[voice_of_reason]

How come nationalism is evil?

What's evil about me wanting to live with people with whom I share cultural heritage, language, ethics and peculiarities of perception of life? What's wrong with having an independent sovereign government, with having laws and rules tailored specifically to this large tribe I belong to?

I have no desire for my nation to invade other countries or to impose our rules and ways of life on other people. That said, I also will not tolerate foreign interference in my nation's affairs, come it from a single country or international gang, such as UN.

Nations and nationalism are not evil, they are manifestations of different, unique ways of human development, manifestations of the very diversity Western leftists crave for.

[Brakenshire]

The main issues with strong nationalism is: i) it encourages rhetoric blaming the other, which encourages escalating conflict and, historically war, and ii) it does not map to realities on the ground. Europe has been a continuosly shifting map of principalities, empires, kingdoms, nations, cultures, languages and ethnicities for thousands of years, and trying to draw a hard border to create an indivisible homogenous ethnic state does not end well, for the latest from a long list of examples, see Yugoslavia. Similarly in reality Russia is not this kind of nation, but the core of an empire, with many ethnic and cultural groups within its borders, and substantial minorities in neighbouring states. America is a country of immigration which has never had a homogenous ethnicity or culture. In none of these places can this kind of ethnic-cultural-nationalist state be created.

[brbrodude]

It's not evil, it's foolish.

[musage]

> State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Of course, Nietzsche wrote this before companies with "no I in team" and whatnot :P

> What's wrong with having an independent sovereign government

Nothing, but "nationalism" to me implies some sort identification with a symbol, rather than interacting with reality. Sufficiently developed individuals don't "belong to" groups, it's the other way around. Tribalism is a great method to stop that development dead in its tracks.

http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

> The emotional urges which are inescapable, and are perhaps even necessary to political action, should be able to exist side by side with an acceptance of reality.

In so far that is the case for what you would consider nationalism, carry on. To me, a sense of responsibility towards the place where you live and towards the people that live there is just that, while nationalism adds more and only bad things to it. I generally see it used as crutch or excuse.

[mistermann]

Sorry about your downvotes. People will see you're right eventually, but by then it will be too late.

EDIT: Oh my that was a fast downvote, < 10 seconds. I wonder if a clever HN member has set a "thought police" style bot upon me. Sorry, I shall try harder to stick to the narrative.