Nationalism

[Skeptic]

Really? Is that what history teaches us?

Yes, DD, that is what history teaches us. As Alexander Solzenichin (sp?) put it, "even Shakespeare's worst villans stopped at a dozen killed--because they had no ideology".

If you see someone who is pushing an utopian solution to the world's problems... but only has to iron out a few details about how it should work out... and just isn't sure what to do about those who oppose his wondeful solution... KILL HIM!

You will rid the world of an idiot--a good thing in itself--and, in addition, might just save a few millions lives trying to reach this utopia would undoubtebly cause, as it always does.

Perhaps I can refer you to Ghandi.

Ghandi was a nationalist, DD. He didn't have any world-saving solutions. He cared about India first and foremost. He wisely didn't try to solve the world's problems. It is the international revolutionaries, the one-worlders, the no-more-war, happy-ever-after crowd, that leave piles of corpses in their wake.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite:
Shane, how does the economic success of these two nations, compared to the many who are not as succesful, show anything about the benefits of a nation-state?

Nothing, necessarily. Neither do the economic failings of other nation states necessarily mean that nationhood is antithical to economic prosperity.

World Government would bomb no one. Please try to get rid of your "nation-states must exist" mindset.

How do you know?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:

Really? Is that what history teaches us?

Yes, DD, that is what history teaches us. As Alexander Solzenichin (sp?) put it, "even Shakespeare's worst villans stopped at a dozen killed--because they had no ideology".

If you see someone who is pushing an utopian solution to the world's problems... but only has to iron out a few details about how it should work out... and just isn't sure what to do about those who oppose his wondeful solution... KILL HIM!

You will rid the world of an idiot--a good thing in itself--and, in addition, might just save a few millions lives trying to reach this utopia would undoubtebly cause, as it always does.

What is so utopian about a One World Government? If you think it is utopian, presumably you agree that it is a worthy goal?

Perhaps I can refer you to Ghandi.

Ghandi was a nationalist, DD. He didn't have any world-saving solutions. He cared about India first and foremost. He wisely didn't try to solve the world's problems. It is the international revolutionaries, the one-worlders, the no-more-war, happy-ever-after crowd, that leave piles of corpses in their wake.

Ghandi had a goal. The goal was freeing the people of his nation-state from being governed by force by another nation-state. His "operational plan", so to speak, was civil disobedience. Not much of a plan, but it worked.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Shane Costello:

Nothing, necessarily. Neither do the economic failings of other nation states necessarily mean that nationhood is antithical to economic prosperity.

I never said it was.

How do you know?

How do I know that the OWG would not bomb anyone? It would be part of their constitution.

 

[Skeptic]

What is so utopian about a One World Government?

Guess.

P.S.

Anybody wants dibs on that as .sig file material?

 

[DanishDynamite]

What is so utopian about a One World Government?

Guess.

P.S.

Anybody wants dibs on that as .sig file material?

"Guess"?

I have to guess what you think? Man, that would be an interesting conversation with myself. Would you jump in to correct me now and then?

Oh, and you didn't answer my question in regard to whether your self-characterization of a One World Government as utopian, means that you are in favor of such an entity.

 

[Skeptic]

"Guess"?

I have to guess what you think?

The point is that asking "what is utopian about one world government" is a bit like asking "what is so bad about cancer".

You don't need my help to figure it out; just think about it for 30 seconds, I'm sure the answer will occur to you.

 

[DanishDynamite]

The point is that asking "what is utopian about one world government" is a bit like asking "what is so bad about cancer".

You don't need my help to figure it out; just think about it for 30 seconds, I'm sure the answer will occur to you.

I'll repeat my previous post in case you need a second reading before answering:

"Guess"?

I have to guess what you think? Man, that would be an interesting conversation with myself. Would you jump in to correct me now and then?

Oh, and you didn't answer my question in regard to whether your self-characterization of a One World Government as utopian, means that you are in favor of such an entity.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite:
I never said it was.

And I don't think I said you did. It just seems to me that the failings of government are being laid at the door of the nation state. Abolishing the nation state will not eliminate nearsighted, craven, and stupid government.

How do I know that the OWG would not bomb anyone? It would be part of their constitution.

What if recalcitrant rebel groups engaged in a terrorist campaign against the institutions of OWG?

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Nationalism

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that you are proud to be an ideologue?

No, but thank you for given me an opportunity to respond.

I could probably cite a thousand reasons why I am definitely not an ideologue but I will post a few that come to my mind. Please feel free to ask me to expand on any points or people you are unfamiliar with.

I'm certainly right of center. However, I strongly support the separation of church and state. I support a woman's right to choose. I want prostitution to be legalized. I want to end the moronic and wasteful war on drugs. I want gays to enjoy all of the rights of heterosexual couples. I fervently support the minimum wage and would like to see it increased. I was extremely angry at the Borking of Cynthia McKinney and the character assassination she received. I agree with her ideas about voting and I don't think her ideas constitute quotas. I think the right is often too intolerant and I think conservative Christians have too much power in right leaning politics. My favorite pundit is Pat Cadell (left leaning). Some of my political heros of the past include Tip Oniel, Mario Cuomo and Ed Koch. I often vote for Democrats and Republicans and have actively campaigned for a Democrat in both the School Board and a Judge.

One of my all time favorite writers was Upton Sinclair and I have read the Jungle many times.

I abhor rigid adherence to ideology. I believe that such a position is antithetical to critical thinking.

That being said, I don't think critical thinking and patriotism are mutually exclusive.
Again,

Thank you very much for given me the opportunity to respond.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Again ... I like city-states. Like tribes, they're on a human scale. Nations aren't. It's hard to fool people about what the tribe's interests are, but easy to fool them over national interests (which generally turn out to be the perceived interests of a wealthy minority). I like the idea of a world of city-states and regions, with a central guaranteeing authority. Great Cities like New York, Singapore, London, Kabul, Shanghai, Cairo, Salonika, Moskva, cities with real histories and rationales.

City-states are preferable to nation-states?

Environmental problems of regional or global importance are left to fester as city-states follow their own perceived self-interest (as city-states are expected to do). Rivers pass through a variety of city-states, each concerned only with its own needs and the actions of those upstream (be warned, water wars are going to be a feature of the near future if things don't change). Scientific projects that require multi-regional input are halted by arguments about which city-states gets to host it. Natural economic zones are disrupted by having city-state borders running through them.

I don't see how changing the scale changes any of the issues. I can understand how a smaller unit, a city or a region, is easier to identify with, but that's an issue of personal taste. If there is a central guaranteeing authority, isn’t that just a super-state with all the problems associated with it?

 

[RandFan]

In my previous post I said Cyntia Mckinney had been Borked when in fact it had been professor Lani Guinier. However Cynthia Mckinney was also accused by Conservatives as a quota queen.

I'm not as impressed with McKinney as I was with Guinier and can't comment on whether or not she was what conservatives said she was.

 

[Frank Newgent]

If you see someone who is pushing an utopian solution to the world's problems... but only has to iron out a few details about how it should work out... and just isn't sure what to do about those who oppose his wondeful solution... KILL HIM!

Hmm, you may want to read this

 

[Skeptic]

City-states are preferable to nation-states?

...and we all know how full of harmony and peace Greece was during the time it was divided into city-states... and how peaceful and mild life was in Italy when it was divided into city-states during the Reneissance...

 

[RandFan]

Hmm, you may want to read this

What president is pushing Utopia? Bush has said that we can win the war on terror but it will be very difficult.

I'm sorry, what's your point.

 

[Chaos]

It is the international revolutionaries, the one-worlders, the no-more-war, happy-ever-after crowd, that leave piles of corpses in their wake.

If you don´t mind the reference to Hitler (among others), history has shown us that it is the nationalists.
Hitler didn´t try to save the world, or humanity; all he cared for was the welfare of the Aryan race, at the cost of whatever number of non-Aryans (and a considerable number of "traitorous" and "disloyal" Aryans, as well) it would take.
I could go on like that with Stalin (who is responsible for up to 40 million dead), Pol Pot (who killed 15% of his country´s population within three years) and lots of others.

As you can see, it is precisely the us-versus-them (or good-versus-evil) stance of nationalism (or religion, for that matter) that causes piles of corpses - and you think it is a bad idea to put an end to that?

 

[RandFan]

If you don´t mind the reference to Hitler (among others), history has shown us that it is the nationalists.
Hitler didn´t try to save the world, or humanity; all he cared for was the welfare of the Aryan race, at the cost of whatever number of non-Aryans (and a considerable number of "traitorous" and "disloyal" Aryans, as well) it would take.
I could go on like that with Stalin (who is responsible for up to 40 million dead), Pol Pot (who killed 15% of his country´s population within three years) and lots of others.

As you can see, it is precisely the us-versus-them (or good-versus-evil) stance of nationalism (or religion, for that matter) that causes piles of corpses - and you think it is a bad idea to put an end to that?

I'm not convinced that it is that simple. It seems to me that we identify a percieved cause and then declare it bad. And why not? The effects are bad, right?

But in reality, aren't the problems you talk about endemic to human nature and while we might be able to get rid of nations we will never be able to eradicate culture or percieved differences?

Pol Pot killed his own country men because they had a different ideology. The farmers in the Ukraine were masacred not because they belonged to a different nation but because they would not conform to their nation's demands.

Ulitmately the problem isn't with nations. It's with people. Solving problems by eliminating nations won't solve the problems.

 

[Chaos]

I admit that nationalism is not all there is to it. Among other thing, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were all extremely paranoid. People with aspirations as a dictator all seem to be paranoid.

On the other hand, national (and international) politics is a field that, to a certain degree rewards paranoia, at least all but the most extreme kinds. Paranoia only grows worse, unless it is treated, and a politician´s paranoia is rarely recognized as such.

 

[Cleopatra]

RandFan said:

Perhaps unique to Americans is the feelings of patriotism that transcend ideas of race or ethnicity. We are not simply English or Italian or Spanish, etc. We are simply American, E Plurbius Unium. From many one. And patriotism for many or most Americans isn't even about geography. Patriotism for us is the love of freedom and opportunity and the values on which our nation was founded.

I am proud to be a patriot.

To which Nikk responded with the following question:

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that you are proud to be an ideologue?

I think that the posts above describe beautifully my observation regarding the different way Americans and Europeans perceive Nationalism and that Americans talking about nationalism is an oxymoron. I agree with Nikk. Randfan described an ideology not patriotism that srpings from what we know in Europe as nationalism.

Nice reply Randfan although I disagree with you.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Chaos
As you can see, it is precisely the us-versus-them (or good-versus-evil) stance of nationalism (or religion, for that matter) that causes piles of corpses - and you think it is a bad idea to put an end to that?

For there to be a conflict, there has to be an us and a them, but it doesn't logically follow that us and them causes conflict. To say that is to ignore all the various us's and thems that are not in conflict.

Wars are not caused by making distinctions between people. Wars happen when different peoples (nations, city-states, tribes, whatever) recognize differences in needs/goals (real or imagined) that bring them into conflict with each other.

National identity is only one of many distinctions that can be made between people. Taking away this one identifying characteristic will not end conflict, it will just change conflict so that it follows different identifying characteristics.