Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Why do we still have nationalism?

  • 13-02-2011 10:16pm
    #1
    dilbert2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 364 ✭✭


    Considering that we have known for well over a century the common origin of all Europeans, Asians, Africans etc from the centre of Africa - and of their movement around the world from there, the question remains why does nationalism still remain such a potent force in the modern world. I bring this up because of a variety of factors such as
    • The racist (termed nationalist) attitude of many Irish toward the English. These boards are proof of this with Brit bashing left, right and centre.
    • Likewise the racist attitude many English people exhibit toward Ireland and the Irish such as in the recent newspaper article "Wanted. One4500000 superstitious idiot to run a small bankrupt republic of drunkards", including many negative portrayals in the past in magazines such as punch etc.
    • Likewise the English and the French seem to hate each other half of the time (even when it is attempted to dress it up as a friendly rivalry).
    • And the various nations, both old and recently formed around the world whose members have a prejudice against other people.
    Isn't nationalism (particularly the racist variety), whether it be Irish nationalism, English nationalism or whatever else just a pseudoscience that makes the assumption that a big piece of land determines who we are mentally and personality wise etc - and should dictate where our hearts and minds lie.

    I am just wondering that in this supposedly modern century, and considering the fact we know humans are in fact one species that evolved gradually over the past 200,000 - why do we continue to divide, stereotype and even hate people based on imaginary concepts such as nationality and nationhood. Not forgetting the sort of pseudoscience and quack theories which drove Europe into two world wars nearly destroying the place during the 20th century.

    And I hate to bring this up, but I cannot help feel that religion plays a part (whether catholic/ Anglican/ protestant etc), what with their tale of the “tower of Babel” – which would seem to justify separating humans on the basis of supposed nations. For instance wasn’t the Reformation in part successful given that it gave in to nationalist bigotry in countries such as England and Holland etc where rulers convinced their people that they were “god’s chosen people”. Likewise the fight back against the reformation and Protestantism since then, whether in Ireland, Spain, Italy or wherever seems to be justified on the basis that “some heathen peoples like the English, Dutch or whatever” are heathens and heretics – hence we can justify despising them.

    While in the past it is definite that our species was competitive for obvious reasons over resources, whether they be water / animals to hunt / territories rich in natural resources etc – the division along nationalist and so-called racial lines seems to be a human construct, and completely counter that one would find in ancient primates, or even primitive man – who was more concerned with simply staying alive, having enough to eat etc.

    So would I be justified in suggesting that the bible, and in particular it’s tale of the Tower of Babel and the supposed scattering of the different races (not actually races at all consider Homo Sapiens are one species) to each corner of the earth, has a lot to blame for the racism, nationalism and division found in the world today?
    Tagged:


«1

Comments

  • #2
    billymitchell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,996 ✭✭✭✭billymitchell


    Jaysus, you got a summary of that?


  • #3
    PK2008
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,219 ✭✭✭PK2008


    You know there is a politics forum on this site here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=852


  • #4
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    We didnt know the out of Africa theory for a century. Darwin posited the notion humans arose in Africa because the other great apes were there. But proof didn't come about until DNA testing. We came from north east Africa, not central. We also have extra DNA from older human species that weren't "us". Well Europeans and Asians do. Africans are "purer" in that sense.

    Religion is a symptom, not the cause. The cause is built in tribalism. Bugger all to do with race, just race makes it easier to point out the other. EG Ulster. They're genetically the same "race". Not just talking white either, but on the DNA level. Scots and Irish are very very close(as are the English and the Irish particularly western English county types). All about tribalism.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #5
    dilbert2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 364 ✭✭dilbert2


    Hande hoche! wrote: »
    So you would prefer one world nationalism? Hating the Martians and all that.

    One world nationalism is a contradiction is it not? Nations= division. No i'm using a scientific, logical justification here for attacking nationalism and in particular the part that the bible has had to play in justifying racism, nationalism and division through the Tower of Babel myth - and pointing out at the same time that humans are one species, homo sapiens. Irish/ English/ French/ German / American are artificial constructs as all 7 billion humans present on the earth today are homo sapiens.


  • #6
    Duckworth_Luas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭Duckworth_Luas


    dilbert2 wrote: »
    So would I be justified in suggesting that the bible, and in particular it’s tale of the Tower of Babel and the supposed scattering of the different races (not actually races at all consider Homo Sapiens are one species) to each corner of the earth, has a lot to blame for the racism, nationalism and division found in the world today?

    No


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    The Bible is hardly solely to blame. Nationalism is hardly confined to predominantly Judeo-Christian parts of the world ?
    Wibbs wrote: »
    The cause is built in tribalism.

    Or in other words an inability to evolve beyond the level of the playground bully


  • #8
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    dilbert2 wrote: »
    So would I be justified in suggesting that the bible, and in particular it’s tale of the Tower of Babel and the supposed scattering of the different races (not actually races at all consider Homo Sapiens are one species) to each corner of the earth, has a lot to blame for the racism, nationalism and division found in the world today?

    I honestly can't see how you came to the conclusion that nationalism comes from a story in the bible :confused:


  • #9
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    I find it hilarious that the OP attempts to use modern science to denigrate nationalism (a political ideology based simply on doing the best in the interest of one's own nation) as racist, which is itself a Victorian concept discredited by genetics, another modern science.


  • #10
    dilbert2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 364 ✭✭dilbert2


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    I find it hilarious that the OP attempts to use modern science to denigrate nationalism (a political ideology based simply on doing the best in the interest of one's own nation) as racist, which is itself a Victorian concept discredited by genetics, another modern science.

    What was discredited by modern science then? As for "doing the best in the interest of one's own nation" - to be brutally honest this means nothing as the nation-state is a relative newcomer in terms of the time span that homo sapiens have walked the earth. To be honest loyalty in reality can never really go beyond the local - nation states just seem to have lumped hundreds of different groupings in prior centuries into one entity, while using the unscientific claim that those who inhabit this artificial construct constitute a "race", different from "the race over there", and hence the reason for much of the division today.

    The tower of babel is basically a tale still adhered to by religions which seems to justify a separation of "races" and peoples based on the assumption of god's intervention in destroying the tower and scattering the people - so in other word's (and this notion is still peddled by many religionists) racism and bigotry along with the artificial division of one species (homo sapiens) can be justified, and the illogical notion of "been against the other race" is also justified because it is the supposed will of god


  • #11
    biko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    After Hours -> Politics


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    SharpshooterTom
    Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭SharpshooterTom


    I am 100% in agreement with the OP.

    The concept of nationality is completely out of date and unecessary. It's time to merge the human race together as one. One nation of 7 billion people without religion countries etc.

    I hate it when people say they're proud to be irish or english or american. It's all completely unecessary. The concept of nationality is all made up by humans just like religion. Do birds or other species know when they are in Britain or Ireland? Nope because it's just made by the human race. Pointless. Get rid of it.


  • #13
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Nations are clusters of people who self-identify (and/or are identified by others) as a cohesive group based on shared language, history, and culture. States are essentially political creations designed to govern citizens, who may or may not all be members of the same nation.

    I think the distinction needs to be drawn because states often play a role in defining the nation, or at least sharpening their sense of group identity. Nationalism flourishes under repression - the Irish and the Basques are clear examples. But sometimes nation-building is necessary to preserve the power of the state (the French would be a clear example of this). Actually, the French are an interesting example: the modern French state essentially created the nation, whereas in Germany, the opposite happened: the modern state arose from the pre-existing German nation ("volk").

    I don't think nationalism is necessarily bad. Civic nationalism, or citizenship based on a shared set of political principles, is far more open and flexible than ethnic nationalism, which is essentially closed to outsiders. And having a shared sense of national belonging is an important component of social cohesion and resource distribution (there is generally more inequality in ethnically diverse countries; people don't want to distribute resources to the "other").

    I don't think that the "common origins" argument washes, as peoples' immediate situation is always going to be more relevant than their historical origins (look at the experience of the US as a nation of immigrants). The real question here is, how do states handle having citizens who are not part of the "national" majority as defined? This is where things tend to go terribly wrong. If states can control that impulse (which is hard, because there are always going to be politicians who want to whip up the majority against the minority for their own political gain), then nationalism does not necessarily need to be a negative thing.


  • #14
    Opinicus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 816 ✭✭✭Opinicus


    Wibbs wrote: »
    The cause is built in tribalism. All about tribalism.

    This^^^^

    It's the way we are wired, especially to be suspicious of anything or anyone we are not familiar with or something or someone that is not "ours" or "one of us". The way in which we play sport and support teams is a great example of this.


  • #15
    Ghost Estate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 559 ✭✭✭Ghost Estate


    Opinicus wrote: »
    This^^^^

    It's the way we are wired, especially to be suspicious of anything or anyone we are not familiar with or something or someone that is not "ours" or "one of us". The way in which we play sport and support teams is a great example of this.


    Some people, and groups of people like to live in a different way and do things differently than others.

    Nothing wrong with that. Why does everybody need to be the same? life would be very boring if everyone in the world was cooked up in their tiny apartment posting on boards about how bad the Catholic church is.


  • #16
    Opinicus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 816 ✭✭✭Opinicus


    Ghost Estate wrote: »
    Some people, and groups of people like to live in a different way and do things differently than others.

    Nothing wrong with that. Why does everybody need to be the same? life would be very boring if everyone in the world was cooked up in their tiny apartment posting on boards about how bad the Catholic church is.


    I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. People can do whatever they like.


  • #17
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    dilbert2 wrote: »
    What was discredited by modern science then?

    The Victorian concept of race was discredited by genetics. Therefore the concept of racism is equally incoherent.
    dilbert2 wrote: »
    As for "doing the best in the interest of one's own nation" - to be brutally honest this means nothing as the nation-state is a relative newcomer in terms of the time span that homo sapiens have walked the earth.

    Modern healthcare is also a relative newcomer on earth, but it would take an idiot to suggest that it had no relevance in the contemporary world. Just to take one example.
    dilbert2 wrote: »
    To be honest loyalty in reality can never really go beyond the local - nation states just seem to have lumped hundreds of different groupings in prior centuries into one entity, while using the unscientific claim that those who inhabit this artificial construct constitute a "race", different from "the race over there", and hence the reason for much of the division today.

    This applies to some nations and not others. Some have an inherent integrity, while others have forged an integrity out of component parts. Then there are further nations which are not as coherent. African states come to mind in this regard, as do many post-colonial entities whose borders were created by colonial rulers drawing lines on maps.
    But just because Sudan isn't a very coherent nation state doesn't mean that Germany or Ireland are equally incoherent.
    I note you're still waffling about 'races' rather than citizens of individual nations, by the way.
    dilbert2 wrote: »
    The tower of babel is basically a tale still adhered to by religions which seems to justify a separation of "races" and peoples based on the assumption of god's intervention in destroying the tower and scattering the people - so in other word's (and this notion is still peddled by many religionists) racism and bigotry along with the artificial division of one species (homo sapiens) can be justified, and the illogical notion of "been against the other race" is also justified because it is the supposed will of god

    Some religious-themed gibberish here. Sorry, I don't traffic in mythologies. If you want to discuss political theory in relation to nation states or the validity of nationalism as a political theory, I'm happy to do so. But I've no interest in your fairytale arguments.


  • #18
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,335 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    REMINDER...
    A few of the above posters have been getting a bit too personal in their replies, sometimes taking the thread off-topic in doing so. In the future focus on the content of posts, and not each other.
    Thanks,
    Black Swan


  • #19
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Gnobe wrote: »
    I am 100% in agreement with the OP.

    The concept of nationality is completely out of date and unecessary. It's time to merge the human race together as one. One nation of 7 billion people without religion countries etc.

    I hate it when people say they're proud to be irish or english or american. It's all completely unecessary. The concept of nationality is all made up by humans just like religion. Do birds or other species know when they are in Britain or Ireland? Nope because it's just made by the human race. Pointless. Get rid of it.

    TBH this just doesn't make sense to me. Culturally, people are very different, and taking it a step further, nationality is often closely linked to culture. Because in modern society, the state generally acts on behalf of the nation, these cultural differences end up having a really profound effect on how the everyday affairs of the state are conducted. Cultural differences are strongly reflected in laws governing nation(s). There is a lot of research on this; the World Values Survey picks up not only differences between nation-states, but differences between regions: Scandinavians are distinct from Southern Europeans, and Western industrialized countries are very different from Asian industrialized countries.

    To think about this in a slightly different way, there is a lot of talk in Ireland about looking to the Scandinavian countries, particularly Sweden, as a model for good governance moving forward. But would it really make sense to plunk Swedish institutions down on the Irish nation? Sweden's institutions - both formal and informal - emerged from their national culture, just as Ireland's did (although Ireland's formal institutions were modeled after those of the UK).

    People are different, and nations are simply a way of recognizing both differences and commonalities. As I said before, the bigger question here is how the state manages the question of the nation, not the existence of the nation itself.


  • #20
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    Its as simple as people like to feel as sense of belonging, they want to be part of a group, like football supporters clubs.

    Agree with the anti British sentiment on boards,(obviously alot of young angry men and a small few women here) particularly anti English and yet so many people support English football teams, crazy but they want to be part of the team, the supporters team.

    It should matter where you come from, or whether or not we all share some DNA, because its only an accident of birth that decides what your nationality is, a person has no say, its lifes lottery. We are all human and that should be all that matters really but sadly its not.

    Its proved almost impossible to get the people of this nation to see what was right in front of them re the economic situation, in the past 5 years, imagine what it would have been like if it had been 7 billion people - so many diverse ideas and gruops - nightmare - you'd never get agreement on a social contract - never


  • #21
    doogydna
    Registered Users Posts: 16 ✭doogydna


    "People who develop the habit of thinking of themselves as world citizens are fulfilling the first requirement of sanity in our time." Norman Cousins


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Rabble Rabble
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,367 ✭✭✭Rabble Rabble


    SOuthSideRosie said it the best.

    Human beings are naturally tribalist - the highest limit of our tribal affiliation is the nation ( belonging to a State, or not).
    To be honest loyalty in reality can never really go beyond the local - nation states just seem to have lumped hundreds of different groupings in prior centuries into one entity, while using the unscientific claim that those who inhabit this artificial construct constitute a "race", different from "the race over there", and hence the reason for much of the division today.

    Obviously loyalty goes beyond the local, national regard is not confined to States, and the thousand of different groupings could still make a nation ( Tacitus talks about the Germans).

    Lets counter the lines on a map creates a nation argument: The Island of Britain is the largest constituent part of one State ( the UK) , it consists of three nations. Because it consists of three nations it is an artificial ( or unstable) construct and has separatist movements.. Meanwhile Germany - a State comprised of one national group has no such seperatist movements. In history, quite the reverse. Because German's lived outside Germany it became expansionist.

    The basis of your claim is that you can create arbitrary lines on a map and convince people they are a Nation not just a State, and belonged to "imaginary" ethnic groups. This is a claim which can be falsified: if it were so no group would wish to leave the "arbitrary lines on a map" once created and you would be a "contructed" Britishman, even Englishman, thinking nothing of Irishness, and nor would the Welsh or Scottish see themselves as anything other than British ( or even English). That would make January weekends pretty crap, although we could have a two nations rugby contest. I suppose.

    Most of central Europe would be Hapsburgians, the Czechslovaks would not understand the difference between czech and slovak as anything other than regional, and Yugoslavia would still exist and be full of Yugoslavians. Empires would have morphed into Common Wealths, seeing themselves as all one State, and one ethnic group.

    Clearly you can't create arbitrary lines on a map an create identity. Draw the lines across pre-existing nations and you get separatist movements, exclude part of the nation and you get expansionist or irredentist movements. Identity has nothing do with the State you are in.

    You are on an Island where this is more obvious than most. Throw about sociology 101 and try and understand the actual world around you. What is, isn't ought. But at least try and deal with is.


  • #23
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,345 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    There's no more wrong in nationalism than there is in being a member of a Man Utd supporters club.


  • #24
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    There's no more wrong in nationalism than there is in being a member of a Man Utd supporters club.

    Well, generally being a ManU supporter isn't used as a rationale to oppress all of the ManCity supporters. I don't think we are talking about the same thing here.


  • #25
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Racism, sectarianism, nationalism.... its all about looking after your own.


  • #26
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    recedite wrote: »
    Racism, sectarianism, nationalism.... its all about looking after your own.

    Is there something wrong with looking after your own, or is that not allowed any more?


  • #27
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    And there's the big question.


  • #28
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    recedite wrote: »
    Racism, sectarianism, nationalism.... its all about looking after your own.
    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    Is there something wrong with looking after your own, or is that not allowed any more?
    recedite wrote: »
    And there's the big question.

    I don't think it's a big question; I think it's pretty straightforward.

    The state has an equal responsibility to all of its citizens, regardless of race, religion, or nationality. And individuals can look after "their own" as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others, which racism, sectarianism, and nationalism far too often do.


  • #29
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    It still amazes me that some people follow this truly disgusting and outdated ideology. On this very board we have a number of well educated and thoughtful people who embrace a quasi fascist 19th century ideology.


  • #30
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    Is there something wrong with looking after your own, or is that not allowed any more?

    Define what is your own? Is it the people who live in this country or the people from this country who have immigrated and are working and being looked after by other states?

    Is it the children of people who have immigrated and are now living in other states?

    Is it people who immigrated to this country and will live, work and contribute to this society for the whole of their adult lives?

    Is it your cousins who live all over the world - who are our own and will everyone agree with your difinition of your own? Probably not its hard to get people to agree on anything


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    A look at our own history regarding accepting people from different countries tells alot about us as a nation.

    In the 1880's and 1890's there was an influx of Jews into Ireland and Britain.

    The 1905 Aliens Act first exclusionary legislation and is still used, along with1914 Aliens Restriction Act

    1922 saw the Independence of the State and we willing inherited British legislation because we held the same structures.

    1935 saw another Alien Act which still used,which was more severe than previous legislation. DeValera allowed for wide ranging powers to Minister of Justice. This Act has yet to be repealed and allowed for exclusionary policy during World War Two.
    Consider the "Vast Lost Chance" as refugees in US gave back massively to the country, we lost the chance that these people would have contributed to Ireland as they did in the USA.
    An example of Irish policy saw approximately 60 Jews being permitted entry to this country of which 12 were children. On the other hand 800 Germans some of which were Nazi's were let in here.

    In 1956 we joined the UN and Irish society had no choice but to be more open however the Programme Refugees saw in 1956 the Hungarian Refugee Crisis. These people were housed in disused army camp in Limerick in dreadful conditions. Problems encountered by these refugees included not enough food no fuel. Eventually the Hungarian refugees went on hunger strike
    The government made big show of helping these people but in reality thegovernment didn't really try to help. So the refugees left and went to US because of Ireland didn't help them

    In 1972,120 Chileans came to Ireland because of the coup in Chile 1972. These people files were lost and nobody really knows why, so little is known of what happened to these people although there are many different theories.

    In 1972 and 1975 the Aliens (Amendment) Act saw further restrictions and EEC 'zero' immigration policy.

    1979 saw the arrival of the Vietnamese 'Boat' People and yet again insufficient planning/funding for these people and it is now acknowledge that they were treated badly when they arrived here. Very little had changed from 1956 to 1980

    1985 saw the arrival of the Iranian Baha'is, as many as 25 people came and there was happened because there was no cost to the State

    In 1992 200 Bosnian Refugees (although you could be fogiven for thinking there where many more) arrived to find a coherent reception and resettlement programme

    In 1999 1000 ethnic Albanians arrived from Kosovo.

    However etween 1992 and 1997, 220,000 people immigrated to Ireland but most of them were returning Irish emigres for example 45% in 1996 and this figure remained steady.

    We as a nation have an extremely poor record of accepting people into this country.

    Whats wrong with looking after our own, absolutely nothing, but whats wrong with looking after others, absolutely nothing - and in our case even less if they don't impinge on our territory, it appears.


  • #32
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    dilbert2 wrote: »
    Considering that we have known for well over a century the common origin of all Europeans, Asians, Africans etc from the centre of Africa - and of their movement around the world from there, the question remains why does nationalism still remain such a potent force in the modern world. I bring this up because of a variety of factors such as
    • The racist (termed nationalist) attitude of many Irish toward the English. These boards are proof of this with Brit bashing left, right and centre.
    • Likewise the racist attitude many English people exhibit toward Ireland and the Irish such as in the recent newspaper article "Wanted. One4500000 superstitious idiot to run a small bankrupt republic of drunkards", including many negative portrayals in the past in magazines such as punch etc.
    • Likewise the English and the French seem to hate each other half of the time (even when it is attempted to dress it up as a friendly rivalry).
    • And the various nations, both old and recently formed around the world whose members have a prejudice against other people.
    Isn't nationalism (particularly the racist variety), whether it be Irish nationalism, English nationalism or whatever else just a pseudoscience that makes the assumption that a big piece of land determines who we are mentally and personality wise etc - and should dictate where our hearts and minds lie.

    I am just wondering that in this supposedly modern century, and considering the fact we know humans are in fact one species that evolved gradually over the past 200,000 - why do we continue to divide, stereotype and even hate people based on imaginary concepts such as nationality and nationhood. Not forgetting the sort of pseudoscience and quack theories which drove Europe into two world wars nearly destroying the place during the 20th century.

    And I hate to bring this up, but I cannot help feel that religion plays a part (whether catholic/ Anglican/ protestant etc), what with their tale of the “tower of Babel” – which would seem to justify separating humans on the basis of supposed nations. For instance wasn’t the Reformation in part successful given that it gave in to nationalist bigotry in countries such as England and Holland etc where rulers convinced their people that they were “god’s chosen people”. Likewise the fight back against the reformation and Protestantism since then, whether in Ireland, Spain, Italy or wherever seems to be justified on the basis that “some heathen peoples like the English, Dutch or whatever” are heathens and heretics – hence we can justify despising them.

    While in the past it is definite that our species was competitive for obvious reasons over resources, whether they be water / animals to hunt / territories rich in natural resources etc – the division along nationalist and so-called racial lines seems to be a human construct, and completely counter that one would find in ancient primates, or even primitive man – who was more concerned with simply staying alive, having enough to eat etc.

    So would I be justified in suggesting that the bible, and in particular it’s tale of the Tower of Babel and the supposed scattering of the different races (not actually races at all consider Homo Sapiens are one species) to each corner of the earth, has a lot to blame for the racism, nationalism and division found in the world today?


    Okay - you are mixing up quite a bit of stuff there (racism, cultural-nationalism, cultural identity and sectarianism)

    Nationalism is on the one hand a great thing.

    It instills pride in your place, people and government (as long as your government consists of your own people). It encourages competition and success, community and purpose.

    On the other hand it is used as a vehicle for conflict, for division, for petty differences, and as an excuse for thuggery, murder, war and terrorism.

    *

    In reality it is pragmatic to say that nationalism is endemic - that it is just a reflection of one's culture. It allows one to see a cohesive whole within which you fit. Outsides, the outlander, foreigners are by necessity without this nationality - and that is something that must be accepted, not ignored and allowed to fester, or used as an excuse for extremism.

    Moreover, how one defines what one's nation is is of crucial importance.

    Is it the language that you speak?
    Is it the sports and music you play?
    Is it your ethnic background?
    Is it your ethical viewpoint?

    Fostering division for the sake of division is a terrible thing, but not accepting that division exists is itself crazy.

    For instance, you can say that Ireland is a traditionally Catholic-Christian country. By no means must you embrace Catholicism, but equally one must accept as a fact that that is part of what we are (for better or worse).

    I laugh when people define themselves by their county (I am a Carlow man!) but I cry when people treat it as if it has no value at all.


  • #33
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    sparkling sea wrote: »
    but whats wrong with looking after others, absolutely nothing - and in our case even less if they don't impinge on our territory, it appears.

    Yes, but two things:

    There should be some sort of number that one should talk about when saying that. If you say 'Why can't Sub-Saharan peoples come here because our standing of living is much higher?' the question arises: how many? 200? 2,000? 500,000? Why should one person be given preference to be allowed come here and not another? Why must one person be denied if we have not defined how many we can take? [Note that with most of your aforementioned cases that there were well defined numbers - particularly in the case of the Boat people for instance]

    Second, if other peoples come into your nation, how much integration would be expected of them?


  • #34
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Yes, but two things:

    There should be some sort of number that one should talk about when saying that. If you say 'Why can't Sub-Saharan peoples come here because our standing of living is much higher?' the question arises: how many? 200? 2,000? 500,000? Why should one person be given preference to be allowed come here and not another? Why must one person be denied if we have not defined how many we can take? [Note that with most of your aforementioned cases that there were well defined numbers - particularly in the case of the Boat people for instance]

    Second, if other peoples come into your nation, how much integration would be expected of them?

    Yes but the numbers are generally considered to be shameful.

    There was little or no consideration given to numbers, apart from as few as possible. The Boat People policy was non existent in reality.

    When defining how many people we can take - we have to remeber that it is a realitive to many considerations.

    Our population could double and we would still be considered to have a small population.

    Integration policy has to apply to the indigenious community as well as the newcomers. What do we actually want, how do we achieve what we want, have we considered the positive aspects of encompassing the cultures of other nations.


  • #35
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    sparkling sea wrote: »
    Yes but the numbers are generally considered to be shameful.

    There was little or no consideration given to numbers, apart from as few as possible. The Boat People policy was non existent in reality.

    When defining how many people we can take - we have to remeber that it is a realitive to many considerations.

    Our population could double and we would still be considered to have a small population.

    Integration policy has to apply to the indigenious community as well as the newcomers. What do we actually want, how do we achieve what we want, have we considered the positive aspects of encompassing the cultures of other nations.

    If our population doubled we would be in serious trouble!

    As far as refugees go - the international rule is that refugees are supposed to seek asylum in the first friendly country they encounter. That means that if we were to have refugees they would only be our immediate neighbours. This clearly is not the case!

    Moreover, 'encompassing' other cultures is not in itself a good thing. Engaging with other cultures with a critical eye and cherry picking their best parts, and holding their mores up as a mirror for our own is, however, beneficial.


  • #36
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    If our population doubled we would be in serious trouble!
    this is a sad misunderstanding of economics.
    As far as refugees go - the international rule is that refugees are supposed to seek asylum in the first friendly country they encounter. That means that if we were to have refugees they would only be our immediate neighbours. This clearly is not the case!
    this is a sad misunderstanding of international law and common travel arrangements. A direct flight from any other part of the world could bring new refugees.
    Moreover, 'encompassing' other cultures is not in itself a good thing. Engaging with other cultures with a critical eye and cherry picking their best parts, and holding their mores up as a mirror for our own is, however, beneficial.
    playing around with wishy washy words like "encompassing" and "engaging" is pointless. What are you trying to say? You like foreign holidays but you don't want them coming back here?


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    If our population doubled we would be in serious trouble!

    As far as refugees go - the international rule is that refugees are supposed to seek asylum in the first friendly country they encounter. That means that if we were to have refugees they would only be our immediate neighbours. This clearly is not the case!

    Moreover, 'encompassing' other cultures is not in itself a good thing. Engaging with other cultures with a critical eye and cherry picking their best parts, and holding their mores up as a mirror for our own is, however, beneficial.

    If our population doubled or even trippled we would actually have the numbers needed to fund the services we expect. We dont have the actual population to make a variation of proper services cost effective and efficent.

    With regard to International law and Human Rights law, you need to hit the books on this admittedly very complex area.

    Who defines what the "best bits" are, who gets to "cherry pick", how defines what our "best bits" are, etc?

    Are our best bits the bits were we don't acknowledge or prehaps even realise we have, eg. our own bigotry for example. We make excuses for the way we have treated others in the past and in some cases people even try to defend this behaviour?


  • #38
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    recedite wrote: »
    this is a sad misunderstanding of economics.

    Err... the word's 'demographics' - not economics, and the sentiment was neither sad nor incorrect ;)
    recedite wrote: »
    this is a sad misunderstanding of international law and common travel arrangements. A direct flight from any other part of the world could bring new refugees.

    Both factually incorrect (in general) and logically misguided. As it stands a refugee would have to deliberately choose Ireland above other countries to consider entering, and would, in fact, have to go out of his/her way to come here.
    recedite wrote: »
    playing around with wishy washy words like "encompassing" and "engaging" is pointless. What are you trying to say? You like foreign holidays but you don't want them coming back here?

    I don't recall holidays being mentioned.... but it should be clear that taking on the aspects of other cultures without due consideration, and social polices that are conducted without thought of assimilation are, in general, not a very wise courses of action for any 'nation'.


  • #39
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    sparkling sea wrote: »
    If our population doubled or even trippled we would actually have the numbers needed to fund the services we expect. We dont have the actual population to make a variation of proper services cost effective and efficent.

    With regard to International law and Human Rights law, you need to hit the books on this admittedly very complex area.

    Who defines what the "best bits" are, who gets to "cherry pick", how defines what our "best bits" are, etc?


    12 million people in Ireland would still be serviced adequitely by the state :eek:

    Not if history tells us anything :rolleyes:

    In terms of cherry picking... a very good example would be the Islamic caliphates of the Middle East during the early to high middle age periods. They took anything useful to be gleaned from Ancient Greek sources at a time that such sources were being condemned by the Catholic Church due to their pagan origins!!! The Seljuks, Fatimids and (Ottomans I think) also took whatever they found useful from Byzantine culture (islamic art is actually mostly based upon Byzantine culture!) despite the fact that the Byzantines were their mortal enemies. All the while the islamic states did not compromise their core values (or indeed their enmity for the west).

    THAT'S cherrypicking!

    (Although it should be noted that the Ottomans actually ossified in terms of cultural progression and were overtaken by western powers who eventually, during the Renaissance and Reformation, shook off the shackles imposed upon them by the Church)

    sparkling sea wrote: »
    Are our best bits the bits were we don't acknowledge or prehaps even realise we have, eg. our own bigotry for example. We make excuses for the way we have treated others in the past and in some cases people even try to defend this behaviour?

    People too often look to convenient signposts concerning nationality. If people are asked 'what makes the Irish, Irish?' they will probably give some inane (and incorrect) answer such as GUINNESS! HURLEY! SIX NATIONS! GAEILGE! (although all of the above are to some extent representative of Irish culture none of them are close to giving the full picture)

    So yes, we often fail to recognise our best bits - particularly if there is the possibility that it will too much resemble other cultures. In particular Irish people get jittery if they resemble 'the English' and attempt to fashion their own identity through a strange, and often contradictory, position of opposition to anything constituting 'Englishness'

    Let's knock down the 18th century buildings near St. Stephen's Green and stick an enormous ugly concrete head-quarters for the ESB - sure aren't they just remnants of 'Proddy' culture, after all?


  • #40
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Religion is a symptom, not the cause. The cause is built in tribalism. Bugger all to do with race, just race makes it easier to point out the other. EG Ulster. They're genetically the same "race". Not just talking white either, but on the DNA level. Scots and Irish are very very close(as are the English and the Irish particularly western English county types). All about tribalism.


    Put a skull-cap on the average Palestinian and you would never know... :p


  • #41
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    sparkling sea wrote: »
    We as a nation have an extremely poor record of accepting people into this country.
    Except for the landing of ~400,000 during a three year period from 2004 to 2006, you mean, and all this without a single race riot or right wing group forming. Which is where we stand head and shoulders above our European neighbours. Up to a few years ago you couldn't even become a German citizen unless you had "German blood".

    Nationalism is a force like any other, it can be left to its own devices, it can be harnessed for good, and it can be harnessed for evil. In and of itself it's just a force. It is a shared cultural identity, which produces cultural artifacts like poetry, music, song, and sculpture, and to my mind it would be a great loss if these were to vanish into some grey homogenous uberculture.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Err... the word's 'demographics' - not economics)
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    12 million people in Ireland would still be serviced adequitely by the state :eek:
    Not if history tells us anything :rolleyes:
    See, there are two ways a ruler can govern a country. One way is to use the natural resources for personal gain; you'll see this in Africa and the Middle East, with oil and diamonds. In this case the citizens are just a nuisance. They want services, and a share of the revenues, but they pay little or no tax.

    But if there are few natural resources, like Japan or Switzerland, the citizens produce the wealth. In this case, they have to be well treated. The more of them there are, the better the economy is, and the wealthier everyone gets. Ireland falls into the second category.
    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Nationalism is a force like any other, it can be left to its own devices, it can be harnessed for good, and it can be harnessed for evil. In and of itself it's just a force. It is a shared cultural identity, which produces cultural artifacts like poetry, music, song, and sculpture, and to my mind it would be a great loss if these were to vanish into some grey homogenous uberculture.
    I don't think nationalism produces culture or art or music. Nationalists might lay claim to a particular culture or religion, but that doesn't mean they produced these things. Culture was around long before Nationalism.


  • #43
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    recedite wrote: »
    I don't think nationalism produces culture or art or music. Nationalists might lay claim to a particular culture or religion, but that doesn't mean they produced these things. Culture was around long before Nationalism.
    Nationalism is just another definition of a shared cultural identity, albeit one encapsulated by a nation state. The art, music and poetry produced by the people of that country are therefore an important element of nationalism, pride in that culture and country. Insofar as you want to seperate culture and nation, you could say they are different, but it all depends on how you look at it really - different nations have different and unique cultures.


  • #44
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Right, but for nationalism to develop you first have to have two or more different cultures coming into contact, just as sectarianism needs two or more religions. Otherwise people just don't think about it.


  • #45
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    recedite wrote: »
    Right, but for nationalism to develop you first have to have two or more different cultures coming into contact, just as sectarianism needs two or more religions. Otherwise people just don't think about it.

    Yes, but that is as natural as breathing.

    It does have its benefits though - or at least its absence can be negative. The absence of such may have helped cause the collapse of the Roman and even Carolingian Empires for instance. The lack of unification of Italy and Germany due to an absence of national identity also generated myriad problems. Having said that, emerging nationalisms in the Balkans was what caused the 1st World War, and fascist national-socialism caused the 2nd!


  • #46
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    The lack of unification of Italy and Germany due to an absence of national identity also generated myriad problems.
    You could equally say the absence of a national identity in the British Isles caused problems.
    What we today call Germany and Italy were once states ruled by princes; Lombardy, Prussia, Saxony etc..
    Before that it was tribes fighting each other, except for the Pax Romana. I suppose we are now in the Pax Europa, as in, the EU.

    Looking to the distant future, I foresee an acceptance of a common humanity, post nationalism.


  • #47
    Shea O'Meara
    Closed Accounts Posts: 960 ✭✭✭Shea O'Meara


    dilbert2 wrote: »
    Considering that we have known for well over a century the common origin of all Europeans, Asians, Africans etc from the centre of Africa - and of their movement around the world from there, the question remains why does nationalism still remain such a potent force in the modern world. I bring this up because of a variety of factors such as.......
    ....... has a lot to blame for the racism, nationalism and division found in the world today?

    Broadly speaking and in my opinion;

    Nationalism is great. It's natural to in the least favour the traits of a people you grew up amongst. To go further, the art, language and history, (which is open to interpretation of course).

    I will never let anyone hi-jack my sense of nationalism. It's a personal thing, often abused by politicians who will throw the word patriot around when it suits their cause, (war for instance, illegal or otherwise).

    There is no harm in being nationalist. It's interesting to share cultures and views with others.

    I don't agree with the whole 'Greatest country on earth' U.S. kind of mantra, but again, it's a personal view.

    Nationalism to me is the people and the land, not the government or even the flag.


  • #48
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    recedite wrote: »
    You could equally say the absence of a national identity in the British Isles caused problems.
    What we today call Germany and Italy were once states ruled by princes; Lombardy, Prussia, Saxony etc..
    Before that it was tribes fighting each other, except for the Pax Romana. I suppose we are now in the Pax Europa, as in, the EU.
    Not so simple or so smooth a ride I'm afraid. Even when there were varieties of duchies and so one, the underlying nationality, language, culture etc was still the same in broad geographical areas. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for example, once one of the greatest powers in Europe, another grand European Alliance, was entirely erased for a couple of centuries, yet still the nationalities asserted themselves. It would be quite unusual to see an entire culture completely vanish these days.
    recedite wrote: »
    Looking to the distant future, I foresee an acceptance of a common humanity, post nationalism.
    There's no reason to suppose that acceptance of a common humanity must preclude nationalities. Its nothing to be afraid of, just all part of the rich tapestry of life.


  • #49
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    recedite wrote: »
    You could equally say the absence of a national identity in the British Isles caused problems.
    What we today call Germany and Italy were once states ruled by princes; Lombardy, Prussia, Saxony etc..
    Before that it was tribes fighting each other, except for the Pax Romana.

    The first time that the British Isles got a chance at forging a unified cultural identity was under James VI/I but it was unfortunately a little too late by that stage. :(

    At least you don't have an independent Cornish nation I suppose!
    recedite wrote: »
    I suppose we are now in the Pax Europa, as in, the EU.

    Yeah we are all EU citizens, e pluribus unam :rolleyes:. It doesn't wash with me, or anyone else. No unified culture, language, outlook, religion, etc.

    Not that having a really unified Europe (like america) would be a terrible thing - but it simply doesn't exist at the moment. All hell will break lose if they pretend it is so and remove political sovereignty on the back of it!
    recedite wrote: »
    Looking to the distant future, I foresee an acceptance of a common humanity, post nationalism.


    But there will NEVER be a post-nationalism!

    Even if all boundaries and differences are removed, people will reinvent them in order to distinguish themselves from each one another. They will 'rediscover' their cultural past which will allow them to differentiate themselves from the crowd. To attempt to buck this inherent aspect of humanity will cause more problems than it solves.


  • #50
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    recedite wrote: »
    Looking to the distant future, I foresee an acceptance of a common humanity, post nationalism.

    An 'acceptance of common humanity' in no way requires the eradication of nationalism.


  • #51
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Shea O'Meara wrote: »
    There is no harm in being nationalist. It's interesting to share cultures and views with others.

    But nationalism is quite often exclusionary and derides other cultures and views. "Sharing" cultures often presents a direct threat to nationalists. The traditional GAA stance on "foreign games" is a perfect example of this: is somebody less Irish because they prefer soccer to hurling?
    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    It is a shared cultural identity, which produces cultural artifacts like poetry, music, song, and sculpture, and to my mind it would be a great loss if these were to vanish into some grey homogenous uberculture.

    I actually think this goes in reverse: culture is the foundation upon which nationalism is built. In Europe, language has always played a central role in nationalist claims, so music and literature have had an outsized role in nationalist politics.

    I don't think cultural homogenization is positive, but for nationalists, culture is often used as a political weapon, which in turn makes certain cultural claims a turn-off for non-nationalists. Ultimately, the politicization of culture can be extremely divisive.
    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Nationalism is just another definition of a shared cultural identity, albeit one encapsulated by a nation state. The art, music and poetry produced by the people of that country are therefore an important element of nationalism, pride in that culture and country. Insofar as you want to seperate culture and nation, you could say they are different, but it all depends on how you look at it really - different nations have different and unique cultures.

    But who decides what art, what music and what elements of culture define the nation? Again, Ireland is a good example: over the last 100 years, Irish nationalism and identity - especially as envisioned by DeValera - were based on a idealized model of rural Irish. Basque nationalists essentially did the same thing - the games, folk traditions, religious practices, and language of the rural population came to define "Basque-ness". Yet in both cases, the reality was far more complicated, particularly in urban areas where the common language was that of the state, not the countryside, and people had different preferences when it came to religion (not to mention class politics). And although these rigid models of nationalism have softened somewhat, the fact that the term "West Brit" is still thrown around in Ireland suggests that they have some staying power.

    Also, per my previous post, "nation-state" has to be broken out to its constituent parts, because the central problem of 19th and 20th century nationalism is that states include multiple nations. Pride in which culture? Which nation? And who decides this?

    At the end of the day, if you live in a multi-national state, there has to be some other kind of common bond - language, civic values, SOMETHING - in order to have a relatively harmonious society. And even if you live in a mono-national state, the definition of "nationhood" still has the power to be divisive, whether along class lines, rural-urban divides, etc.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement