Does not every intelligent individual appreciate the foolishness of any form of nationalism?

Question

I believe einstein also disparaged nationalism but that aside, knowing that geographical boundaries have no relevance to what makes up the true essence of an individual or even that of a community.

Answer 1

I agree. It is ridiculous that we sepearate ourselves with these artificially created borders. Imagine that it was understood that the whole world was just that: one world not divided into hundreds of nations. You could still have your different cultures but there wouldn't be war and tension between nations because it would be one less barrier that separates us.

Answer 2

I'm inclined to agree with you but I have a nagging doubt that the one world government you envisage would be any less foolish than lots of little ones. There is a tension between local democracy which puts a lot of power into the hands of the little guy and your global citizen in a global economy ideal. I'm not sure which is the best. Local democracy always means drawing geographical boundaries which exclude others.

Answer 3

Human thought is undergoing evolution too.

When we were wandering bands of evolving pre humans, it was necessary to be able to tell who was part of your band and who was not, to protect your band from attack and avoid doling out resources like food to wandering ones who would feel no obligation to return the favor.

When we started to build settlements, it was important for the same reasons to know who was and was not part of your settlement, and another reason was added - outbreeding to increase alliances between settlements. Also protecting hunting and gathering and agricultural grounds came into play.

From there we had city-states, which was the begginning of nationality, then nation-states, which is the form we have travelled through for the past 2500 years.

Now we are at the end of the nation-state phase, because we have come to understand that what one nation does on one side of the planet affects what happens in another nation on the other side of the planet. We can also have global wars.

We now inhabit a "small world." 1000 years ago there were people and places we never would have heard of though 40 generations pass. Now they are all as close to us as a special emergency news broadcast, and so are the consequences of their actions.

It is in this context that nationalism is foolish. We can no longer afford it. Human conception of who belongs and who doesn't must change now for our own good; the world itself must become the only nation.

Answer 4

I would consider Thomas Paine quite intelligent, and he was a nationalist. Nationalism is generally good, and a boon to the people of a nation.

So long as nations exist, nationalism will exist.

Answer 5

There is nothing wrong with nationalism. My nationality is United States, nothing wrong with being proud of your nation of origin. Geographical boundaries have everything to do with a nation of people because it has to do with the culture of your land. You cannot separate the person from the location where they come from.

Foolishness comes from "racial pride" because the individual has nothing to do with what skin color they were born into. With nationalistic pride, you can change the nation where you were born, by moving somewhere else and participating in the culture of your new adopted land.

Your premise falls on its face because people who come from other nations to the United States love to keep their "nationalistic identity" by segregating themselves to live with people of the name national origin, for instance - in Los Angeles we have a "Chinatown", "Little Korea", "Little Armenia", "Thai Town", and Mexicans live together in neighborhoods predominantly with others of their national origin, etc, etc, there are restaurants which serve foods associated with "nations" - Japanese restaurants, Chinese, Thai, etc, etc. They also enjoy putting up signs written ONLY in their foreign tongue.

If intelligent people are foolish for keeping their nationalistic pride, then what does that say about the examples above which are all examples of people clinging to nationalistic ideals.

Complete and total assimilation into one culture will probably never happen anywhere on earth, what you've outlined in your example is abandonment of every shred of cultural association someone may have with the nation they came from.

What you are calling for is a Brave New World, or New World Order where there is no shred of nationalistic identity or culture someone can identify with is available. One earth and one people, is a bad concept. There are thousands of years of language and culture which are attributable to cultures and nations of people, and with that comes nationalistic pride.

If you abandon the concept of a "nation" then you have to also abandon culture and religion because people will separate themselves based on language and culture whether you like the idea or not.

And in my opinion, the "One World" with no boundaries or nationalistic pride would look like one continuous cloudy shade of Gray.

Answer 6

Hmm...I think it would depend on your definition of "true essence on an individual" as I believe that a lot of my true essence stems from my nationality, my culture, my way of life if you will.

Answer 7

Potentially. While that makes sense, it also makes more sense for a localized, accessable government.

Nationality that, in it's citizens, breeds contempt for others and a feeling that they are superior is not good.

Answer 8

first Einstein stole every thing that is associated with him being smart he a nutcase .
second; it is people like you who make me pray for a nuclear holocaust.
globalism is a criminal producing policy

Answer 9

Amen!

Answer 10

Conservatives do not.