
Einstein's Science Defied Nationalism and Crossed Borders - Hooke
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-einsteins-science-defied-nationalism-and-crossed-borders/2019/06/20/b8b65554-7590-11e9-b7ae-390de4259661_story.html
======
redm
Nationalism is an extension of tribalism which is inherited in human beings,
it's in our DNA [1]. We, as a species, may override our instincts to do what
we feel is better for humanity, but then again humanity is just a larger
tribe.

[1] [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/life-is-
trip/201208/...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/life-is-
trip/201208/you-are-tribal-person)

[2] [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/our-emotional-
footpr...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/our-emotional-
footprint/201802/belonging-is-our-blessing-tribalism-is-our-burden)

~~~
ecocentrik
We've seen nations grow beyond the bounds of tribal/regional origins into
ethnically diverse multicultural and multilingual economic powerhouses. The US
and most European countries are good examples of this. As long as a lingua
franca remains mostly dominant and people acclimate to others acting
differently around them, it's a perfectly natural state. Ancient Rome and
Ancient China both prospered economically under these conditions. Nationalism
in all it's incarnations has historically been an attempt to reassert tribal
balance in favor of some formerly dominant but now sub-dominant group and it
rarely ends well for that group.

~~~
sonnyblarney
"The US and most European countries"

More likely European nations are still mostly ethnocentric whereby the clear
majority of the populations identify with a group that is historically part of
that territory.

Which is fundamentally different from US, Canada, Singapore and even
Central/South American nations which have yet another aspect.

"Ancient Rome and Ancient China both prospered economically under these
conditions. "

Ancient Rome invaded, plundered, occupied and demanded ongoing massive
tributes from it's territories. Even most of the Italian peninsula were
technically slaves.

The basis of 'prosperity' in Roman territories mostly boils down to physical
security, i.e. 'Pax Romana'

"Nationalism in all it's incarnations has historically been an attempt to
reassert tribal balance in favor of some formerly dominant but now sub-
dominant group and it rarely ends well for that group."

Maybe you should offer some examples here, because I can't think of a single
one.

\- Quebec nationalism resulted in a 'quiet revolution' and an officially
bilingual federal state.

\- Scottish nationalism resulted in devolution.

\- Nazi/German nationalism in both World Wars wasn't exactly the reassertion
of a 'formerly dominant state' \- moreover, now that France is weakened and
the UK is 'out' \- Germany's dominance of the EU is basically unchallenged.

\- Russian nationalism has been fairly strong since the modern concept of
nationalism.

\- Nationalist movements throughout the post WW2 era resulted in the
ostensible freedom of many powers from former colonial rule: Egypt, Libya,
Algeria. (That list is very long.)

FYI the modern concept of 'Nationalism' is merely a civic orientation of that
which existed before (and still does) i.e. 'ethnicity'.

Sweden and Finland do not share totally arbitrary borders.

The border between Finland and Sweden is such that the relative ethnic
populations of Swedes and Finns are contiguous, i.e. _Sweden is where the
Swedish people live, Finland is where the Finns live_ \- mostly.

The ethnocentric nature of the nation state is still obvious today by the fact
that many ethnic Swedes for example live in Finland, and are demarcated as a
separate group - not just people who 'speak a different language', bur rather,
they are of a different ethnicity than Finns, although technically of the same
legal nationality.

Though nationalism is very different in a place like the USS or Canada, it's
still forms part of people's natural identity.

Family, tribe, ethnic group, 'nation' (be it ethnic or idealist) are part of
who we are; to ignore this would be to ignore the very nature of who we are.

That said, some things, like Scientific knowledge tend to be humanist, i.e.
transcending ethnicities, and of course we often need to be reminded of this.

~~~
mc32
I also don’t see China as having been ethnically diverse. They had foreigners
invade, control and eventually got swallowed by the numbers, but it wasn’t
like the Roman Empire. If anything anyone who didn’t assimilate into Han
culture was driven out or worse (mountain people, manchurians, etc)

------
muckrakerz
[https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/what-was-einstein-s-
relations...](https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/what-was-einstein-s-relationship-
to-judaism-and-zionism-1.5425826)

Einstein views were conflicted. He was very pro-nationalist where it was a
Jewish concern. He felt this was forced, but that doesn't change his position.

------
ralphc
Time to pull out this chestnut. I start out as a physics major, this is
Georgia Tech in 1980, 1981. In my classical mechanics class my german physics
professor said that "of course we weren't taught relativity because it was
considered Jewish physics". That brought a round of chuckles until we realized
he wasn't kidding.

------
mobilemidget
just wondering out loud, but one can’t defy nationalism without crossing
borders no?

------
netmonk
It's not because law of physics are universals, that the political point of
view of Einstein are universal. Moreover, when you look are how many nationnal
socialist scientists from Germany were transfered in America after ww2, and
how America benefited until today from them, tends to discredit any kind of
authoritarian argument that political point of view of a physics specialist is
more relevant than the one from my jobless neighbour.

~~~
PavlovsCat
No political views of Einstein are even mentioned, they're kinda besides the
point here. Even if they weren't, many things Einstein said or wrote aren't
considered insightful because he was "good at being a physicist", but because
they are valuable and insightful in their own right, and often beautifully
put.

There should be some kind of Godwin's law for mentioning Einstein, and the
"just because he was a good physicist doesn't mean the thing I'm not actually
going to address is correct" stuff showing up.

~~~
netmonk
This is a very common habit of our modern propaganda, to use the position of
an expert in very narrow field as an authoritarian position to promote
political agenda... Moreover, dead cannot speak, and it's very easier to use
them for this.

~~~
toufka
Except in this case, Einstein very much _was_ a philosopher in addition to a
physicist. His philosophical writings weren’t as stand-out as his physics, but
they weren’t shabby either. He was offered the job of the first leader of
Israel, not because he was a great physicist, but because he thought deeply
about philosophical and political issues.

He did write quite a bit in his own contemplated voice in these subjects. It
is true though that a reinterpretation of his voice can become problematic.

------
pojntfx
Fascinating. The entire article doesn't even bother to include the fact that
Einstein was a socialist. He didn't want to "cross borders" \- he wanted to
remove them, which is the sole sane solution.

~~~
hugh4life
How does a democracy work without borders? Without borders there is no demos.

~~~
anarchy8
The "demos" or people would be any freely associating group of people, which
isn't necessarily defined by borders.

~~~
aikah
It would end up the same as today, ultimately, nations would emerge. Don't you
think "free association" is where civilization began at first place? And you
expect a different outcome? Who would protect "free associates" from the
violence of others who don't buy into that system?

Utopia like Anarchy severely ignore the "human nature" factor.

~~~
kiliantics
It's unknown how civilisations began but they were most likely not formed
through "free association" but rather by violent extortion. It's thought that
pastoral communities being regularly robbed by nomadic groups eventually
developed a relationship of paying tribute to one group in return for
protection against others. Or, put differently, one group of bandits will
fight off the others to get exclusive pillaging access to some farming
communities. This tribute system is believed to have then developed into a
taxation system.

In no way are modern nation states a form of "free association". I cannot
freely choose to not pay taxes if I am born in a nation, nor can I freely
choose to join another nation if I accept their principles.

Your predictable and very unoriginal use of the "human nature" argument is in
fact the ignorant position. It completely ignores the significantly larger
number of humans throughout history (and including today) that have lived in
freely associating relationships that in no way resemble the modern nation
state or earlier forms of civilisation.

~~~
aikah
It's very well known how civilization began.

You cannot find a single example of what you deem "free association" that is
not currently defended directly or indirectly by an army.

The irony of your statement is that while you called me ignorant you said the
exact same thing as I said in your first paragraph.

Then you try to back pedal to make a "point" in the last one by giving zero
examples of your "larger number of humans throughout history (and including
today) that have lived in freely associating relationships.

And next time refrain from calling other people who disagree with whatever
ideology you believe in as "ignorant", it qualifies you as a troll.

------
lsniddy
Einstein married his 1st cousin, I bet he loved socialism.

~~~
GorgeRonde
And he abandoned his schizophrenic son.

