Not only nationalism. Current conflicts are rooted in the same prejudices as a hundred years ago. The root cause (this idea that somehow my nation/religion/race/etc is superior) hasn't been resolved, only more or less patched, and thus these conflicts are bound to reappear and escalate sooner or later until we recognize that that despite the valuable diversity humanity is essentially one and align the political and economic structures of this world with this reality.
> Not only nationalism. Current conflicts are rooted in the same prejudices as a hundred years ago. The root cause (this idea that somehow my nation/religion/race/etc is superior)
Honest question: is it possible in your opinion for someone to not believe "my nation/religion/race/etc is superior" yet still be opposed to globalism? To me, this is what nationalism means, international cooperation while unequivocally maintaining the right to national democratic self-determination.
Yes, by disillusioning yourself that any of those things matter. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what god you pray to, because prayer is personal; doesn’t matter what nation you call your own, because emigration is easier than ever; and doesn’t matter what colour your skin is, because it doesn’t define you.
Obviously all that is easier said than done, but really if you stop letting any kind of tribal attachment define you as a person, life becomes a lot simpler.
National identity is rooted in language and culture. If people could easily speak two or three languages, the boundaries could become more fuzzy, but right now it seems like learning a real human language is harder than learning 10 programming languages.
Not really, though. Especially for the basics. In fact, multilingualism is still the general standard in the world, especially in places like Asia and Africa. And even Europe, where most learn English. Yes, it's difficult, but it can be easier if we stressed it from a younger age, or if people had need for it. Instead, they use language to distance themselves from people, not bring each other together.
> doesn’t matter what nation you call your own, because emigration is easier than ever
Are there any fiscal consequences to that, at all? For example, I often read about the advantage of socialized medicare in Canada versus the US, is this difference a figment of people's imagination? Is that a tribalist belief, or acknowledgement of physical & fiscal reality?
> Yes, by disillusioning yourself that any of those things matter. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what god you pray to, because prayer is personal; doesn’t matter what nation you call your own, because emigration is easier than ever; and doesn’t matter what colour your skin is, because it doesn’t define you.
Are you saying it doesn't, or it shouldn't? Because from what I see on the news and read in psychological studies, it seems like there are significant numbers of people, some of whom are scientists, who don't share this interpretation of reality.
> Obviously all that is easier said than done, but really if you stop letting any kind of tribal attachment define you as a person, life becomes a lot simpler.
Is this a fact or a theory? And I don't mean that flippantly or offensively, I think it's a perfectly valid question considering the current political climate.
I don't see how nationalism includes international cooperation. At best, it seems to me that international cooperation is a choice a nationalist might consider amongst protectionism, isolationism, imperialism/colonialism, and outright xenophobia.
You can see the Wikipedia page for isolationism or any of the other *isms I listed above [0]. To say that there was no beneficial mutual trade in at least some of the cases is probably a stretch.
I think we are misunderstanding each other, but we both agree. My understanding of what you are saying now is that it is possible to have nationalism with international cooperation, but I read your initial comment as nationalism requiring international cooperation. What I am saying is that nationalism and international cooperation are two choices that a nation-state can make that are almost completely independent from each other.
Not the person you asked the question of, but I think there are reasonable anti-globalist positions that don't have anything to do with superiority. A sort of Ludditism could do. And I actually do think people can be strongly attached to identity without a belief of superiority.
Couldn't non-democratic societies be nationalist? Was nationalism off-limits to Imperial Japan, for example?
Is it necessary? Is primary Nationalism, but with a willingness to trade and cooperate internationally in a mutually beneficial manner, inherently worse than enthusiastic globalism with no regard for the well-being of one's own individual country? I hear most everyone talking this talk on the world stage, but I don't see a lot of people walking the walk (for example, everyone seems to bargain quite strongly in a self-beneficial way in trade talks, even though that is apparently considered immoral).
> The root cause (this idea that somehow my nation/religion/race/etc is superior)
This isn’t really the root cause.
It is possible and common to think your group is superior without wishing any harm onto others and without trying to control others.
For example plenty of developers believe static typing is superior to dynamic typing but there are only a few that believe dynamic typing should be banned / driven out of the workplace.
"Somehow". The answer is found quite simply by this formula:
"My [whatever] is the [whatever] I belong to."
Even if you prove without a doubt that Islam is worse that Christianity, or that one race is worse than another, you won't likely convince the members that they therefore deserve less than they have, or that they should surrender to another. The core tautology still holds true.
I’m afraid of tribalism as much as the other guy, but it’s naive to assume it’s maladaptive. Many people are blind to how many groups that try to protect them in the United States, whether or not they identify as such. Tolerance and peace are luxuries purchased off tribal conflict in some cases.
