Nationalism is a viral disease, widespread , an epidemic and this is the worst indoctrination, propaganda the innocent all over the world are programmed or conditioned to accept. Why nationalism under a brutal ruler when a foreign ruler can be much better or when colonialism is better. For instance India was colonized and the Europeans did much better to eradicate poverty, to unify people, to connect one community to another through railways. India as such never existed before the arrival of the British and there were smaller nations each feuding with other over land issues. There was much exploitation inside their countries. Of course colonization is not something I advocate for but the truth is or if we see the unwritten side of history the truth is different than what we generally perceive. The truth has never been told and historians have covered up truths they have seen. Hong Kong needless to say got developed because it was under British rule. Nationalism is mostly used by those who can use powers to their benefits. The common man who needs food, clothes and shelters does not need nationalism Nationalism, next to religious bigotry leads to violence, enmity, massacres ultimately. As we notice in Syria, Gaza, Westbank people are suffering and they are instigated to fight for a land though they are unlikely to be able to live there
It depends on what view of nationalism you consider correct. If you believe that nationalism is primordial in nature then it is a very positive thing but if you accept that it is derived from a modernist perspective it usually has negatives attached to it. The issue of nationalism is a very complicated subject to understand. Even the definition of it comes under scrutiny.
Nationalism is neither good nor bad. It is a state of mind that one's nation or country is great or even the greatest nation. National pride is not a bad thing at all. In fact, it promotes cohesiveness across varied population demographics. Governing people or entities can take advantage of nationalism for either good or bad. Dictators can use nationalism to do bad things as in the Third Reich and Hitler. In a country like the U.S (with a free press) nationalism is less likely to develop into a negative uncontrollable political movement.
The great complication is the War. The War was not only destructive from the standpoint of the lives lost, but the war eventually stripped the Western Nations of their desire to Nationalize. Which in turn, has as I predicted: Put us on the path of being Iraq 2.0 In order to understand both the glory of Nationalism and what went wrong, we need to examine the period of 1919-1945 very carefully. Nationalism allowed us positively, to identify our group, our families, our homes. Nationalism, in that sense is forever predominate in the human mind. And extending this to Nation-States was a positive. So, what happened? We didn't look at the world as our neighbors. But instead as an "unknown antagonist" who could cause trouble. In the First World War, the multitude of European Nations were allied(just as they are now. The difference being the alliances were overlapping, as opposed to the united structure of the EU). The War started over the assasination of the Archduke, and the numerous European Nations went to war on behalf of their ally. One would argue today, in our common sense laws that No Nation was to blame for the outbreak of the war and the fault lies with the assassin himself. But in the context of those times, I'm still surprised how Serbia wasn't the one to be blamed for the war. If not for Serbia's tensions with Austria-Hungary, the war doesn't happen. Germany going to war on the behalf of Austria-Hungary is natural, and indeed if we in the US look at the position of our defense treaties today, we're in the same position as Germany. We're obligated to Japan, and arguably just as obligated to Israel(considering all of the money/funds we give them). The great difference and the only difference that matters in warfare: Offensive firepower. We have more of it than Germany had at the time. We can afford this kind of relationship. Germany couldn't(at least, not in relation to a Great War. Which they would later learn in ruin.) What if the Nation-States had the 21st century outlook? That Germany could coexist with Britain, that Britain could coexist with Germany? That the Serbs and Austrians could find common ground? Nationalism would have been stronger for the world. The Second World War was the same thing. One thing led to another, and BAM. And it would have resolved, had the Nations viewed each other not antagonistically, but instead as common partners with a common objective. Today, we can view Nation-States as extensions of our fellow citizens. Today, I wish to join the European Union while maintaining US Independence. If we can succeed at this, we will be the glue that pieces together Europe, while avoiding a war in the East ever again. I also want to ally with Russia and finally calm the tensions that have always existed between Greater Europe and Russia. Ideally, we can reach diplomatic relations in Asia, but unfortunately with China's posturing, I think we have to make a decisive decision. Even Germany wanted both China and Japan to ally with each other. It would be so magical, but it's not meant to be. Like Germany before me, my alliance is ironclad with Japan. For this reason, I want to make it a new AXIS. US-Russia-Japan. If we can get Russia and Japan to agree to terms, along with US. It forces Chinese isolation(and we can take advantage of Russian-Chinese antagonism to make it a reality). In the ideal outcome, China wants to improve terms and we can include them in the Family of Nations by a simple demand: Dump North Korea. Dumping North Korea will finally give us only one menace. North Korea herself. That one can't be settled diplomatically and now that a Great War has been avoided, I want to implement regime change. North Korea can avoid her fate in a similar fashion to what we demanded in the Middle East: Nuclear proliferation signing the NPT Breaking up the North Korean dictatorship Releasing of ALL of North Korea's war prisoners. If a Unified Korea would come about, it will be under the South's leadership. That will assure a much easier transition and the DRZ can eventually give way. With our diplomatic and geopolitical supremacy, the North will fold one way or another. It's up to the North to choose which way she wants to fold. For a unified world, we have to make tough choices like these. A great world power isn't great by sitting on its laurels.
I think I can address that since I studied that issue quite a bit. Nationalism to a large degree is not natural. Its roots can be found in France specifically dating back to the French Revolution. However the history lesson in this case may not be that important. What is important is the differences between countries during various what I'd call "phases" of nationalism. It wasn't abrupt, and the evolution of nationalism was a slow process... In the first "phase", nationalism tries to find a bond between people based on history, language or culture. These are usually the three big reasons for a "nation". In the case of Switzerland or the USA you're looking at an ideology or belief concept. In this first phase languages tend to be actually analyzed and become literature languages. It also increases basic education of all residents who fit a "nation" concept of a group. Many languages got a grammar and dictionary as a result of nationalism. Few languages are forerunners of that process. This also boosts any people's development if a larger amount of people can get an education in languages other than Latin, German, French, English, Italian, etc. In the second phase, nationalism reaches it's first peak in terms of conflict. Conflicts arise because of nationalistic issues. If you look at Europe, we're still talking about the 19th century. At that time the idea that people out of the lower classes or middles classes growing up with non-official languages can now receive a high education and are better suited to run an office which was for generations in the hand of the aristocracy was the issue - or something of that affect. It tends to be people who in the estate of the realm are too lowly ranked move up the ladder. That upsets the system. These tend to be the first nationalistic type conflicts. In the third phase, people look for aid and support among their own group and the conflict reaches a new group of people. It tends to be the lower income bracket of the estate of the realm concept. Farmers, factory workers, etc. get involved with nationalism. However, at that time the neighbor who spoke another language and was the neighbor for generations is not the target. The target tend to be institutions who focus on the status quo because people can't move up the ladder. The forth phase tends to be the first violent one, where disagreements for the first time reach a new peak. Here the first mandatory ethnic cleaning of a region occurs. I use the term lightly, because so far it is limited to deportation or encouraged emigration. Rarely this results in proper executions or murder based on ethnicity or nationality. In Europe this started (depending on the region) in the tail-end of the 19th century. Now you have a couple of World Wars which take nationalism and go crazy with the concept. Depending on where you live "nationalism" now goes into multiple directions. Wherever you live in, I believe Germany is the most evolved in terms of nationalism. The Nazi-crisis and nationalistic peak of that time made Germans quickly politically correct out of the fear of being called a Nazi. While the extreme right still exists the vast majority of Germans grew up in a politically correct environment. To top that off, being nationalistic in German is not necessarily seen as a good thing. It can be seen on holidays or in sporting events, but many don't need the flag or other symbols with them outside these selected environments. Nationalism in Germany is on the decline, or at least reached a point where it is not the overwhelming drive for the people. Germany is moving into an area where the debate is "what's best for the region and therefore for the people" and not what's "best for the people who are already here". _______________ Nationalism is a global phenomenon. The question is, once a country or region goes through this evolution I mentioned, can anything be done to prevent a war at the tail-end. Once a region is ethnically and nationalistically clean, they finally tend to move on from this issue. I personally am still looking for an example where this process was skipped including the horrible war at the end. If you have a powerful leader (Dictator or something similar) on top, the war can be postponed, but unfortunately the conflict seems to be inevitable. So to recap: Yes, I agree, nationalism is bad, but it seems to be the main reason we're not stuck in our estate of the realm and more people can move up the economic ladder and are accepted there than ever before. Exploitation of a region is not unique to colonialism or capitalism or something like that. Unfortunately if you read back on what colonial powers did and what nationalism's peaks are in terms of violence, you will not find too many differences, although the nationalistic extreme is better known. Maybe because it peaked in Europe and actually showed locals what was practiced in Africa for centuries, but I don't know.
There's a couple of really thought out posts in this thread. I think people should be wary of nationalism. Not because nationalism is inherently bad, but because of the results we typically see. Like any other ideology, when the extremes drowned out the middle, dumb stuff tends to happen.
When it comes to this topic I sometimes think a few centuries ahead, thinking what people then are gonna think of us today. Working with historic documents you get sometimes shocked on the worldview of people two centuries your peers. My friend is working on a diary of a priest who lived in the 18th century, and he didn't realize that the American Revolution was an important event. He saw it as a small colonial skirmish. He didn't see the industrialization as something important or even mentionable. Looking at that, I sometimes wonder if we really know what the important events are of our time. Will people in two centuries time even understand the concept of nationalism? Will they understand why people were willing to die for a piece of carpet if painted in certain colors? Will they view any of the presidents in our lifetime as important, or fly over them like we do these days when we look at kings from the middle ages? Will they understand that we debate legalization of gay marriage, or any of the other issues we consider contemporary political issues? If you start thinking that way, I think one question might come up: Is nationalism even important? Is it really something which should be debated or should we be focusing on something completely different? I bet people in two centuries will have the answers to my questions
No, it's an ideology, a feeling, a movement. But I suppose what you mean to ask is if it's good or bad. That depends on your objectives of course, but if we take the general welfare of a society to be the goal, the answer is: it depends. The basic idea of nationalism is that there is a people, and they want a state. How a people -or a nation, hence why it's called nationalism- is defined can vary... A nation is a group of people who, well, simpy feel like a nation. It's subjective, and can be based upon many shared traits, typically around race, language, culture, religion, geography, or some combination thereof. An important thing to keep in mind is that a nation is not the same thing as a state or a country. A nation is the people, and a state is a political entity. What nationalists want is for the people -that is, the nation- to have their own state, a nation-state. So, here's the thing which decides wheter nationalism is good or bad... States evolved historically for many reasons, and they could look very different. Nationalism hasn't been around forever, but was invented in the 18th century. So, when nationalism spread, it could do one of two things to states. If the state happened to have a somewhat homogenous population, like many countries in western europe did, it would strengthen the state, because the nationalists' goal of a nation-state was already met. If the state happened to have a very hetergenous population with lots of different cultures, as the habsburg and ottoman empires had, it would tear that state apart, because the nationalists would seek to divide it into smaller nation-states. So, nationalism gets credit for the stable nation-states in the world because a sense of nationhood is undoubtedly an advantage, but it also gets the blame for all the wars that are fought in the name of self.determination, and for the instability of multicultural states.
War is only one small part of nationalism you know. Covering your heart and removing your hat during the national anthem is nationalism. Raising the flag according to certain guidelines is nationalism. Saying the pledge of allegiance is nationalism. Many nations have very strong nationalistic tendencies and never go to war.
