CrazyGamer2017 said:
They want to create a superstate because there is a natural trend towards uniting because union makes us stronger and if we think of the others as being part of us, chances are low on war with the others. In a divided Europe as past history overwhelmingly demonstrates, war is at every corner, all the time, division causes hatred and jealousy. One of the main reasons for the EU's existence is peace and people do not realize this but there has never been so much peace in the countries that are part of the EU. NOBODY in any EU country today would think that a neighboring country will attack and invade, it's totally unthinkable and that is because we are all together part of a new country called the EU. Nationalism and separatism threatens that peace because it means creating borders and "others" that are not "us" anymore, therefore sooner or later others become the enemy and war ensues. As for your second paragraph: giving nationalists what they want is precisely risking instability for the reasons I just explained. As for ethno-linguistic nationalism, I think I despise that kind of nationalism even more than the regular kind and here is why: To me a language is a tool for communication and the more people speak a language the wider the audience for expressing ideas and communicating. (Why of all the languages in the world do you think I learned English for? To communicate and understand as many people as possible) That is the smart thing to do, the good reason to learn a language. But linguistic nationalists are people who think a language is tied to a land and they want that language to be spoken there and nothing else. By that logic we should all speak different languages and no one could understand what others say cause you must include all the dialects too. Such a situation would yield the opposite effect and make languages a political and social tool for regional identity instead of a tool for communication and that is an ignorant use of this fantastic tool that is language. And that's not even mentioning the fact that different languages are also a cause for division and distrust of the others in turn pushing for even more borders and potential wars. Look at my country for instance: Belgium. To make a long story short, we got mainly two communities here. Us French speaking people in the south and Flemings in the north and we don't get along, why? A lot of complex issues granted but at the end of the day the only true difference between us is LANGUAGE and that's all there REALLY is to it over here. The north a bit richer than the south complains that money from taxes trickle down towards the south and that they want independence because of that. But that is only an excuse for the simple reason that no two regions have the exact same economic level and you can find differences INSIDE the Flemish part of the country. In other words, money trickles down TOO between different parts of the Flemish side of the country cause not all sections have the exact same level of riches. But you will never hear a person there complain about that because when money trickles towards a different part of the Flemish land, nobody thinks of it as money going away because they all speak the same language THEREFORE they all think of themselves as one country, one people but in the south we don't speak their language, we speak French so we are in their minds STRANGERS, other people. So you see linguistic nationalism is even worse than the regular kind of nationalism, very dangerous, divisive and counter effecting progress. In a globalised modern world, in this internet age, linguistic nationalism is obsolete and irrelevant yet nationalists are struggling to keep it alive. And finally ethnic nationalism: This is just a fancy way to say RACISM. So I'm not a fan. |
I have found this whole thread fascinating, not just because of the surrealness of the Catalan story as it has been unfolding in the news, but because of the different (and sometimes passionate) viewpoints coming from people in this thread, and how they are influenced by the histories and politics of their own countries. I could have selected any post to quote but I am drawn to this one, because of your observations on the role of language in nationalism and separatism.
In the British Isles, there are at least 5 indigenous languages that are not English. These languages, evolved from ancient Gaelic and Brittonic languages, are spoken in Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall and the Isle of Man, and are taught alongside English in schools. There are very few, if any, monoglingual speakers of these languages left - in fact, Cornish is a previously extinct language that has been revived. But if you go to any of these places, you'll see street signs and place names in both languages.
As an English speaking Briton, I see these languages as an important part of the history and cultural heritage of these islands which should be preserved. The languages provide regional identity as well as national identity, yet they don't create a language or political barrier between communities, and I guess that's the difference from the experiences you have described in Belgium.
Having said that, I live in an area where hundreds of languages are spoken by people who've made the UK their home, and so I can understand why it's important not to let languages become a barrier between communities in the future.
To put this into context with your comments on the EU - the EU is not one big country, it is a union of distinct countries which have distinct identities, and histories involving war and atrocities against one another over thousands of years, but have been able to learn from the past and work together peacefully. The EU may be striving for an even closer union, but I sincerely hope that the countries in the EU do not lose their indigenous languages, customs and cultures as a result. Europe would become a very boring place if it did.
Last edited by Hedra42 - on 31 October 2017
