Has Nationalism become a bad word?

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 SteveG wrote:

Yes, I'm aware of that, having come from a mixture of European backgrounds but I was referring to the bulwark countries that have endured for ages such as Russia, China, Japan, India, Singapore, etc. These countries have had more rulers and governments that few poeple really know about including various colonial powers. And guess what? They endured for millennias.

Okay, sorry to disagree yet again, but here we go.

Singapore was created in the 19th century, so has not endured for ages.

The country we now know as India was created after WWII, and had as its creation a huge amount of ethnic and nationalist strife. There was no national India prior to British rule.

Russia, as we know it now, is also relatively modern, its borders stretching from Europe to Eastern Asia only manifesting themselves during the late Imperial era.

Japan - now there is a country and imperial system which has stood the test of time, although with many internal divisions and wars. One of the reasons why the country has survived is owing to much of its history being literally disengaged from the wider world. Indeed, it is still a feature of Japanese nationalism that it was a mistake to open up its ports to America, and to abandon centuries of extremely strict racial purity and isolation.

China is as old as a geographical entity, but there have been many changes over the millennia, with seismic contractions in how its peoples are ruled, but your point about its general borders is true.

Two out of three, then, and five out of five which support my point regarding civilisations and empires falling.