Nationalism

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:

Oh come on. Don't be so modest I am sure that many nations are dying to claim you...

The clamour is deafening, but I rebuff them. "Get thee behind me," I say, that being where my agent has his desk. So far, no sensible offers have come in.

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.

I'm under no illusions as to which side of the barricades you'll be on. Let's meet in no-man's land on the night before Catmageddon, share some wine, sing sad songs ...

 

[CapelDodger]

Mycroft: You edited a quote from me, replacing "nation" with "city-state", without making it clear that you had done so. Perhaps you could have bolded the changes and pointed them out .

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?

The US is a super-state, with some associated problems. All in all it's done a good job. If the guaranteeing authority (Humanistan? Perhaps not ...) is designed correctly, and protected from corruption by good people not doing nothing, there should be fewer problems than there are in the world now. There will also be absolutely humungous new resources available with military spending all but eliminated, which should see a lot of problems solved.

 

[BillyTK]

Actually I didn't miss his point at all. And your argument is fallacious. That patriotism can be manipulated does not make it wrong or bad. Many human emotions can be manipulated for bad purposes. The fact does not mean that we should strive to not have emotions.

Non-sequitur; there's a bit of a conceptual difference between emotional states and ideology (even though the latter is used as a method to manipulate the former). An analogy; cars cause pollution, but the solution wouldn't be to stop making metal.

I would posit that the examples have more to do with nationalism and little if anything to do with patriotism.

You can have nationalism without patriotism? If only it were so easy to disentangle nations, patriotism and nationalism.

Edited to fix tags

 

[BillyTK]

Beside the point. CD seems to advocate the eradication of all nation states.

Quite to the point, actually; nation-statism was supposedly the "cure" for the "broke" places; but even where it's not broke, it's mostly in part of the homogeneity of the local culture, which was achieved by having the pointy stuff beaten out of them. Like for instance, the successive invasions and occupations of the area which later became your country at the hands of my country, and come to think of it, the successive invasions of what came to be my country at the hands of, well just about everyone.

The flip side is that history is littered with failed attempts at supranational government.

Examples, please? How would these relate to the views being expressed here?

 

[BillyTK]

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 ...

...I was being a good little patriot I'm not English, either; that was just an accident of birth. Reading this thread reminded of staying with some friends in Shrewsbury a couple of years back; they told me about a local gang called the Border Patrol, who went out looking for people with a Welsh accent to beat up. "But how can they tell them apart?" I asked, because to my ears there was no difference in accent that I could detect...

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nationalism

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.

I didn't quite understand your post. Sorry. I have some very important projects to complete and I'm going to have to take a break for a time so perhaps we can deal with the rest when I have more time.

As to ideologue,

i·de·o·logue ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d--lôg, -lg, d-)
n.
An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.

I don't really have a particular ideology. I think "particular" as it is used here is static rather than dynamic. Ideologues tend to "tow the party line" or "vote according to party lines". And while it might seem that I do that I really don't. My rhetoric paints a caricature of me in large part due to my emotional and visceral responses to certain issues.

Furthermore I don't in all actuality advocate my own brand of ideology (whatever that is). I have stated categorically that I don't want all people to think as I do nor do I think that any one ideology is right or good for all people. If anything I advocate tolerance of other beliefs ahead of any particular ideology because such fanatical adherence to any ideology is antithetical to both truth and progress. So in the end, while there are issues that I advocate I do not advocate my ideology. My ideology exists for my own purposes. I do not vainly or arrogantly think my ideology is somehow superior to others (see Rush Limbaugh) and therefore need to advocate it. Nor do I dogmatically cling to my ideology. I have changed positions on a number of issues since I have joined this forum.

Thanks again Nikk

 

[RandFan]

Non-sequitur; there's a bit of a conceptual difference between emotional states and ideology (even though the latter is used as a method to manipulate the former). An analogy; cars cause pollution, but the solution wouldn't be to stop making metal.

No, it is not a non sequitur. You make a couple of fundamental errors in your response. First, I'm not talking about ideology, though I realize that you are. It is not however relevant to my point.

By definition patriotism is love of country. One can love or not love his or her country regardless of ideology.

Propostion: Patriotism is not inherently bad and we need not strive to eliminate it from the human condition.

Premise: Patriotism is simply an emotion.

Premise: Like all emotions it can be manipulated.

Premise: That it can be manipulated is not a reason to see it in a negative light.

You can have nationalism without patriotism?

Did I make that claim? No!

Let me give you an analogy. Love for ones mate can escalate into destructive obsession just as love for ones country can escalate into something more destructive. That it can does not mean it will.

If only it were so easy to disentangle nations, patriotism and nationalism.

Whether or not something is easy is not a measure of its truth. Your argument is fallacious.

 

[BillyTK]

No, it is not a non sequitur.

Yes it is; you conflate patriotism with emotions in that they both can be manipulated; they're different things, and as I pointed out, it would be more accurate to say that patriotism is used to manipulate emotions, not something that in and of itself can be manipulated.

You make a couple of fundamental errors in your response. First, I'm not talking about ideology, though I realize that you are. It is not however relevant to my point.

You make the fundamental errors yourself; just because you refuse to recognise that patriotism is an ideology, doesn't make it any less of an ideology. Sorry.

By definition patriotism is love of country. One can love or not love his or her country regardless of ideology.

The object of your affections is an ideological construct; go figure.

Propostion: Patriotism is not inherently bad and we need not strive to eliminate it from the human condition.

Premise: Patriotism is simply an emotion.

Premise: Like all emotions it can be manipulated.

Premise: That it can be manipulated is not a reason to see it in a negative light.

Premise [1] is false; the rest of your argument falls down because of this.

Did I make that claim? No!

That bit where you make an explicit separation between nationalism and patriotism. Here it is:

I would posit that the examples have more to do with nationalism and little if anything to do with patriotism.

Did you mis-speak?

Let me give you an analogy. Love for ones mate can escalate into destructive obsession just as love for ones country can escalate into something more destructive. That it can does not mean it will.

Except that my mate is not an ideological construct with a distinct set of norms, values and mores attached to [her] (well, to some extent she is, but we don't want to get too Foucauldian here). Your analogy is inappropriate.

Whether or not something is easy is not a measure of its truth. Your argument is fallacious.

I have no idea as to what your point is in response to here. I was remarking on the ease with which you distinguished between nationalism and patriotism, therefore for my argument to be fallacious what you said is not what you intended to say. Although your protestations that patriotism is not an ideology leads me to conclude this is not the case, if it is then could you please explain what you intended to say? Thanks!

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Yugoslavia:
Quite to the point, actually; nation-statism was supposedly the "cure" for the "broke" places;

I'm not sure about that, and I couldn't care less. Nation statism can work very well, and when and where it doesn't work shouldn't be used as an argument against where it does.

Examples, please? How would these relate to the views being expressed here?

Yugoslavia. The Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire etc etc.

 

[BillyTK]

I'm not sure about that,

The nation-building authored by the British Empire, for instance.

and I couldn't care less.

Though your intention may be otherwise, that comes across as fairly smug.

Nation statism can work very well, and when and where it doesn't work shouldn't be used as an argument against where it does.

How about; where it does work, it's redundant and where it doesn't work, it's destructive, which makes the entire project futile.

Yugoslavia. The Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire etc etc.

I'm probably being a bit more acerbic than is necessary—probably as a result of being renamed Yugoslavia—but I'm compelled to note that those are pretty weak examples of "history [being] littered with failed attempts at supranational government", what with two of these examples occuring before we had nations anyway. But credit where it's due; I was expecting something along the lines of the League of Nations or the UN; thanks for exceeding my expectations!

 

[BillyTK]

[...]
Eddie Izzard recently presented a series called "Mongrol Nation" about Britain, I recommend it (I'm a big fan anyway).
[..]

Do you have a flag?

So, yeah. There was a lot of that, and we built up empires - we stole countries! That's what you do, that's how you build an empire. We stole countries with the cunning use of flags! Yeah, just sail around the world and stick a flag in.

"I claim India for Britain!"

They go, "You can't claim us, we live here! 500 million of us!"

"Do you have a flag?"

"We don't need a bloody flag! It's our country, you bastards!"

"No flag, no country, you can't have one! That's the rules that I've just made up, and I'm backing it up with this gun that was lent from the National Rifle Association."

That was it, you know?

 

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:

Yugoslavia. The Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire etc etc.

Yugoslavia wasn't a failed super-national state, the preceding Confederation of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was. It wasn't likely to work since only Serbia had been independent before 1919, and only Serbia had an army (evacuated by the Allies in 1915 then returned via Salonika). The national army was de facto a Serbian one (and remained mostly so even under Tito), and the King of Serbia became King of Yugoslavia in a coup. Serbian nationalists had a vision of Greater Serbia, and considered Yugoslavia as exactly that. Anyhoo, the Balkans is a bad place for nations. Far, far from peripheral. Ethnically mixed (in spades), with different groups inter-mingled and filling different economic functions. It was pretty successful under Tito but Serbian Nationalism never went away. Gotta hate them Serbs.

The Roman Empire lasted over 1600 years. I'd call that working. It's generally thought that European standards-of-living didn't return to the standards of the 3rdCE until the 18th. It had to be doing something right. Even after it's fall in the West the invaders tried to emulate it, and in fact the original desire of Alaric's Goths was to join the Empire, not damage it. (The Roman powers-that-be really screwed up there.) When Charlemagne declared himself Roman Emperor in the West he meant exactly that. Greek snobbery (sorry Cleopatra, but there it is) meant a great opportunity was missed to restore the old Empire with who knows what results. (Perhaps even the rolling back of Islam.)

Charlemagne's creation became known as the "Holy" Roman Empire because the Vatican poached it and claimed the right to appoint future Emperors. (Charlemagne was never crowned by the Pope, but it was so claimed from the pulpit, which was a PR tool Charlemagne couldn't match. He was livid.) "Christendom" was definitely an example of a failed supra-national state, but what can one expect from a self-serving bunch of believers.

 

[CapelDodger]

Thank you for the link, BillyTK. It's of no relevance at all, but the Welsh flag is the oldest "national" flag in the world. And it's the one that isn't represented on the Union Flag, that over-busy, frankly ugly mish-mash. Green half, whilte half, big red dragon on top. That's what I call a flag.

The Dragon was introduced by a Roman auxiliary cavalry unit from North Africa but I'd better not go into that. I have a tendency to wander.

 

[CapelDodger]

Apologies if I've missed it, but nobody seems to have brought up globalisation, trans-national corporations and flows of capital. Even the US government declares itself powerless in the face of these. If nothing is done the sort of rule-by-corporation predicted by sci-fi - such as Fred Pohl or the Alien writer, Alan Dean Foster? - might come about by default. Shanek would love that, which is good enough reason to take up arms agin it.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
The nation-building authored by the British Empire, for instance.

Which we could more suitably blame upon the Foreign Office, or imperialism, rather than nationalism or the nation state.

Though your intention may be otherwise, that comes across as fairly smug.

Couldn't care less about that either!

How about; where it does work, it's redundant and where it doesn't work, it's destructive, which makes the entire project futile.

Redundant how exactly? And how would the failure of relatively artificial states in Africa make Irish nationhood futile?

I'm probably being a bit more acerbic than is necessary—probably as a result of being renamed Yugoslavia—but I'm compelled to note that those are pretty weak examples of "history [being] littered with failed attempts at supranational government", what with two of these examples occuring before we had nations anyway. But credit where it's due; I was expecting something along the lines of the League of Nations or the UN; thanks for exceeding my expectations!

How about the Napoleonic empire, Soviet Empire, or the Nazi empire? I think you'll find that Ireland did fulfill many of the concepts of nationhood in ancient and medieval times - a common language, common customs and a common system of law.

Originally posted by Capel Dodger:
Yugoslavia wasn't a failed super-national state, the preceding Confederation of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was. It wasn't likely to work since only Serbia had been independent before 1919, and only Serbia had an army (evacuated by the Allies in 1915 then returned via Salonika). The national army was de facto a Serbian one (and remained mostly so even under Tito), and the King of Serbia became King of Yugoslavia in a coup. Serbian nationalists had a vision of Greater Serbia, and considered Yugoslavia as exactly that. Anyhoo, the Balkans is a bad place for nations. Far, far from peripheral. Ethnically mixed (in spades), with different groups inter-mingled and filling different economic functions. It was pretty successful under Tito but Serbian Nationalism never went away. Gotta hate them Serbs.

So how will OWG solve all this then?

The Roman Empire lasted over 1600 years. I'd call that working. It's generally thought that European standards-of-living didn't return to the standards of the 3rdCE until the 18th. It had to be doing something right. Even after it's fall in the West the invaders tried to emulate it, and in fact the original desire of Alaric's Goths was to join the Empire, not damage it. (The Roman powers-that-be really screwed up there.)

True, but the success of the Roman Empire lay in no small part to the dominance of Latin culture. Indigenous languages were abandoned for Latin, while the ruling classes adapted Roman culture. How would OWG emulate this?

Charlemagne's creation became known as the "Holy" Roman Empire because the Vatican poached it and claimed the right to appoint future Emperors. (Charlemagne was never crowned by the Pope, but it was so claimed from the pulpit, which was a PR tool Charlemagne couldn't match. He was livid.) "Christendom" was definitely an example of a failed supra-national state, but what can one expect from a self-serving bunch of believers.

And you can guarantee that OWG wouldn't similarly be hijacked by a powerful vested interest?

 

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:

So how will OWG solve all this then?

It's a bit much to ask it to change history. It won't wash your whites even whiter either.

True, but the success of the Roman Empire lay in no small part to the dominance of Latin culture. Indigenous languages were abandoned for Latin, while the ruling classes adapted Roman culture. How would OWG emulate this?

The real reasons for the success of the Empire led to the cultural homogenization. Something similar is happening in the McWorld today. Greek was, in fact, the lingua franca (always gotta get that one in) of the Empire, even in the West (which was not the most important part).

And you can guarantee that OWG wouldn't similarly be hijacked by a powerful vested interest?

I would hope so, by designing the system carefully and intelligently. There's certainly no guarantee that nation-states won't be taken over by vested interests, and look at the sort of trouble that's caused.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
The real reasons for the success of the Empire led to the cultural homogenization. Something similar is happening in the McWorld today. Greek was, in fact, the lingua franca (always gotta get that one in) of the Empire, even in the West (which was not the most important part).

So how come so many people in Europe speak latin derived languages?

I would hope so, by designing the system carefully and intelligently.

Well that's kinda like the man who designed a careful and intelligent system for predicting winners in horse races. The system didn't work any better than chance. He claimed that the system was fine, and he couldn't be blamed for the failure of the horses to run in a careful and intelligent manner.

There's certainly no guarantee that nation-states won't be taken over by vested interests, and look at the sort of trouble that's caused.

And if the horses in the OWG steeplechase don't run in an intelligent and careful manner, then the whole world is in trouble.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:

Well that's kinda like the man who designed a careful and intelligent system for predicting winners in horse races. The system didn't work any better than chance. He claimed that the system was fine, and he couldn't be blamed for the failure of the horses to run in a careful and intelligent manner.

So, even before the new model is designed you not only have it failed but you're pointing out the stupid way its designers will react. Do you have no faith at all in the careful and intelligent design of anything? Do you never fly? I haven't heard of the failure of the 747 to fly being blamed on the wrong kind of atmosphere, or poorly-performing gravity. But when you walk around under one you just know it can't fly, I mean, look at it ... It's hard enough keeping a kite in the air.

The US Constitution was carefully and intelligently designed, and has performed pretty well given the fact that it was a novel exercise. While the circumstances were ideal - a large, empty, almost untouched continent and a huge inflow of human and financial capital from an already developed (and seriously picked-over) world - it's still a remarkable achievement. With that example, and another two centuries of history, to learn from I don't see why something even more successful couldn't be designed today.

I won't even go into the very successful betting system worked out and applied to Hong Kong racing, which is the big-money end of the business. Such systems only work when they are not used to such an extent that they change the circumstances they're based on, which is what caused the junk-bond fiasco. I'm not going to go into it because I do have a tendency to wander.

I suspect, sir, that you are an inveterate nay-sayer.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
So, even before the new model is designed you not only have it failed but you're pointing out the stupid way its designers will react. Do you have no faith at all in the careful and intelligent design of anything?

I said nothing about the designers, I was thinking about the users. While political systems can differ in terms of efficiency, accountabilty, etc, ultimately the best of them can only be as good as the people taking part.

Do you never fly? I haven't heard of the failure of the 747 to fly being blamed on the wrong kind of atmosphere, or poorly-performing gravity. But when you walk around under one you just know it can't fly, I mean, look at it ... It's hard enough keeping a kite in the air.

We're discussing systems of government here, not feats of engineering or air currents. Stick to what's relevant.

The US Constitution was carefully and intelligently designed, and has performed pretty well given the fact that it was a novel exercise. While the circumstances were ideal - a large, empty, almost untouched continent and a huge inflow of human and financial capital from an already developed (and seriously picked-over) world - it's still a remarkable achievement. With that example, and another two centuries of history, to learn from I don't see why something even more successful couldn't be designed today.

Something as successful, if not more so was designed and is currently in use: The Irish constitution. The Republic of Ireland has enjoyed eight decades of political stability and unbroken democracy, and by some accounts is the second richest country in the EU. It's taken us a while to get there, longer than was necessary IMO, but it's undeniable that statehood has been a success.

I suspect, sir, that you are an inveterate nay-sayer.

And I suspect that you are a purveyor of pie in the sky. You argue in the hypothetical, I base my "nay-saying" in fact.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:

Something as successful, if not more so was designed and is currently in use: The Irish constitution.

Until the accession of Ireland to the EU it was a priest-ridden pit. You may not have noticed it yourself, but these things are often more obvious to an outside observer. Ireland's current attempts to enter the modern world are remarkable, but have been achieved within the trans-national EU. Prior to that they were an adjunct to the British and US economies, suppliers of cheap labour and fleet-footed talent. Now the flow is the other way, but the change occurred in the 90's. I won't even touch on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland because of that wandering tendency (which may well be indicative of adult ADD, I've just learnt). Gimme a break. You're peddling pie-in-the-past.

I said nothing about the designers, I was thinking about the users.

The quote I was replying to:

Well that's kinda like the man who designed a careful and intelligent system for predicting winners in horse races. The system didn't work any better than chance. He claimed that the system was fine, and he couldn't be blamed for the failure of the horses to run in a careful and intelligent manner.

You should be more clear. The "man who designed" sounds just like the sort of designer you said nothing about. And whatever he was meant to be, said person is the fount of the stupid response to failure.

People are not horses, and political models are not horse-races. The analogy is pointless, which is why my immediate response to that post was "?". There have been enough political models tried during the last 5000 years for an evolutionary analogy to be appropriate; some models have survived for considerable periods and have spawned new models, others not so much. Spatial separation has led to speciation, and changes in the separation (in the political sense, changes in technology) lead to new hybrids and extinctions. At the end we have one world-girdling species - the nation-state. Just like we have one species of Homo. Both situations strike me as tenuous.

Being human and so, so smart (credit to Lisa Simpson) we can surely learn something from all this, if we put our prejudices aside and just try to be right. And we can use what we learn to try and create the successor to the nation-state - because there's going to be one. Assuming the other tenuous situation doesn't make the whole question moot.

Before Cleopatra dives in, I am not going to start a thread entitled "Eugenics" just because of some bloody analogy.