Nationalism is the doom of all politics...

[Scott Mayers]

Nationalism
Defining a Semantic meaning to a concept intentionally understood by those using the term within politics

I define Nationalism as the preferential stance to conserve one's ethnicity distinctly from all others with political force (in a set of formal laws) that is based on some assumed 'Natural Law' [or Divine Power, or God] making it valid by them to segregate groups of people with unequal forms of treatment. That is, one proposing a favor for "Nationalism" favors some group of people (never all) for some belief they are unique as a group based on both a genetic ancestral connection AND some culture, tradition, religion, etc, as if the environmental and arbitrary factors are 'owned' (or shared as each member in that group as their 'own'), AND that they deserve laws that both serve them uniquely for their beliefs as well as to preserve such uniqueness at the expense of some other group they may believe risks their own in an opposing extreme.

As a simple example, consider one's immediate and extended family that had some common set of traditions and beliefs that was passed down. 'Naturally' we understand that to favor one's own in this way is NOT a fault. But if one intrinsically believed their family and its tradition is also patently 'owned' such that they believe laws of the community at large must respect them with absolution to their right to have those that specifically foster their selective segregation at the expense of some or any part of the community, even if such discriminates against outsiders unequally, this treats this or other accepted groups as 'beyond' reproach from others to question.

The biggest problem is that it creates classifications of groups based on ethnicity even for those who have similar heritage but disagree to such traditions. It disfavors progress by commanding all future people to keep specific past traditions and have them tied protectively to specific people based on their genetic heritage, not choice. Ones who opt out of their 'natural' roots and cultures for other ones are deemed outsiders and thus by definition no longer count as a member of that 'Nation' which only preserves the 'purity' to the Nationalist belief. That is, you may 'freely' opt out of such a classification but then no longer get recognized as an authorized member of the group. But this assures by definition that the Nationalists remain committed by defining OUT those who democratically may disagree to those traditional associations imposed upon them.

Also, such Nationalism MUST come at the expense of at least some non-member to be defaulted NOT to be privileged to the same exceptional treatment. If the treatment was universal, the National concern would not exist except as the whole of ALL people within the political boundaries.

Note how the assumption of Nationalism to sometimes be attributed to the land arises. This land-based understanding though is included in ones ethnicity if one assumes they have original or Ab-original (Native or Natural) claims of their ethnicity also to the land for which they desire their laws to be uniquely favored. But Nationalism is NOT simply one's land-claims but to their traditions, cultures, or other things they associate with as an identifying group regardless of whether they are referencing a right to special land-claims. What matters is that their claim to the lands where they exist is based on their ethnic roots, the genetic AND cultural heritage (inheritances) by historical accident.

Nationalism treats people as distinct as species regardless of any claims to the contrary. It should be expected that if one is aiming to support their in-group exclusively in law, that it would be unusual and less favorable by those outside to accept such groups to exist had they sold their intent to be of universal compassion. It would be self-defeating unless such a group were of the powerful majority. So those who ARE Nationalists cannot be expected to be honest about what the logical implications of Nationalism are: segregation, division, ...ethnocentrism, discrimination, racism, and intolerance. Instead, many will attempt to sell it off as supporting things like 'diversity'. The problem is, this "diversity" respects only such groups officially accepted, NOT ALL GROUPS, nor those non-associated with such group-think beliefs, the ultimate of which is the individual.

Nationalism plays on presuming what one favor does not imply disfavoring others by contrast. But unlike normal descriptive classifications, the Nationalist bases their defining in-groups by properties that don't uniquely disqualify others of inclusion. Yet these properties they are claiming are 'owned' in their mind as specific (as a 'species') in such a way that is NOT TRUE. This 'ownership' is assumed to be a function of their species that deserves laws that both demand they have the right to keep these arbitrary set of behaviors as well as to impose restrictions of those outside these groups from 'co-opting' them, as though their behaviors are also a copyright. But this 'copyright' has no limit and is deemed perpetual.


On Definitions of "Nation" and "Nationalism"

While we use the term "nation" to describe one's country, the term is not precisely mapped to territory alone as it implies not only those within the defining boarders but to some minimum culture based on their Constitutions and so is appropriate with respect to the set of all countries in the world. But the specific meaning of "nationalism" does not imply that all people supporting ones' country makes them a "Nationalist". We use the term "Patriotism" to describe one's pride in their country and its 'national constitution' but it does not NECESSARILY require one to favor a particular ethnicity. But some countries, like Israel DO support both pride in their 'country' as well as to their ethnicity. And this makes them "Nationalistic" with the intentional meaning as applied politically.

The Nazis also were "Nationalistic" too and where their name partially comes from.

In our country, Canada, "Multiculturalism", is the formal term to define a collection of distinct cultures and when or where this is applied in law, becomes a form of "Nationalism" as well, since it specifically creates laws for or of peoples based on tradition and cultures and their genetic heritages.....that is, ethnicity. So while Nazis or Zionists may be Nationalistic, these 'right-wing' states of belief are just Mono-cultural, where our Multicultural form here is more 'center-and-left-wing' forms of Nationalism. It might be best to describe these as either Socially Liberal to Multi-nationalists versus Socially Restricted to One Nationalist group.

Thus, I interpret Nationalism as prevalent in all political persuasions. I also believe that it is this one factor that significantly prevents ANY form of political government from ever being able to competently succeed no matter how these other main ideals could possibly exist without. It is the cause of failure of all Constitutions because the tendency of those who believe in Nationalisms are sufficiently powerful enough even if in significant minority to act with such extremes that act to divide even the most compassionately collective soul of us all.

Nationalism in all its forms are THE cause of all problems and division. They also contribute to economic differences in the world because those Nationalists in power will tend to favor those of their believed unique species apart from those who are not. They command the attention in poor communities as well in what we refer to as 'gangs' where ghettos are concerned. However, where POWER is also favored by default to those Nationalists of the more wealthy, this makes them most at 'fault' because the ones in struggling communities only act out BECAUSE of desperation, and not necessarily BECAUSE they originally had some intrinsic belief in any common ethnic factors. The extremes foster the new Nationalists from one group in antithesis to some other who at least appears to prevail.

And should one Nationalist group of some previous generation suffer based on some Nationalists of some extreme opposite in power, when and if the 'weaker' group(s) becomes empowered, they tend to amplify their own Nationalism with more strength becoming the next extreme in POWER who foster other new Nationalists on the opposite spectrum in a never-ending cycle of abuse.

Nationalism must be challenged for what it is everywhere. Unless we ever rationally do so, we are doomed to perpetually repeat these mistakes and will never have a chance to make any political view stand out as better than others with sufficient long-term success.


Edit: Spelling on one of two words and added two words (I saw the other misspelling but can't find it now and will edit again if I do).

Edited March 9, 2016 by Scott Mayers

[TimG]

Humans are tribal.

The succeed most when they work in groups.

In group loyalty enables allows trust between people who have never met because their welfare is dependent on the group.

Nothing will ever change this nor should it.

The problem with in-group loyalty is when it combined with a belief in a zero-sum world.

i.e. for the group to win other groups must lose.

This kind of thinking leads to conflict.

OTOH, some issues are zero sum and conflict is inevitable.

But conflict between groups can be civil or uncivil.

Leaders often make the difference between whether the conflict will be civil or uncivil.

Edited March 9, 2016 by TimG

[Scott Mayers]

I'm not against groups, Tim. I'm against the politicizing that leads to systems that favor arbitrary group distinctions that have no relevance to a mere logical description of their association.

I thus agree to free association. I disagree to laws that favor ethnic conservation positively OR to those laws that discriminate exclusively to others for factors not related to their necessary classification.

I use the 'red-head' example before to describe how my 'red-headedness' may classify me based on my hair color and may thus have potential reason for some laws that may aid me if it is based on something intrinsic to having red hair. (perhaps red-hair could make one more prone to some disease and thus require some special medical attention)

BUT, if I extend my classification to include behaviors not relevant to hair color, like some culture of red-heads, this would be acting ethnocentric as I am claiming some relevant connection of having red hair to arbitrary cultural factors that all people have a right to choose from.

[TimG]

Groups are about belonging and trust.

You can't argue that some types of groups are wrong and others are right.

People feel what they feel.

What matters is how the groups interact with other groups.

If these interactions create conflict then there is a problem even if the group has the 'right' justification according to you. If the group does not create conflict then there is no issue even if the basis makes no sense to you.

North America has succeeded in absorbing immigrants for one and one reason: the immigrants choose to join the groups associated with the country. If newer groups do not choose to identify with the existing countries then that will create conflict and the risk of a conflict is enough to say that immigration should be halted.

There can be no compromise on this point if we want to maintain the civil society that has served us well.

[Scott Mayers]

Groups are about belonging and trust.

You can't argue that some types of groups are wrong and others are right.

People feel what they feel.

What matters is how the groups interact with other groups.

If these interactions create conflict then there is a problem even if the group has the 'right' justification according to you. If the group does not create conflict then there is no issue even if the basis makes no sense to you.

North America has succeeded in absorbing immigrants for one and one reason: the immigrants choose to join the groups associated with the country. If newer groups do not choose to identify with the existing countries then that will create conflict and the risk of a conflict is enough to say that immigration should be halted.

There can be no compromise on this point if we want to maintain the civil society that has served us well.

I'm confused at your interpretation or lack of interpreting me here?

The point I'm referring to is to the fact that ANY LAW is made to favor/disfavor groups based on ethnicity with uniqueness. Your argument is invalid to my concern unless you ARE supporting a right for SOME groups to have favored laws exclusive to others. It would make better sense if you'd asserted ALL ASSOCIATIONS are permitted and supported by LAW.

This is NOT the case here in Canada. We have, in our Charter of Rights, for instance, a preferential ethnic preservation for all time of three main cultures: The Ontario based English Anglican Catholics, the Quebec French Catholics, and the First Nations People. Token appreciation for other ACCEPTED cultures/ethnicities have to conform formost to these specially privileged groups. How does their ethnicity, culture, or genetic heritage have anything intrinsically applicable to ALL people?

[TimG]

This is NOT the case here in Canada. We have, in our Charter of Rights, for instance, a preferential ethnic preservation for all time of three main cultures:

All groups have history. One way to ensure that new arrivals choose to join the group we have already to is ask that they show respect for the cultural history and learn the language(s) of the group. This does not mean nothing can change - just that the starting reference point has to be based on the existing group history.

There is nothing wrong with this and essential to maintaining group cohesion moving forward.

[August1991]

Nationalism

Defining a Semantic meaning to a concept intentionally understood by those using the term within politics

I define Nationalism as the preferential stance to conserve one's ethnicity distinctly from all others with political force (in a set of formal laws) that is based on some assumed 'Natural Law' [or Divine Power, or God] making it valid by them to segregate groups of people with unequal forms of treatment....

Scott, define "ethnicity".

For example, do left-handed people form an "ethnic group"?

=====

I suspect that you really mean, for lack of a better term, "identity". Scott, how do you view yourself?

Edited March 10, 2016 by August1991

[Scott Mayers]

All groups have history. One way to ensure that new arrivals choose to join the group we have already to is ask that they show respect for the cultural history and learn the language(s) of the group. This does not mean nothing can change - just that the starting reference point has to be based on the existing group history.

There is nothing wrong with this and essential to maintaining group cohesion moving forward.

Key word..."groups". Contrary to what you default to assume, we all do NOT associate with some cultural group regardless of where we come from and it stereotypes the immigrant to some assumed cultural identity. As to showing respect to the country you are adopting to, it stands to reason that such new people have an onus to at least learn some minimal defining language or 'culture' with respect to being able to understand the constitution and the laws they are expected to follow.

Also, I have no concern to one's voluntary freedom to choose their associations. My problem is to how countries like ours predesignates specific groups of people based on ancestry as FIXED within the constitution in perpetuity. It treats these specific groups as mentioned above as a species. This has nothing to do with choice.

We conserve two languages for instance as 'official'. This should either be ONE or ALL. Any other number demonstrates the nature of the bias with clarity. We conserve Christianity (specifically for the Catholic Anglican and French-Roman Churches as is indicted with our Separate school system and the right of the regular Public schools to have freedom to espouse Christianity to their students). We may expect this of intolerant countries and they may be of a worse degree. But these are still not representative of the nature of free people.

As to another example of which I personally find troublesome is how the law favors the First People a right to not require paying taxes on tobacco and the assumption they have some intrinsic cultural right to gambling, as if these were inbred in their genes distinct from others. You could also look at it in another way with respect to smoking: it could be reasonably inferred that the 'dominant' culture doesn't have the same compassion of concern to prevent Natives from getting Cancer considering the absurd degree they go to for all other cultures. Either way, these supposed cultural 'ownerships' are absurd unless they are absolutely universal to each individual. Why can I not be considered a legal 'culture' of my own and have laws that provide what I believe is intrinsic to my lifestyle?

If things like tobacco smoking and gambling are somehow an intrinsic 'right' to the First Peoples, why should not alcohol be a 'not-First-People's' cultural default and require being exempt in law for those who've had such roots?

I'm not saying we should FAVOR all of us to be tax exempt here. I'm just saying that this is an example of how we create laws here that FAVOR Nationalistic interests.

[Scott Mayers]

Scott, define "ethnicity".

For example, do left-handed people form an "ethnic group"?

=====

I suspect that you really mean, for lack of a better term, "identity". Scott, how do you view yourself?

I defined it already. It is genetic and cultural factors combined that some people believe is intrinsic or 'natural'. While one's inherent genes are unavoidable, the cultural factors are only due to ones environment. They are 'inherent' by the opinions of those supporting "ethnicity" because it combines the genetic reality with some arbitrary stereotypes (one's cultural identifiers) that have nothing to do with one's genes nor necessary for survival. I believe culture of every kind is 'owned' by ALL Earthlings equally. And so I welcome culture. But I don't welcome distinct laws that enable particular cultures to have laws created to foster nor diminish other ones.

Note that "culture" includes ones' religion.

Your particular example question on left-handedness? No, left-handedness is a genetic factor BUT can become cultural if one misappropriates some arbitrary stereotypes of left-handed people as if they have some other related inherent quality to ALL of them. One's left-handedness may have some neurological factors in common which may correlate with left-handedness. But if this leads to a type of behavior NECESSARILY, this behavior would NOT be a cultural thing. A person born very large with a husky voice, for instance, will lead them more likely to be much louder than others and make them appear more dominating as some accidental side-effect. But this too, while it can help create some seeds to define culture, it is the assumption that culture itself, like one's preference for some type of television show, are arbitrary and is not justified to belong (be 'owned') to some genetic class of people. It would be like saying women (all) are born to where high heels!??

[August1991]

Your particular example question on left-handedness? No, left-handedness is a genetic factor BUT can become cultural if one misappropriates some arbitrary stereotypes of left-handed people as if they have some other related inherent quality...

"Misappropriates"?

It happens that my son is left-handed. It's not "cultural". He writes (whether in French or English) and signs his name with his left-hand.

I note that Barack Obama is also left-handed. Indeed, Ronald Reagan was also left-handed. It happens in the best families.

====

BTW, I am right-handed.

Edited March 12, 2016 by August1991

[Scott Mayers]

"Misappropriates"?

It happens that my son is left-handed. It's not "cultural". He writes (whether in French or English) and signs his name with his left-hand.

I note that Barack Obama is also left-handed. Indeed, Ronald Reagan was also left-handed. It happens in the best families.

====

BTW, I am right-handed.

I wouldn't assert that your son's left-handedness IS culture. It is a genetic factor. But now consider say, fifty years back in time when some teachers often forced left-handed people to use their right hand to write regardless of this factor. To such a teacher, he/she might interpret left-handedness as something arbitrary and an accidentally learned behavior, right? Now if the teacher presumed that all kids who were left-handed were of some similar neglectful parents,perhaps, this could be interpreted as some type of preferential behavior these parents had in common and so might misappropriate left-handedness as a trait of some 'cultural' [traditional pattern of behavior].

In kind, while also 'accidental', left-handed kids who have this kind of treatment by teachers develop a common thread of experience related to how society treats left-handedness. So they themselves too may also misappropriate their left-handedness with something they each have in common behaviorally. If similar left-handed kids got together out of such common neglect by other kids for thinking them 'odd', they may also 'accidentally' bond with each other for their similar isolation.

Without going too much further, just let your imagination flow and you should be able to see that the mistake to connect ones genetic factor to their behavior can lead to an element of 'culture'. But as you note, left-handedness doesn't actually relate to culture. And so should some future group of left-handed people assert a common 'culture', while partially true by accident, ALL left-handed people do not "own" some natural common behavior in kind. And should they then demand that political action be created to conserve some culture correlating to what we know is genetic, does ALL left-handed people require having such 'culture' imposed upon them? Since ethnicity is just culture plus ones genetic inheritances, should we preserve this 'ethnicity' that evolved as if this connection (a stereotype) were true? What if the stereotype were positive? What if it were negative? Do the positive or negative factors matter since they are still stereotypes? And if one 'embraces' one, granting them legal status, does this allow them to dismiss the other form?

[Bryan]

Nationalism is not arbitrary. What matters most to people is what happens where they live. No matter how interested they might be in the well-being of others, that will always be secondary for any rational thinker. All politics is some degree of local. What happens in your own house is more important than what happens in the house next door. You have to have your own house in order to have any affect in helping others do the same.

[Scott Mayers]

Nationalism is not arbitrary. What matters most to people is what happens where they live. No matter how interested they might be in the well-being of others, that will always be secondary for any rational thinker. All politics is some degree of local. What happens in your own house is more important than what happens in the house next door. You have to have your own house in order to have any affect in helping others do the same.

A "Nation" may be regional bound but since it has been understood to apply to some set of people based on their belief in a right to some COMMON political right regardless of where they are, a "nation" refers to the POLITICAL reality of some group either based on some region (a 'country', for example) or to some group loyal to some sovereignty, as in one's ethnic group one associates with.

The "Nationalism" I'm referring to of concern is not the form based on region ALONE, like the United States, because they do not discriminate those of its political association to be based on some particular (arbitrary) ethnicity or specific set of ethnicities. In contrast, most non-American "Nationalism" refers to ones ethnicity (race, religion, genetic, or cultural connections/associations). In Canada, for instance, the "First Nations" concept believes Aboriginals (all throughout North America) are a "Nations" of people not bound to the POLITICAL REGIONAL relationship associated with the Canadian politic or to its fixed borders. It is also "ethnic" since the prequalifying (prerequisite) factor is that you MUST be genetically an ancestor of someone defined relatively "Aboriginal". [i say 'relatively' since we are ALL related somewhere in some time to some common ancestor.]

Israel, is BOTH a "Nationality" of its state (region of Palestine) and to those who are ethnically, "Jewish", as a minimal, regardless of where you live on Earth. This is because they believe intrinsically in a "Jewish" specific classification that binds those who are genetically related (you don't have to believe in the religion of Judaism) AND to those especially who DO believe there is a combined link of ones genetics and culture (ethnicity).

The ethnic factor is what bothers me since it is just an indirect misleading reference to a belief in one's as a distinct "species" (== RACE), contrary to what many falsely attempt to distance others from recognizing with clarity. One defining themselves "nationalistic" to reference a loyalty to ones political constitution without reference or concern to ethnicity, is NOT what bothers me nor matters. One can be "patriotic" without being biased to some particular association to their genes.

[Moonlight Graham]

Nationalism can be extremely divisive. But how can you avoid it? Is multi-culturalism the answer? Or is it a facade that will eventually lead to conflict when minority sub-national groups become large enough to have political weight?

All over the world there has been and continues to be so many examples of groups fighting other groups within countries for political control, causing tensions, civil wars, terrorism, separatist movements etc. How do groups get along when you have features of identity as divisive as language or religion?

Isn't nationalism just another name for a clash of cultures within a country? What's the best way to avoid these clashes?

[Scott Mayers]

I think Mono-culturalism is the intent of any particular 'subgroup' of society who prefers to see all people under the reign of their genetic and cultural controls. Multi-culturalism IS better in that it at least prevents any one OF THEM to rule with ease. However, for any such mono- or multi- groups, these all only act to preserve this with exclusion of many others. It's never universal. Why have two official languages, for instance? Either we should have one or all. In this instance, the language would be most 'civilized' if we pick one because otherwise it should require we learn two or more languages. Some say this is good but it IS a relative luxury and superfluous.

Having distinct languages and other cultural things segregates us with power. This is why those cults most interested like it. It both keeps them relatively more 'secretive' and isolates their children form being influenced by outsiders. It divides, but is 'sold' to us falsely as "diversity". A diverse culture is voluntary and allows people who aren't perfectly 'fit' to some ideal PURE genetic/cultural ideal.

Nationalism is the belief in these cultural groups to have laws that favor their genetically related groups with their stereotypical cultures, rituals, etc. But you are right, Moonlight, that they CAUSE a clash of cultures. Otherwise, we'd all be able to choose our lifestyles, something many people think is trivial and unnecessary to protect. Nationalists, Monocultural or Multicultural belief, for instance, that "cultural appropriation" is somehow a 'crime': see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation .

[-TSS-]

I know this is not relevant on your continent but I must still say that even though I agree to some extent with your analysis of how nationalism when taken too far is detrimental do you think that what we here in Europe are being spoon-fed is any better? I mean the EU which is a kleptocracy of the highest order and a horrendous bureaucratic system the purpose of existence is only for itself and its dreams of federalism are nothing short of the lebensraum-ideology that many people accuse nationalism of.

[eyeball]

I've regarded nationalism as long being a bane of our existence. I'd like to hope the Panama Papers would herald the doom of nationalism but of all the idiots the 1% have on their side nationalists are probably near the top of the list - how after all does one maintain all the shells under which the global economy is gamed without a bunch of nations? We should have had a one world government in place long before we created a one world economy. Oh well.

So do European idiots fret over things like black helicopters the way their North American cousins do?

[Scott Mayers]

I know this is not relevant on your continent but I must still say that even though I agree to some extent with your analysis of how nationalism when taken too far is detrimental do you think that what we here in Europe are being spoon-fed is any better? I mean the EU which is a kleptocracy of the highest order and a horrendous bureaucratic system the purpose of existence is only for itself and its dreams of federalism are nothing short of the lebensraum-ideology that many people accuse nationalism of.

I don't know enough about the depths of the union even though naively it seemed to me something 'sounding' good from afar. I don't believe in borders and so like what Eyeball says. It's hard to say which if any ideal is or is not best. The only thing I fear is that if we allow the Nationalistic ideal to continue taking root, it doesn't take much of them in any and all political persuasions to be forced to back into some reactive Nationalism if only to feel defeated for NOT taking some strict side.

I supported our NDP (a Social Democratic party) here but believe that even the Nationalism exists in there and why many are afraid to support some party that will only act to offend themselves regardless of the positives it contains. Since the vast majority of our NDP has an intrinsic support by ALL groups most in offence of the conservative 'white' stereotypes, to be 'white' and still vote for this party is like a Jew voting for Hitler. It's not the actual political ideals exceptional to ethnicity that cause trouble, it is that the extremes of those most compassionate to some specific ethnicity who will by default hold the most strongest front in them all. Conservative-side politics tend to favor whichever Nationality or set of them which have the most predominant representation of them. And since wealth necessarily requires fewer people on top than on the bottom (as the base of a pyramid requires the majority on the bottom), these politics will favor more MONO-cultural ethnocentric extremes; On Progressive-side politics, all the 'rest' of those Nationalities that prefer to BE the MONO-culture if they were in the wealthiest position, would dominate there because while 'conservative' in their beliefs, they can't compete in their lack of wealth. So they steal the interests there as "MULTI-cultural" but not actually "INTER-cultural" and are never actually accepting of ALL cultures, especially the individual.

I am certain that our recent loses in NDP are due to this concern. And I can see the EU having a similar problem in that the independent countries that make it up will still have those most Nationalistic within each of them who demand to take the most virtue of it for the stereotypes of the extremes and not to the interests of all the individuals within them nor to the whole, independent of some clearly distinct or defined ethnicity among them.

[-TSS-]

As Britain is due to have a referendum on whether to stay in the EU or leave the union Barack Obama visited Britain a couple of weeks ago and lectured to them that they should stay. Not only was that interfering in another country's internal affairs but also hypocritical.

Namely, let's imagine that there was an American union consisting of all the countries of North-,Central- and South-America and that union would have the power to override the internal legislation of each country. Could you imagine the USA would ever accept that? In other words Obama demands others to do something he would never do himself.

On the exit-referendum of Britain it must be said that it is somewhat ironical that the main party advocating for the exit is called the United Kingdom Independence Party as the United Kingdom itself is an artificial country but has become a functional one in three centuries of its existence.

[Scott Mayers]

As Britain is due to have a referendum on whether to stay in the EU or leave the union Barack Obama visited Britain a couple of weeks ago and lectured to them that they should stay. Not only was that interfering in another country's internal affairs but also hypocritical.

Namely, let's imagine that there was an American union consisting of all the countries of North-,Central- and South-America and that union would have the power to override the internal legislation of each country. Could you imagine the USA would ever accept that? In other words Obama demands others to do something he would never do himself.

On the exit-referendum of Britain it must be said that it is somewhat ironical that the main party advocating for the exit is called the United Kingdom Independence Party as the United Kingdom itself is an artificial country but has become a functional one in three centuries of its existence.

The U.S. (= United States) was precisely a form of union similar to what is implied by the European Union. The American States however began relatively 'new' beyond the 13 colonies and so each 'State' DID represent a type of country within its own. This is the conflict that derived the Civil War when the Federal 'Union' government began presuming more power when it decreed an end to things like Slavery as some universal law imposed on the interests of other sovereignties. It is the same for the E.U. and relates to your issue. But to this thread, this shows where Nationalisms too can potentially arise where those who HAD some prior relative freedom given some relative fortune have been requested to distribute the wealth to those countries (states) that now need them. The problem is that you cannot accept simply the 'good' things without accepting the 'bad' too. This is why I think Nationalism is troublesome. It derives from some set of distinct interest to preserve ( or conserve) what the in-group's desire (='good') stereotypes while aborting the negative ones without realizing they are both just arbitrary distinctions that require either both accepting or both rejecting.

I would prefer to see some form of unification in Europe and would think it rather 'convenient' should one country step out post agreement just because they've found themselves independently better off without the liabilities that have arisen. I'm guessing much of this concern lately is due to the vast increased demand for immigration from refugees and Greece's latest save that places a burden on the more fortunate British countries they'd rather not be liable to.

[August1991]

The U.S. (= United States) was precisely a form of union similar...

Scott, what are you? Left-handed or right-handed?

I'm not American but even I understand that the American constitution (the declaration before, its 18th century European origin) has a remarkable point:

Whether left-handed or right-handed, an individual has the right to choose.

Edited April 23, 2016 by August1991

[Scott Mayers]

Scott, what are you? Left-handed or right-handed?

I'm not American but even I understand that the American constitution (the declaration before, its 18th century European origin) has a remarkable point:

Whether left-handed or right-handed, an individual has the right to choose.

I need some clarification. I don't know what you are asserting or implying.

I agree with individual rights but if you are assuming collective members of a State as acting as ONE INDIVIDUAL, this means that for the E.U., the countries that have agreed to unionize, just as the American 'States', have likely unanimous agreements among them to require joining in the first place. For those contractual understandings, to accept the Union's constitution requires all members, including the individuals within each accepting this, to remain in accepting the conditions laid out in it. I can't speak for the exact contracts agreed to by countries of the E.U. but if their function was intended to unify out of a common need to strengthen all members equally, it must accept where different economies of its members are affected, requires ALL members to help each other when the cards are down and another member is doing better.

It's like a marriage. Divorce has consequences where one is simply opting out because they've found something (someone) better elsewhere. That is the 'oaths' people supposedly make to be there for better or worse. I'm saying that if Britain is desiring to leave the Union of of fear of the realization they'd now have to distribute their 'better off' condition among those members having it 'worse', this is hypocritical to the agreement. Should Britain or other countries opt out of some such 'marriage' then, they have to also lose what common investments all countries collectively agreed to share for the benefit of the union in the first place.

[-TSS-]

I don't agree with your anti-national sentiment but I can understand where you are coming from and that is totally acceptable.

The thing which I really don't understand is that people who bang on about how nationalism is a bad thing support a corrupt structure such as the EU which is little more than extension of German and French national interests and the EU itself has ambitions of its own to become an empire.

I'm not sure how much you people in Canada know about the EU and if you don't know about it might be fooled to think it is some peace-loving gathering of nations against nationalism which has wreaked havoc across the European continent.

The EU is the project to bring our continent under totalitarian rule once again and history is repeating itself. The EU is kleptocractic and corrupt to the core. I can't for the world understand how anyone who hasn't vested interests in that system should support it.

[eyeball]

The EU is the project to bring our continent under totalitarian rule once again and history is repeating itself.

...there it is.../facepalm

This is why I say our species could've benefitted from several tens of thousands of more years of evolution. SETI should should drop the E and aim it's telescopes the other way, before it's too late.

[Scott Mayers]

I don't agree with your anti-national sentiment but I can understand where you are coming from and that is totally acceptable.

The thing which I really don't understand is that people who bang on about how nationalism is a bad thing support a corrupt structure such as the EU which is little more than extension of German and French national interests and the EU itself has ambitions of its own to become an empire.

I'm not sure how much you people in Canada know about the EU and if you don't know about it might be fooled to think it is some peace-loving gathering of nations against nationalism which has wreaked havoc across the European continent.

The EU is the project to bring our continent under totalitarian rule once again and history is repeating itself. The EU is kleptocractic and corrupt to the core. I can't for the world understand how anyone who hasn't vested interests in that system should support it.

I can't comment much about the EU and have only you brining it up here for which I've even thought of it one way or the other. But I don't believe most have thought of whether nationalism has or has not been a function of the EU from here in North America. Usually, nationalism would be thought of more limited to some specific culture and ethnicity as I'm referring to it here. So a 'union' of different countries (thus, many groups) would not necessarily apply unless it involved some specific group's interest. Maybe this is what you are thinking with regards to those 'kleptocrats'? If anything, the 'union' is more based on economics, not especially culture, and to what you may be worried about. I can't disagree without knowing enough details. Corruption is most inevitable to occur with regards to people's economic differences where those WITH the upper economic power attempts to conserve their power economically. On the surface of it, Britain's reason to think of separating from the union would be to conserve the potential losses since they are the one's with this upper-hand. I can see that Nationalism here would be the way those wanting to separate would use argumentatively in support of separation emotionally, though.

This is my concern though. Nationalism is a device, as with religion being a sub-part of this, to arouse emotional justification that hides or diminishes the rationalizing of economic problems instead. If one cannot rationally defend why they should have some 'right' to their power when it is arbitrarily based on 'unfair' economic differences, seeking cultural, religious, or other similar non-economic justifications that I've collectively referred to as "nationalism" here is what gets used with more effectiveness to the masses. I get the strategy and see that it is being used 'intellectually' because it is the tendency of governments to compete expediently. But while effective in short terms, the nationalism that gets used this way often creates more problems long term for lack of patience. Nationalism favors less democratic ideals because of its specificity. The real causes based on economic factors are to extreme differences of wealth AND often where the larger part of the people are the ones on the poorer end. As such, since the larger populations lack the same cultural cohesion and so tend to be less Nationalistic as they cannot use common culture or ethnicity as a justification to demand more power. And so the 'democratic' (the majority) of those being on the poorer side of wealth argue with more realism to the economic factors while those of the minority wealthier sides will use Nationalism as the justification.

I see that Nationalism still underscores most people regardless and this is just due to our inability to care for those less close to us that things like one's family connections, traditions, and their cultures in common have. It's normal but something we have to fight against when considering politics. Nationalism is always what gets the most power to cause problems since it is based on justifications that are immune to challenge: like how one could argue they might have a 'God-granted' right to their exceptional status of being unusually so fortunate.

I understand the you in Britain have merely raised this upon recent or upcoming elections and believe this is based on the threat of the mass influx of immigration that is affecting many of the EU countries. Is this not what is underlying your fear?