Is nationalism still a good thing in the 21st century

[daveshel]

Several years ago I was living in South Florida, when there was a ballot proposal to make English the official language of the state. Seems they were spending too much money having to print everything related to state government in both Spanish and English.

I thought the whole thing was pretty silly. That was when I began to question nationalism. I proceeded to get in a lot of trouble with people by suggesting that national boundaries were antiquated hangups from the past and that we should move on. They were like labor unions, once important but no longer doing anybody enough good to be worth their overhead.

Since the turn of the century, I have seen some evidence that maybe our borders are more important than I thought. (And living in Tucson, I do have occasion to consider the matter.) But the question in my mind has shifted somewhat: now that globalism is a fact of life, what value does nationalism have? If it was responsible for the Euorpean wars of the 19th Century and the World wars of the 20th, what will in bring in the 21st? How many of the current world conflicts stem from trying to align heterogenous populations into cohesive nations?

 

[Kibbo]

You forgot to add a third category: Super-Nationalism.

In this philosophy, you acknowledge the neccessity of a certain amount of political rights proscribed by culture, and appropriate boundaries drawn to match.

On top of this, you add a certain amount of loyalty to a greater State, one which allows for the collective economic and security benifits that go along with integration.

You can think of it as having multiple levels of loyalty.

Canada is a good example, having the nation of Quebec within our borders. They have a distinct language, religion, civil legal code and a strong nationalistic sense of loyalty. Yet many in Quebec would still call themselves Canadians, and in two referenda they have democratically chosen to remain a province. Because of this system, Canada has been called a State-Nation, rather than a Nation-State. Many of these ideas have been transferred to "weak" countries that have separate ethnic groups within them, including Iraq.

This would also be an interesting way for your aboriginal communities to view their own role within the USA.

The EU is another interesting example, a little bit ironic historically considering that there is the birthplace of Nationalism, as well as some its worst excesses.

It's not an entirely new idea either, the US began as a similarly loose confederation of independent states. And multi-ethnic countries like Austria, India, Belgium and Switzerland have long practiced systems which incorporate structures like this.

I personally think that this is the way the world must move, if political stability is the goal. Problem is, it sometimes leads to amorphous delineations of power, which make constitutionalists nervous. In response to this, I cite the logical perfection of the constitution of Weimar Germany, and the disaster that followed.

Something which is again historically ironic, I think that the US of A will be one of the countries that will be slowest to adopt this type of idea. One of the first practitioners of this system is the one which has become one of the most centralized, as well as nationalistic. I sense that there is a great deal of suspicion in the US to granting any sovereignty to any regional or international body. Also, the feeling that there is a universal Idea of what it means to be an American seems to be stronger than ever. Despite the fact that no two people seem to agree on that, if this forum is any indication.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: daveshel
Several years ago I was living in South Florida, when there was a ballot proposal to make English the official language of the state. Seems they were spending too much money having to print everything related to state government in both Spanish and English.

I thought the whole thing was pretty silly. That was when I began to question nationalism. I proceeded to get in a lot of trouble with people by suggesting that national boundaries were antiquated hangups from the past and that we should move on. They were like labor unions, once important but no longer doing anybody enough good to be worth their overhead.

Since the turn of the century, I have seen some evidence that maybe our borders are more important than I thought. (And living in Tucson, I do have occasion to consider the matter.) But the question in my mind has shifted somewhat: now that globalism is a fact of life, what value does nationalism have? If it was responsible for the Euorpean wars of the 19th Century and the World wars of the 20th, what will in bring in the 21st? How many of the current world conflicts stem from trying to align heterogenous populations into cohesive nations?

your last question shows why globalism will never work...after all if making 2 or 3 different ethnic groups co-exist in a single nation is difficult, imagine the impossiblity of making all the different ethnic/religious, etc. groups function together under a single world government is.

also i disagree that "nationalism" was the cause of the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries, it was idealism...and the fervor to enforce ideals on people who did not want them that was and is the biggest cause of strife.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I'd say that blind nationalism not a good thing. Many people on this forum and obviously elsewhere take any criticism of their own country as if it were a personal attack.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK


also i disagree that "nationalism" was the cause of the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries, it was idealism...and the fervor to enforce ideals on people who did not want them that was and is the biggest cause of strife.

Exactly what ideal led to Tsarist Russia and the Republic of France to become allies?

Exactly what ideal led to Germany invading the Rhine valley?

Exactly what ideal led to them doing it 25 yrs previously?

Ideals were what were fed to the American people to get them on the boats in WW1.

It proved very successful, so much so that rationalizations allowed Capitalists and Communists to link arms against a philosophy that both in terms of economics and individual rights started as a middle ground between the two. Fascism is only more extreme than those two in terms of its nationalism and racism (which is a factor of racism.)

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK


your last question shows why globalism will never work...after all if making 2 or 3 different ethnic groups co-exist in a single nation is difficult, imagine the impossiblity of making all the different ethnic/religious, etc. groups function together under a single world government is.

also i disagree that "nationalism" was the cause of the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries, it was idealism...and the fervor to enforce ideals on people who did not want them that was and is the biggest cause of strife.

Perhaps I should clarify: by globalism I do not mean any sort of a world federation or central government. I mean that because of instantaneous global communication and world banking and the interrelated nature of world economics, politics and culture, we could never return to the isolationism of a century ago.

By nationalism I refer to the political theory like in this encyclopedia article.
I'm not really even talking about the hard right swing taken by the current administration - I call that jingoism, not nationalism.

 

[chrisms]

I think it is relatively dead, if you think about how nationalist people were hundreds of years ago. I saw Ted Turner talking to Charlie Rose and he said something interesting but true, that the world today is in a situation where no first world country would ever attack another. Once we get the third world going things should be much better.

 

[jackschmittusa]

I believe that 2 elements are key to understanding the future of nationalism; these elements are the internet and religion.

The internet will lead to the decline of traditional nationalism not only through banking and trade, but will eventually lead to common interests developing amongst diverse and geographically separated people who may work to further advance their common interests beyond national boarders. Environmetal and media (both entertainment and news) issuses are some prime examples of this.

Religion on the other hand, with profound and zealously guarded differences among various belief systems, will still dictate that strict geographic boarders be maintained so that acceptable behaviorial laws (brands of morality?) can be maintained. For many people, their primary group identity will be their religion, and there secondary identity will be the nation-state that incorporates at least some of their belief system into its behavioral laws. All other group identities will be of significantly less value.

China is a good example of the first point with its rapid adoption of technology and lack of major religeous influnce. India and the Middle Eastern countries are good examples of the second.

I had thought the U.S. was more on track with the first, but the recent rise in power and influence of the religeous right and GWB's appearant disdain for international co-operation make me wonder.

 

[cpumaster]

Everything in the extreme is always not good because then it's either being perverted or can be perverted easily. It's like the saying: too much of a good thing can be bad.