Serious Is Nationalism an Inherently Bad Idea?

[BenTheDemon]

Being from the American South, I come into a lot of contact with Nationalists. They range from part-time patriots to just plain pains in the ass.
From what I've heard, Nationalism isn't as popular outside of the United States; some people even consider it dumb. One of the most famous instances of "bad" nationalism is Nazi Germany. They thought that being German Aryans literally made them superior to all other people. Although what I've seen of American Nationalism hasn't yet gone that far, I sometimes wonder of the possibilities.

So my question to Smogon is:
Is Nationalism, by its very definition, a bad idea?

I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this topic.

 

[capefeather]

The way we have evolved necessitates taking mental shortcuts to function at all. However, mental shortcuts obviously won't always give you the right choices.

 

[Relados]

Feeling some pride in your country isn't wrong at all. It's when you take that to gross extremes when it becomes a problem.

 

[Myzozoa]

what does that even mean capefeather, what about nationalism, as a 'mental shortcut,' is in any way 'functional'



i think nationalism is ignorance (of what things have value, which is the same as ignorance of what things are a product of one's own agency) , or irrational egoism (thinking that shit is good because you are shit or you do shit), both of which seem bad to me, so fuck nationalism in theory. As has already been gestured at in the OP, nationalism frequently leads to awful states of affairs, so fuck nationalism in practice too. the best case for nationalism is nationalism as 'self-interest,' but i dont really think self-interest is a good basis for ethics, but thats like my opinion, so...

'it's only bad if taken to its extremes' is a joke, if ever a policy/law is put into place on the basis of an appeal to nationalism it will always be a bad policy, i promise. do you really feel such a strong need to apologize for nationalists just because a lot of people do it/or act out of a belief in nationalism? sorry, those people suck, you might even suck, the fact that you all suck together doesn't make it any better (interestingly, sucking together would seem to be the underlying condition for breeding nationalism), don't apologize by saying it only got bad when one of you took it too far.

Is Nationalism, by its very definition, a bad idea?

idk why don't you define it, i told you what i think it was but if we have different definitions then it's useless

i anticipate arguments like 'nationalism is necessary for state-like (government) structures to form,' guess the burden of proof would be on you in that case, so good luck finding any, and then even after that, you'd have to show that government isn't inherently bad (because if nationalism produces governments and governments are inherently bad, then you're no better off than before).

edit:

i really don't think nationalism should be reduced to the same terms as a group mentality. It IS a group mentality, but it is also many other things, and I don't see it as a fair analysis, given the complexity inherent in defining nationalism. I think you have to shred quite a few elements of nationalism for it to be the same as an animalistic species mentality. Especially when it gets to the policy level, as far as laws are concerned I don't think any policies that were good, were good because they were justified by nationalism, rather other forces such as economic forces might have driven these same policies and have been good because of that force's impact, not nationalism's. So these 'good' policies that we see nationalistic sentiments contributing to, does not mean nationalistic sentiments are good. And we can readily see the bad outcomes of nationalism sneaking into our legal systems across the globe (present france, greece, ww1/2 european great powers). so the good of nationalism isn't good because nationalism is good, it just contributes more sentiment to certain ways of framing issues, but the danger is that the good isn't separate from the bad, and it would be better to keep nationalism away from the ways policies are rationalized and argued on in general. it's an unnecessary risk and given the potential consequence it is unconscionable.

 

[Shiruba]

Short answer: not necessarily.

Long answer: Humans have had a "group" mentality since they very first evolved; it's what's helped keep us alive and kicking until today. The feelings of attachment or pride in ones own group aid to their desire to maintain and grow their clan to its greatest capacities. This ensured that the family would be well-protected and that its members were less likely to metaphorically [or literally] run off into the sunset, thus making its continued existence more feasible. Humans require cooperation in their structure; they are not that strong, they are not that fast, they are not that good of swimmers, they are not that well-equipped to fight in hand-to-hand combat, they are not possessors of exceptional adaptations, bar one - intelligence, with opposable thumbs also being very useful but I would say less so. However, intelligence doesn't mean shit if you can't build upon it and exchange ideas to grow ones' knowledge bank - though I am very much aware of the difference between knowledge and intelligence, they do go hand in hand to some degree. Humans virtually must band together and form groups if they are to compete with others that are perhaps more capable physically. It is very important to note that nationalism does not necessarily have to refer to a country or anything in a political sense, for that matter.

That said, the "group" mentality is unfortunately not only to the benefit of others, it is potentially to the detriment of those not within the designated "group" - this was shown even in prehistoric times, with raids and capturing of the goods and people of other tribes to be added to the collective of the victor. The group mentality can not only lead to a fierce protection of the home nation, but the rejection of others, potentially violently so. Humans are very good at fearing and scorning those that are "not like them" in some way, or ways of life that they do not understand. Consider it the unfortunate remnant of a formerly useful survival mechanism. We saw it in the past with the hatred of the Nazis, the conquistadors, the "explorers of the New World," and we see it today in the form of the hatred of homosexuals, the hysteria around Islam, and quite possibly the fear of the occult. People are often too lazy or too uncaring about anything that does not directly affect them to actually do research on something or simply react with a gut feeling on something they actually know nothing about. This "I don't like it because it's different" mentality is quite possibly the most oft-used excuse for most atrocities that have been and are done by humans, simply due to finding an excuse to treat them as "less than." Ultranationalism is more or less a different labelling for this, from what I've seen.

tl;dr pride in your country/group isn't necessarily a bad thing but the rejection of others that can come along with it most certainly is.



But, of course, as Myzozoa says, this really does depend on what you yourself think nationalism is or should be defined as.

 

[Woodchuck]

Any "ideal" can be dangerous when taken to extreme. Numerous examples can be taken from American history: the excesses of capitalism lead to abominable living and working conditions for the urban poor, excess nationalism during World War I led to the suppression of dissenting opinions and infringement on freedom of the speech/press. Nationalism has had beneficial effects in the past, however; nationalism fueled the development and government support of many of the roads, canals, and railroad tracks that connected America which in turn spurred rapid economic growth. The problem lies in the definition of nationalism: when it is limited to pride for one's own "group" and the wish to improve its position - not necessarily at the expense of others - it can be impetus to further the interests of the group to the benefit of all in that group. This is good when the negative effects on others are minimal. However, when nationalism promotes the achievement of the ambitions of one's own group to the detriment of others, it leads to prejudice, violence, and other phenomena that divide society with conflict.

 

[Trax]

Every human anywhere ever that intended to last any length of time worth mentioning was part of a tribe, each nation is just a large tribe. As for if nationalism is a good thing or not, I guess it depends on the nation and the values and identity of the people within. I suppose it also depends on the nature of the nationalism and indeed the nation its self as to how it is expressed.

 

[phantom]

George Carlin articulates my thoughts on this whole topic a helluva a lot better than I could.

 

[Trax]

Nationalism =/= National Pride. So that Carlin routine, while hilarious, isn't quite relevant.

 

[Fatecrashers]

there's a distinction between nationalism and patriotism, patriotism is thinking that your country is great, nationalism is thinking that everyone else is shit

 

[Shiruba]

yeah, and the question isn't whether it's stupid, it's if it's bad. i could strip down and run around my house while singing some enrique iglesias - would that be stupid? yeah, probably. would that be bad?
well, for the onlookers, maybe.

 

[Myzozoa]

i think the stupid is usually the bad, like stupidity is a bad attribute i feel safe saying.
i like the way this is going tho. in and of itself stupidity doesn't produce anything good.

 

[Shiruba]

okay, perhaps stupid was a bad word - pointless, maybe? like, it yields no direct, tangible results, but you could argue that pretty much any hobby or interest is something that people do just to waste time or enjoy themselves. isn't that what most people do in general when they're not being worker ants, unless they're one of the few people that're actually consistently doing something important in their spare time? importance is also subjective, ofc.

 

[Crux]

I don't really want to post here since I feel that the answer is obvious, but I think defining nationalism would probably be helpful to the discussion, as Trax kind of alluded to. I feel that a good definition would be "an extreme form of patriotism marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries." Unless there are any objections I feel we should use this.

 

[Myzozoa]

okay, perhaps stupid was a bad word - pointless, maybe? like, it yields no direct, tangible results, but you could argue that pretty much any hobby or interest is something that people do just to waste time or enjoy themselves. isn't that what most people do in general when they're not being worker ants, unless they're one of the few people that're actually consistently doing something important in their spare time? importance is also subjective, ofc.

ok but when talking about how nationalism affects political outcomes i think it's way obvious that there has been a lot of bad policy outcomes attributable to nationalism, and all the good political outcomes would have been just as good/rational/effective without nationalistic sentiment, and so there is only risk in allowing some place to nationalism in framing political issues.

same reason i separate church and state

the fact that we are even acknowledging that nationalism has supposedly had good outcomes only goes to show you that we are being trapped by its mythos. in fact it wears the disguises of other goods while eventually manifesting itself violently, but it will nonetheless return after these episodes to the scene, reminding us of all the good it allegedly contributed to, and tell you that its flaws were just perversions unnecessary to its true essence, that it's outburst had just been a fluke. and we let it in to pervert anew. sorry not interested.

 

[Trax]

Some people need to consider that the outcomes they are associating with nationalism, both for good or ill, could well be considered related to factors other than nationalism (even if I ignore that nationalism like all other groupings can be unhealthy, just as being isolated is) -- at best you have a correlation, but perhaps more likely you have some cherry picked examples.

I'm aware of that, but the point I was trying to get across that there's usually a linkage between these two entities, and that the end result for both is more or less shared, hence my view on this matter.

Not really, at the point where nationalism becomes national pride it's typically at the point of action, where people have contributed and therefore have the right to take pride in that which they helped create, assuming it's good.

 

[Cresselia~~]

yeah, and the question isn't whether it's stupid, it's if it's bad. i could strip down and run around my house while singing some enrique iglesias - would that be stupid? yeah, probably. would that be bad?
well, for the onlookers, maybe.

I think the thing is, regular stupidity aren't normally harmful.
But I would think that Nationalism, whether stupid or not, IS harmful. (to any foreigners)

 

[Deck Knight]

I'll use Definition Number 5 for this: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationalism?s=t
"
the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations."


American Pride - establishing the basic framework and / or inspiration for every free Republic currently in existence since 1783.

The principles of nations have objectively measurable effects. America's founding principles were so objectively superior to the divine right of kings or monarchical superiority that no first world nation's government is now ruled by a king, even if the king is head of state for diplomatic purposes.

The enshrinement of private property rights, the wisdom that government should not interfere in the governance of churches while religious men were free to bring virtue and restraint to government in their elected capacities, and the biblical notion that one should not eat if one does not work, turned America from wilderness to wunderkind in less than 200 years, leaping beyond even 5,000 year old societies. I'm happy to be nationalistic in support of the IDEA of America, constitutionally understood. I'm not so keen on supporting any particular *leader* as if they are the whole of American identity. They are not. Which is the entire POINT of America. To be an American Nationalist is to believe in the rule of law, not the rule of men.

The international community prefers a return to the normal order of history - Rule by strong men over weaker men. They don't much care if it means Islamic Theocracy, Atheistic Socialism, or full bore Gulag Communism, as long as this idea man is free to order his own affairs is undermined by submission to the sainted few, whether the saints be in Brussels, Berlin, Moscow, or Mecca.

Bottom Line: Assuming America As Founded, not as "fundamentally transformed" by internationalists: Stronger America, Freer World.

 

[Chou Toshio]

there's a distinction between nationalism and patriotism, patriotism is thinking that your country is great, nationalism is thinking that everyone else is shit

So it's ok that despite not feeling particularly patriotic on a normal basis, I can't help but tear up when I hear the song, "Proud to be an American"? (It's really weird... you seriously can't stop yourself from tearing up... dat song...)

Wanna change it a bit though lol:
From the beaches of Honolulu, to the hills of Tennessee,
Across the plains of Texas from sea to shining sea.
From Detroit down to Houston and New York to L.A.
There's pride in every American heart
And it's time we stand and say~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Also, when I got new pages sown into my passport recently, a Japanese-American woman from Hawaii is quoted alongside inspirational quotes from the founding fathers and others-- made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, lol)

It's so confusing... so what happens if I cheer for both the Japanese and the Americans at the Olympics?

To be fair, the last time I got to watch NOT Japanese Olymics on my own American media was a while ago...

Also in China right now, but no Chinese people give a fuck about Winter Olympics lol.


Yes, I'm not touching at the heart of the argument, but I'm bringing up these types of experiences because this is how MOST people experience "patriotism" (or nationalism?) on a daily, basic level. Give perspective to the discussion.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Nationalism isn't as popular outside of the United States; some people even consider it dumb..

And how many of those people have their flag on the moon?

 

[BenTheDemon]

And how many of those people have their flag on the moon?

That's a direct byproduct of Nationalism.

 

[Dren]

I agree with Deck Knight for the most part. The rule of law should be tempered with common sense and humanity, but at the end of the day the government should only help you help yourself.

Nationalism, just like religion, can be used as a weapon, but that does not mean that it is a bad thing. Each country has nationalistic sects. They can be as large as an entire political party or as small as a neighborhood group. As long as a group bands together for a common purpose or idea, it is the beginnings of nationalism. This act of banding together is the essence of nationalism. Would you consider a pep rally before the big game at a local high school evil? It's clearly a rally to support their "troops" who "fight" against another high school's "troops".

When someone takes a nationalistic sect and turns it against who they feel oppress them or takes more than their fair share whether or not this is actually true, violence can and usually does occur. Consider the cries of racism or the "war on women" within the USA. The Nazis did this by pointing at the jews and blaming them for all manner of things.

Oppression is the rallying cry for people who wish to wield nationalism as a weapon regardless of whether or not the oppression is real.

In short, nationalism is just the melting pot for revolution. It is not evil or good. It just is.

Study Brown's Model of Nationalism if you want a good understanding of how it works. He believes there are 5 steps.

1. Start with a identifiable group of people
2. Add a real or imagined stimulus
3. Let the pot simmer
4. Revolution
5. If the identifiable group's revolution succeeds: another group forms at step one.
If it fails, that group returns to the first step.

It is a constant cycle demonstrable by the revolutions in syria, kiev, and other countries.

 

[Nastyjungle]

at its core nationalism as it is recognized today requires an "us vs them" mentality which i think is fairly unhealthy in this day and age with the push towards most things becoming inclusive and globalized

grouping as a means of survival for humans is quickly becoming a worthless concept when you consider the ability we have to communicate now as a species that wasnt present just a few decades ago... of course groups still exist but boundaries between groups are becoming less and less distinct, which imo is a good thing

not to say i disagree with common identities between certain people, because i dont necessarily believe that such things are bad, i just believe that a nationalist mindset is inherently exclusive which isnt good when you are talking about massive groups of people and how they identify themselves compared to others

 

[Blue_Tornado]

I think there isn't much discussion here assuming I'm on the same wavelength as the OP - nationalism as something that divides the human race is an objectively bad thing.

I'd like to think the "solution" will come on its own. Just as we now think the tribes hundreds of years in the past were primitive, so will people hundreds of years from now think the concept of states and countries was primitive.