Nationalism is irrational

history_buff

Tim Robbins wrote:

Incorrect. Man is both rational and irrational.

Yes, you are correct, but does that not undermine your original argument?

??? No sense.

I know the feeling.

Incorrect, various reasons.This reason is illogical how can they be forming a nation if they already have a common nationality ????

Nationality is the attribute; the nation is the body politic formed as a consequence.

This is just absolutely ridiculous.

A well thought out argument. It was in response to my statement that people are more nationally minded that internationally minded. If you believe the opposite, then I would invite you to climb down off that Marxist/Utopian high horse and have a look at the history of the world, and indeed the present.

Utterly ridiculous. Have you heard of the UN? Have you heard of Kofi Annan.

Your point is? Yes I've heard of the UN - a talking shop built on poor intentions which was always going to be subverted by negative forces, namely the U.S. and Israel.

Do you know anything about 1916 History buff? It didn't have popular support at the time, and 300 innocent people died in Dublin. Are you one of those people that airbrush out facts that you don't want to know about?

Are you saying the rebels slaughtered 300 people?

And are you airbrushing the nationalist mandate provided by the 1918 elections?

And while we're substituting argument for rhetorical questions, are you enjoying that Ruth Dudley Edwards book you're reading?

Who are these brave souls defending Lebanon? Do you support Hizbullah?
Could you be more specific?

Another rhetorical question, I feel. First of all, it's ridiculous to say I "support Hezbollah": I'm not Lebanese. Secondly, I feel you've made up your mind that Hezbollah are some kind of Al-Qaeda linked terrorist organisation - based on what you've "read" - when it's clear that Hezbollah has enjoyed the overwhelming support of the people of Lebanon, even as their own government became weak-kneed and abandoned them. Even the Maronite Christians have been supporting Hezbollah.

Surely nationalism is part of the root cause of the conflict in the Middle East?

Yes, Israeli racialist "nationalism", or Zionism - however, given that a nation cannot have any grounding while being set up on stolen land, it follows that Israel is not really a nation, and therefore its nationalism is somewhat relegated. Arabs are portrayed in the media as fanatical Islamists, but three quarters of them will say they are intensely nationalist before there's any discussion about religion. Unlike the Israelis, their national pride is justified because they are the rightful owners of their land.

There seems to be a difference of opinion between the state of Israel?

I don't understand that question.

Surely if the emphasis was on common humanity and not nationalism, there would be less wars, less killings.

Unfortunately, this would only be possible if humanity were purely disposed towards good, and not prone to committing acts of greed or evil, so the idea is Utopian and unrealistic in the current sense. You are placing a desire for accommodation and compromise above a desire for justice.

Surely this is a more rational argument to save lifes as opposed to being devoted to a man made concept.

Excuse me, are you saying the liberal platitudes you just rhymed off are of Divine origin?

Tim Robbins

history_buff wrote:

Yes, you are correct, but does that not undermine your original argument?

No, my original argument was nationalism was irrational not man.

history_buff wrote:

Nationality is the attribute; the nation is the body politic formed as a consequence.

Surely you mean nationalism not nationality? I'll assume that what's you mean.
But so what?

history_buff wrote:

A well thought out argument. It was in response to my statement that people are more nationally minded that internationally minded. If you believe the opposite, then I would invite you to climb down off that Marxist/Utopian high horse and have a look at the history of the world, and indeed the present.

??? Sorrry I don't understand

history_buff wrote:

Your point is? Yes I've heard of the UN - a talking shop built on poor intentions which was always going to be subverted by negative forces, namely the U.S. and Israel.

That's a ferocious, pathetic generalisation. The UN has some good and bad aspects to it. Overall, the pro's out weigh the con's. It comes down to whether you think the World would be better or worse with it. I say better.

history_buff wrote:

Are you saying the rebels slaughtered 300 people?

No, I am saying 300 innocent people died during 1916. The executed rebels weren't the only people who lost their lives. We could have a separate debate about 1916, but that should be in separate thread.

history_buff wrote:

And while we're substituting argument for rhetorical questions, are you enjoying that Ruth Dudley Edwards book you're reading?

Do you have any logical points?

history_buff wrote:

Another rhetorical question, I feel. First of all, it's ridiculous to say I "support Hezbollah":

Incorrect, answer the original question.

history_buff wrote:

Yes, Israeli racialist "nationalism", or Zionism - however, given that a nation cannot have any grounding while being set up on stolen land, it follows that Israel is not really a nation, and therefore its nationalism is somewhat relegated.
[/QUOTE}
What defines "stolen" land? And who defines whether it is stolen? Nationalists
or the UN, that talk shop you admire? Does it matter whether their is agreement on whether it is "stolen" or not?

history_buff wrote:

Arabs are portrayed in the media as fanatical Islamists, but three quarters of them will say they are intensely nationalist before there's any discussion about religion. Unlike the Israelis, their national pride is justified because they are the rightful owners of their land.

So you are the spokenperson for Arabs now!
What is your logic for who are the rightful owners of what land? How are you an owner of land, do you buy it from an international organisation or is it first come first served?

history_buff wrote:

I don't understand that question.

Typo on my part. I meant to say: there seems to be a difference of opinion over the borders of Israel. My point here is, nationalism creates borders, and when there is difference of opinion over these borders, what is the guarentee in the nationalism philosophy that these differences of opinion will be resolved peacefully? There is none. This is a major fault in the nationalism philosophy where humanity has suffered.

history_buff wrote:

Unfortunately, this would only be possible if humanity were purely disposed towards good, and not prone to committing acts of greed or evil, so the idea is Utopian and unrealistic in the current sense. You are placing a desire for accommodation and compromise above a desire for justice.

There would have been a time in Europe, when the concept of a European Union was unthinkable. However it has happened and has been on the hole successful. Less wars in Europe, more cooperation between more people.
Ok, it's not perfect I accept that, but it's definetly on the hole better.
Similar the larger the organisation, generally the more people that benefit.
FIFA, WHO, IRB etc. Not all perfect, but usually more people benefit, humanity is better off.
I'm not arguing a homogenous world, I am arguing a cooperative world with an emphasis on larger organisation and less on nation states, where we all have a responsibility to each other essentially a global responsible village.
Emphasis on responsible!

history_buff wrote:

Excuse me, are you saying the liberal platitudes you just rhymed off are of Divine origin?

Incorrect, I am challenging a nationalist ideology, which I believe has caused more damage to humanity than good.

Victor

Eh, this is long.

Nationalism usually isn't there for its own sake, but for solving the problems caused by existing states structures. Irish, American and African nationalism were fundamentally based on anti-imperialism, allowing government more readily address the needs of the local people and not what benefits the imperial government or the empire (the needs of the imperial government and the empire don't always agree). German and Italian nationalism were based on the great enterprise, political, imperial, economic, infrastructural and so on.

In addition, nationalism has both overlaps and contradicts statism. The Austrian Empire was composed of many separate national groups in one country. Germany in the early 1800s was a nation spread over many countries.

A balance needs to be struck between local, regional, state, national and international politics, with each level doing not only what they are best at, but also what their populations will allow them to do. Unfortunately, with Ireland’s fascination with the national project, local and regional government have been emasculated.

Mad Finn wrote:

The difference between Britain and Ireland now is largely sectarian. So too is that between Serbia and Croatia. Same language (more or less) but the Croats are Catholic and the Serbs Orthodox. Bosnia is home to two sectarian groups: Moslems and 'Serbs' ie Christians. Slovenia is distinguished by a different language. So too is Macedonia.

To say the differences were down to religion would be greatly understating them. Yugoslavia was a latter day imperial construct, centrally ruled from Belgrade, held together only because of the Cold War (1918-1991). Non-Serbs resented the status quo.

DadaKopf wrote:

Gellner had trouble (as other theorists) explaining nationalism in pre-industrial and post-industrial countries - for example, nationalist movements in sub-Saharan Africa. But in the case of Africa, ethnic identity (largely created by British and French colonialists) became fused with state institutions in the 1950s during decolonisation.

The post 1950s borders in Africa are mere administrative conveniences.

Ethnic (tribal) identity is still very strong in Africa and tribal groups cross the artificial boundaries imposed on Africa. 19th century borders were drawn where it was convenient and were based on what Europeans could control for themselves. It respected neither geographical nor ethnic boundaries. It continues to create problems - Hutu first, Rwandan second. Zulu first, South African second.

The real anomaly in Africa has been that so few changes in borders have happened since 1950. (Ethiopia-Eritrea, Sudan-Egypt, South-Africa and its "territories" the results aren't in yet on Somalia and Western Sahara)

Dg101 wrote:

I'm not suggesting blind pride or faith, as we all know our country, like every other one, has its fair share of problems.

Indeed, both blindness and extremism are in a way enemies of both nationalism and the people.

DadaKopf wrote:

Not necessarily. Nationalism can just as easly me a method for political classes to give the illusion of closeness, or national purpose, to ensure that decisionmaking is actually disconnected from 'the people'. You might call this 'reasons of state'. The state is the crucial ingredient in nationalism.

New_Departure06 wrote:

Well it creates at the very least a context in which people will want decisions to be made locally, and usually that is what happens (perhaps to a lesser extent in the EU but still the most sensitive issues are deciding locally).

But the primary difference between the EU and say the British Empire is the shift in the balance of power. No one member of the EU can force it to do anything (one member can of course prevent it doing specific things).

The Corinthian wrote:

The unifications of both Germany and Italy are examples of where nationalism led to the loss of local power.

But the sum of the parts was greater than the separate parts by themselves. Standardisation, specialisation (politically and diplomatically) and infrastructure development allowed both to developer faster than they would have separately. I'm not saying "Win-Win", but it wasn't quite "Win-Lose" either.

Central government was another characteristic of the Fascist and National Socialist governments of Italy, Spain and German.

But each still depended on delegated structures to get the work done.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Your average Irish nationalist and "pseudo republican" can't cope with such complications. He prefers to bleat, "Irish good; British bad".

"Nationalist" and "republican" have become dated in the Irish context.

history_buff wrote:

2. The only thing that is unique to a nation is a political system. Accents, culture, music, humour and not unique to the nation concept.

All nations are formed by a community of people of common culture and nationality. The most obvious exception to this rule is the United States - does this mean that all nations should be modelled on this monstrosity?

The United States of America (as opposed to the United States of Brazil) is a state, not a nation, it does not yet have a sufficient homogeneity to call itself a nation. Perhaps that is why they have to brow beat school children with the pledge every day.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Surely nationalism is part of the root cause of the conflict in the Middle East?

No, statism is the cause of the conflict in the Middle East, where most of the political entities were moulded in the aftermath of the fall of the Ottoman Empire, to suit other empires. While it can be argued that some groups (Egyptians, Lebanese) in the Arab World have different identities, they all speak the same language (with different dialects), have the same core religion (although Shia-Sunni sectarianism exists) and at least partially subscribe to some form of pan-Arab nationalism.

Surely if the emphasis was on common humanity and not nationalism, there would be less wars, less killings.

Machiavelli would tell you there is no money in that.

gabhain7 wrote:

The nation state for example contained the spread of communism, limited the reach of christianity suppressing science in the middle ages (science prospered in that time in the middle east), limited the spread of facism.

While I think I can agree that the spread of communism was limited by nationalism to the more metropolitan parts of the Russian empire and then spread by latter day Russian imperialism, fascism (and its authoritarian friends in Eastern Europe) spread naturally from country to country.

By being nationalistic, you're basically saying that the polity you are part of is carrying out the most successful economic/cultural experiment. This could be natural pride due to you being part of that polity. It could be genuine belief that your countries system of society is superior and should spread. It's the belief that you think your society is on the right track for the benefitting of humanity.

But can't some forms of populism engage in self-denial exercises and rely on "they are bad" without "we are good" reasons?

DadaKopf wrote:

Makes sense, if the cause of nationalism is squared on elites, although I don't entirely buy this. It takes two to tango, etc. But structural power relations are definitely inextricably linked with nationalism. Interesting to note that the Communist International, and Marx specifically, disdained nationalism for being an ideology of the elite to draw energy away from the unification of the working class in common struggle, which would have caused trouble for them.

In hindsight, wasn’t Marx being naïve?