The rise of nationalism.

[Buce]

2 hours ago, GazzinderFox said:

I agree with you to an extent, I still marvel when I stand in a massive cathedral where everything lines up perfectly and I think how did they do that!

 

But...

 

a) surely these people were the most technologically advanced people of there age. and

b) all the people groups you mention are no longer with us as they were taken over by more advanced cultures. 

a) Of course not, not by a long way - we are talking only 500 years ago when the Spanish arrived.

 

The point that I was trying to make (possibly badly) is that how to measure the 'superiority' of a culture is largely a subjective thing. Matt chooses to measure it by technological advancement. Others may choose to define it differently. @ozleicester might argue that the indigenous people of his country managing to live in harmony with nature for tens of thousands of years (while leaning on a spear ), makes them culturally superior to the modern day Aussies who don't.

 

Technological advancement leads to military superiority; being able to dominate another culture merely means you are more powerful, not necessarily better - that all depends on your perspective.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

The\ title of this thread is "The Rise of Nationalism"

 

Why do you think this has happened? There must be a very big reason, that the ordinary rank and file have shifted to the right. Some people may not like it, but it is very understandable, and will not go away, until the issues are sorted once and for all. Need I say more?

[yorkie1999]

10 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

The\ title of this thread is "The Rise of Nationalism"

 

Why do you think this has happened? There must be a very big reason, that the ordinary rank and file have shifted to the right. Some people may not like it, but it is very understandable, and will not go away, until the issues are sorted once and for all. Need I say more?

The same reason as to why it always happens. Because the ordinary rank and file can only tolerate so much neoliberalism as to being molded into believing that they are living in a fantastic society and everything is rosy in the garden and they've never had it so good and "were all in it together" and then they look around them and think "hang on, what a load of bullsh*t , let's revolt". Then what happens is the masters come up with something new to appease the masses, such as the vote or free internet porn. That's been going off from Moses to trump. 

[ozleicester]

patriotism and nationalism are bullshit.

 

there are no borders, just perceived lines on a (false sized  ) maps. 

 

The American empire and capitalism is in decline, many people are scared about the middle eastern uprising but the next empire will be Chinese, check out any  timeline of empires rise and fall.

 

Patriotism and nationalism are just tools to keep the simple under control.

[theessexfox]

17 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

patriotism and nationalism are bullshit.

 

there are no borders, just perceived lines on a (false sized  ) maps. 

 

The American empire and capitalism is in decline, many people are scared about the middle eastern uprising but the next empire will be Chinese, check out any  timeline of empires rise and fall.

 

Patriotism and nationalism are just tools to keep the simple under control.

Do you really think that nations can only be defined as geographical borders? Rather than political entities, or groups with varying degrees of homogeneity in terms of common language, culture and heritage? 

[ozleicester]

Just now, theessexfox said:

Do you really think that nations can only be defined as geographical borders? Rather than political entities, or groups with varying degrees of homogeneity in terms of common language, culture and heritage? 

I think thats almost exactly how nations are defined.  The larger ones try hard to export their cultures and beliefs by way of invasion but as the empire declines, they fall back and are eventually overrun and replaced.

[theessexfox]

Just now, ozleicester said:

I think thats almost exactly how nations are defined.  The larger ones try hard to export their cultures and beliefs by way of invasion but as the empire declines, they fall back and are eventually overrun and replaced.

nation

ˈneɪʃ(ə)n/

noun

 

1. a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.

    

    

   Obviously these lines of common descent and culture get blurred with immigration and the level of homogeneity decreases but there is a clear case that the Scots are a distinct nation from the Japanese, not just because they inhabit a different arbitrarily defined geographical territory but that they have their own languages, dialect and ways of life developed by that common heritage and culture which makes them clearly distinct nations from one another. 

[ozleicester]

Just now, theessexfox said:

nation

ˈneɪʃ(ə)n/

noun

 

1. a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.

    

    

   Obviously these lines of common descent and culture get blurred with immigration and the level of homogeneity decreases but there is a clear case that the Scots are a distinct nation from the Japanese, not just because they inhabit a different arbitrarily defined geographical territory but that they have their own languages, dialect and ways of life developed by that common heritage and culture which makes them clearly distinct nations from one another. 

The other parts are relevant, but surely the final line is the basis?

[theessexfox]

6 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

The other parts are relevant, but surely the final line is the basis?

Well yeah a geographical territory is necessary for a nation, and this can obviously trace back to clear geographical features or it can be arbitrary, as you say. (Although a nation doesn't have to be a sovereign state; the Kurds are often considered a large stateless nation, bound together by their region and common heritage/culture but not exercising political jurisdiction within one defined geographical border.) But I don't think the fact that borders are somewhat imagined and arbitrary means they become a social construct, because the common features which bind people together within that territory are a vital component of them being a nation. As such, patriotism doesn't have to be bullshit, as there is no reason why a group of common people cannot be proud of their heritage and their customs simply because the idea of borders are arbitrary. 

[Guest MattP]

10 hours ago, theessexfox said:

Well yeah a geographical territory is necessary for a nation, and this can obviously trace back to clear geographical features or it can be arbitrary, as you say. (Although a nation doesn't have to be a sovereign state; the Kurds are often considered a large stateless nation, bound together by their region and common heritage/culture but not exercising political jurisdiction within one defined geographical border.) But I don't think the fact that borders are somewhat imagined and arbitrary means they become a social construct, because the common features which bind people together within that territory are a vital component of them being a nation. As such, patriotism doesn't have to be bullshit, as there is no reason why a group of common people cannot be proud of their heritage and their customs simply because the idea of borders are arbitrary. 

Cracking post.

[Alf Bentley]

On 11/9/2016 at 20:20, Strokes said:

Its funny though because in some countries it seems perfectly acceptable to be showing nationlism but in others its seens as deplorable. The scottish population for instance have been a very nationlist for as long as i can remember and that was just cute.

In short i dont take issue with nationlism per se (we show it in sport, so why not politics?) but its the extremes that follow it around that we must be careful of.

 

On 11/9/2016 at 20:32, leicsmac said:

Being proud of your country is patriotism.

 

Believing your country inherently superior to others is nationalism.

 

One is positive, the other negative, and it's sad how often the two get mixed up.

 

I'm not sure it's that simple @leicsmac.

 

If a patriot is proud of his country to the extent of ignoring its faults and allowing feelings of pride to slide into feelings of superiority, that seems quite negative.

 

Likewise, as Strokes suggests, nationalism can be benign, even positive. Most Scottish or Irish nationalists do not have a superiority complex (though some do). 

Maybe a distinction should be drawn between defensive nationalism vis-à-vis powerful neighbours and aggressive nationalism vis-à-vis less powerful neighbours?

 

Some interesting debate here, although it's a bit too close to the "patriotism good, nationalism bad" line for my liking: http://www.huffingtonpost.in/sudhanva-d-shetty/theres-a-world-of-difference-between-patriotism-and-nationalism/

 

I find the idea of a potential rise in nationalism in powerful countries like the USA, Russia & China - and, to a lesser extent, the UK, France & Germany - quite a scary prospect.

It's particularly dangerous in such an inter-linked, mutually dependent world as the one we now live in. Even if conflict is limited to trade wars and protectionism, that can do a lot of damage to people's lives - and to prospects for peaceful co-existence, as a result. We know that a combination of nationalism and political interdependence contributed to WW1, so it would be bloody ironic if we celebrated the centenary by having a combination of nationalism and economic interdependence lead to WW3!

 

Trump seems to advocate isolationism and economic nationalism more than political or military nationalism, but economic conflict and chaos (e.g. trade war with China) could quickly metamorphose into a more existential conflict and chaos....hopefully not.

The very idea of American nationalism is a strange one. The USA is a nation founded on the "melting pot", on welcoming migrants with promises of opportunity, prosperity and freedom for those prepared to work for them. Maybe we're now going to get a different, more defensive sort of "American dream", based partly on race, on pulling up the drawbridge on new migrants and on aggressively promoting the economic interests of those (particularly the white lower-middle class) whose American dream is not coming true. How will that work at a time when the American and global super-rich (including both Trump and Clinton) are taking an ever greater share of the pie?

 

I can't relate to either patriotism or nationalism linked to any nation or homeland, maybe because I'm a mongrel (English born and bred, but mainly of Irish family).

I'm proud that England/Britain has contributed so massively in music, that it produces great ales (even if I'm not drinking them just now), that we've mainly been a fairly humorous, tolerant bunch. I'm proud that Ireland has also contributed greatly to music and even more so to literature, and that many Irish people are very articulate, enjoy a good argument but are mainly friendly, generous-minded people. But I could also list failings of the English and Irish - and things that the French, Germans, Australians or whoever are better at. Looking outward is as important as gazing at the beauty of your own navel.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

I'm not sure it's that simple @leicsmac.

 

If a patriot is proud of his country to the extent of ignoring its faults and allowing feelings of pride to slide into feelings of superiority, that seems quite negative.

 

Likewise, as Strokes suggests, nationalism can be benign, even positive. Most Scottish or Irish nationalists do not have a superiority complex (though some do). 

Maybe a distinction should be drawn between defensive nationalism vis-à-vis powerful neighbours and aggressive nationalism vis-à-vis less powerful neighbours?

 

Some interesting debate here, although it's a bit too close to the "patriotism good, nationalism bad" line for my liking: http://www.huffingtonpost.in/sudhanva-d-shetty/theres-a-world-of-difference-between-patriotism-and-nationalism/

 

I find the idea of a potential rise in nationalism in powerful countries like the USA, Russia & China - and, to a lesser extent, the UK, France & Germany - quite a scary prospect.

It's particularly dangerous in such an inter-linked, mutually dependent world as the one we now live in. Even if conflict is limited to trade wars and protectionism, that can do a lot of damage to people's lives - and to prospects for peaceful co-existence, as a result. We know that a combination of nationalism and political interdependence contributed to WW1, so it would be bloody ironic if we celebrated the centenary by having a combination of nationalism and economic interdependence lead to WW3!

 

Trump seems to advocate isolationism and economic nationalism more than political or military nationalism, but economic conflict and chaos (e.g. trade war with China) could quickly metamorphose into a more existential conflict and chaos....hopefully not.

The very idea of American nationalism is a strange one. The USA is a nation founded on the "melting pot", on welcoming migrants with promises of opportunity, prosperity and freedom for those prepared to work for them. Maybe we're now going to get a different, more defensive sort of "American dream", based partly on race, on pulling up the drawbridge on new migrants and on aggressively promoting the economic interests of those (particularly the white lower-middle class) whose American dream is not coming true. How will that work at a time when the American and global super-rich (including both Trump and Clinton) are taking an ever greater share of the pie?

 

I can't relate to either patriotism or nationalism linked to any nation or homeland, maybe because I'm a mongrel (English born and bred, but mainly of Irish family).

I'm proud that England/Britain has contributed so massively in music, that it produces great ales (even if I'm not drinking them just now), that we've mainly been a fairly humorous, tolerant bunch. I'm proud that Ireland has also contributed greatly to music and even more so to literature, and that many Irish people are very articulate, enjoy a good argument but are mainly friendly, generous-minded people. But I could also list failings of the English and Irish - and things that the French, Germans, Australians or whoever are better at. Looking outward is as important as gazing at the beauty of your own navel.

Right, Alf, perhaps i was a little simplistic in definitions there, but to be honest even the dictionaries seem to disagree on the terms so it all seems a bit subjective. There's definitely room for debate.

 

Rest of your post is utterly spot on, to be honest I've been afraid of economic downturn and the rise of nationalism in powerful countries subsequently since the late 2000s because history has shown that trade wars (and sometimes actual shooting wars) can and do happen as a result of it. If that were to happen again, i wouldn't be sure that civilization or even humanity itself would come back from it. But I guess we'll see.

[Trav Le Bleu]

On 09/11/2016 at 21:15, Webbo said:

Don't confuse nationalism with a contempt for the sneering elite. People are sick of political correctness and all the double standards that exist within it. They're sick of having there genuine concerns ridiculed by well off Guardian readers, pop stars and luvvies. Sick of being told they're too thick to understand the issue and to leave it to experts like them with a long track record of getting things wrong.

 

This vote  was a massive 2 fingered salute to the establishment. Maybe things will work out well, maybe they won't but I guarantee , next time the establishment will listen

I would explain, but you're probably too thick to understand

 

[ozleicester]

Patriotism is a state of mind, fed, twisted and exploited by people in power.

 

I was born in england, im english, i support my football club and my national team, but i do know that it is a choice, i dont have to and (as demonstrated by millions of Man U fans) i can chose to be "patriotic" to any club or country.

 

People chose patriotism and by doing so chose to separate themselves from others (this is why governments love it)... We are ALL humans, basically the same and i imagine we would forget our petty borders pretty damn quickly if suddenly we were being attacked from "outer space".

 

I am interested in pride and patriotism, why would i be proud of something that someone i dont know did 10...100..1500 years before i was born?

 

Edit - sorry meant to quote @theessexfox there

[Guest]

22 hours ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

The\ title of this thread is "The Rise of Nationalism"

 

Why do you think this has happened? There must be a very big reason, that the ordinary rank and file have shifted to the right. Some people may not like it, but it is very understandable, and will not go away, until the issues are sorted once and for all. Need I say more?

Yes you need say more (although you probably shouldn't). You fix 'issues' for people on the right you'll probably cause issues for people with opposing ideologies on the left. 

 

Then what? Wait until they demand their way and keep lurching from left to right?

 

Divide and rule eh.

 

 

[Strokes]

14 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

Yes you need say more (although you probably shouldn't). You fix 'issues' for people on the right you'll probably cause issues for people with opposing ideologies on the left. 

 

Then what? Wait until they demand their way and keep lurching from left to right?

 

Divide and rule eh.

 

 

If we are all going to get along every fùcker is going to have to agree with me ok?

[ozleicester]

ok 

 

[Barky]

If you're going to feel personal pride when one of your compatriots does something good, don't you also have to feel personal shame when one does something bad?

 

I'm not prepared to feel ashamed because of Jimmy Saville, so how can I claim personal pride over Sir Tim Berners Lee?

[Spiritwalker]

12 minutes ago, Barky said:

If you're going to feel personal pride when one of your compatriots does something good, don't you also have to feel personal shame when one does something bad?

 

I'm not prepared to feel ashamed because of Jimmy Saville, so how can I claim personal pride over Sir Tim Berners Lee?

I thought the same when Helen Mirran was apologising for the BP oil spill

on American TV. Why are you apologising for a multinational company

that has nothing to do with you just because you are British?

[Spiritwalker]

For me the biggest danger is from Russia. Nationalism in the US is 

likely to cause problems domestically rather than nationally. China

has no recent history of aggressive nationalism. I don't see the UK,

France or Germany threatening world order at present.

Russia however is a concern, they have an egotistical leader who

has a stranglehold on power. I think he would like to turn the clock

back to the days of the Soviet Union and has showed that Russia

is a real threat to it's neighbours. Probably of most concern is that

he appears to be very popular with the Russian people and his popularity

seems to grow when his government is in conflict with the West or 

their neighbours.

 

[bovril]

13 minutes ago, Spiritwalker said:

For me the biggest danger is from Russia. Nationalism in the US is 

likely to cause problems domestically rather than nationally. China

has no recent history of aggressive nationalism. I don't see the UK,

France or Germany threatening world order at present.

Russia however is a concern, they have an egotistical leader who

has a stranglehold on power. I think he would like to turn the clock

back to the days of the Soviet Union and has showed that Russia

is a real threat to it's neighbours. Probably of most concern is that

he appears to be very popular with the Russian people and his popularity

seems to grow when his government is in conflict with the West or 

their neighbours.

 

America, despite being a much more open country and nicer to live in, is much more aggressive militarily than Russia. Turkey under Erdogan is just as much of a concern to its neighbours as Russia.

People forget that the Soviet Union was geographically a continuation of Tsarist Russia. While other empires gradually declined, the Russian empire was dismembered completely and its constituent parts hurriedly brought into the American sphere of influence.  It's not surprising there's been a reaction. 

[Benguin]

The rise of the right is really simply down to the rise of the left. All this buzzword, pc nonsense calls for opposing views.  Liberal media telling people how to think, results in people wanting to think differently.

 

 

[yorkie1999]

Once Donald and Nicola get together and work out their differences on the golf course, with Angela joining in for a threesome, we'll all be f**ked.

[GazzinderFox]

24 minutes ago, Spiritwalker said:

Russia however is a concern, they have an egotistical leader who

has a stranglehold on power. I think he would like to turn the clock

back to the days of the Soviet Union and has showed that Russia

is a real threat to it's neighbours. Probably of most concern is that

he appears to be very popular with the Russian people and his popularity

seems to grow when his government is in conflict with the West or 

their neighbours.

As much of a concern is he also seems to be able to outwit western governments at will, with very limited resources comparatively. In some respects he's become a bit of a pin up boy for the right - even in the US.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Benguin said:

The rise of the right is really simply down to the rise of the left. All this buzzword, pc nonsense calls for opposing views.  Liberal media telling people how to think, results in people wanting to think differently.

 

 

That's possibly true this time but I'm not sure you could argue that you can say that the rise of nationalist conservatism has been as a response to such things every time in the past, nor that what would be considered now as the "right" hasn't ruled the roost for most of history.