Nationalism is a recent invention and I never liked it as it meant suppression of regional cultures (think Wales, Brittany, Low Saxon regions, Basque etc.). The only good thing - to me - of a nation station is a larger military.
Here's the article I am referring to:
I would welcome more autonomy of regions and the remergence of city-states. What about you?
>nation station
=
nation state kek
A lot of those new nations or whatever to call them makes no sense. The push for independence in a lot of them is so small as not hardly exist.
>Click link
>Watch video
>See the Romans slowly shrinking
>Get sad
Why in the fuck the Balkans are so autistically divided, while fucking Italy (the definition of division during the Middle Ages) is just a big blob?
I'm so triggered right now.
That's the problem with all those regionalist maps. Something the author knows about is "H""R""E" tier fragmented while other countries, most often Eastern Europe and Russia, are huge blobs.
>Extremadura
>Cantabria
>Asturias
>Nations
Kek
>Meanwhile, Naples who was a kingdom isn't in the map
KEK
>Nationalism is a recent invention
I consider this to be a 19th century meme. Nationalism existed for a long time.
>Nationalism existed for a long time.
True
But everything you know for a nation is based on 19th Century dawn of Nation-State tier shit.
Because if you asked a Roman Citizen what his Nation would be, he'd give you the name of his fucking clan (gens) instead.
We are talking of the 'future' picture right? I just took it from the article without thinking too much 'bout it.
Concerning Italy: I read that there's some in the north that would like to ditch the south.
According to the article it is also more about bureaucracy as ethnicity and language.
this. where did this meme begin?
>ancient greeks didnt enslave foreigners
>aristotle didnt believe greeks were racially pure
>ancient jews didnt found an entire fucking religion where their covenant with god is their own special nation
>judaism doesnt teach they are the "chosen people" for that nation
>classic rome wasnt as nationalist as the greeks
just a few examples. because to mention how almost every ancient culture was nationalist would take forever
Explain yourselves user. In my home country of the Netherlands every region had its own language (dialect) and fighting between regions was a reality.
Maybe Dutch would unite as the Dutch with a common enemy (say Spain) in the similar way that Ancient Greeks did, but outside of a common enemy there was no nationalism.
You can have several layers of identity. You could, say, identify as Greek but also Spartan.
>Rome
see please, thanks.
That's erosion of central authority, which is almost always followed by disorder and anarchy.
Also Italy should be at least 20 states on that map.
Spanishfag there, tired to see maps of balkanization of Spain.
ONLY Cataluña and Euskadi are independent. Trying to establish Cantabria, Asturias, Extremadura, Andalucia, Murcia etc as countries is from ignorants and stupids
>Asturias
>Not a nation
>Cataluña and Euskadi
I do not know if you are Spanish but I am sure that you are a moron
I don't see why nationalism should suppress regional cultures.
I'm a proud nationalist (EU dead when?) but I also take pride in my regional culture. I don't need my region to be independent from our nation state, for me to be able to maintain its culture.
Note: this isn't so much about being butthurt about balkanization. Though maybe I should've been silent myself on being more or less in favour of it.
So: can we agree that decentralisation, not necessary balkanization, is better for decision making?
In the Netherlands the region of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht, the "Randstad" is the wealthiest. I understood that most of the money goes to that region and most of the power is in it.
Isn't a situation like this asking for troubles in the longterm?
>but I also take pride in my regional culture. I don't need my region to be independent from our nation state, for me to be able to maintain its culture.
This is rule, but nations should have the right of selfdetermination.
Balkanization isnt bad per say,I would argue that it can be benefitial in most cases,as it can give the alternative for different political alternatives to rise
Well it is mostly language supression. In several nations such as France and the UK you would get beaten by a stick if you spoke your regional language.
>In several nations such as France and the UK
>neo-medievalism
???
Franco also tried to destroy local languages. In the Netherlands you might not get beaten by a stick but you would still be punished for speaking a local language. It is still frowned upon today.
I have no knowledge on other nations but surely German must have used education to unify their populace and supress other languages too since it used to have a lot of dialects that are now more or less dead.
Well personally I feel that anyone in a nation state should have the ability to speak that nation's language. Beyond that they are free to use their own regional language as they see fit, but should generally use the nation's language when in mixed company.
Like this, I again don't see why there should be serious conflict between a region and the nation state it belongs to.
>Franco also tried to destroy local languages
False.Even in the public TV channel there were programs and songs in Catalan,and there are tons of Catalan writers of that time.
>but you would still be punished for speaking a local language
Highly doubted.
I agree with that. I know from my region people who refuse to speak anything else as Frisian to most people. That is the other side of it.
A problem can be decision making being done by the centralized government when the local government has better knowledge and so forth in that region.
>False.Even in the public TV channel there were programs and songs in Catalan,and there are tons of Catalan writers of that time.
Someone told me that. What about this:
en.wikipedia.org
>but you would still be punished for speaking a local language
I would have to look that up. I got it from somewhere.
In the UK the Welsh language is actually very strongly promoted, though as for the Gaelic languages I'm not so sure
Odds are that that;s the future of humanity. 3D printers and automation will make population density unnecessary for the manufacture of complex goods while it removes the states monopoly on violence.
In the future mankind will largely self organize into codified sub-cultures and independent micro-states with corporate-feudalist wage slavery Kind of like Neil Stephenson novel.
I, for one welcome our new ancap o̶v̶e̶r̶l̶o̶r̶d̶s̶ shareholders
Nowadays yea. But it hasn't always been like that.
Google Welsh Not.
Catalan want a official language under Franco.Just that.People could speak and write it if they pleased.Even some conmemorative plaques in Catalonia were written in Catalan like pic
>want
wasnt
and this conclusively means this clearly isnt nationalist? i see this argument devolving into semantics, i.e. semantics of nationalism.
I hate how cowards hide behind semantics. its their failsafe when theyre actually afraid to critically look at data and seriously consider all the possible conclusions that can be drawn.
They have a conception of nation alright but as for nationalism, they seem to have an odd penchant for wrecking the christ out of each other.
Not to mention the fact that Greekyness could be fucking cultural, damn whatever Aristotle thinks.
>Macedonians aren't Greeks
>Whoops they conquered us and they follow Greek culture. I suppose they are Greek now.
>Asiatics can't be Greek.
>Man, we need to rule all these Asiatics, I suppose we must consider the Philhellenoi Greek as well.
There are two broad categories of nationalism.
The first category is the nationalism that has shaped countries like France and modern Turkey. A regional culture and identity was picked and adopted as the country's ideal for what the nation should be like. In France, those were the secular, cosmopolitan Frenchmen of the region around Île-de-France and their language and culture. In Turkey, those were the secular-Sunni Turks of central Anatolia, around Ankara and Konya. These national identities were then assumed as some sort of a mold in which every national of the country had to fit. This meant that there was no room for regional languages and that the importance different dialects was marginalized.
The second category of nationalism is the nationalism that shaped countries like Germany. In that case, rather than take one regional cultural identity and assimilate everyone into it, the similarities of every regional German culture were brought together into one overarching German national identity. This meant that someone was a German, but also a Bavarian, Prussian, or Rheinlander. The importance of regional dialects and cultures was left intact.
I can see nation-states working with the latter kind of nationalism as it's more about looking for the commonalities and work with that. The former kind of nationalism on the other hand is inherently suppressive of local cultures due to its aggressively assimilatory nature.
en.wikipedia.org
>When at the mid-19th century, primary school is made compulsory all across the State, it is also made clear that only French will be taught, and the teachers will severely punish any pupil speaking in patois. The aim of the French educational system will consequently not be to dignify the pupils' natural humanity, developing their culture and teaching them to write their language, but rather to humiliate them and morally degrade them for the simple fact of being what tradition and their nature made them. The self-proclaimed country of the "Human rights" will then ignore one of man's most fundamental rights, the right to be himself and speak the language of his nation. And with that attitude France, the "grande France" that calls itself the champion of liberty, will pass the 20th century, indifferent to the timid protest movements of the various linguistic communities it submitted and the literary prestige they may have given birth to.
>France [...] has the miserable honour of being the State of Europe—and probably the world — that succeeded best in the diabolical task of destroying its own ethnic and linguistic patrimony and moreover, of destroying human family bonds: many parents and children, or grandparents and grandchildren, have different languages, and the latter feel ashamed of the first because they speak a despicable patois, and no element of the grandparents' culture has been transmitted to the younger generation, as if they were born out of a completely new world. This is the French State that has just entered the 21st century, a country where stone monuments and natural landscapes are preserved and respected, but where many centuries of popular creation expressed in different tongues are on the brink of extinction. The "gloire" and the "grandeur" built on a genocide. No liberty, no equality, no fraternity: just cultural extermination, this is the real motto of the French Republic.
what does this have to do with the comment that people are hit with sticks for speaking a regional language?
Nationalism will go away, but not in the favour of smaller entities and descentralization, but in favour of the creation of an one-world government.
What people need to understand is that such ideologies exist only as vessels for the manifestation of political interests of certain castes (not class). Nationalism was useful to the left-wing intelligentsia when they desired to do away with multinational empires, which were ruled by traditional castes such as the aristocracy and the clergy. It was nothing more than a mean to enlist the support of common people for left-wing policies, just like shit like feminism and anti-racism in the modern world (it could be said nationalism was the identity politics of the 19th century).
Now that these old empires have fallen and leftism controls all ideological apparatus such as the media and academia, there is no need for nations anymore so any globalist government will be staffed by leftist intellectuals and bureaucrats in the nomenklatura.
>creation of an one-world government
We are too far from that, and only contact with aliens or some weird event could lead to that.Super regional states are the next big thing,we will see if they are formed or fade
Clearly distinct regions should form their own nation states
Spain fits the second category and it's the nation more threatened by regional nationalism in Europe since the fall of Yugoslavia.
what do you mean by super regional states. for example what would happen to US if it was to turn into a super regional state? what would france look like?
The EU.The NA super regional state would be MExico+Canada+USA.For the moment it seems that only the EU is going for this path,but I assume that other countries may try to imitate them
The future is more and more secession leading to a world of city-states a la Singapore. Brexit and the subsequent calls for exit are the beginning of what we should be expecting in the future. This is pretty much inevitable as the cost of deterrence via WMDs becomes lower and lower over time leading to any area with the desire to secede able to.
would regional autonomy and city states be practical for global economy? for example how would global capitalism or even just capitalism in general be affected if nations were done away with and regional autonomy and city states reinstated? not that i personally give a shit about capitalism but you know thats the first thing world leaders will think about.
FYI its my theory (not hypothesis) that communism was fought not in the interest of the well being of people but to ensure capitalism can reach the entire globe. and propaganda aside, i believe real skepticism of climate change is motivated by its threat to economy and capitalism, which, I'm willing to admit, it probably does threaten, even though I believe in curbing anthropogenic climate change
IMO it would make capitalism even stronger. Singapore and Hong Kong are extrememly laissez faire and I'd wager other city states would be the same as they'd have access to less resources.
>would regional autonomy and city states be practical for global economy? for example how would global capitalism or even just capitalism in general be affected if nations were done away with and regional autonomy and city states reinstated? not that i personally give a shit about capitalism but you know thats the first thing world leaders will think about.
Way more open economies.Small countries are forced into this,to not be poor.
Come to think about it. You probably want some kind of shared trade laws. But to be honest I say that's outside of my scope: I have no fucking clue how that works.
And yea, for sure, certain economical operations could be threatened by climate change policies.
Is that somehow less true today?
In my opinion a bit less. That's why I state that nationalism (of today) is different. You didn't have tellies with song contests, football games and so on back in the day.
a one world govenment would be nice and noble, but the motives usually arent motivated by the interest of the people of the world. for example the mcdonalds corporation would probably enjoy a one world nation because then it would be easier to sell to the entire globe than to deal with each particular nation around the world. their motive is to sell. theyre not interested in whether mcdonalds SHOULD be sold around the world i.e. whether mcdonalds is good for people. mcdonalds is an example of the typical motive of globalization, and that motive is suspect. that is the typical case
That isn't really suspect. It's a pretty straightforward motivation, although the same thing could be accomplished by a global trade agreements on labor laws, tariffs, etc.
My own issue with one government is that too much bureaucracy, which I equate with a single government for the ease, is bad for decision making as it is too rigid..
According to complexity science at least, and I do not claim to understand all of it.
have you been following current events? is the EU really the natural progression? is europe really going in that direction? no one else is going to follow brexit?
But maybe you can have a single government and still be decentralized otherwise?
U wot m8?
People aren't going to fucking attack you if you speak your regional language in the UK, but it's probably dead anyway so it would hardly even be a problem if you got beat up for speaking Welsh or something because nobody speaks it anyway.
>Macedonians aren't Greeks
Prime example of Athenian asshurt
Even though they were the leftover Doric peoples
Mate, it was in school that they did that. Should've mentioned that.
It is dead because education killed it.
its suspect and thats literally what caused the rise of ultra nationalism end of 18th into 19th century. industrialization sought to globalize the world whether its good for people or not (see: romanticism wiki page)
some one will call out mcdonalds for globalizing only in self interested regardless of whether or not its good for people, and when some incident finally happens were self interest does hurt people (see subprime mortgage crisis how banks acting in self interest benefit no one, that is, hurt people) people will be inclined to go back to a particular nation caring for its own people.
one world government means you only need to corrupt just one government and you just destroyed the world. imagine if there was one world government and we all accidently elected hitler or trump again and now its a world dictatorship. how the fuck would you get out of that?
>trump again
user am I ever gonna get laid?
sorry maybe hitler and trump arent good examples. lets just say we elected some meme as a world leader, because sometimes people make mistakes
What other states or cultures in Europe are looking for independence? I know there's a Catalonia independence movement and a Venetian one
en.wikipedia.org
But not all are as active.
>is the EU really the natural progression?
Probably,Sooner or later there would be huge different trade blocks,with the same laws and probably army
> is europe really going in that direction? no one else is going to follow brexit?
Probably some countries may go out of the union as well.But as long as France and Germany are in it,the union shouldnt collapse
>support the EU superstate and you can literally become serfs again!
Neo-medievalism. What a crock of shit.
>some meme
I nominate baneposting for world leader
The problem with the liberal use of "nationalism" is that the speaker is almost always referring to "states" as opposed to "nations", and "citizens" as opposed to "people". A nation is a country of people. A nation rises out of its inhabitants and is defined by them. The reverse in not true, that is, the people are not defined by the nation. Citizens may be determined by the state, but then "the state" is a modern liberal idea and "the citizen" a hollow abstraction.
Gaidhlig is quite heavily promoted in Scotland with our own tv channel and that. Prior to that efforts were made to eradicate it. My grandmother used to get the belt if she was caught speaking it in school.
Can you speak it?
Yeah.
lmao that retarded map is actually in the article?
What kind of a shit website is that?
That's pretty neat. I know that the Gaelic-speaking population of Scotland is the lowest of the Celtic nations
I suppose it's rather silly coming from an American, but I'm fascinated by local languages. When I go to study abroad in Germany, I'd like to learn about the local dialect if I can