Is Nationalism and the Nation State a Bad Thing?

[Valrifell]

The nation state is not necessarily bad but a lot of heinous things have been done in its name.

Now, NationStates? absolutely dreadful, horrible game, 0/10 too much text.

[Bauscland]

The nation-state is the most organic form of country that can exist: it is merely an ethnicity whose government represents it and overlaps with it.
Any international organization (like the EU or UN) is, in the end, just a glorified empire ran by the most powerful nations.

As for nationalism, I believe it to a good and natural thing for people to believe in, but that doesn't mean it can't be taken too far. Then again, anything not taken in moderation is usually a bad thing, so...

[Dahon]

To all the unintentional (and very much intentional) ethnostate apologists, kindly explain the United States. (And several other countries where multiple ethnicities live peacefully side by side, or something to that effect. On second thought, just concentrate on the USA.)

[Valrifell]

To all the unintentional (and very much intentional) ethnostate apologists, kindly explain the United States. (And several other countries where multiple ethnicities live peacefully side by side, or something to that effect. On second thought, just concentrate on the USA.)

Well there's also Switzerland and occasionally Belgium.

[Kowani]

To all the unintentional (and very much intentional) ethnostate apologists, kindly explain the United States. (And several other countries where multiple ethnicities live peacefully side by side, or something to that effect. On second thought, just concentrate on the USA.)

No, no. They’ll shove BLM, slavery, Japanese Internment Camps and Manifest Destiny down our throats.

You know what’s a much better example? Al-Andalus, The Empire of Mali, heck, you could even make an argument for Ancient Rome.

[Valrifell]

To all the unintentional (and very much intentional) ethnostate apologists, kindly explain the United States. (And several other countries where multiple ethnicities live peacefully side by side, or something to that effect. On second thought, just concentrate on the USA.)

No, no. They’ll shove BLM, slavery, Japanese Internment Camps and Manifest Destiny down our throats.

You know what’s a much better example? Al-Andalus, The Empire of Mali, heck, you could even make an argument for Ancient Rome.

Not Rome. Rome had a passion for engaging in widespread ethnic cleansing.

[Kowani]

No, no. They’ll shove BLM, slavery, Japanese Internment Camps and Manifest Destiny down our throats.

You know what’s a much better example? Al-Andalus, The Empire of Mali, heck, you could even make an argument for Ancient Rome.

Not Rome. Rome had a passion for engaging in widespread ethnic cleansing.

Of course, this is only in areas where the original inhabitants had fought back. Places which acquiesced got to avoid legionaries ravaging the countryside.

[Valrifell]

Not Rome. Rome had a passion for engaging in widespread ethnic cleansing.

Of course, this is only in areas where the original inhabitants had fought back. Places which acquiesced got to avoid legionaries ravaging the countryside.

Well, then you could create the argument that the Mongols were multicultural which isn't exactly accurate.

[Kowani]

Of course, this is only in areas where the original inhabitants had fought back. Places which acquiesced got to avoid legionaries ravaging the countryside.

Well, then you could create the argument that the Mongols were multicultural which isn't exactly accurate.

Oh, absolutely not. That’s why I said you could make an argument, not that it would be a good one.

[The Great-German Empire]

To all the unintentional (and very much intentional) ethnostate apologists, kindly explain the United States. (And several other countries where multiple ethnicities live peacefully side by side, or something to that effect. On second thought, just concentrate on the USA.)

The US has periodically rising and falling ethnic and racial tensions, cultural ghettos, and crowded prisons even if you were to free all the drug users. One of its political parties has actually found a viable strategy in pandering wildly to ethnic minorities while trying to paint all of the other party's voters as racist villains.

The USA is still successful because it was early to democratize, early to industrialize, took in many well-educated political refugees from developed-yet-authoritarian European countries and exploited the hell out of unskilled and semi-skilled migrants (indentured servitude and the like) while also being the only developed free nation on its continent with crap-tons of arable land, barrier islands and exactly zero armed conflicts on its soil since 1865. Meanwhile, European 'ethnostates' as you like to call them have been very nearly LEVELED in two modern wars of attrition and annihilation - which, by the way, the US profited off. And I'm not saying that as a negative, the Americans' involvement in those conflicts was genial and was perhaps the best thing they could've done at the time as far as national interest goes. And after those wars, devastated European workers, scientists and intellectuals - once again, mostly educated people from developed countries - flocked to the US in a second wave. Note that all that time, they all entered America on America's terms, which were work hard and speak passable English in public.

TL;DR : The success of the States isn't due to multiculturalism; Rather, US multiculturalism is a product of US success.

[Sovaal]

Consider that something as benign sounding as “the greater good” can justify horrible atrocities. Humans don’t care what their justification for atrocities is, so long as they have one good enough for them.

[Alvecia]

Everything in moderation

[Risottia]

Nationalism and nation-states in Europe are a stupid idea nowadays, because the most populated European countries have the population of a small Chinese province, while the whole European continent has one-third of the population of China. European countries need to unite now to face the global competition.

Why should Germans be forced to fund piss poor provinces in Italy to enter the 21st century?

Germans aren't being forced to fund piss poor provinces in Italy, as Italy is a net contributor to the EU budget EVEN after accounting for the poorest regions. Maybe you're thinking of Central-Eastern Europe, which features only net recipient countries, like the V4.

Anyway, richer areas of Europe fund piss-poor areas of Europe exactly for the same reason why the richer areas of West-Germany funded the piss-poor areas of East-Germany after the reunification. Because those are new market opportunities, and when they grow thanks to the funding, they start contributing to the general economy. And the richer areas of Europe neeed those markets to grow, because the trade balance with China or India isn't going to favour the European exports.

But I assume that localist pride and blindness to facts are much more important than understanding the risks and realities of the global economy.

[Risottia]

Of course, this is only in areas where the original inhabitants had fought back. Places which acquiesced got to avoid legionaries ravaging the countryside.

Well, then you could create the argument that the Mongols were multicultural which isn't exactly accurate.

The Romans included conquered population in their citizenship and in their elites more quickly and more extensively than the Mongols did.

[Farnhamia]

Why should Italians pay for it?

Yea that's Africa not Italy. Get rid of the Terrone!

How about we get rid of the pejorative terms instead?

*** Warned for trolling. ***

[Thermodolia]

Nationalism and the idea of the nation state isn’t a bad thing. Next!

[Second Empire of America]

If nationalism is built on something inherently racist like a race-based state or ethnic-based state that prohibits immigration and citizenship of other ethnicities based on their ethnicity, then, it is bad, and Satanic.

I know that this stuff is bad, but what does Satanism have to do with anything? There has never been a country where Satanism was a serious political force.

[Right wing humour squad]

Nationalism can be good or bad.
Nations are better the less state they have.

[Frievolk]

The Nation-State is the most advanced and self-functioning form of state we have. I wouldn't say a "good" or "bad" thing. It's just something that is, and will get phased out once its outlived its purpose.

[RubbaDucky]

Nationalism is not a bad thing itself. But I think there was an age for nationalisms, and that have already passed. Today, political power is declining (since from centuries ago) in favour of economical power. Nationalism does not make more than reducing the political power of a state, for example, if a country splits into two, or three, that may make these two or three nation states have less political power than making one only multination state.

[Glacikaldr]

There's a great video I was recently shown that deals with this issue:
Kurzgesagt's "A Selfish Argument for Making the World a Better Place – Egoistic Altruism"

But if you're into the more high-end discussions into the topic, I would argue that there's not much between pragmatism and having a view of the world in line with or very similar to Francis Fukuyama (who has many the interesting things to say about the EU).

[The Huskar Social Union]

Depends on the type of nationalism.

Any that focus on race or ethnicity can fuck off

[Frievolk]

Depends on the type of nationalism.

Any that focus on race or ethnicity can fuck off

Suggesting that a nationality can be decided by race or ethnicity is absurd and against the very idea of a nation in and of itself tbh.

[Chan Island]

Yes.

[Deutscheuropa]

I know this has been said before on this thread, but I want to emphasise it.

Nationalism is deeply ingrained into human nature. Since pre-history, humans have naturally felt a closer bond with other members of their 'tribe' than those of other 'tribes.' So, just like humanity itself, it can be a force of good, it can be a force of evil. It depends entirely on the circumstances.