Comment by hackuser | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hackuser | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Interesting points; I've a few rambling thoughts about them:

* I don't think many people are so extreme as the 'opposite of nationalism'. In fact, I think that nationalism (or more broadly, the basic tribalistic instinct) has such an natural, powerful pull on people that it will never need to be encouraged.

* I think it's great that many people moderate their nationalistic instincts now with reason and compassion. Not only did millions get slaughtered for the nation (or the race, or whatever), but they murdered millions more. The moderation of 'tribalism' with liberal ideas might be one of the most important changes in humanity's history.

* Unfortunately, I see nationalism and other tribalistic ideas as rapidly spreading again. It's promoted by state school boards in Texas and Oklahoma; many national leaders push it, for example in Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea (off the top of my head). Outright religious 'tribalism' is rampant in Europe and, to a degree, the U.S. The EU's unity is under serious strain, Scotland almost succeeded from the UK, and parts of Spain and other countries are discussing the same. Nobody stands up for the value of the liberal ideas and institutions that kept the peace since WWII.

Arguably, there are two kinds of political movements (and leaders), those that bring people together, and those that play on tribalistic instincts and divide them. One kind has much better results for humanity.

The problem is that in practice the alternative to nationalism isn't universal humanism. It's pernicious individualism or strong group identification along other dimensions. Many Netizens, for example, feel closer to the educated elite in other countries than they do to working class people a couple of neighborhoods away. I don't think that's actually a good thing if you're trying to create an egalitarian cohesive society.

> in practice the alternative to nationalism isn't universal humanism. It's pernicious individualism or strong group identification along other dimensions.

That's the 'tribalism' I'm talking about. People can divide into 'us and them' over nations or states or race or wealth or whatever. I agree with the downsides and your example.

But it's not intractable. We're not living in family units in caves; we've formed societies, nations, companies, bowling leagues, etc. Humans are naturally social, cooperative, even herd-like organisms and they do work together, organize, and build inclusive social structures.

The very divided states of 1776 did form the United States of today, though it took a little work. The Germanic states formed Germany. Europe did make peace and form the EU. Think of the notion of "white" in the U.S.: There used to be violent, hateful divisions between Protestants, Catholics, and Jews; between Italians, Irish and Germans (and more); it was a big deal when JFK was elected in 1960 that he was Catholic. Now that all would be absurd; those people are just "white" (and the division is with black and Hispanic peopl, and with Muslims). We had segregation, and now we elected a black President (though we still have a ways to go.) LGBTQ people are now widely accepted as just people.

Arguably, there are two kinds of political movements (and leaders), those that bring people together, and those that play on tribalistic instincts and divide them. One kind has much better results for humanity.

There are two kinds of political movements (and leaders), those, like narcissists, forcefully change others into themselves, remove differences between peoples, demolish language and culture, and those that remain resolute in being non-interfering of others, even while being interfered with, allowing other humans to live according to their humanity.

In Firefly - you would be part of the alliance. In Star Wars - you would be part of the empire. In the People's Republic of China, you would be part of the CCCP. In the U.S. you would be part of the Federal government. In Europe you would be part of the Troika.

And I accept that is your nature.

I disagree; I don't at all intend to force anyone or think they should be forced. I believe they can and will be pursuaded and do the right thing, of their own free will; good leaders facilitate that but showing them how to work together. Humanity's track record for working together is incredible - we're a long way from caves and hunting - and it may be that the more free you make people, the better they respond.

The most prosperous, safest and most peaceful countries in the history of the world, by a long shot, are the freest.

You can disagree. You have the same mindset as the U.S. Government in the 1800's thinking it is wise to persuade American Indians to 'civilise' for their own good. People who never admit failure no matter the results of their social experiments. And that's just how some of us are going to think some of the time.

I can more than disagree; I speak with absolute authority for what I believe. I declare the truth of it. You and your speculation have no standing at all.

That's true for you, since you know if you're lying; it's not true in general.

I don't mean to say that there's any reason to think you're lying here, but I think it's worth pointing out that the identical argument fails very badly in different circumstances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com