Nationalism

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:

First of all I don't know why you keep mentioning that Hertzl had not predicted the Holocaust. Who has claimed the opposite.
...
The point that you pretend you don't see is that Zionism and the wish to return to Israel was alive long before Herztl.

Back on page 1:

... 50 to 80 years later the Holocaust came to justify Herzl and his basic idea ...

You've suckered me into this whole exercise, haven't you? You pop up here, there and everywhere off-thread with the Herzl thing, and when I finally address it specifically you're all, like, "Well, who cares?". I've got pre-Herzl zionism up to here but I politely deal with Herzl and wham, you're getting your retaliation in first. I don't often get played with like this in conversation, let alone when I've got time to compose. I take my hat off to you. You should be a lawyer.

And a female one at that.

I wish you haven't posted this Capel Dodger.

Which confirms the problematic nature of the formulation. Damn, I'm right again.

As my table demonstrates the first jewish Congress was not really the first.

The First Zionist Congress was.

You know how I feel about hypothesis that concern the past. This is called historical anachronism and it is a fallacy. I'd say that it was the Holocaust the turning point.

Zionism got moving in the 1880's in Russia, and made a huge stride with the Balfour Declaration in 1917. Long before the Holocaust, or even any hint of it. From that moment the trajectory towards the violent creation of Israel (or at least the attempt) was inevitable. The Yishuv and the Jewish Agency had a strategy, quite explicit, of gaining as much as they could under the British then kicking them out when they were ready to take on the Palestinians. Had the Holocaust not happened, had Hitler caught a bullet in the war, had Heydrich's father had another couple of brandies that fateful night, zionism was going to go to war for its Jewish State.

Had Alexander II lived for another ten years zionism would have remained non-nationalist and Russian Judaism would have continued on the path of assimilation. There's no good reason to think otherwise.

And has this happened only with Hebrew, right?

Addressed in a crossed post, I think.

 

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:

I grew up learning three languages but in a house that at least five different languages were spoken.

That backs up the research mightily.

The case of Israel is not exceptional but rather common.

You jump from the common resurrection of dead languages by tiny groups of Jewish and Welsh intelligentsia to the common experience of Israel and Wales. "Hebrew" and "Israel" are not interchangeable words. I can't help thinking that the revivers of Hebrew in the 19thCE would be utterly appalled to see the Israeli bulldozers of today wreaking destruction on the villages and olive groves of the Holy Land. And even more appalled to hear that what they had done had contributed to it.

Capel Dodger things are not even that simple. Sefardic Jews considered Askenazis barbarians and saukraut eaters. You wouldn't want to know what my grandmother said about zionists and Askenazis but the point is elsewhere, you know it very well.The point is that people were sent there.

Cleopatra, I have heard it from the camel's mouth. I don't just get this stuff from books and my own analysis. Among the people that were "sent there" were thousands of traumatised displaced persons who were rounded up by zionists claiming authority over them and shipped away from the supplies and support that were available to them in Europe in order to make a propaganda point in Israel. These were Jewish people, remember, meaningless to zionists when set against The Jewish People and their Jewish State. At times even The Jewish God is summoned by zionists, who actually follow what you have described as the modern religion - nationalism.

Done for. Signing off.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite:
Historical reasons and the fact of their very success. They are so succesful that the entisements aren't appetizing enough.

Exactly. Thus we see the practical benefits of national sovereignty. If it ain't broke........

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
Again ... I like city-states. Like tribes, they're on a human scale. Nations aren't.

What about nations like Ireland, with populations considerably smaller than the likes of London and New York?

 

[RandFan]

Nationalism leads to patriotism, which ranks with religion as a means of persuading people to behaviour they would never contemplate in their private lives. While it's an easy trick to persuade young men into "righteous" violence (and there will always be people around who want to do that), why make it easier by regarding patriotism as righteous? It should be consigned to the dustbin of history, like racism and sexism.

I haven't read the thread, just this first post. I appologize if I am a day late and a dollar short.

The above is overly simplistic and focuses only on the negative aspects of patriotism and assuming that patriotism can only be expressed via tribalism or Nationalism which tends to be an us vs them philosophy. Patriotism is the love of ones country and is not exclusive of respect or admiration of other countries.

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.

O beautiful for heroes prov'd
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life.

--Katherine Lee Bates

 

[Cleopatra]

Capel Dodger.

Last night I dismissed the "guard" of the crocodiles before posting my last reply and of course you took advantage of that and you started your games again.You haven't left even ONE word of what I said that you haven’t twisted. This won’t happen again take my word for it...

Now let's drop Zionism for a moment because it makes you very excited and passionate and I am not sure if a British can handle so much passion when he is so far away from the volcano.Seriously now ( although my last comment was serious) I want to address a couple of issues your posts raised about Nationalism as a political philosophy also I wonder if we could discuss how we can talk about Nationalism and USA the same time, to me is an oxymoron ( what do Americans know about nationalism) I might let you illuminate me on that.I have taught you so many things about the History of Jewish Nationalism do something for me in return.

Now let's see how tribal is a nation. What is a nation?

Nation is a community

• constituted by shared belief and mutual commitment.
• extended in history
• connected to a specific land
• distinguished by other communities by its public culture.

I think that all of us can agree on that definition. Now comes the question. Is nationality a modern phaenomenon ( post-Renaissance or Post-Enlightment –your call) or it’s something tribal?

I want to reply here to Danish Dynamite too. Replying to this question is important and it shouldn’t be apt to personal interpretation and I will epxlain why.
Those who see it as a modern phaenomenon see it allied to notions of democracy etc or they might consider it as an evil invention of the late 18th ce and in contrast with the rationalism of the Enlightment. On the other hand those who see it as a continuation of old loyalties consider it as a vehicle of progress, as a cement that hold people together and guided them to progress or they can see it as a barbarian relic ( This is where capel Dodger meets Fridrich Heyek ). It wouldn't be of much importance if they didn't designed future policies based on that but they do.

Don’t listen to Capel Dodger( I am joking). He is British. The term has a different form in every European language. Originally the term was used for kin groups and it was used to describe groups of foreigners, for example in medieval universities it was used to classify students by country of origin ( “ the nation of France”—I don’t know if you have read the last book of Umberto Eco he refers extensively to this fashion).

Check OED for example: It cites a passage from Fortescue’s Absolute and Limited Monarchy( c. 1460) in which he describes the Scots, the Spaniards as "nations".( nothing about the Welsh. Ha ha.) In the silly poem that I quoted above to tease Capel Dodger , the word “nation” is applied to Romans,Saxons, Danes and Normans and to people that he ironically identifies as those who contributed to the “heterogeneous things , an Englishman”.

If you check the French History we encounter referencies to Nation a century earlier. ( If you want to torture me ask me for full references I will provide them if you insist).

So, it’s wrong to sugget that the concept of Nation entered politics with the rise of the 19th ce Nationalism it was already recognizable to places at least a century earlier. The same happens with Zionism ( ok I won’t continue that) but Capel Dodger refuses to see it.

Ok this is long I will return later to continue the lecture I want to make a couple of points of what distinguishes the ancient from the modern notion of nationality.

 

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
You can't even silence me with the Curse of the Cat...

Well, since I've been summoned...

Originally posted by Chaos
By the way, I can show exactly how the premises from which Marx developed the ideas that were to become Communism are wrong - if you are interested[...]

It would be interesting to drag Marx's corpse out and give it another drubbing, but in a new thread maybe? Would such a discussion be too much of a distraction from the main topic here?

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Exactly. Thus we see the practical benefits of national sovereignty. If it ain't broke........

Except for the instances in which it was broke from day one, being imposed on a disparate group of people by force. To pre-empt Skeptic's involuntary patellar flexion, I'm actually thinking about the creation of Iraq in this instance.

Originally posted by RandFan
The above is overly simplistic and focuses only on the negative aspects of patriotism and assuming that patriotism can only be expressed via tribalism or Nationalism which tends to be an us vs them philosophy. Patriotism is the love of ones country and is not exclusive of respect or admiration of other countries.

I suspect you may have missed the fundamental point of CapelDodger's post; no nations, no patriotism. Let's not forget the way that feelings of patriotism can be manipulated to encourage decent people to commit indecent acts. It's not as if this point is particularly controversial, what with the number of examples kicking around recent history. Or maybe I'm giving the [reference to indecent acts involving sheep deleted] Welsh guy more credit than he deserves.

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.

That's a great ideal, but have you ever considered the co-incidence of your viewpoint with, for instance, the collectivism in communist ideology?

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Check OED for example: It cites a passage from Fortescue’s Absolute and Limited Monarchy( c. 1460) in which he describes the Scots, the Spaniards as "nations".( nothing about the Welsh. Ha ha.) In the silly poem that I quoted above to tease Capel Dodger , the word “nation” is applied to Romans,Saxons, Danes and Normans and to people that he ironically identifies as those who contributed to the “heterogeneous things , an Englishman”.

I'm missing the irony here; we're a nation of mongrels. Anyway:

Happy is the country which has no history... attributed to Montesquieu.

The myth of history is built on lies. Miroslav Krleza

I think it might be more accurate, if more clumsy, to use the term "nation-state" here, which is the dominant political construct of the past couple of centuries and is probably what most people mean when they talk about countries or nations. From the OED Disctionary of Social Sciences:

The conjoining of political institutions and collective identity in a single sovereign unit. In the modern era, the link between state and nation has increasingly become the sine qua non of political legitimacy: nationhood is confirmed and realized in an independent state.

 

[Cleopatra]

*Clears throat and continues*

As I said to my first post the notion of nationality if far from being a new one. The Greeks were the first who distinguished themselves from the "barbarians". The idea that each people had a homeland and that the rule of foreigners constitute oppression that must be resisted gives us the right to suggest that this first form of nationalism has political implications and goes far beyong the triban sentiment and feeling.

So, it's sort of absurd to suggest that in 19th ce we observe the invention of a new way of approaching human communities. Ideas of national character with political implications were really old. What is new though is the introduction of the belief that a body of people, a nation, has the right to act collectively. In 19th ce we have the introduction of the idea that there is such a thing as a national will that can be expressed by institutions and policies.

As Isaiah Berlin has pointed out ( a person whose political philosophy has influenced me tremendously and not because he has justified politically the need for the creation of Israel ) there is no necessary link between nationalism and democracy( as the Americans want to persuade us these days) but it shouldn't surprize us if certain kind of conservatives see it as such.

Berlin says that those who view politics as an activity that should be left in the hands of the elite view with distaste the philosophy on which sovereign nations are built. I add that they create banana nations and banana republics exactly to show how they despise democtracy.

Although this is an argument from authority I find interesting the fact that he connects the criticism to nationalism with the extreme conservatism.

Think about it Capel Dodger and do not reject Berlin because the man was not a Zionist.

 

[richardm]

There's a verse by Rudyard Kipling (patriot and imperialist, but by no means stupid)

I seem to recall it as:

It's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and Chuck him out, the brute!
But it's "Saviour of his country" when the guns begin to shoot

A good poem, that, one of my favourites from old Kippers. Interesting chap, but ruddy 'ard to get on with.

Edited to add: Can't be that hard to find a link. Here it is.

/poetry corner

 

[BillyTK]

*Clears throat and continues*

As I said to my first post the notion of nationality if far from being a new one. The Greeks were the first who distinguished themselves from the "barbarians". The idea that each people had a homeland and that the rule of foreigners constitute oppression that must be resisted gives us the right to suggest that this first form of nationalism has political implications and goes far beyong the triban sentiment and feeling.

So, it's sort of absurd to suggest that in 19th ce we observe the invention of a new way of approaching human communities. Ideas of national character with political implications were really old. What is new though is the introduction of the belief that a body of people, a nation, has the right to act collectively. In 19th ce we have the introduction of the idea that there is such a thing as a national will that can be expressed by institutions and policies.

As Isaiah Berlin has pointed out ( a person whose political philosophy has influenced me tremendously and not because he has justified politically the need for the creation of Israel ) there is no necessary link between nationalism and democracy( as the Americans want to persuade us these days) but it shouldn't surprize us if certain kind of conservatives see it as such.

Berlin says that those who view politics as an activity that should be left in the hands of the elite view with distaste the philosophy on which sovereign nations are built. I add that they create banana nations and banana republics exactly to show how they despise democtracy.

Although this is an argument from authority I find interesting the fact that he connects the criticism to nationalism with the extreme conservatism.

Think about it Capel Dodger and do not reject Berlin because the man was not a Zionist.

Berlin makes an excellent point in questioning the connection between nation(-state)s and democracy and particularly in highlighting the link between conservatism and feudalism. If we look to British history as an example, we don't see a discrete jump to parliamentary democracy but rather a gradual erosion of both unrepresentative monarchic sovereignty, and the parliamentary plutocracy which preserved feudalist notions of privilege even into the 20th century. In fact, this erosion could be characterised as more the result of negotiations and concessions of power between established and newly formed elites than any specific intent to enact a democratic system.

But what is the philosophy of sovereign nations? And how (and why) did it become popular?

 

[Chaos]

BillyTK

My pleasure. I´ll start a thread about it soon.

 

[Graham]

The Greeks were the first who distinguished themselves from the "barbarians".

I suspect the Chinese, amongst others, might dispute this since by 500 BC they were already well into their fourth (third?) Imperial dynasty.

Graham

 

[RandFan]

I suspect you may have missed the fundamental point of CapelDodger's post; no nations, no patriotism. Let's not forget the way that feelings of patriotism can be manipulated to encourage decent people to commit indecent acts.

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.

It's not as if this point is particularly controversial, what with the number of examples kicking around recent history.

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

 

[Skeptic]

Despite my lack of an operational plan, do you agree with the basic goal?

I believe that all resources should be distributed equally, so that class distinctions will disappear and everybody will have the same, ending class struggle, strife, poverty, and unemployment. Surely this will bring world peace, as nobody would have reason to envy others for having more.

I haven't figure out yet what to do with those stubborn 50,000,000 or so anti-revolutionary reactionaries who refuse to share their wealth with the starving workers, but despite my lack of an operational plan, don't you agree the basic goal is wonderful?

If history teaches us anything, DD, it teaches us that an utopian "basic goal" + lack of any "operational plan" idea how to bring it about = gulags, executions, starvation, and terror, as the unwilling masses must be forced into submission so that the utopian dream could be realized. You can't make an omlette without breaking eggs; and what are a few lousy millions of dead now compared to the infinite bliss of the future utopia?

To answer "Grammatron"'s question, the real outcome of Turkey or Tibet or anybody else refusing to join the one world government would be the same as the outcome of Poland refusing to join the Nazi empire, the Baltic states refusing to join the USSR, China refusing to join the Japanese "greater sphere of co-operation and prosperity", and so on.

The world government would bomb them into the stone age and then force them to submit on the point of a bayonet. After all, you're not going to let a few lousy nationalists stop WORLD PEACE when it is finally just around the corner (just like the Marxist revolution and the all-Aryan Europe were), are you?

 

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The Greeks were the first who distinguished themselves from the "barbarians".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And replied to by Graham
I suspect the Chinese, amongst others, might dispute this since by 500 BC they were already well into their fourth (third?) Imperial dynasty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


I suspect that the Chinese today might have a thing or two to say about falling under the banner of any world government other than their own.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
Except for the instances in which it was broke from day one, being imposed on a disparate group of people by force. To pre-empt Skeptic's involuntary patellar flexion, I'm actually thinking about the creation of Iraq in this instance.

Beside the point. CD seems to advocate the eradication of all nation states. The flip side is that history is littered with failed attempts at supranational government.

 

[Nikk]

Re: Re: Nationalism

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.

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

 

[DanishDynamite]

CapelDodger:

I disagree. We are mostly monkey, when you come down to it. Chimps and gibbons are tribal. Other great apes not so much, admittedly, but then they are rather "great" and require a lot of territory each. Tribalism, I think, is a reflection of the human state-of-nature, which has been our species' experience for far longer than our civilized days. But tribalism doesn't have to be about a genetic group, it can be about sport or work or music or whatever. It doesn't have to be confrontational. Fundamentally, we have to learn to understand our true nature and work with it (rather than exploiting it).

The word "tribal" to me carries a flavour of "limited extent".

It is my understanding that humans went from small groups of hunter-gatherers (a few families) to larger groups with clans and then on to tribes. But why should a tribe be the largest "natural" unit that humans would naturally gather in? We know for a fact that much larger groups are possible (see nation-state). I suppose it is debateable whether they are "natural".

The bottom line is that humans are social animals. And I see no evidence there must be a limit to how large a group we will socialize with. ))

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.

Depending on what powers you would give to the central guaranteeing authority, I think we agree.

Good answer, me neither. I'm indulging in blue skies thinking. Exactly how we get the Mongolians on board is too much of a distraction. But I'm not against letting the US bug out, considering the crap-pile they're racing towards. We can let the seceding bits join in separately.

We just need to make it worth the Mongolians time to get on board.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Exactly. Thus we see the practical benefits of national sovereignty. If it ain't broke........

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?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Cleopatra:

Now let's see how tribal is a nation. What is a nation?

Nation is a community

• constituted by shared belief and mutual commitment.
• extended in history
• connected to a specific land
• distinguished by other communities by its public culture.

I think that all of us can agree on that definition.

Well, no, I don't think we can. The only part of that definition I can partially agree with is the "connected to a specific land", and even that is very shaky as the borders of most nations have changed throughout history.

Now comes the question. Is nationality a modern phaenomenon ( post-Renaissance or Post-Enlightment –your call) or it’s something tribal?

I want to reply here to Danish Dynamite too. Replying to this question is important and it shouldn’t be apt to personal interpretation and I will epxlain why.
Those who see it as a modern phaenomenon see it allied to notions of democracy etc or they might consider it as an evil invention of the late 18th ce and in contrast with the rationalism of the Enlightment.

I don't see it as having anything at all to do with democracy.

On the other hand those who see it as a continuation of old loyalties consider it as a vehicle of progress, as a cement that hold people together and guided them to progress or they can see it as a barbarian relic ( This is where capel Dodger meets Fridrich Heyek ). It wouldn't be of much importance if they didn't designed future policies based on that but they do.

Such flowery words. How about defining it something like "A community of people possessing a more or less defined territory and government".

So, it’s wrong to sugget that the concept of Nation entered politics with the rise of the 19th ce Nationalism it was already recognizable to places at least a century earlier.

I would agree with that.

Ok this is long I will return later to continue the lecture I want to make a couple of points of what distinguishes the ancient from the modern notion of nationality.

Looking forward to it.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:

I believe that all resources should be distributed equally, so that class distinctions will disappear and everybody will have the same, ending class struggle, strife, poverty, and unemployment. Surely this will bring world peace, as nobody would have reason to envy others for having more.

I haven't figure out yet what to do with those stubborn 50,000,000 or so anti-revolutionary reactionaries who refuse to share their wealth with the starving workers, but despite my lack of an operational plan, don't you agree the basic goal is wonderful?

No.

If history teaches us anything, DD, it teaches us that an utopian "basic goal" + lack of any "operational plan" idea how to bring it about = gulags, executions, starvation, and terror, as the unwilling masses must be forced into submission so that the utopian dream could be realized. You can't make an omlette without breaking eggs; and what are a few lousy millions of dead now compared to the infinite bliss of the future utopia?

Really? Is that what history teaches us? Perhaps I can refer you to Ghandi.

To answer "Grammatron"'s question, the real outcome of Turkey or Tibet or anybody else refusing to join the one world government would be the same as the outcome of Poland refusing to join the Nazi empire, the Baltic states refusing to join the USSR, China refusing to join the Japanese "greater sphere of co-operation and prosperity", and so on.

You certainly do seem to bring up wars of acquisition a lot. Wars between nation-states. What does that have to do with anything I've said?

The world government would bomb them into the stone age and then force them to submit on the point of a bayonet. After all, you're not going to let a few lousy nationalists stop WORLD PEACE when it is finally just around the corner (just like the Marxist revolution and the all-Aryan Europe were), are you?

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