Yes, they are nationalist. A country having a flag, a national motto, a nationality is nationalism. A country having a government that is only legitimate if it is chosen by the people is nationalism.

No, at most, they are slightly patriotic. In Iceland, it is actually a bit taboo to be nationalist, same for other Nordic countries. Living in a modern country doesn't make you nationalist. And I don't know what you mean legitimate - Arabia is a legitimate country, and an absolute kingdom.

How is having more smaller countries a bad thing?

1) to get those smaller countries, lives often have to be killed, and it can be unsuccessful, too.
2) it just divides more and more, and gives more oppurtunity for war in the future
3) it discourages international cooperations, and international crises such as environment are left untackled
4) escaping to tax havens
5) more money stolen from the folk in order to get militaries
6) more spending on politicians and government

These are the 6 worst points of statehood, as the world is now. With every new country, these problems grow. But this is off-topic anyway, the point I'm trying to make to you is, even without nationalism or empiricism, it hardly leaves anarchy as the only choice - just a country without nationalists or empiricists.

There's a positive correlation to the amount of crap you say and the number of people who don't give an intercourse.

You know, Genghis, you can shut up, since there is a positive correlation between being wrong, being arrogant, and your being there. I don't want to risk anything. I'm not talking to you, I'm not bothering you, so why don't you take your OT "words of wisdom" somewhere else, or actually play the games you accept?

Edited 3/14/2016 21:55:41

so you would desribe anarchism as an utopia for us, Жұқтыру?

I think limited government is needed - but much more limited than most today.

No, at most, they are slightly patriotic. In Iceland, it is actually a bit taboo to be nationalist, same for other Nordic countries. Living in a modern country doesn't make you nationalist. And I don't know what you mean legitimate - Arabia is a legitimate country, and an absolute kingdom.

I meant that that is the definition of Civic Nationalism.

Civic nationalism is the form of nationalism where the state derives political legitimacy from the active participation of its citizenry (see popular sovereignty), to the degree that it represents the "general will". It is often seen as originating with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and especially the social contract theories which take their name from his 1762 book The Social Contract.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism)

Also, I'd appreciate it if you could provide some source for the comment about nordic countries, as It's not something I've heard of before.

Saudi arabia is not a nationalist country. They are Essentially Monarchist (take everything i've said about imperialism and replace the word imperialism with monarchism, the two systems are very similar, as Imperialism is a type of monarchism). If a movement to replace said monarch with a democratic government were to emerge, it would be a nationalist movement.

1) to get those smaller countries, lives often have to be killed, and it can be unsuccessful, too.
2) it just divides more and more, and gives more oppurtunity for war in the future
3) it discourages international cooperations, and international crises such as environment are left untackled
4) escaping to tax havens
5) more money stolen from the folk in order to get militaries
6) more spending on politicians and government

These are the 6 worst points of statehood, as the world is now. With every new country, these problems grow. But this is off-topic anyway, the point I'm trying to make to you is, even without nationalism or empiricism, it hardly leaves anarchy as the only choice - just a country without nationalists or empiricists.

1. This isn't an inherent part of secession, and indeed there have been a lot of examples of peaceful secession in history.

2. This is what you said before, to which I said how is it a bad thing. As for it causing more wars, I would disagree. If there were thousands upon thousands of nations, there would be no "Superpowers", no wars on the scale of wars between superpowers such as the world wars would happen. Sure, every single nation could get into a huge conflict with each other and make a huge mess, but this pretty much doesn't happen. Additionally, if every distinct group can decide for itself what to legalize or criminalize, what language to recognize, etc., I would tend to think this creates a lot less violence due to it preventing civil wars.

3. Seems like speculation.

4. This is also a problem today, so not sure what you think changes.

5. Again, seems like speculation and fearmongering on your part. How is this intrinsic to having more countries?

Edited 3/14/2016 22:16:15

Interesting. Always feels refreshing to hear you defining about an ideal society.

I feel like I should make a thread for such note entirely based on your opinion, Жұқтыру. This marks out very specific points that intrigue me, especially on the whole ideology mindset.

I don't see need to play the game. The community for it becomes harder to sift through by the day.

Meanwhile, I'll try my best to cure the forum of cancer.

So you harass actual content creators while doing little to stop shit-posters like Talking Fan?

I meant that that is the definition of Civic Nationalism.

Civic nationalism is the form of nationalism where the state derives political legitimacy from the active participation of its citizenry (see popular sovereignty), to the degree that it represents the "general will". It is often seen as originating with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and especially the social contract theories which take their name from his 1762 book The Social Contract.

Ok, well, I'm mostly fine with "Civic Nationalism", but don't call it that. It's not nationalism of any kind. It's very un-nationalist, it's just apathetic. What I am against in your Wikipedia meaning, though is "Civic nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives[4] and that democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly.". This leads to the smaller problems of nationalism, maybe low on xenophobia if they conciously avoid it, but centrism, and supremacism. "Patriotism is the belief that your country is the best since you were born in it." Like I said in my paper, light nationalism gives these problems in a light form.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you could provide some source for the comment about nordic countries, as It's not something I've heard of before.

http://www.thelocal.se/20120614/41444;
https://books.google.com/books?id=3v1yAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT1157&lpg=PT1157#v=onepage&q&f=false;
https://cavatus.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/disgrace-of-swedens-national-day/;
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-08-13/news/mn-34677_1_european-union

It's not totally gone (nor is it really anywhere), but it's pretty low.

Saudi arabia is not a nationalist country.

The average Arabian is proud of their country. Ask Cardwell, for example.

They are Essentially Monarchist (take everything i've said about imperialism and replace the word imperialism with monarchism, the two systems are very similar, as Imperialism is a type of monarchism).

Monarchism doesn't cancel nationalism. In the times of kingdoms, in truth, nationalism was much bigger, racism much more accepted.

If a movement to replace said monarch with a democratic government were to emerge, it would be a nationalist movement.

That's not what nationalist means. They like their country, more than even a patriotic level? Nationalist.

1) to get those smaller countries, lives often have to be killed, and it can be unsuccessful, too.

This isn't an inherent part of secession, and indeed there have been a lot of examples of peaceful secession in history.

Yeah, that's why I said "often". Secessions are way more often than not bloody, though.

As for it causing more wars, I would disagree. If there were thousands upon thousands of nations, there would be no "Superpowers", no wars on the scale of wars between superpowers such as the world wars would happen.

Yeah, instead of bursts of war like the World Wars, there would be continuous war everywhere. No war would be on the scale of that, but death tolls from wars would still be higher anyway. The more countries you have, the more countries there are to war with, the more ways the theode can get bigger.

Additionally, if every distinct group can decide for itself what to legalize or criminalize, what language to recognize, etc., I would tend to think this creates a lot less violence due to it preventing civil wars.

If everyone could pick whether they want to illegalise drugs or not, just for themselves, one man, that would solve everything. No need to develop into groups or something - your group doesn't know you best, you know you best. But that'd never happen with conserves and socialists at the number they are today. You think Englander nationalists are for what you're saying? Or that Spanish patriots are totally for Catalunyan independence?

it discourages international cooperations, and international crises such as environment are left untackled

Seems like speculation.

Ok, let's see where was the UN or anyone really, when that big bloody border war between Ethiopia and Eritrea began, killing hundreds of thousands for naught? Or where is internationally banning petrol, since it harms all of us when it's burned (not to talk about global warming, too)? Can you imagine what could be done if all military spending was stopped 10 years ago, in the sciences, for example? Or what if convicted genocidists escape to another country, as Joseph Kony did?

4) escaping to tax havens

This is also a problem today, so not sure what you think changes.

All these problems I listed, they're problems today, and they'll only grow with more international divisions.

more money stolen from the folk in order to get militaries

Again, seems like speculation and fearmongering on your part. How is this intrinsic to having more countries?

Some countries don't have military forces. But the great majority of them do, by far the majority. And they obviously spend money on them, and to get the money, they have to take it from folk. I don't see how this is speculation or fearmongering - this is just a truth of life today.

I feel like I should make a thread for such note entirely based on your opinion, Жұқтыру. This marks out very specific points that intrigue me, especially on the whole ideology mindset.

Ok, if you want to.

It's hard to pay attention to all cancer.

My issue is when people post tireless, Neverending rhetoric of the same caliber. Content should change. Not necessarily much, but more than this.

Scotland and Catalunya, they will be worse off if they get independence, since they don't have as many folk they can work together.

Uh, NO. Both would be better off on their own.

See how well Chechnya did when it got independence. Or Abkhazia/Ossetia. Ukraine. Though it won't be terrible for Scotland and Catalunya, it will be worse.

Ok, well, I'm mostly fine with "Civic Nationalism", but don't call it that. It's not nationalism of any kind. It's very un-nationalist, it's just apathetic. What I am against in your Wikipedia meaning, though is "Civic nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives[4] and that democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly.". This leads to the smaller problems of nationalism, maybe low on xenophobia if they conciously avoid it, but centrism, and supremacism. "Patriotism is the belief that your country is the best since you were born in it." Like I said in my paper, light nationalism gives these problems in a light form.

No, It's very much a form of Nationalism; Don't try to tell a nationalist like myself what nationalism is when you are obviously ignorant on the subject.

In fact, Banal Nationalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banal_nationalism) and Civic nationalism are much more prevalent than other violent forms of nationalism like Expansionist nationalism, Pan-nationalism, or racist Nationalism.

It's simply not true that supremacism and xenophobia are inherent aspects of nationalism. These problems are caused by differences between people groups, and these problems were much worse when imperialism was the dominant force in the world (see my post earlier in the thread about this).

http://www.thelocal.se/20120614/41444;
https://books.google.com/books?id=3v1yAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT1157&lpg=PT1157#v=onepage&q&f=false;
https://cavatus.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/disgrace-of-swedens-national-day/;
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-08-13/news/mn-34677_1_european-union

It's not totally gone (nor is it really anywhere), but it's pretty low.

These articles are all referencing sweden from what I can tell, not Iceland.

That's not what nationalist means.

Yes, it is.

Yeah, instead of bursts of war like the World Wars, there would be continuous war everywhere. No war would be on the scale of that, but death tolls from wars would still be higher anyway. The more countries you have, the more countries there are to war with, the more ways the theode can get bigger.

This isn't really historically sound. Since post-WW2 decolonization (starting at around 1945), which drastically increased the number of countries in the world, the number of deaths from wars has drastically dropped.

(http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2015/04/24/the-history-of-war-in-1-graph/)

If everyone could pick whether they want to illegalise drugs or not, just for themselves, one man, that would solve everything. No need to develop into groups or something - your group doesn't know you best, you know you best.

That's called individualism, not nationalism...

All these problems I listed, they're problems today, and they'll only grow with more international divisions.

You keep saying that, but you've provided no proof for it; I'm just going to say once again that it's speculation on your part.

"It can exist, but we are a long ways from it (not going to happen in my lifetime nor yours). But the less war and wrecking folk's lives we have, the better."

Utopia will never happen; people are assholes. Deal with it.

"Monarchism doesn't cancel nationalism. In the times of kingdoms, in truth, nationalism was much bigger, racism much more accepted."
LEL nope! In the time of monarchs, there was no concept of a nation - L'etat, c'est moi. People only started thinking of states as nations after the 30 Years War. That alone refutes your point that nationalism is the cause of war - there was plenty of conflict before nations were a thing.

"He was not for Hindu Gujarati independence. He was for independence of British India, with all Muslims and Hindus, Marathi and Tamil, all living together in the same country. He was just for Britain getting out of India and stopping its awful things there. And a big part of breaking away from countries is just unneeded nationalism. Division will never be better. Scotland and Catalunya, they will be worse off if they get independence, since they don't have as many folk they can work together. When West Germany and East Germany unified, it got better for both countries. When Czechslovakia parted, it got worse for both countries. You don't have to be a nationalist to rebel against your country, you just have to be a rebel."

Ok, let's look at this one. He was not for Hindu Gujarati independence. He was for independence of British India, with all Muslims and Hindus, Marathi and Tamil, all living together in the same country. Nationalism doesn't have to be ethnic conflict. Learn something about the differences. Arguing with misinformed people is annoying.
When West Germany and East Germany unified, it got better for both countries.
They only unified because they were German nationalists. Do you really think they just got together for the economic benefits? You look like a fool.

No, It's very much a form of Nationalism; Don't try to tell a nationalist like myself what nationalism is when you are obviously ignorant on the subject.

Why don't you curb the hostility, before I get nasty, too? As Orwell forecast "The intellectual decency vanishes". By your "civic nationalism", I am a nationalist, too, since I live in a country with a flag. I am using OED's meanings of nationalism:

"Patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts".

In fact, Banal Nationalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banal_nationalism) and Civic nationalism are much more prevalent than other violent forms of nationalism like Expansionist nationalism, Pan-nationalism, or racist Nationalism.

First, yes, I agree. I haven't ever seen anyone kill another since they were of a different nation. There are obviously above average levels of nationalism, which are rarer. Irredentism* is still quite common; for example, 60% Indians support some form of Indian irredentism. Related to it is pan-nationalism, that, too is still seen (Romanians and Moldovans; India and Pakistan; Jugonostalgia), but rarer. Nationalism is inherenty racist, though. It varies to different levels, but nationalism can not be without supremacy. I mean, what is supposed to give you some bond to your country, some national identity? Why should you keep your heritage? You are probably far much more like someone in Seoul today than in New York 100 years ago. It promotes xenophobia by somehow arbitrarily making yourself special and others not. Nationalism doesn't have to be violent, but nationalism has to be supremacism. That is inherent.

Furthermore, violent nationalism has to come from some nationalism root, of less extremity. But if one is not nationalist at all, then there is no root (unless s/he comes back to nationalism - unlikely).

It's simply not true that supremacism and xenophobia are inherent aspects of nationalism. These problems are caused by differences between people groups

Arbitrary differences like what nation you belong to? That folk shouldn't care about at all, but yet do?

, and these problems were much worse when imperialism was the dominant force in the world (see my post earlier in the thread about this).

Even if no atrocity of imperialism was caused by nationalism, that's besides the point. I am not advocating for imperialism, nor nationalism - just rid both.

This isn't really historically sound. Since post-WW2 decolonization (starting at around 1945), which drastically increased the number of countries in the world, the number of deaths from wars has drastically dropped.

Yes, since two superpowers and their vassal states controlled the world. Today, it's China and America. It could have been much worse, though. Much worse. Global thermonuclear war almost happened by mistake a few times. But take the deaths from war as a proportion of population in say, Europe 1500to1800, scattered with countries, and contrast it to 1800to1900. The Wien Congress had a near-warless Europe for about 60 years. Or take China. 5/10 the bloodiest wars ever were fought in a divided China, how many were fought in a united China?

These articles are all referencing sweden from what I can tell, not Iceland.

Was wrong about Iceland, but they're obviously not heavily nationalist - they don't even have a military force.

That's called individualism, not nationalism...

So why aren't you for individualism instead of nationalism? Individualism is the purest form of nationalism, the purest form of an ethnicity: one person.

You keep saying that, but you've provided no proof for it; I'm just going to say once again that it's speculation on your part.

What you said was "speculative", I gave you proof for. I don't see what you want. Independence war is the most common way to get independence, way more common that peacefully. It gives more oppurtunities for war in the future, it discourages international cooperation on international crises, it promotes escaping to tax havens, it wastes a great deal of money to waste lives, and it wastes money on governments that would not be needed. Tell me what you want proved, or think is "speculation on my part".

Utopia will never happen; people are assholes. Deal with it.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try for it, though, and improve the world in what ways we can. I mean, with that thinking path, better legalise everything since it'll keep happening, folk are arses.

LEL nope! In the time of monarchs, there was no concept of a nation - L'etat, c'est moi.

D'abord, si tu veux parler en français, parle en français, et si tu veux parler en anglais, parle en anglais. Mais pas les deux. L'état*

Second, sure there was (and is) a concept of a nation. A nation does not have to be a state - a nationstate does (and even then - a kingdom is still a state). I don't see why there wouldn't be. Kazaks were Kazaks, Qazaqs were Qazaqs, Tibetans were Tibetans. And they sometimes revolted.

People only started thinking of states as nations after the 30 Years War.

First of all, get out of eurocentrism. It's not anything good. It greatly affected West Europe - not much beyond there. And a state isn't necessarily a nation. A nation is just a group of folk. And that was known since the first states developed.

That alone refutes your point that nationalism is the cause of war - there was plenty of conflict before nations were a thing.

Nationalism isn't the cause of all war. I never said that. But in almost all modern wars (1800-on), it greatly helped. The science of manipulative propoganda was developed.

Ok, let's look at this one. He was not for Hindu Gujarati independence. He was for independence of British India, with all Muslims and Hindus, Marathi and Tamil, all living together in the same country. Nationalism doesn't have to be ethnic conflict. Learn something about the differences. Arguing with misinformed people is annoying.

Ok, perhaps I was wrong there. But I give you an idea to curb your hostility before I get nasty, all right?

They only unified because they were German nationalists. Do you really think they just got together for the economic benefits?

Nationalism far more often divides than re-unifies. Furthermore, I was just talking about the good things of unification, but go ahead, tell me 2 other countries that have re-unified of the cause of nationalism in the last 25 years, peacefully. I have South Sudan, Montenegro, and Namibia.

Xapy you don't like patriotism, so what you put on its place? I understand patriotism as love for your tribe, and modern tribes are countries, lets assume.

How can you stop people for loving and associating with their tribe btw?

Please don't answer too long, in case you answer

Why don't you curb the hostility, before I get nasty, too? As Orwell forecast "The intellectual decency vanishes".

Sorry, I really, really try not to be rude. I like to read through my posts before I publish them, but sometimes I write something that's really mean and just forget to take it out :(

By your "civic nationalism", I am a nationalist, too, since I live in a country with a flag.

This is actually my point; The modern, democratic world we all know and love is built on Nationalist values.

I am using OED's meanings of nationalism:

"Patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts".

It took a lot of effort for me to get you to realize that there is more than one type of nationalism, so please don't revert back to insisting that all nationalism is the same.

Arbitrary differences like what nation you belong to? That folk shouldn't care about at all, but yet do?

I'll just quote you on this:

really the only thing separating Serbian, Bosnan, and Croatian culture - their faiths (Orthodox, Sunni, and Catholic).

(Differences in religion, skin color, culture, etc.)

Even if no atrocity of imperialism was caused by nationalism, that's besides the point. I am not advocating for imperialism, nor nationalism - just rid both.

Advocating for an end to nationalism is by definition advocating for a return of Imperialism, which is what nationalism ended.

Yes, since two superpowers and their vassal states controlled the world. Today, it's China and America. It could have been much worse, though. Much worse. Global thermonuclear war almost happened by mistake a few times. But take the deaths from war as a proportion of population in say, Europe 1500to1800, scattered with countries, and contrast it to 1800to1900. The Wien Congress had a near-warless Europe for about 60 years.

I'm not sure what exactly your point is, but the graph I linked is proportional.

Or take China. 5/10 the bloodiest wars ever were fought in a divided China, how many were fought in a united China?

Quite a lot actually.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_wars_and_battles)

So why aren't you for individualism instead of nationalism? Individualism is the purest form of nationalism, the purest form of an ethnicity: one person.

I actually am, although that's a discussion for another time.

Xapy you don't like patriotism, so what you put on its place? I understand patriotism as love for your tribe, and modern tribes are countries, lets assume.

How can you stop people for loving and associating with their tribe btw?

Please don't answer too long, in case you answer

I don't want to stop love and association, I want it to be spread as much as it can be. Love humanity, not just your country.

Edited 3/15/2016 01:45:40

This is actually my point; The modern, democratic world we all know and love is built on Nationalist values.

It's also made on loads of blood spilled, chopping off hands, dicks, and cannibalism. Doesn't mean we should keep doing all that.

It took a lot of effort for me to get you to realize that there is more than one type of nationalism, so please don't revert back to insisting that all nationalism is the same.

I make no difference between nationalism and patriotism except in magnitude. And yes, there are different kinds, but unless further specified, nationalism means nationalism - one kind. There is violent nationalism, light or "civic nationalism", but just the word "nationalism", that's unspecific.

I'll just quote you on this:

really the only thing separating Serbian, Bosnan, and Croatian culture - their faiths (Orthodox, Sunni, and Catholic).

(Differences in religion, skin color, culture, etc.)

This supports my point - it's arbitrary difference between Yugoslavs, just faith seperating them, and all of a sudden, folk need translators from Croatian to Serbian even though you didn't need one in 1989?

Advocating for an end to nationalism is by definition advocating for a return of Imperialism, which is what nationalism ended.

No, not at all - what makes you think this? You don't see it Germany, nor Sweden, nor Panama, this imperialism (well arguably for Germany w/ Greece and Cyrpus, but Germany didn't force anything upon those two countries - it offered them a deal, and they took it.). Nationalism is how empire begins (and potentially how it can end, if there are many powerful minority nationalisms). Aleksandr II didn't conquer Toshkent, his patriotic soldiers did.

I'm not sure what exactly your point is, but the graph I linked is proportional.

My point is, we narrowly missed what could have been even bloodier than the Second World War. What would you say then, if we didn't miss it? As for your graph, I see the peak in the modern world. The rise of nationstates, the 20th hundredcount. (and no, it's not proportionally recorded - it's exponentially recorded?)

Or take China. 5/10 the bloodiest wars ever were fought in a divided China, how many were fought in a united China?

Quite a lot actually.

1 of the 10 bloodiest wars were fought in an united China (Second Chinese-Japanese war). That's how many. You put some long lists there, but looking through it, it seems to be mostly small wars and small-scale conflicts in an united China. War is made through divisions, not unification (unification wars seek to eliminate divisions).

I actually am, although that's a discussion for another time.

Just checking you weren't hypocritic. But then you should promote individualism and globalism, since in globalism, every fellow can be their own country.

Unification wars, better known as the Borg