Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Nationalism
Options
Comments
-
Amhran Nua wrote: »You're confusing those wrapped in the flag to further their own agendas (wearing the green jersey) with true cultural expression, art, poetry, music and dance, among others, which express the cultural/national identity of a people, the two are deeply intertwined. These are creative things and should be encouraged to enrich the world for everyone else.
Culture and national identity are not and should not be seen as the same thing.You think its a good idea to replace unique cultural identities with a beaurocracy?
Not what's happening, do you think its a good idea to replace Galway, Cork, Dublin cultures with the bureaucracy of an Irish state?
What's happening, just like what happens in a traditional nation, is the formal establishment of Multi-nation/actor relationships.
Nothing is being replaced, we are compounding our "unique" cultural identity with that of others in a formal and administrative manner.0 -
A strong sense of national identity doesn't mean shouting down everyone else, unless you feel threatened by everyone else, and if you do, your problem isn't your national identity.Iwasfrozen wrote: »The problem with nationalism is that one will not only devote themselves to , poetry, music and dance they will also shout down any other form of , poetry, music and dance that is "not Irish". The problem is that nationalism always fosters a sense of racism and "I'm better then you because I'm from Ireland attitude."
In the way its taught at the moment, no. I am in favour of it but the teaching methods and curriculum need to be revised, which the DoE is in the process of doing. I find it interesting that you phrase that as if it were a damning indictment one way or the other.Iwasfrozen wrote: »Are you or are you not in favour of mandatory Irish for the Leaving Cert ?
WWII had its roots in the punitive treaty of Versailles, and extreme xenophobic nationalism was just one vehicle among several that were used to heighten and focus the hatred. If it wasn't that it would have been something else - as I said, a force like any other. Also, we didn't have a world war two, our enlightened European neighbours did.Iwasfrozen wrote: »If it means we never see another World War II then yes.
You cannot deny that the two are linked at a very basic level.Culture and national identity are not and should not be seen as the same thing.
The cultures of those cities have much more in common with one another than with the rest of Europe, and as such will profit culturally by working more closely together.Not what's happening, do you think its a good idea to replace Galway, Cork, Dublin cultures with the bureaucracy of an Irish state?
Exactly what I said, verbatim that "some people" feel it would be a good thing. The European Union does not to my knowledge have as an express or implict goal the removal of national or cultural identities.What's happening, just like what happens in a traditional nation, is the formal establishment of Multi-nation/actor relationships.
Nothing is being replaced, we are compounding our "unique" cultural identity with that of others in a formal and administrative manner.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »The problem with nationalism is that one will not only devote themselves to , poetry, music and dance they will also shout down any other form of , poetry, music and dance that is "not Irish". The problem is that nationalism always fosters a sense of racism and "I'm better then you because I'm from Ireland attitude."
Nationalism can lead to that. Then again, Socialism can lead to nasty things too, but i doubt people are giving up on it, and so neither should Nationalism be given up on either.0 -
Culture may have nothing to do with national identity,You cannot deny that the two are linked at a very basic level.
but 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.
It can be troublesome to get them mixed up.The cultures of those cities have much more in common with one another than with the rest of Europe, and as such will profit culturally by working more closely together.
So what is acceptable level of commonality exactly?
What is it to profit culturally?
How do you measure it?
Is it possible to have a cultural deficit?
I dont mean to seem to be on your case here but I feel these things are arbitrary and ought to be treated as such or forgotten.
For me culture is created and propagated through interaction with others.
Culture has no boundaries; you should not treat it as it does, it may have varying gradients geographically speaking but that is only due to where people settled and the lifestyle they lead, as opposed to being intrinsically linked somehow with the land they live on, though your environment does play a part in sharing your culture via your lifestyle, but that doesn't make much of a difference to the rest of what Im saying.Exactly what I said, verbatim that "some people" feel it would be a good thing. The European Union does not to my knowledge have as an express or implict goal the removal of national or cultural identities.
yes, but it is true that the EU is playing a part in the decline of national identity, which is not necessarily a bad thing by and large and I think that culture and cultural identity at a variety of levels is becoming richer through the formalising of existing multi-nation relationships.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
And not everyone can read and write, which doesnt mean Ireland isn't a literate nation to all intents and purposes. I think you're seperating two concepts because you have observed the potentially disastrous results of one while supporting the other, not neccessarily an unjustifiable position, but causation and correlation and all that...but national identity presents a national culture familiar but not necessarily and unlikely to be wholly shared by the people in that nation.
Only if you're looking for trouble.It can be troublesome to get them mixed up.
Language, heritage, art, music, all of these, but mostly the perception that a people have of their own uniqueness and where that puts them in relation to others. It may be only in the mind but then again, so is everything except the most basic needs when you get down to it.So what is acceptable level of commonality exactly?
Tourism is a good start, popularity of shows like the Lord of the Dance is another good one (around four times the populaton of Ireland have paid good money to see that). Deficits are purely mathematical concepts, so not really.What is it to profit culturally?
How do you measure it?
Is it possible to have a cultural deficit?
Well one man's art is another man's waste of time.I dont mean to seem to be on your case here but I feel these things are arbitrary and ought to be treated as such or forgotten.
Thats called cultural cross pollinisation, which while important in its own right (witness Hellenisation of the Roman empire) isn't something to be pursued in and of itself.For me culture is created and propagated through interaction with others.
Different cultures should be celebrated for their uniqueness, not merged into a faceless morass of random spasms. This perspective is born of the fear of difference, not of some unifying nobility.Culture has no boundaries; you should not treat it as it does, it may have varying gradients geographically speaking but that is only due to where people settled and the lifestyle they lead, as opposed to being intrinsically linked somehow with the land they live on, though your environment does play a part in sharing your culture via your lifestyle, but that doesn't make much of a difference to the rest of what Im saying.
So what you're saying is that the EU is removing the unpleasant elements of nationalism while encouraging the creative elements? I agree, but how would you substantiate this claim that the EU is reducing national identity?yes, but it is true that the EU is playing a part in the decline of national identity, which is not necessarily a bad thing by and large and I think that culture and cultural identity at a variety of levels is becoming richer through the formalising of existing multi-nation relationships.0 -
Amhran Nua wrote: »And not everyone can read and write, which doesnt mean Ireland isn't a literate nation to all intents and purposes. I think you're seperating two concepts because you have observed the potentially disastrous results of one while supporting the other, not neccessarily an unjustifiable position, but causation and correlation and all that...
No, I am observing two concepts because they are two different concepts.
No is troublesome not to distinguish between cultural and national identity because they are different.Only if you're looking for trouble.Language, heritage, art, music, all of these, but mostly the perception that a people have of their own uniqueness and where that puts them in relation to others. It may be only in the mind but then again, so is everything except the most basic needs when you get down to it.
Yes but to what degree must these be the same?
What is a perception of ones own uniqueness?Tourism is a good start, popularity of shows like the Lord of the Dance is another good one (around four times the populaton of Ireland have paid good money to see that). Deficits are purely mathematical concepts, so not really.
So you mean to profit financially from your culture as opposed to profit culturally?
care to expand beyond that adage?Well one man's art is another man's waste of time.Thats called cultural cross pollinisation, which while important in its own right (witness Hellenisation of the Roman empire) isn't something to be pursued in and of itself.
No not to be pursued I agree, so where do you see culture coming from if not from peoples interactions together?Different cultures should be celebrated for their uniqueness, not merged into a faceless morass of random spasms. This perspective is born of the fear of difference, not of some unifying nobility.
Cultures should not seen as stagnant and what is this uniqueness, how can a culture no be unique?So what you're saying is that the EU is removing the unpleasant elements of nationalism while encouraging the creative elements? I agree, but how would you substantiate this claim that the EU is reducing national identity?
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.
I do not think it is how you put it removing unpleasant elements and encouraging creative elements, thats a little to optimistic for me.
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.0 -
Nationalism starts one off on the path to racism. In order to "preserve"Amhran Nua wrote: »A strong sense of national identity doesn't mean shouting down everyone else, unless you feel threatened by everyone else, and if you do, your problem isn't your national identity.
cultural identity a country must ban other cultural identities to prevent them being diluted.
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.
Nationalism and Racism go hand in hand. If we had no Nationalism we would have no Racism.
It is pretty much. You're displaying typical nationalist characteristics of forcing your culture on those who don't want it.Amhran Nua wrote: »In the way its taught at the moment, no. I am in favour of it but the teaching methods and curriculum need to be revised, which the DoE is in the process of doing. I find it interesting that you phrase that as if it were a damning indictment one way or the other.
The treaty of Versailles was a result of nationalistic British and French politicians and their desire to cripple Germany economically and militarily.Amhran Nua wrote: »WWII had its roots in the punitive treaty of Versailles, and extreme xenophobic nationalism was just one vehicle among several that were used to heighten and focus the hatred. If it wasn't that it would have been something else - as I said, a force like any other. Also, we didn't have a world war two, our enlightened European neighbours did.
World 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.
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.0 -
Lenin was true Socialist, he followed Marx's advice on a change of government via revolution. He genarally cared about his people and he wanted to see a true decentralised world government where everybody was equal.Nationalism can lead to that. Then again, Socialism can lead to nasty things too, but i doubt people are giving up on it, and so neither should Nationalism be given up on either.
Stalin however was a true Russian nationalist and had no problem destroying other countries to increase Russia's wealth. We see this with the Ukrainian famine, the invasion of Finland and Poland and the systematic rape of East Germany for forty years.
Three more reasons why Nationalism is bad for the world.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Stalin however was a true Russian nationalist
amusingly he was Georgian ...
he played on nationalism and fear to solidify his rule0 -
Advertisement
-
-
What role do you see nationalism playing today that cannot be done otherwise?
Certain forms of Nationalism can have a role in the future with regards bringing people together to work towards the same goal - unity, confidence of purpose and a better Nation. A better Nation meaning a better society. For those who don't see the value in modern globalisation and Western multicultural ideology more modern newer forms of Nationalism or Patriotism are required to work within an extremely interacted, international, yet emotionally disconnected world.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Adolf Hitler was a German patriot yet Austrian. What's your point ?
They used nationalism and played on nationalistic notions on in order to control the sheeple
... is my point0 -
Certain forms of Nationalism can have a role in the future with regards bringing people together to work towards the same goal - unity, confidence of purpose and a better Nation. A better Nation meaning a better society. For those who don't see the value in modern globalisation and Western multicultural ideology more modern newer forms of Nationalism or Patriotism are required to work within an extremely interacted, international, yet emotionally disconnected world.
could you flesh this out a bit, Im not quite sure I know what you mean?
But is what you mean that nationalism can motivate people to work towards a greater nation and that it provides people with a sense of security in an increasingly globalised world?0 -
could you flesh this out a bit, Im not quite sure I know what you mean?
But is what you mean that nationalism can motivate people to work towards a greater nation and that it provides people with a sense of security in an increasingly globalised world?
Well security would be one aspect of it. Confidence in their identity and place in the world another. A reconnection within communities away from many housing estates' current roles, simply a place where people live rather than a place people are a part of. A mindset which co-relates personal advancement with National and community interest another. There's several tangents one can go on within Nationalism away from the current, certainly media logic, of Nationalism being all about immigration, being 'far-right' and racism.0 -
-
Flamed Diving wrote: »However, Nationalists would definitely have something to say about immigration.
Wolfe Tone, if he were here, might disagree with you on that0 -
bunny shooter wrote: »Wolfe Tone, if he were here, might disagree with you on that
How anachronistic.0 -
How so? He is heralded as the originator of current Irish Nationalism and I refer you to his embracement of the dissenters which could now be substituted with foreigners0
-
bunny shooter wrote: »How so? He is heralded as the originator of current Irish Nationalism and I refer you to his embracement of the dissenters which could now be substituted with foreigners
I always taught of him more as a founder of Irish Republicanism than Continental Nationalism in Ireland.0 -
Advertisement
-
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: »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.
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: »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.
Hoo boy. So when virtually idential racial groups go to war, thats what exactly?Iwasfrozen wrote: »Nationalism and Racism go hand in hand. If we had no Nationalism we would have no Racism.
How does that work?Iwasfrozen wrote: »It is pretty much. You're displaying typical nationalist characteristics of forcing your culture on those who don't want it.
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: »The treaty of Versailles was a result of nationalistic British and French politicians and their desire to cripple Germany economically and militarily.
So, not racism then.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.
This is painful. Your whole objection to the idea of taking pride in your culture and expressing it creatively, is nazi Germany?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.0 -
You can say it as much as you like, and it still won't be accurate.No, I am observing two concepts because they are two different concepts.
So eh, when one culture resides almost entirely within the boundaries of one geographical nation, what happens then.No is troublesome not to distinguish between cultural and national identity because they are different.
What is a rose, or a cauliflower?Yes but to what degree must these be the same?
What is a perception of ones own uniqueness?
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.So you mean to profit financially from your culture as opposed to profit culturally?
One would have thought it self explanatory.care to expand beyond that adage?
Do you think people don't interact within cultures?No not to be pursued I agree, so where do you see culture coming from if not from peoples interactions together?
There is, I feel, an inherent xenophobia in the push by a few to merge cultural identities, a fear of difference.Cultures should not seen as stagnant and what is this uniqueness, how can a culture no be unique?
Hardly. Count the number of languages within the EU then get back to me.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.
So, viewing that as an optimistic perspective, you would therefore agree with my point that cultural pride can be a positive thing?I do not think it is how you put it removing unpleasant elements and encouraging creative elements, thats a little to optimistic for me.
This abhorrence of a national identity combined with the embracing of a cultural identity is not something that can ever be functional.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.0 -
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.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.
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.
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: »Hoo boy. So when virtually idential racial groups go to war, thats what exactly?
I wrote in my post: forcing your culture on those who don't want it.Amhran Nua wrote: »How does that work?
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: »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?
That's not even a response. Unless you're going to take this seriously I'm not going to bother.Amhran Nua wrote: »So, not racism then.
Only you could add up two and three to get seven.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?
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 ?0 -
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: »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.
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: »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.
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: »The Republicans started the Second Gulf war without any evidence of WMDs.
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: »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.
Whats the population of Israel as a percentage of the population of the world.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.
So the only reason to go to war is racism then?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.
How exactly would I have implied that in any, even the most roundabout way?Iwasfrozen wrote: »I wrote in my post: forcing your culture on those who don't want it.
So lets break it down. What percentage of the Treaty of Versailles was caused by nationalism, in your opinon, and why.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.
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.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 ?0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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: »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".
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: »Add to this their pussy-footing over the Lisbon treaty.
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 wrote: »If I remember correctly, the US was against harsh measures and the French were distinctly for them. I would attribute that to nationalism.0 -
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.0 -
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: »Would you like to tell us why?
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: »How, pray tell, does that relate to your party's evasive attitude towards the Lisbon Treaty?
And once again through the looking glass...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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0
Advertisement