[catzaa]

There is nothing wrong with a group wanting to protect their language, culture and identity (what you label as XXX nationalism).

IMHO, it is naive for individuals to assume that someone else would protect/fight for their rights.

[lionhearted]

> (what you label as XXX nationalism)

Not my definition - I'm using "nationalism" to mean the belief that your group should be distinct/superior/excel more than other groups.

As an example - wishing to preserve and continue the Spanish literature tradition in Spain wasn't Spanish Nationalism. Prohibitions against teaching, learning, and using English under Francisco Franco was Spanish Nationalism. The former is good, the latter is bad.

> IMHO, it is naive for individuals to assume that someone else would protect/fight for their rights.

The Greeks used to fight like crazy amongst themselves, for instance, the Peloponnesian Wars. There was lots of bloodshed and destruction and waste. The Greeks had a nationalistic loyalty to their particular city-state. This ended when the Persians showed up, who were orders of magnitude less appealing to the Greeks, and that did away with a lot of inter-Greek warfare and nationalism.

I believe the same can be said of races and religions these days. Conflict between races is like conflict between the various Greek city-states: A damn waste. We've got bigger problems to solve, and can probably work on a better level than that.

Thinking that black people and white people, etc, etc can look after each other might sound now like the idea of Spartans and Athenians and Macedonians all on the same side. Crazy, but when it comes to pass, we'll be better off. I understand the purpose of the nationalism, but it's got to stop at some point if we want a better world. At the very least, enemy-centric nationalism where other groups are villainized needs to stop ASAP. Bad will come of it.

[catzaa]

> The Greeks had a nationalistic loyalty to their particular city-state. This ended when the Persians showed up, who were orders of magnitude less appealing to the Greeks, and that did away with a lot of inter-Greek warfare and nationalism.

By replacing it with pan-Greek nationalism? The Greeks shared a lot of attributes (language, ideology, etc…). What you are railing against is “Geographic nationalism”. There is more to nationalism than that.

> I believe the same can be said of races and religions these days. Conflict between races is like conflict between the various Greek city-states: A damn waste.

The word “race” is a loaded word.

IMHO nationalism is not a waste. Each and every group should have the right to their own culture, religion, language and self-determination. As the UN Charter states:

> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace

> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development

> We've got bigger problems to solve, and can probably work on a better level than that.

To what end? Are problems really so big that the religious and cultural identities should be destroyed? Are our “problems” really bigger than a hundred years ago (when almost everyone died of Polio)?

I think that the common trend in many places is to replace culture with some Americanised version of culture and replace all native languages with English. I think this is a huge step backwards.

[joe_the_user]

...it is naive for individuals to assume that someone else would protect/fight for their rights.

When you say "someone else" in this sentence, you have to mean someone different.

I disagree. I believe someone with a different skin color or a different culture would fight for me and protect my rights. It's a matter of the individuals and their values, not their cultural origins.

[catzaa]

> When you say "someone else" in this sentence, you have to mean someone different.

I mean someone not part of the cultural, language or national grouping.

> I disagree. I believe someone with a different skin color or a different culture would fight for me and protect my rights

That may be a nice sentiment, but historically this has not happened (you also conflate skin colour with ethnic, cultural and language identity). Probably the best example where “other people” did not fight for a certain group’s rights is language rights.

In Eastern Europe, many Russians are finding their language and identity marginalised.

Tibet is another example where the majority does not protect the language, religious and cultural rights of a minority.

Other historic examples are the Basque in Spain, Pigmies in the DRC, Tamils in Sri Lanka, people of Chinese ancestry in Malaysia, Kurds in Turkey, etc…