Why do we still have nationalism?

RandomName2 · 17-02-2011 2:45pm

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.

RandomName2 · 17-02-2011 2:56pm

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?

sparkling sea · 17-02-2011 11:31pm

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.

RandomName2 · 17-02-2011 11:49pm

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.

recedite · 18-02-2011 10:30am

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?

sparkling sea · 18-02-2011 1:28pm

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?

RandomName2 · 18-02-2011 3:28pm

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'.

RandomName2 · 18-02-2011 3:44pm

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?

RandomName2 · 18-02-2011 3:48pm

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...

Amhran Nua · 18-02-2011 6:29pm

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.

recedite · 18-02-2011 8:32pm

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.

Amhran Nua · 18-02-2011 8:49pm

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.

recedite · 18-02-2011 9:20pm

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.

RandomName2 · 18-02-2011 10:11pm

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!

recedite · 18-02-2011 10:44pm

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.

Shea O'Meara · 18-02-2011 11:02pm

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.

Amhran Nua · 18-02-2011 11:06pm

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.

RandomName2 · 19-02-2011 12:08am

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.

Cavehill Red · 19-02-2011 6:56pm

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.

southsiderosie · 19-02-2011 11:13pm

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.

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

Why do we still have nationalism?

Comments