Nationalism is the idea that there are different nations of people, and each of them should have their own state. Examples of such nations would be the English, the German, the Arabs, the Native Americans, the Zulus, the Chinese, but not the Americans, Australians, etc. Nationalism forms the basis of our current international system: each nations is in theory allowed self-determination, rather than rule by another nation.
Do you think that:
a) there are such a thing as nations, and
b) if so, that they do have the right to self-determination?

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

Can you give an example of a group with a unique culture? And can you define culture?

Even if that culture include the suppression of hu8man rights, for example oppression of women?

As in Caucasian, Negroid, Amerindian, Mongoloid, etc? True, but I don't see why the fact that some people are a different colour means they should have different governments?

Wouldn't it be better to teach people not to think in racial terms? Western countries have learnt that Black people are not significantly different from white people, and we mostly get along well. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than if we'd lived in seperate countries. Take the US, do you not think there would be more racism if Blacks and Whites were segregated? Plus, what about people who are half and half? And that applies to nations as well as races. I'm Caucasian racially, but in terms of nationality, I'm mostly English, but also partly Irish, Welsh, and Scottish. That's irrelavant for me, as I just call myself British, but if nations were split up, which nation would I be?

Why? What's really so different between them and the Arabs or the Turks or the Persians? Think of all the strife that would be caused by Kurds trying to break off from Iran and Turkey. What about half-Kurds?

You would avoid civil war yes, but you'd be handing over military force wholesale to different ethnic groups, you'd have many conventional wars. Secondly, much of the original territory was fought over anyway, who'd have what? Thirdly, people have moved around in their countries. Take Iraq for example, it has Shi'ite and Sunni areas, but who does Baghdad belong to?
Most importantly though: there are ten thousand languages in the world. Now that means there must be more than ten thousand ethnic groups, not to mention religious groups. How many states should we have, ten thousand? And the deeper you look, the more ethnic groups you find. Take Britain again. At the top, you have British. Look deeper, and we have the old nations, England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales. But then look deeper again: Ireland has both the old Irish, Normans, and Scottish. England has the Anglo-Saxons, the Cornish, the Normans, and the Vikings. Scotland has the Scots, the Picts, and the Vikings. Split England again, and we've got Britons, Saxons, Angles, Danes, Norwegians and Jutes. Where do you stop?

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

The concept of nations is an artificial one, but also useful. Made possible by technological progress and the enlightenment. It was the modern age answer to the splittered feudal concepts and also to the old multi ethnic empires as the Austrian monarchy.

Nationalism bases on groups that have many things in common, most importantly (but not necessarily) a common language and many common cultural aspects, a common history etc. The more the better.

The problem is that no ethnic group is perfectly homogeneous, and not only that that things often are very blurred and intermixed with other groups. That does not fit into the concept of nationalism. Thats where the artificial nature comes in. Nationalism, needs to pronounce the commonalities, while reducing the centrifugal factors. It has to overdraw the differences to other groups. The more similar those groups the more they have to be denounced as different or alternatively the have to be proclaimed to be part of the own nation by talking the differences even more little.

A very interesting example in this regard is Europe around 1900. The problem the nation states had that the cultural elite was very pan European oriented and had a lively cooperation abroad borders. And this counter vise influence of regions within Europe started already very early in history. The rising nation state had to do something against it, in order to decrease the centrifugal powers within itself move its society towards the ideal nation state. The major mean to reach this was propaganda. The French attached to Germans the image of the uncultivated barbarian having nothing to do with the heirs of the Roman civilisation. The Germans on the other side, pronounced the Germanic heir as tradition and a sign of strength and healthiness. Whereas the French were drawn as decadent beings. In this time artists also could see the start of a developement that raised the border thinking. It became more and more "unpatriotic" to get influenced by those artists of other nasty nations for example. Art was deemed therefore to join the propaganda and got more and more obliged to be made in the "national tradition". (Whatever the propaganda made out that this should be).
Included in this process is of course also the rewriting of history in order to fit into the national myth. Sometimes it was already enough to view history from the right perspective, but at other exmples they had to overlook, let out and even rewrite passages. As the use of history was to legitimate the nationalistic claims.


The way how nations were born varies however largely. Others had in the 19th century already a longer history of ethnicities that had a strong feeling of commonality, others are more similar to being "made" like Turkey. A perfect and great example how to a large extend a single man could create a new nation out of the ashes of a multi ethnic empire. A prime tool to create nations however is war. Nothing is more effective to fuse groups together than the need to defend against the "others".


But back to your questions.
Yes nations exist as such, I would say principally when the citizens large majority claims a common nation you also have a common nation. In this regard the Austrian nation is very interesting. As it practically did not exist 80 years ago.

Do nations have a right of self-determination? A good question, if they want to enact self determination one should seek peaceful ways to reach that. Thats my opinion. Nations do not need to have an own state though. (Even if the lack of a nation-state who actively works on keeping the nation alive, needs a strong other force that does so, like in case of the jews, or in case of the Scotts. Nations can be either extremely tough and survive longer than the state they exist within, but there can also start a assimilation process, it depends on the certain situation)

In my opinion there are most certainly nations, but they don't have self-determination. Self-determination is to control one's destiny without outside influence. Germany is a nation: does anyone think that they are uninfluenced by any other nations?

I also think that nationalism has slowly dwindled. As it's dwindled peoples of different nations have emmigrated and changed, and nations are mixed together and people no longer no what nation they belong to.

Europe might be not representative for the world. I dont know.
But of course, the rising supranationalism here caries already in itself the meaning to decrease the power of autonomy. (and it doesnt matter if its an elite driven thing or not)

But the very right to self determinate about the question of how independant a country is, if it really wishes to leave that supranational building still is intact. So Germans could still leave if they really want so. Of course with all its consequences.

In my opinion you overestimate the unity of nations in the past. Nations where never uncontested. Even though you are right that mobility for sure increased. (But not that it did not exist back than too, just slower).

I think that you misunderstand me. Self-determination is the ability to control ones own destiny without outside influence, and influence is a very broad definition of the word. The state of Germany could quite easily make itself a state for those with German nationality only, but the outside influence is unescapable and far too great to really exist with if such a decision was made.

And I think that there was once quite a bit of strength in nationalism in the past, namely in Germany. I would cite the Prussian war with Denmark, and the wars for German living space. It was definitely quite strong.

Nationalism was already stronger once. But its an illusion to think that it ever met the criteria "self determination" the way you define it.

A completely sovereign and completely independant country is simply an illusion. An utopy at best. Do you really think the nations of teh late 19th century were really solid homogene blocks that could act fully independantly?

Europe on the step into the 20th century was intensively interacting on economical level internally. Globalisation was not born yet, but on smaller level in Europe you could already watch a strong exchange and interaction. European countries back than were not economically indepedant. (Far more autonome yes, but not remotely the level you would need for your total "self determination"). And the diplomacy and political decisions were drawn in advance by the reality of the continent. With its power situation, its ethnic conflicts etc. At best did the nation states have a choice between possible scenarios.

Nationalism also neglected those inderdependencies. And it actively tried to destroy them as much as possible. But even the most insane nationalists could not be successfull in getting near to what the claimed there nation to be.


You are right that within Europe the level of independance of the single nation states decreased continously. But its not like they lost its complete sovereignity, because you can not loose what you never had. (No country in history was completely independant from everyone else. Except perhaps for isolated island countries) Its just the grade of indpendency has reduced. And to be honest, I dont view that as bad. Also the dutchies back than lost their sovereignity witht he upcoming nationalism.

Well, unfortunately, societies of the world are not in the same development level. Back in time when it was invented, nationalism was an important achievement and was beneficial for many state. But today, for many western states, ethnic based nationalism appears as a danger while they are moving to multi-culturalism as a next level of collective life form which is more suitable and beneficial for today.
On the other hand some ethnicities couldn't achieve to step up to the nationalism level yet, and their collective life form is still tribal or feodal (for ex. Arabs) some others are in progress between nationalism and multi-culturalism levels..
So nationalism would be backwardness for some certain societies and could be an achievement for some others... Everyone is in different footholds of the staircase ...

In economic terms, Individualism become a pre-condition for capitalism today while in nationalism individuals are exist for their nations.. This made each individual's ethnicity , culture etc.. important.

__________________

You are right with that.
The question is, if one has to get the nationalism with all its very ugly sides, or if those who see the history of the others could go a third way perhaps?

Well, perhaps not, history just does not stop repeating itself, does it?

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

Well, nationalism or nation states have economic and cultural benefits, without once having those benefits the one can't reach the development level which would force it to the next level..
In real life there is no cheat codes to go up next level like in computer games...
As for short in economic terms, you can't run a healthy democrasy with a GDP per head below 10k and you can't step up to multi-culturalism with a GDP below 20-25k and a balanced wealth distribution..

__________________