On the logic of nationalism

[kılıç_mehmet]

My tribe is good, others are bad? Where did you come up with that. It is more like my tribe is my tribe, your tribe is your tribe. Would you like to trade goods? Would you like to share knowledge? You may come into my tribe as a guest but you will not share the same rights and privileges as the people of my tribe, but you are welcome to live among us if you follow our values, language, culture and so forth. If you commit a crime you will be imprisoned and deported..

Excellent demonstration of my argument.

What exactly is wrong with what he said?

[Ryantology]

My tribe is good, others are bad? Where did you come up with that. It is more like my tribe is my tribe, your tribe is your tribe. Would you like to trade goods? Would you like to share knowledge? You may come into my tribe as a guest but you will not share the same rights and privileges as the people of my tribe, but you are welcome to live among us if you follow our values, language, culture and so forth. If you commit a crime you will be imprisoned and deported..

And that's why your kinds of tribes are always, eventually, culturally assimilated by tribes that aren't so restrictive and backwards. You'll bleed away your talent to outsiders and your system is designed to prevent the absorption of talent from outsiders. The only way you can prevent that is inventing reasons to convince your tribe that the other tribe is bad and inferior in some stupid and arbitrary way, which is only putting a band-aid on a severed limb.

As communications and ease of travel persist, cultures will mingle and form a new melange. It's been happening for centuries. Nationalism is dying and nothing's going to stop that in the long run. Eventually, every 'tribe' will have their ideas put to the test against the outside world, and the ones that can't cut it will lose and be absorbed. The useful parts of your culture will belong to the outside world and the rest will be discarded.

[Cato]

Paintpooper,

These were your words, were they not?

you will not share the same rights and privileges as the people of my tribe

---

Languages, cultures, ethnicities, they were not created overnight.

I understand this perfectly and anticipate all cultures to evolve similarly in the future. You are the one taking a cultural snapshot in time and demanding its perpetual existence by artificially isolating people from influence. Care to reevaluate which of us is being naive?

[kılıç_mehmet]

And that's why your kinds of tribes are always, eventually, culturally assimilated by tribes that aren't so restrictive and backwards. You'll bleed away your talent to outsiders and your system is designed to prevent the absorption of talent from outsiders. The only way you can prevent that is inventing reasons to convince your tribe that the other tribe is bad and inferior in some stupid and arbitrary way, which is only putting a band-aid on a severed limb.

What is this about tribes and all? We're not talking about the stone age, we're talking about modern day nations.

As communications and ease of travel persist, cultures will mingle and form a new melange. It's been happening for centuries. Nationalism is dying and nothing's going to stop that in the long run. Eventually, every 'tribe' will have their ideas put to the test against the outside world, and the ones that can't cut it will lose and be absorbed.

Nationalism is still going strong. I can say this because internationalism is failing. Internationalism only corrupts people, as it has corrupted you.
Besides, where is this melange and the mingling of cultures you're talking of? I only see the cultural dominance of a vague "culture" of consumerism spreading Hollywood movies and ugly pop music.

My people had their ideas and their identity put to test against the outside world for centuries. We could cut it, and we have driven everyone before us back and carved ourselves a large niche throughout Eurasia. We are not as mindless and without a sense of pride or purpose as to let us be absorbed by others, as we have a proud past, a past that we can look up to, which is why we do not despair. Nationalism is the way for us to realize our goals regarding the future of our people. What? Should we perhaps let others decide our fate, by your reasoning? Should we adopt a foreign ideology when we can adopt a native ideology that is more in sync with out national character? Should we cut ourselves off from our roots? Should we abandon our language and our customs?
No. Which is why nationalism still works for us.
And the fact that we cannot depend on anyone else, makes nationalism even more important.

[EgoRaptor]

And that's why your kinds of tribes are always, eventually, culturally assimilated by tribes that aren't so restrictive and backwards. You'll bleed away your talent to outsiders and your system is designed to prevent the absorption of talent from outsiders. The only way you can prevent that is inventing reasons to convince your tribe that the other tribe is bad and inferior in some stupid and arbitrary way, which is only putting a band-aid on a severed limb.

What is this about tribes and all? We're not talking about the stone age, we're talking about modern day nations.

As communications and ease of travel persist, cultures will mingle and form a new melange. It's been happening for centuries. Nationalism is dying and nothing's going to stop that in the long run. Eventually, every 'tribe' will have their ideas put to the test against the outside world, and the ones that can't cut it will lose and be absorbed.

Nationalism is still going strong. I can say this because internationalism is failing. Internationalism only corrupts people, as it has corrupted you.
Besides, where is this melange and the mingling of cultures you're talking of? I only see the cultural dominance of a vague "culture" of consumerism spreading Hollywood movies and ugly pop music.

My people had their ideas and their identity put to test against the outside world for centuries. We could cut it, and we have driven everyone before us back and carved ourselves a large niche throughout Eurasia. We are not as mindless and without a sense of pride or purpose as to let us be absorbed by others, as we have a proud past, a past that we can look up to, which is why we do not despair. Nationalism is the way for us to realize our goals regarding the future of our people. What? Should we perhaps let others decide our fate, by your reasoning? Should we adopt a foreign ideology when we can adopt a native ideology that is more in sync with out national character? Should we cut ourselves off from our roots? Should we abandon our language and our customs?
No. Which is why nationalism still works for us.
And the fact that we cannot depend on anyone else, makes nationalism even more important.

Yes, you should eliminate all of that & create new values & a new international identity.

---

The ego is what drives progress. You should create new values based off egoism, rather than trying to suppress man's true character. Man is the same the world over, he is an egoist. That should be the basis for new values. Nationalism demands the subjugation of the individual to the "greater good". This is against man's nature, it will never work. Even if you can manage it, it will be weak, & you will find yourself at the mercy of the ego that you have been trying to deny.

[Ryantology]

What is this about tribes and all? We're not talking about the stone age, we're talking about modern day nations.

Nations are just large tribes. Or, realistically, large conglomerations of tribes absorbed into larger and more successful ones.

Nationalism is still going strong. I can say this because internationalism is failing. Internationalism only corrupts people, as it has corrupted you.

What wonderfully circular logic.

Besides, where is this melange and the mingling of cultures you're talking of? I only see the cultural dominance of a vague "culture" of consumerism spreading Hollywood movies and ugly pop music.

That's certainly a large example of it.

My people had their ideas and their identity put to test against the outside world for centuries. We could cut it, and we have driven everyone before us back and carved ourselves a large niche throughout Eurasia.

Which entity has taken on more characteristics of the other, Turkey or Europe?

We are not as mindless and without a sense of pride or purpose as to let us be absorbed by others, as we have a proud past, a past that we can look up to, which is why we do not despair.

I'd say 'isn't that special', but you've just described almost every extant nation in the world. Turkey is just the neutered shell of the Ottoman Empire anyway. It has nothing resembling the relevance and prestige of the old Empire. Being proud of the past is symptomatic of not having much relevance in the present (to say nothing of the future).

Nationalism is the way for us to realize our goals regarding the future of our people. What? Should we perhaps let others decide our fate, by your reasoning? Should we adopt a foreign ideology when we can adopt a native ideology that is more in sync with out national character? Should we cut ourselves off from our roots? Should we abandon our language and our customs?

You have been and you will continue to. Your cultural pride is based on the deeds and accomplishments of men who are all long dead and your nation is third-rate.

No. Which is why nationalism still works for us.
And the fact that we cannot depend on anyone else, makes nationalism even more important.

It will work for you, for now. Enjoy it. Nationalism is only an effective tool for nations that actually have weight to throw around, and even for them, it won't last forever. And I'm speaking as a citizen of the United States, which is certainly the most successful national entity in modern times. Our nationalists are just as much in denial as yours.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Paintpooper,

These were your words, were they not?

you will not share the same rights and privileges as the people of my tribe

---

Languages, cultures, ethnicities, they were not created overnight.

I understand this perfectly and anticipate all cultures to evolve similarly in the future. You are the one taking a cultural snapshot in time and demanding its perpetual existence by artificially isolating people from influence. Care to reevaluate which of us is being naive?

There is no cultural "influence", only cultural domination.
This has been the case throughout history. Those who have not resisted to the domination of other peoples either culturally or economically, have perished as an independent people. People can be conquered by military means. Conquest alone does not merit anything. But when you manage to destroy their culture and their heritage, you can easily wipe them off as a seperate entity.
I want my people to exist as a people, I want them to cherish their language, their heritage, their culture, and their history, and be proud of what they are. I want them to teach their kids our stories, our songs, I want them to be respectful to their elders, I want them to remember our past glories, to remember our past sorrows, and based on this, I want them to look up to the future.
I refuse to let our future be dictated by the "influence" of others.

[ThePinsir]

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

-Albert Einstein

[EgoRaptor]

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

-Albert Einstein

Wise words indeed. Einstein was also a Zionist, & Zionism is not nationalism.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Nations are just large tribes. Or, realistically, large conglomerations of tribes absorbed into larger and more successful ones.

But those tribes too must be united by notions of ethnicity, language and culture.
My tribe is just one amongst the many tribes of the Turks.
But other than our tribal identities, we also have an ethnic identity, seperate from the tribal identity, which is the basis of our nation, our culture and our language.

What wonderfully circular logic.

No, internationalism has failed. The world is still based on nation states.

That's certainly a large example of it.

And the example that you'd like us to look up to, I guess?
There were other examples throughout the ages. Romans, Greeks.
They all have failed to establish long-lasting cultural dominance throughout the (known) world.

Which entity has taken on more characteristics of the other, Turkey or Europe?

I'd say Europe. Just look at the Balkans and you'll see the definitive signs of the Turkish conquests. Hell, we even managed to convert large portions of the Balkans to our religion, who were previously Christian like the other Europeans. They dress like us, they drink our coffee, they use our phrases, they have adopted our titles, our names, our food, our music, and etc. And the fact that we have put an end to the last remnant of the Roman empire, de-christianized the birthplaces of Christianity, and put an end to a several millenia long Hellenic presence in Anatolia, build hammams, Mosques and etc. everywhere, I'd say that we've had 1000x the impact on Europe, than the impact that the Europeans had on us.
We practically fucked over Europe so hard, that they tried to get even with the treaty of Sevres which they could not ratify, and the Britsh president of the time boasted that he would send us back to where we came from, to central Central Asia.

But still, despite our 600 years of rule, none of the people that we conquered wilingly, or even unwillingly assimilated into our consciousness, and what was left of the Ottoman empire were its founders, the Turks, who have valiantly defended the Empire that they founded, to the last.
As you see, nationalism has wrecked our empire, but it also gave rise to our republic, the last free Turkish country on earth during those times.
We learned from our past mistakes, and decided to built the county around the idea of nationalism, rather than the cosmopolitan nature of the Ottoman empire, which failed.

I'd say 'isn't that special', but you've just described almost every extant nation in the world. Turkey is just the neutered shell of the Ottoman Empire anyway. It has nothing resembling the relevance and prestige of the old Empire. Being proud of the past is symptomatic of not having much relevance in the present (to say nothing of the future).

Well, we do not wish to return to the days of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman empire, and along with it, the multitude of other Turkish empires before the Ottomans, serve as an example of what we Turks are capable of.
This is the type of reasoning that is behind the whole "looking up to the past to build a future".

Or we also know that we cannot resurrect the Ottoman empire. As a nationalist, I know why the Ottoman Empire fell, because of the nationalism of our non-Turkish subjects. So we wish to build a new empire that is based on the Turkish ethnic consciousness alone, in which we can be together with our brethren, and liberate them from the domination of the others(and frankly, we do not have anyone else to look up to for that). For when we are united we are strong, and history shows this.
Looking up to the past, to build a stronger future.
Else, if we look at Turkey today, yeah, it really isn't much, but should that mean that we shouldn't aspire to the greatness of the old?

You have been and you will continue to. Your cultural pride is based on the deeds and accomplishments of men who are all long dead and your nation is third-rate.

Well, the fact that they're dead, does not mean that their legacy is dead.
The fact that we exist here today is due to Sultan Alp Arslan. He is long dead, but we're still here, which means, his legacy still lives.
If he had thought as you did, he would not have bothered coming here, as he inherited his martial pride and lust for conquest from his ancestors, and he came here to open up new lands for us to conquer and colonize.
Our nation is first-rate, as on par with our accomplishments.

It will work for you, for now. Enjoy it. Nationalism is only an effective tool for nations that actually have weight to throw around, and even for them, it won't last forever. And I'm speaking as a citizen of the United States, which is certainly the most successful national entity in modern times. Our nationalists are just as much in denial as yours.

For now? In truth, I don't see anything else that could work for us or anyone else.
Besides, I don't even consider the "American" identity as a national identity.
It lacks the basic characteristics of a nation. What they do have is a lot of "citizens" though, citizens loyal to coin only.

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

-Albert Einstein

Said the man who built the atom bomb.

By the way, I yet have to see any of you coming up with a definite anti-thesis of how nationalism is irrelevant, or what could be a better alternative to it.