The first true 'nationalists,' those of the French Revolution, followed a path that nicely illustrates why nationalism can potentially be a force for good, and why it almost inevitably tends to end up as a force of chaos and misery.

In 1789 the people rose up because, simply put, they felt that they, the people of France, should be the ones who should decide their own fate. They took control of the country and for the first time realised that, above all else, they were Frenchmen, and they should work together for their common good rather than let the aristocrats push them around. They even sent out proclamations across Europe stating that they would support any other nation that chose to assert itself in the same way, because all men were brothers. So far so good.

Twenty-five years or so later the other European states finally defeat a French nation that had tried its very best to conquer Europe for itself. Foreign radicals who had initially welcomed French armies as liberators from their own aristocracies had been treated like dirt and ignored. French soldiers had behaved as occupiers rather than liberators. Why? Because they knew that they were Frenchmen, and others were not.

The lesson is that once people get their national identity into their heads, for whatever reason, it affects their thinking in other ways. The very same sense of nation that spurred the French to cast of their aristocracy sent them into wars of conquest under a military dictator who they all adored, and still do.

Since then nationalism has had a poor record. Both world wars were caused primarily by nationalism. Soviet expansionism and Maoism both owe far more to nationalism than they do to communism. Islamic fundamentalism is essentially the same beast, being far more concerned with kicking the foreign devils than following the Koran.

On the other hand we have just seen something very special happen in the Ukraine, so perhaps it isn't a completely lost cause.