Ask Lemmy

I disagree with this analysis because I frankly don't think it's even accurate.

I think we need to start by acknowledging a simple reality, which is that all identities exist to include and exclude. That's what an identity is, it's a set of identifiers that makes something distinct to the things its compared to. So all identities can be twisted and framed as "us vs them", but I think that's a mischaracterization of the concept.

We also need to acknowledge that we are inherently tribalistic beings by our very nature. We are social creatures that have evolved to survive in small groups. The well being of our groups were essential to our survival, and therefore we have developed a strong sense of belonging to the groups we had ties with and we were wary of groups that weren't because they could be hostile and could threaten the well being of the group we were in. We would like to think that we have evolved, but we really haven't. We still have the same brains as back then and they still have the instincts. This is why tribalism is such a prominent part of our society today even if it seems counterproductive.

With that being said, you are correct that nationalism is form of tribalism, but I don't think that's an inherently bad thing. Ultimately different groups of people are in fact different from each other. Different geographies, cultures, histories, languages, and customs do lead to very different societies. It makes sense that people identify with the society that they're from. Nations are ultimately just our modern civilization's version of the small tribal groups that our prehistoric ancestors had, and because of that, nations are here to stay because they appeal to nature. It's not something that we can get rid of.

We have to make the distinction between nations and states because I don't think you know the difference between them. A nation, by definition, is just a community of people who share a collective identity. It's a social concept that exclusively refers to people and exists in the minds of people. A state, by definition, is the political sovereign entity that was created to rule. These are not interchangeable. There are nations that don't have states like Kurdistan or the Uyghurs, and there are states that don't have a single national identity like Bosnia or the UK. The point is that you're confusing nations with states and countries, but these are not the same thing. Nations do NOT have physical or political characteristics like sovereignty or territory.

A nation is a fluid concept that doesn't have defined edges, its what people say it is, and it exists as long as there are people who identify with it. For example, in the case of nation states, there are different kinds. For example, Armenia is nation based on ethnic nationalism where the nation is defined by the Armenian ethnicity. If you're ethnically Armenian then you're a part of the Armenian nation regardless of who you are and what you believe. Likewise you got the US, which is a nation that's based civic nationalism where the nation is defined by political citizenship and shared values. As long as you hold those values and have American citizenship then you're an American.

The point is that your claim of nationalism being dogmatic is wrong. A nation doesn't have rigid edges nor does it segregate nor does it isolate. A nation, at its core, is just a set of identifiers that a group of people share. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It something that has its place in our world. Like with anything else, nationalism taken to the extreme is a bad thing, but when it's not, its simply a way for people with commonalities to associate with each other. Even if you snap your fingers and everybody forgot what nationalism is, a new but very similar concept will emerge to take its place because people will always want to be a part of a greater good.