Why do we still have nationalism?

marmurr1916 · 20-02-2011 2:27am

Why nationalism? Because it's still one of the most powerful uniting forces in large, complex societies.

Is it rational? Is love rational?

Will it disappear? No.

Jonah42 · 20-02-2011 2:51am

southsiderosie wrote: »

The traditional GAA stance on "foreign games" is a perfect example of this: is somebody less Irish because they prefer soccer to hurling?

I was told on the train in Dublin to go back to England for not referring to football as "soccer". Not impressed!:mad:

opo · 20-02-2011 3:16am

Gnobe wrote: »

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.

Should we base our world view on birds or bacteria for that matter?

Amhran Nua · 20-02-2011 4:02am

southsiderosie wrote: »

But nationalism is quite often exclusionary and derides other cultures and views. "Sharing" cultures often presents a direct threat to nationalists.

In our case however, nationalism is not exclusionary. There are groups of people from every corner of the planet in Ireland, and not a pogrom in sight.

southsiderosie wrote: »

I actually think this goes in reverse: culture is the foundation upon which nationalism is built.

I did say a shared cultural identity rather than nationalism in that case.

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't think cultural homogenization is positive, but for nationalists, culture is often used as a political weapon

Often indeed, but not so much here. Just because Europe has embroiled itself in wars for centuries and can't handle national identity in a mature fashion (witness Sarkozy's recent attacks) doesn't mean Ireland need follow the same path.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Irish nationalism and identity - especially as envisioned by DeValera - were based on a idealized model of rural Irish.

I don't genuinely think that most people realised his grand scheme when he was putting it into practise, indeed it has taken decades to put the pieces together. A lot more are angry at what he did than otherwise.

southsiderosie wrote: »

the fact that the term "West Brit" is still thrown around in Ireland suggests that they have some staying power.

Perhaps when the population recovers to what it was a century and a half ago, there will be less irritation at the authors of these various calamities. Personally, I would not want to be from the UK; their history will throw a long shadow into their future, and I don't mean just Ireland.

southsiderosie wrote: »

And who decides this?

Presumably the people with the shared cultural identity which has continually reasserted itself. The USA is a very different story to Europe, and not neccessarily better.

southsiderosie wrote: »

the definition of "nationhood" still has the power to be divisive, whether along class lines, rural-urban divides, etc.

And it equally has the power to unite and create - as I said, it's a force like any other. Let's take a great Irish artist, her example inspires young Irish people to get involved with art and create their own masterpieces. They have no connection to her other than nationality, not friends, not family, sometimes not even inclination, but the cultural identity encapsulated by nationalism is a decisive force in their choice of expression.

southsiderosie · 20-02-2011 9:21pm

Amhran Nua wrote: »

In our case however, nationalism is not exclusionary. There are groups of people from every corner of the planet in Ireland, and not a pogrom in sight.

Nationalism doesn't have to include pogroms to be exclusionary.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Often indeed, but not so much here. Just because Europe has embroiled itself in wars for centuries and can't handle national identity in a mature fashion (witness Sarkozy's recent attacks) doesn't mean Ireland need follow the same path.

I don't know that Irish nationalism is particularly mature. In reference to the French, the difference in Ireland is that immigration is relatively new, and there are not electorally viable, institutionalized anti-immigration parties...yet.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Perhaps when the population recovers to what it was a century and a half ago, there will be less irritation at the authors of these various calamities. Personally, I would not want to be from the UK; their history will throw a long shadow into their future, and I don't mean just Ireland.

Calling someone a "West Brit" has nothing to do with their being from Britain and everything to do with them not fitting into a very specific model of "Irishness".

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Presumably the people with the shared cultural identity which has continually reasserted itself. The USA is a very different story to Europe, and not neccessarily better.

Again, who has the right to presume what the "correct" model of cultural identity is? In Ireland, political elites with one model in mind have often clashed with cultural elites - hence Arthur Griffith's involvement in the riots against Synge's Playboy of the Western World, which did not portray the rural Irish in a particularly flattering light.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

And it equally has the power to unite and create - as I said, it's a force like any other. Let's take a great Irish artist, her example inspires young Irish people to get involved with art and create their own masterpieces. They have no connection to her other than nationality, not friends, not family, sometimes not even inclination, but the cultural identity encapsulated by nationalism is a decisive force in their choice of expression.

Perhaps...but the history of many of Ireland's greatest writers, musicians and artists suggests to young people that if they really want to make it, they need to leave Ireland.

RandomName2 · 21-02-2011 10:28am

southsiderosie wrote: »

Nationalism doesn't have to include pogroms to be exclusionary.

I don't know that Irish nationalism is particularly mature. In reference to the French, the difference in Ireland is that immigration is relatively new, and there are not electorally viable, institutionalized anti-immigration parties...yet.

Calling someone a "West Brit" has nothing to do with their being from Britain and everything to do with them not fitting into a very specific model of "Irishness".

Again, who has the right to presume what the "correct" model of cultural identity is? In Ireland, political elites with one model in mind have often clashed with cultural elites - hence Arthur Griffith's involvement in the riots against Synge's Playboy of the Western World, which did not portray the rural Irish in a particularly flattering light.

+1

---
When people say that something like the GAA is part of the Irish identity - whilst this is true, it is easy to forget that its patronage and reestablishment was a deliberate and manufactured attempt to attempt to forge something that would be exclusively 'Irish' in, amoung other objectives, an attempt to generate division through nationalism.

Hence the concept of 'foreign games' (whether or not they were foreign)

When there are different cultures that exist in a country that have no middle ground, there naturally follows conflicting culture, which is naturally followed by kulturkampf.

India, after indpendence may have been a single country - but it was not a single culture. The bloody division where it was split into its constituent parts was a process that MUST happen; and the question mark that lies over the Kashmir or the lack of seperate identity for Sikhism, has left its own unpleasant legacy.

nitrogen · 21-02-2011 1:30pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

The Bible is hardly solely to blame. Nationalism is hardly confined to predominantly Judeo-Christian parts of the world ?

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

Yes, but religion is used as a catalyst — useful to the rulers.

nitrogen · 21-02-2011 2:18pm

OP, very well said.

I also love how Carl Sagan says it beautifully in this clip:

In our tenure on this planet we've accumulated dangerous evolutionary baggage — propensities for aggression and ritual, submission to leaders, hostility to outsiders — all of which puts our survival in some doubt.

Everyone should be made read Cosmos in school. Yet, I was mostly bored to tears in history classes from hearing about nationalistic history surrounding recent scuffles with a certain neighbour. I think bringing the history of the human specifies into the Irish curriculum would explode some minds.

RandomName2 · 22-02-2011 10:52am

nitrogen wrote: »

In our tenure on this planet we've accumulated dangerous evolutionary baggage — propensities for aggression and ritual, submission to leaders, hostility to outsiders — all of which puts our survival in some doubt.

It might put our survival as a species at some risk.

However, without it, any society is doomed to destruction.

As our race has progressed through the advancement of culture, society and governance, these are things worth guarding jealously.

sparkling sea · 22-02-2011 11:35am

Amhran Nua wrote: »

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".

As our history shows we as a nation have a very bad record when it comes to accepting people into this country.

In a 3 year period we didn'nt have race riots - we didn't accept people in any kind of a useful way up until the mid 1990's that leaves up in the gutter compared to any of our neighbours.
The majority of these people were people we actually needed to boost our economy - roles needed to be filled to keep our economy buyont- it was economics that allowed for this policy in alot of cases and international law in a smaller number of cases.

Using an example of a very bad policy implemented by one country which we didn't implement, to make us look better, speaks volumes concerning our record. It doesn't make us look better

RandomName2 · 22-02-2011 12:55pm

sparkling sea wrote: »

In a 3 year period we didn'nt have race riots - we didn't accept people in any kind of a useful way up until the mid 1990's that leaves up in the gutter compared to any of our neighbours.
The majority of these people were people we actually needed to boost our economy - roles needed to be filled to keep our economy buyont- it was economics that allowed for this policy in alot of cases and international law in a smaller number of cases.

Using an example of a very bad policy implemented by one country which we didn't implement, to make us look better, speaks volumes concerning our record. It doesn't make us look better

We needed migrant workers to bouy the economy in the same way that we needed loose standards concerning bank loans and low property taxation?

Gesterbiete are not a terribly good idea in general - a little unfair on the foreign workers who are plumbed for all their worth, unfair on citizens if their isn't enough work available (or a specific type of work for a specific type of citizen to be more precise) and a very bad idea if the migrant workers end up staying permanently (which, depending on legal barriers, is a natural conclusion).

The reason why most of our neighbours have a fairly shocking record concerning how well they get on with immigrant communities is that most of our neighbours have a shocking record of having immigrant communities integrate with the mores and cultures of their own societies.

Amtmann · 23-04-2011 12:42am

Apologies for the bump, but in the wake of the news from Northern Ireland that "they're back", I reached for this thread.

I think this is the most poignant video I've ever seen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g

It's not explicitly about nationalism, but it does reveal, in my opinion, the utter absurdity and primitiveness of it all.

It should be watched by everyone. It will give any thinking person considerable pause for thought.

Moomoo1 · 24-04-2011 8:48am

we have nationalism because it's convenient for our rulers to have it

if the proles are always at each other's throats for being different then they will never unite and demand their fair share of resources from the rich

Why do we still have nationalism?

Comments