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

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