The concept of the nation - why do we follow the few to the death?

[squatlover]

Just something I had to type up as I had nothing to do

Back in history, the aim of people is to make food, make babies, have fun, live long and die in old age. If someone needed food and they couldn;t grow or hunt it, they would steal or take from someone else or starve. On a small or large scale this has happened, lately more efficiently lately, and people get on with their lives. During feudal times, people were forced to fight for their lords to preserve their lands and families, and this makes sense. It was not total war, there were small parties fighting for dominance for the right to collect taxes and call themselves king. In the 19th century things started changing, with the French revolution, a concept of the republic, and people fought for their country, and an idea, and thousands died. And on a macroscopic level, nothing changed, people farmed, hunted, and fished, but their taxes were given to a different group of people in charge.

During WW1, things got to a stupid level, millions of people died, in reality for nothing - a small part of France was recovered, national borders were rearranged by a few miles, but people still farmed, fished, went to work, but millions had died. The concept of nationalism, to fight for ones country (in reality for what the few in top government want) overrides this common sense that there is no personal gain, or utilitarian gain, just a gain for the top brass. Does anyone else find this stupid?

[Dr. Croccer]

No. Nationalism did not lead to the war, it was used as a tool to further it. There's nothing wrong with nationalism and patriotism itself. Just as many, if not more, people died for the sake of ideology.

[Enemy of the State]

You are absolutely right. We are all human, borders are imaginary. Anyone wanting you to kill for your "nation" has other motives. Those in power benefit from war, the rest always suffer.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

you are taking three completely unrelated things - nation-states, nationalism and WWI - and linking them all together.

none of them are linked at all, and you don't seem to understand any of them.

You are absolutely right. We are all human, borders are imaginary. Anyone wanting you to kill for your "nation" has other motives. Those in power benefit from war, the rest always suffer.

you're confusing nations and states. You're also ill informed about he purpose of states

[Dr. Croccer]

''I laugh at fools who say that patriotism is obsolete. It is noble to defend your family, land and property and to make them prosper, no? Then why is it suddenly bad when one defends not only his own, but the family, land and property of all of his countrymen and country?''

[squatlover]

I thought nation states were linked to nationalism. In that a nation state with cultural and political hegemony such as Great Britain is able to say another nation state - Germany, is the enemy, and convince millions to die when there is no difference in outcome for the individual.

@DrCroccer: but protect them against what? Against having to pay your taxes towards a party that is sympathetic towards Germany, or one that is antagonistic (nothing against Germany, just the WW1 example). We aren't talking about rape and pillage scenario, because whatever goverment supercedes, the law is upheld.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

a nation state with cultural and political hegemony such as Great Britain

The UK isn't a nation.

I thought nation states were linked to nationalism. In that a nation state with cultural and political hegemony such as Great Britain is able to say another nation state - Germany, is the enemy, and convince millions to die when there is no difference in outcome for the individual.

when has this ever happened?

WWI wasn't fought because anybody thought their country was better than anyone else's - to the contrary, most nations were simply defending their allies. Austria felt Serbia had commited a greivous wrong against them, Serbia was only defending itself, and it took off from there.

Apart from Hitler nobody in the era of nation states has ever declared war to just wipe out another nation they think is worse. And the allies in WWII were defending themselves and other countries from tyranny.

[squatlover]

never use those two words in the same sentence. The UK isn't a nation.

when has this ever happened?

WWI wasn't fought because anybody thought their country was better than anyone else's - to the contrary, most nations were simply defending their allies. Austria felt Serbia had commited a greivous wrong against them, Serbia was only defending itself, and it took off from there.

Apart from Hitler nobody in the era of nation states has ever declared war to just wipe out another nation they think is worse. And the allies in WWII were defending themselves and other countries from tyranny.

Some people describe the UK as a nation state, some describe it as a multinational state, depending on whether you think there is a justifiably distinct border between Scotland and England.

WW1 was fought because there were tensions between many nations that were sparked off by the Austrian incident, but there was fear in Britain of the Kaiser stamping his authority all over the British. In reality, the outcome of fighting the war was far worse than a far reaching scenario of the Kaiser having any influence over British politics.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Some people describe the UK as a nation state, some describe it as a multinational state, depending on whether you think there is a justifiably distinct border between Scotland and England.

There at at least 4 nations in the UK - England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

And there certainly is a hugely distinct border between each of them.

[squatlover]

There at at least 4 nations in the UK - England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

And there certainly is a hugely distinct border between each of them.

Why I describe it as a nation state is the Office for National Statistics describes the UK as a nation state. But I appreciate that you disagree and I agree England, Wales, Scotland and NI compose the UK. But its besides the point, lets say I used England in place of the UK in previous posts.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

The concept of a nation as an impersonal "motherland" did not arise until the XIX century. Even the word "patriot" is a product of the French Revolution, no recorded uses being heard of before.

Rather, the "nation" emerged as the mainstay of strong individuals. One of the reasons why there is Monarchy is precisely that: back when nobody held anything but the resemblance of a regional and tribal identification, "service to France" or "service to England" meant quite clearly service to the crowned head of the nation who owned lands directly or by vassalage that otherwise had no sense of unity.

On that line, it also strikes that before the advent of "patriotism", the use of mercenary forces and foreign administrators, bureaucrats and military commanders was not really a matter of dispute, because such connection with the boundaries was not yet felt.

As to why the few follow the many, well, why do we breathe? Because the few are often more capable than the many, that's the plain answer.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

these wars usually had an appreciable effect on the lives of the people in those countries

[Koelkastmagneet]

Because states provide trade, wealth, commerce, healthcare, order, law and education.

That's it basically, you want prosperity? You need some sort of government.

[squatlover]

The war had a negative effect on the lives of the people involved in general, and there was little to gain for the individual.

Yes states provide healthcare, order, law, education, but one state provides pretty much the same as another.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Yes states provide healthcare, order, law, education, but one state provides pretty much the same as another.

no they don't

you think Nazi Germany provided the same quality of life as a modern western nation?

[squatlover]

Nazi Germany provided an excellent quality of life towards the Aryan German. But not to other races. I wasn't referring to WW2, where there was a clear black and white - Nazi Germany was evil because of its eugenics policy, and would certainly give non -Aryan people, and people who liked non-Aryan people a reason to fight. I was referring to other wars where governments were similar. I am aware that if President Mugabe decided to invade white europe and kick white people off the land, then there would be clear matter of self interest of white people and their friends to fight.
On the other hand, here is a scenario: if France decided to invade England, because of some diplomatic incident (lets say British secret agents were found to be killing French agents that were spying on the country, and the French government wanted to teach the English government a lesson), what would be the point? Lets say this unlikely scenario occurs, a French ship sinks an English ship in the channel because there is a tense stand off and there is a panic and someone thought they saw the other ship firing torpedoes, so they fired back. The English fly their eurofighters in and bomb the French ship, badly damaging it, before it returns to port. Would you pick up arms and fight to death, kill another man who you have no quarrel with for your country? What would be the point fighting for a misunderstanding that is predominantly occuring at a tiny segment of government?

I appreciate the situation for Nazi Germany would be different - if France was invading because a Hitler character had taken over the government, was stripping Jews and other races of their rights, then there would be a reason to fight to protect my Jewish friends, and Slavic girlfriend, because there was a real threat that they would be harmed.

A more modern example is the Falklands. Argentina still contests British rule over the Falklands. If Argentina invaded the Falklands tomorrow, and were offering each Falklander money if they accepted Argentine rule (as they did in 1982), I would not go down to my recruitment office and sign up to fight, because there is no reason. If the Argentine government was exterminating the people on the island, there is a difference, but if there was just a hand over of goverment, I don't see the reason.

[roy34543]

Nazi Germany provided an excellent quality of life towards the Aryan German. But not to other races. I wasn't referring to WW2, where there was a clear black and white - Nazi Germany was evil because of its eugenics policy, and would certainly give non -Aryan people, and people who liked non-Aryan people a reason to fight. I was referring to other wars where governments were similar. I am aware that if President Mugabe decided to invade white europe and kick white people off the land, then there would be clear matter of self interest of white people and their friends to fight.
On the other hand, here is a scenario: if France decided to invade England, because of some diplomatic incident (lets say British secret agents were found to be killing French agents that were spying on the country, and the French government wanted to teach the English government a lesson), what would be the point? Lets say this unlikely scenario occurs, a French ship sinks an English ship in the channel because there is a tense stand off and there is a panic and someone thought they saw the other ship firing torpedoes, so they fired back. The English fly their eurofighters in and bomb the French ship, badly damaging it, before it returns to port. Would you pick up arms and fight to death, kill another man who you have no quarrel with for your country? What would be the point fighting for a misunderstanding that is predominantly occuring at a tiny segment of government?

I appreciate the situation for Nazi Germany would be different - if France was invading because a Hitler character had taken over the government, was stripping Jews and other races of their rights, then there would be a reason to fight to protect my Jewish friends, and Slavic girlfriend, because there was a real threat that they would be harmed.

A more modern example is the Falklands. Argentina still contests British rule over the Falklands. If Argentina invaded the Falklands tomorrow, and were offering each Falklander money if they accepted Argentine rule (as they did in 1982), I would not go down to my recruitment office and sign up to fight, because there is no reason. If the Argentine government was exterminating the people on the island, there is a difference, but if there was just a hand over of goverment, I don't see the reason.

Well you can look at the whole Palestinian-Israeli-arab conflict to see that isnt quite as clear cut as this.
Originally of course Israel was founded for the purpose of having a safe homeland for the Jews, and in all likelihood even though today it may seem unreasonable to some people, at the time it seemed very logical and a very noble and beneficial cause. Today some people dont quit see it as this, but thats not really the point im getting at.

Today you have the Palestinians who often resort to armed conflict , and even when they have ever entered negotiations, its traditionally been after military options were exhausted (for specific groups, not the palestinians as a whole) Despite this, in the logical sense they have very little to gain from this , At best they get a land that is very lacking in resources, and even then theyre usually doing it despite the fact the odds are against them and theyre not immediatly threatened by anything (and would likely have a similar lifestyle irregardless of if a palestinian state existed or not-if they live in an apartment today likely they would still live in an apartment in a slightly different location)

So some palestinians fight irregardless of the fact that material benefits are unlikely and success is unlikely in the first place, and death is sometimes not only a high possibility but garunteed (ie suicide bombings) The truth is the reason they do it is due to the fact that idealogy is very powerful and sometimes more important to people then anything else, including their lives. States and groups are very good at manipulating society to conform to causes over the long-term , the more so if they get to the matter first and have no opposition, and usually other citizens end up helping the state in its decision as soon as they accept it

Its the concept of if I make a decision I have to reinforce it on others or it becomes a stupid or inferior decision in the persons eyes, except due to an astonishing catch-22 in human psychology, the more stupid and wrong a decision appears to be to you the more likely you are to hang onto it and try and reinforce it unto yourselves and others. (So your actually more likely to change your opinion if your left alone then if you have it challenged by other people ironically) To get back to the subject, then as soon as some people accept a states or groups ideas the more likely they are to try and inflict social pressure on others to conform , even those that dont agree with the state. If your best friend after all is joining the army, its difficult not to ponder doing the same yourself.

One final concept is that of glory, many people seek it and it is a strong motivator to many. In WW1 the british used a cunning ad to encourage people to sign up

People are encouraged both to seek to have some great achievement , and feel ashamed if they have none, and they feel social pressure to go to war because its seen as an easy avenue for such things , and very often a its seen as shameful to avoid it.

One thing id like to mention, although I dont mean to propogate the "europeans are pansies' point of view, Europeans have been insulated from realistic threats for a long time, and have built up a culture of non-violence and human rights due to the lack of conflicts. This however has contributed to a lack of understanding on many conflicts and human reactions in them . Unfortunatly most of these barriers come down very easily as soon as a threat appears and humans use the old special exception psychological clause (Ie, Its fine when I/my friends/my country does it, but when its another its absoloutly abhorrent) when something personal, however petty is at stake.

This is why you may not understand how people react in conflicts, and why you may see it as a realistic and sensible decision to avoid conflict, despite the fact that when conflict actually appears theres great pressure to join the army. The falklands isnt a valid example, its distant from you, you have no stake in it. It wont matter to you much if a nuke falls on it (even if you assure me that you do) and therefore is irrelevant to the majority of conflicts in this day and age or in the past.

[squatlover]

So some palestinians fight irregardless of the fact that material benefits are unlikely and success is unlikely in the first place, and death is sometimes not only a high possibility but garunteed (ie suicide bombings) The truth is the reason they do it is due to the fact that idealogy is very powerful and sometimes more important to people then anything else, including their lives. IStates and groups are very good at manipulating society to conform to causes over the long-term , the more so if they get to the matter first and have no opposition, and usually other citizens end up helping the state in its decision as soon as they accept it

Its the concept of if I make a decision I have to reinforce it on others or it becomes a stupid or inferior decision in the persons eyes, except due to an astonishing catch-22 in human psychology, the more stupid and wrong a decision appears to be to you the more likely you are to hang onto it and try and reinforce it unto yourselves and others. (So your actually more likely to change your opinion if your left alone then if you have it challenged by other people ironically) To get back to the subject, then as soon as some people accept a states or groups ideas the more likely they are to try and inflict social pressure on others to conform , even those that dont agree with the state.

This is why you may not understand how people react in conflicts, and why you may see it as a realistic and sensible decision to avoid conflict, despite the fact that when conflict actually appears theres great pressure to join the army. The falklands isnt a valid example, its distant from you, you have no stake in it. It wont matter to you much if a nuke falls on it (even if you assure me that you do) and therefore is irrelevant to the majority of conflicts in this day and age or in the past.

Thanks for some intelligent insights. I agree that that ideology and propaganda are behind peoples decisions and psychology. There are a few things in my life that have shaken my belief in the country, which is why I don't blindly follow a herd mentality.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

"Daddy, what did you do in the Great War?"

"I died, and you were never born."

That seems deliciously fitting.

[cenkiss]

Just something I had to type up as I had nothing to do

Back in history, the aim of people is to make food, make babies, have fun, live long and die in old age. If someone needed food and they couldn;t grow or hunt it, they would steal or take from someone else or starve. On a small or large scale this has happened, lately more efficiently lately, and people get on with their lives. During feudal times, people were forced to fight for their lords to preserve their lands and families, and this makes sense. It was not total war, there were small parties fighting for dominance for the right to collect taxes and call themselves king. In the 19th century things started changing, with the French revolution, a concept of the republic, and people fought for their country, and an idea, and thousands died. And on a macroscopic level, nothing changed, people farmed, hunted, and fished, but their taxes were given to a different group of people in charge.

During WW1, things got to a stupid level, millions of people died, in reality for nothing - a small part of France was recovered, national borders were rearranged by a few miles, but people still farmed, fished, went to work, but millions had died. The concept of nationalism, to fight for ones country (in reality for what the few in top government want) overrides this common sense that there is no personal gain, or utilitarian gain, just a gain for the top brass. Does anyone else find this stupid?

You are wrong from the beginning.Following the few and fighting for the few is mostly non-nationalistic thing.And the things you accuse of nationalism are not only things of it.There were many fanatics of rulers.The biggest reason for so much death i think is centralized countries and high population.I mean look at 30 years war.People could easily kill each other without nationalism.