National pride

Synthol

Prune Tracy wrote: »

But we have families, neighbourhoods, communities, clubs, teams, villages, towns, cities, societies, cultures. Nations are just a bigger version of those. I don't agree with rabid national pride but I'm OK with people embracing their identity while respecting that of others

Seeking a sense of belonging is natural.

So just because it's natural then that means that it's good? Viruses are natural, earthquakes are natural.

Synthol

GMSA wrote: »

What better way to display your national identity and loyalty than a national flag.
Or referred to as a fleg in some parts.

Yeah like a sheep.

Synthol

Noo wrote: »

Tribes have been fighting over land since the forever, its a resouces and territorial thing. It still goes on the the depths of the rainforest where countries do not exist. It is not a new concept...its human nature and has evolved into the county system we know now.

Even if the world was one big happy planet with no borders, groups will settle somewhere plentiful and defend that area for survival. Its simple primative stuff here people!

Defend that area for survival? Are we in the pre historic times or something?

Synthol

Edward M wrote: »

Imagine a world with Donald Trump as President!

Imagine a world where there is no fake news.

Roger Hassenforder

Synthol wrote: »

Ok add another 2000 years, better?

I reckoned you'd be still ok if your said that in the 3500s...

Noo

Synthol wrote: »

Defend that area for survival? Are we in the pre historic times or something?

Yeah youre right, I cant think of one single instance in modern times where a country has invaded another for a natural resource and claimed it all in the name of their own national pride and values.

Wanderer78

Noo wrote:

Yeah youre right, I can think of one single instance in modern times where a country has invaded another for a natural resource and claimed it all in the name of their own national pride and values.

In the name of 'democracy' so I believe!

gozunda

Synthol wrote: »

What's up with the national anthems and being proud of your own country? To the point where you would cause conflict. It's literally a piece of land that you were born on by pure luck, borders were drawn with a pencil and then the people said this land is mine! It's the same piece of land as everywhere else. Imagine how great a world would be if it was just a single country with no borders and would be just like the earth has intended instead of imaginary borders drawn with a pencil by humans who decided that this particular piece of land is mine! And everyone should be proud of being born on this specific piece of land which is the same as all the others, but imaginary borders!

.

Its called national sovergnity. Look it up. In its most basic sense - Its a terriority in which people have selected to live and call home. Even groups of animals have territories and defend them so as to ensure their survival. We are animals- we do the same.

Who or what are you claiming that "has intended" anything? What about natural borders such as oceans and mountain ranges - should they be obliterated as well? Drain the oceans and flatten the mountains because we have a subset of humanity that wishes to do what they like because they demand it so?

Throw open the nation's of the world and you will have every despotic ruller and crackpot group dominating the planet in no time. Oh wait thats happening already ..

The problem with your thesis is that you assume that everyone has logical and / or unselfish motives ...

animaal

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I've no problem with nationality but when there's excessvie pride about it it just becomes arrogant. Ireland is the best country in the world? Why - because they were born there?

I honestly don't recall anybody saying Ireland's the best country in the world - the closest was that time Enda Kenny promised to make us "the best little country in the world in which to do business".

But in general, I am proud of being Irish. This country isn't just somewhere we found ourselves for the first time yesterday morning. We actively make it what it is. We decide who runs the place. We decide the constitution and (indirectly) the laws. And we (or at least some of us) get taxed to the hilt to pay for it all. Why not take pride in it?

Sure, there are things that need to be fixed. And they deserve attention too. But the big picture is that we're doing a much better job than most of the world. There's no harm in recognising that. There are plenty of people who are quick enough to hit us over the head with it (i.e. we should be giving more to other countries because we're doing so much better).

gozunda

Synthol wrote: »

So just because it's natural then that means that it's good? Viruses are natural, earthquakes are natural.

You make the basic assumption that such things can be ascribed as "good" or "bad" ... The fact is they are as they are what they are ..

But yes believe it or not such forces are indeed part of our world. These very forces have created the planet on which we live. Viruses also have a role in reducing and controlling population numbers much as the same way as lions do with antelope etc. Earthquakes are part of earths tectonic movements by which the planet surface is created and recreated.

What I believe the poster was getting at was that as humans the seeeking a sense of belonging is natural to us. It's part of our biology and who we are. We can no more stop that than stop earthquakes.

mdebets

“Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious”
— Oscar Wilde


“Nationalism is an infantile thing. It is the measles of mankind.”
— Albert Einstein

gozunda

mdebets wrote: »

“Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious”
— Oscar Wilde

“Nationalism is an infantile thing. It is the measles of mankind.”
— Albert Einstein

I presume your essays always got rubbish marks? You do know you are supposed to make a point or argument and then support it using quotes or examples? It's the back of the class for you ...

animaal

mdebets wrote: »

“Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious”
— Oscar Wilde


“Nationalism is an infantile thing. It is the measles of mankind.”
— Albert Einstein

Individuals who were great in one area, commenting on something else entirely. To be fair, their opinions were shaped by what was going on in the world around them at the time. But we can use quotes from respected people to further any cause...

"Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals"
— Gandhi on black people

"The female is a female by virtue of a certain lack of qualities; we should regard the female nature as afflicted with a natural defectiveness"
— Aristotle

"I would suggest that you analyze the whole situation and see if there is anything within your personality that arouses this tyrannical response from your husband."
— Martin Luther King to an abused wife

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

wakka12 wrote: »

Lots of circumstances beyond your control contribute to your personality. Your country might do that too, if you're from saudi arabia or syria or china or anywhere really the countries cultures,laws, economic problems, social problems will shape your personality and your opinions

This depends on whether it is an important factor in so. If you use the word "Irish" to describe someone, either you're describing someone very boring or you yourself are very boring if that's the first thing that comes to mind about their personality.

Being from a country tells me absolutly nothing about a person.

Anyway I don't see what removing borders would do to alleviate any nationalism. People would simply attach themselves to a county/state or city they reside in rather than the country, my city is better than your city... Cityism would replace nationalism, its simply a different scale of the same thing.Thats the only change there would be

It just wouldn't be called nationalism. There will always be borders as long as mankind is on the Earth. They might not be physical, political ones though.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

animaal wrote: »

I honestly don't recall anybody saying Ireland's the best country in the world - the closest was that time Enda Kenny promised to make us "the best little country in the world in which to do business".

But in general, I am proud of being Irish. This country isn't just somewhere we found ourselves for the first time yesterday morning. We actively make it what it is. We decide who runs the place. We decide the constitution and (indirectly) the laws. And we (or at least some of us) get taxed to the hilt to pay for it all. Why not take pride in it?

Sure, there are things that need to be fixed. And they deserve attention too. But the big picture is that we're doing a much better job than most of the world. There's no harm in recognising that. There are plenty of people who are quick enough to hit us over the head with it (i.e. we should be giving more to other countries because we're doing so much better).

But again - none of this tells me anything about who you are (other than a blindly loyal followed of democracy - nut you could be that and from any one of a number of different countries)

animaal

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But again - none of this tells me anything about who you are (other than a blindly loyal followed of democracy - nut you could be that and from any one of a number of different countries)

Yes, all true.

I don't think pride in my country says anything much about me either. It's fine for people from any country/society to be proud of the effort in creating an environment allowing them to flourish. I'm Irish and proud of what we have accomplished here, but that doesn't mean I think other countries can't also be proud.

Going back to the OP, I never understood the whole "Pride being a sin" thing that is ingrained in society. I have pride in my own accomplishments, in my family, in my country, in mankind as a whole. Isn't it amazing that a bunch of short-lived, smelly, instinct-driven animals (talking about mankind, not just about the Irish!) have such an understanding of the universe around us?

Edward M

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But again - none of this tells me anything about who you are (other than a blindly loyal followed of democracy - nut you could be that and from any one of a number of different countries)

I'm Irish, proud of who I am and believe in democracy.
That doesn't mean I'm proud of everything Irish or that happens in the name of Ireland.
I would call myself Irish if asked where from by someone in a foreign country, just as a way of letting them know my geographical location.
Society has evolved and being from somewhere now doesent necessarily mean you are culturally what people might expect. Humans do tend to have a more global identity now I feel.

donegaLroad

we are territorial by nature. In order for every nation to pull together and work as one, an alien invasion would need to happen.

Prune Tracy

Synthol wrote: »

So just because it's natural then that means that it's good?

Well what's actually wrong with just wanting to belong? I'm not talking about when nationalism goes negative - I'm just talking about the basic want/need to belong/identify.

mdebets wrote: »

“Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious”
— Oscar Wilde


“Nationalism is an infantile thing. It is the measles of mankind.”
— Albert Einstein

Depends on the nationalism/patriotism surely.

topper75

Merle said it best:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1Uyv6RmNyM

Grayson

boarders, nationalism, clannishness, cliques in work etc... They're all ways of identifying with a group. And it's normally harmless. It brings people together. The problem is when your group impinges on the rights or happiness of another. Or when one group thinks that it's group is simply better than everyone in other groups.

Shenshen

donegaLroad wrote: »

we are territorial by nature. In order for every nation to pull together and work as one, an alien invasion would need to happen.

So you think of nature as being entirely and eternally immutable?

server down

mdebets wrote: »

“Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious”
— Oscar Wilde


“Nationalism is an infantile thing. It is the measles of mankind.”
— Albert Einstein

I always doubt quotes from Einstein are real. And Wilde was a an eternal sophomore.

server down

Shenshen wrote: »

So you think of nature as being entirely and eternally immutable?

If you are going to have a world government you will need to accept the votes of the majority of the world on all issues, including issues of morality.

So say goodbye to Gay Marriage, and say hello to homosexuality being illegal again. And lots of other laws that are not liberal western.

Anyway, its not the States that cause the nationalism but the nations or ethnic groups that pre-exist in those States.

Hitman3000

server down wrote:

I always doubt quotes from Einstein are real. And Wilde was a an eternal sophomore.

' All attributed quotes on the internet are beyond question'
Abraham Lincoln

riffmongous

server down wrote: »

If you are going to have a world government you will need to accept the votes of the majority of the world on all issues, including issues of morality.

So say goodbye to Gay Marriage, and say hello to homosexuality being illegal again. And lots of other laws that are not liberal western.

Anyway, its not the States that cause the nationalism but the nations or ethnic groups that pre-exist in those States.

You could enshrine them as basic rights though.

I am personally in favour of positive nationalism, but I dont believe talk of it being in our blood or dna and that's just how was and ever shall be, humanity is starting to change quite fast considering how long we have been on the earth, and unless we send ourselves back to the stone age again I think within a few hundred years we'll be at the level of world government with one citizenry.

In the coming years though I think the biggest threat to our own nationalism will not be radical change from outside the 'West', but a general blanding down of our Irish culture due to Americanisation (with also a smaller influence from Britishness). Traditions that had long stood the test of time are quickly being lost amongst the youth

ArchXStanton

According to the EU nationalism is bad,meanwhile they want us to think of ourselves as Europeans first and foremost...

Nationalism = bad
EU nationalism = good

Shenshen

server down wrote: »

If you are going to have a world government you will need to accept the votes of the majority of the world on all issues, including issues of morality.

So say goodbye to Gay Marriage, and say hello to homosexuality being illegal again. And lots of other laws that are not liberal western.

Anyway, its not the States that cause the nationalism but the nations or ethnic groups that pre-exist in those States.

Interesting - we moved form "It's human nature and cannot be changed" to "would you want to be put into one group with people I would consider to be less developed".

To be quite frank, I found it disgusting that the human rights of gay people should ever have had to be put to a public vote in the first place, but there you go, democracy demanded that the majority be happy to "allow" a minority equal rights.

Not that that has anything to do with the topic at hand. Ethnic groups are an interesting point. Form the point of ethnicity, the vast majority of current nations are entirely artificial products, anyway.
A person from Bavaria would feel culturally much closer connected to someone from South Tyrol than to someone from Usedom.

I recently read an opinion piece in an online newspaper in which the author speculated about the future of nation states within super-national structures such as the EU. He made a very convincing argument that a very likely development would be the breaking up of the current nation states along ethnic lines (see Scotland for an example, Catalonia for another), while remaining in the framework provided by the super-national federation. Please bear in mind that we're not talking about a timeframe of days or weeks here, but decades.
How far this regionalistion my go would be very interesting to see. City states, maybe, as they would provide the most efficient and direct local administration. But still all bound into a larger group, without borders between the members.

Prune Tracy

riffmongous wrote: »

In the coming years though I think the biggest threat to our own nationalism will not be radical change from outside the 'West', but a general blanding down of our Irish culture due to Americanisation (with also a smaller influence from Britishness). Traditions that had long stood the test of time are quickly being lost amongst the youth

This is my fear. I like different cultures alongside each other. I don't want a watered down, uniform, homogenous "blend" - that is the very antithesis of diversity.

Shenshen

ArchXStanton wrote: »

According to the EU nationalism is bad,meanwhile they want us to think of ourselves as Europeans first and foremost...

Nationalism = bad
EU nationalism = good

Interesting - can you please link me to the corresponding EU declaration?

Taylor365

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

A borderless world will never happen.

Ever.

Oh it will....














.....when life itself is snuffed out. Even primitive animals have borders/perimeters.

topper75

ArchXStanton wrote: »

According to the EU nationalism is bad,meanwhile they want us to think of ourselves as Europeans first and foremost...

Nationalism = bad
EU nationalism = good

"There will be no federal EU so long as one Irishman lives and breathes so shove that blue flag up your jacksie."
Topper J Wilde.

server down

riffmongous wrote: »

You could enshrine them as basic rights though.

I am personally in favour of positive nationalism, but I dont believe talk of it being in our blood or dna and that's just how was and ever shall be, humanity is starting to change quite fast considering how long we have been on the earth, and unless we send ourselves back to the stone age again I think within a few hundred years we'll be at the level of world government with one citizenry.

YOu would need to create an unmodifable constitution for the world government, before creating the government. And this constitution would legalise gay marriage in (the country formally known as) Saudi Arabia, and across the middle east? Good luck with that.

In the coming years though I think the biggest threat to our own nationalism will not be radical change from outside the 'West', but a general blanding down of our Irish culture due to Americanisation (with also a smaller influence from Britishness). Traditions that had long stood the test of time are quickly being lost amongst the youth

I mean that ship has sailed. Its one of the reasons why Irish people dont defend their culture much. There isnt one.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Synthol wrote: »

What's up with the national anthems and being proud of your own country? To the point where you would cause conflict. It's literally a piece of land that you were born on by pure luck, borders were drawn with a pencil and then the people said this land is mine! It's the same piece of land as everywhere else. Imagine how great a world would be if it was just a single country with no borders and would be just like the earth has intended instead of imaginary borders drawn with a pencil by humans who decided that this particular piece of land is mine! And everyone should be proud of being born on this specific piece of land which is the same as all the others, but imaginary borders!

Our border is not a line drawn with pencil, its a physical border and either comprises the coastline from Louth clockwise to Donegal or streams/rivers which separate the 26 counties from the 6 counties in NI.

server down

Shenshen wrote: »

Interesting - we moved form "It's human nature and cannot be changed" to "would you want to be put into one group with people I would consider to be less developed".

Er, I didnt say anything about human nature, nor about it not being changeable. And I didnt say anything about other cultures being less developed either, thats your definition. of cultures with no gay marriage rights, not mine.

To be quite frank, I found it disgusting that the human rights of gay people should ever have had to be put to a public vote in the first place, but there you go, democracy demanded that the majority be happy to "allow" a minority equal rights.

Nice but irrelevant in actual practice and law, since we needed to change the constitution.

Not that that has anything to do with the topic at hand.

It clearly does. If you want no borders you need one government. I was trying to work out what laws this government would have.

Ethnic groups are an interesting point. Form the point of ethnicity, the vast majority of current nations are entirely artificial products, anyway.
A person from Bavaria would feel culturally much closer connected to someone from South Tyrol than to someone from Usedom.

However nation states are not that artifical, at least they are not random lines on the map?

I recently read an opinion piece in an online newspaper in which the author speculated about the future of nation states within super-national structures such as the EU. He made a very convincing argument that a very likely development would be the breaking up of the current nation states along ethnic lines (see Scotland for an example, Catalonia for another), while remaining in the framework provided by the super-national federation. Please bear in mind that we're not talking about a timeframe of days or weeks here, but decades.
How far this regionalistion my go would be very interesting to see. City states, maybe, as they would provide the most efficient and direct local administration. But still all bound into a larger group, without borders between the members.

That seems to be more nationalism, not less. Scotland is moving from one union to another for sure, but it will have much more control over its destiny than it had for many years in the British union. At least for now.

Europe isnt in fact, despite what someone just said above, trying to create a European nationalism. Besides some town twinnings, a dull flag, and the Beethoven tune there's not much.

ArchXStanton

server down wrote: »

Er, I didnt say anything about human nature, nor about it not being changeable. And I didnt say anything about other cultures being less developed either, thats your definition. of cultures with no gay marriage rights, not mine.



Nice but irrelevant in actual practice and law, since we needed to change the constitution.



It clearly does. If you want no borders you need one government. I was trying to work out what laws this government would have.




However nation states are not that artifical, at least they are not random lines on the map?



That seems to be more nationalism, not less. Scotland is moving from one union to another for sure, but it will have much more control over its destiny than it had for many years in the British union. At least for now.

Europe isnt in fact, despite what someone just said above, not trying to create a European nationalism. Besides some town twinnings, a dull flag, and the Beethoven tune there's not much.

You mustn't follow too closely what comes out of Brussels and Eurocrats...a rabid fanatical bunch

Shenshen

server down wrote: »

Er, I didnt say anything about human nature, nor about it not being changeable. And I didnt say anything about other cultures being less developed either, thats your definition. of cultures with no gay marriage rights, not mine.

You replied to my answer to that very question, though, did you not?

It clearly does. If you want no borders you need one government. I was trying to work out what laws this government would have.


However nation states are not that artifical, at least they are not random lines on the map?

Why would you require just one government? Look at Germany, for example - lots of government, each state has it's own. Responsibilities are shared with a national government, which in turn is regulated by various other institutions, such as the EU, the UN, etc.

And yes, national borders are random lines on a map. It's just that since the end of WW II, nobody has bothered shifting them much. Previous to that, they were as mobile as a camper van.

That seems to be more nationalism, not less. Scotland is moving from one union to another for sure, but it will have much more control over its destiny than it had for many years in the British union. At least for now.

Europe isnt in fact, despite what someone just said above, trying to create a European nationalism. Besides some town twinnings, a dull flag, and the Beethoven tune there's not much.

I wasn't talking about nationalism, but borders.
And to clarify, not open borders the way we see them today, but borders like the ones I grew up with, complete with full checkpoints, armed customs officials, sniffer dogs, and, in some cases, barbed wire, mines and spring guns.

The Highwayman

Synthol wrote: »

What's up with the national anthems and being proud of your own country? To the point where you would cause conflict. It's literally a piece of land that you were born on by pure luck, borders were drawn with a pencil and then the people said this land is mine! It's the same piece of land as everywhere else. Imagine how great a world would be if it was just a single country with no borders and would be just like the earth has intended instead of imaginary borders drawn with a pencil by humans who decided that this particular piece of land is mine! And everyone should be proud of being born on this specific piece of land which is the same as all the others, but imaginary borders!

Idiotic SJW, leftist, millennial, communist, rubbish. Borders and walls have let the world move forward. Not all cultures and society's are equal. The Romans built the colosseum 2000 years ago. Today millions are still living in mud huts in Africa. Thank God for borders that keep the savages and barbarians out.

Realt Dearg Sec

The Highwayman wrote: »

Idiotic SJW, leftist, millennial, communist, rubbish. Borders and walls have let the world move forward. Not all cultures and society's are equal. The Romans built the colosseum 2000 years ago. Today millions are still living in mud huts in Africa. Thank God for borders that keep the savages and barbarians out.

Did you ever ask yourself what actually happened in the Colosseum?

server down

Shenshen wrote: »

You replied to my answer to that very question, though, did you not?

No

Why would you require just one government? Look at Germany, for example - lots of government, each state has it's own. Responsibilities are shared with a national government, which in turn is regulated by various other institutions, such as the EU, the UN, etc.

Ok, so we are borderless already. A state has a constitution which over-rides local or State constitutions. If all you want is to create a world government which is as powerful as the UN then we have a world Government already.

And yes, national borders are random lines on a map. It's just that since the end of WW II, nobody has bothered shifting them much. Previous to that, they were as mobile as a camper van.

No they are not. If we had random lines on a Map we would have lots more separatist movements. Nation states are not just States. Some historic nations were split up - east and west Germany, and north and south Korea.

Some states are multi-national, like the UK. In multi-national states there tend to be separatist movements. In some parts of the world two competing nationalities are in conflict, like Northern Ireland. Nation states tend to be stable, mult-national states tend not to be.

( and by multi-national I dont mean multi-cultural. I mean countries with a ethnic or language group that was historically in the majority in a certain area).

In fact random lines on a Map is what colonialism left Africa and to a certain extent the middle east and it doesnt work.

I wasn't talking about nationalism, but borders.
And to clarify, not open borders the way we see them today, but borders like the ones I grew up with, complete with full checkpoints, armed customs officials, sniffer dogs, and, in some cases, barbed wire, mines and spring guns.

Well nobody wants that back within Europe, although it may happen in IReland yet.

Shenshen

server down wrote: »

No they are not. If we had random lines on a Map we would have lots more separatist movements. Nation states are not just States. Some historic nations were split up - east and west Germany, and north and south Korea.

Some states are multi-national, like the UK. In multi-national states there tend to be separatist movements. In some parts of the world two competing nationalities are in conflict, like Northern Ireland. Nation states tend to be stable, mult-national states tend not to be.

( and by multi-national I dont mean multi-cultural. I mean countries with a ethnic or language group that was historically in the majority in a certain area).

In fact random lines on a Map is what colonialism left Africa and to a certain extent the middle east and it doesnt work.

Germany as a nation came into existence in 1871. It's borders then bear no resemblance to its borders today.
Poland didn't exist as a nation between 1795 and 1918.
Austria's borders today would be unrecognisable to someone 100 years ago.
Belgium didn't exist until 1830
If you lived in Alsace at any time before 1945, you may well have had to change nationality a few times during your lifetime.

All those (former) borders are entirely artificial.

But I do take it as a very positive result of Europe's very recent history that people these days assume that our borders are naturally grown and immutable rather than the random result of the latest bout of violence - it speaks of decades of peace that would allow such an assumption to grow.

server down

Shenshen wrote: »

Germany as a nation came into existence in 1871. It's borders then bear no resemblance to its borders today.

Not talking about boders. I am talking about nations, or peoples with cultural or linguistic similarities. The germans existed before the State existed.

Poland didn't exist as a nation between 1795 and 1918.

ireland didnt exist as a State until 1921. The Irish people existed before that. Polish people didnt blink out of existance between 1795 and 1918 either. If they did they would have stayed in Russia and considered themselves Russian.

Austria's borders today would be unrecognisable to someone 100 years ago.

Thats right, the artifical construct called the Austro Hungarian empire collapsed.

Belgium didn't exist until 1830

Its a non-nation State, hence the seperatist movements. Thats one of the remaining non nation states in Europe, the UK is another.

If you lived in Alsace at any time before 1945, you may well have had to change nationality a few times during your lifetime.

However people's nationality didnt change.

All those (former) borders are entirely artificial.

The artifical one's broke up. So yes.

But I do take it as a very positive result of Europe's very recent history that people these days assume that our borders are naturally grown and immutable rather than the random result of the latest bout of violence - it speaks of decades of peace that would allow such an assumption to grow.

In this entire sequence of nonsense you are deliberately using nation in the sense that I didnt use it. I specifically said Nation-States are not artifical constructs.

You on the other hand are using the term Nation as synomous with the State. Its true that these terms are sometimes interchangable but not when we are explaining the difference between a nation state, and some other kind of multi-national state.

So yes states come and go, but nations dont. And nation states are stable because they dont have sub-nations who want to separate. The UK, being multi-national, has seperatists movement. Germany being a nation state does not.

EDIT:

or as wiki sez

A nation state or nation-state is a type of state that joins the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state.[1] A state is specifically a political and geopolitical entity, whilst a nation is a cultural or ethnic one. The term "nation state" implies that the two coincide, in that a state has chosen to adopt and endorse a specific cultural group as associated with it.

server down

If you are finding this difficult look to our neighbour. In international competitions the Scottish, Welsh and English have seperate national teams. They belong to one State.

Shenshen

server down wrote: »

Not talking about boders. I am talking about nations, or peoples. The germans existed before the State existed.




ireland didnt exist as a State until 1921. The Irish people existed before that. Polish people didnt blink out of existance between 1795 and 1918 either. If they did they would have stayed in Russia and considered themselves Russian.



Thats right, the artifical construct called the Austro Hungarian empire collapsed.



Its a non-nation State, hence the seperatist movements. Thats one of the remaining non nation states in Europe, the UK is another.



However people's nationality didnt change.



The artifical one's broke up. So yes.



In this entire sequence of nonsense you are deliberately using nation in the sense that I didnt use it. I specifically said Nation-States are not artifical constructs.

You on the other hand are using the term Nation as synomous with the State. Its true that these terms are sometimes interchangable but not when we are explaining the difference between a nation state, and some other kind of multi-national state.

So yes states come and go, but nations dont. And nation states are stable because they dont have sub-nations who want to separate. The UK, being multi-national, has seperatists movement. Germany being a nation state does not.

Germany does have separatist movements, they're just not as strong as in other nations. Bavaria has a party that wants to bring back the Bavarian monarchy, Friesland has a movement that wants to split from both Germany and the Netherlands to form an independent state, etc.

Nearly every nation today is an amalgamation or a part of previous nations, that were just as artificial.

Yes, people did exist before nations, I never claimed they didn't?

Shenshen

server down wrote: »

If you are finding this difficult look to our neighbour. In international competitions the Scottish, Welsh and English have seperate national teams. They belong to one State.

And here I was thinking that was simply because they each had founded a football association independently and never agreed to join.

And what about Northern Ireland in that scenario?

Junkyard Tom

It's those tidy towns bastards with their civic pride that are the dangerous ones. One day they're planting flowers on the street and the next they've created a city state and plunder a continent.

server down

Shenshen wrote: »

And here I was thinking that was simply because they each had founded a football association independently and never agreed to join.

No, the FA existed before the IFA, SFA and FAW. For ten years or so.

Anyway why would the Scottish break away from the FA ( or even found their own to begin with) unless they considered themselves different enough to do so? Why not stay in a UK interntional and league?

Anyway the footie is just one example. Do you think Scotland is a nation? It clearly isnt a State.

And what about Northern Ireland in that scenario?

I already said that Northern Ireland had two competing nationalities. It's not a nation state ( it is part of the UK State) but were it its own country it wouldnt be a nation state either. It would be a mess.

riffmongous

server down wrote: »

YOu would need to create an unmodifable constitution for the world government, before creating the government. And this constitution would legalise gay marriage in (the country formally known as) Saudi Arabia, and across the middle east? Good luck with that.



I mean that ship has sailed. Its one of the reasons why Irish people dont defend their culture much. There isnt one.

Go back 100, 200 years and how many would have thought gay marriage would be legalised anywhere?

AMKC

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Humans would kick the **** out of each other regardless of whether there were open or closed borders.

It is in our DNA.

This Socialist concept of the "Brotherhood of Man" where everyone lives in peace and harmony is a myth.

It will never happen.

I don't believe that at all. There is good in everyone we are not born to hate people are thought it unfortunately. When that stops the Human race will learn to live together as one race no matter our colour, our gender or the piece of land we are on or our sexuality. It might not happen in our lifetime but I do believe it will happen but it might take a terrible war for it too happen for humans to see how stupid and wrong they were fighting over stupid and things that don,t do them any harm and to start working together as one race for the betterment of the human race so we can go out into space and find new worlds and lifeforms to share our uniqueness with and to learn from them and there culture and way of doing things.

Hitman3000

AMKC wrote:

I don't believe that at all. There is good in everyone we are not born to hate people are thought it unfortunately. When that stops the Human race will learn to live together as one race no matter our colour, our gender or the piece of land we are on or our sexuality. It might not happen in our lifetime but I do believe it will happen but it might take a terrible war for it too happen for humans to see how stupid and wrong they were fighting over stupid and things that don,t do them any harm and to start working together as one race for the betterment of the human race so we can go out into space and find new worlds and lifeforms to share our uniqueness with and to learn from them and there culture and way of doing things.

Actually humans are going to be fighting even more as resources get scarcer.