I don't doubt the antiquity of the Chinese civilization I am just saying that the Greeks were the first that they not only perceived but expressed in their writings and turned into a policy the idea that they differ as a group from the people that surrounded them.Graham said:
Nationalism
- Thread starter CapelDodger
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nationalism
and then you continue:DanishDynamite said:
Actually Danish Dynamite things are not that simple especially when two groups of people dispute over one land( example: Israelis and Palestinians) or they dispute as to where they have to draw the border line( the example that comes to my mind is the following.Can Hungary annex the part of Slovakia whose population is predominately Hungarian?) The notion of government came much later as I explained to my previous post. You cannot dispute over a territory without describing your group in terms of History and culture ( language).
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Messages
- 7,558
I assume your question is rhetorical.RandFan said:
Here's a quick definition of utopian.
Neo-conservatives certainly want to remake the world. George W seems to believe he's peculiarly chosen by time and events to do so.
Consider Iraq. Do you believe that any realistic planning went into the post-invasion? Things were supposed to somehow work out on their own - the Iraqi people would line the streets and throw oil, I mean flowers, and everything would pay for itself.
Right?
What is real is less important to the current administration than that which is believed. I think I'm being quite generous by giving them that much.
DanishDynamite
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2001
- Messages
- 10,752
The right of self-defense would of course be allowed.Shane Costello said:
DanishDynamite
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2001
- Messages
- 10,752
Depends on the power invested in this central guaranteeing authority.Mycroft said:
DanishDynamite
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2001
- Messages
- 10,752
RandFan:
I wonder if you would have some statistics regarding the number of civil wars or equivalent that a nation state engages in compared to the number of inter-nation-state wars?
DanishDynamite
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2001
- Messages
- 10,752
Cleo, the Mighty:
It is time that people realize that there is nothing "obviously right" in the existence of a nation-state. It is a concept invented at some point in human history, like all religions, and if people could just see past their indoctrination they would realize that there is nothing holly about this construct.
Disputes over where to draw the border line is immaterial to the definition of a nation-state.
It is time that people realize that there is nothing "obviously right" in the existence of a nation-state. It is a concept invented at some point in human history, like all religions, and if people could just see past their indoctrination they would realize that there is nothing holly about this construct.
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 10,611
Mycroft said:
I didn´t say "us and them together causes conflict". I said that the stance of us versus them causes it. With "stance" I mean the belief that
- "we" are better than "they" are
- "we" have the right to take what "they" own, if we want it
- "we" are the good guys, "they" are the bad guys
- whatever "we" do is justified, whatever "they" do that "we" don´t like is evil
This is not limited to nationalism. It also applies to religion, ethnic identity, politcal stances, and probably to other fields I didn´t think of.
DanishDynamite said:
A-HA!!!! So the OWG WILL be armed, and WILL be allowed to excercise force against its enemies! But, surely, it will do so only in self-defense. trust us. It couldn't possibly happen that the armed OWG will ever abuse its power.
Right?
Your solution to rogue nations, nations who abuse human rights, nations who engage in agressive war, etc., etc., etc., is to create a "one-world government"--in effect, a super-nation ruled by a super-government. But... Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards? Suppose there is a one-world government... and it becomes, through corruption (power corrupts) or some other reason, itself tyrannical and evil. Who will you turn to then?
To illustrate, we hear a lot from the left about how the US's so-called "partiot act" abuses human rights. Let's suppose that's true. If worse truly comes to worst, one could emigrate from the US to another nation--say, Finland--which (in one's view) has a higher respect for human rights. But where will you go, if the OWG declares its own "patriot act"--"temporarily" suspending civil liberties across the globe in the interest of "self-defense" or "world peace" or "war on terror" or "stopping the counter-revolutionary nationalists from X" or whatever?
When a nation-state's government turns evil, its citizens can at least hope for help from outside. There is no "outside" (barring alien invasion) to a one-world government. Who will, or could, make sure that the all-powerful OWG does not abuse its power? Nobody. So if it ever turns bad or tyrannical, you will really have an Orwellian 1984 scenario: "A boot stepping on a human face--forever", as O'Brien tells Winston Smith.
So, no, DD, I do not agree that a OWG is a worthy goal. Quite apart from being utterly impossible to implement without rivers of blood, which is another issue, a OWG, any OWG, once in power, would be nothing more than a one-way ticket to unending tyranny. The motto of your "dream" OWG shouldn't really be "one world of peace" (or whatever), but "abandon all hope, ye who enter here!".
DanishDynamite
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2001
- Messages
- 10,752
Skeptic, my wrongly named friend, a One World Government would by definition not have any external enemies (save aggresive aliens).Skeptic said:
However, in the interim, they would obviously be allowed to defend themselves when attacked.
Who will you turn to if the government of the US becomes likewise? Are you afraid that the checks and balances won't balance?
Indeed. The US constitution, while a good template, needs to be enhanced before it would be acceptable to a OWG, to avoid the type of problems you are currently faced with.
Sorry, what?
Are you saying that US citizens ultimately depend on foreign assistance to help them in case their their government somehow bypasses the US Constitution?
So why is a OWG a utopian concept in your view?
Skeptic, my wrongly named friend, a One World Government would by definition not have any external enemies (save aggresive aliens).
However, in the interim, they would obviously be allowed to defend themselves when attacked.
Yes, it will... all those evil, secretive, counterrevolutionary people who still harbor verboten nationalistic sympathies would be its enemies.
Let me put it very simply: If ever such a government is proposed in my lifetime (which I consider extremely unlikely) I, and literally billions like me, will be its enemies from the very start, no matter what promises it makes or what constitution it declares, for a variety of reasons.
I, and literally billions like me, will take up arms to fight it with force, and will fight it to the death. This is not bravado since, as I said, I might as well pledge to fight to the death the alien invaders from Zeta Rectuli, if and when they finally arrive here, for all the likelihood of me ever being called on this promise.
So, what is your OWG going to do, "in the interim", with its "right of self defense", against me? Please be specific...
However, in the interim, they would obviously be allowed to defend themselves when attacked.
Yes, it will... all those evil, secretive, counterrevolutionary people who still harbor verboten nationalistic sympathies would be its enemies.
Let me put it very simply: If ever such a government is proposed in my lifetime (which I consider extremely unlikely) I, and literally billions like me, will be its enemies from the very start, no matter what promises it makes or what constitution it declares, for a variety of reasons.
I, and literally billions like me, will take up arms to fight it with force, and will fight it to the death. This is not bravado since, as I said, I might as well pledge to fight to the death the alien invaders from Zeta Rectuli, if and when they finally arrive here, for all the likelihood of me ever being called on this promise.
So, what is your OWG going to do, "in the interim", with its "right of self defense", against me? Please be specific...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nationalism
Well lets turn first to your original post in which you 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..............."
Firstly patriotism does not necessarily have anything to do with race or ethnicity ( whatever they are ) in other nation states. Feelings associated with race are closer to nationalism than patriotism. In the last but one election for the British Conservative party a leading contender was Michael Portillo, the son of refugees from Franco's Spain. The current leader is Michael Howard the son of Romanian jewish immigrants/refugees. Neither would thank you for suggesting that they are at heart patriotic Spaniards/Romanians/Jews. A likely future contender for the French Presidency is an Hungarian immigrant. Again his patriotism is not at issue.
As the word is derived from "patria" which is much closer to homeland than nation state it is probably fair to say that patriotism means little more than a rather incoherent emotional attachment to a particular territory and way of life. In my opinion is not only one of the commonest of human emotions but also one that easily transcends "race and ethnicity".
Secondly you suggest that American patriotism is primarily about...... the love of freedom and opportunity and the values on which our nation was founded....... .
What you are describing here is surely a set of beliefs or principles on which you believe your nation state is based.
And what is an ideology but....."a theory, or set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party or organization is based:"...........
And what is an ideologue but ......."a person who believes very strongly in particular principles and tries to follow them carefully".
Needless to say it is possible to be a patriot and an ideologue but I maintain that American patriotism is unique only in the sense that all forms of patriotism are unique.
You mention that you have views which sometimes cross party boundaries and that you have voted for candidates of different parties. As all successful parties in a representative democracy are coalitions and need to adapt and compromise to meet the demands of the electorate this is hardly surprising. Indeed it rather supports my point that you are an ideologue ( this is not an insult by the way ) as you putting your beliefs ahead of party loyalty.
RandFan said:
Well lets turn first to your original post in which you 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..............."
Firstly patriotism does not necessarily have anything to do with race or ethnicity ( whatever they are ) in other nation states. Feelings associated with race are closer to nationalism than patriotism. In the last but one election for the British Conservative party a leading contender was Michael Portillo, the son of refugees from Franco's Spain. The current leader is Michael Howard the son of Romanian jewish immigrants/refugees. Neither would thank you for suggesting that they are at heart patriotic Spaniards/Romanians/Jews. A likely future contender for the French Presidency is an Hungarian immigrant. Again his patriotism is not at issue.
As the word is derived from "patria" which is much closer to homeland than nation state it is probably fair to say that patriotism means little more than a rather incoherent emotional attachment to a particular territory and way of life. In my opinion is not only one of the commonest of human emotions but also one that easily transcends "race and ethnicity".
Secondly you suggest that American patriotism is primarily about...... the love of freedom and opportunity and the values on which our nation was founded....... .
What you are describing here is surely a set of beliefs or principles on which you believe your nation state is based.
And what is an ideology but....."a theory, or set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party or organization is based:"...........
And what is an ideologue but ......."a person who believes very strongly in particular principles and tries to follow them carefully".
Needless to say it is possible to be a patriot and an ideologue but I maintain that American patriotism is unique only in the sense that all forms of patriotism are unique.
You mention that you have views which sometimes cross party boundaries and that you have voted for candidates of different parties. As all successful parties in a representative democracy are coalitions and need to adapt and compromise to meet the demands of the electorate this is hardly surprising. Indeed it rather supports my point that you are an ideologue ( this is not an insult by the way ) as you putting your beliefs ahead of party loyalty.
Cleopatra said:
A major difficulty in discussing nationalism is a lack of agreement on definitions. It is quite common to see nationalism and patriotism used as synonyms, something I disagree with. The fact that the term "Patria" predated the nation state suggests that they are different ideas after all.
As far as I am concerned Orwell gets to the heart of the difference between the two ideas when he says ( in "Notes on Nationalism" ):-
"By Patriotism I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseperable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality".
It is of course rather easy for Patriotism to slide into Nationalism. If you believe that your own way of life/religion etc is inhererently superior to all others it only too easy to think that you have the moral right and indeed duty to impose it on others..................Then they kill you.
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Messages
- 7,558
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Hi Cleopatra:
I would add "shares a set of national myths".
Edited to add:
I'm assuming Ptolemaic descent from your avatar, but apologies if you're referring to Cleopatra mother of Herod Philip.
I would add "shares a set of national myths".
It was also used this way amongst the Knights of Malta, where it caused all sorts of problems in co-ordinating the defence against the Ottomans. Rioting between the different "nations" of the Paris universities was almost a recognised sport. Give young men some means of dividing themselves into "teams" and inter-team violence follows. Patriotism, like religion, is one of the ways older minds manipulate young male violence to their own ends.
Eddie Izzard recently presented a series called "Mongrol Nation" about Britain, I recommend it (I'm a big fan anyway). You'll recall I did mention "Britain (a whole argument in itself)" earlier on. Fortescue was wrong about Scotland being a "nation", but right not to think that Wales was (never was, still isn't).
Indeed, but it was a tool of philosophy rather than a dominant political reality. The theorising that led to 19thCE Nationalism - which is politically dominant today - was part of an attempt to create an alternative ideology to the heriditary, "Mandate of Heaven" ideology that was holding back progress in Germany. (Socialism, which is explicitly anti-nationalist, was another such effort.) The finished product was taken up by subjects of the Austrian Empire, despite it being mostly inappropriate (Hungary, at least, excepted). Spain, France and Portugal were "natural", peripheral nations that coalesced in the late 15th/early 16thCE (post-1492 in Spain, post Louis XI in France, every now and again in Portugal). There was no precise theory of nation leading the way. It was these examples which theorists of nationalism looked to for their defined ideology, without, perhaps, recognising their real nature. And it this model which has been imposed on the world outside Western Europe (where your examples come from). That's what I see as the problem.
You do make some wild claims. I doubt that the Sumerians missed this idea, or the early Chinese. Ezra was pushing the idea of at least a religious nation when he banned marrying-out. The Greeks happen to have been particularly well-reported, and we can see from those reports that nationalism was only ever the preferred ideology of the dominant city of the time. Writing the idea down and having those writings still extant is hardly relevant.
Actually, the Greeks had the idea that they had a homeland. Alexander took to the idea of Empire - with Greece as part of it - without any hesitation, as did the Seleucids and your Ptolomaic ancestors. Rule of foreigners as appression ... I imagine the problem wasn't thought about much, them being Greeks and all.
In modern terms, such people are eager to grasp the ideology, since it gives them cover for exercising their rapacity within their own borders. The outside world, dazzled by the idea of "sovereignty" that must not be denied, leaves them to it. "Nations" sprang up all over Central America post-Empire, ruled by just that type. The 1880's have been described as the decadde when nationalism completed its migration fro left (democratic) to right (demagogic).
I don't dismiss anyone because a label has been stuck on them. It is my ambition to be right, not to have any prejudices confirmed. I won't achieve that by rejecting useful thinking, and even erroneous thinking can be stimulating.
Edited to add:
I'm assuming Ptolemaic descent from your avatar, but apologies if you're referring to Cleopatra mother of Herod Philip.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
from Shane Costello:
If it ain't broke, why is the world making such a grinding noise at it turns?
Distance may be more important than population. London is famously described as a series of overlapping villages, and I suspect New York has much the same feel - there's Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn and the rest but all their population are New Yorkers. Cities have their hinterlands, areas around them that are economically dominated by the city, and great cities have satellite cities. Between the cities and their hinterlands are rural areas, and there is a natural tension between rural (down-to-earth) and city (slickers, sorry, I mean sophisticates). Nations extend the hinterlands too far and impose their own terms on the regions.
I advocate a central guaranteeing authority (guaranteeing rights we'd all be in broad agreement with) with local power in a variety of units defined and arranged according to circumstances, but accepted by the locals. If the local unit turns out to be national in scope, fair enough, but sovereignty will be limited by the guarenteed rights. Hard to achieve, but still worth thinking about. The flip-side of the failures is that we can learn something from them; the flip-side of national failures, like Iraq, is that we can learn from their experiences too. At the very least we should be reviewing the borders that have been laid out over the last century (mosty over the last 50 years). I'd like to go further.
Rebels do this within nation states, and they are dealt with ... by various methods. If they're nationalist rebels, the validity of the nation is obviously in question. The OWG would prohibit local units inciting or supporting such rebellions, and transparent democracies (as guaranteed to everyone) should be less subject to them than many nations today.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
from BillyTK:
See what I have to put up with from cat-people? Go tell your satanic masters they're barking up the wrong tree trying to undermine me.
I am not Welsh. I claim no nation and allow no nation to claim me. And there isn't any more credit than I deserve; I am the one great hope of mankind in the face of the cat-threat. Preventing human unity is the sine qua non of their strategy. When we all get together and compare notes, their evil machinations will become clear to everyone. Then there shall be a squealing and a screeching and the clawing and the biting (that's just the dupes that own and nurture them) throughout the land, but not for long. Not for long at all ...
Admit it Capel Dodger what you hate most in cats is the fact that they don't come to rub to your feet and beg for your love.CapelDodger said:
Oh come on. Don't be so modest I am sure that many nations are dying to claim you...
LOL They will let you survive when the last battle is over to show the world what happens to those that mess up with the authorities.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
from RandFan:
The US is a limited example of the model I've suggested - a central guaranteeing authority overseeing local rule by States, which in turn oversee local rule by counties and cities. If this can arouse feelings of patriotism, why should not a world-wide version? Why not respect for an institution, created by fallible humans, that has banished war and superceded atavisitic tribal and narrow national interests? The "in" population would be the entire human race. As a plus, this might prompt a closer consideration of what being human is, and how unattractive a species we really are.
I don't see patriotism as an emotion, more something that people get emotional about. I'd bracket it with religion, nationalism and attachment to an economic class; perhaps you could suggest others. All of these are very often used to manipulate people via what they perceive as righteous feelings, and much harm results.
Pessismistic. I think education and the demonisation of those who seek to promote such differences could work. Look at the way that mainstream attitudes to homosexuality have changed in the developed world over the last few decades. I've seen remarkable changes in my half-century, such as wouldn't have been predicted, I think, in the 50's.