[macintologist]

A friend told me in a conversation on MSN.

It really shudders me when people just can't see obvious reality and stand blindly behind something just because it's part or a product of a section of your nation. I think nationalism has been necessary at one point in history to unify it's people at a time where communication was slim and there had been much more dispersed hatred. At this current date however nationalism is just an excuse for wrong political actions and hatred between nations. It's as though the local hatred has been combined and formed into a nationalistc hatred which, if not kept under control, may eventually destroy our society. The ones profiting in our society are not the ones that believe in lies such as nationalism. They ignore nationalism, which, to a great extent, is the right thing to do.

Discuss™

[vmarks]

Your sig translation is a little off.

B'dam is "in blood"
B'roh is "in soul"

You've got them out of order, and are using 'with' instead of 'in.'

As for nationalism, it is possible to be loyal to your own country and be active economically globally. "The ones profiting in our society are the ones who abhor nationalism" says your friend, which sounds like a backwards way of saying that globalization is what brings them profit. Certainly nationalism has shown its ugly side, as anyone who's heard the "Horst Wessel" song knows- but there's also some value in nationalism, and if you can't identify it, more's the shame. American nationalism is based on values, rather than ethnicity.

One should start off with a basic distinction that exists between “nation” and “state”. The nation is a cultural unit. The state is political. A nation is a group of people who share the same culture. A state (or as some would prefer, a body politic) is a group of people who are united in allegiance to the same sovereign authority.

From this preliminary outline, it should be quite evident that what we refer to as nationalism is quite often something else. Strictly speaking, nationalism is loyalty to one’s cultural values. We use the term nationalism more diffusely, quite often including in it not merely loyalty to the cultural unit, but loyalty to the political unit as well. Quite often, it is used in place of a term that has lost prominence today: patriotism.

If you're lobbying for anti-statism, that most often disolves into anarchist thinking. Is that what you're going after?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macintologist:
A friend told me in a conversation on MSN.



Discuss™

I'm curious, how much does do you think the fact you live in Cyprus colors your views on this? I imagine that it might.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm curious, how much does do you think the fact you live in Cyprus colors your views on this? I imagine that it might.

errrrrr......

whhoooossshhhhhh

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
errrrrr......

whhoooossshhhhhh

Why whoosh? Cyprus is divided between Greeks and Turkish Cypriots with the border patrolled by the longest-running UN Peacekeeping operation in the world. Can you conceive of the connection between that and a discussion of, and perceptions of the issue of nationalism?

Sometimes your attacks on me have a kneejerk quality. It was an honest question. Stop being such a jerk for once.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Why whoosh? Cyprus is divided between Greeks and Turkish Cypriots with the border patrolled by the longest-running UN Peacekeeping operation in the world. Can you conceive of the connection between that and a discussion of, and perceptions of the issue of nationalism?

Sometimes your attacks on me have a kneejerk quality. It was an honest question. Stop being such a jerk for once.

sorry, I misinterpreted your post to be yet another right-wing belittlement of anyone's opinion who is not american....in which case, it would have been an example of nationalism gone awry, and therefore would have indicated that the point of the originating post went over your head.

I thought YOU were being a complete jerk, and that's why I responded as I did.

If you weren't being a jerk, I apologize.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If you weren't being a jerk, I apologize.

If you mean the apology, I accept.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If you mean the apology, I accept.

and I accept yours.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and I accept yours.

For what? You attacked me. Wrongly. But you did correctly apologize, sort of. Now, enough of this. I asked a question of macintologist, who no doubt has no interest in collateral squabbling.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
For what? You attacked me. Wrongly. But you did correctly apologize, sort of.

oh. I must have been thanking you for past apologies.

I edited to add: nope, I'm wrong again. I've been searching for any instance of a past apology and have come up empty......odd.

ok, then, I retract my thankfulness for any past apologies as they don't exist.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by vmarks:
American nationalism is based on values, rather than ethnicity.

is it? as i undertsand the us is a country (now probably more so than ever before) deeply divided on issues of "values"?

having said that, i don't think the divides in regards to the human race actually run along the lines of nationality and ethnicity, but rather along income and social status (and of course the according values).

[ThinkInsane]

Simey, Lerk, enough already. This quibbling is really starting to wear thin. Lets not have yet another topic derailed. Thanks.

[Y3a]

You mean divided by CULTURE then?

Globalism will never work as long as propaganda and religion is taught as fact.

Technology is the big divide anyway. The political systems that have not produced technical advancements for their countrymen is a problem that is causing further friction.

Remember, we can feed the world now, but corruption by governments keep the food from getting to the starving.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmarks:
One should start off with a basic distinction that exists between “nation” and “state”. The nation is a cultural unit. The state is political. A nation is a group of people who share the same culture. A state (or as some would prefer, a body politic) is a group of people who are united in allegiance to the same sovereign authority.

From this preliminary outline, it should be quite evident that what we refer to as nationalism is quite often something else. Strictly speaking, nationalism is loyalty to one’s cultural values. We use the term nationalism more diffusely, quite often including in it not merely loyalty to the cultural unit, but loyalty to the political unit as well. Quite often, it is used in place of a term that has lost prominence today: patriotism.

If you're lobbying for anti-statism, that most often disolves into anarchist thinking. Is that what you're going after?

I very strongly agree that there is a meaningful distinction between nationalism and patriotism.

I find your forumalation of that distinction interesting because I typically consider loyalty to one's cultural unit to essentially be tribalism.

Perhaps nationalism is a form a tribalism that emerges in multi-ethnic cultures?

And again, I would distinguish both from patriotism.

Patriotism -- love and devotion to one's country

Nationalism -- the conviction that the culture and interests of your nation are superior to those of any other nation

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Simey, Lerk, enough already. This quibbling is really starting to wear thin. Lets not have yet another topic derailed. Thanks.

Sure. but for the record, saying that a concept is going over someone's head (even if incorrectly doing so) is not a personal attack.

[macintologist]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm curious, how much does do you think the fact you live in Cyprus colors your views on this? I imagine that it might.

Actually I'm American and my friend is German, but we live in Cyprus.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Actually I'm American and my friend is German, but we live in Cyprus.

That's probably even better, since you would be slightly removed from the dispute. My point is that Cyprus, or other disputes like it (the Balkans, for example) represent an extreme of nationalism that I don't think any of us would dispute is very negative. But not all nationalism is like that. There are more mild forms of nationalism that are not so negative. Others have suggested that patriotism is a less perjorative word for it.

I think you could make an argument that a degree of nationalism can prevent violence. All political entities have internal strains. Nationalism (or patriotism) is the glue that brings people together and prevents those strains from becoming violent. That was the theory behind the Yugoslav constitution. Tito tried very hard to build a Yugoslav national identity that would be bigger and more important to people than their sub-national ethnic identities. Up to the late 1980s, it looked like it was working. Polls indicated a high degree of pride in the Yugoslav identity and objective indicators, like intermarriage were high. Obviously, that failed in the end. But that doesn't mean it can't succeed elsewhere. Arguably, the United States is an example where virulent state and regional identities that once lead to civil war have been replaced by a national identity, such that a new civil war is unthinkable.

Just offering a different viewpoint to think about.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Quote from http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-...p;word=nation:

The noun "nation" has 4 senses in WordNet.

1. state, nation, country, land, commonwealth, res publica, body politic -- (a politically organized body of people under a single government; "the state has elected a new president"; "African nations"; "students who had come to the nation's capitol"; "the country's largest manufacturer"; "an industrialized land")
2. nation, land, country, a people -- (the people who live in a nation or country; "a statement that sums up the nation's mood"; "the news was announced to the nation"; "the whole country worshipped him")
3. nation -- (a federation of tribes (especially native American tribes); "the Shawnee nation")
4. Nation, Carry Nation, Carry Amelia Moore Nation -- (United States prohibitionist who raided saloons and destroyed bottles of liquor with a hatchet (1846-1911))

[FeLiZeCaT]

In Canada, the "Natives" call themselves "First Nations" (except for the Inuit who call themselves "Inuit") in opposition to the "Euro-white" invader.

But before that, they called themselves by the a term that would differentiate themselves. Cree, Chippewa, Huron, Algonquin, etc. They still use these terms, but had to regroup under a "bigger concept".

Soon we may be all called Americans, as Canada and Mexico will slowly merge culturally, then politically. Economically speaking, the job is pretty much on its way... Europe will see the emergence of this new identity called "european" (if that is not done already). We also became Americans, at least some of us, in the aftermath of 9/11.

But as long as we want to look at borders, we will never really grasp what is a nation, because nations get over board sometimes, or have no place for themselves. When we start to look at the details of the tapestry, differences occur, and individuals identify themselves according to the nation, yet can be in opposition (contrast) to the major thread.

Is there such a thing as a cultural identity? I think it does not work well as a concept; identity is proper to the individual. Someone may integrate a nationalistic conceptualization of the self, but a nation cannot identify itself; only the individuals part of it can. A nation has no consciousness, no awareness. It is the sum of the individuals who identify to it.

This self-identifying process can go to extreme, when individuals of a nation will call themselves a race. Or use"race" as a factor to determine nationhood.

The problem, as exposed at the top of the thread, is that in this process of identifying to a nation, individuals work so hard to recognize themselves under that conceptual umbrella that stating the difference in words is not enough. Some have to use a yellow star or a swastika, a flag and an eagle, or pure and simple genocide (Rwanda) to be recognized.

Are nations bad? Nations, because of the process I presented above, are as bad as the individuals that make it. But to apply "nation" as a generalization to a whole people, is unfair, and disregards differences. To use nations is to reduce individuals and their psyche to a small and very crude category, for ease of management.

It is easier to move a nation, than the set of individuals that makes it.


Anyway. My 2 cents.

Edited for clarity, concision, etc. Note to self: double-check before posting and nooo sleep on the keyboard. ;o)

[SimeyTheLimey]

A good book on this, if you are interested is Nations and Nationalism by Ernest Gellner. I had to read it for a seminar I took on nationalism. It's a bit pretentious, but well thought out. And it also has the virtue of being short.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Tito tried very hard to build a Yugoslav national identity that would be bigger and more important to people than their sub-national ethnic identities. Up to the late 1980s, it looked like it was working. Polls indicated a high degree of pride in the Yugoslav identity and objective indicators, like intermarriage were high.

wow, this is very differen't from the experiences i've had talking to croats, serbs, bosnians etc. in the 80s and 90s. i would have to add that they were almost all working class ("gastarbeiter"). but even the ones who were middle and upper class actually identified more with their "ethnic" roots. croats, slovenians and bosnians more so than serbs ... not much luv there. but that's of course only my limited perspective™!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
wow, this is very differen't from the experiences i've had talking to croats, serbs, bosnians etc. in the 80s and 90s. i would have to add that they were almost all working class ("gastarbeiter"). but even the ones who were middle and upper class actually identified more with their "ethnic" roots. croats, slovenians and bosnians more so than serbs ... not much luv there. but that's of course only my limited perspective™!

It changed dramatically after Tito died. Take a look at the social sciences literature from the 1970s. Believe it or not, Yugoslavia was touted as being one of the big success stories of creating a new national identity overcoming ethnic differences.

[Sven G]

I don't think a forced national identity can overcome ethnical differences: only some form of federal, global regionalism could probably integrate people around the world in a free manner, while preserving only the positive aspects of "ethnicity".

As for nationalism, obviously my personal opinion is that it is very negative and restrictive - and definitely obsolete, in today's "global" context.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally posted by Sven G:
I don't think a forced national identity can overcome ethnical differences: only some form of federal, global regionalism could probably integrate people around the world in a free manner, while preserving only the positive aspects of "ethnicity".

As for nationalism, obviously my personal opinion is that it is very negative and restrictive - and definitely obsolete, in today's "global" context.

The problem in national identity and ethnical differences is, I think, that some aspects of that national-adherence process are used or criticized along the lines of the agenda of the groups for which it benefits the most.

After a while, all you get are sets of people with various interests, more or less contained inside frontiers.

my 2 cents

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It changed dramatically after Tito died. Take a look at the social sciences literature from the 1970s. Believe it or not, Yugoslavia was touted as being one of the big success stories of creating a new national identity overcoming ethnic differences.

Published by the state?

I can't claim any scientific basis, but having lived in the Balkans for 2 years I can say that my experience suggests that Yugoslavia's "successes" were largely cosmetic, politically motivated and mostly for export only. Everyone got along because you didn't live long otherwise.

Just like Russia's "success" at buidling a classless society. Or its total lack of social ills like poverty, abuse or alcoholism.

These systems worked so hard at propagandizing their own social revolutions that they eventually brainwashed themselves. What began as systematic distortion of the truth about their own problems eventually led to a complete loss of the ability to recognize the truth about themselves.

If you really have access to objective information to the contrary, I'd be seriously interested in taking a look at it. I have to confess I'm completely skeptical. Never in my life have I encountered such deep-seated hostility and blantant tribalism as I did in the Balkans--even among modernists and secularists in urban centers! It was taught from father to son and mother do daughter and so ingrained as to be almost subconscious. And they weren't talking about what happened a few years ago, they were talking about what happened 100, 200, and 500 years ago.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Published by the state?

I can't claim any scientific basis, but having lived in the Balkans for 2 years I can say that my experience suggests that Yugoslavia's "successes" were largely cosmetic, politically motivated and mostly for export only. Everyone got along because you didn't live long otherwise.

Just like Russia's "success" at buidling a classless society. Or its total lack of social ills like poverty, abuse or alcoholism.

These systems worked so hard at propagandizing their own social revolutions that they eventually brainwashed themselves. What began as systematic distortion of the truth about their own problems eventually led to a complete loss of the ability to recognize the truth about themselves.

If you really have access to objective information to the contrary, I'd be seriously interested in taking a look at it. I have to confess I'm completely skeptical. Never in my life have I encountered such deep-seated hostility and blantant tribalism as I did in the Balkans--even among modernists and secularists in urban centers! It was taught from father to son and mother do daughter and so ingrained as to be almost subconscious. And they weren't talking about what happened a few years ago, they were talking about what happened 100, 200, and 500 years ago.

There is major healing required there.

And I believe that when it comes to a political agenda, anything goes as long as it looks good.

Usually, the minority groups will either revolt or try to assimilate to the larger group until they can get strong enough. Of course, these are all individuals trying to survive.

My humble experience with the Inuit could be interesting. Of course, I am not talking in their names and I have not a total knowledge of this group, but what I know I can share.

In the 30's, Canada is facing some sort of dilemma. Denmark has an eye on our North so Canada has to ensure its territoriality. They decided to move some Inuit families way up North (Griese Fjord for instance). Now what is interesting, is that at about the same time, the Federal government is questioning whether these Inuit are indians or not, for reasons of integration into the management of any First Nations agreement.

What happened afterwards was a terrible tragedy. People used to live south of these regions, found themselves in a far worse difficult situation. Less food, colder weather, and less support. Some people talk of genocide... But then again, the canadian government had a territory...

Many died of hunger. I met some of their decendants. Some were my friends. And the grief is deep. Yet they never asked financial compensations; only the acknowledgement and an apology which they never got (last time I heard anyway). There is a good book on the subject:

Tammarniit (Mistakes: Inuit Relocation in the Eastern Arctic, 1939-63), from Peter Kulchyski and Frank J. Tester. A thick brick with a very small font.

Some more info for the very curious:
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sgmm_e.html

Today, the situation has changed. Some Inuit (I cannot speak for all of them but some who were my friends) were pretty explicit to the fact they had no choice bbut to live with the qallunaat (white people or "thick brows"). The fact is that for the Inuit of Northern Québec, provincial assistance came at the end of the fifties, while the support from the federal came at the end of the sixties. Those 2 entities were in competition then (ever heard of Quebec separitism?).

Today the Inuit are in an advantageous situation, taking from 2 governments, but obligated to do so, for their survival. I remember a conversation in a bar, where there was this Inuk, a bit drunk, saying how much better they would be with the U.S...

The whole thing is still very clear in everybody's memory: some of the descendants of the first relocatees returned in their town of origin to find themselves estranged and with a completely opposite life style (Griese Fjord time management is different because in winter, the days are non-existent compared to Nunavik where the shortest day in winter is about 3 hours long).

The memory goes back far in time; they still talk of the first whalers playing cricket on the frozen sea, just as much as they can remember the tales of the closed doors of the fur traders of Hudson Bay & Co leaving them outside without any resources to survive (no fur = no money = bullets = etc.). They also remember RCMP giving them "English names" so they could understand them.

Yes. They are people of that great country called Canada. In many ways, they are better than they were. But it is still not enough, and certainly the memory will linger for a long time. They do not consider themselves québécois and prefer to go with the federal government which is bigger. But the biggest financial resources come from Québec, simply because Inuit are not considered First Nations (or "Indians"), therefore less subsidies and especially because of the hydro projects which interfered dramatically with their lifestyle and survivor (James Bay project of the La Grande River). And because they are not "Indians" they pay their taxes like all canadians.

But even the other First Nations of Canada developped some grief with the Federal government, although they have better conditions than the Inuit in many respects. This can be attributed to a long history of "white-southern-centrist" management; reserves.

I do not understand why people have to go so far out of North America to talk about nationalism issues. I am sure First Nations in the U.S. have something to say. Even revendications from "colored" groups have to be taken to be a form of nationalism of some sort...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Published by the state?

I can't claim any scientific basis, but having lived in the Balkans for 2 years I can say that my experience suggests that Yugoslavia's "successes" were largely cosmetic, politically motivated and mostly for export only. Everyone got along because you didn't live long otherwise.

Just like Russia's "success" at buidling a classless society. Or its total lack of social ills like poverty, abuse or alcoholism.

These systems worked so hard at propagandizing their own social revolutions that they eventually brainwashed themselves. What began as systematic distortion of the truth about their own problems eventually led to a complete loss of the ability to recognize the truth about themselves.

If you really have access to objective information to the contrary, I'd be seriously interested in taking a look at it. I have to confess I'm completely skeptical. Never in my life have I encountered such deep-seated hostility and blantant tribalism as I did in the Balkans--even among modernists and secularists in urban centers! It was taught from father to son and mother do daughter and so ingrained as to be almost subconscious. And they weren't talking about what happened a few years ago, they were talking about what happened 100, 200, and 500 years ago.

My information came from social science literature from a class I took several years ago. I wouldn't know where to start looking now to find it again. If I recall, the articles I red those in were western European in origin, and contemporary to the period I mentioned -- the 1970s and early 80s.

As I recall also the statistics about intermarriage between ethnic groups was fairly specific to Sarejevo. However, this could all just be another one of those leftist myths. Yugoslavia was touted in the west as being the "good" socialist country until the bloodletting started up again after 1989.