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

Why do we still have nationalism?

  • 13-02-2011 9:16pm
    #1
    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:


«13

Comments

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


    Jaysus, you got a summary of that?


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


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


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 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.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 364 ✭✭dilbert2


    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.


  • Registered Users 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
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭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


  • 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:


  • Registered Users 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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 364 ✭✭dilbert2


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    After Hours -> Politics


  • Advertisement
  • 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.


  • 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.


  • 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.


  • 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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 816 ✭✭✭Opinicus


    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.


  • Registered Users 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.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,212 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


  • 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.


  • Registered Users 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


  • 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
  • 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,325 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


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


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


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


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


  • 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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    And there's the big question.


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


    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?
    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.


  • 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    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
  • Registered Users 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.


Advertisement