The problem is, nationalism/patriotism has sex appeal. Every guy whose hormones have him itching to do violence to someone or something, who chafes at the rules and tameness of a fair, humane, nonviolent society, lights up at the chance to be violent - and be admired for it, instead of shamed.
No, I'm not saying all guys are like that, nor that no women are, but testosterone IS the "aggression hormone," a challenge for anyone trying to build a constructive society without excluding young men.
First, thank you that I may comment. I haven't the means to contribute to your coffers, so I hope what I write will be contribution enough. For now.
Second, without wanting to trot out truisms, we fear slavery and yearn for freedom. Work is our compromise between the two. But our worlds are compacted into nation states, a development barely 1,000 years old. Popular scientist James Burke did a programme explaining how the rise of knights gave us our nation states back after the dark ages (Connections it is called, it's on YT). Whatever. We divide our world into us and them. Words like Wallonia, Gaul, Wales, all stem from words that mean "them". Strangely the Welsh word for Wales (Cymru) broadly means "us". Appropriate in a way. If one looks at sea charts of the 16th century, no end of detail is marked concerning trade winds and sea currents. But of the hinterland of Africa, South America, North America and what not, no detail is shown. It was irrelevant for seafarers and it hadn't yet been conquered by them.
The effect that the black lines that would appear on these maps on the landward side would have is to create a commune within which a guarantee of safety is proffered by a protection racket, not unlike the Mafia, in return for protection money, not unlike taxes. And the authority by which this protection is given will go one better than the Mafia, by enlisting those who are protected into doing the actual protection as well as paying the taxes, in extremis.
Could we ever attain a world in which national borders simply fall away as irrelevant, or even get abolished by some international convention? Yes. We had it before. Our problem is that, before, we didn't dig into the Earth, and now we do. It is our ability to bore into the Earth that has made us proprietary and covetous.
One might reflect on the fact that, if only we could all achieve a state of peace, then we could get on with simply exchanging and trading with one another and achieving enrichment by that means, without conquest by military power. But, I think, the fact is that commerce is not a respite from warfare; it is simply a different means of warfare, in which most (but not all) the participants lay down their arms. Achieving a state of constant peace would do nothing to allay our desire for the resources of the Earth. In fact, it's probably only a state of constant warfare that would achieve that.
So, Hamilton, I'll leave you with this thought: eternal peace would be doomed to failure as long as mankind digs into the Earth. And eternal warfare is the only viable state for mankind until such time as he might desist from his digging.
Haven't we been repeating the story of Cain and Abel since the beginning of time? Humanity is a thin veneer that can be broken so easily. Even the most stable societies can falter because of jealousy of the other.
When Charlie Anderson gathers together his sons to strike out to find his youngest boy who's been taken prisoner by Union troops in the Civil War, in the film Shenandoah, his offspring challenge the wisdom of the venture. The film-maker does not answer the challenge, but simply puts into the James Stewart's mouth (besides a cigar) the words, "But you've gotta try. You've at least gotta try." The venture cost him the lives of two of his other sons and a daughter-in-law.
There are no end of failings in humanity that I have no choice but to accept and to acquiesce in, Craig, and the prospects of my changing even one of them by so much as a whit lie close to, if not soundly on, zero. Any effort I make to change anything will not, therefore, be predicated on the likelihood of my succeeding, but much rather on whether I, for myself, and for myself alone, tried.
Very wise Graham. I guess it all really boils down to whether people are innately good or evil. Human beings have produced the most beautiful art and been behind the most promising and progressive technologies but we still haven't evolved out of killing each other. Is this darkness built so deeply in that we can never shake it or is it just simply who we are? Hamilton blames nationalism but humans have been murdering each other long before there were nation states, in fact, there were other sapiens that existed and the Homo sapiens came out on top so our ancestors are killers.
Good morning, Craig. I shan't play semantics with you, but let's look for a second at that word "innate". Is goodness or evil determined in the womb, as a result of upbringing, or does it stem from a time even prior to conception? These are considerations of the metaphysical world and, therefore, easily dismissed by the scientist. "Science" is knowledge, yet those who practise it can be selective in the scope of knowledge that it covers.
"Is this darkness built so deeply?" is a question that goes to the innateness of what we call good and evil. All people possess the potential for both good and evil. That is what makes us humans: the ability to recognise (a) the difference and (b) a moral duty to prefer the one over the other. No animal can make such an appreciation, no animal can make such a choice. The choice itself depends on the individual assessment of whether the one is benefited by the profit of the many, or whether the one benefits best by profiting the one to the cost of the many. This is something on which I have recently written. It is short and if you care you can pop over and have a look: https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/levachan.
I can't tell you whether people were less or more violent in the past. We hear of the great warriors like Coriolanus in Shakespeare (from +/- 500 BC), the Egyptian and Phoenician wars, Attila the Hun and many more, so warfare certainly preceded the establishment of fixed borders on maps. I hate to be one of those who says so authoritatively "go and read this or that", because I know you won't. But the TV programme 'Connections' is worth watching on this subject and otherwise fairly entertaining, presented by Englishman James Burke. They're on YouTube. I think it's about episode three where he addresses how the nation state came into being, why, and what the effects of that were. Thank you so much for engaging.
However grim the reality of our ongoing climate emergency becomes, nation states and the concept of national interest will serve as an accelerant for the troubles ahead. Any possible future will play out better for humanity if we can approach it in a spirit of cooperation.
Thanks Hamilton. Another masterpiece. This work should be teached in any school around the planet. Patritiotism is one of the most stupid human creation. We, as an animal, didn't find the way to live in peace. Too many powerful people (i.e. Rupert Murdoch), manipulating too many stupid people ( i.e. Americans).
Perhaps one day, in several centuries, any war will be a crime against humanity, until them, build a refuge in your house. Keep on writing my socialist friend.
I think people are probably not taking BRICS seriously enough.
Today I heard that Turkey will probably join....I saw a few other nations who might join.
Whatever anyone thinks now it is my belief that once the dollar is not used throughout the world there will be a huge change. BRICS will become a huge multipolar force (non aggressive) money held for use where there is starvation and suffering.
US and Europe will not be able to start new wars because the dollar will be nothing.
It's time for people to start watching this. It is so badly reported on especially in the MSM.
Lay down your flags they mean nothing and never did.
The list of BRICS members is pretty troubling though...Especially China and the Arab Emirates...It feels like another Euro/Austerity catastrophe in the making where vastly wealthier China and the Arab Emirates in the BRICS model would be analogous to Germany in the Euro model where the poorer countries would suffer the same fate as Greece and Spain did...I also remember a lot of high falutin talk about how the Euro was gonna be this great humanitarian project...The rising tide argument...Maybe this time would be different? But those famous last words lead me to doubt it...However some interesting dynamics might come out of it. Seems it's still in the big- talk phase though...Al;so troubling, China has been wanting to get its mitts on Africa for a while now and BRICS presents a troubling 'fox in the henhouse' path to that. Africa is in no position to defend itself against any 'corporate raids' so to speak..OTOH If they create and stick to a green agenda, they have my blessings and best wishes...But these country's governments don't have the best human rights records either, and the sheer SIZE of these countries geographically and population-wise...Smells like too much power in too few hands...It would take a LOT of work to keep that from happening
"China has been wanting to get its mitts on Africa"? That ship has sailed. China is all over Africa, seaports, railroads, mines, roads and other infrastructure. They are Africa's largest trading partner.
Belfryo. Many African leaders have said: When the US or Europe come here they demand things. When the Chinese come they say: what can we help you with.
Anything right now is better than the endless wars of the USA/regime changes/coup d'etats in sovereign countries.
The whole world is sick of the USA.
No dollars no more wars.
I am will not be around to see what happens after BRICS but for now it is the only alternative to the west.
Where on earth are you getting your “news” on Chinese benevolence?
They are literally the worst exploiters. The child and slave labor in their country is 10x worse in any foreign country they get in their clutches.
The western countries you loathe are the only ones with any standards.
Were their bad dealings in the past, certainly.
I’m personally invested in a metals processing plant in the US and I can tell you first hand that every co-investor we talk to demands to know our standards regarding ethical sourcing.
Please mix up your news sources from NPR and MSNBC. You are totally mistaken.
Totally agree. Despite my concerns, simply challenging the hegemony of the West could be a very good thing. My MAIN concern is that the weaker countries will be made even weaker and open to exploitation like Greece and Italy were/are under the EU
Just discovered this by inputting "nationalism is poison" into Google.
I totally agree.
And it's not just Trumpian-style narrow-minded nationalism. If nationalism is poison anywhere, just look to China. Xi Jinping, a hick from the dusty northwest, is now phasing non-Chinese languages (Tibetan, Mongolian, Uyghur ....) out of the education system to make one glorious nation all speaking the same language. He wants to make Hongkong knuckle under and abandon Cantonese in favour of Mandarin. He wants to take over Taiwan (currently a different version of China from the Mainland model) because it has been part of China since "time immemorial". All are to become part of one united "Chinese nation" harking back to China's glorious past -- under the iron control of the Communist party. Never mind that his knowledge of Chinese classics and their rather idiosyncratic reading of Chinese characters is often revealed as laughable and ignorant. The man is infused with the notion of Making China Great Again, as part of something he calls the "Chinese Dream". (I won't comment on Putin, who is the man who wants to make Russia Great Again -- and incidentally once asked why Russians in minority ethnic areas should be expected to speak anything but Russian.)
Sorry to be a late commenter on this superb description of the evils of Nationalism. I've felt this way for many, many years, but I don't think I've ever seen it stated so well before. Thank you, Hamilton!
It brings to mind an encounter I had on a trip to Iran in the Fall of 2019. Our small tour group was at a lunch stop in the city of Meybod, on the edge of the desert. I fell into a conversation with a middle-aged Iranian man. Of course, he asked where I was from, and I answered, "America." He then went on to say that he didn't like the American government, but then added that he didn't like the Iranian government either. Hooking his two index fingers together in a gesture of solidarity, he went on to say that the American **people** and the Iranian **people** were like that. I was incredibly moved by that statement, and it still makes me teary-eyed to recount it.
If only the damned governments would just get out of the way!
Also also, I've thought a lot about the similarities in language...the Romance and other European languages are somewhat obvious, but when I first heard Hebrew, I was struck by how similar it sounded to Arabic. Ditto Yiddish and German (which I think ever share a few words/cognates.) And it just makes me incredibly sad to see people who probably have more in common then they don't fight each other to the death.
Great piece. I just happened to read an Orwell essay yesterday with reflections on a similar topic from Autumn 1940 entitled My Country Right or Left. He points out the militarism and nationalism that was inculcated in him since he was young, and ends up concluding that he does support his country, even though a bloody revolution might be necessary to get it to the socialist place he wants it to be. However, even though that would be a massive change from what he grew up in, it would still be continuous as his country (as nonsensical as that is). I feel like he really captured the somewhat magical reasoning required to create and believe in an idea such as a nation. It's a short read if anyone is interested - https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/my-country-right-or-left/
"Religion may be the opium of the masses, but patriotism is their rohypnol"
So right.
The problem is, nationalism/patriotism has sex appeal. Every guy whose hormones have him itching to do violence to someone or something, who chafes at the rules and tameness of a fair, humane, nonviolent society, lights up at the chance to be violent - and be admired for it, instead of shamed.
No, I'm not saying all guys are like that, nor that no women are, but testosterone IS the "aggression hormone," a challenge for anyone trying to build a constructive society without excluding young men.
First, thank you that I may comment. I haven't the means to contribute to your coffers, so I hope what I write will be contribution enough. For now.
Second, without wanting to trot out truisms, we fear slavery and yearn for freedom. Work is our compromise between the two. But our worlds are compacted into nation states, a development barely 1,000 years old. Popular scientist James Burke did a programme explaining how the rise of knights gave us our nation states back after the dark ages (Connections it is called, it's on YT). Whatever. We divide our world into us and them. Words like Wallonia, Gaul, Wales, all stem from words that mean "them". Strangely the Welsh word for Wales (Cymru) broadly means "us". Appropriate in a way. If one looks at sea charts of the 16th century, no end of detail is marked concerning trade winds and sea currents. But of the hinterland of Africa, South America, North America and what not, no detail is shown. It was irrelevant for seafarers and it hadn't yet been conquered by them.
The effect that the black lines that would appear on these maps on the landward side would have is to create a commune within which a guarantee of safety is proffered by a protection racket, not unlike the Mafia, in return for protection money, not unlike taxes. And the authority by which this protection is given will go one better than the Mafia, by enlisting those who are protected into doing the actual protection as well as paying the taxes, in extremis.
Could we ever attain a world in which national borders simply fall away as irrelevant, or even get abolished by some international convention? Yes. We had it before. Our problem is that, before, we didn't dig into the Earth, and now we do. It is our ability to bore into the Earth that has made us proprietary and covetous.
One might reflect on the fact that, if only we could all achieve a state of peace, then we could get on with simply exchanging and trading with one another and achieving enrichment by that means, without conquest by military power. But, I think, the fact is that commerce is not a respite from warfare; it is simply a different means of warfare, in which most (but not all) the participants lay down their arms. Achieving a state of constant peace would do nothing to allay our desire for the resources of the Earth. In fact, it's probably only a state of constant warfare that would achieve that.
So, Hamilton, I'll leave you with this thought: eternal peace would be doomed to failure as long as mankind digs into the Earth. And eternal warfare is the only viable state for mankind until such time as he might desist from his digging.
Haven't we been repeating the story of Cain and Abel since the beginning of time? Humanity is a thin veneer that can be broken so easily. Even the most stable societies can falter because of jealousy of the other.
Yes. So?
When Charlie Anderson gathers together his sons to strike out to find his youngest boy who's been taken prisoner by Union troops in the Civil War, in the film Shenandoah, his offspring challenge the wisdom of the venture. The film-maker does not answer the challenge, but simply puts into the James Stewart's mouth (besides a cigar) the words, "But you've gotta try. You've at least gotta try." The venture cost him the lives of two of his other sons and a daughter-in-law.
There are no end of failings in humanity that I have no choice but to accept and to acquiesce in, Craig, and the prospects of my changing even one of them by so much as a whit lie close to, if not soundly on, zero. Any effort I make to change anything will not, therefore, be predicated on the likelihood of my succeeding, but much rather on whether I, for myself, and for myself alone, tried.
Very wise Graham. I guess it all really boils down to whether people are innately good or evil. Human beings have produced the most beautiful art and been behind the most promising and progressive technologies but we still haven't evolved out of killing each other. Is this darkness built so deeply in that we can never shake it or is it just simply who we are? Hamilton blames nationalism but humans have been murdering each other long before there were nation states, in fact, there were other sapiens that existed and the Homo sapiens came out on top so our ancestors are killers.
Good morning, Craig. I shan't play semantics with you, but let's look for a second at that word "innate". Is goodness or evil determined in the womb, as a result of upbringing, or does it stem from a time even prior to conception? These are considerations of the metaphysical world and, therefore, easily dismissed by the scientist. "Science" is knowledge, yet those who practise it can be selective in the scope of knowledge that it covers.
"Is this darkness built so deeply?" is a question that goes to the innateness of what we call good and evil. All people possess the potential for both good and evil. That is what makes us humans: the ability to recognise (a) the difference and (b) a moral duty to prefer the one over the other. No animal can make such an appreciation, no animal can make such a choice. The choice itself depends on the individual assessment of whether the one is benefited by the profit of the many, or whether the one benefits best by profiting the one to the cost of the many. This is something on which I have recently written. It is short and if you care you can pop over and have a look: https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/levachan.
I can't tell you whether people were less or more violent in the past. We hear of the great warriors like Coriolanus in Shakespeare (from +/- 500 BC), the Egyptian and Phoenician wars, Attila the Hun and many more, so warfare certainly preceded the establishment of fixed borders on maps. I hate to be one of those who says so authoritatively "go and read this or that", because I know you won't. But the TV programme 'Connections' is worth watching on this subject and otherwise fairly entertaining, presented by Englishman James Burke. They're on YouTube. I think it's about episode three where he addresses how the nation state came into being, why, and what the effects of that were. Thank you so much for engaging.
Thanks for the discussion. You are a wise man.
Doesn’t seem goofy to me. Except for that bit about the Olympics. That’s always struck as some peak jingoism at least within the good old USA.
However grim the reality of our ongoing climate emergency becomes, nation states and the concept of national interest will serve as an accelerant for the troubles ahead. Any possible future will play out better for humanity if we can approach it in a spirit of cooperation.
Thanks Hamilton. Another masterpiece. This work should be teached in any school around the planet. Patritiotism is one of the most stupid human creation. We, as an animal, didn't find the way to live in peace. Too many powerful people (i.e. Rupert Murdoch), manipulating too many stupid people ( i.e. Americans).
Perhaps one day, in several centuries, any war will be a crime against humanity, until them, build a refuge in your house. Keep on writing my socialist friend.
I think people are probably not taking BRICS seriously enough.
Today I heard that Turkey will probably join....I saw a few other nations who might join.
Whatever anyone thinks now it is my belief that once the dollar is not used throughout the world there will be a huge change. BRICS will become a huge multipolar force (non aggressive) money held for use where there is starvation and suffering.
US and Europe will not be able to start new wars because the dollar will be nothing.
It's time for people to start watching this. It is so badly reported on especially in the MSM.
Lay down your flags they mean nothing and never did.
The list of BRICS members is pretty troubling though...Especially China and the Arab Emirates...It feels like another Euro/Austerity catastrophe in the making where vastly wealthier China and the Arab Emirates in the BRICS model would be analogous to Germany in the Euro model where the poorer countries would suffer the same fate as Greece and Spain did...I also remember a lot of high falutin talk about how the Euro was gonna be this great humanitarian project...The rising tide argument...Maybe this time would be different? But those famous last words lead me to doubt it...However some interesting dynamics might come out of it. Seems it's still in the big- talk phase though...Al;so troubling, China has been wanting to get its mitts on Africa for a while now and BRICS presents a troubling 'fox in the henhouse' path to that. Africa is in no position to defend itself against any 'corporate raids' so to speak..OTOH If they create and stick to a green agenda, they have my blessings and best wishes...But these country's governments don't have the best human rights records either, and the sheer SIZE of these countries geographically and population-wise...Smells like too much power in too few hands...It would take a LOT of work to keep that from happening
"China has been wanting to get its mitts on Africa"? That ship has sailed. China is all over Africa, seaports, railroads, mines, roads and other infrastructure. They are Africa's largest trading partner.
Belfryo. Many African leaders have said: When the US or Europe come here they demand things. When the Chinese come they say: what can we help you with.
Anything right now is better than the endless wars of the USA/regime changes/coup d'etats in sovereign countries.
The whole world is sick of the USA.
No dollars no more wars.
I am will not be around to see what happens after BRICS but for now it is the only alternative to the west.
Where on earth are you getting your “news” on Chinese benevolence?
They are literally the worst exploiters. The child and slave labor in their country is 10x worse in any foreign country they get in their clutches.
The western countries you loathe are the only ones with any standards.
Were their bad dealings in the past, certainly.
I’m personally invested in a metals processing plant in the US and I can tell you first hand that every co-investor we talk to demands to know our standards regarding ethical sourcing.
Please mix up your news sources from NPR and MSNBC. You are totally mistaken.
Totally agree. Despite my concerns, simply challenging the hegemony of the West could be a very good thing. My MAIN concern is that the weaker countries will be made even weaker and open to exploitation like Greece and Italy were/are under the EU
Trump started no wars.
but not for lack of effort
🤦♂️brainwashed
Aspiring to a better world is what we all do, it's organizing ourselves to achieve it that's the difficult part!
Really you should take some notice of BRICS..........it's encouraging.
Just discovered this by inputting "nationalism is poison" into Google.
I totally agree.
And it's not just Trumpian-style narrow-minded nationalism. If nationalism is poison anywhere, just look to China. Xi Jinping, a hick from the dusty northwest, is now phasing non-Chinese languages (Tibetan, Mongolian, Uyghur ....) out of the education system to make one glorious nation all speaking the same language. He wants to make Hongkong knuckle under and abandon Cantonese in favour of Mandarin. He wants to take over Taiwan (currently a different version of China from the Mainland model) because it has been part of China since "time immemorial". All are to become part of one united "Chinese nation" harking back to China's glorious past -- under the iron control of the Communist party. Never mind that his knowledge of Chinese classics and their rather idiosyncratic reading of Chinese characters is often revealed as laughable and ignorant. The man is infused with the notion of Making China Great Again, as part of something he calls the "Chinese Dream". (I won't comment on Putin, who is the man who wants to make Russia Great Again -- and incidentally once asked why Russians in minority ethnic areas should be expected to speak anything but Russian.)
Sorry to be a late commenter on this superb description of the evils of Nationalism. I've felt this way for many, many years, but I don't think I've ever seen it stated so well before. Thank you, Hamilton!
It brings to mind an encounter I had on a trip to Iran in the Fall of 2019. Our small tour group was at a lunch stop in the city of Meybod, on the edge of the desert. I fell into a conversation with a middle-aged Iranian man. Of course, he asked where I was from, and I answered, "America." He then went on to say that he didn't like the American government, but then added that he didn't like the Iranian government either. Hooking his two index fingers together in a gesture of solidarity, he went on to say that the American **people** and the Iranian **people** were like that. I was incredibly moved by that statement, and it still makes me teary-eyed to recount it.
If only the damned governments would just get out of the way!
Hi Hamilton, good article. Do you believe that there are wars that are just?
Beautiful, true piece. Well done and thank you.
To quote the great Calvin, "I think grown ups just *act* like they know what they're doing."
Also I would be okay with replacing wars with sporting matches (even *ugh* cricket), even though I don't care for sports.
Also also, I've thought a lot about the similarities in language...the Romance and other European languages are somewhat obvious, but when I first heard Hebrew, I was struck by how similar it sounded to Arabic. Ditto Yiddish and German (which I think ever share a few words/cognates.) And it just makes me incredibly sad to see people who probably have more in common then they don't fight each other to the death.
Great piece. I just happened to read an Orwell essay yesterday with reflections on a similar topic from Autumn 1940 entitled My Country Right or Left. He points out the militarism and nationalism that was inculcated in him since he was young, and ends up concluding that he does support his country, even though a bloody revolution might be necessary to get it to the socialist place he wants it to be. However, even though that would be a massive change from what he grew up in, it would still be continuous as his country (as nonsensical as that is). I feel like he really captured the somewhat magical reasoning required to create and believe in an idea such as a nation. It's a short read if anyone is interested - https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/my-country-right-or-left/
I hate to say this. I REALLY hate to say this.
It makes me revisit trumps “suckers and losers” comment about fallen veterans.
Victims would be the more empathetic term, which is of course a foreign concept to trump.
The only "nation" a working man will ever get from nationalism is
six feet long and six feet deep, if he's lucky.