Hacker News Reader

Comment by zajio1am | Hacker News Reader

> A nation should be ruled from their own land and by their own people

Leftists sometimes consider nationalism 'good' when it is nationalism of a small nation against an imperium (or minority ethnicity against a nation state), but 'bad' when it is a powerful nation trying to conquer its neighbors (or opressing its ethnic minorities). But in facts, both of these nationalisms are based on the same toxic concept of ingroupness based on shared ethnicity, language and culture, in contrast of ingroupness based on shared commitment to universalist ideas like freedom, rule of law and democracy.

OTOH, it is likely that the real reason why countries really work is because of some level of nationalism, as commitment to universalist ideas is primarily a thing for elites, while ethnicity-based tribalism is much more primal concept.

View on HN

> concept of ingroupness based on shared ethnicity, language and culture, in contrast of ingroupness based on shared commitment to universalist ideas like freedom, rule of law and democracy.

Is the latter not also nationalism, if you believe that those ideals create a group that is worthy of self-determination? Maybe it deserves its own qualifier, such as ideo-nationalism, to distinguish it from ethno-nationalism, but does the motivation fundamentally change what it is?

> OTOH, it is likely that the real reason why countries really work is because of some level of nationalism

I think you're probably right here. The question I have is if you can make that nationalism about something other than ethnic groups?

There was an attempt in the US, with the whole concept of the melting pot. In the interest of maintaining the other cultures though, this has been phased out in favour of the "salad bowl".

Imo, the catch is that by prioritizing ethnic cultures, you then allow them to supersede the national identity. Ethnocentricism is the default thanks to our monkey brains and in the absence of reinforcement, or the presence of discouragement, it'll probably win over other identities.

I reckon you might be right about that last part, unfortunately. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere deep down in the human brain it just defaults to trusting the person who looks most like your parents/siblings/children/etc. Absent some other compelling reason/conditioning of course.

I wonder if the melting pot doesn't deserve a reboot. Everything else seems to be getting one these days.

"Universalist" ideas don't bind elites together because they are more high-minded or educated, they bind them together because universalist ideas liberate capital flows and thereby enrich the elite (in material terms) at the expense of everyone else (and not only in material terms.) Capitalism and Schizophrenia is an in-depth discussion of this - "universalism" is simply capital flows destroying all social norms that impede them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com