Nationalism. Is there an up side?

Post Reply
User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Nationalism. Is there an up side?

Post by Jason » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:56 pm

When your group has been effectively disenfranchised, that is you have no self-determination or real say in political decision making, or when your self-determination and political decision making is threatened by another group, or groups, does it not naturally and rightly become an us-against-them struggle? If you value self-determination and all that that is.

User avatar
Cormac
Posts: 6415
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Nationalism. Is there an up side?

Post by Cormac » Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:32 pm

PordFrefect wrote:When your group has been effectively disenfranchised, that is you have no self-determination or real say in political decision making, or when your self-determination and political decision making is threatened by another group, or groups, does it not naturally and rightly become an us-against-them struggle? If you value self-determination and all that that is.

It is in this scenario where I think nationalism can have a place.

Incidentally, in these circumstances, previously antagonistic groups can be forged into a new united identity, through their common struggle!
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!


Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39291
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Nationalism. Is there an up side?

Post by Animavore » Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:33 pm

"Nationalism. Is there an up side?"

Yes. Except for when they go on holiday to Spain, the types of people who are Nationalists tend to stay in their country.


:biggrin:
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

ronmcd
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Sunny Scotland
Contact:

Re: Nationalism. Is there an up side?

Post by ronmcd » Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:54 pm

PordFrefect wrote:When your group has been effectively disenfranchised, that is you have no self-determination or real say in political decision making, or when your self-determination and political decision making is threatened by another group, or groups, does it not naturally and rightly become an us-against-them struggle? If you value self-determination and all that that is.
Where there is disenfranchisement in political decision making, it isn't us-against-them though, surely. Naturally I am going to go back to the Scottish situation. It's not Scots against English (or Welsh or N.Irish). It's not against anyone. It's a continuation of the handing over of political decision making TO the people who live in Scotland, and currently it is being made more and more obvious that the decisions that people in Scotland would make would differ markedly from those made at Westminister.

Ethnic nationalism, that is a problem of course. And it's that which some seek to conflate with political decision making.

This is an excerpt from an excellent post today by a Scots Law blogger on his favourite topic of independence, which makes the point quite well I think:
Imagine an election hustings, held somewhere in Scotland in early 2011. As you would expect, the political panel was filled out primarily by representatives of all of the main Scottish political parties, both unionist and nationalist, scourging for votes. Gathered up before the assembled speakers, a modal sort of Scottish crowd, if perhaps, by dint of their attendance at the meeting, more interested in politics than many of their fellow citizens. The issue of independence was raised, sceptically, by a voice from the floor. Hostile rhubarbs from the Labour and Conservative representatives, albeit of varying degrees of intensity. Then, up pipes a pro-independence speaker. She asks the panel and the crowd something like the following series of questions.

"Would you rather commit our welfare system into Iain Duncan Smith's hands, or to elect someone - to elect any of us, all of us - sitting here, to ensure we can secure a decent standard of living to the poor, the unemployed, the disabled? Would you rather David Cameron decided if and where the Royal Regiment of Scotland was deployed to fight and die in the field, or anyone on this panel? Are you comfortable with George Osborne's ideas of what a fair taxation system looks like, comfortable with George's ideas of equality, or might you have a more faith in a John Swinney - or for that matter, any of us sitting here to share your values and reflect your priorities on taxation, if we only had the powers to decide?"
That's the essence of civic nationalism I think, as opposed to ethnic. Self determination in a situation where the people in a distinct area region or country would, given the choice, do things differently. Scotland would do things differently from Tory/LibDem/and yes New Labour UK governments.

So yes, in my opinion some "nationalism" has an up side.

I appear to have waffled terribly.

ronmcd
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Sunny Scotland
Contact:

Re: Nationalism. Is there an up side?

Post by ronmcd » Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:57 pm

One more point: the idea of a world government is unworkable, and more importantly it must produce results which are not representative of the people in each country or region. How can it. So the question must be at what level should decisions be made? That question, quite simply, is nationalism. Of a sort.

That is not a bad thing ... it's democracy.

ronmcd
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Sunny Scotland
Contact:

Re: Nationalism. Is there an up side?

Post by ronmcd » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:04 pm

I was lying, I've got one more point:

I don't support Scottish nationalism because I hate Cameron or the Tories, that would be "us-against-them". I support it because I want Scotland to choose it's own government, if we vote Tory then fine.

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Nationalism. Is there an up side?

Post by Jason » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:33 pm

:wtf:

MrJonno
Posts: 3442
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:24 am
Contact:

Re: Nationalism. Is there an up side?

Post by MrJonno » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:39 pm

Problem with democracy is that it does mean submiting to people you may not like or are like you much. You need to decide if being part of a larger nation is worth that.

I'm British /English and Cameron is in no way like me but I do accept he was elected at least semi-legitimately (Nick Clegg is a different matter).
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Nationalism. Is there an up side?

Post by mistermack » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:10 pm

ronmcd wrote:I was lying, I've got one more point:

I don't support Scottish nationalism because I hate Cameron or the Tories, that would be "us-against-them". I support it because I want Scotland to choose it's own government, if we vote Tory then fine.
This is the essence of the bollocks.
"Scotland" can't choose anything. It's just twigs and rocks.
There is no "we" except in your head. Why don't you just say it? You want the people who live north of this line, to separate politically from the people south of it. Because this line is sacred. People above it are somehow so different to those below it, that they can't work together.

Sheer bollocks.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

ronmcd
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Sunny Scotland
Contact:

Re: Nationalism. Is there an up side?

Post by ronmcd » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:08 pm

mistermack wrote:
ronmcd wrote:I was lying, I've got one more point:

I don't support Scottish nationalism because I hate Cameron or the Tories, that would be "us-against-them". I support it because I want Scotland to choose it's own government, if we vote Tory then fine.
This is the essence of the bollocks.
"Scotland" can't choose anything. It's just twigs and rocks.
:shock: actually Scotland is a country, but ... ooookay

What is UK though? What is England? What is France? What is US? What is Europe? Are they all just "twigs and sticks", or is it just Scotland you feel is an irrelevance?
And how would YOU decide who should make political decisions for each of the above? Genuinely, at what level should decisions be made?
mistermack wrote:There is no "we" except in your head. Why don't you just say it? You want the people who live north of this line, to separate politically from the people south of it. Because this line is sacred. People above it are somehow so different to those below it, that they can't work together.

Sheer bollocks.
There is a "we" in the United Kingdom. It is "we" who elect a UK government. "We" are the constituents who elect our representatives. All I am suggesting is that a more local government will better represent those who constitute the "we" who happen to live in Scotland. Don't get angry, you are welcome to come!

I still don't understand why the idea of self determination for one country is so offensive to you, when you (I assume) don't apply this same logic to UK with reference to Europe, or Europe with reference to the world. Or do you want voters in China to be able to out-vote UK on (for example) building a nuclear power station next to your house?

ronmcd
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Sunny Scotland
Contact:

Re: Nationalism. Is there an up side?

Post by ronmcd » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:19 pm

MrJonno wrote:Problem with democracy is that it does mean submiting to people you may not like or are like you much. You need to decide if being part of a larger nation is worth that.

I'm British /English and Cameron is in no way like me but I do accept he was elected at least semi-legitimately (Nick Clegg is a different matter).
Absolutely. I have no problem with the fact that Cameron was elected legitimately under the current system. No matter which level at which democracy operates, it will always result in some not getting the government they wanted and voted for. It's just a question of at what level that country/region/whatever WANTS their political choices to be made. There's no right or wrong size, the answer must be a democratic decision. In the case of Scotland, the decision will likely be to stay as part ok UK.

So my point in this thread is just that nationalism can mean a sensible considered decision by a population to change their political arrangements. Or it can be used to refer to xenophobia and a wish to be "separate", only with their own kind etc. That's not good at all.

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: Nationalism. Is there an up side?

Post by Rum » Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:53 pm

Red Celt wrote:
Rum wrote:When I was a kid I read loads of science fiction. I was an idealist too and I figured that one day we would have some kind of world government that was wise, beneficent and liberal.

All silly of course given the state of things these days.

Is nationalism defensible these days when all it appears to offer is difference rather than commonality, splitting rather than uniting, excluding rather than including?

Should we not be breaking down barriers rather than creating them?
You're a Little Englander. You are a part of what you hate. Stir your mug of Horlicks with that idea as you go to bed, tonight.

As an example, Scottish independence is being sought after because Westminster has been doing a shit job of it for too many years. If it had been doing a great job, independence would be a non-starter from the outset. This isn't about nationalism (and you've been told that more than once, you fuckwit) but self-determination... because distant-determination doesn't work.

One world government? Great. So long as it has subdivisions that do their best for their own people. Hell, let's go all out and call them... oh, I dunno... "countries".

Alles klar?

With you? Probably not.
Your posts often drip with hatred and negativity and the sort of instant aggression one associates with the streets of Glagow after ten on a Friday night. I sometimes wonder if you suffer from that other stereotypical Scoth fault, Jock old son, of posting while imbibing said Scoth. It might explain the shrunken mental capacity on display so often too.

Cheers.

MrJonno
Posts: 3442
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:24 am
Contact:

Re: Nationalism. Is there an up side?

Post by MrJonno » Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:38 pm

ronmcd wrote:
MrJonno wrote:Problem with democracy is that it does mean submiting to people you may not like or are like you much. You need to decide if being part of a larger nation is worth that.

I'm British /English and Cameron is in no way like me but I do accept he was elected at least semi-legitimately (Nick Clegg is a different matter).
Absolutely. I have no problem with the fact that Cameron was elected legitimately under the current system. No matter which level at which democracy operates, it will always result in some not getting the government they wanted and voted for. It's just a question of at what level that country/region/whatever WANTS their political choices to be made. There's no right or wrong size, the answer must be a democratic decision. In the case of Scotland, the decision will likely be to stay as part ok UK.

So my point in this thread is just that nationalism can mean a sensible considered decision by a population to change their political arrangements. Or it can be used to refer to xenophobia and a wish to be "separate", only with their own kind etc. That's not good at all.
The nationalism = desire for political self determination you said its a very different matter to nationalism being thinking you are better than anyone elsely not the most common form of it. Probably needs different words to describe each concept
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

User avatar
Red Celt
Humanist Misanthrope
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:30 pm
About me: Crow Philosopher
Location: Fife, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Nationalism. Is there an up side?

Post by Red Celt » Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:37 am

Rum wrote:Your posts often drip with hatred and negativity and the sort of instant aggression one associates with the streets of Glagow after ten on a Friday night. I sometimes wonder if you suffer from that other stereotypical Scoth fault, Jock old son, of posting while imbibing said Scoth. It might explain the shrunken mental capacity on display so often too.

Cheers.
Your spelling is apt for someone on the drink, himself. And you lay the claim at my door? :D

More stereotypes trotted out by the Little Englander. A third reference to me as "Jock" (a word rarely used in good humour, by the English) and a couple of drink-related references. Because that's what Scots do, right? Right? I rarely drink. I'll sometimes have a small nip of single malt as a rare treat, but it's for the taste, not to get drunk. That's what cheap scotch ("scoth" to you, apparently) is for. I much prefer a bit of weed for good mellow times.

And, if my posts appear to drip with hatred and negativity, remember that I'm using corporeal karma - treating people how they treat others. It's a mirror. If you don't like the reflection, there is a very easy way to change it. Well... old dogs and new tricks, so perhaps it isn't easy for some.

tl;dr = stop acting like a cunt and I'll stop treating you like one. OK? OK.
Image

User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Nationalism. Is there an up side?

Post by Robert_S » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:19 am

What is the "Little Englander" reference?
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests