On the future of nationalism

[José]

Originally posted by Manu
i can have pride in my nation and my family and not kill beacuse of it

This sounds good in theory, Manu: a community of countries living side by side in peace.

The problem is that the theory of nationalism (just like communist theory) and its practice are two very different things.

In practice, the moment you divide mankind into, let’s say, 120 different countries, you immediately create an equal number of different national interests.

Many of these interests will be not only different but also conflicting with the interests of other countries. And when these conflicting interests cannot be solved through dialogue they are solved by force. This is what our species has been doing since prehistoric times.

Some people have a cynical view of the tremendous human and material costs imposed on the human race by its own tribalism. They say wars is a way to control overpopulation (sick).

But even this cynical individuals should pay attention to the following development I believe every civilization eventually goes through:

Sooner or later, any rational species able to develop a scientific/technological civilization is bound to discover element 92 of the periodic table (uranium).

If the discovery is made during its infancy/adolescence (marked by nationalism), there is the very real possibility that the enormous kinetic energy liberated during nuclear fission will be used to settle old grudges and jelousies once and for all.

We are no longer talking about precious resources being diverted to the military industry instead of being used to advance science and technology, we are not even talking about scores of lives lost anymore, we are talking about the wholesale destruction of their entire civilization. Even the cynicals must now recognise that the stakes inherent to nationalism are now pretty higher.

Just like teenagers who die from overdose and other childish behaviours, it is possible that the universe is filled with the remains of young, immature civilizations that fell victim of their own insane territorialism. Ok, it’s a wild speculation but one that cannot be entirely dismissed.

When you divide humans in different tribes you start a chain reaction with unforeseen consequences. A chain reaction you cannot control anymore.

You create countries, countries create conflicting national interests, conflicting national interests create wars, wars plus uranium create the ever present danger of the destruction of our civilization.

This is an inherent trait of all kinds of tribalism, nationalism included.

Your vision of a pacifist nationalism deserves applause, Manu. It’s a pitty it only exists on the minds of well intentioned nationalists like you.

Originally posted by Manu
it is human nature to bond and belong to a group.....

I agree Manu... I only wish this group were our own species.

I have no doubt in my mind the end of nationalism would be extremely benefitial to our species.

What I cannot assure you, without making an absolutely irresponsible statement, is that it will really happen.

Maybe it is indeed human nature to bond and belong to groups smaller than the whole species, as you and Joyce claim.

I doubt it but I can’t discard it completely either.

As I said, only History will settle this debate once and for all.

Too bad we will not be around anymore to pick on the “losers” : )

 

[José]

Originally posted by Dilloduck
Sorta like the US refusing to tolerate "neighbors" who want to wipe entire countries off the map (nuclear or otherwise), wage terror campaigns world wide, and kill humans indiscrimnately ?

No, more like a morally immaculate deity punishing its sinful creatures for their imorality.

The conflict between Klaatu’s civilization and our civilization cannot be compared to the latest international crisis brought to us by the “virtuous” ideology of nationalism ironically advertised by so many people as being a magic panacea for our species.

You see, the fault for the “cosmic” crisis involving the two civilizations in “The day the Earth stood still” lies squarely on humans.

Klaatu’s civilization was peacefully minding their own business when we, humans, driven by our nationalist territorialism, started endangering our neighbours.

It was a clear-cut case of one side being 100% guilty.

Good and evil in the present international crisis are not so well defined.

You can assign blame to both sides.

You have a bunch of fanatics trying to shove a medieval ideology down the throats of the entire arab world but you also have a state racist to the bone, armed to the teeth by the West and using these weapons to keep the natives herded in barren enclaves.

Hardly the equivalent of Klaatu’s ideals.

Any comparison between this state and Klaatu’s civilization would be a stretch, to say the least.

The reason why you see this conflict as a black and white confrontation between good and evil is because you see it through the eyes of your own tribe (one of the parties involved in the conflict).

The islamists also see this conflict as black and white for the same reason.

They choose to ignore the violence of imposing a society based on religious fundamentalism on people who do not wish to live according to these principles, just like you choose to ignore the immorality behind the dehumanisation of the arab people of Palestine.

Hell... here I am... taking sides in tribal conflicts again : )

 

[José]

No prizes for those who can guess which ideology lies behind the aforementioned racist state (whose contribution to the creation of the present international crisis is not even open for discussion).

Yes, you all guessed it right.

Ethnic nationalism.

As if my main point presented on this thread still needed further confirmation : )

 

[dilloduck]

Do you have some recommendation here or are yo just pointing out the futility of humanity? We know as individuals that we will not survive and if we will survive as a race is pretty iffy considering our precarious environment that has nearly wiped us out of existence in the past without having to resort to anything even manmade. Don't be so sure that nukes or nationalism will be the cause of our demise.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Do you have some recommendation here or are yo just pointing out the futility of humanity? We know as individuals that we will not survive and if we will survive as a race is pretty iffy considering our precarious environment that has nearly wiped us out of existence in the past without having to resort to anything even manmade. Don't be so sure that nukes or nationalism will be the cause of our demise.

Jose's being unrealistic and selectively applying a utopian ideal to parts of the world that he sees fit. He's gone all over the place, introducing inconsistent red herrings and patting himself on the back for doing so. Perhaps Jose needs to learn about resource scarcity, conflict theory, human nature, and culture so he can move passed this paradisiacal Land of Cockaigne nonsense. It makes for a good John Lennon song, but that's about it.

 

[dilloduck]

Jose's being unrealistic and selectively applying a utopian ideal to parts of the world that he sees fit. He's gone all over the place, introducing inconsistent red herrings and patting himself on the back for doing so. Perhaps Jose needs to learn about resource scarcity, conflict theory, human nature, and culture so he can move passed this paradisiacal Land of Cockaigne nonsense. It makes for a good John Lennon song, but that's about it.

He's got some pretty cool fake aliens tho !!!

 

[manu1959]

This sounds good in theory, Manu: a community of countries living side by side in peace.

The problem is that the theory of nationalism (just like communist theory) and its practice are two very different things.

In practice, the moment you divide mankind into, let’s say, 120 different countries, you immediately create an equal number of different national interests.

Many of these interests will be not only different but also conflicting with the interests of other countries. And when these conflicting interests cannot be solved through dialogue they are solved by force. This is what our species has been doing since prehistoric times.

Some people have a cynical view of the tremendous human and material costs imposed on the human race by its own tribalism. They say wars is a way to control overpopulation (sick).

But even this cynical individuals should pay attention to the following development I believe every civilization eventually goes through:

Sooner or later, any rational species able to develop a scientific/technological civilization is bound to discover element 92 of the periodic table (uranium).

If the discovery is made during its infancy/adolescence (marked by nationalism), there is the very real possibility that the enormous kinetic energy liberated during nuclear fission will be used to settle old grudges and jelousies once and for all.

We are no longer talking about precious resources being diverted to the military industry instead of being used to advance science and technology, we are not even talking about scores of lives lost anymore, we are talking about the wholesale destruction of their entire civilization. Even the cynicals must now recognise that the stakes inherent to nationalism are now pretty higher.

Just like teenagers who die from overdose and other childish behaviours, it is possible that the universe is filled with the remains of young, immature civilizations that fell victim of their own insane territorialism. Ok, it’s a wild speculation but one that cannot be entirely dismissed.

When you divide humans in different tribes you start a chain reaction with unforeseen consequences. A chain reaction you cannot control anymore.

You create countries, countries create conflicting national interests, conflicting national interests create wars, wars plus uranium create the ever present danger of the destruction of our civilization.

This is an inherent trait of all kinds of tribalism, nationalism included.

Your vision of a pacifist nationalism deserves applause, Manu. It’s a pitty it only exists on the minds of well intentioned nationalists like you.



I agree Manu... I only wish this group were our own species.

I have no doubt in my mind the end of nationalism would be extremely benefitial to our species.

What I cannot assure you, without making an absolutely irresponsible statement, is that it will really happen.

Maybe it is indeed human nature to bond and belong to groups smaller than the whole species, as you and Joyce claim.

I doubt it but I can’t discard it completely either.

As I said, only History will settle this debate once and for all.

Too bad we will not be around anymore to pick on the “losers” : )

all you have to do is choose correctly

 

[William Joyce]

Government ALLOWS the separation, in fact, I would suggest it ENCOURAGES it. Easier to control the masses, don't ya know.

Huh? The U.S. government forces racial integration by power of law. YOU WILL BE SHOT TO DEATH IF YOU DO NOT 'INTEGRATE'. How is this "allowing" or encouraging racial separation?

Ultimately I think Jose is proposing a one-world government. If we're to truly get rid of "tribalism" or competition or whatever, isn't that where you're headed?

I will say that on this chatboard I don't propose universal happiness. I propose happines for my kind. What happens to the rest, I can't concern myself over, but I resent the mistake that because I favor my own kind, it necessarily means I want pain and suffering for the other. In any event, those who claim to want 'the best for everyone' aren't being practical or sincere, I think. It is also moral to favor your family before your neighbors, your race before others, your country before others, etc. Yes, yes, yes. This is because responsibility to others is impossible outside a context of PRIORITIES. If the whole world be my brother, then I have no brother, as they say.

PEACEFUL EXISTENCE FOR WHITES DOESN'T MEAN DEATH FOR BLACKS... though it probably means some kind of separation.

 

[manu1959]

Huh? The U.S. government forces racial integration by power of law. YOU WILL BE SHOT TO DEATH IF YOU DO NOT 'INTEGRATE'. How is this "allowing" or encouraging racial separation?

Ultimately I think Jose is proposing a one-world government. If we're to truly get rid of "tribalism" or competition or whatever, isn't that where you're headed?

I will say that on this chatboard I don't propose universal happiness. I propose happines for my kind. What happens to the rest, I can't concern myself over, but I resent the mistake that because I favor my own kind, it necessarily means I want pain and suffering for the other. In any event, those who claim to want 'the best for everyone' aren't being practical or sincere, I think. It is also moral to favor your family before your neighbors, your race before others, your country before others, etc. Yes, yes, yes. This is because responsibility to others is impossible outside a context of PRIORITIES. If the whole world be my brother, then I have no brother, as they say.

PEACEFUL EXISTENCE FOR WHITES DOESN'T MEAN DEATH FOR BLACKS... though it probably means some kind of separation.

originally it was a one world nation.....familys formed into groups then into tribes then into states then into nations then into things like the EU....then into one world nation....yet familys and groups will always exist....as that is how people are ...and one group will always do better than another and the lesser group will always complain .....and round you go