Nationalism

Amhran Nua

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nationalism starts one off on the path to racism. In order to "preserve"
cultural identity a country must ban other cultural identities to prevent them being diluted.

You must have a pretty poor culture if you don't think it can survive contact with other cultures intact, to the extent that you feel the need to ban them.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If we look at countries with a high population of nationalists, America, Russia, Israel. These are the countries that have no problem fúcking up other people. And of course we have nationalist parties in the world, Nazi, BNP, Republican Party, Shinn Fein. These are the parties that cause problems in the world.

What in the name of god are you talking about here? Have you got any single sliver of support for your assertion about the percentage of nationalists in ANY of those countries, as opposed to say Switzerland or Finland? There is no end to the disconnect with reality this statement represents. Do you seriously think the Democratic party is any better than the Republican party in the US, or contains any fewer zealous patriots?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nationalism and Racism go hand in hand. If we had no Nationalism we would have no Racism.

Hoo boy. So when virtually idential racial groups go to war, thats what exactly?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It is pretty much. You're displaying typical nationalist characteristics of forcing your culture on those who don't want it.

How does that work?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The treaty of Versailles was a result of nationalistic British and French politicians and their desire to cripple Germany economically and militarily.

What you're saying is that Germany was crippled economically and militarily for reasons of national pride, not to for example prevent a repeat of the war and recoup some of the damage caused?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

TWorld War One, another reason the treaty of Versailles came into being, was riddled with nationalistic agendas. It is safe to say nationalism cause World War One.

So, not racism then.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This isn't even taking into account the principal of Lebensraum, Germany's military agression and the Holocaust. All of which have their roots steeped in Natioanlism.

This is painful. Your whole objection to the idea of taking pride in your culture and expressing it creatively, is nazi Germany?

Amhran Nua

lmtduffy wrote: »

No, I am observing two concepts because they are two different concepts.

You can say it as much as you like, and it still won't be accurate.

lmtduffy wrote: »

No is troublesome not to distinguish between cultural and national identity because they are different.

So eh, when one culture resides almost entirely within the boundaries of one geographical nation, what happens then.

lmtduffy wrote: »

Yes but to what degree must these be the same?
What is a perception of ones own uniqueness?

What is a rose, or a cauliflower?

lmtduffy wrote: »

So you mean to profit financially from your culture as opposed to profit culturally?

Is there any particular reason you can't do both? And as it turns out, if people are willing to pay to experience your culture, chances are you should be enabling that culture to flourish.

lmtduffy wrote: »

care to expand beyond that adage?

One would have thought it self explanatory.

lmtduffy wrote: »

No not to be pursued I agree, so where do you see culture coming from if not from peoples interactions together?

Do you think people don't interact within cultures?

lmtduffy wrote: »

Cultures should not seen as stagnant and what is this uniqueness, how can a culture no be unique?

There is, I feel, an inherent xenophobia in the push by a few to merge cultural identities, a fear of difference.

lmtduffy wrote: »

The EU is leading to the decline of national identity as the importance of the nation declines as some of the powers of the nation state are integrated into a multi-nation decision making processes in the EU.

Hardly. Count the number of languages within the EU then get back to me.

lmtduffy wrote: »

I do not think it is how you put it removing unpleasant elements and encouraging creative elements, thats a little to optimistic for me.

So, viewing that as an optimistic perspective, you would therefore agree with my point that cultural pride can be a positive thing?

lmtduffy wrote: »

I would see that the reduction of our national identity allows for a fuller realisation of our cultural identity.
Nationalism by its nature is not very creative it is more likely conservative by its nature as it seeks to adhere to and preserve a national identity, and a national identity doest change easily or often.

This abhorrence of a national identity combined with the embracing of a cultural identity is not something that can ever be functional.

Iwasfrozen

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You must have a pretty poor culture if you don't think it can survive contact with other cultures intact, to the extent that you feel the need to ban them.

Good to have you back Amhran Nua, I was begining to think you had forgotten about me. Ireland is a country of 4.5 million people it simply cannot survive in a globalised society where freedom to travel is easier then ever.

In order to prevent Irish culture being wiped out, which as an Irish nationalist I assume you don't. Logic would dictate that you must prevent cultural integration. Thus nationalism has started down the long and narrow road to racism.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

What in the name of god are you talking about here? Have you got any single sliver of support for your assertion about the percentage of nationalists in ANY of those countries, as opposed to say Switzerland or Finland? There is no end to the disconnect with reality this statement represents. Do you seriously think the Democratic party is any better than the Republican party in the US, or contains any fewer zealous patriots?

The Republicans started the Second Gulf war without any evidence of WMDs. They have a higher percentage of nationalists then the Democrats and it is pretty safe to say that they have no problems ****ing up other countries.

Also take a look at Israel. A huge number of Jewish nationalists that have no problem moving into Palistinien territory to mess up the locals.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Hoo boy. So when virtually idential racial groups go to war, thats what exactly?

Racism. I'm almost genetically identical to a German yet if I were to make fun of their accent of whatever it would still be racist.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

How does that work?

I wrote in my post: forcing your culture on those who don't want it.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

What you're saying is that Germany was crippled economically and militarily for reasons of national pride, not to for example prevent a repeat of the war and recoup some of the damage caused?

There where many reasons I said that Nationalism was a reason behind the Treaty of Versailles . I didn't say that was the only reason. Please do not try to use strawmen.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So, not racism then.

That's not even a response. Unless you're going to take this seriously I'm not going to bother.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

This is painful. Your whole objection to the idea of taking pride in your culture and expressing it creatively, is nazi Germany?

Only you could add up two and three to get seven.

I said that the principal of Lebensraum, Germany's military agression and the Holocaust all had their roots steeped in Nationalism. Do you wish to object to that statment ?

Amhran Nua

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Good to have you back Amhran Nua, I was begining to think you had forgotten about me. Ireland is a country of 4.5 million people it simply cannot survive in a globalised society where freedom to travel is easier then ever.

Yes, working to keep the roof over one's head can be time consuming. Not only can Ireland survive, its culture can as well, as evidenced by the many Irish clubs and societies around the world, and the enormous amount of people in for example the US that claim Irish heritage with pride. This would be Irish people immersed in other cultures that have retained their own culture, and indeed national pride, without friction, wars racism, or genocides.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

In order to prevent Irish culture being wiped out, which as an Irish nationalist I assume you don't. Logic would dictate that you must prevent cultural integration.

People can make up their own minds about which culture they find most appealing - I have confidence in Irish culture. You can try to prevent integration if you like but you'll end up like the old Soviet Union.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The Republicans started the Second Gulf war without any evidence of WMDs.

George Bush started that to avenge his daddy, and he was backed up by the hawks because Iraq was opening a euro-traded oil bourse. Nationalism had nothing to do with it.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They have a higher percentage of nationalists then the Democrats and it is pretty safe to say that they have no problems ****ing up other countries.

Proof? Evidence? Not to mention the Democrats under Clinton presided over the release of the last fetters on large banks, bringing the global economy to its knees within six years.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Also take a look at Israel. A huge number of Jewish nationalists that have no problem moving into Palistinien territory to mess up the locals.

Whats the population of Israel as a percentage of the population of the world.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Racism. I'm almost genetically identical to a German yet if I were to make fun of their accent of whatever it would still be racist.

So the only reason to go to war is racism then?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I wrote in my post: forcing your culture on those who don't want it.

How exactly would I have implied that in any, even the most roundabout way?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There where many reasons I said that Nationalism was a reason behind the Treaty of Versailles . I didn't say that was the only reason. Please do not try to use strawmen.

So lets break it down. What percentage of the Treaty of Versailles was caused by nationalism, in your opinon, and why.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Only you could add up two and three to get seven.

I said that the principal of Lebensraum, Germany's military agression and the Holocaust all had their roots steeped in Nationalism. Do you wish to object to that statment ?

Sorry now, but you brought it up in the first place. Nationalism was the vehicle upon which the hatemongers rode, just as gunpowder was the chemical responsible for the weapons that killed millions. Neither is in and of themselves evil.

Eliot Rosewater

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Logic would dictate that you must prevent cultural integration. Thus nationalism has started down the long and narrow road to racism.

Indeed. Eventually merely promoting one's own culture is insufficient, so the demoting of conflicting cultures is necessary. Amrhan Nua are already pursuing this with what seems to me to be a thinly veiled aversion to the idea of European cultural homogeneity, "Our associations and agreements with Europe must focus on the mutual benefit of both parties ... Equally important, however, is the recognition of our sovereignty as an individual state". Add to this their pussy-footing over the Lisbon treaty.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

What you're saying is that Germany was crippled economically and militarily for reasons of national pride, not to for example prevent a repeat of the war and recoup some of the damage caused?

"Already at the Peace Conference a British delegate, JM Keynes, had published a stringent criticism of the prevailing approach. In his Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919) he argued that support for the economic recovery of Germany was a precondition for the recovery of Europe as a whole, and that punitive reparations would harm the enforcers."

If I remember correctly, the US was against harsh measures and the French were distinctly for them. I would attribute that to nationalism.

dlofnep

Flamed Diving wrote: »

However, Nationalists would definitely have something to say about immigration.

Not neccessarily. Nationalists in the north have been pro-immigration, often engaged in protests for equality for immigrants.

Being a nationalist doesn't imply that you are anti-immigration.

Amhran Nua

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Indeed. Eventually merely promoting one's own culture is insufficient, so the demoting of conflicting cultures is necessary. Amrhan Nua are already pursuing this with what seems to me to be a thinly veiled aversion to the idea of European cultural homogeneity, "Our associations and agreements with Europe must focus on the mutual benefit of both parties ... Equally important, however, is the recognition of our sovereignty as an individual state".

There's nothing thinly veiled about it. European cultural homogenity is a bad idea. As to your other point, that has already been responded to.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Add to this their pussy-footing over the Lisbon treaty.

Ah come off it, you're just smarting from the hammering the proud nation of libertaria is getting as they attempt further indoctrinations.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

If I remember correctly, the US was against harsh measures and the French were distinctly for them. I would attribute that to nationalism.

The US didn't want to get involved in the war in the first place, and you can attribute that to nationalism as well.

Eliot Rosewater

Amhran Nua wrote: »

There's nothing thinly veiled about it. European cultural homogenity is a bad idea.

Would you like to tell us why?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Ah come off it, you're just smarting from the hammering the proud nation of libertaria is getting as they attempt further indoctrinations.

How, pray tell, does that relate to your party's evasive attitude towards the Lisbon Treaty?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The US didn't want to get involved in the war in the first place, and you can attribute that to nationalism as well.

In the same post where you pride yourself in supposed debating success, you go on to suggest that nationalism is positive in that it can be anti-war. It looks pretty silly.

Amhran Nua

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Would you like to tell us why?

Okay, let see, you post up the top ten reasons, in your opinion, why cultural expansionism and the removal of other cultures is bad, and then apply that to a hypothetical, homogenous, expansionist European culture, (which only exists in the minds of a few who have nothing to do with the administration or direction of the EU in the first place).

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

How, pray tell, does that relate to your party's evasive attitude towards the Lisbon Treaty?

Because if thats the only straw which can be grasped, I don't think it looks good for your argument. Speaking of which, what exactly is your argument, by the way?

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In the same post where you pride yourself in supposed debating success, you go on to suggest that nationalism is positive in that it can be anti-war. It looks pretty silly.

And once again through the looking glass...

Eliot Rosewater

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Okay, let see, you post up the top ten reasons, in your opinion, why cultural expansionism and the removal of other cultures is bad

You haven't answered my question. Instead you seem to be hoping I'll make up a satisfactory answer for you, but given that I asked the question because I can't think of such an answer, that's not going to happen!

So I ask again: why is European cultural homogeneity a bad idea? Or, to invert it, why is cultural divisiveness so good?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Because if thats the only straw which can be grasped

I don't see how it was a strawman. I was making a point regard Amhran Nua's aversion to the EU, and I was using the fact of your stance on the Lisbon Treaty in support of this point.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Speaking of which, what exactly is your argument, by the way?

My argument is that Amhran Nua is not content to merely promote Irish culture, but that it also feels the need to demote competing cultures, and thus your party assumes an anti-European or Euro-skeptic stance. I would like to try and understand why this is, which is why I posed the question above.

Amhran Nua

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

You haven't answered my question.

Oh but I have. You don't like the answer, but then again, you don't need to.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

My argument is that Amhran Nua is not content to merely promote Irish culture, but that it also feels the need to demote competing cultures,

Aha, finally. Point out anything anywhere to support this.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

and thus your party assumes an anti-European or Euro-skeptic stance. I would like to try and understand why this is, which is why I posed the question above.

Take a look in the EU forum for a thread started recently by me on the ACTA treaty, then wipe the egg off your face regarding the supposedly euro-skeptic[sic] stance.

Amhran Nua

Actually, you know what, don't strain yourself.

lmtduffy

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You can say it as much as you like, and it still won't be accurate.

Ok, if you must to be confident in your ignorance, lets start on a basic level here is wikipedia, now you go spot the difference and if you're still confused we can move on the theorists themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_identity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity#Primordial_or_perennial_definition

I am not here to lecture you, you ought to do your own work.

So eh, when one culture resides almost entirely within the boundaries of one geographical nation, what happens then.

When has there ever been one culture in any one place.
What the hell is a "geographical nation"?
you cant just throw terms around like that.

What is a rose, or a cauliflower?

So you agree you don't know what you're talking about then.

Is there any particular reason you can't do both? And as it turns out, if people are willing to pay to experience your culture, chances are you should be enabling that culture to flourish.

No people are paying to experience their perception of your culture, people don't come to Ireland to eat breakfast rolls from petrol stations, they come because they saw the quiet man.
So it is rare a culture itself benefits from this practice, its more so the people making the money have more options in what they want to do with themselves, they could build a cottage in the hills, they could move to America.

One would have thought it self explanatory.

No it's not, be so kind to expand.

Do you think people don't interact within cultures?

So two people who like to drink only Guinness together invented the black Russian?
Interacting within a culture propagates that culture, it does not create anything new assuming no exogenous influences.

There is, I feel, an inherent xenophobia in the push by a few to merge cultural identities, a fear of difference.

There is no need or want to push from me here, people just don't see the sense or want to harbour the xenophobia that wants to isolate cultural identities.

So answer, how can a culture not be unique?

Hardly. Count the number of languages within the EU then get back to me.

You really have a barmat understanding of the concepts you're discussing.
Language is one of many things that form a national identity,
and a shared culture of language exists independently today and has existed independently before the concept of a nation state existed.

So, viewing that as an optimistic perspective, you would therefore agree with my point that cultural pride can be a positive thing?

I don't recall I said it couldn't be, I fully believe cultural pride is a great thing.
I don't care for national pride.
But you haven't learnt the difference yet.

This abhorrence of a national identity combined with the embracing of a cultural identity is not something that can ever be functional.

Why not?

Amhran Nua

lmtduffy wrote: »

Ok, if you must to be confident in your ignorance, lets start on a basic level here is wikipedia, now you go spot the difference and if you're still confused we can move on the theorists themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_identity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity#Primordial_or_perennial_definition

I am not here to lecture you, you ought to do your own work.

Since your entire argument seems to hinge on mentally forcing apart national identity and cultural identity, and you linked to a subsection of the actual full article on national identity in wikipedia, let me share the first sentence of the article:

A nation is a grouping of people who share common history, culture, language and ethnic origin, often possessing or seeking its own government.

And culture:

These cultural identifiers examine the condition of the subject from a variety of aspects including: place, gender, race, history, nationality, language, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity and aesthetics.

...

When considering practical association in international society, states may share an inherent part of their 'make up' that gives common ground, and alternate means of identifying with each other. Examples can be taken from both old and contemporary world order.

Pittens

In order to prevent Irish culture being wiped out, which as an Irish nationalist I assume you don't. Logic would dictate that you must prevent cultural integration. Thus nationalism has started down the long and narrow road to racism.

Theres a non-sequitor if ever there was one. A nationalist just believes that he should maintain his culture in his own land, the racist believes he has to right to impose a culture on someone outside his land because his culture, or his genetics are superior.

By your definition all opposition to European expansionism was racist, and the Europeans merely immigrants.

Also take a look at Israel. A huge number of Jewish nationalists that have no problem moving into Palistinien territory to mess up the locals.

With reference to your last statement, why cant the palestinians accept Jewish immigration? Why do they refer to Jewish immigrants as "settlers". Why do they want to impose their palestinian culture on everybody in the "occupied territories". Racists?

YOu seem to be mortally confused as to whether people moving into an area imposing their culture on the inhabitants are racists, or whether the people already there who want to maintain their culture are the racists.

I think it depends, as far as i can see, on Fashion-Think. Whatever the sociology professor gave you the A for.

But to a empirical scientist like myself, this believing two distinct absolutely opposite definitions of racism is beyond belief. ****. Pseudo-Science.

or worse, social science.

Can social scientists ever make consistent sense, even in one sentence?

Iwasfrozen

Amhran Nua wrote: »

People can make up their own minds about which culture they find most appealing - I have confidence in Irish culture. You can try to prevent integration if you like but you'll end up like the old Soviet Union.

And by doing so means a percentage will inevitably choose another culture. Thus diluting the Irish "culture" you care so much about.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

George Bush started that to avenge his daddy, and he was backed up by the hawks because Iraq was opening a euro-traded oil bourse. Nationalism had nothing to do with it.

What ? Are you honestly saying that the American Senate and Congress went along with one mans will to start a war and kill thousands in the process because of George's Father ?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Proof? Evidence? Not to mention the Democrats under Clinton presided over the release of the last fetters on large banks, bringing the global economy to its knees within six years.

Proof that the Republicans have a greater percentage of Nationalists then the Democrats ? That's like asking for proof a bannana is yellow. Anyone who knows anything about American politics wouldn't ask that question.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Whats the population of Israel as a percentage of the population of the world.

100(pop Israel/pop World) = 100(7,587,000/6,798,234,031) = 0.1%

Now I've given you your answer, what's your point ?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So the only reason to go to war is racism then?

No Wars happen for many reason. Famine, lack of water, resources, fossil fuels, and of course nationalism.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

How exactly would I have implied that in any, even the most roundabout way?

You favour mandatory Irish for the leaving cert.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So lets break it down. What percentage of the Treaty of Versailles was caused by nationalism, in your opinon, and why.

Percentage of a treaty ? What are you talking about how can one divide a treaty into percentages?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Sorry now, but you brought it up in the first place. Nationalism was the vehicle upon which the hatemongers rode, just as gunpowder was the chemical responsible for the weapons that killed millions. Neither is in and of themselves evil.

Just as gunpowder lead us down a long and narrow road to guns capable of killing thousands. So to does Nationalism force us down a long and narrow road to Racism and War.

Pittens

Now I've given you your answer, what's your point ?

Let me ask his point. Why do you care about that 0.1% rather than other ethnic conflicts. Are the anti-nationalists picking on Jews?

Amhran Nua

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And by doing so means a percentage will inevitably choose another culture. Thus diluting the Irish "culture" you care so much about.

Its pretty hard to dilute something which has infinite means of expression. Also I find it interesting that you mention culture in inverted commas. Do you feel that Ireland doesn't have a culture?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What ? Are you honestly saying that the American Senate and Congress went along with one mans will to start a war and kill thousands in the process because of George's Father ?

No, they went along with it because Iraq was setting up a Euro oil bourse, as already mentioned, which you sailed right by for some reason. George Bush, who took time out of his busy day to go and eyeball Saddam Hussein, could hardly have been described as being the motivating factor.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Proof that the Republicans have a greater percentage of Nationalists then the Democrats ? That's like asking for proof a bannana is yellow. Anyone who knows anything about American politics wouldn't ask that question.

Democrats might vehemently disagree with your statement - the major differences between the parties are on how the country is run, not on whether or not they are proud of the country.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

100(pop Israel/pop World) = 100(7,587,000/6,798,234,031) = 0.1%

Now I've given you your answer, what's your point ?

Why are you holding up a population of 0.1% as representative of the rest of the world?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You favour mandatory Irish for the leaving cert.

Okay, so anyone who favours the Irish language wants to crush other cultures? Ah this is something new... are the gaelscoils fascist training camps then? The GAA the kernel of a new reich rising in the wilds of Connemara?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Percentage of a treaty ? What are you talking about how can one divide a treaty into percentages?

You must surely be able to quantify the various factors behind the Treaty, you have after all identified a few of them. Break them down and lets hear proportions and reasons.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Just as gunpowder lead us down a long and narrow road to guns capable of killing thousands. So to does Nationalism force us down a long and narrow road to Racism and War.

Ach this is dogmatic tripe. You do know that fireworks incorporate gunpowder? And the original inventors of the stuff had many uses for it. The inventor of nitroglycerine was the originator of the Nobel peace prize.

lmtduffy

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Since your entire argument seems to hinge on mentally forcing apart national identity and cultural identity, and you linked to a subsection of the actual full article on national identity in wikipedia, let me share the first sentence of the article:

No my argument does not, deal with the rest when you're ready.
Ok I gave you more credit than I should have, I thought you could read something and consider it critically

"A nation is a grouping of people who share common history, culture, language and ethnic origin, often possessing or seeking its own government."

First you notice culture inside this definition.
Also what is a nation without a nation state?
And can a nation state exist without meeting all the above criteria?
And what to what ends must one share these things?

and nice job misquoting for you own ends:

"This new form of identification breaks down the understanding of the individual as a coherent whole subject to a collection of various cultural identifiers. These cultural identifiers examine the condition of the subject from a variety of aspects including: place, gender, race, history, nationality, language, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity and aesthetics."

Notice "a collection of various cultural identifiers", as in no one person having one culture, no two people having any of the same set of identifiers in any deep sense.

"states may share an inherent part of their 'make up' that gives common ground"- the "may" is important here, people may also identify more culturally with people of different nations and not at all with those of their nation.

Culture existed long before nations and will continue long after their decline.
As I've said before national identity presents a national culture familiar but not necessarily and unlikely to be wholly shared by the people in that nation.
One has been selectively formed for political reasons,
the other formed due to people lifestyles and habits.

And you have still failed to engage with the above.

Amhran Nua

lmtduffy wrote: »

No my argument does not, deal with the rest when you're ready.

Yes, your argument does. Also, by your own definitions and linked supporting articles, the only one that involves race is culture, not national identity. I find it pretty difficult to parse the rest of your post, grammatically, but I think the phrase "hoisted by your own petard" is applicable here.

Eliot Rosewater

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Oh but I have. You don't like the answer, but then again, you don't need to.

In the thread? Where?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Take a look in the EU forum for a thread started recently by me on the ACTA treaty, then wipe the egg off your face regarding the supposedly euro-skeptic[sic] stance.

What, you think supporting one piece of EU legislation make you pro-EU? I'd rather go with what your policy documents say, your attitude here, and your stance over the Lisbon Treaty.

lmtduffy

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Yes, your argument does. Also, by your own definitions and linked supporting articles, the only one that involves race is culture, not national identity. I find it pretty difficult to parse the rest of your post, grammatically, but I think the phrase "hoisted by your own petard" is applicable here.

What does race have to do with anything?

I have more faith in you, Im sure you can get through my post if you like- but then you'd have to engage with that Im saying which it appears you've failed to do since the beginning.

Iwasfrozen

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Its pretty hard to dilute something which has infinite means of expression. Also I find it interesting that you mention culture in inverted commas. Do you feel that Ireland doesn't have a culture?

There is no such thing a "culture" as culture all ethnic human beings belong to a single community based on shared morality. There is no such thing as an Irish "culture" only the Irish inteperation of these shared values.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Democrats might vehemently disagree with your statement - the major differences between the parties are on how the country is run, not on whether or not they are proud of the country.

Right wing parties have by their nature a greater number of Nationalists. Left wing parties due to their Marxist influences do not have such a number of Nationalists. That has always been the case.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Why are you holding up a population of 0.1% as representative of the rest of the world?

I'm not holding them up as an example of the world. I'm holding them up as an example of what happens when one has large numbers of Nationalists in a country. Indeed the entire Jewish nation was founded on some airy-fairy nationalist dream.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Okay, so anyone who favours the Irish language wants to crush other cultures? Ah this is something new... are the gaelscoils fascist training camps then? The GAA the kernel of a new reich rising in the wilds of Connemara?

Why ask me a question in your post and then answer it ? That is rather silly yoy may want to see a doctor about that.

Anyway... Those who favour mandatory Irish language lessons in school (such as you) are in effect forcing it on those of us who don't want anything to do with Irish culture (such as me).

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You must surely be able to quantify the various factors behind the Treaty, you have after all identified a few of them. Break them down and lets hear proportions and reasons.

I am not qualified to disect an international treaty. Nor would I even if I was.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Ach this is dogmatic tripe. You do know that fireworks incorporate gunpowder? And the original inventors of the stuff had many uses for it. The inventor of nitroglycerine was the originator of the Nobel peace prize.

Never tought I would hear a Nationalist accuse a free thinker of dogmatic tripe...

Pittens

First you notice culture inside this definition.
Also what is a nation without a nation state?
And can a nation state exist without meeting all the above criteria?
And what to what ends must one share these things?

What is a nation without a nation state? It s a concentration of people of one ethnic identity with historical ties to a place. Like Scotland. Which is not a nation State. But is a nation. Or Wales. Or Ireland in the United kingdom, when we were, or Hungary when it was part of the Austrio-Hungarian empire.

ireland is a nation state.
Scotland is not.
The UK is not.
Hungary is.

simple stuff, but you deliberately mix up nation with nation-states as if you were unable to follow a simple argument.

lmtduffy

Pittens wrote: »

What is a nation without a nation state? It s a concentration of people of one ethnic identity with historical ties to a place. Like Scotland. Which is not a nation State. But is a nation. Or Wales. Or Ireland in the United kingdom, when we were, or Hungary when it was part of the Austrio-Hungarian empire.

ireland is a nation state.
Scotland is not.
The UK is not.
Hungary is.

simple stuff, but you deliberately mix up nation with nation-states as if you were unable to follow a simple argument.

so you've got a difference in administration.
But were not talking about administration were talking about national and cultural identity.

Simple, it's as if you were'nt unable to follow a simple argument.

Pittens

Lol, I was answering the question you asked

Also what is a nation without a nation state

presumably that question implied : nothing.

We know the answer for a nation, what is a nation state - the smallest administrative unit that contains one nation. And the most stable political unit there is, all the rest having seperatist movements.

recedite

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Irish nationalist groups like Sinn Féin tend to be more inclusive and while glorifying Ireland and it's past, as a party do not seek to prevent immigrants from being a part of this nation.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nationalism starts one off on the path to racism.
Nationalism and Racism go hand in hand. If we had no Nationalism we would have no Racism.

Nationalism is indeed a first cousin of racism, sexism, ageism and any other "ism" which seeks to exclude one group of people from another.

But here's an interesting question; Why is Ireland the only European country where nationalism is not associated with the far right racist types and their anti immigration policies?
Could it be that this particular niche is already occupied by the more extreme elements within Ulster loyalism, and therefore an extreme Irish Nationalist (a Republican) must do the opposite, even though it pains him.
Any xenophobic urges can then be directed towards "the brits".
The situation in the Republic then becomes somewhat unstable,being further away from the brits and the unionists. The Sinn Féin leadership trys very hard at times to keep a lid on anti-immigration sentiment amongst their supporters.
Fair play to them for succeeding so far though.

Mike 1972

recedite wrote: »

But here's an interesting question; Why is Ireland the only European country where nationalism is not associated with the far right racist types and their anti immigration policies?.

The Scottish and Welsh nationalist movements (nowadays) are generally not associated with the far right racist types and their anti immigration policies either ?

recedite wrote: »

Could it be that this particular niche is already occupied by the more extreme elements within Ulster loyalism, and therefore an extreme Irish Nationalist (a Republican) must do the opposite, even though it pains him.
Any xenophobic urges can then be directed towards "the brits".?.

Yes !

recedite

Mike 1972 wrote: »

The Scottish and Welsh nationalist movements (nowadays) are generally not associated with the far right racist types and their anti immigration policies either ?

Perhaps these two wish to distance themselves from a more general "British" form of nationalism, as typified in an extreme form by the B.N.P.
Northern loyalists on the other hand would be keen to show how British they are, compared to the others on this island, and so have links to the BNP.
It's all about being different to your nearest rivals.

Mike 1972

recedite wrote: »

Northern loyalists on the other hand would be keen to show how British they are, compared to the others on this island, and so have links to the BNP.

Many (but by no means all) would have such links/sympathies with the BNP (or similar factions)

"Loyalism" is just another form of Nationalism. Only they (obviously) identify with a different Nation to "Republicans"

Lockstep

recedite wrote: »

Nationalism is indeed a first cousin of racism, sexism, ageism and any other "ism" which seeks to exclude one group of people from another.

It's really not. It's an ideology which isn't inherently left or right wing.

recedite wrote: »

But here's an interesting question; Why is Ireland the only European country where nationalism is not associated with the far right racist types and their anti immigration policies?
Could it be that this particular niche is already occupied by the more extreme elements within Ulster loyalism, and therefore an extreme Irish Nationalist (a Republican) must do the opposite, even though it pains him.
Any xenophobic urges can then be directed towards "the brits".
The situation in the Republic then becomes somewhat unstable,being further away from the brits and the unionists. The Sinn Féin leadership trys very hard at times to keep a lid on anti-immigration sentiment amongst their supporters.
Fair play to them for succeeding so far though.

There are a few others; the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Solidarity in POland and so on. Advocating the history of a nation is not inherently racist and right wing. It can be so, and often is but not automatically.

recedite

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Many (but by no means all) would have such links/sympathies with the BNP (or similar factions)

"Loyalism" is just another form of Nationalism. Only they (obviously) identify with a different Nation to "Republicans"

Absolutely.
There is a lot of overlap between geography, nation, country and state on these two small islands which complicates things. Between us we manage to send 5 soccer teams to contest the World Cup(which is fine), whereas China with one fifth of the world's population sends one.
Other than Belgium (2 factions) the situation in continental Europe is more straightforward. If you are a French nationalist, living in France, there is no chance of ever being confused with a German nationalist, and vice versa. Therefore they don't mind adopting each others policies and mannerisms, and are more likely to link up to pursue a common cause.

Mike 1972

Nationalism by its nature tends to be more of a right wing ideology than a left wing one (plenty of exceptions though) particularly the versions based in already established states (e.g. Britain, Italy, Germany)

timespast

recedite wrote: »

Nationalism is indeed a first cousin of racism, sexism, ageism and any other "ism" which seeks to exclude one group of people from another.

But here's an interesting question; Why is Ireland the only European country where nationalism is not associated with the far right racist types and their anti immigration policies?
Could it be that this particular niche is already occupied by the more extreme elements within Ulster loyalism, and therefore an extreme Irish Nationalist (a Republican) must do the opposite, even though it pains him.
Any xenophobic urges can then be directed towards "the brits".
The situation in the Republic then becomes somewhat unstable,being further away from the brits and the unionists. The Sinn Féin leadership trys very hard at times to keep a lid on anti-immigration sentiment amongst their supporters.
Fair play to them for succeeding so far though.

What absolute nonsense......I think you should read up a little on what Sinn Fein have to say on racism, immigration etc.

Sinn Fein is a Republican not Nationalist Party. However, I do believe there is a difference between Nationalists whose country hasn't become an independent state (Scotland, Wales etc) than Italian, British, German nationalists who of course are far right wing.

Iwasfrozen

timespast wrote: »

What absolute nonsense......I think you should read up a little on what Sinn Fein have to say on racism, immigration etc.

Why not tell us instead?

timespast wrote: »

Sinn Fein is a Republican not Nationalist Party. However, I do believe there is a difference between Nationalists whose country hasn't become an independent state (Scotland, Wales etc) than Italian, British, German nationalists who of course are far right wing.

Sinn Fein are nationalists, they are Irish nationalists. Although I do agree with you on the nationalists being different from various countries.

timespast

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why not tell us instead?


Sinn Fein are nationalists, they are Irish nationalists. Although I do agree with you on the nationalists being different from various countries.

From what Ive read here if I state where Sinn Fein stand on Racism and Immigration then it's "Sinn Fein hoodwinking their membership"..... damned if they do damned if they don't.

I'll tell you what.... have a pint in a rural bar with the FF and FG brigade and you'll see where middle Ireland is on Racism and Immigration.

I still disagree with you regarding SF being Nationalist. (other then the North)

Iwasfrozen

timespast wrote: »

From what Ive read here if I state where Sinn Fein stand on Racism and Immigration then it's "Sinn Fein hoodwinking their membership"..... damned if they do damned if they don't.

I'll tell you what.... have a pint in a rural bar with the FF and FG brigade and you'll see where middle Ireland is on Racism and Immigration.

What? Sorry, I'm not being funny. I really don't understand what you wrote. Where do Sinn Fein stand on immigration?

timespast wrote: »

I still disagree with you regarding SF being Nationalist. (other then the North)

Sinn Fein are nationalist, they even say so on their website!
http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/18473

timespast

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What? Sorry, I'm not being funny. I really don't understand what you wrote. Where do Sinn Fein stand on immigration?


Sinn Fein are nationalist, they even say so on their website!
http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/18473

If you read again I said "other than the North".... they can hardly describe the SDLP as Republican. (For the North they describe a Community like West Belfast as Nationalist....they can't speak for everyone as being Republican)

As you took a look at the site...... google Sinn Fein Racism, Immigration, Sexism etc etc.

Put it this way......show me where they are anti- immigration? remembering a completely open door is as stupid as a completely closed door. (my opinion)

Iwasfrozen

timespast wrote: »

If you read again I said "other than the North".... they can hardly describe the SDLP as Republican. (For the North they describe a Community like West Belfast as Nationalist....they can't speak for everyone as being Republican)

As you took a look at the site...... google Sinn Fein Racism, Immigration, Sexism etc etc.

Put it this way......show me where they are anti- immigration? remembering a completely open door is as stupid as a completely closed door. (my opinion)

Your posts are extremely hard to understand. I've asked you where do Sinn Fein stand on immigration and you are yet to give me a clear answer.

timespast

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Your posts are extremely hard to understand. I've asked you where do Sinn Fein stand on immigration and you are yet to give me a clear answer.

How are they hard to understand?

I answered your point on your link to Nationalism.

Im not here to lecture you...you took time to search......search for their immigration policy........ Ive found many links to them stating past immigration policies were racist.

All that you come up with is Sinn Fein= Nationalist= Racist.

Why don't you e mail them and ask what their policies are?

My point is that those pointing out that Sinn Fein are Nationalist and therefore racist is a crock of ****e.

Most of those with that opinion are old FF and FG who are the real Nationalists.

timespast

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Your posts are extremely hard to understand. I've asked you where do Sinn Fein stand on immigration and you are yet to give me a clear answer.

This is the last time I find something for you ..... http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/3219

I usually get paid for research.

This was back in 2003/4 if you are genuinely interested in SF's policy on immigration an e mail would take you 2 mins.

It's easy to throw around accusations (ok for politics) but harder to come up with facts.

Personally I don't give a ****e about immigration....after all...who in their right mind would want to come here?

Iwasfrozen

timespast wrote: »

How are they hard to understand?

Because your style of writing is hard to understand.

timespast wrote: »

I answered your point on your link to Nationalism.

No you didn't. Sinn Fein are a nationalist party, it say's so on their website. http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/18473

Wikipedia also lists them as nationalist on their wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_fein

I'm not sure why you are trying to argue that SF are not nationalist when they are in fact the party most associated with Irish nationalism.

timespast wrote: »

Im not here to lecture you...you took time to search......search for their immigration policy........ Ive found many links to them stating past immigration policies were racist.

The onus is on you to back up your claims, not me. I will research my own claims but I will not research yours. That's not the way internet forums work.

timespast wrote: »

All that you come up with is Sinn Fein= Nationalist= Racist.

I don't believe I've ever called SF racist.

timespast wrote: »

Why don't you e mail them and ask what their policies are?

Because they list their policies on their webpage. Which I would read if I was ever considering voting for them. But that is very un-likely to ever happen.

timespast wrote: »

My point is that those pointing out that Sinn Fein are Nationalist and therefore racist is a crock of ****e.

Is it? You still haven't provided me with SF's immigration policy. Not that being anti-immigration necessarily makes one racist but being racist certainly makes one anti-immigration. For example BNP.

timespast wrote: »

Most of those with that opinion are old FF and FG who are the real Nationalists.

Sorry, but I won't accept that FF or FG are more nationalist then SF. At least they can say they have never taken up arms against another culture post civil war.

timespast

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because your style of writing is hard to understand.


No you didn't. Sinn Fein are a nationalist party, it say's so on their website. http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/18473

Wikipedia also lists them as nationalist on their wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_fein

I'm not sure why you are trying to argue that SF are not nationalist when they are in fact the party most associated with Irish nationalism.


The onus is on you to back up your claims, not me. I will research my own claims but I will not research yours. That's not the way internet forums work.


I don't believe I've ever called SF racist.


Because they list their policies on their webpage. Which I would read if I was ever considering voting for them. But that is very un-likely to ever happen.


Is it? You still haven't provided me with SF's immigration policy. Not that being anti-immigration necessarily makes one racist but being racist certainly makes one anti-immigration. For example BNP.


Sorry, but I won't accept that FF or FG are more nationalist then SF. At least they can say they have never taken up arms against another culture post civil war.

Another culture?

Ah.... Bigotry, Gerrymandering, sub standard housing, unequal employment opportunities, 2 nd class citizens.

I think people did the very same what was done in the 26 Counties earlier was that against a culture?.

Go and listen to what our locals are saying about immigrants....the very same that vote for FG and FF.

You're just out for a bash.....if the policy on immigration isnt on their website then as I say ask them.

If you want I'll do it for you...but there will be a charge.

Iwasfrozen

timespast wrote: »

Another culture?

Yes.

timespast wrote: »

Ah.... Bigotry, Gerrymandering, sub standard housing, unequal employment opportunities, 2 nd class citizens.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

timespast wrote: »

I think people did the very same what was done in the 26 Counties earlier was that against a culture?.

What are you talking about?

timespast wrote: »

Go and listen to what our locals are saying about immigrants....the very same that vote for FG and FF.

The voice of FF or FG supporters is not necessarily the voice of FF or FG. There is a huge difference.

Also I may add that from personal experience SF supporters don't seem to be the friendliest buch with regards to immigration. I know that's only anecdotal evidence but it's more then you have given.

timespast wrote: »

You're just out for a bash.....if the policy on immigration isnt on their website then as I say ask them.

?
Didn't you read my previous posts? The onus is not on me to research your claims. I research my own claims but I don't research yours. Either back up your claim or it is redundant.

timespast wrote: »

If you want I'll do it for you...but there will be a charge.

Pay you to back up your own claim? You must be joking.

recedite

Timespast, despite your being a great research fellow and all that, you seem to be a bit out of your depth here.
If you think SF are not nationalist, then you have don't understand the meaning of the word, except in a very subjective and parochial way.

You have completely misunderstood what I said, which was that SF are not racist or anti immigration. That was the (to me) interesting point.

Finally, I know it's difficult for a SF spokesperson, but try to be less ambiguous, otherwise nobody knows what you are on about.

timespast

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes.


Two wrongs don't make a right.


What are you talking about?


The voice of FF or FG supporters is not necessarily the voice of FF or FG. There is a huge difference.

Also I may add that from personal experience SF supporters don't seem to be the friendliest buch with regards to immigration. I know that's only anecdotal evidence but it's more then you have given.


?
Didn't you read my previous posts? The onus is not on me to research your claims. I research my own claims but I don't research yours. Either back up your claim or it is redundant.


Pay you to back up your own claim? You must be joking.

I take it you don't do sarcasm.

Read the thread......most are stating SF are racist and anti immigration....what ****e.

Anecdotal ? I agree it's "only" for all I know you might have been snorting at the same time.

Ive given you a link to a statement (on immigration) made 6 years ago...there are many more.

Two wrongs dont make a right? Anything that has been achieved either side of the border unfortunately has been through violence.

You state those that are supporters of FF and FG aren't necessarily members...... erm ever considered the same with SF?

Are you sure you have thought this through?

Personally I think you just want someone to talk to and try to be a smart arse.

Hey, I just realised you wouldnt consider voting for SF and feel no need to contact them....... congrats you just wasted my time.

See you at the ard fheis comrade.

timespast

recedite wrote: »

Timespast, despite your being a great research fellow and all that, you seem to be a bit out of your depth here.
If you think SF are not nationalist, then you have don't understand the meaning of the word, except in a very subjective and parochial way.

You have completely misunderstood what I said, which was that SF are not racist or anti immigration. That was the (to me) interesting point.

Finally, I know it's difficult for a SF spokesperson, but try to be less ambiguous, otherwise nobody knows what you are on about.

Im not a SF spokesperson...... to me it appears most of you are just reading columnists from the SI or Tribune (I see nothing new) and or are first year Politics students.

I might have responded to the wrong person initially but to be honest I was reacting to the overall thread.

As you can see I think Ive been here 2 or 3 times....I don't see that as being out of my depth....after all a Forum is for the lonely and depressed...and believe me Im feeling that way tonight!

As for being ambiguous...... far from it......some like to read what they want to read.

It was the other guy who was going round in circles.

It's a forum....don't take yourself so serious.