History HubÌý permalink
Nationalism - the positives?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 2nd October 2011
People here often say how much they dislike nationalism and since they tend to be people whose opinions I respect a lot, I am a little wary of putting a contrary view to be shot down in flames. Also wary of the possibility that any discussion might descend into nationalist stereotypes or arguments.
But last night’s trip to the rugby and the Irish exuberance displayed there seemed to show a positive side to nationalistic fervour that we really appreciated.
I realise that nationalism in modern times has had some very bad effects, though I would have called the Nazi policies plain racist, more than nationalist, since much of their effect was against their own citizens. And when I think of other modern wars they don’t generally seem to have stemmed from a sense of nationalism. Iraq was a war of revenge (even if against the wrong country) , Vietnam one of fear of a change to western values, WWII from the Allied point of view also to defend values and lifestyle, various smaller conflicts tend to be land based or little more than personality-based. The New Zealand Wars and I think the South African Wars were little more than land-grabs. The War of the Three Nations or whatever the name is of the war that brought down Charles I was a civil war and not for nationalistic reasons.
The only war of modern times that I can think of was strongly nationalistic was World War One and then I am probably just showing an ignorance of its causes. The American War of Independence might be considered a nationalistic one, but was more about choosing their own destinies.
It seems to me that the time of nationalistic wars was longer ago – all those events between England, France, Spain and the Netherlands, but again, the rationale was more for trade reasons than pure nationhood, surely. Henry V’s campaign in France, and even in part the Crusades shows how far back a sense of nationhood and pride in it goes.
But I have got sidetracked really. The absolute joy from the almost entirely Irish crowd at the Dunedin stadium for the rugby last night which we attended was just so enjoyable, and it is surely due just to a sense of nationalism which is allowed at these occasions. I heard the Irish coach saying there was more fervour there than at many games in Ireland, and I have never been to any sporting occasion with this feel. I don’t know why the Irish managed to travel here in such larger numbers than the Italians, but almost all the people surrounding us were actually from Ireland, not just dressed up Kiwis. NZers do not speak in an Irish accent nor do they know the words and tune to the Combined Irish anthem, or indeed any Irish anthem. There was a sea of green and flag everywhere and mad cheering every time Ireland scored, no matter how irrelevant the points were.
We met a friend afterwards who wished NZers could learn a bit of the enthusiasm and exuberance and sheer delight that Europeans seem to be able to conjure up and I was certainly thinking that the Irish showed more ecstasy in three little points from a penalty than NZers will if they win the Rugby World Cup. And people were so happy and generous with their happiness. I saw an Irishman and an Italian hugging (admittedly I think the Irishman may have been less than totally sober but still...) and nothing negative at all. Everyone singing and dancing and whooping and wandering happily down the road. No obvious signs of drunkenness and certainly no boorishness. (You don’t see everything when you are actually at a game – I didn’t know the Irish hooker was taken to hospital; the main injury we saw was to the Irish cult player Martin Castrogiovanni.) People chatted to those around them and enjoyed the company of strangers. The young attractive woman next to me (a Kiwi with an Irish friend) sat down at the start of the match and immediately turned to me and said, "Isn't this just great?" And it was.
But very hard to see how this sort of nationalism isn’t just good for people, for their mood, their sense of worth, their value as citizens of their country. Not all people enjoying their countries’ successes or failures are yobbos out to cause trouble.
I don’t really see how pride in my country (how seeing it as ‘my country’) is particularly harmful. I know it’s a matter of luck where you are born and people generally don’t do a lot to improve their country, though most don’t do anything to harm it, either.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 2
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 2nd October 2011
Caro
But one of the things that you raised a few days ago was that the rugby-playing "Irish nation" is not a political one.. and surely part of the joy that you saw came from the fact that through rugby people can transcend the historical conflicts.
On another thread jak has referred to national stereotypes- and these seem to have emerged very much as part of an anti-imperialist movement in the early Nineteenth Century.. But as I wrote in my causes of the First World War that caused you some concern, nationalism came to be very much associated with the dynamics of the two world wars.
In fact there is a case-put by Niall Ferguson in "Empire. How Britain Made the Modern World" and "Colossus. The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" that Empires have made for stability and order, while nation states have produced instability and dangerous conflicts and chaos.
We currently seem to have neither Nations nor Empires- and power taken effectively right out of the hands of any electorate and into the kind of international cabals that were set up after the Second World War by technocrats because people were fed up with both Nationalism and Imperialism in their political forms.
But to some extent all this is a good old English plot to teach the world to play the game rather than take up armed and other struggle of life and death.
Cass -
Message 3
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
Caro, for most emotionally well-adjusted and intelligent people with good communication skills and power of reason, nationalism is negative.
But for the apparently mentally unstable and educationally impotent extremists, devoid of reason, compassion and balance, it seems to be somewhat of a fanfare! -
Message 4
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
What you have described is merely people enjoying a football game Caro, similar scenes are to be found in many sports and on every club match day across Europe, which is not necessarily much to do with nationalism.
Pride and a love for one's country is not nationalism either, and the two should not be conflated. Nationalism, imo, is the extreme form of patriotism. It is an illusion, built on propaganda and fantasy, it is unrealistic, a justification for the ignorant to feel superior to others and borders on lunacy.
I have stopped listening to Australian radio for this reason. One station was describing Sydney as the "powerhouse of the Pacific"! What a load of tosh, and totally ignoring the fact of Japan, China and the USA. Moving on to Melbourne stations instead and only to be confronted with the claim that "Melbourne is the gateway to the world". Give me a break and what is worse is that there are those who believe it.
There are some Greeks fluttering around ancient ruins in white robes claiming to be direct descendants of the ancients and the bringers of democracy to the world. Up north there a former Yugoslav provences claiming to be direct descendants of ancient Macedonians and naming their country accordingly, Albanians denying history to claim an ancestry they don't have also, Spaniards denying any genetic Moorish influence, some Irish have created a faux "Celtic" fantasy land (which thankfully they seem to be moving away from) and all generated by state driven nationalism.
I moved from Australia brainwashed by nationalism, only to find over the years that it was all claptrap. So no, I don't see any positives to nationalism and have found I much prefer to move through life with pride in my heritage but also able to recognise it's faults and with my eyes and ears open. -
Message 5
Posted by RusEvo (U2126548) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
Caro your a mind reader.
I was driving my car at lunch today and noting all the national flags on cars that have popped up with the RWC Tournament. My first reaction was my usual distaste for nationalism, followed by a consideration of whether there are significant positives to it. I guess this is something a lot of people might be thinking about in NZ right now.
Do you think that the fun atmosphere at the Ireland game was an enjoyment of Irish culture (and foreign guests) rather than nationalism? I see culture as being more open to any one to enjoy, wheras with nationalism there is a line.....us and them. I see that line as a nasty thing. -
Message 6
Posted by dmatt47 (U13073434) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
Surely events such as the Olympics and similar sporting events would not be as popular if the nationalistic flying of flags was banned as has been suggested by some people and there is no harm in flying of the flags. Incidentally rugby is the only sport where Ireland has a combinedI rish team. Politicians and military leaders have for a long time used nationalism as a reason for war.. The English Civil War was about Charles I 'absolute power' to appoint and dismiss Parliament to finance his expenses and was a power struggle between The King and the people.
-
Message 7
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
Well of course many of those flags indicate that these countries venerated Christian saints and symbolise the challenge of collectively trying to live up to "Christian" and "Civilized" virtues and values- which have much in common with higher values found thoughout Humanity.
Cass -
Message 8
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
The term nationalism has a political definition which is quite specific, but which also can be further split up after type. Which type of nationalism is it, for example, which can be construed to have even some "positive" sides?
I doubt that the OP, for example, was thinking of ultra-nationalism (normally regarded as the most strident form) in her own use of the term, but for that matter neither was she obviously thinking of civic-nationalism (its most benign form) given her use of sports fans exhibiting their allegiance through patriotic symbolism and her insinuation that this behaviour in itself has cultural attributions, all of which fall under the definition of nationalism according to the OP by virtue of their being used to illustrate the question "Nationalism - the positives?".
Nationalism can be broadly summed up as the ideology in which a population's sense of identity and affiliation, based on a perceived basis of fellowship which they (and often they alone) share, lies at the absolute root of whichever political structures, gubernance and resultant policies are then prosecuted in its name. It is therefore, in political terms, a dubious basis on which to build a society which can pretend to be inclusive or open, and on that basis alone one which invites crtiticism - either of its underlying morality or of its applicability to a state which obviously behaves in quite another way in practice.
Until we know therefore what we are talking about here in terms of the OP's own definition of the term - which at the moment is still rather vague - the question as it stands is bound only to produce a discussion leading to no particular valid point in which each chooses their own definition with varying degrees of accuracy, and little chance of actually addressing the others' viewpoint with any relevance. -
Message 9
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
Incidentally rugby is the only sport where Ireland has a combinedI rish team.
Ìý
Rubbish. Or are cricket, tennis, basketball, rugby league, hockey not sports? -
Message 10
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
We saw the same Irish enthusiasm and support for the Republic Soccer team, especially in the Jackie Charlton era, when they got to the World Cup & European Final stages. It is more of a small nation going 'Jaysus, boys, didn't we do well!' than Nationalism as such, I think. I can remember N.Ireland getting to the World Cup in Spain, and (almost) everyone getting behind them as well, even some of the 'Republican-minded' folk who were not exactly soccer supporters. Success is all the greater when you are the underdog, and not really expecting it, so Irish supporters tend to live for the moment, and not get too broken up when it all goes horribly wrong!
I heard a definition recently - Patriotism is loving your country, and Nationalism is hating everyone else's. My own view is that Nationalism has replaced Religion as Man's most dangerous invention, but Religion is now making a comeback. -
Message 11
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
Patriotism is loving your country, and Nationalism is hating everyone else's
Ìý
Very well put! -
Message 12
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
Yes giraffe, an apt definition and fits with the ".............(fill in the appropriate country name) is the best country in the world", mantra of the nationalistic numbskull.
-
Message 13
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
Godzone country even ...
-
Message 14
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
Ah, NZ?
-
Message 15
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
Well of course many of those flags indicate that these countries venerated Christian saints and symbolise the challenge of collectively trying to live up to "Christian" and "Civilized" virtues and values- which have much in common with higher values found thoughout Humanity.
CassÌý
We only venerate St. George these days when we're winning, Cass. Remember how the disgusted England supporters discarded their little St. George car flags en masse after Germany thrashed us in the World Cup? Every motorway in the land was was strewn with the damn things.
I wonder if the Welsh petulantly hurl their giant plastic daffodil things away when they lose an important match?
Mardy lot, the English. -
Message 16
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
Temperance
Well I did put it in the past tense.
It was interesting, however, to see the English flags of St. George and the Georgian flags of St. George in that game.
And while I am about it...
I suppose that I can not be sad that these days many people chose to play for a country that is not "theirs" from a sheer point of view of legal nationality..
As I used to point out to pupils who were NF-type bigots and who were hostile to their classmates from immigrant families- "You are just British by an accident of birth. At least they and their families have chosen to be British" and I might have added "and are trying to learn in order to be a credit to the country"
Cass -
Message 17
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
'We only venerate St. George these days when we're winning'
I think this is a part and parcel of why England don't win more often!
The Soccer team, the Cricket Team, whatever, are either brillaint or cr*p - no in between. The people nowadays expect instant success, without being willing to put in the work it needs to achieve it in their own lives, and they expect the same of the team. If you want to win, you have to learn to lose well - Not get drunk, and throw your toys out of the pram.
'Stiff upper lip' was not a sign of weakness - never let the opponent see that you are crying inside. Go home with your dignity intact, analyse where it went wrong, work like hell to fix it, and come back to win the next time. Nowadays the press and the yobs write off anyone who fails, not caring how much work it took to even get them into the position to fail - there is no disgrace in being second best in the world, is there?
Every English team seems to go into a match with it's excuse ready - the pitch was rubbish, the ref was blind, the crowd said something nasty, the tea in the canteen was bad, the doorman gave us a dirty look before the game!
If England learn to lose like Englishmen, then they might begin to win! -
Message 18
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
Mmm and not just losing well. There is also an art to winning graciously which is sadly a thing of the past for most teams and supporters these days.
-
Message 19
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
giraffe47
From an historical point of view it is interesting that several episodes in the history of the British Lowlands have been explained by historians as the consequence of people having it too easy- and losing their fighting spirit.
It seems to me that they may all be connected with the "Anglo-Saxon Contagion" that I have just been writing about, when Charles Kingsley- Professor of Modern History at Cambridge- fell under the influence of Thomas Carlyle in his later phase of "The ------ Problem" and the need for hard-line heroes like Cromwell and Frederick the Great.
What Minette calls traditional historians had the Romano-British spoiled by easy-living so they recruited Anglo-Saxon warlords to fight for them, and the AS- true to their Teutonic roots- took over and slaughtered the British- as any real warrior people would..
Then by 1066 the English had been largely destroyed themselves by easy living. The English fyrd only fought William the Conqueror once.. It took the men of the Danelaw to carry on bravely and bloodily.
And all this could appear to be confirmed once the victors of Waterloo had "blundered" in the Crimean War.
The trouble with the "Anglo-Saxon contagion" as G.M. Trevelyan wrote in 1918 was that: "Ever since Carlyle's death his name has been coupled with Darwin's in argument for every bit of Prussian brutality that any Anglo-Saxon wished to commit under the sun. This was to put a gloss upon the text of Darwin: but from Carlyle's later works chapter and verse for the whole doctrine of force could warrantably be quoted. Some "imperialists" used twenty years ago to quote the sage of Chelsea against all counsels of humanity and common sense."
It was during that era that British public schools especially tried to instill some Spartan and Roman qualities into those who were being groomed to be part of the ruling elite.
But at the same time there was propounded the kind of Prussian view of the "common people" that really they are only concerned about "full bellies". This demeaning culture of low expectations and a culture of inadequacy and dependency has been an increasingly dominant feature of British society since the war. "They've never had it so good".. on one side and "I blame the government" on the other.
Cass -
Message 20
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
Until we know therefore what we are talking about here in terms of the OP's own definition of the term - which at the moment is still rather vague - the question as it stands is bound only to produce a discussion leading to no particular valid point in which each chooses their own definition with varying degrees of accuracy, and little chance of actually addressing the others' viewpoint with any relevance.Ìý
Last night when I saw posts up to RusEvo's, I realised a definition was needed and perhaps should have said so then, but it was late. It does seem that any definition given here is very negative (unlike dictionary definitions which talk of devotion to a country for both nationalism and patriotism, or for nationalism they include national separatist movements, which people tend to support for other countries - though not so often for their own).
I suppose I have patriotism and nationalism round the wrong way - I wouldn't call the joyous behaviour of the sports supporters here at the moment patriotic, which to me brings visions of soldiers saluting and upright men with moustaches. As I don't think much of war as a solution (today the news talks of a final push into Gadaffi Libya and I think of how many people, mostly young, will be dead at the end of the day who were alive at the start of it) patriotism is not something I quite value in the sense I think of it.
So what is the word for people or the situation of enjoying your country, its values, its achievements, its cultural actitivites, its sport and literary and artistic successes etc? I don't think that loving those of my country means I devalue those of others. And I don't worry about whether the Celtic culture truly comes from an historic basis or not. It's used as a fun way to bring some colour into people's lives and it brings their countries to notice. Ireland has been very effective in this, what with St Pat's Day, and making green their very quickly recognisable colour. I don't feel so relaxed about the haka etc being commandeered by anyone, but that is because Maori are so anxious that it be used properly (though not exclusively - someone is keen to teach an American sports team how to perform it properly).
But anyway, if nationalism can only be viewed negatively, then that is that. Though I'm still not sure. When I saw the English people with their flags from the cars I found it a bit disturbing, but I don't with Irish or Argentinian ones or NZ ones, and I think that must come from a different attitude and behaviour of the people concerned. You always felt the English fans were just one step away from thuggery, but I don't feel that at all about the fans out here for the RWC. They seem happy and enclusive and very keen to interact with locals (just as we are very keen to interact with them). But that happiness and joy does seem to come with an identification with a country or a place entity.
But I need a new term.
ID, The Pacific as an entity is not the same as the places surrounding the Pacific Ocean. I don't think Japan, China and the USA consider themselves part of "The Pacific", and certainly they are not thought of as such here. So Sydney is quite correct in considering itself the powerhouse of the Pacific, being the major city in the region. Every little town now has a slogan and it doesn't always bear all that much relation to truth, but the aim is to bring tourist or business. Not to be some sort of completely accurate definition.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 21
Posted by Harpo (U14643022) on Tuesday, 4th October 2011
Patriotism is loving your country, and Nationalism is hating everyone else's
Ìý
Very well put!Ìý Like all pithy sayings it has an element of truth but it is not the whole truth. It uses this small claim to truth to subvert a wider concept. As an Irishman I can truthfully say that my 'nationalism' poses no kind of threat, on any level, to anybody inside or outside Ireland.
Nationalism suffers from being the antithesis of imperialism. The irony is that imperialism is itself a species of nationalism.
The Oxford English Dictionary has two definitions: (1) ‘patriotic feelings, principles, or efforts, or an extreme form of this marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries’; and (2) ‘advocacy of political independence for a particular country’.
We are all nationalist regarding our own country.
PS - I just caught part of Boris Johnson’s engaging speech at the Conservative Conference in Manchester this morning. Like a lot of current Conservative media speak it appeared rather nationalist in tone to me. -
Message 22
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Tuesday, 4th October 2011
As an Irishman I can truthfully say that my 'nationalism' poses no kind of threat, on any level, to anybody inside or outside Ireland.Ìý
This seems a rather dubious claim, in the light of the humanitarian disasters, terrorist outrages and diplomatic abominations that have arisen from Irish nationalism over the course of the last century or so... -
Message 23
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 4th October 2011
ID, The Pacific as an entity is not the same as the places surrounding the Pacific Ocean. I don't think Japan, China and the USA consider themselves part of "The Pacific", and certainly they are not thought of as such here. So Sydney is quite correct in considering itself the powerhouse of the Pacific, being the major city in the region. Every little town now has a slogan and it doesn't always bear all that much relation to truth, but the aim is to bring tourist or business. Not to be some sort of completely accurate definition.Ìý
Ah Caro, illogical nationalism to the fore. And not even your own this time.
If, by your definition, the term Pacific does not include those countries from the Pacific rim then Australia (being a country also on the Pacific rim) should be excluded as well. Thereby Sydney cannot be the "powerhouse of the Pacific" and the rather dubious title should be handed to NZ! (I know you'll like that one).
It may work that way in your mind but, unfortunately, in reality it doesn't. Japan, China and the USA are very much on the Pacific and definitely consider themselves to be (ANZUS, APEC etc etc) included in the whole. However, if it is so very important for Australian or NZ self esteem to be considered as the big kids on the block then by rights Sydney would be "the powerhouse of the South Pacific", but the Pacific? Plainly, no. -
Message 24
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 4th October 2011
Actually Caro your perspective is an interesting one- and may- if we are lucky- presage what we hope will happen in London next year..
NZ is playing host- and very well [though it seems that some of the English rugby team were unaware that in NZ rugby players are expected to conduct themselves like Sons of God rather than mere mortals]
It is all part of the way that we are being sold this idea of a "World in harmony" in which old meaningless relics of the forces of history can now just be manipulated as harmless ways and means to achieve a new "Opium of the People".. All the crucial decisions about the world in crisis are being made by multinational and global organisations who generally accept the need to keep the masses happy with a "go away and amuse yourselves attitude".. Just go and play while we work on the solutions because nothing you as the common people do will actually impact on the course of events.
Well-- As the rest of the All Black team have resolved- if "God Carter" is not available for the rest of the tournament, it is up to the rank and file to win it..
In the final analysis History only "moves forward" because common people "pack down together" and move it.. And historically nationalism was a convenient way to harness large populations to limited and narrow causes in the age of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations". Those limited and narrow causes are now the object of Post-nationalist organisations.
Cass -
Message 25
Posted by Harpo (U14643022) on Tuesday, 4th October 2011
Missed this post:-
This seems a rather dubious claim, in the light of the humanitarian disasters, terrorist outrages and diplomatic abominations that have arisen from Irish nationalism over the course of the last century or so...Ìý
No it is not.
I was referring to my personal sense of Irish nationalism; i.e. the way I think, feel and act regarding my own country, the Republic of Ireland. Other than in self-defense I have never been a threat to anyone, and nobody has perpetrated any ‘humanitarian disaster, terrorist outrage or diplomatic abomination’ in my name or with my support.
Like me, I am sure John Hume, another Irish nationalist, a pacifist and a humanitarian, would reject any imputation that his brand of nationalism might be associated with the ‘humanitarian disasters, terrorist outrages and diplomatic abominations’ to which you refer. -
Message 26
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Tuesday, 4th October 2011
It may work that way in your mind but, unfortunately, in reality it doesn't. Japan, China and the USA are very much on the Pacific and definitely consider themselves to be (ANZUS, APEC etc etc) included in the wholeÌý
But APEC is the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and originally intended really only to be the Asian countries. I was talking about the titles these areas are given; South is often added to the Pacific region to differentiate it, but generally when the whole area is talked of it is called The Pacific Rim or Asia-Pacific.
If this (Sydney referring to itself as the powerhouse of the Pacific) shows nationalism then it seems to me to show that nationalism isn't always particularly negative. Whether true or not, it's not likely to damage anyone. May make the small Pacific Islands feel a little downgraded. It's not going to bother Japan or China.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 27
Posted by Raph33inUK (U14994758) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
Interesting subject.
Caro, i've read the posts of this thread quickly, so apologies for any repetition.
The problem of nationaliss is that it is a form of identification to a standardised group within a society, which tends to exclude, reject, if not hate what does not correspond to this standard.
It implies a simplistic and biased understanding of the world fuelled by negative feelings such as fear, anger, xenophobia, hatred.
Nationalists usually resort to dialectics that trigger emotional reactions such as the ones cited above in order to create the desired effect in people's mind.
Nationalims usually needs something to hate in order to thrive.
Patriotism on the other hand, seems to be based of much more positive feelings, or at least not really based on negative ones.
Patriotism does not rejects what is different from you.
Nationalism usually does.
I am a French Gascon patriot but certainly not a nationalist.
If I was, I would probably not be writing this here, in English, from a cottage of Sussex!
-
Message 28
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
Thanks Raph. That does seem to be the consensus here. I don't like the term 'patriotic' and seem to feel it has the connotations you all associate with 'nationalism'. It is a warlike term to me.
I don't know whether that feeling/misunderstanding comes from the distance NZ is from events in Europe and a watering down attitude to them, or whether it is just something in my mind that considers these exuberant shows of national affection to be able to be called nationalism.
(News here - as it tends to be at the moment - of All Black chances in World Cup. French defeats of previous years still very much in our minds. Surprising in a way that NZers tend to have rather warm feelings towards the French, what with that and other events.)
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 29
Posted by Raph33inUK (U14994758) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
I respect your opnion, but if you check the definition of nationalism, you'll see what I mean.
In Europe, we have seen what nationalism can lead to in the past two centuries.
NZ was peharps preserved from it long enough?
I must confess i do not know much about NZ, apart from bits of geography.
cheers!
Raph -
Message 30
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Friday, 7th October 2011
The trouble is the dictionary definitions of nationalism and patriotism are almost identical (except that nationalism has the added one of wanting separation from another country, which I don't think is what anyone is talking about here - no one objected to East Timor (now Timor Leste) wanting their independence). Shorter Oxford definitions both say 'devotion to your country'.
I do have an Oxford Companion to British History which has a page and a half devoted to Nationalism. Still doesn't make it sound particularly negative. "is a sense of shared identity and loyalty, based upon common history, language, culture and traditions. Though it has much in common with religious and local loyalties, it may be distinguished since it almost invariably aims to be the basis of government...Within the same nation there often exist severe disagreements and deep enmities. To separate nationalism from regionalism or particularism is difficult and may well depend upon the eye of the beholder. Yorkshire is clearly not a nation, though it has 5 million people and well defined characteristics: Denmark and Catalonia, with 5 and 6 million, clearly are nations."
And then it talks a lot about Ireland, Wales and Scotland. As part or not part of Britain. Even mentions Wessex: "In the 1970s Wessex nationalists were a joke, but in the light of events in eastern Europe since 1989, with small nations asserting their own rights to self-determination, Wessex may make a come-back."
It doesn't have a definition of patriotism, though one of patriots. "Name appropriated by the opponents of Walpole since it implied that the interests of the national were neglected by a supine and corrupt government. William Pitt beat the patriotic drum when he inveighed against Britain's subservience to Hanover, a 'despicable electorate'. The phrase was so over-worked it became pejorative..."
However these definitions and thoughts are in a historical framework rather perhaps than what people hear now when they hear the words.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 31
Posted by Raph33inUK (U14994758) on Friday, 7th October 2011
Caro,
I'll have to check my French books and give you a translated version of the definition to compare.
The definition taken from your Oxford Companion sounds a bit "light" and inaccurate...
When was it publisged?
Maybe because nationalism is so widespread in England, it has become "normal" ?
Which would explain why in English it is not so much associated to negative ideas.
Only a speculation though....
Cheers
Raph -
Message 32
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 7th October 2011
I think that we have to accept that at a crucial moment when it was necessary to create a new Civilization to follow the War to End All Wars the idea that somehow Nationalism would be the answer was seized upon..
This was clearly outlined in Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points that saw the English/American solution as the way forward for the world.. In the American Revolution the "English" people settled in the Americas demanded their rights vis a vis the English Crown- and in fact decided that they needed no monarch in future. The separate colonies would keep much of their identity and join together in a Federation of States to deal with certain issues that needed to be dealt with in common.
By 1914 the Age of Imperialism and Militarism had led to the First World War with Nationalist movements being compelled to resort to force in order to break away from Imperial rule as the Americans had done..
In future these things would all be settled democratically by self-determined National States that would elect their own republican governments, and all inter-national problems would be resolved amicably through the Assembly of the League of Nations.. It was, however, necessary to decide just what Nations were in order to redraw the map of Europe- and then the world.
To some extent we still have a less optimistic and "managed" version of this, because the end of Empires and the old Medieval ties of monarchy, aristocracy and the Christian Church that had worked towards continental coordination resulted in World Chaos. The United Nations, the World Bank and the IMF were set up to create a new over-arching structure with nation-states as the building blocks.
But, now that Nationalism is re-emerging as a new force for destabilisation and Chaos, some of its forms- like the demonstrations and strikes in Greece- are once more being seen and portrayed as dangerous and negative, while the "fissiparous" nature of an age when "everyone is in it for themselves" is threatening to produce another World Chaos..
Only the loving heart is capable of welding people together and showing the reality of the Brotherhood of Man. The Head will always tend to see "them and us".
Cass -
Message 33
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 7th October 2011
What utter tripe.
-
Message 34
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Friday, 7th October 2011
The problem of nationaliss is that it is a form of identification to a standardised group within a society, which tends to exclude, reject, if not hate what does not correspond to this standard.
It implies a simplistic and biased understanding of the world fuelled by negative feelings such as fear, anger, xenophobia, hatred.
Nationalists usually resort to dialectics that trigger emotional reactions such as the ones cited above in order to create the desired effect in people's mind.
Nationalims usually needs something to hate in order to thrive.
Patriotism on the other hand, seems to be based of much more positive feelings, or at least not really based on negative ones.
Patriotism does not rejects what is different from you.
Nationalism usually does.Ìý
Well said indeed Raph. You have expressed exactly what I have struggled (and failed) to put into words.
I do have an Oxford Companion to British History which has a page and a half devoted to Nationalism. Still doesn't make it sound particularly negative. "is a sense of shared identity and loyalty, based upon common history, language, culture and traditions. Though it has much in common with religious and local loyalties, it may be distinguished since it almost invariably aims to be the basis of government...Ìý
Isn't this what most have been expressing here Caro? The promotion of "a sense of shared identity and loyalty, based on common history, language, culture and traditions" leads to that "them and us" mentality which rejects anything perceived as different? Or in other words, tribalism.
I think this is where Australia (for example) has gone wrong, on the one hand the government is spouting the need to embrace multiculturism whilst on the other it heavily promotes nationalism and the idea of selling Australia to Australians. So how can the multiethnic half of any society possibly reconcile with the other half who is overdosed on the importance of it's own COMMON history, language, culture, traditions?
It does not and cannot, as Europe has already found and it is one of the reasons why nationalism is rejected (by many) in this part of the world. -
Message 35
Posted by Thomas (U14985443) on Friday, 7th October 2011
What utter tripe.Ìý
I´m sure Nordmann, if you had ever read some of his essays, your comment on them would had been the same as in this short statement.
I think I´m the only one on here, who was foolish enough to take up the ordeal to read them. Sometimes, when thinking back of it, it gives me some embarrassment, but on the other hand, it was enough to have a short glance (unintendedly) on his post to realise where this came from. -
Message 36
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Friday, 7th October 2011
The promotion of "a sense of shared identity and loyalty, based on common history, language, culture and traditions" leads to that "them and us" mentality Ìý
I tend to treat my family better than I would strangers, because we have a 'sense of shared identity and loyalty' which makes me think that they might return the favour.
Isn't nationalism the same?
I think that in any competitive economic and political system, people will form themselves into teams, working for the mutual benefit of the members. And then that sense of common history, culture and traditions will be created by working in those teams.
So I would say that a 'them and us' mentality is simply a recognition of the reality that we are NOT 'all in this together'. -
Message 37
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 7th October 2011
Nordmann
Well.. You are entitled to dismiss all those efforts to define the different nations of Europe after 1918 and create a world based upon nations as tripe. It does not mean that it did not happen. Or that the whole idea of people trying to run their lives better as national groups is still very active in the world- not least witin the British Isles.
Cass -
Message 38
Posted by Raph33inUK (U14994758) on Friday, 7th October 2011
And where does it come from?
I'm new here, so i need an update! -
Message 39
Posted by Thomas (U14985443) on Friday, 7th October 2011
In reply to hotmousemat:
I tend to treat my family better than I would strangers, because we have a 'sense of shared identity and loyalty' which makes me think that they might return the favour.
Isn't nationalism the same?Ìý
I don´t think so, because in nationalism you´ve a sort of collectivism as well and the favours that apply to a family doesn´t necessarily apply for a whole nation, aside from that what is propaganded in the term nationalism.
I think that in any competitive economic and political system, people will form themselves into teams, working for the mutual benefit of the members. And then that sense of common history, culture and traditions will be created by working in those teams.Ìý
I think that this also goes back to the early humans who formed their communities to survive in the wilderness.The latter became replaced by competitive economic and political systems.
Islanddawn have put right to the point by "tribalism" and I see it as the roots from which patriotism and nationalism emerged. -
Message 40
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 7th October 2011
A tendency for supercilious prolix appears to go hand in hand with a fustian inability to realise one's limitations, Thomas.
The phrase "two short planks" springs to mind. -
Message 41
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 7th October 2011
hothousemat
You say " So I would say that a 'them and us' mentality is simply a recognition of the reality that we are NOT 'all in this together'. "
Exactly. Which is why in spite of all the discouragement I keep on pointing out that the original economic dynamism that made the present global economic system possible all came from an English tradition that used the rule that no change should happen that was not for the good of the "Commonweal".
It was a concept that was in effect destroyed by the Age of Reason and intellectual detachment: and in particular by Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" that assumed that if everyone just chased after specialising in doing what was most profitable for them- and hang the consequences- some "Invisible Hand" would just guide humankind like a Divine Presence.. From Smith's laws of economics to Darwin's struggle for the survival of the fittest was a simple jouney, and from that to militarism and world war.
Meanwhile - while Adam Smith was developing his ideas, Gilbert White down in Sherborne was indeed seeing that nature worked as an interrelated and inter-dependent "Commonweal" - a reality that the world and ecologists have only rediscovered in recent decades.
Cass -
Message 42
Posted by Thomas (U14985443) on Friday, 7th October 2011
Hi Raph33inUK:
And where does it come from?
I'm new here, so i need an update!Ìý
I´d recommend you to ask Cass to provide you a link to his essays, I´m not going to help in this case for I´ve had enough of this.
Sorry to appear a bit rude in this message, but it´s no way personally directed to you. -
Message 43
Posted by Raph33inUK (U14994758) on Friday, 7th October 2011
The promotion of "a sense of shared identity and loyalty, based on common history, language, culture and traditions" leads to that "them and us" mentality Ìý
I tend to treat my family better than I would strangers, because we have a 'sense of shared identity and loyalty' which makes me think that they might return the favour.
Isn't nationalism the same?
I think that in any competitive economic and political system, people will form themselves into teams, working for the mutual benefit of the members. And then that sense of common history, culture and traditions will be created by working in those teams.
So I would say that a 'them and us' mentality is simply a recognition of the reality that we are NOT 'all in this together'. Ìý Your comparison with economic teams does not really work, because, in essence, the competition implied by capitalist free market has a rational financial obligation or necessity of competition, opposition to competitors for money. This is a straight-forward pattern, known to all, meant to work that way.
Plus fact that, there may be foreigners working with you in your team.
Do you think they would share a "common history, culture and traditions" with you if they were Japanese, Argentinian, Russian ? Probably not.
Would it make impossible to work with them ? Probably not.
Would have to hate or reject them for it ? Hopefully not.
"I tend to treat my family better than I would strangers, because we have a 'sense of shared identity and loyalty' which makes me think that they might return the favour.
Isn't nationalism the same?"
Not quite, because nationalism isn't JUST that.
Nationalism derives from a mental manipulation that goes far beyond the simple ideas of loving your country and share common values with people around me and my family.
You treat your family better than you would strangers, but does this make you treat strangers in a bad way ?
Hopefully it doesn't. The fact that you treat your family better does not necessarily imply that "others" would get bad treatment and be rejected.
The sense of national identity becomes nationalism when it starts rejecting what is not part of the "standard" group. -
Message 44
Posted by Thomas (U14985443) on Friday, 7th October 2011
That´s well said Nordmann, but despite some mistaking of my own, I rather keep myself openminded.
-
Message 45
Posted by Thomas (U14985443) on Friday, 7th October 2011
In reply to Raph33inUK
Nationalism derives from a mental manipulation that goes far beyond the simple ideas of loving your country and share common values with people around me and my family.Ìý
Surely it does, but you´d also consider that children, brought up with that sort of (exaggerated) patriotism, would had been "mental manipulated" as well. Sounds like "brain-washing" which wasn´t the case at all times. Nationalism is considered as the idea of the 19th Century which led to the creation of new national states after the Napoleonic Wars to sustain peace in Europe. Some nations took longer to develope an sense of nationality, some had it already, the roots of that are going far more back in time and you just have to replace Nation by King or Queen and it´s just the same by "for King and Country". -
Message 46
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 7th October 2011
Raph
Quote from Thomas: "I´d recommend you to ask Cass to provide you a link to his essays, I´m not going to help in this case for I´ve had enough of this. "
As I said yesterday my stuff is on the h2g2 site which is currently in limbo- moving from the ±«Óãtv to its new owners and site.
To be fair to Thomas I am in his debt for having read more of my ideas than anyone else and it is sad that he now regrets the dialogues that we had then.. But we all move on in life.
At present it is not clear when the h2g2 new site will be operational- and as I am shortly off to France for one of my breaks that gives the MB members a break from me too- I just hope that I will not miss any crucial window of signing up for the new h2g2 site- with the consequence that everything will be wiped out.
Cass -
Message 47
Posted by Raph33inUK (U14994758) on Friday, 7th October 2011
In reply to Raph33inUK
Nationalism derives from a mental manipulation that goes far beyond the simple ideas of loving your country and share common values with people around me and my family.Ìý
Surely it does, but you´d also consider that children, brought up with that sort of (exaggerated) patriotism, would had been "mental manipulated" as well. Sounds like "brain-washing" which wasn´t the case at all times. Nationalism is considered as the idea of the 19th Century which led to the creation of new national states after the Napoleonic Wars to sustain peace in Europe. Some nations took longer to develope an sense of nationality, some had it already, the roots of that are going far more back in time and you just have to replace Nation by King or Queen and it´s just the same by "for King and Country".
Ìý Of course, what "Nationalism" represents has evolved over time.
Nationalism as a constructive force of "geographical/cultural/traditional/lingual" entities in the XIX century is very much what you described.
I was only referring to the modern acception of the word. -
Message 48
Posted by Thomas (U14985443) on Friday, 7th October 2011
In reply to Raph33inUK:
I was only referring to the modern acception of the word.Ìý
That´s an interesting point, in the light that nationalism is in our times more considered as a backwards minded idea, but still existing and so the word still has its meaning. So where´s the difference, if not that it is generally condemned after the experiences of WWI and WWII, to refer to the "modern acception of the word"?
In this current crisis in the EU on economic reasons, it might be possible that some nationalistic political groups would benefit from that. But I hope that nationalism won´t get its revival, for I see our future in Europe. I rather stop here to keep up with the topic. -
Message 49
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Friday, 7th October 2011
Raph33inUK
Your comparison with economic teams does not really work, because, in essence, the competition implied by capitalist free market has a rational financial obligation or necessity of competition, opposition to competitors for money. This is a straight-forward pattern, known to all, meant to work that way.
Plus fact that, there may be foreigners working with you in your team.
Do you think they would share a "common history, culture and traditions" with you if they were Japanese, Argentinian, Russian ? Probably not.
Would it make impossible to work with them ? Probably not.
Would have to hate or reject them for it ? Hopefully not.Ìý
If there were foreigners working with me in my team then yes, patently they would share a "common history, culture and traditions" with me. That is the nature of teams.
It isn't an either/or. You can identify with your family and also with society, with your firm, with your religion etc. all at the same time.
My point is that I do not see why nationalism is different in kind to all these other allegiances we form.
"I tend to treat my family better than I would strangers, because we have a 'sense of shared identity and loyalty' which makes me think that they might return the favour.
Isn't nationalism the same?"
Not quite, because nationalism isn't JUST that.
Nationalism derives from a mental manipulation that goes far beyond the simple ideas of loving your country and share common values with people around me and my family.Ìý
You miss my point. I do not think nationalism is about 'loving your country'. It is about feeling your country loves you. If you don't feel your country loves you (as a black person, an Irishman, a Muslim, a poor person or whatever) then you tend to transfer your allegiance - and hence your nationalist-type feelings - to another groups that does seem to have your interests at heart. This seems an entirely rational thing to do.
You treat your family better than you would strangers, but does this make you treat strangers in a bad way ?
Hopefully it doesn't. The fact that you treat your family better does not necessarily imply that "others" would get bad treatment and be rejected.
The sense of national identity becomes nationalism when it starts rejecting what is not part of the "standard" group.Ìý
Again, this implies that you must either accept or reject. The reality is that there are degrees of both; I don't treat strangers in a 'bad' way but I don't give them the favours I give my family.
An example; Britain is a lot richer than Somalia. Should we give our money to Somalia to the point where we are both equal? Or are there limits? Is any belief that there are limits an example of this wicked 'nationalism' we are discussing?
I spent a fair bit of money supporting my children. I am willing to pay taxes towards education, but I'm sorry to say that I am not willing to be as generous with your children as I was with my own. Again, is this wicked?
I am sure there are people who do not distinguish between their own children and those of their neighbours, who will refuse to spend on themselves until we have eliminated world poverty...but I bet there aren't many.
I think you often hear: 'We are a co-operative, we support each other. But they are a selfish gang who only look after their own'. But sometimes it is hard for an outsider to spot the difference. -
Message 50
Posted by Thomas (U14985443) on Friday, 7th October 2011
hotmousemat,
I´ve never came across a statement like yours:
I do not think nationalism is about 'loving your country'. It is about feeling your country loves you. If you don't feel your country loves you (as a black person, an Irishman, a Muslim, a poor person or whatever) then you tend to transfer your allegiance - and hence your nationalist-type feelings - to another groups that does seem to have your interests at heart. This seems an entirely rational thing to do.Ìý
It´s something similar some people understood by the term "Volksgemeinschaft" (Peoples community), but there were also obligations to fulfill in reverse to the love of the country received.
Your sentence is rather referring to "successful integration". By the country, you mean the society. That´s how I understand your post.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
±«Óãtv iD
±«Óãtv navigation
±«Óãtv links
±«Óãtv © 2014 The ±«Óãtv is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.