Are patriotism and nationality still relevant in today's world?

[Jacky817]

As gender and racial discrimination become less prevalent today as compared to the past, and as globalisation brings people together both physically and in terms of communication, how significant are nationalities today?

And with environmental issues becoming more and more urgent an issue, should we all embrace internationalism instead?

Are patriotism and nationality still relevant in today's world?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

People most often seem to participate in their community out of a sense of pride for that community. It is much easier to identify as a citizen of a country than of the world. Patriotism and nationalism would seem to be tools for keeping citizens involved and to stave off apathy.

 

[brainstorm]

Nationalism is a critical ingredient for maintaining centralized economic control over trade in a long-globalized world economy. Without national separatism, individuals could simply migrate to more prosperous regions, which would make it very difficult to exploit those people in favor of others. Just compare this to the effect of having lower-price real-estate concentrated in areas viewed as "black" while higher-priced properties are concentrated in "white" areas. If the two types of areas were integrated to the point of no longer being racially distinguishable, then how would people be able to ensure their level of wealth according to their "race?"

Similarly, if nation-states with widely-distributed social welfare would integrate with other nation-states where social welfare is inadequate by their standards, how would these governments be able to maintain the same standard of living for those holding citizenship? The only way this would be possible is if the highest standard of living guaranteed by any government was achievable for every individual globally, but how could that be the case when a significant privilege of living in a post-industrial welfare state is the fact that hard industrial labor is done elsewhere?

Wealthy, post-industrial welfare states are already in a sort of permanent war against migration due to the exceptional quality of life available there and the high level of global productivity required to sustain it. If these governments would commit to reaching standards of living that would be sustainably attainable for everyone globally, it would be possible to end nationalism and war. However, as long as there is culture that promotes unsustainable levels of materialism that are necessarily limited to a global elite, nationalism and war will continue to be mechanisms for policing structural exploitation of some people in favor of others.

 

[Cyrus]

No way would I ever be a part of a 'international government' - and neither would most Americans. Nationalism and patriotism are probably more relevant today as some try to, incorrectly, push for a global government. I'm not sure about your claim for environmental issues being 'more' of a concern 'these days'. What are you basing this on?

 

[John Creighto]

Wouldn't it be better if people could move to were the opportunities are as opposed to what we have now were corporations can exploit the Disparity in our circumstances?

 

[Evo]

I find that there is a trend recently to place more importance on one's heritage and culture. I'm a mutt, so I don't have a cultural identity, but I know a lot of people that tend to identify with one parent's background over another.

We would like to think that racism is something that we are growing out of. I thought that, but I'm finding that, unfortunately, it's not as accepted as I thought. I was watching a show that examined the disturbing upsurge in the white Aryan movement.

I don't see a "global government" happening. We can't even achieve unity within a nation.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I find that there is a trend recently to place more importance on one's heritage and culture. I'm a mutt, so I don't have a cultural identity, but I know a lot of people that tend to identify with one parent's background over another.

I have friends who are very 'proud' of their Irish ancestry even though they are only a small part Irish. They feel that they 'identify' as Irish. I talked with two of them about it the other day and only one of the two has actually even been to Ireland and he only stayed for a week. I expressed that I was rather at a loss to see how they felt such a connection to a culture that they are not a part of and have only read about. They said that they could not understand how I did not feel a connection to any culture.

Funny thing is that I enjoy Irish music more than they do and understand more of the allusions in the lyrics. I told one of them that this was his song. That he didn't get it at first made me laugh.

 

[brainstorm]

I don't see a "global government" happening. We can't even achieve unity within a nation.

I'm afraid that "global governance" already takes place; only national divisions are exploited to "divide and conquer." Consider the historical conflict between confederationism and unity embodied in the conflict over slavery. Antebellum proponents of slavery utilized popular sovereignty at the state level to expand slavery to new states. Lincoln, on the other hand, supposedly opposed slavery at the national level and therefore utilized federal power to fight it. Without a federal government, the states would have had no means except interstate collaboration to address national-level issues. Still, that would not have prevented proponents of slavery from expanding the institution on a state-by-state basis, which translates into a form of interstate (or perhaps "trans-state") governance, doesn't it?

I know it's a confusing idea, but my point is that global governance doesn't have to be institutionalized to take place, and I wonder if there is any basis to claim that it's not already taking place in the form of global discourses and networks of various forms of power. I don't see how it would ever be possible to completely separate, isolate, and insulate people and economic activities according to national territorialism. At the very least, how would governments form coalitions with other governments to prevent others from coordinating their power to undermine isolationist movements? Does anyone think that a nation in isolation can defend its right to isolation? It's kind of a self-defeating aspect of nationalism in a long-globalized world, isn't it?

 

[Jack21222]

No way would I ever be a part of a 'international government' - and neither would most Americans. Nationalism and patriotism are probably more relevant today as some try to, incorrectly, push for a global government. I'm not sure about your claim for environmental issues being 'more' of a concern 'these days'. What are you basing this on?

You can have "internationalism" without a global government. I'll give you an example. I personally believe the life of a foreigner has the same worth as the life of an American. I even go a step further. This is something my mind wandered to when considering the rules of engagement in Afghanistan.

The life of an Afghan citizen has the same exact value as a United States soldier. I would rather see 1,000 US soldiers die than 1,001 innocent Afghanis. Of course, I'd rather see neither.

This kind of thinking is rejecting patriotism and nationalism without embracing a "global government."

 

[leroyjenkens]

I have friends who are very 'proud' of their Irish ancestry even though they are only a small part Irish. They feel that they 'identify' as Irish. I talked with two of them about it the other day and only one of the two has actually even been to Ireland and he only stayed for a week. I expressed that I was rather at a loss to see how they felt such a connection to a culture that they are not a part of and have only read about. They said that they could not understand how I did not feel a connection to any culture.

People like that strike me as fakes. Most white people in America have several different European countries they can claim as their ancestry. They just pick the one they like the best and then magically that's what they become? If I'm 1% Irish, I'm allowed to call myself Irish, even though I've never been to Ireland? That makes no sense.
I'm a white American who has never been to Europe; that makes me 100% American. I have ancestors from Europe, but how does that affect me? They lived there, not me. I also have ancestors from Africa. We all do. Are we all Africans?

The life of an Afghan citizen has the same exact value as a United States soldier. I would rather see 1,000 US soldiers die than 1,001 innocent Afghanis. Of course, I'd rather see neither.

Assuming they were all good people? Yeah, I'd agree with that. People are people.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You can have "internationalism" without a global government. I'll give you an example. I personally believe the life of a foreigner has the same worth as the life of an American. I even go a step further. This is something my mind wandered to when considering the rules of engagement in Afghanistan.

The life of an Afghan citizen has the same exact value as a United States soldier. I would rather see 1,000 US soldiers die than 1,001 innocent Afghanis. Of course, I'd rather see neither.

This kind of thinking is rejecting patriotism and nationalism without embracing a "global government."

It seems natural to me that people compartmentalize. Instinctually we are first concerned with our own person, then family, then local community. Allegiances to communities beyond the local starts to become rather abstract and impersonal. It is not hard for the average person to decide that the activities of the more abstract community in far off places is ok or good when they do not perceive the effect on them personally. Their more local allegiances make it easier as well to place a higher value on the lives of those who belong to their own community.

I think it takes a special sort of mentality to see all people as equal, unfortunately.

 

[Evo]

You can have "internationalism" without a global government. I'll give you an example. I personally believe the life of a foreigner has the same worth as the life of an American. I even go a step further. This is something my mind wandered to when considering the rules of engagement in Afghanistan.

The life of an Afghan citizen has the same exact value as a United States soldier. I would rather see 1,000 US soldiers die than 1,001 innocent Afghanis. Of course, I'd rather see neither.

This kind of thinking is rejecting patriotism and nationalism without embracing a "global government."

IMO, it's a bit skewed to say you'd rather see 1,000 innocent US soldiers that are risking their lives than 1,001 innocent Afghanis. You have placed a value on the worth of one set of people over another.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The life of an Afghan citizen has the same exact value as a United States soldier. I would rather see 1,000 US soldiers die than 1,001 innocent Afghanis. Of course, I'd rather see neither.

It's easy to make these broad statements (every life has exactly equal value) without having to actually put your money where your mouth is. It's not the birth of a movement, it's just meaningless, and is as likely to mean that you care as little about American lives as you do Afghan lives than that you have some special compassion for Afghanis that people who would pick the 1000 Americans don't have

 

[Pengwuino]

I wonder if you really can have 1 nationality... I always felt people embraced their nationality or whatever level their social group is so that there is always "other people" that people can kinda... blame all their problems on. I mean, if everyone on Earth felt like 1 group... that'd be pretty lame.

 

[rootX]

The life of an Afghan citizen has the same exact value as a United States soldier. I would rather see 1,000 US soldiers die than 1,001 innocent Afghanis. Of course, I'd rather see neither.

Everyone dies

But considering the hypothetical case you presented; would 1000 soldiers (not necessarily Americans) death or 1001 Afghanis bring more stability in the region? When you lose soldiers, insurgents gain advantage and able to cause more harm than in the case where you would still have 1000 soldiers.

 

[Char. Limit]

As gender and racial discrimination become less prevalent today as compared to the past, and as globalisation brings people together both physically and in terms of communication, how significant are nationalities today?

I must admit, while I can connect the second and third parts of the sentence, I can't see what gender discrimination (racial discrimination makes somewhat more sense, but still not much) has to do with nationalism. Prithee, couldst thou please enlighten me on this part of the sentence?

EDIT: Also, in a sense, they are, because nations do tend to stick to their currency. I think things would be much better off if we had a global currency, but I doubt that idea would EVER fly in the developed nations of the world.

 

[Cyrus]

You can have "internationalism" without a global government.

My apologies, I thought you were pushing for a global government.

I'll give you an example. I personally believe the life of a foreigner has the same worth as the life of an American. I even go a step further. This is something my mind wandered to when considering te rules of engagement in Afghanistan.

The life of an Afghan citizen has the same exact value as a United States soldier. I would rather see 1,000 US soldiers die than 1,001 innocent Afghanis. Of course, I'd rather see neither.

This kind of thinking is rejecting patriotism and nationalism without embracing a "global government."

The problem here is that it all sounds good on paper, it means nothing in reality. How do you define 'worth'? This is all subjective rhetoric. I think your example is a poor one, as US soldiers lives are worth far more than an Afghanis in terms of their ability to bring about change, or contribute to the economy (Afghanis don't have much money). But, ultimately, this has nothing to do with patriotism or nationalism. Those would deal more specifically to a globalized government, which I aluded to earlier.

 

[Jacky817]

I must admit, while I can connect the second and third parts of the sentence, I can't see what gender discrimination (racial discrimination makes somewhat more sense, but still not much) has to do with nationalism. Prithee, couldst thou please enlighten me on this part of the sentence?

EDIT: Also, in a sense, they are, because nations do tend to stick to their currency. I think things would be much better off if we had a global currency, but I doubt that idea would EVER fly in the developed nations of the world.

So sorry to have lumped everything together with no apparent links with each other.

What I'm trying to say is that many forms of prejudice and discrimination (although by no means, removed) have eased, over the recent decades. So there is a trend that people are disregarding whatever category/organisations/societies/race other people belong to. Therefore, whichever nation someone legally belongs to is losing its meaning.
And as there are so much movements in labour (workers from Philippines, China, Bangladesh moving to Singapore etc.), talents (Chinese and Indian graduates going to US) and in financial aspects (hot money-basically the disregard of nationality for more interests, trans-national corporations), i find that nationality is beginning to lose its purpose.

No way would I ever be a part of a 'international government' - and neither would most Americans. Nationalism and patriotism are probably more relevant today as some try to, incorrectly, push for a global government. I'm not sure about your claim for environmental issues being 'more' of a concern 'these days'. What are you basing this on?

I meant internationalism in a more ideological and behavioural way. Well, apparently the failure of the Copenhagen talk says a lot about our current status toward this ideology.

And more prevalent famine, water shortage, drought etc. and desertification, air/land/water pollution etc. etc.?

I thought it has been widely accepted that there's an urgent environmental issue at hand...pardon my ignorance if I'm wrong

 

[leroyjenkens]

It's easy to make these broad statements (every life has exactly equal value) without having to actually put your money where your mouth is. It's not the birth of a movement, it's just meaningless, and is as likely to mean that you care as little about American lives as you do Afghan lives than that you have some special compassion for Afghanis that people who would pick the 1000 Americans don't have

Is there a reason he shouldn't feel that way? I don't see how making that statement says he cares little about their lives. He said he wouldn't want to see anyone die, which he shouldn't even have had to say; it's a given.
People do put more value on American lives, just because they're also American. That's not a good reason. Some people probably consider 9/11 to be the worst disaster in history, forgetting about the hundreds of thousands of Asians who died in a tsunami or the hundreds of thousands of Haitians who died just this year from an earthquake.
Assuming all things stay the same afterward and you didn't know any of the Americans or anything like that, if you would rather see 1,001 Afghans die than 1,000 Americans, to me, that must mean you put more value on American lives. That's fine, you can feel however you want, but I don't see the problem of pointing that out.

 

[Tobias Funke]

I always like this article:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/im-prepared-to-give-my-life-for-this-or-any-countr,11298/

 

[aquitaine]

It is still relevant today because our world is still fragmented amoung many nation states. I feel that in the coming century, there will be greater and greater integration, starting with regional integration projects such as the EU and working itself upwards from there. Eventually it will evolve into a single, planetary union, though this will take quite some time, it is unevitable.

 

[brainstorm]

It is still relevant today because our world is still fragmented amoung many nation states. I feel that in the coming century, there will be greater and greater integration, starting with regional integration projects such as the EU and working itself upwards from there. Eventually it will evolve into a single, planetary union, though this will take quite some time, it is unevitable.

The main stumbling block to this will be, imo, language and cultural diversity. Even though there exists in theory the ideal of democratic republic with freedom of culture, in practice language is only preserved via nationalism. So for language and cultural diversity to be preserved, either major developments must be achieved in the practical application of republican democracy - or some other institutional method of preserving diversity of language and culture have to be recognized as sufficient to render nationalism unimportant.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

See also, Globish
http://www.globish.com/

RAY SUAREZ: The British Empire's high watermark probably came in the late 19th century, but England's most durable contribution to the world may be the English language itself.

So argues Robert McCrum in his new book, "Globish." He's the associate editor at The London Observer and was the co-author, with our own Robert MacNeil, of "The Story of English."

Was this an accident, or, after the British Empire gave way after the First World War to American dominance, was it almost an inevitability?

ROBERT MCCRUM, author, "Globish": I think what's accidental is that one empire using one set of language and values and cultural reference points gave away to another empire, the Pax Americana, using essentially the same.

And this is the first time in human history this has happened. And, so, you have a succession, one -- from one to the other. And what I'm arguing here is that both of those phases, the British phase of the 19th century, and the American phase of the 20th century, which are quite distinct, were both of them in different ways associated either with colonialism or some kind of cultural imperialism.

And what's happened now is that what I have called globish, which is the 21st century manifestation, is somehow value-free. It's somehow decoupled from its past and people can now use it with a sense of liberation, rather the sense of being oppressed by it...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/july-dec10/globish_07-23.html

 

[Pattonias]

Is it possible for the developed nations to prop up all the undeveloped nations in the world? Is there any desire to do so?

 

[brainstorm]

Is it possible for the developed nations to prop up all the undeveloped nations in the world? Is there any desire to do so?

To the extent that the global free market is utilized for profit-making, there is no interest in propping up anyone without the prospect of getting more in return. I have heard of global corporations and other organizations extending loans in developing economies, but I have also heard that these loans are given as part of a larger strategy to gain control of natural resources or other strategic goals. Even humanitarian efforts to extend charity in developing economies are often, imo, done only as a way for the economically successful to buy off their guilt. This is not to say that development work doesn't have any positive effects. Ultimately, though, I think the very fact that people are divided into bounded territories creates a self-sustaining logic of inequality. Even among developed nations, there is competition and exclusion on the basis of perceived inequalities and cultural differences; so it's not as if these divisions will go away once the developing world has reached a satisfactory level of development to convince westerners they're not poor. Ethnic difference becomes its own object and as long as the psychological and cultural factors that promote collective ego are present, nationalism will continue to be a means of fulfilling needs and patriotism will be a means of promoting nationalism. Plus, no matter how self-sufficient "developing" economies would become, there will probably always continue to be some psychological need for people to distinguish themselves from others based on some idea of relative cultural superiority. How could individuals create a sense of collectivism without coming up with some reason their society was better than another one? If they believe that all societies were essentially the same, or more accurately that all societies are actually part of the same global society, that could weaken their sense of collectivism and they would have nothing else to do but take responsibility for themselves as individuals and interact with others as individuals. That would be a problem for people who favor collectivism for whatever reason, wouldn't it?

 

[John Creighto]

I came across an interesting quote today:

Nationalism must be ended. It is a creed that has
come to burden the expansion of globalism (as
evident for instance in the demonstrations against
wro); hobbles the growth of the European Community
(as seen in the votes againsthe Euro in Denmark);
stands in the way of resolving violent conflicts
(for instance, over the fate of Jerusalem); complicates
the resolution of differences within existing nation-
states (for example, in Corsica); and turns refugees
and immigrants into a threat to the receiving
countries. Its ill effects are evident from Kosovo to
East Timor, from Chechnya, to Cyprus, to Bolivia.

http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/A284.pdf

There appears to be an argument that part of the motivation for the attack on nationalism is because it is a hindrance to globalism.

 

[Pattonias]

I suppose that if you are a supporter of globalism then you would be put off by nationalism.
I'm sure the bureaucracy would be much easier to wade through if our seat of government was moved to a foreign land. Not to mention my vote meaning so much more when combined with those of 8+ billion other people. Unless this new all powerful government unburdened me from my vote.

 

[brainstorm]

There appears to be an argument that part of the motivation for the attack on nationalism is because it is a hindrance to globalism.

When you see this kind of assertion that nationalism must be ended because it is an obstacle to globalism, it is probably a piece of propaganda intended to stimulate defensiveness against globalism in favor of nationalism. Do you remember the anti-globalization movement that resulted from 1990s propaganda that "globalization" was elevating "transnational corporations" to a level of power greater than national governments? If not, let me refresh your memory: people FREAKED OUT. There are so many people who have been sold on the idea of nationalism as ethnic solidarity and protection against forces beyond their control that they will consistently rally against "globalization" when it is portrayed as something in opposition to nationalism.

In reality, nationalism IS globalism. Colonialism culminated in the creation of autonomous nations that utilize ethnic identity to elicit consent of the governed and thus make it possible to organize global economic and political activities among a handful of national delegates instead of having a global free-for-all where anyone can pursue any economic interest anywhere. So, nationalism may bring order to globalism but it is certainly not its antithesis. They are two sides of the same coin.

Ultimately what will bring peace and prosperity will be when people globally learn to coordinate global and local economics and interests in a way that is not exploitative. At that point, there will be little if any need for protectionism and factionalism. Then, people will be able to interact freely regardless of ethnic identity or ties, because people will not fear being taken advantage of by "foreigners." This is idealistic, but until that happens there will be an impetus to cling to ethnic/national solidarity as protection against the exploitation of nationalist globalism.

 

[John Creighto]

When you see this kind of assertion that nationalism must be ended because it is an obstacle to globalism, it is probably a piece of propaganda intended to stimulate defensiveness against globalism in favor of nationalism.

It depends on the audience.

The following is what wikipedia has to say about Amitai_Etzioni influence:
"In 1980 he was named the first University Professor at The George Washington University,[2] where he currently serves as the director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies. He leads the Communitarian Network, a non-profit, non-partisan organization which is dedicated to support the moral, social and political foundations of society. It is based in Washington, D.C. He also held a faculty position at Harvard Business School from 1987 to 1990 serving as the Thomas Henry Carroll Ford Foundation Professor. Etzioni is known for his work on socioeconomics and communitarianism. He was the founder of the communitarian movement in the early 1990s and established the Communitarian Network to disseminate the movement’s ideas. His writings emphasize the importance for all societies of a carefully crafted balance between rights and responsibilities and between autonomy and order. "
http://www.thepeacearch.com/forum/culture-heritage-history/21834-1993-rise-communitarianism.html

Do you remember the anti-globalization movement that resulted from 1990s propaganda that "globalization" was elevating "transnational corporations" to a level of power greater than national governments? If not, let me refresh your memory: people FREAKED OUT.

And what happened? The protests were undermined by hooligans who were more there for the excitement then a belief in any specific cause. Each year we become more and more complacent in globalization and feel less empowered with the ability to effect change. The message of the protest at each G-## conference continues to get more and more undermined by the mindless violence and hence further surveillance and disempowerment is justified.

Nationalsim is not conducive to globalization. Nationalism, stresses national sovernity which does not recognize the right of foreign states to intervene in the name of human rights. Nationalism does not support jurisdiction of world trade courts deciding what industries governments can and cannot subsidies. Nationalism does not support the succeeding of control of the currency to institutions which are not under the control of the country. Nationalism does not support the dilution of cultural identity with mass immigration. Nationalism does not support wealth transfers from the rich to the poor in the name of the environmentalism. Nationalism does not support the use of the IMF to manipulate the economic policies of the developing world.

Corporate power is certainly significant. Some corporations produce more wealth then the GDP of some countries. Transnational corporations are a major force of world influence. Corporate lobbyist spend six times that of non profit groups in the US. Moreover, corporations can offer jobs and connections well non profit organizations can only give you a feel good feeling.
http://bearmarketnews.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/hightower-washington-overrun-by-11000-corporate-lobbyists-and-500-million-in-corrupting-donations/

There are so many people who have been sold on the idea of nationalism as ethnic solidarity and protection against forces beyond their control that they will consistently rally against "globalization" when it is portrayed as something in opposition to nationalism.

Yet we have the Eruo, EU, IMF, international court of human rights, kyoto, world bank, WTO. It seems that globalization has some momentum.

In reality, nationalism IS globalism. Colonialism culminated in the creation of autonomous nations that utilize ethnic identity to elicit consent of the governed and thus make it possible to organize global economic and political activities among a handful of national delegates instead of having a global free-for-all where anyone can pursue any economic interest anywhere. So, nationalism may bring order to globalism but it is certainly not its antithesis. They are two sides of the same coin.

Ah. Are we referring to the Hegelian dialectic? I would rather not open up that can of worms.

Anyway from wikipedia:

"Nationalism involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation. Often, it is the belief that an ethnic group has a right to statehood,[1] "
The right of statehood seems counter to global organizations intervening in state policy.

Ultimately what will bring peace and prosperity will be when people globally learn to coordinate global and local economics and interests in a way that is not exploitative. At that point, there will be little if any need for protectionism and factionalism. Then, people will be able to interact freely regardless of ethnic identity or ties, because people will not fear being taken advantage of by "foreigners." This is idealistic, but until that happens there will be an impetus to cling to ethnic/national solidarity as protection against the exploitation of nationalist globalism.

This is an interesting thesis but is is not university accepted. Some argue that social hierarchys maintain stability. I dissagree but anyway from brave new world:

"I was wondering," said the Savage, "why you had them at all–seeing that you can get whatever you want out of those bottles. Why don't you make everybody an Alpha Double Plus while you're about it?"

Mustapha Mond laughed. "Because we have no wish to have our throats cut," he answered. "We believe in happiness and stability. A society of Alphas couldn't fail to be unstable and miserable. Imagine a factory staffed by Alphas–that is to say by separate and unrelated individuals of good heredity and conditioned so as to be capable (within limits) of making a free choice and assuming responsibilities. Imagine it!" he repeated.

The Savage tried to imagine it, not very successfully.

"It's an absurdity. An Alpha-decanted, Alpha-conditioned man would go mad if he had to do Epsilon Semi-Moron work–go mad, or start smashing things up. Alphas can be completely socialized–but only on condition that you make them do Alpha work. Only an Epsilon can be expected to make Epsilon sacrifices, for the good reason that for him they aren't sacrifices; they're the line of least resistance. His conditioning has laid down rails along which he's got to run. He can't help himself; he's foredoomed. Even after decanting, he's still inside a bottle–an invisible bottle of infantile and embryonic fixations. Each one of us, of course," the Controller meditatively continued, "goes through life inside a bottle. But if we happen to be Alphas, our bottles are, relatively speaking, enormous. We should suffer acutely if we were confined in a narrower space. You cannot pour upper-caste champagne-surrogate into lower-caste bottles. It's obvious theoretically. But it has also been proved in actual practice. The result of the Cyprus experiment was convincing."

"What was that?" asked the Savage.

Mustapha Mond smiled. "Well, you can call it an experiment in rebottling if you like. It began in A.F. 473. The Controllers had the island of Cyprus cleared of all its existing inhabitants and re-colonized with a specially prepared batch of twenty-two thousand Alphas. All agricultural and industrial equipment was handed over to them and they were left to manage their own affairs. The result exactly fulfilled all the theoretical predictions. The land wasn't properly worked; there were strikes in all the factories; the laws were set at naught, orders disobeyed; all the people detailed for a spell of low-grade work were perpetually intriguing for high-grade jobs, and all the people with high-grade jobs were counter-intriguing at all costs to stay where they were. Within six years they were having a first-class civil war. When nineteen out of the twenty-two thousand had been killed, the survivors unanimously petitioned the World Controllers to resume the government of the island. Which they did. And that was the end of the only society of Alphas that the world has ever seen."

http://www.huxley.net/bnw/
Also from brave new world:

We could synthesize every morsel of food, if we wanted to. But we don’t. We prefer to keep a third of the population on the land. For their own sakes–because it takes longer to get food out of the land than out of a factory. Besides, we have our stability to think of. We don’t want to change. Every change is a menace to stability. That’s another reason why we’re so chary of applying new inventions. Every discovery in pure science is potentially subversive; even science must sometimes be treated as a possible enemy. Yes, even science.

http://johncreighton.amplify.com/2010/07/18/the-role-of-shortage-brave-new-world/

Plato, The Republic

True, I replied, but there is more coming; I have only told you half.
Citizens, we shall say to them in our tale, you are brothers, yet God
has framed you differently. Some of you have the power of command, and in the composition of these he has mingled gold, wherefore also they have the greatest honour; others he has made of silver, to be
auxillaries; others again who are to be husbandmen and craftsmen he has composed of brass and iron; and the species will generally be preserved in the children. But as all are of the same original stock, a golden parent will sometimes have a silver son, or a silver parent a golden son. And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their off spring; for if
the son of a golden or silver parent has an admixture of brass and
iron, then nature orders a transposition of ranks, and the eye of the
ruler must not be pitiful towards the child because he has to descend
in the scale and become a husbandman or artisan, just as there may be sons of artisans who having an admixture of gold or silver in them are raised to honour, and become guardians or auxiliaries. For an oracle says that when a man of brass or iron guards the State, it will be
destroyed. Such is the tale; is there any possibility of making our
citizens believe in it?

Not in the present generation, he replied; there is no way of
accomplishing this; but their sons may be made to believe in the tale,
and their sons’ sons, and posterity after them.

http://s243a.amplify.com/2010/07/21/plato-the-republic-born-of-silver-gold-and-bronze/

 

[brainstorm]

Nationalsim is not conducive to globalization. Nationalism, stresses national sovernity which does not recognize the right of foreign states to intervene in the name of human rights. Nationalism does not support jurisdiction of world trade courts deciding what industries governments can and cannot subsidies. Nationalism does not support the succeeding of control of the currency to institutions which are not under the control of the country. Nationalism does not support the dilution of cultural identity with mass immigration. Nationalism does not support wealth transfers from the rich to the poor in the name of the environmentalism. Nationalism does not support the use of the IMF to manipulate the economic policies of the developing world.

First of all, even if nationalism didn't foster centralized governance that lends itself to international cooperation between national elites, it would still be itself a form of globalization insofar as it unifies numerous communities that would otherwise have little or no relationship with one another. Ultimately, the only form of political power that respects the right to power of all its constituents individually is that of a republic, which if enacted correctly could be national or global because either way the emphasis would be on freedom and respect for individuals and decentralization of power.

Corporate power is certainly significant. Some corporations produce more wealth then the GDP of some countries. Transnational corporations are a major force of world influence. Corporate lobbyist spend six times that of non profit groups in the US. Moreover, corporations can offer jobs and connections well non profit organizations can only give you a feel good feeling.

And yet they usurp the power of individuals by either absorbing them into institutionalized corporate networks or marginalizing them. Nation-states do the same, only the propaganda of ethnic identity is slightly better compensation than with the corporations. Either way, the point is that for individuals to be truly socially, economically, and culturally empowered they need to relinquish the ideology that they are only meaningful as part of a faction versus other factions. Although the globe is vast, as a republic it is nothing more than emergent patterns of individual actions. No form of corporate control eliminates the necessity of individuals acting of their own accord.

Yet we have the Eruo, EU, IMF, international court of human rights, kyoto, world bank, WTO. It seems that globalization has some momentum.

Every nation-state is also a global organization insofar as it organizes individuals according to self-other national identities. Did you watch world cup soccer? If you did, you should have noticed that the ideological victory is to intensify individual emotions of connection to national identities. This makes it far easier for global elites to manipulate them.

Ah. Are we referring to the Hegelian dialectic? I would rather not open up that can of worms.

No, I wasn't being that abstract. I am literally talking about the use of national hegemony and identity to control individuals for global interests.

"Nationalism involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation. Often, it is the belief that an ethnic group has a right to statehood,[1] "
The right of statehood seems counter to global organizations intervening in state policy.

What is "statehood" in a global economy like the one that exists presently? The creation of elites with boundaries that separate them from their service personnel? No post-industrial economy is ever going to reclaim its industrial base from cheap offshore labor markets. Economic independence at the national level is a lost dream, if it was ever more than that in the first place. The closest anyone came to any kind of economic independence was during the various moments of colonialism when people attempted to set forth in a frontier and self-sustain with whatever means nature provided. Nationalism has never done anything except intensified economic interdependence, which in turn increased the propensity for international (global) trade.

 

[cesiumfrog]

Are patriotism and nationality still relevant in today's world?

No, they shouldn't be.

Obviously, they still are relevant if you want to understand current events. Which is sad, but I'm sure things will slowly improve. (I also expect future generations will look back on our blatant speciesism in much the same way we look at the racism of our grandparents.)

Since this is a basically American forum, it's likely most people on PF don't even have a passport, which doesn't suggest they've progressed far towards identifying themselves as citizens of the world (first, and perhaps of a particular country secondarily) yet. Perhaps it's easier for people like me: I've moved away from my home town (only ever returning to visit), for education in a state I also don't expect to stay in long-term (it's not like I've got a deep commitment to the suburb I happen to be renting in), and many of my strong personal interests (aikido, go, anime) are specific to a country that is one of the most foreign from where I am (and obviously we're also washed in cultural influence from the north-atlantic). Even here in "the multicultural nation" (that slogan may be biased but I think is justifiable in the context of "western" nations) a major election issue ("tough on boat people") revolves around the gross denial of human rights to genuinely desperate people, for reasons that still boil down to whether they had the fortune to be born on one side or another of some line somebody drew on a map..

 

[cesiumfrog]

IMO, it's a bit skewed to say you'd rather see 1,000 innocent US soldiers that are risking their lives than 1,001 innocent Afghanis. You have placed a value on the worth of one set of people over another.

Skewed, how so? One of those numbers is larger than the other, I think Jack is valuing each individual person equally. I also note you added an extra instance of the word innocent. All other things equal, I'd value each civilian life higher than a person who has deliberately chosen to devote themself to the business of killing (implicitly accepting risk to their own life, gambling with it even, and being willing to not just talk about but actually acting to take lives from many others, doing so at a moment's order - without even a claim to verifying the big picture for themselves first, accepting the fact of "collateral damage" without trying for alternate solutions). I think that kind of personality should be discouraged, not glorified.

 

[Pattonias]

Skewed, how so? One of those numbers is larger than the other, I think Jack is valuing each individual person equally. I also note you added an extra instance of the word innocent. All other things equal, I'd value each civilian life higher than a person who has deliberately chosen to devote themself to the business of killing (implicitly accepting risk to their own life, gambling with it even, and being willing to not just talk about but actually acting to take lives from many others, doing so at a moment's order - without even a claim to verifying the big picture for themselves first, accepting the fact of "collateral damage" without trying for alternate solutions). I think that kind of personality should be discouraged, not glorified.

Are you serious? Soldiers put themselves into harms way as a service to their people. Not to fulfill some sort of bloodlust or to get the opportunity to kill other people. You may like to think in ideological terms, but somewhere in your or your ancestors past someone sacrificed their life so that you could have the freedom to discuss your world view.

Soldiers sacrifice a portion of their humanity to serve their people. Whether we had a globilized world or a nationalist world both would require these blood thirsty monsters to keep the peace. Otherwise someone else would recruit professional killers to take away your freedom to complain on the internet.

Sweeping statements like this are far to broud to make any sense in a real world scenario. If all the world's nations/people threw down their arms and refused to fights a single violent individual could rule the world and do as they pleased.

 

[brainstorm]

Since this is a basically American forum, it's likely most people on PF don't even have a passport, which doesn't suggest they've progressed far towards identifying themselves as citizens of the world (first, and perhaps of a particular country secondarily) yet.

Passports, international travel, and the emphasis on cultural differences that often results actually help promote nationalism more than undermine it. Nationalism is challenged more by the person who questions the need for a passport or the depth of cultural differences attribute to ethnicity/nationalism. It's not so much the fact of traveling that promotes differentiation and borders - it's just that people immerse themselves in it when they travel because they don't want to challenge border security, which can be dangerous.

Skewed, how so? One of those numbers is larger than the other, I think Jack is valuing each individual person equally. I also note you added an extra instance of the word innocent. All other things equal, I'd value each civilian life higher than a person who has deliberately chosen to devote themself to the business of killing (implicitly accepting risk to their own life, gambling with it even, and being willing to not just talk about but actually acting to take lives from many others, doing so at a moment's order - without even a claim to verifying the big picture for themselves first, accepting the fact of "collateral damage" without trying for alternate solutions). I think that kind of personality should be discouraged, not glorified.

The issue isn't whether you call it "collateral damage." It is whether you consider it worth while to make an effort to minimize such damage. People who emotionalize the damage of conflict may actually contribute to making it worse by adding emotional reaction to the existing violence. On the other hand, if people have no basis for recognizing violence as bad, what basis would they have for minimizing harm done?

Are you serious? Soldiers put themselves into harms way as a service to their people. Not to fulfill some sort of bloodlust or to get the opportunity to kill other people. You may like to think in ideological terms, but somewhere in your or your ancestors past someone sacrificed their life so that you could have the freedom to discuss your world view.

Soldiers sacrifice a portion of their humanity to serve their people. Whether we had a globilized world or a nationalist world both would require these blood thirsty monsters to keep the peace. Otherwise someone else would recruit professional killers to take away your freedom to complain on the internet.

Gandhi would say that only the violent can resist violence. The problem with defending the sacrifice of soldiers is that it does to soldiers exactly what war does to them, i.e. puts them on the front line of defense - only in this case it's ideological instead of physical. Why should it be necessary for soldiers to sacrifice their humanity to engage in conflict? Isn't it possible for people to engage in violence in a particular situation as simply being the path of least harm or the most ethical path in a particular situation? For example, if people are getting away with unfairly abusing others and you stand up to them with a fight, isn't that more ethical than allowing them to continue the abuse without intervention? You can even look at it from the perspective of the abuser: if you were abusing someone unfairly, wouldn't it be ethical for someone to intervene in your actions to prevent you from continuing down the road you're on?

Sweeping statements like this are far to broud to make any sense in a real world scenario. If all the world's nations/people threw down their arms and refused to fights a single violent individual could rule the world and do as they pleased.

True. People forget that non-violent domination and abuse are possible and occur all the time. Why would it be more ethical to fight passive-aggression with passive-aggression than with active aggression? What's more, less-violent domination is usually achieved through more systematic authoritarian power, which is a tool of the powerful - so by renouncing all forms of violence, you are actually promoting the right of dominant powers to dominate without resistance.

 

[cesiumfrog]

Are you serious? Soldiers put themselves into harms way as a service to their people.

If someone is to be harmed better it be soldiers, since they already knowingly chose to insert themselves into harms way, than civilians, since they did not volunteer for (nor assist) harms way to come to them.

Soldiers sacrifice a portion of their humanity to serve their people.

That is plainly saying there is less of what we value left in a soldier than a civil-person.

Whether we had a globilized world or a nationalist world both would require these blood thirsty monsters to keep the peace. Otherwise someone else would recruit professional killers to take away your freedom to complain on the internet. [..] If all the world's nations/people threw down their arms and refused to fights a single violent individual could rule the world and do as they pleased.

Gandhi (India) is one demonstration that you are wrong to assume it always has to work that way.