The bane of Nationalism

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Sandman
Your average 'patriotic' American is certainly a model for 'civic minded pride'.

I think it's better to think that 'civic minded pride' should be a model for patriotism.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by 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.

Don't you think we're already progressing to the next stage - civilisationalism? Where national identities will merge into larger civilisational identities? And there will emerge something close to what Huntington imagined - a set of cultures, instead of nations, vying with each other for supremacy?

We began with clannism, went on to tribalism, then went on to the conflicts of city-states, then of fiefdoms, then of kingdoms proper, then of nations, and now finally of civilisations - and does not at each stage the conflict grow bloodier and more violent?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by GePap



That is not nationalism. If people are of different religious, linguistic, and racial groups, then obviously they are not part of your Nation.

Then it seems we use a different definition of nationalism over here in India. When we say nationalist, we mean a person who overlooks differences of religion, caste, gender, race, and other such things, and feels an affinity towards anyone else of the same nation.

This may come off as ironic, but it seems our nationalism is better than your nationalism. Ours is inclusive, not exclusive.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by LordShiva


The nationalists do the defining - they can (and do) appeal to things like race, language, religion, but also common history, culture, etc.

As an example, the Indian national movement pre-independence and in the first years after independence defined the Indian nation in a complex way, as a secular, linguistically diverse entity bound by historic affinities and a forward-looking utopian (but unfortunately socialist) world view. Without this nationalism, India would consist of a number of independent countries and principalities, much like Europe. The creation of Pakistan on the basis of religion was seen by the (secular) nationalists of the time as a betrayal of their national dream.

Precisely my point.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Then it seems we use a different definition of nationalism over here in India. When we say nationalist, we mean a person who overlooks differences of religion, caste, gender, race, and other such things, and feels an affinity towards anyone else of the same nation.

This may come off as ironic, but it seems our nationalism is better than your nationalism. Ours is inclusive, not exclusive.

Exactly. I'm not sure where Gepaps notion of nationalism comes from. Unless he's trying to distinguish it from the brand of 'nationalism' practiced in culturally heterogeneous states like India, the US, Canda, etc. which in that case he obviously would not regard as 'true' nationalism (worthy of his contempt) at all.