Nationalism

DadaKopf

spoutwell wrote: »

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.?

At its inception, there were two variants of nationalism: francophilic and germanophilic.

Francophilic nationalism is the combination of ethnic/national identity with a specific (contiguous) geographical terrain. E.g. Iceland.

Germanophilic nationalism refers to a 'historical community' who may or may not be currently in possession of a specific (contiguous) geographical terrain. E.g. Zionism.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

Nope - The Nazi parties manifesto was extremely left wing actually. Read it sometime, if you find yourself nodding along seek help from either an economist or a psychatrist. Nationalism and socialism arent mutually exclusive. Socialism simply calls for the every member of society to work for the common good of all as opposed to individual interest. Nationalism defines that societys members. Communism does the same thing, the proletariat and "counter revolutionaries". Communism just has a broader defintion of its enemies.

As for the value of nationalism - its an instinctive genetic thing to define an in-group and an out-group. We're wired that way by evolutionary throwback, from the days when we spoke in grunts and the most advanced weapons were sticks and stones. Some areas down the west of Ireland are still like that to be honest - guys getting the **** kicked out of them because theyre from 2 miles down the road.

Nationalism was simply a way to jump start a common shared mythology between medieval fiefs that barely spoke the same language, to create a new, larger in group. The fact that someones Irish doesnt redeem them from the possibility that theyre a complete tool in my eyes.

This only happens "down the west of Ireland".........
I think it is something that happens everywhere in Ireland in all fairness!

RiverWilde

Brian Lenihan was quoted in todays media as saying that citizens of the republic should tighten their belts as we're living beyond our means.

Fair enough, when will he be handing back large amounts of his salary to the exchequer to aid in the economic recovery?

Riv

spoutwell

Perhaps Brian will hand back the €180 billion's worth of fish that his late uncle Brian handed over to the EU from Irish waters.
I notice that his aunty doesn't think it appropriate for ministers to 'look over the shoulder' of government agencies 'under their control' (what does she think that means?).
Also could some of the Lenihan clan or their fellow-travellers fill us in on what the 'republic' in 'The Republican Party' stands for?

Kernel

Nations? Nations are dead, welcome to the new world order - fellow citizen of the world.

jimmmy

SameDifference wrote: »

I am a fierce nationalist..

Do you accept the Good Friday agreement ? How extremist is a person who is "fierce" ?

SameDifference wrote: »

So fierce that many of my friends call me a fascist, although I do not advocate fascism. .

How "many of your friends" perceive you, or what they call you, is different so to how you perceive yourself.

SameDifference wrote: »

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.

Hitler, now that you mention him, was not " fierce" to some people. It was not a word some people would have used. Hitler or Mussolini, for example, although they were both Roman Catholics, were not excommunicated. You may of course hold "extreme nationalism" and socialist views without being a Nazi. However the world has had more than enough of , and suffered enough from , extreme Nationalism , Socialism and Nazism.

trentf

I agree with the poster who commented on nationalism being a great thing for sporting occassions i.e rugby football etc etc and in most respects it is a great thing who everyone gets behind the country. Outside of these things it doesn't really have a purpose bar again what the poster pointed out the who am i? questions some people have when they fail to identify with society in whatever way.

In another regard it is used as an excuse for violence, rascism by some seriously unstable members of society i.e ethnic cleansing, genoicide and russian nationalist neo nazi skinheads who are busy murdering, beheading dark skinned foreigners in russia all in the name of mother russia.

borisbullrunner

Hitler was a hero to some people. Just because he did the wrong things by society doesnt make him fierce or evil. in many eyes he was savin a country on the brink of collapse. Right now alot of nations need the same leadership. lets hope its not a fascist rebirth, but recession brings lots of change!!

af_thefragile

Not a fan and supporter or Nationalism at all. In my opinion its no better than Imperialism and does end up leading to fascism.

We are all the same and just cuz a person happened to be born in a particular place doesn't make him anymore or less important.

Its because of things like Nationalism, Imperialism and Fascism that there is so much divide between people in this world. People start looking one another as Black, White, Irish, Asian, British, Mexican etc. instead of just looking one another as a person. Then suddenly one group of people become more significant than the other. There's the whole "us" and "them" thing cropping up again.

Its like for example the americans going and invading Iraq killing millions of people there. No one in america gets moved much by all the images of Iraqis dying in the war but when the news of an american soldier's death comes on, everyone's emotions get stirred! An american soldier's life in america is much more important than the Iraqi kids life. Hence they're getting away with killing millions of Iraqi people while most americans object about is their troops dying over in Iraq first and then later comes the millions of Iraqis getting killed.

Hitler used the whole idea of Nationalism to make all the people of Germany believe they had a right to fight and kill for their country although the cause was unjust. These are very strong tools that can be used to make people do all sorts of things.

I find it hard to associate myself strongly with any nationality or race or anything. Maybe cuz i moved around a lot in my life. I see everyone as person and i see everyone's life equally valuable. And so i don't really have any strong plans of settling in one place either. I believe this world belongs to all of us equally and no one can ethically stop anyone from going to a certain place. We can't just draw invisible lines on land and claim ownership of it. No one gave us the right to do that.

trentf wrote: »

I agree with the poster who commented on nationalism being a great thing for sporting occassions i.e rugby football etc etc and in most respects it is a great thing who everyone gets behind the country.

Just thought i need to comment on this statement.
I'm not sure about that. I'm not a big fan of team sport and therefore i enjoy individual sport more where people compete as individuals and i support them for their individual skills rather than nationality. Like F1 for example. I support Kimi Raikkonen who's Finnish (absolutely nothing to do with me), but he's a crazy driver and i like that!
And then people also really enjoy premiership football as well in which most teams have little to do with the city they represent.

I just believe nationalism is just a very overrated and hyped thing.

futurehope

kreuzberger said:

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 .

I don't get that mate. How is The UK military subverting The Republic's sovereignty? As for your comment about The Irish people (whoever they are) voting as a unit to secure Irish 'unity', that makes about as much sense as having a vote covering Germany and Alsace/Lorraine to see if Alsace/Lorraine should leave France and join Germany. It just doesn't make sense in the modern age - sounds a bit like The Germans joining with Austria under Hitler.

but its Irish nationalism in Ireland you seem to hate , as opposed to British nationalism in Ireland . 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 .

Again, I can't see what you're getting at. The Union Flag is only firmly planted in Northern Ireland (or British Ulster if you prefer), not in The Republic, so what's the problem? Most people in Northern Ireland want Northern Ireland to stay part of The UK and a lot of the others aren't bothered either way, so what's the problem?

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 .

There is something more backward, someone who believes in using terrorism to take control of part of a neighbouring country's territory against the wishes of those who actually live there - positively medieval.

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 ?

Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you saying that The Republic aspires to occupy part of someone else's country and deny the people in that country the right to be united with their fellow citizens? If you are saying this, then I agree that such an aspiration would be a 'sign of huge disrespect towards those people'.

O'Coonassa

Nations, nationalists and national mythologies are inventions of the powerful intended to exploit the people at home and abroad. IMO nationalism is only ever a heartbeat away from fascism and time and again tips into it. No loyalty should be due to a nation because loyalty to a nation is a betrayal of loyalty to all other humans elsewhere.

dsmythy

People seem to lump Nationalism as it's 19th and 20th century incarnations. A 21st century Nationalism doesn't have to follow the same ways of old. It can be adaptive and focused on positive feelings towards those within it rather than negative feelings towards those outside it. It can accept new members into the Nation willing to follow and adapt to it's local existence and theory regardless of their 'degrees of separation' from the prevailing culture that the more traditional, rigid and outdated racial Nationalism would frown upon.

brianthebard

Please give an example of this sort of nationalism.

O'Coonassa

dsmythy wrote: »

People seem to lump Nationalism as it's 19th and 20th century incarnations. A 21st century Nationalism doesn't have to follow the same ways of old. It can be adaptive and focused on positive feelings towards those within it rather than negative feelings towards those outside it.

Maybe when the sun is shining but when it goes cloudy then it will flip back into its fascism and general right-wingery. It is unavoidable, we are just animals, a type of mammal. The out group is always our victim. Unless we make 'humanity' the indivisible unit that demands our loyaly rather than 'nation' then we're a species on the way to extiction.

dsmythy

brianthebard wrote: »

Please give an example of this sort of nationalism.

If i had one then Nationalism wouldn't have such a bad name. It's an example of Nationalism for the present and future not one from the past.

brianthebard

Well then give an example of a nationalist movement that shares your views. I ask because you claim that there's more to nationalism than 19/20th century incarnations, but there is no alternative nationalism, which suggests that there is no reason to believe nationalism can be different to the past 200 years of it that we've experienced.

dsmythy

I searched far and wide but failed to come up with anything compatable with my views which means either no English speaking group exists or none at all. I'm certain some unknown group out there could be changed from within to suit it, but as far as i can tell i am alone. So bar writing my ideas for public viewing, founding my own movement, or telling anyone who will listen, my thoughts remain my own.

turgon

dsmythy wrote: »

People seem to lump Nationalism as it's 19th and 20th century incarnations. A 21st century Nationalism doesn't have to follow the same ways of old. It can be adaptive and focused on positive feelings towards those within it rather than negative feelings towards those outside it. It can accept new members into the Nation willing to follow and adapt to it's local existence and theory regardless of their 'degrees of separation' from the prevailing culture that the more traditional, rigid and outdated racial Nationalism would frown upon.

So your suggesting patriotism?

ChocolateSauce

I note that in today's western world, there are two types of nationalism which are dominant: Ethno-nationalism, which is predominant in Europe, and something which I'll simply call Idealism-Nationalism, which is predominant in North America and Oceania.

It's fairly straight-forward; ethno-nationalism is the belief that people who share a common language and culture should be united in their own nation-state. This does not truly apply in North America, and, to a lesser extent, in Australia and New Zealand, as they are recently settled lands founded and built on immigration. The is no American race, scarcely any common history. Despite this, they are fiercely nationalistic, jingoistic even. This is (in the US and Canada, to a lesser extent) because they are united, not by having their skin the same colour, but by their ideals.

I for one think we could learn a lesson from this. There is no logical reason to be proud of an accident of geography, and I question if we today really have the right to be personally proud of the achievements of people long dead.

My ultimate point is that ethno-nationalism reeks of ignorance and racism at worst, though I freely admit that nation states are practical from the language perspective. The idea that we should keep to ourselves and not mix with outsiders is very backward, and indeed to many, many Americans the idea is alien. Having been raised in a mono-ethnic land (except for chippers that is), I automatically think of differently coloured people as outsiders, though I wish this we not the case; there is no reason on earth why it should be the case. I think we should not be united in small ethnic groups beside each other, as Europe is today in the form of nation states, but united and proud in the notion of western liberty and scientific discovery, where we take pride not in the past, but in the present and look forward to the future together.

And just to clear up the "western" aspect; I believe, absolutely, that certain concepts which just happened to gain hold in the west (but could just as easily have developed in Arabia or the Amazon, had history taken a different course), like human rights and liberty, as intrinsically right, and cannot be abridged by culture, religion or tradition, and any nation with a population of any colour can and should adopt these principles and join us in full, equal and unreserved partnership. I'm also not saying western society is the highest point. Far from it, I find many aspects of our culture to be undesirable, and I hope that one day, Europeans, and humans in general will look back to this time as see something which is similar to their culture, but different, not as advanced. I think bettering ourselves should always be our highest priority.

dsmythy

turgon wrote: »

So your suggesting patriotism?

I understand how you would put that label on it alright. For me however Patriotism seems to be more of a declaration of loyalty to a state rather than the concept of a Nation. The United States being the biggest and prime example. There is no American Nation, bar Native Americans, hence they declare themselves Patriots which as i said is honouring the American federal state rather than a non-existing Nation. Outside of what i see to be the difference the idea of Patriotism, duty to one's country, would have a strong presence in what i believe, even if the idea of the 'country' is different.

af_thefragile

dsmythy wrote: »

I understand how you would put that label on it alright. For me however Patriotism seems to be more of a declaration of loyalty to a state rather than the concept of a Nation. The United States being the biggest and prime example. There is no American Nation, bar Native Americans, hence they declare themselves Patriots which as i said is honouring the American federal state rather than a non-existing Nation. Outside of what i see to be the difference the idea of Patriotism, duty to one's country, would have a strong presence in what i believe, even if the idea of the 'country' is different.

And what exactly is the different between a country and a nation?

Guess one difference might be that a country belongs to all the people living in it regardless of their race, religion etc.
While a nation is more specific to a certain race or religion.

So if you're saying 21st century Nationalism should be like what those S.H.A.R.P. skinheads follow which is Skin Heads Against Racial Prejudice, where they say they support their white heritage and working class culture but are not racist like the other predominantly nazi/facist skinheads who go around hating non-white people, then maybe it could work.

But then any sort of nationalism is only a step away from fascism. First you say you're proud to be Irish, next thing you'll say Ireland belongs to the Irish, then you'll say immigrants go home and start hating!!

You can see a lot of this in america too. Where many Mexicans, Irish, Italians, Puerto Ricans, African-Americans etc. have end up forming gangs and keep hating one another. The LA Mexican gangs are among the fiercest in the world where they constantly attack non-mexicans who come across their territory and sell drugs around where they do.

So really Nationalism there is not much good nationalism can bring to this world.

dsmythy

af_thefragile wrote: »

And what exactly is the different between a country and a nation?

Guess one difference might be that a country belongs to all the people living in it regardless of their race, religion etc.
While a nation is more specific to a certain race or religion.

So if you're saying 21st century Nationalism should be like what those S.H.A.R.P. skinheads follow which is Skin Heads Against Racial Prejudice, where they say they support their white heritage and working class culture but are not racist like the other predominantly nazi/facist skinheads who go around hating non-white people, then maybe it could work.

But then any sort of nationalism is only a step away from fascism. First you say you're proud to be Irish, next thing you'll say Ireland belongs to the Irish, then you'll say immigrants go home and start hating!!

You can see a lot of this in america too. Where many Mexicans, Irish, Italians, Puerto Ricans, African-Americans etc. have end up forming gangs and keep hating one another. The LA Mexican gangs are among the fiercest in the world where they constantly attack non-mexicans who come across their territory and sell drugs around where they do.

So really Nationalism there is not much good nationalism can bring to this world.

Nation doesn't have to mean one religion or one 'race' in the old fashioned sense of the word. I see it for as a home for one ethnic group which is precisly what the modern Irish state was founded on. Despite all the other rhetoric that went with the Irish fight for freedom essentially the call was for Ireland to rule it's own affairs, for the Irish to be ruled by the Irish.

This is what the Nation is built on and as you say it can go wrong like any other political system or theory or whatever you wish to call it. As i've been saying that doesn't mean it's always doomed to failure. The Nation is built on the past, but in the present and the future it can adapt to the world and allow others to join it's ranks, in manageable numbers, without being thought of as outsiders. They should be given the opppurtunity to engross themselves into the Nation so their future children will identify themselves as Irish with ease.

Countries or States tend to call loyalty to said State. What is the State? The government, constitution, security forces. You're entrusting yourselves to institutions which will then, hopefully in your mind, make it a better place for you. When you see yourself as a member of an organic Nation and declare loyalty to it, you're entrusting yourself to other followers of Nationalist ideals and vice versa. Everyone works for the betterment of the Nation. A better Nation will then lead to better communities, families and individuals too. Individuals make themselves into family. Families make themselves into community and communities make themselves into the Nation.

Racism wouldn't be tolerated in 21st century Nationalism. The only ire in people's hearts will be directed towards those who threaten National Unity and peace. Advocates of class war, racism and sectarianism among others will find themselves being frowned upon, not those who are fully involved in protecting and bettering the Nation.

af_thefragile

^That is patriotism mate.
An individual's rights and duties towards his country.
Again as i mentioned the country belongs to everyone who resides in it regardless of their race, heritage, ethnicity, believes etc. Kinda like taking USA for an example. Not the best example but again USA doesn't just belong to one group of people as the only ethnic people belonging to that land are the natives. Rest all are people who migrated to america from europe, africa, mexico etc. So USA doesn't have its one "ethnic group" rather is a state with many ethnic groups and everyone who lives there have their rights and duties towards the betterment of the state. Not nationalism but patriotism.

And then you mentioned the term "ethnic group", isn't that pretty much the same thing as race?
Back in the imperialist days the English used to hate the Irish. Now the Irish don't like the Polish and other immigrants. Its no different from whites hating blacks or vice versa.

I am all up for countries to be ruled by themselves. I have moved away from the socialist one world one government thoughts a while ago. But what i look for is a world where everyone works together without any differences or prejudices.
So it really shouldn't shouldn't matter what a person's cultural or ethnic background is from. People should be free to go and live wherever they want cuz this world is meant for us all. We can't draw invisible (or sometimes visible) lines on the ground dividing it and saying this land is only for us and others should step away. We don't have the right by nature to do that. So it shouldn't matter where a person is from, what he looks like or what he believes in as long as he's a member of the state, he's got a right and duty to work towards the betterment of the state. Patriotism, not nationalism. This world belongs to everyone you can't be proud of something that happened by chance which one has no control over!

dsmythy

I'm talking less of bettering the state but bettering the people or Nation. New arrivals would sign up to the Nation. Melting pots and ideologically driven multiculturalism would not be a part of it. The State merely acts as the regulator and safeguard of the Nation. It wouldn't demand loyalty.

I wouldn't say ethnicity is the same as race. Race to me talks about white, black, Asian etc. It's not something much worth talking about today. It's too big a margin and too diverse. There's no doubting, in my mind at least, that national identity today is driven by ethnicity.

Without getting into a debate about nature and what is natural and what is not, the animal kingdom is full of these artificial lines you mention including mankind's closest cousins.

brianthebard

How does your nationalism differ from that which has caused so many problems in the Balkans, for one example? How could your new improved nationalism put an end to ethnic conflict? This idea of one nation for each ethnic group, one group per nation is over 100 years old.

dsmythy

brianthebard wrote: »

How does your nationalism differ from that which has caused so many problems in the Balkans, for one example? How could your new improved nationalism put an end to ethnic conflict? This idea of one nation for each ethnic group, one group per nation is over 100 years old.

The Balkans was mired in that old Nationalism of hatred. Their lot wasn't helped by foreign powers ruling over a vast majority of the inhabitants for hundreds of years. The creation of the multi-ethnic state that was Yugoslavia was a mistake of the highest order.

I would hope a positive thinking form of Nationalism would avoid the hatred that caused the Serbs to violently attempt to prevent their loss of control over burgeoning states ready to form along the lines of ethnicity and Nation from a multi-ethnic state.

O'Coonassa

SameDifference wrote: »

I am a fierce nationalist.

ie: a race traitor to the human race.

dreamlogic

Nationalism is/was a necessary stage of development for many nations who were oppressed and unfairly occupied by imperialist powers. When for example there is a struggle for basic human rights it is justifed to be a nationalist under those circumstances.
When the nation arrives at its goal of self-rule and injustices have been addressed then peoples' need for nationalism should naturally evaporate or at least be toned down a bit.. It's like stages of growth. Nationalism is like adolescence. Paddywhackery type movements and the like are nostalgia-based and are mostly an embarrassment.

Kernel wrote: »

Nations? Nations are dead, welcome to the new world order - fellow citizen of the world.

As this trend progresses it will become necessary for people to fight to hold onto their civil liberties etc.
I could see this leading to a resurgence in nationalist fervour worldwide say 5, 10 years from now...
Let's hope though that these resistance movements will be more internationalist in nature than nationalist.

ChocolateSauce

dreamlogic wrote: »

Nationalism is/was a necessary stage of development for many nations who were oppressed and unfairly occupied by imperialist powers. When for example there is a struggle for basic human rights it is justifed to be a nationalist under those circumstances.
When the nation arrives at its goal of self-rule and injustices have been addressed then peoples' need for nationalism should naturally evaporate or at least be toned down a bit.. It's like stages of growth. Nationalism is like adolescence. Paddywhackery type movements and the like are nostalgia-based and are mostly an embarrassment.

Why on Earth is nationalism needed to overthrow oppression? And how do you account for the jingoism of the imperial powers if you tie it in to being a subject peoples?

dreamlogic

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Why on Earth is nationalism needed to overthrow oppression? And how do you account for the jingoism of the imperial powers if you tie it in to being a subject peoples?

Ideally it not 'needed', I totally agree.
In the real world however(and certainly in the past) you will usually find that people in an oppressed country/nation will first find common ground with other people living in the same locality(country/nation) and thus their fight for self-determination will naturally take place under the banner of a flag or idea of being a strong nation etc.

I notice now that this forum is entitled 'Political theory' so with this in mind I concede that my choice of the word 'necessary' was an overstatement. It is certainly not necessary to be a nationalist to achieve political change in today's world. As I implied in the rest of my post it is largely an irrelevance today when it is possible for people to connect and identify with each other and thus effect political change on a worldwide scale.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

And how do you account for the jingoism of the imperial powers if you tie it in to being a subject peoples?

I am not sure what you are getting at with this question... I was referring to nationalism as a strategy or means by which to express or effect political change by an oppressed/struggling people.
In my book jingoism is in a completely different category...