| 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. |
-So you're seeing a future with just one global country, right? If so, how centralized? And how do you see the future?
-I understand, but what about democracy, what if they really want independence, like 80% in favour? Surely, at some point not giving in would cost more than surrendering.
-Although i agree that language is divisive, people won't just stop speaking the language of their ancestors, not even in a thousand years, especially the lower class. It seems that it is the least offensive way people have naturally divided themselves (the alternatives being race, religion, class). It would be best if people didn't do any of that, but i don't see it stopping even in a globalized world.
-A solution would be to create a mix of French and Dutch, a real Belgian language, maybe then Belgium would become a real country ;)
Last edited by fory77 - on 02 November 2017
