And nationalism is bad, because? Nationalism when taken to the extreme can be bad because it’s extreme, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with nationalism.
If you cannot see, why the ideology that brought us both World Wars, Russias war against Ukraine and so many more modern conflicts, was the base of colonialism and neo-colonialism, imperialism, 20th century slavery, fascism, zionism and that let us buold borders where thousands die every year, you are lost.
This is just a piss poor understanding of history, nationalism, and geopolitics.
Let’s take the Ukraine war as an example. Russia is not a nation state, it’s an empire. Empires are usually multiethnic, hierarchical, and expansionist, ruling over diverse peoples through centralized authority and often unequal legal or political status. Ukraine, on the other hand, is a nation state because it’s organized around a shared national identity that is defined by common language, culture, or ethnicity, and it treats all of its citizens as equals under the law. This war is basically between Russian imperialists who want to expand the empire and Ukrainian nationalists who want to defend their nation.
Using your flawed logic, Ukrainians are bad people because they believe in and are actively defending an ideology that you falsely attribute to everything bad to has ever happened in the world and in history. That’s just nonsense.
Your example is very bad, to be honest. Both Russia and Ukraine are states. All states today claim to be nations. Every nation is a social construct, made by inventing or at least warping history to explain the creation of a nation. States tend to equalize the people living on it’s territory by introducing things like law, language, traditions or education. And they are actively trying to tell this story of “the people” to legitimate themselves. But the people are not the same. Look at your own country, wherever you live. There are always vast differences between places in different cardinal directions or at the borders vs. inland, between richer and poorer regions or between urban and rural areas. In Russia, that becomes very obvious, but it is the same everywhere.
Nationalism is the root of everything, I described. Nothing of that would have existed without a strong nationalist movement. Sure, there can be more or less extreme forms of nationalism, but this ideoligy is always dividing territory and people into the inside and outside.
Every Ukrainian fighting against Russian imperialism is fine. But at the end, I hope there are more people left to rebuilt the country, who fought for their freedom and not for some fucking glorious Father/Motherland.
2014 tumblr called, they want their arguments back. Calling something a social construct does NOT mean it’s bad, fake, or invalid. Math is a social construct, time is a social construct, language is a social construct… yet these are all good things that describe things that are very real, and their existence is very much valid. The idea of a nation state falls under this category.
States tend to equalize the people living on it’s territory by introducing things like law, language, traditions or education. And they are actively trying to tell this story of “the people” to legitimate themselves.
And this is a bad thing, because? I don’t see an issue with a state trying to unite people through their commonalities. If you want a large group of people to be involved and coordinated then you have to make them feel included, and this is the way to do it.
But the people are not the same. Look at your own country, wherever you live. There are always vast differences between places in different cardinal directions or at the borders vs. inland, between richer and poorer regions or between urban and rural areas.
So? There is always going to be a degree of diversity among people, geography, and economies. That doesn’t mean that nations don’t exist. A Chinese person is Chinese regardless of whether or not they’re rich or poor, live near the border or not, or live in the city or a farm. They’re Chinese by ancestry, by language, and by culture. You could make an argument that some states occupy other nations, and that’s a bad thing, and I would agree with you. China is a good example of that as they occupy Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia… however, the Chinese nation still exists and it deserves it’s own state even if the borders need to redrawn.
In Russia, that becomes very obvious, but it is the same everywhere.
The reason why I called Russia an empire is because it is one by definition. It checks every single check mark required to consider it an empire and then some. They can call themselves whatever they want, it doesn’t mean anything in reality. It’s like North Korea calling itself a democracy when it’s clearly not. Unlike Russia, Ukraine is a true nation state, or at least a lot closer to one than Russia is.
Nationalism is the root of everything, I described. Nothing of that would have existed without a strong nationalist movement.
That’s such a myopic view of history that it’s actually ignorant. If you unironically think that you can boil down most of history down to an ideology a concept you barely understand and then consider this singular ideology to be the root cause of everything bad in history then you simply don’t understand history.
Sure, there can be more or less extreme forms of nationalism, but this ideoligy is always dividing territory and people into the inside and outside.
But have you ever thought about why nations and states exist in the first place? From the start of civilization 10,000 years ago to today, countries and border have always existed regardless of culture, geography, or era. What makes so persistent throughout history? Could it be that because it’s an essential part of civilization and it’s an inherently useful concept even if it’s not perfect? The answer is yes.
Every Ukrainian fighting against Russian imperialism is fine. But at the end, I hope there are more people left to rebuilt the country, who fought for their freedom and not for some fucking glorious Father/Motherland.
These two things are intertwined. They’re fighting for their father/motherland, aka their nation, against imperialist conquest because it’s where their roots are. The nation is where their families are, where their culture is, where the history of their people took place, and where their freedoms and rights are.
Also, people like you annoy me because you complain without providing any alternatives. You hate nationalism as a concept? Fine, what do you propose as an alternative? If you have a realistic, practical option then let’s hear it. Otherwise, if you have nothing other than vague ideological complaints then you critiques don’t hold as much weight.
I never tried to boil down most of history to anything. I just laid down the fact, that this shitty idea of the nation state, that came into fashion in the 19th century laid the ideological groundwork to many of the astrocities in the following two centuries. This is common knowledge.
A nation is not a thing that exists. There are different forms of cultures that can develop together or go in different directions, depending on who is in power and who draws the borders. If you where really interested in history, you could know that. The whole of Europe is a great example, or the Koreas.
But to be honest, I have no interest to doscuss any further with you since you constantly talked down to me and behaved like an asshole. It is just not worth the effort. So fuck that, believe what you want.
I just laid down the fact, that this shitty idea of the nation state, that came into fashion in the 19th century laid the ideological groundwork to many of the astrocities in the following two centuries. This is common knowledge.
Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
A nation is not a thing that exists. There are different forms of cultures that can develop together or go in different directions
Yes, they do. They’re not eternal as they do get created, killed, and changed all the time. However, nations, as a concept, do represent a real phenomenon.
depending on who is in power and who draws the borders.
States and nations aren’t interchangeable terms. Japan is a nation state, my home country of Iraq is very much not.
But to be honest, I have no interest to doscuss any further with you since you constantly talked down to me and behaved like an asshole. It is just not worth the effort. So fuck that, believe what you want.
I went out of my way to make sure that my comment didn’t have any personal insults. My comment had so much substance that directly responded to your points, and it’s interesting that you responded to none of it. My comment contained a grand total of 3 criticisms, all of which were directed towards your statements.
If this is all it takes for you to get this sort of reaction then there are two possibilities. Either you’re really this sensitive and somebody saying one of your arguments is from 2014 tumblr is enough to send you over the edge or, and I think is much more likely, is that you actually have nothing of value to say and this was just a convenient cop out. Either way, I don’t care, I’ve made my points and they stand on their own. Whether you reply or not makes no difference.
Nationalism when taken to the extreme can be bad because it’s extreme, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with nationalism.
What you just described, this “mild nationalism?” There’s a word for that: patriotism. Nationalism is extreme patriotism.
Nationalism: an ideology that elevates one nation or nationality above all others and that places primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations, nationalities, or supranational groups
-Merriam-Webster Dictionary
And when nationalism becomes even more extreme, it becomes chauvinism or jingoism.
Chauvinism: undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged; excessive or blind patriotism; an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex
Jingoism: extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy
When Hitler promised to build a wall around Germany to keep immigrants from diluting German culture during his campaign, that was nationalism. American isolationists were/are nationalists.
The Republican Party in the 90s and 2000s was a nationalist party bordering on chauvinism. The party of Trump is a jingoist party that hits every definition of chauvinism at the same time.
What you just described, this “mild nationalism?” There’s a word for that: patriotism. Nationalism is extreme patriotism
This is just false. Nationalism is just the idea that a nation should be sovereign. The Meriam Webster definition you cited is just a contemporary definition, the original definition is the second one listed here:
: support for and promotion of the political independence or self-determination of a nation or people
Nationalism isn’t a more extreme version of patriotism. Nationalism describes an ideology while patriotism describes a particular set of emotions. The two could overlap, but they’re not the same thing at different points of a spectrum.
A Kurd wanting their people to have self determination and independence is a Kurdish nationalist. Calling someone like that a loser is demonstration of your ignorance.
And nationalism is bad, because? Nationalism when taken to the extreme can be bad because it’s extreme, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with nationalism.
If you cannot see, why the ideology that brought us both World Wars, Russias war against Ukraine and so many more modern conflicts, was the base of colonialism and neo-colonialism, imperialism, 20th century slavery, fascism, zionism and that let us buold borders where thousands die every year, you are lost.
This is just a piss poor understanding of history, nationalism, and geopolitics.
Let’s take the Ukraine war as an example. Russia is not a nation state, it’s an empire. Empires are usually multiethnic, hierarchical, and expansionist, ruling over diverse peoples through centralized authority and often unequal legal or political status. Ukraine, on the other hand, is a nation state because it’s organized around a shared national identity that is defined by common language, culture, or ethnicity, and it treats all of its citizens as equals under the law. This war is basically between Russian imperialists who want to expand the empire and Ukrainian nationalists who want to defend their nation.
Using your flawed logic, Ukrainians are bad people because they believe in and are actively defending an ideology that you falsely attribute to everything bad to has ever happened in the world and in history. That’s just nonsense.
Your example is very bad, to be honest. Both Russia and Ukraine are states. All states today claim to be nations. Every nation is a social construct, made by inventing or at least warping history to explain the creation of a nation. States tend to equalize the people living on it’s territory by introducing things like law, language, traditions or education. And they are actively trying to tell this story of “the people” to legitimate themselves. But the people are not the same. Look at your own country, wherever you live. There are always vast differences between places in different cardinal directions or at the borders vs. inland, between richer and poorer regions or between urban and rural areas. In Russia, that becomes very obvious, but it is the same everywhere.
Nationalism is the root of everything, I described. Nothing of that would have existed without a strong nationalist movement. Sure, there can be more or less extreme forms of nationalism, but this ideoligy is always dividing territory and people into the inside and outside.
Every Ukrainian fighting against Russian imperialism is fine. But at the end, I hope there are more people left to rebuilt the country, who fought for their freedom and not for some fucking glorious Father/Motherland.
2014 tumblr called, they want their arguments back. Calling something a social construct does NOT mean it’s bad, fake, or invalid. Math is a social construct, time is a social construct, language is a social construct… yet these are all good things that describe things that are very real, and their existence is very much valid. The idea of a nation state falls under this category.
And this is a bad thing, because? I don’t see an issue with a state trying to unite people through their commonalities. If you want a large group of people to be involved and coordinated then you have to make them feel included, and this is the way to do it.
So? There is always going to be a degree of diversity among people, geography, and economies. That doesn’t mean that nations don’t exist. A Chinese person is Chinese regardless of whether or not they’re rich or poor, live near the border or not, or live in the city or a farm. They’re Chinese by ancestry, by language, and by culture. You could make an argument that some states occupy other nations, and that’s a bad thing, and I would agree with you. China is a good example of that as they occupy Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia… however, the Chinese nation still exists and it deserves it’s own state even if the borders need to redrawn.
The reason why I called Russia an empire is because it is one by definition. It checks every single check mark required to consider it an empire and then some. They can call themselves whatever they want, it doesn’t mean anything in reality. It’s like North Korea calling itself a democracy when it’s clearly not. Unlike Russia, Ukraine is a true nation state, or at least a lot closer to one than Russia is.
That’s such a myopic view of history that it’s actually ignorant. If you unironically think that you can boil down most of history down to an ideology a concept you barely understand and then consider this singular ideology to be the root cause of everything bad in history then you simply don’t understand history.
But have you ever thought about why nations and states exist in the first place? From the start of civilization 10,000 years ago to today, countries and border have always existed regardless of culture, geography, or era. What makes so persistent throughout history? Could it be that because it’s an essential part of civilization and it’s an inherently useful concept even if it’s not perfect? The answer is yes.
These two things are intertwined. They’re fighting for their father/motherland, aka their nation, against imperialist conquest because it’s where their roots are. The nation is where their families are, where their culture is, where the history of their people took place, and where their freedoms and rights are.
Also, people like you annoy me because you complain without providing any alternatives. You hate nationalism as a concept? Fine, what do you propose as an alternative? If you have a realistic, practical option then let’s hear it. Otherwise, if you have nothing other than vague ideological complaints then you critiques don’t hold as much weight.
I never tried to boil down most of history to anything. I just laid down the fact, that this shitty idea of the nation state, that came into fashion in the 19th century laid the ideological groundwork to many of the astrocities in the following two centuries. This is common knowledge.
A nation is not a thing that exists. There are different forms of cultures that can develop together or go in different directions, depending on who is in power and who draws the borders. If you where really interested in history, you could know that. The whole of Europe is a great example, or the Koreas.
But to be honest, I have no interest to doscuss any further with you since you constantly talked down to me and behaved like an asshole. It is just not worth the effort. So fuck that, believe what you want.
Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Yes, they do. They’re not eternal as they do get created, killed, and changed all the time. However, nations, as a concept, do represent a real phenomenon.
States and nations aren’t interchangeable terms. Japan is a nation state, my home country of Iraq is very much not.
I went out of my way to make sure that my comment didn’t have any personal insults. My comment had so much substance that directly responded to your points, and it’s interesting that you responded to none of it. My comment contained a grand total of 3 criticisms, all of which were directed towards your statements.
If this is all it takes for you to get this sort of reaction then there are two possibilities. Either you’re really this sensitive and somebody saying one of your arguments is from 2014 tumblr is enough to send you over the edge or, and I think is much more likely, is that you actually have nothing of value to say and this was just a convenient cop out. Either way, I don’t care, I’ve made my points and they stand on their own. Whether you reply or not makes no difference.
Can I ask what your definition of “fascism” is?
That was a typo, I meant to say nationalism. There’s definitely a lot inherently wrong with fascism
Hell of a typo, but fair enough.
I was thinking about another comment I wanted to reply to while typing that one and my brain just mixed the two.
What you just described, this “mild nationalism?” There’s a word for that: patriotism. Nationalism is extreme patriotism.
Nationalism: an ideology that elevates one nation or nationality above all others and that places primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations, nationalities, or supranational groups
-Merriam-Webster Dictionary
And when nationalism becomes even more extreme, it becomes chauvinism or jingoism.
Chauvinism: undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged; excessive or blind patriotism; an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex
Jingoism: extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy
When Hitler promised to build a wall around Germany to keep immigrants from diluting German culture during his campaign, that was nationalism. American isolationists were/are nationalists.
The Republican Party in the 90s and 2000s was a nationalist party bordering on chauvinism. The party of Trump is a jingoist party that hits every definition of chauvinism at the same time.
This is just false. Nationalism is just the idea that a nation should be sovereign. The Meriam Webster definition you cited is just a contemporary definition, the original definition is the second one listed here:
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism
Nationalism isn’t a more extreme version of patriotism. Nationalism describes an ideology while patriotism describes a particular set of emotions. The two could overlap, but they’re not the same thing at different points of a spectrum.
Removed by mod
A Kurd wanting their people to have self determination and independence is a Kurdish nationalist. Calling someone like that a loser is demonstration of your ignorance.