Though I oppose Mariia in this question I feel like take up the cudgels for her because I think both the question and her argument – as well as the whole concept of a nation as such – may be misunderstood.

About the first point, Ivan made it already clear that the question does not imply an answer and since nationalism (esp. with the European crisis AND the EU elections!) is an important point in the political agenda, AEGEE should also discuss this. Again, just watching the coin from one side doesn’t provide the whole picture, does it?

About Mariia’s arguments – which are linked to the concept of “the nation” in my opinion (and thus to the third point I mentioned at the top):
Nationalism, as I wrote myself, does not necessarily mean exclusion. Actually it can mean exactly the opposite; it depends on the society and whether they are more “inclusive” or “exclusive”.
Also, I must strongly disagree on calling the concept of a nation “ridiculous” (this points now esp. to Luis’ comment on 3rd March):
Societies of all kind form from identities – the family, the clan/tribe, the village, the city, the city state/kingdom (f.e. ancient Uruk and Greece), the nation/kingdom. These things are roughly a “level-up” of the former phase, if you like. Next would be: international/continent bonds (EU, UNASUR etc.), finally world society/humanity (UN). For the remote future we might even be forced to look beyond the border of your planet…
Pure national thinking is outdated in our times here in Europe, but for some regions of the world thinking in structures higher than tribes just makes no sense (one problem of making Afghanistan a functioning nation, actually).
All in all, just looking at nations will not give you the whole picture of human societies and how they work — but neither will you see the whole picture, if you exclude “the nation”…
(That is basically what I meant as I drew the conclusion: “Nevertheless nationalism (especially the inclusive form) may have positive effects for the majority of a nation, hence the statement at the very beginning cannot be completely falsified.”)

If we understand that the further ago, the more ignorant we were, all this divisions, and the understanding of our history only means how NOT to do things, and all these divisions are what cause so much trouble. Us, the normal people, are the ones that are limited by this imaginary boundaries, and people like the Latvian, mentioned by Mariia, they have to go to other countries and leave their families and friends behind in search of better opportunities. Do you think convincing them to stay and reinforcing some shit nationalism in a country where unfortunately these people can’t find good opportunities is the solution?

Acknowledging that we are all the same, no matter the color of the eyes, hair, race, sex, age, religion, etc, etc is to understand we are all together in this world. There shall not be any boundaries and instead there should be an open exchange of different cultural traditions, arts, knowledge, etc…

Anyway, I just wanted to say that none of the arguments of Mariia are neither valid nor logical. If you believe that the actual state of the world is anywhere near a positive example to follow and to continue the examples of history, then you just don’t have a clue about the world you are living in. Half of the population of the world lives with less than 2 dollars per day, and im pretty sure that around 93% of the world live with less than 10 dollars a day. I guess thats the evolution that ideas like nationalism has brought to us, the way of bringing scarcity to the most of the world keep the good thinking girl, one day u might be the next führerin.

Mariia, I am sure you are well-meaning, especially when you wish for people in our societies to have a shared project, a common vision of their collective future. However, I’m afraid nationalism is not the answer. History shows us that the mixture of rising nationalism and economic crisis, like in our current times, can be devastating (and cannot be stopped once set in motion). The example you chose to prove that nationalism is good for the economy is totally inaccurate. After WWI, Germany entered one of worst economic crises in its history – which is the reason why nationalists eventually came to power. Yes, re-armament gave jobs to some people, but that was a very small benefit compared to the devastation of the war caused by re-armament (and yes, nationalist ideas). Germany had a miracolous economic recovery after WW2, once nationalism had finally been rejected and the country (West Germany, to be precise) became fully integrated in the European single market. By contrast, after WWI, nationalists believed every nation could survive with its own means (a dangerous idea called ‘autharky’). This meant European countries shut economic relations with one another, trade decresed by almost 90 %, this further exacerbated the crisis and paved the way to the war. The example of Switzerland shows that these ideas are still very strong. At times of economic crisis, there can be no good nationalism. When people do not have jobs, they find someone to blame, foreigners and minorities are all too often the easy target. Hence nationalisms, which make us blind to the fact that migrants contribute far more to the economy than they take away in social benefits.

We have to be very careful with these arguments, nationalism is a sleeping beast, a bit like the dragon Smaug in The Hobbit, if it wakes up, it will be hard for us to stop it and have a meaningful conversation with it. History teaches the hard lesson…