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

This is irrelevant, as the amount of blood spilled, chopping off hands, dicks, and cannibalism is far less than that which imperial nations (or for that matter any other kind of nation) experienced in their creation.

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 don't know how to make this clearer to you. Compare these ideas:

1. Americans are better than everyone else and therefore anyone who is not american should have their land seized by americans and themselves killed

2. The parliament of the UK and the british monarch are not a legitimate government of america because they were not chosen by the american people as their government

3. All oil produced on American soil should go to americans

4. I am making a reference to barack obama as "The president" in conversation

5. I believe that Mexico, Canada, and Japan rightfully belong to the US due to their cultural similarities and history of being under US sovereignty.

These are not only not "different degrees of the same idea", but are 5 radically different and in some cases conflicting ideas (Expansionist nationalism, Civic Nationalism, Economic Nationalism, Banal Nationalism, and Pan-Nationalism respectively).

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?

This only supports my point; That Religious, Racial, and cultural divides will always be the cause of tension between different groups, whether or not there is nationalism. Replacing nationalism with another idea doesn't magically solve all these problems. Case(s) in point:

In the Belgian congo, the population was killed on such a huge scale that the population was reduced from about 20 or 30 million to 8 million. That is around 12-20 Million people killed.

In the soviet union, the super nasty commy version of the russian empire, 60 million people were murdered. This is out of a total population of around 200 muillion.

In north and south america, around 90% of the natives were killed off due to disease and brutal conquest.

A relatively mild example in light of the above atrocities: in 1915, the Ottoman empire killed more than 2.5 Million christian armenians, greeks, and assyrians for no reason other than that they suspected them of collaborating with the Christian russians, who were their enemies. This example is notable as the Turkish goverment (read "Ottoman Empire") still denies that it even happened.

_________________________________________________

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.).

There is no viable alternative to nationalism besides imperialism. You are arguing for a rejection of nationalism by pointing out countries that currently have nationalist governments. The modern german state was born from nationalism, and continues to be held together because of german nationalism, despite the fact that the east is worse off in almost every way and the west sends tons and tons of money their way. Panama is very nationalist, with an elected government that was set up by a nationalist revolution.

Sweden may claim that they reject nationalism, but they have a flag, they have a king, they have a prime minister, and they have a democratically elected government. To truly deny nationalism is to deny that there exists a state where over 70% of the population is ethnically swedish and that those swedish people choose their government. Sweden is a nation, in every sense of the word.

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?)

The graph uses percentage of the world population that died in the conflict. So yes, it is proportional.

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

Globalism is fundamentally opposed to individualism. In a world of nation-states, It's possible for countries to break down over time into single person countries. This is not possible in a global world, which aims to create bigger and bigger countries.

Edited 3/15/2016 03:31:25

This is irrelevant, as the amount of blood spilled, chopping off hands, dicks, and cannibalism is far less than that which imperial nations (or for that matter any other kind of nation) experienced in their creation.

My point was, just since something happened in the past doesn't mean it's a good thing, even though the world ended up better anyway.

I don't know how to make this clearer to you. Compare these ideas:

What I was trying to say was, specify the nationalism unless you are talking about national generally (in which I don't think you are).

This only supports my point; That Religious, Racial, and cultural divides will always be the cause of tension between different groups, whether or not there is nationalism.

Nationalism is protecting your culture. And culture is very much intertwined with ethnicity and faith, as happened in Yugoslavia.

Replacing nationalism with another idea doesn't magically solve all these problems.

No, I don't claim it does, either. It greatly lowers these problems, though.

There is no viable alternative to nationalism besides imperialism. You are arguing for a rejection of nationalism by pointing out countries that currently have nationalist governments. The modern german state was born from nationalism, and continues to be held together because of german nationalism, despite the fact that the east is worse off in almost every way and the west sends tons and tons of money their way. Panama is very nationalist, with an elected government that was set up by a nationalist revolution.

There aren't many countries I can give to you that aren't nationalist as a whole, since that makes unethic things harder for the government, and folk lose faith in government. I mean, look at this (http://www.pewglobal.org/2003/06/03/chapter-5-nationalism-sovereignty-and-views-of-global-institutions/). Out of 40 or so countries polled that probably make up 2/3 the world's population, not one country is shown to have less than 50% feeling that "their way of life are threatened" - and there's probably more who want their "way of life" to stay, but they don't feel it's threatened. But anyhow, the countries I gave you, the modern (depends on your meaning of modern, but) German country was born after 4 countries ended its occupation of it the 1950s. It was forced in the German national mindset that nationalism and pride in the country is bad, and that mindset still exists today (a bit weaker, but still there). It was born from being told that they were awful, and they have nothing to be proud of.

As for today, the East and the West have more-or-less equalised. If you were talking about the 1991 unification this whole time, then I'm mistaken, but there's hardly nationalism to hold it together - just noone seriously wants to take it apart. Ask MasterHFG what it's like to be nationalist in Germany, he'll tell you it's impossible (but getting possibler). In Panama, the military forces are illegalised, they've basically put their trust and vassalship to America. It's two ruling parties, Democratic Change and Democratic Revolutionary Party, are both centrist parties that don't promote nationalism, really, just populism, and one light democratic socialism, the other, light conservatism.

But tell me, what is your theory that if nationalism and imperialism both go away, why do you think some anarchy will erupt?

Sweden may claim that they reject nationalism, but they have a flag, they have a king, they have a prime minister, and they have a democratically elected government.

It's not really Swedish claims (except the far-right parties there that are growing, but don't have many followers as is). And living under any government today doesn't make you a nationalist, even if you don't criticise it - not even a civic nationalist. And furthermore, what if they didn't have a democratically elected government? What if all the votes were rigged but you had too much faith in the system. Then is it a fool's paradise of civic nationalism? And what is it called when it is nationalism for an unambigously undemocratic government?

To truly deny nationalism is to deny that there exists a state where over 70% of the population is ethnically swedish and that those swedish people choose their government. Sweden is a nation, in every sense of the word.

Sweden is not a nation, it is a nationstate. The Swedish folk are a nation. Just since everyone is brought up in a culture doesn't mean they're [culture] nationalists, even if they don't protest against their culture.

The graph uses percentage of the world population that died in the conflict. So yes, it is proportional.

Maybe you posted the wrong link, this graph you showed (http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2015/04/24/the-history-of-war-in-1-graph/) has a logarithmic scale of deaths. It's not percentage.

Globalism is fundamentally opposed to individualism.

You know what could happen in a world with no borders at all? If it was decentralised, it keeps being decentralised. Pride of family will slowly grow into tribalism, and from there, patriotism is formed again, like it was in the beginning of statehoods in 3500 BCE. And let's be realist, it's not ever going to get to that point with nationstates, just loads of bloods and hassle and money down the drain for naught. In my globalist utopia, however, everything would be legal so long as it doesn't harm another person - basically two things would be illegal: physic assault of any kind, and stealing. And if two folk consent to gay civil union, or 15 to multiple marriage, that's their choice. Tell me how this "fundamentally opposes" individualism.

In a world of nation-states, It's possible for countries to break down over time into single person countries.

It hasn't happened in 5,500 years, ever. It's not realistically possible for that to happen at all. In order for that to happen, governments would have to get smaller and smaller once the population gets critically small (maybe under 500 or so). And that's not going to happen with all these patriotisms and various faiths in governments - more authoritarianism grows. The government grows.

This is not possible in a global world, which aims to create bigger and bigger countries.

You can think of it like that, but I don't. A global world wants to throw away the concept of a country in totality. A global world wants to stop counterproductive competition of the governments and put everyone under 1, to co-operate or compete with each other in the big arena. Free market at its finest. Also, see point above, I ask you why gloabalism contradicts individualism.

Quote wars need to end

Quote wars, better known as the Borg

While we're at it, I propose banning narcissism as it promotes self supremacy.

Narcissism, better known as the Borg