Whether one likes it or not, this is what defines any social group - from the family to the nation. This collective identity is sometimes abused to keep people in line - e.g. demanding that women "sacrifice" themselves to their families and stay with their asshole husbands or demanding that citizens "sacrifice" themselves to their nation and follow their asshole leaders. But these tend to be exceptions that get the attention and deserved criticism. Most of the time - and thus taken for granted - those collective identities have beneficial effects on everyday life and human relations by reducing conflict and competition, defining norms of acceptable behavior, defining the framework of public discourse and "lubricating" social interaction.
Taking that collective identity away will reduce humanity to a "brave new world" of atomistic automatons, so if that is the goal of the revolution, you can keep your revolution.
PS. I've traveled to some 30 or so countries and one of the most depressing experiences is to see the homogeneous commercial culture erasing national differences. One of the most horrendous examples of this trend is Makati City in the Philippines - which basically is a nexus of gigantic interconnected shopping malls filled with brand name schlock. So you spend 23 hours on a plane, then wander through those cavernous malls and feel like you never left the United States.
Wojtek
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:25 PM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Forgot the part about the shared lie about the past and a unifying
> hatred of the neighbors.
>
> Doug
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Renan
>
> Definition of nationhood
>
> Renan's definition of a nation has been influential. This was given in
> his 1882 discourse Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? ("What is a Nation?").
> Whereas German writers like Fichte had defined the nation by objective
> criteria such as a race or an ethnic group "sharing common
> characteristics" (language, etc.), Renan defined it by the desire of a
> people to live together, which he summarized by a famous phrase,
> "avoir fait de grandes choses ensemble, vouloir en faire encore"
> (having done great things together and wishing to do more). Writing in
> the midst of the dispute concerning the Alsace-Lorraine region, he
> declared that the existence of a nation was based on a "daily
> plebiscite."
>
> Karl Deutsch (in "Nationalism and its alternatives") suggested that a
> nation is "a group of people united by a mistaken view about the past
> and a hatred of their neighbours." This phrase is frequently, but
> mistakenly, attributed to Renan himself. He did indeed write that if
> "the essential element of a nation is that all its individuals must
> have many things in common", they "must also have forgotten many
> things. Every French citizen must have forgotten the night of St.
> Bartholomew and the massacres in the 13th century in the South."
>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: Uhhh yeah, in the 1800's every French citizen wasn't alive in th
> 13th century
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>