Has Nationalism become a bad word? |
Post Reply | Page 123 14> |
Author | |||||
tszirmay
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: August 17 2006 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 6673 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: May 20 2021 at 12:51 |
||||
No kidding!
|
|||||
I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
|
|||||
Lewian
Prog Reviewer Joined: August 09 2015 Location: Italy Status: Offline Points: 14830 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
||||
The more relevant battleground for nationalism is playing out in the Jerusalem thread though. See how well it works.
|
|||||
Progishness
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 10 2020 Location: Planet Rhubarb Status: Offline Points: 2565 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
||||
Pretty much the same here, though I'm Yorkshire first, English second, etc, and proud of my roots.
|
|||||
"We're going to need a bigger swear jar."
Chloë Grace Moretz as Mindy McCready aka 'Hit Girl' in Kick-Ass 2 |
|||||
Psychedelic Paul
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 16 2019 Location: Nottingham, U.K Status: Offline Points: 40709 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
When it comes to nationalism, I'm English first, British second, and European a very distant third, although that was before Brexit.
|
|||||
ssmarcus
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 05 2019 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 261 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Yes, and it is unfortunate.
|
|||||
SteveG
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 11 2014 Location: Kyiv In Spirit Status: Offline Points: 20616 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I'm sure that capitalism can be incorporated into nationalism somehow.
|
|||||
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|||||
tszirmay
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: August 17 2006 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 6673 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Switzerland is not a bank , that really happened with the Romanov fortune and neutrality (that is the measure in an objective sense of its nationalism) but rather a collection of religious rejects (Huguenots, Catholic Germans and Protestant Italians) and has not invaded anyone since its inception. Yet, despite its strong cantonal system, the white cross on red background is everywhere to be seen. Its neutrality is the safeguard for it to remain stable which generally then led to a nice and safe place to stash your cash.
Edited by tszirmay - April 19 2021 at 06:39 |
|||||
I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
|
|||||
Lewian
Prog Reviewer Joined: August 09 2015 Location: Italy Status: Offline Points: 14830 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
||||
It will be hard to measure in any objective sense what is meant by "the most nationalistic country", let alone the idea that Switzerland has been doing well has any causal connection with this (a different interpretation says that it has more to do with the Swiss banking system than with anything else).
|
|||||
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer Joined: June 22 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 16130 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
HG Wells wrote a huge essay about it in 1941 in his book The New World Order, which I guess is where the conspiracy theorists got that term from. He posited that the only way to avoid future wars was to do away with sovereign territories, introduce one global currency, and one global religion. In theory there would be no need for armies because the concept of 'sides' would be eliminated. The only thing required would be a global police force to crush pockets of dissent. In any case, nations are unavoidably connected through technology, more so than ever before. There is already a framework for global governance in place through the UN, G20, WTO etc, and I think there is an inevitability about a push for One Word Order. I also don't think there is anything terribly nefarious about the plan. I just don't think it will work, and may end in a horrific war, because the most powerful nations on earth have a different vision of what that global community should look like, and will never agree. |
|||||
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|||||
tszirmay
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: August 17 2006 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 6673 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Congratulations on making the adaptation to German life! I was only making a linguistic comment, nothing more, certainly not trying to paint you as a German nationalist or perhaps better, an anti-nationalist. Does not quite explain why Switzerland has been in relative peace since Napoleon , determined to stay neutral and being a beacon for proper social direct democracy while at the same time, arguably the MOST nationalistic/patriotic country in Europe, if not beyond. Other countries view their existence as some mythical legend (not unlike William Tell, mind you) such as Mother Russia, the Vaterland, the Voortrekkers, Eva Peron and countless other messianic or semi-messianic figures like Washington, Napoleon or even Moses for that matter. There are good nationalists and bad ones, there is positive nationalism and negative ones (note the plural). Lumping them all in one giant basket is just plain silly as well as historically false. But it is the current tendency by the "illuminated" activists we see today whose knowledge of history is YESTERDAY. Now Imperialism , that is another story altogether.
Edited by tszirmay - April 18 2021 at 18:34 |
|||||
I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
|
|||||
SteveG
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 11 2014 Location: Kyiv In Spirit Status: Offline Points: 20616 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
It always struck me as ironic that Amaricans view the American Revolution as synonymous with all the past patriotic symbols such as the flag and Abe Lincoln's stovepipe hat, never guessing that thier country was founded by traitorous anti British revolutionaries while the British, trying to hold on to this colony in the New World, were the acctual nationalists.
I'm sure that some of the British had the same feelings when they let India go. Not that they acted upon them. At least blatantly. Edited by SteveG - April 18 2021 at 17:55 |
|||||
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|||||
Lewian
Prog Reviewer Joined: August 09 2015 Location: Italy Status: Offline Points: 14830 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Fair enough... my point is not that it was uniformly and universally a bad thing (the concept of universalism is about as alien to me as national pride), but that would be a rather uninteresting statement anyway, by lack of any differentiation and historical context. But surely we have to acknowledge that a term like this doesn't have one fixed meaning that is set in the beginning and then will hold forever. The very interesting Wikipedia page on nationalism starts with
That on its own would be fine and in line with an originally positive interpretation of the "nation" concept that I have distanced the term "nationalism" from. Historically this was probably understood as the core content of nationalism at various times and places including Gandhi's independence movement (by the way, my earlier question whether Gandhi ever referred to himself as nationalist is yet unanswered). Google's default dictionary says
I don't think Gandhi would have identified with any of the latter bit. But then I'm not the best Gandhi expert around. The English Wikipedia page adds such stuff later and isn't quite clear about to what extent this is essential for nationalism. It also states
Quite old news in the opening posting then... Anyway, obviously this happened because the term had been used by different people and changed its meaning (or was in use with various and partly contradictory meanings by different people). Gandhi is associated with "anti-colonial nationalism", which we should acknowledged is a rather different beast from the European nationalism in the 19th century, or how it degenerated in the build-up to the two world wars. It is also quite different from the nationalism America according to the words of the thread-opener doesn't have enough of these days. I'm German and my understanding of the term "nationalism" is coined by its use in German language. The German Wikipedia page cites (interestingly differently from the English one) the British sociologist Anthony D. Smith, listing four basic convictions characteristing nationalism, namely (1) the idea that there are naturally different peoples with naturally different national characters, (2) in order to reach national sovereignty, members of a nation need to identify themselves with the nation and need to be loyal to it, even place the loyalty to the nation over all other loyalties, (3) nations have the right of self-determination, (4) the nation is the only legitimate source of political power. This is much more far-reaching than the definition on the English page, and my stance may have to do with a certain difference between the English and German connotation of the term. Anti-colonial nationalism is based on (3), and I have no problems with that. I wouldn't sign any of the other three though. Nations have developed into being the major units of political organisation as I said before. I don't think that this in itself is bad. However I take as part of nationalism the claim that there is some natural necessity in this, that alternatives are illegitimate, and that members of a nation should be loyal to it, its symbols and its "identity" whatever that is, and dominating other loyalties (all this is also mentioned further down on the English Wikipedia page, if somewhat less straight regarding to what extent these beliefs are essential for nationalism). The English page also states that
If the national identity were something "natural" indeed, why should such artificial promotion be necessary? Left alone, it should develop naturally on its own, shouldn't it? An observation I have about nationalists is that they ultimately don't trust such natural development and think that steps need to be done in order to enforce it.
|
|||||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
So what you're doing is in the beginning you acknowledge the point I and others have made and in the end, you add yet another redefinition of nationalism so that you don't really have to. This is confusing. If historically nationalism was used to organise democratic nation states and if there were instances when the nations were founded on sound human values, then that means at least historically nationalism was not an uniformly and universally bad thing. This is all the point I have tried to make. It is not a particularly difficult one, so I don't quite understand the resistance against it. It's not as if by acknowledging this you are somehow also conceding that Trumpian nationalism can be good. No, I don't think it is good; I don't think any nationalism based on excluding people who already are legitimate citizens of a country can ever be good.
|
|||||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
No, this is a specious argument. The good intentioned nationalism of Gandhi didn't cause the deaths; it was the bad intentions of the others - to repeat, the BE, Jinnah and the Hindu right. Even the other eminent Congress leaders like Nehru or Patel didn't want partition. They all warned the British against it. And once Jinnah realized Mountbatten was going to cut Punjab into two, even he didn't want it. I shall most heartily blame the BE for the partition mess. Even in their moment of departing, they screwed over the subcontinent with one last, decisive 'blunder'. I mean that I don't even believe it was a pure blunder but a cynical move to ensure India and Pak would get locked in an arms race as they indeed have.
|
|||||
SteveG
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 11 2014 Location: Kyiv In Spirit Status: Offline Points: 20616 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
It was up to the posters to supply a definition. That is the purpose of the thread.
Edited by SteveG - April 18 2021 at 09:04 |
|||||
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|||||
Lewian
Prog Reviewer Joined: August 09 2015 Location: Italy Status: Offline Points: 14830 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
||||
Thanks for the constructive reply. If I remember correctly it was you who started a discussion about a word without giving a definition.
|
|||||
SteveG
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 11 2014 Location: Kyiv In Spirit Status: Offline Points: 20616 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Well, at this point, I'm waiting for the decenting crowd to the introduce psuedo terms and definitions like Anti-patriotism and neo-expansionalism, as well as other semantic arguments in order to bolster thier viewpoints. Time to fire up the popcorn maker.
Edited by SteveG - April 18 2021 at 08:05 |
|||||
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|||||
Lewian
Prog Reviewer Joined: August 09 2015 Location: Italy Status: Offline Points: 14830 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I think it has to be acknowledged that historically there is a certain connection between the concept of "nation" and democracy, in the sense that democracy is about people ruling themselves in an organised manner. This needs a certain unit of organisation, which in the phase in history in which democracies became big and powerful has been the nation. Building and freeing of nations has often meant taking fate in the own hands of the people and building a democracy. Some people involved in these fights may have been motivated more by nationalism than by the concepts of democracy, freedom, or human rights, let alone equality, often ignoring though that what kept them away from power in many instances had been the nationalism of others. I would talk of "nationalism" if the idea of "nation" dominates the ideas of democracy, freedom, human rights, equality. Otherwise loyalty to the nation can help but is just a tool, maybe a pretty good one at that but also a dangerous one (we all know why). A nationalist for me isn't anybody who would defend or fight for their nation to rule itself in a democratic manner; a nationalist is somebody who thinks the problem isn't so much dictatorship and suppression, the problem is if it's foreigners who do that.
|
|||||
Lewian
Prog Reviewer Joined: August 09 2015 Location: Italy Status: Offline Points: 14830 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Not sure whether I'm referring to your earlier misunderstanding, but what I did was separating "nationalism" from pursuing a national interest not on the basis that the own nation is in any way superior to or more important than others as a nation (ideology), but because interests are as a matter of fact in present organised by nation and it make sense to stand in for the own interest (pragmatism).
|
|||||
Spaciousmind
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 07 2020 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 724 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
This was 70 years ago with hindsight they would have called themselves something else. They are both great people.
|
|||||
Post Reply | Page 123 14> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |