Nationalism is an expanded form of tribalism legitimized with romanticist interpretations of history. For examplethe people in what is now Southern France definitely didn't consider themselves French during the Middle Ages, they were more similar culturally and linguistically to the Catalonians then to the folks up in Paris. Another good example is how the distinctions between the East Slavic ethnicities (Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians are exaggerated for nationalistic purposes. I agree with AJ Toynbee's remark that Nationalism is a pathetic kind of collective self-worship that can be thought of as a kind of secularization of a polity having a patron deity.

[Drake Tungsten]

Then of course the Welsh and the Brittons are supposedly part of the same "nation" as the French (Parisians) and Spanish (Castillians) respectively.

Wales is in Spain?

[Buck Birdseed]

Everyone here seems either opposed to or detached from the notion of nationalism. I'm not. I consider myself a supporter of the concept in general though I'm also aware of it's less savoury sides.

Nationalism, before statehood, is no different from any other identity-based liberation struggle. Why should those who support the women's movement, gay rights, the workers' struggle, black power or whatever be opposed to the freedom struggles of ethnic groups? Nationalism is a great builder and preserver of identity, and opposing your own groups' assimilations into some ideological hegemony is the most important struggle of all. Should the strong, the rich and the majority always set the cultural agenda?

I've yet to see the "universal principles" that give fair treatment to less powered groups and minorities, nor have I seen any movement based on just one type of power inequality (yes, I'm looking at you anarchists) succeed in creating equality. The individual groups' collective perspectives need to be taken into account before I'd consider anything properly fair.

[Dr Strangelove]

Nationalism didn't replace religious conflicts, it replaced dynastic and tribal conflicts. Nationalism began to manifest itself well before the age of revolution and even before the breakup of Roman Catholicism. The saga of Joan of Arc is one example of early nationalism. During Joan's lifetime three dynasties were vying for control of France - that of the English king, the French king and the Burgundian dukes. Joan became a national hero, helping to forge the identity of the French nation. In fact it can be argued that the religious conflicts of the 16th and 17th centuries were often thinly disguised coverings for deeper nationalistic conflicts. The English, Germans, Swiss, Scots and Scandinavians constructed national religions severing their ties with the trans-national Roman church. The early form of nationalism was intermixed with dynastic principles. The idea of the nation was inseperable with the idea of the royal family. It was not until the 17th century that civil nationalism appears in the form of the English Civil War. In order for the English to overthrow their king they had to have a concept of an English nation seperate from the royal family. Civil nationalism made the idea of individual rights and the subservience of the government to the people possible. Without nationalism we are nothing more than a bunch of smaller tribes warring with each other due to our inability to agree upon a common set of laws. Nationalism at least imposes internal peace between its constituent communities.

Are we ready for something better than nationaism, something along the lines of super-nationalism or universalism? I think not. Shall we take the EU for an example? Do I really need to elaborate? The EU functions at least to the extent that it keeps europeans from making war on each other, but it certainly does not function adequately as a regional government. Face it humanity isn't ready yet for the next step.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed

I've yet to see the "universal principles" that give fair treatment to less powered groups and minorities, nor have I seen any movement based on just one type of power inequality (yes, I'm looking at you anarchists) succeed in creating equality. The individual groups' collective perspectives need to be taken into account before I'd consider anything properly fair.

The "nation" is a far more "fluid" thing than most identity politics issues. After all, in 1860 what did the people of Milan and Naples share culturally beyond their shared language? Most "nations" are constructs, creations of the 19th century. This is fundamentally different from gender or sexual orientation. As for race, its also a construct, though one limited by looks, unlike nationalism. Personally, to me nationalism creates as many oppressed groups as it "liberates."

[GePap]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Here is a historical example of the strength of nationalism: World War I. Communists expected the workers of all nations to rise as one class against those who are forcing them to fight. Instead, these same workers happily marched off to die for nation, not for class. Even communist parties became supporters of the war.

That the public embraced the idea, or that it feeds into basic human xenophobia does not make it any more legitimate.

[Drake Tungsten]

I have another question. Were you trying to say...

Then of course the Welsh and the Britons are supposedly part of the same "nation" as the French (Parisians) and Spanish (Castillians) respectively.

or...

Then of course the Welsh and the Bretons are supposedly part of the same "nation" as the French (Parisians) and Spanish (Castillians) respectively.

It doesn't make sense either way, but I'm curious as to what the word you mispelled was actually supposed to be.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by GePap
Nationalist violence in the 20th century replaced the religious violence of the 17th century, and it has now gone worldwide, killing a lot more people.

The simplest problem is that a "nation" is an artificial modern construction. There is no real basis for say a Burgundian and a Britton having to be part of the same state as someone from Bordeaux, all joined together uder Parisian rule, anymore than its rational for a Swabian and a Saxon living under the same rule as a Prussian, a Hessian, a Bavarian, but not an Austrian, so forth and so on. Therefore, this artificial construction of nationalism can be (and has been) abused for political gains.

I'm anti-nationalist in the sense that I don't buy into ideas which put my own nation/people above others.

However, even if I agree with you that "nation" is a construct - that does not make it irrelevant. The nation state is still the most important political unit on the internat. stage, and many people tend to identify themselves with their nations. This has lots of potential for both positive and negative use (or abuse, if you will). But that can be said for lots of other ideas.