Nationalism

AngryHippie

careful now, sure he's your mans cousin....:D


Hardly surprising there's a load of headers running around pretending to be deposed royalty though is it ?

kreuzberger

Raintonite wrote: »

It's funny because of the ideas you and others express, I've been turned off by nationalism altogether. I'm more supportive of my local community (whether they be unionist, republican, or others) and couldn't give a flying leap about the nation. It's full to the brim with carpet bagging, me'ism, corruption and a general willingness to accept any bullchit for a Euro. The "i'm alright, screw you pal" mentality has come to the forefront of our society. One thing I do agree with, though, is that many people are living in the past or at least hope to reproduce the past. A past where history is written for the rich, by the rich and for the sole edification of the rich. Oh, and any pandering person that wishes to believe they're one of the elite. A past where the rules a written to ensure that the rich and their progeny have the upper hand and the plebs can duff their caps in admiration. So, yeah, to hell with nationalism.

james fintan lawlor and james connolly would probably thump you in exasperation if given the opportunity . Your community can not live in isolation from your surroundings . I presume you dont belong to a community of extended family hunter gatherers in some jungle somewhere . They are part of the fabric of a much wider community .
Many people went to great lengths to ensure the national history of this country, the national cause rested in the masses , the poor , the peasantry - what Pearse described as the sovereign people

“ The nations Sovereignty extends not only to all the men and women of the nation but to all the material possessions of the nation , the nations soil and all its resources , all its wealth and all wealth producing processes within in the nation . In other words no private right to property is good against the public right and welfare of the nation” .


It is , in fact, true that the repositories of the Irish tradition , as well as the spiritual tradition of nationality as the kindred tradition of stubborn physical resistance to England have been the great , splendid, faithful common people - that dumb multitudinous throng which sorrowed through the penal night, which bled in 98, which starved in the Famine , and which is here still - what is left of it - unbought and unterrified . Let no man be mistaken as to who will be Lord in Ireland when Ireland is free . The people will be Lord and master”


Or as James Fintan Lawlor declared

“Not to repeal the Union, then, but the conquest - not to disturb and dismantle the empire , but to abolish it forever. Not to resume or restore an old constitution, but to found a new nation and to raise up a free people , and strong as well as free, and secure as well as strong , based on a peasantry rooted like rocks in the soil of their land”

Neither of these men were rich , neither of these men were writing for the rich or about the rich . When Wolfe Tone referred to the men of no property he wasnt talking about the rich either .

Todays socialist revolutions in Venezuela , Bolivia and Ecuador are strongly nationalist too with an ideologyvery similar to that espoused by the nationalist movements in this country .

kreuzberger

SameDifference wrote: »

I am a fierce nationalist. So fierce that many of my friends call me a fascist, although I do not advocate fascism. I lead a diaspora Nationalist Group in the UK called the Niadh Nask.
We are based around diaspora nationalism (nationalism of Irish ex-pats) and romantic nationalism (based around an idealistic view of the irish culture language and race), but I in no way condone fascism or nazism.
I want to know what people think about this kind of extreme nationalism that I hold. Many people have also called me a socialist, but if you put that to gether it says national socialist (which is the official name of the Nazi party). However this is merely an name the Hitler made up to appease the working class, there were very few socialist elements in the nazi regime.

this sounds like some seriously dodgy stuff . And anyone basing a group or ideology upon genetic blood lines cant be complaining when they get compared to the nazis .

kreuzberger

turgon wrote: »

I dont mind "fierce" nationalists if your open to compromise.


By that I mean that I hate nationalists going around:

• Attempting to use military means to unite Ireland (which will not work)

However you dont seem to have a problem with military means being used to subvert your own nations sovereignty . As Britian also refuses to alow Ireland o be united by democratic means , ie allow the Irish people to vote as a unit on whther they want to be united or not its hardly susrpsing military methods get used .
but its Irish nationalism in Ireland you seem to hate , as opposed to British nationalism in Ireland .

• Being backward ex. not wanting england rugby team at croke park

given the fact the english rugby team oplay god save the queen and wave union jacks , and the union jack and the queen is firmly planted in Irish territory wioth Irish people not even permitted a say as to whether it can stay in Ireland , some people may regard a song praising a woman who claims sovereignty over Irish territory as inappropraite in Croke park particularly . A stunt in other words .

• Not being able to see anyone else's (inc Unionists) point of view*

I think your confusing seeing anothers point of view with agreeing with it . Do you know the difference ?

• And generally acting as if their living a hundred years ago. For example eirigi protesting at the queen coming to Ireland. I hate that organization.

100 years ago the vast majority of the Irish population were out waving union jacks during a British royal visit in enthusiastic welcome . Nobody protested against it . And indeed its ironic youd decalre an organisation opposed to a positively medieval instituion like a bleeding monarchy is backward . Theres nothing more backward than somebody who believes shes gods apopointed representtive on earth because her ancestors said so , or whatever shes into .

*An example of this - the republican sinn fein deputy leader went crying to the irish examiner about how a unionist at a GAA game didnt respect the irish flag or anthem at the game. Now in all fairness he would be the one person suggesting we disrespect the english flag and anthem at their games. So what right has he to complain.

thats completely stupid . Im unaware of any republican leader who urges anyone to go to english sporting occasions and disrepect their flags and anthems in England . Its a preposterous suggestion .

I believe in liking your country, like I do. But I also believe in respecting other people.

would you not agree occupying part of someonelses country and denying the people in that country the right to be united is a sign of huge disrespect towards those people ? And that people may react negatively enough to the disrespect shown to them in their own country ? Would you also not agree getting annoyed about lack of enthusiasm for god save the queen is quite mild compared to the notion of occupying someones country ?

I dont like saying Im a nationalist because people get the wrong immpression that im one of the above

personally i dont think your dislike of any of the above is logical but purely emotional . However im at a loss to know what that actual emotion is based upon .

Belfast

SameDifference wrote: »

I am a fierce nationalist. So fierce that many of my friends call me a fascist, although I do not advocate fascism. I lead a diaspora Nationalist Group in the UK called the Niadh Nask.
We are based around diaspora nationalism (nationalism of Irish ex-pats) and romantic nationalism (based around an idealistic view of the irish culture language and race), but I in no way condone fascism or nazism.
I want to know what people think about this kind of extreme nationalism that I hold. Many people have also called me a socialist, but if you put that to gether it says national socialist (which is the official name of the Nazi party). However this is merely an name the Hitler made up to appease the working class, there were very few socialist elements in the nazi regime.

National socialist
Normally believe in the Corporate state
State control of the means of production
One party state
Single all powerful leader

Benito Mussolini said of Fascism
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.

Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.

Hermann Göring said of National socialism that it was not the politics of reason or logic, but of emotion.

Is this some of what you believe in?

Irish Race, not quit sure who they are.

The Irish are a mixture of Nemedians, the Fomorians, the Firbolgs, the Tuatha Dé Danann, Airgialla, Fir Ol nEchmacht, Delbhna, Fir Bolg, Érainn, Eóganachta, Mairtine, Conmaicne, Soghain, Ulaid, Basques, Berbers English, Scots, Welsh, Viking, Normans,French Huguenots and Palatines

WooPeeA

SameDifference wrote: »

I want to know what people think about this kind of extreme nationalism that I hold.

In my opinion nationalism is ignorance. It's against my point of view at all...

I believe in equality of all nations and races, but not nationalism. Brotherhood of all Europeans and Tolerance but not discrimination which nationalism and racism is foundation for. I'm sick of hate in this world.. Don't you think SameDifference that hate is so empty feeling? With no future.

I'm extremely against nationalism/racism and I think that if my best friend would told me that he's nationalist, he wouldn't be my friend anymore.

kreuzberger

WooPeeA wrote: »

In my opinion nationalism is ignorance. It's against my point of view at all...

I believe in equality of all nations and races, but not nationalism. Brotherhood of all Europeans and Tolerance but not discrimination which nationalism and racism is foundation for. I'm sick of hate in this world.. Don't you think SameDifference that hate is so empty feeling? With no future.

this doesnt make sense at all . Surely if a nation is being occupied or threatened then its nationalism , its assertion of its sovereignty and independence is a positive thing not a negative ? Surelt that form of nationalism is demanding what you say you support - equality of all nations and races .

I'm extremely against nationalism/racism and I think that if my best friend would told me that he's nationalist, he wouldn't be my friend anymore.

why are you equating nationalism with racism ? James Connolly , Hugo Chavez , Evo Morales , Franz Fanon - all committed nationalists , none of them racists by any stretch of the imagination

kreuzberger

Belfast wrote: »

National socialist
Normally believe in the Corporate state
State control of the means of production
One party state
Single all powerful leader

Benito Mussolini said of Fascism
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.

Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.

Hermann Göring said of National socialism that it was not the politics of reason or logic, but of emotion.

Is this some of what you believe in?

Irish Race, not quit sure who they are.

The Irish are a mixture of Nemedians, the Fomorians, the Firbolgs, the Tuatha Dé Danann, Airgialla, Fir Ol nEchmacht, Delbhna, Fir Bolg, Érainn, Eóganachta, Mairtine, Conmaicne, Soghain, Ulaid, Basques, Berbers English, Scots, Welsh, Viking, Normans,French Huguenots and Palatines

lets not forget fijians - setanta OHalpin etc

Nazis are just scum . And anyone espousing any form of nationalism based upon blood lines and genetics is just a closet nazi crank . As regards royalty im a republican and i believe guillotines and firing squads are the appropriate manner in which to deal with people who desire a throne .

Belfast

kreuzberger wrote: »

lets not forget fijians - setanta OHalpin etc

Nazis are just scum . And anyone espousing any form of nationalism based upon blood lines and genetics is just a closet nazi crank . As regards royalty im a republican and i believe guillotines and firing squads are the appropriate manner in which to deal with people who desire a throne .

National Socialism and Fascism are best consigned to the dustbin of history.

Do a fan of the death penalty myself.

Voipjunkie

Hill Billy wrote: »

I would have thought that a "fierce nationalist" would have frowned on our national saint's day being referred to as anything other than "St Patrick's Day".

/2¢

Why Nationalism is not the same as Christianity he could be an extreme Nationalist and be an Atheist or a Jew or anything else.

Voipjunkie

WooPeeA wrote: »

In my opinion nationalism is ignorance. It's against my point of view at all...

I believe in equality of all nations and races, but not nationalism. Brotherhood of all Europeans and Tolerance but not discrimination which nationalism and racism is foundation for. I'm sick of hate in this world.. Don't you think SameDifference that hate is so empty feeling? With no future.

I'm extremely against nationalism/racism and I think that if my best friend would told me that he's nationalist, he wouldn't be my friend anymore.

Pretty ignorant view of Nationalism you can be a Nationalist without having to be a racist or believe that your nation is any better than any other.

You can be a Nationalist and believe in the equality of all Nations and races

I suggest that you look at some of the people who describe themselves as Nationalist on this Island.

You are confusing the broad Nationalism with a small group of rightwing thugs

Nationalism for me is a belief that Ireland has a right to decide its own destiny
And when I say Ireland I mean all the people white/black orange/green Muslim/christian/jew/Atheist everyone.

It is also a pride in being Irish but I don't for one minute think that Irish people are in anyway better or worse than any other country or society.

WooPeeA

To kreuzberger and Voipjunkie:

I think you're talking more about patriotism than extreme nationalism that author of this thread has mentioned in the 1st post.

Voipjunkie

WooPeeA wrote: »

To kreuzberger and Voipjunkie:

I think you're talking more about patriotism than extreme nationalism that author of this thread has mentioned in the 1st post.

No the point is that there is various shades and types of Nationalism just as there is Socialism or Republicanism or Capitalism
Nationalism is not bad because of a bunch of lunatics on the extreme no more than Socialism or republicanism or Capitalism


Your post said Nationalism is ignorance if you had said extreme Nationalism I would not have a problem but branding all nationalists as ignorant is completely wrong.

estebancambias

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

Where you are born and to who you are born too are both very random acts, I don’t understand why you'd place so much pride in that.

Also, it’s often the case that when people have such strong emotions for their race or nationality they are against “outsiders” moving to their countries and marrying their women but maybe you aren’t of that mindset.

Bull****. I am a Nationalist, and ideally would want as liberal as possible immigration laws.

kreuzberger

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

Nationalism translates to - one type of people are superior to another. I have no time for nationalists, they are usually the kind of people who start a sentence with "I'm not a racist but...."

this is nonsense Im afraid . I doubt very much whether the strongly natonalist Bolivarian movement in Venzuela regard themselves as superior to Cubans , Ecuadoreans , Brazilians , Nicaraguans etc . Nor do I believe theyre racist either .
Some people spend too much time tied to the textbooks unable to comprehend the fact that nationalism in the context of post colonial nations , including Ireland , can be an extremely progessive political force .

To kreuzberger and Voipjunkie:

I think you're talking more about patriotism than extreme nationalism that author of this thread has mentioned in the 1st post.

Im talking about nationalism in the context of post colonial nations asserting their national sovereignty - whether that be in the form of territorial , political , cultural and economic sovereignty or more importantly all of the above simultaneously as an expression of independence from colonialism and imperialism . As that colonial and imperialist encroachment is often itself territorial , political , cultural and economic - and sometimes all of the above .
Post colonial theorists such as Franz Fanon and Edward Saeed went into great detail explaining the necessity for a truly national consciousness in order for post colonial nations to successfully defend their national sovereignty and with that the rights and resources of their people - whilst at the same time explaining and warning of the pitfalls .

Its also clear that Rolandbrowning isnt talking about extreme nationalism but nationalism in general , making no differentiation between an early 20th century austrian genocidal lunatic and a Latin American or Irish worker defending his national and popular sovereignty from colonial and imperialist attempts to suppress it . As he states he cant understand why someones national background is in the slightest bit important

This is ideological pedantism in my opinion which displays a commitment to a textbook theory over and above the practical relaities and experiences of billions throughout the globe . Those responsible for strict adherence to this line following the 1916 rebellion , such as Karl Radek for example who dismissed it as a nationalist putsch , where in turn blisteringly criticised and scorned by none other than Lenin .

Opposition to nationalism is itself in turn adopted by the former colonial powers in their agenda of globalisation , with national sovereignty seen by them as a barrier to their exploitation of world markets and resources . This was predicted by Fanon decades earlier . For post colonial societies defence of the nation and its sovereignty is very much nationalism , and with it entails the nation as a sum of all its parts - all of its people , all of its territory ,resources and internal decion making . Any agenda which undermines that defence whether in the guise of left or right or liberal is an ideology which can and will be utilised by neo imperialism . Therefore its essential to put ones nationalism in its proper context as well as ones opposition to nationalism . Doing so requires a great deal more thought , understanding and application than espousing a one world utopia that someone wrote about in a book whilst simultaneously dismissing the very real struggles being fought in the modern world .

SameDifference

AngryHippie wrote: »

I'm not sure exactly what your Niadh Nask is about, but you still haven't graced me with a political outlook aside from green good, butchers apron bad, if you want some credibility try gettin your cousin to cut the spouting to a minimum. TBH the whole thing looks like a hangover from some Haughey era tax scam that got dropped like a hot potato as soon as Charlez got some Maggie Thatcher chocolate on his face;)

We believe in:
The Union of Ireland
Socialism
Complete equality for men and women
Breaching the gap between the celtic nations
Support for Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Breton and Basque nationalists

These are just the main stuff

AngryHippie

Breaching the gap between the celtic nations
Support for Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Breton and Basque nationalists

Really ?
Any basis for why support of Basque nationalists is a good idea ?

WooPeeA

SameDifference wrote: »

We believe in:
The Union of Ireland

You mean the war with Brits?

Socialism

Personally, I'm against social country. I prefer people to move their asses and find a job rather than living on social benefits.. There should be no benefits for people who are lazy at all IMO..

Complete equality for men and women

Agree.

Breaching the gap between the celtic nations

Why only Celtic? I'd love to see the European family.. we already have same goals so why not. We're living in 21st century, not middle ages...

Support for Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Breton and Basque nationalists

Support for what?

L31mr0d

SameDifference wrote: »

^
I do happen to study sociology. It still hasn't changed my views, and although the nation state is a fairly recent development, it is important to socialise people into a culture and identity. If not, they will end up like the average white male brit, who inhabits a so-called invisible culture.

Why not socialize people under the "human" identity? Or, if you are a fan of PETA, the "Earthling" identity. I believe nationalism is needed when confronted by opposing forms of nationalism, but I see no future in it for the progression of humanity as a whole.

Regardless of the positives of nationalism, you can't have them without the negatives, they come hand in hand. If you start separating people by the soil they where born on it can do nothing but lead to discrimination, holding the values and lives of one group of people as being of more importance than that of another.

Jim_Are_Great

AngryHippie wrote: »

Any basis for why support of Basque nationalists is a good idea ?

Perhaps their unique cultural and linguistic background, or the distinct Basque legal system they developed antecedent to that of Castillan Spain? Oh, and the fact that their subsumption into centralised Spain/France is a relatively recent political occurance, coinciding at the earliest with early European Nation Statism? Of all the world's nationalist claims, the Basque one is one of the more plausible, and certainly on a par with our own.

ChocolateSauce

I do not support nationalism at all. I am anti-nationalistic.

The main reason I have for this stance is that you have no reason to be proud of the country you just happened to be born in. You're an Irish nationalist, but only because you happened to be born here. If you were born in Turkey, you'd be a Turkish nationalist, in Serbia a Serbian nationalist, and so on and so forth.

This is in essence why I do not agree with nationalism: It is fluky and doesn't involve people thinking, just feeling, caught up in the idea that they're better than other places simply because they value their home more than other people's home. If you want to be proud of something, be proud of an idea; an idea of freedom, democracy etc. or whatever you like. If you are lucky enough to live in a state which generally espouses your own values, be proud of that, but don't be proud of an accident of geography.

I'm proud of my ideals, my morals, my outlook, and I'm happy that Europe generally supports my views, and I therefore strongly support the EU. However, my support is wholly dependent on the EU keeping these values that I subscribe to; the second the EU no longer supports them, I'll withdraw my support. As it stands, the EU more wholly represents my views than Ireland does, so my first loyalty is to the EU, and my second to Ireland. However if Ireland were to (in my eyes) surpass the EU, I'd switch loyalties.

Ideas are more important than where you are from.

WooPeeA

theozster wrote: »

I do not support nationalism at all. I am anti-nationalistic.

The main reason I have for this stance is that you have no reason to be proud of the country you just happened to be born in. You're an Irish nationalist, but only because you happened to be born here. If you were born in Turkey, you'd be a Turkish nationalist, in Serbia a Serbian nationalist, and so on and so forth.

This is in essence why I do not agree with nationalism: It is fluky and doesn't involve people thinking, just feeling, caught up in the idea that they're better than other places simply because they value their home more than other people's home. If you want to be proud of something, be proud of an idea; an idea of freedom, democracy etc. or whatever you like. If you are lucky enough to live in a state which generally espouses your own values, be proud of that, but don't be proud of an accident of geography.

I'm proud of my ideals, my morals, my outlook, and I'm happy that Europe generally supports my views, and I therefore strongly support the EU. However, my support is wholly dependent on the EU keeping these values that I subscribe to; the second the EU no longer supports them, I'll withdraw my support. As it stands, the EU more wholly represents my views than Ireland does, so my first loyalty is to the EU, and my second to Ireland. However if Ireland were to (in my eyes) surpass the EU, I'd switch loyalties.

Ideas are more important than where you are from.

Very well said! If people have never done anything to be proud of in their lives, they start looking for the things which they haven't even chose.. such as color of the skin or nation from which they come. They say like "I'm proud to be white" but is there any sense to be proud of an accident?

turgon

Jim_Are_Great wrote: »

Perhaps their unique cultural and linguistic background, or the distinct Basque legal system they developed antecedent to that of Castillan Spain? Oh, and the fact that their subsumption into centralised Spain/France is a relatively recent political occurance, coinciding at the earliest with early European Nation Statism? Of all the world's nationalist claims, the Basque one is one of the more plausible, and certainly on a par with our own.

Yes, and I suppose they do get treated like crap the whole time, and their families are murdered, so they definitely deserve to be first on the list of political freedom :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, nationalism is often destructive tool. It is used in places like Northern Ireland to ferment violence, or in the US to engage in war (look at all the 9/11 hysteria).

turgon

WooPeeA wrote: »

Very well said! If people have never done anything to be proud of in their lives, they start looking for the things which they haven't even chose.. such as color of the skin or nation from which they come. They say like "I'm proud to be white" but is there any sense to be proud of an accident?

On the ball. That is what makes all the racists so stupid. Especially the KKK!!

Jim_Are_Great

turgon wrote: »

Yes, and I suppose they do get treated like crap the whole time, and their families are murdered, so they definitely deserve to be first on the list of political freedom :rolleyes:

I don't get it. At least some families must be murdered before a claim to territorial autonomy is valid?

AngryHippie

I don't get it. At least some families must be murdered before a claim to territorial autonomy is valid?

I don't get why they are insisting on territorial Autonomy, As it stands they have electoral rights, they are living in a region where they are a clear majority of the population, If they crave autonomy, let them get it through democratic ar diplomatic means, If they haven't got the organizational or political ability to sort that out, then they probably haven't got the ability to govern themselves IMO.

Ireland 1916-1923 is a clear example of this, They had the political ability to table the issue time and time again from the times of Parnell onwards, this culminated in the popular movements that brought about our independence, While it was a bloody affair, There was a level of political activity that just is not present in the bombing campaigns of ETA etc. It is not the way to get things done. There must be a popular support for the proposed change to the system of governance for it to stand a chance. Is that support there ? by the majority of the population in basque regions ?

As for their cultural and linguistic background, that is under no real threat from the government of Spain, any more than Irish cultural and linguistic traditions are under threat from any identifiable organization, The main enemies of this are the prosperity and laziness of the Irish population, but is that same affluent population who are behind the drive for the gaelscoileanna which is probably the most effective way of protecting the Irish Language.

Jim_Are_Great

AngryHippie wrote: »

If they crave autonomy, let them get it through democratic ar diplomatic means, If they haven't got the organizational or political ability to sort that out, then they probably haven't got the ability to govern themselves IMO.

That may not be entirely fair. The main reason that the Basque nationalist campaign has never really achieved its ultimate goal is because of its failure to present a united front. There are so many disparate groups working towards the same ultimate goal that it is difficult to negotiate coherently. For example, the Aralar party is leftist, devoted to Basque autonomy, but is fundamentally opposed to violent means. On the other hand traditional Sabinists are equally committed to Basquism, but are anti-liberal and strongly catholic. These are just two examples of the dozens of Basque seperatist factions. To see two groups so radically different in ideals with the same overall aim gives a decent insight into the trouble of working with Basque nationalism.

AngryHippie wrote: »

Ireland 1916-1923 is a clear example of this, They had the political ability to table the issue time and time again from the times of Parnell onwards, this culminated in the popular movements that brought about our independence, While it was a bloody affair, There was a level of political activity that just is not present in the bombing campaigns of ETA etc. It is not the way to get things done. There must be a popular support for the proposed change to the system of governance for it to stand a chance. Is that support there ? by the majority of the population in basque regions ?

If you think ETA represents the entirety of the Basque political movement, you are sorely mistaken. There are a great number of legitimate (as well as currently illegal) Basque political parties in both France and Spain. Almost all of them detest ETA for discrediting the goal which they believe should be pursued politically. So behind the sordid ETA campaigns are legitimate concerns which we just don't hear about here because they're part of the ordinary political process.

And yes, as a matter of fact, the popular support for legitimate Basque concerns is there. Not evidently in the majority of Mainland France/Spain, if that's what you're asking, but certainly in the Basque regions. Nationalist parties consistently obtain substantial election results, with the combined nationalist forces frequently recieving a clear majority. In France, which unlike Spain is a centralised state, the nationalist parties are well represented on local governments throughout the Pyrénées Atlantiques region.

AngryHippie wrote: »

As for their cultural and linguistic background, that is under no real threat from the government of Spain

Oh, I never meant the language and heritage was under threat, I was just saying that it's generally a good starting point for any group who wishes to assert a unique identity.

AngryHippie

Jim_Are_Great wrote: »

That may not be entirely fair. The main reason that the Basque nationalist campaign has never really achieved its ultimate goal is because of its failure to present a united front. There are so many disparate groups working towards the same ultimate goal that it is difficult to negotiate coherently.

If they cannot work together on principle now, do you seriously think they would be able to work together as an autonomous government ? This is the basis of much of my argument, They must work together before they get to work on their own.

Jim_Are_Great wrote: »

If you think ETA represents the entirety of the Basque political movement, you are sorely mistaken. There are a great number of legitimate (as well as currently illegal) Basque political parties in both France and Spain. Almost all of them detest ETA for discrediting the goal which they believe should be pursued politically. So behind the sordid ETA campaigns are legitimate concerns which we just don't hear about here because they're part of the ordinary political process.

Didn't say that they were, unfortunately, as we learned to our great expense here in Ireland, militant groups have a tendency to hijack the political momentum and generate a wave of negative publicity, not to mention the murder and maiming the bring with them. It is up to the separatist groups to rein in the militant groups, and bring them disarmed or bound to peace as far as a negotiation process, until their campaigns have stopped, an autonomous region is never even an option

Jim_Are_Great wrote: »

And yes, as a matter of fact, the popular support for legitimate Basque concerns is there. Not evidently in the majority of Mainland France/Spain, if that's what you're asking, but certainly in the Basque regions. Nationalist parties consistently obtain substantial election results, with the combined nationalist forces frequently recieving a clear majority. In France, which unlike Spain is a centralised state, the nationalist parties are well represented on local governments throughout the Pyrénées Atlantiques region.

This support has never generated a clear or coherent plan for independence or autonomy though has it ? It is a similar situation to the 32 county front here, many people support it, but none of them have a clear plan or vision for how their goals could possibly be achieved, it is just an election slogan, a single goal mandate to catch those with nationalist ambitions, without ever delivering or even attempting more than lip service to their stated goals.

Jim_Are_Great wrote: »

Oh, I never meant the language and heritage was under threat, I was just saying that it's generally a good starting point for any group who wishes to assert a unique identity.

Fair enough, but from a democratic point of view, their heritage and language would never be put down anyway, even if it is not being promoted. Its protection could be realized through the democratic processes, probably more effectively than it would be under an autonomous govt. (with far less funding)

I think are in agreement (more or less) but you have much more faith in the politics of small nations than I do.

Jim_Are_Great

AngryHippie wrote: »

If they cannot work together on principle now, do you seriously think they would be able to work together as an autonomous government ? This is the basis of much of my argument, They must work together before they get to work on their own.

I follow what you're saying, but either I'm misunderstanding exactly what you mean, or I disagree completely. All Basque nationalist/separatist/independence movements and parties are agreed that they should have more autonomy, and that their separation from France and/or Spain should be given political validation. The other grounds on which they fundamentally disagree are based on ancillary factors, such as immigration policy, the status of the church and the traditional left-right divides. If your argument is that Basques don't deserve devolved power because of these disagreements, then I cannot agree with you. Democratic states exist to handle these divisions of ideals. Such parties are united on the principle that they should have a unique status - probably that of a devolved parliament. Given this, the other concerns can be addressed within the ideal framework.

AngryHippie wrote: »

Didn't say that they were, unfortunately, as we learned to our great expense here in Ireland, militant groups have a tendency to hijack the political momentum and generate a wave of negative publicity, not to mention the murder and maiming the bring with them. It is up to the separatist groups to rein in the militant groups, and bring them disarmed or bound to peace as far as a negotiation process, until their campaigns have stopped, an autonomous region is never even an option

This is the tragedy of the Basque struggle. The valid political thoughts are drowned out by the hysteria of terror. Having said that, we were given independence when militant politics were a much greater factor than is currently the case in the Basque region. That sounds a bit too much like an argument in favour of terrorism for my liking, though. It's quite certain that Basque autonomy will not be on the table until ETA shut up.

AngryHippie wrote: »

This support has never generated a clear or coherent plan for independence or autonomy though has it ? It is a similar situation to the 32 county front here, many people support it, but none of them have a clear plan or vision for how their goals could possibly be achieved, it is just an election slogan, a single goal mandate to catch those with nationalist ambitions, without ever delivering or even attempting more than lip service to their stated goals.

That's not entirely true. Several Basque groups have put forward carefully thought-out plans for independence. I'm having a bit of trouble finding some proof for you, though. The political parties Eusko Abertzale Ekintza and Zutik had decent summaries of their means and ends, but neither website has been working for me quite some time now. Maybe that's just my connection, or maybe it's something more tinfoil-hattish. Batasuna, a party that I should point out is technically illegal, have a comprehensive outline here, on the off chance that you have fluent Basque.
In any event, does the absence of a definitive plan of campaign for the eventuality of statehood render the claim invalid? We didn't have one in 1922. Some people would even say we still don't really have one. Yet there are few who would say our claim was invalid.

AngryHippie wrote: »

Fair enough, but from a democratic point of view, their heritage and language would never be put down anyway, even if it is not being promoted. Its protection could be realized through the democratic processes, probably more effectively than it would be under an autonomous govt. (with far less funding)

Fair enough, but what reaction do you think a regular Irish person would have given in the twenties if you had said "ah sure, your heritage is fine and all that. The only sign of British rule is the seal on government papers and stuff". It's anathema to a seperatist nationalist. Their raison d'etre is to live their lives in a state that they have chosen to be part of.

AngryHippie wrote: »

I think are in agreement (more or less) but you have much more faith in the politics of small nations than I do.

When all's said and done, this is true. Small nations, handled well, have dealt with independence in the past. I know this isn't a conclusive argument, but again it comes down to optimism/pessimism. I just don't like to see Euskadism dismissed, as was done by a previous poster.

spoutwell

How can you be a nationalist if you don't have a nation, or if the jury is still out on what constitutes a nation (which it is)? Does it mean you can't have intercourse with other nations or is that just one of the blips in the system that even the most fascist nationalist heads ignore, like their inability to speak their own language, live in their own country, pay taxes in their own country, work in their own country, fight and die for their own country...... Why aren't all nationalists working together to boycott foreign goods, jobs, lingo, tv signals, etc.?