Nationalism

Amhran Nua

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

You haven't answered my question.

Oh but I have. You don't like the answer, but then again, you don't need to.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

My argument is that Amhran Nua is not content to merely promote Irish culture, but that it also feels the need to demote competing cultures,

Aha, finally. Point out anything anywhere to support this.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

and thus your party assumes an anti-European or Euro-skeptic stance. I would like to try and understand why this is, which is why I posed the question above.

Take a look in the EU forum for a thread started recently by me on the ACTA treaty, then wipe the egg off your face regarding the supposedly euro-skeptic[sic] stance.

Amhran Nua

Actually, you know what, don't strain yourself.

lmtduffy

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You can say it as much as you like, and it still won't be accurate.

Ok, if you must to be confident in your ignorance, lets start on a basic level here is wikipedia, now you go spot the difference and if you're still confused we can move on the theorists themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_identity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity#Primordial_or_perennial_definition

I am not here to lecture you, you ought to do your own work.

So eh, when one culture resides almost entirely within the boundaries of one geographical nation, what happens then.

When has there ever been one culture in any one place.
What the hell is a "geographical nation"?
you cant just throw terms around like that.

What is a rose, or a cauliflower?

So you agree you don't know what you're talking about then.

Is there any particular reason you can't do both? And as it turns out, if people are willing to pay to experience your culture, chances are you should be enabling that culture to flourish.

No people are paying to experience their perception of your culture, people don't come to Ireland to eat breakfast rolls from petrol stations, they come because they saw the quiet man.
So it is rare a culture itself benefits from this practice, its more so the people making the money have more options in what they want to do with themselves, they could build a cottage in the hills, they could move to America.

One would have thought it self explanatory.

No it's not, be so kind to expand.

Do you think people don't interact within cultures?

So two people who like to drink only Guinness together invented the black Russian?
Interacting within a culture propagates that culture, it does not create anything new assuming no exogenous influences.

There is, I feel, an inherent xenophobia in the push by a few to merge cultural identities, a fear of difference.

There is no need or want to push from me here, people just don't see the sense or want to harbour the xenophobia that wants to isolate cultural identities.

So answer, how can a culture not be unique?

Hardly. Count the number of languages within the EU then get back to me.

You really have a barmat understanding of the concepts you're discussing.
Language is one of many things that form a national identity,
and a shared culture of language exists independently today and has existed independently before the concept of a nation state existed.

So, viewing that as an optimistic perspective, you would therefore agree with my point that cultural pride can be a positive thing?

I don't recall I said it couldn't be, I fully believe cultural pride is a great thing.
I don't care for national pride.
But you haven't learnt the difference yet.

This abhorrence of a national identity combined with the embracing of a cultural identity is not something that can ever be functional.

Why not?

Amhran Nua

lmtduffy wrote: »

Ok, if you must to be confident in your ignorance, lets start on a basic level here is wikipedia, now you go spot the difference and if you're still confused we can move on the theorists themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_identity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity#Primordial_or_perennial_definition

I am not here to lecture you, you ought to do your own work.

Since your entire argument seems to hinge on mentally forcing apart national identity and cultural identity, and you linked to a subsection of the actual full article on national identity in wikipedia, let me share the first sentence of the article:

A nation is a grouping of people who share common history, culture, language and ethnic origin, often possessing or seeking its own government.

And culture:

These cultural identifiers examine the condition of the subject from a variety of aspects including: place, gender, race, history, nationality, language, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity and aesthetics.

...

When considering practical association in international society, states may share an inherent part of their 'make up' that gives common ground, and alternate means of identifying with each other. Examples can be taken from both old and contemporary world order.

Pittens

In order to prevent Irish culture being wiped out, which as an Irish nationalist I assume you don't. Logic would dictate that you must prevent cultural integration. Thus nationalism has started down the long and narrow road to racism.

Theres a non-sequitor if ever there was one. A nationalist just believes that he should maintain his culture in his own land, the racist believes he has to right to impose a culture on someone outside his land because his culture, or his genetics are superior.

By your definition all opposition to European expansionism was racist, and the Europeans merely immigrants.

Also take a look at Israel. A huge number of Jewish nationalists that have no problem moving into Palistinien territory to mess up the locals.

With reference to your last statement, why cant the palestinians accept Jewish immigration? Why do they refer to Jewish immigrants as "settlers". Why do they want to impose their palestinian culture on everybody in the "occupied territories". Racists?

YOu seem to be mortally confused as to whether people moving into an area imposing their culture on the inhabitants are racists, or whether the people already there who want to maintain their culture are the racists.

I think it depends, as far as i can see, on Fashion-Think. Whatever the sociology professor gave you the A for.

But to a empirical scientist like myself, this believing two distinct absolutely opposite definitions of racism is beyond belief. ****. Pseudo-Science.

or worse, social science.

Can social scientists ever make consistent sense, even in one sentence?

Iwasfrozen

Amhran Nua wrote: »

People can make up their own minds about which culture they find most appealing - I have confidence in Irish culture. You can try to prevent integration if you like but you'll end up like the old Soviet Union.

And by doing so means a percentage will inevitably choose another culture. Thus diluting the Irish "culture" you care so much about.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

George Bush started that to avenge his daddy, and he was backed up by the hawks because Iraq was opening a euro-traded oil bourse. Nationalism had nothing to do with it.

What ? Are you honestly saying that the American Senate and Congress went along with one mans will to start a war and kill thousands in the process because of George's Father ?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Proof? Evidence? Not to mention the Democrats under Clinton presided over the release of the last fetters on large banks, bringing the global economy to its knees within six years.

Proof that the Republicans have a greater percentage of Nationalists then the Democrats ? That's like asking for proof a bannana is yellow. Anyone who knows anything about American politics wouldn't ask that question.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Whats the population of Israel as a percentage of the population of the world.

100(pop Israel/pop World) = 100(7,587,000/6,798,234,031) = 0.1%

Now I've given you your answer, what's your point ?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So the only reason to go to war is racism then?

No Wars happen for many reason. Famine, lack of water, resources, fossil fuels, and of course nationalism.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

How exactly would I have implied that in any, even the most roundabout way?

You favour mandatory Irish for the leaving cert.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So lets break it down. What percentage of the Treaty of Versailles was caused by nationalism, in your opinon, and why.

Percentage of a treaty ? What are you talking about how can one divide a treaty into percentages?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Sorry now, but you brought it up in the first place. Nationalism was the vehicle upon which the hatemongers rode, just as gunpowder was the chemical responsible for the weapons that killed millions. Neither is in and of themselves evil.

Just as gunpowder lead us down a long and narrow road to guns capable of killing thousands. So to does Nationalism force us down a long and narrow road to Racism and War.

Pittens

Now I've given you your answer, what's your point ?

Let me ask his point. Why do you care about that 0.1% rather than other ethnic conflicts. Are the anti-nationalists picking on Jews?

Amhran Nua

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And by doing so means a percentage will inevitably choose another culture. Thus diluting the Irish "culture" you care so much about.

Its pretty hard to dilute something which has infinite means of expression. Also I find it interesting that you mention culture in inverted commas. Do you feel that Ireland doesn't have a culture?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What ? Are you honestly saying that the American Senate and Congress went along with one mans will to start a war and kill thousands in the process because of George's Father ?

No, they went along with it because Iraq was setting up a Euro oil bourse, as already mentioned, which you sailed right by for some reason. George Bush, who took time out of his busy day to go and eyeball Saddam Hussein, could hardly have been described as being the motivating factor.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Proof that the Republicans have a greater percentage of Nationalists then the Democrats ? That's like asking for proof a bannana is yellow. Anyone who knows anything about American politics wouldn't ask that question.

Democrats might vehemently disagree with your statement - the major differences between the parties are on how the country is run, not on whether or not they are proud of the country.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

100(pop Israel/pop World) = 100(7,587,000/6,798,234,031) = 0.1%

Now I've given you your answer, what's your point ?

Why are you holding up a population of 0.1% as representative of the rest of the world?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You favour mandatory Irish for the leaving cert.

Okay, so anyone who favours the Irish language wants to crush other cultures? Ah this is something new... are the gaelscoils fascist training camps then? The GAA the kernel of a new reich rising in the wilds of Connemara?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Percentage of a treaty ? What are you talking about how can one divide a treaty into percentages?

You must surely be able to quantify the various factors behind the Treaty, you have after all identified a few of them. Break them down and lets hear proportions and reasons.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Just as gunpowder lead us down a long and narrow road to guns capable of killing thousands. So to does Nationalism force us down a long and narrow road to Racism and War.

Ach this is dogmatic tripe. You do know that fireworks incorporate gunpowder? And the original inventors of the stuff had many uses for it. The inventor of nitroglycerine was the originator of the Nobel peace prize.

lmtduffy

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Since your entire argument seems to hinge on mentally forcing apart national identity and cultural identity, and you linked to a subsection of the actual full article on national identity in wikipedia, let me share the first sentence of the article:

No my argument does not, deal with the rest when you're ready.
Ok I gave you more credit than I should have, I thought you could read something and consider it critically

"A nation is a grouping of people who share common history, culture, language and ethnic origin, often possessing or seeking its own government."

First you notice culture inside this definition.
Also what is a nation without a nation state?
And can a nation state exist without meeting all the above criteria?
And what to what ends must one share these things?

and nice job misquoting for you own ends:

"This new form of identification breaks down the understanding of the individual as a coherent whole subject to a collection of various cultural identifiers. These cultural identifiers examine the condition of the subject from a variety of aspects including: place, gender, race, history, nationality, language, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity and aesthetics."

Notice "a collection of various cultural identifiers", as in no one person having one culture, no two people having any of the same set of identifiers in any deep sense.

"states may share an inherent part of their 'make up' that gives common ground"- the "may" is important here, people may also identify more culturally with people of different nations and not at all with those of their nation.

Culture existed long before nations and will continue long after their decline.
As I've said before national identity presents a national culture familiar but not necessarily and unlikely to be wholly shared by the people in that nation.
One has been selectively formed for political reasons,
the other formed due to people lifestyles and habits.

And you have still failed to engage with the above.

Amhran Nua

lmtduffy wrote: »

No my argument does not, deal with the rest when you're ready.

Yes, your argument does. Also, by your own definitions and linked supporting articles, the only one that involves race is culture, not national identity. I find it pretty difficult to parse the rest of your post, grammatically, but I think the phrase "hoisted by your own petard" is applicable here.

Eliot Rosewater

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Oh but I have. You don't like the answer, but then again, you don't need to.

In the thread? Where?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Take a look in the EU forum for a thread started recently by me on the ACTA treaty, then wipe the egg off your face regarding the supposedly euro-skeptic[sic] stance.

What, you think supporting one piece of EU legislation make you pro-EU? I'd rather go with what your policy documents say, your attitude here, and your stance over the Lisbon Treaty.

lmtduffy

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Yes, your argument does. Also, by your own definitions and linked supporting articles, the only one that involves race is culture, not national identity. I find it pretty difficult to parse the rest of your post, grammatically, but I think the phrase "hoisted by your own petard" is applicable here.

What does race have to do with anything?

I have more faith in you, Im sure you can get through my post if you like- but then you'd have to engage with that Im saying which it appears you've failed to do since the beginning.

Iwasfrozen

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Its pretty hard to dilute something which has infinite means of expression. Also I find it interesting that you mention culture in inverted commas. Do you feel that Ireland doesn't have a culture?

There is no such thing a "culture" as culture all ethnic human beings belong to a single community based on shared morality. There is no such thing as an Irish "culture" only the Irish inteperation of these shared values.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Democrats might vehemently disagree with your statement - the major differences between the parties are on how the country is run, not on whether or not they are proud of the country.

Right wing parties have by their nature a greater number of Nationalists. Left wing parties due to their Marxist influences do not have such a number of Nationalists. That has always been the case.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Why are you holding up a population of 0.1% as representative of the rest of the world?

I'm not holding them up as an example of the world. I'm holding them up as an example of what happens when one has large numbers of Nationalists in a country. Indeed the entire Jewish nation was founded on some airy-fairy nationalist dream.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Okay, so anyone who favours the Irish language wants to crush other cultures? Ah this is something new... are the gaelscoils fascist training camps then? The GAA the kernel of a new reich rising in the wilds of Connemara?

Why ask me a question in your post and then answer it ? That is rather silly yoy may want to see a doctor about that.

Anyway... Those who favour mandatory Irish language lessons in school (such as you) are in effect forcing it on those of us who don't want anything to do with Irish culture (such as me).

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You must surely be able to quantify the various factors behind the Treaty, you have after all identified a few of them. Break them down and lets hear proportions and reasons.

I am not qualified to disect an international treaty. Nor would I even if I was.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Ach this is dogmatic tripe. You do know that fireworks incorporate gunpowder? And the original inventors of the stuff had many uses for it. The inventor of nitroglycerine was the originator of the Nobel peace prize.

Never tought I would hear a Nationalist accuse a free thinker of dogmatic tripe...

Pittens

First you notice culture inside this definition.
Also what is a nation without a nation state?
And can a nation state exist without meeting all the above criteria?
And what to what ends must one share these things?

What is a nation without a nation state? It s a concentration of people of one ethnic identity with historical ties to a place. Like Scotland. Which is not a nation State. But is a nation. Or Wales. Or Ireland in the United kingdom, when we were, or Hungary when it was part of the Austrio-Hungarian empire.

ireland is a nation state.
Scotland is not.
The UK is not.
Hungary is.

simple stuff, but you deliberately mix up nation with nation-states as if you were unable to follow a simple argument.

lmtduffy

Pittens wrote: »

What is a nation without a nation state? It s a concentration of people of one ethnic identity with historical ties to a place. Like Scotland. Which is not a nation State. But is a nation. Or Wales. Or Ireland in the United kingdom, when we were, or Hungary when it was part of the Austrio-Hungarian empire.

ireland is a nation state.
Scotland is not.
The UK is not.
Hungary is.

simple stuff, but you deliberately mix up nation with nation-states as if you were unable to follow a simple argument.

so you've got a difference in administration.
But were not talking about administration were talking about national and cultural identity.

Simple, it's as if you were'nt unable to follow a simple argument.

Pittens

Lol, I was answering the question you asked

Also what is a nation without a nation state

presumably that question implied : nothing.

We know the answer for a nation, what is a nation state - the smallest administrative unit that contains one nation. And the most stable political unit there is, all the rest having seperatist movements.

recedite

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Irish nationalist groups like Sinn Féin tend to be more inclusive and while glorifying Ireland and it's past, as a party do not seek to prevent immigrants from being a part of this nation.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nationalism starts one off on the path to racism.
Nationalism and Racism go hand in hand. If we had no Nationalism we would have no Racism.

Nationalism is indeed a first cousin of racism, sexism, ageism and any other "ism" which seeks to exclude one group of people from another.

But here's an interesting question; Why is Ireland the only European country where nationalism is not associated with the far right racist types and their anti immigration policies?
Could it be that this particular niche is already occupied by the more extreme elements within Ulster loyalism, and therefore an extreme Irish Nationalist (a Republican) must do the opposite, even though it pains him.
Any xenophobic urges can then be directed towards "the brits".
The situation in the Republic then becomes somewhat unstable,being further away from the brits and the unionists. The Sinn Féin leadership trys very hard at times to keep a lid on anti-immigration sentiment amongst their supporters.
Fair play to them for succeeding so far though.

Mike 1972

recedite wrote: »

But here's an interesting question; Why is Ireland the only European country where nationalism is not associated with the far right racist types and their anti immigration policies?.

The Scottish and Welsh nationalist movements (nowadays) are generally not associated with the far right racist types and their anti immigration policies either ?

recedite wrote: »

Could it be that this particular niche is already occupied by the more extreme elements within Ulster loyalism, and therefore an extreme Irish Nationalist (a Republican) must do the opposite, even though it pains him.
Any xenophobic urges can then be directed towards "the brits".?.

Yes !

recedite

Mike 1972 wrote: »

The Scottish and Welsh nationalist movements (nowadays) are generally not associated with the far right racist types and their anti immigration policies either ?

Perhaps these two wish to distance themselves from a more general "British" form of nationalism, as typified in an extreme form by the B.N.P.
Northern loyalists on the other hand would be keen to show how British they are, compared to the others on this island, and so have links to the BNP.
It's all about being different to your nearest rivals.

Mike 1972

recedite wrote: »

Northern loyalists on the other hand would be keen to show how British they are, compared to the others on this island, and so have links to the BNP.

Many (but by no means all) would have such links/sympathies with the BNP (or similar factions)

"Loyalism" is just another form of Nationalism. Only they (obviously) identify with a different Nation to "Republicans"

Lockstep

recedite wrote: »

Nationalism is indeed a first cousin of racism, sexism, ageism and any other "ism" which seeks to exclude one group of people from another.

It's really not. It's an ideology which isn't inherently left or right wing.

recedite wrote: »

But here's an interesting question; Why is Ireland the only European country where nationalism is not associated with the far right racist types and their anti immigration policies?
Could it be that this particular niche is already occupied by the more extreme elements within Ulster loyalism, and therefore an extreme Irish Nationalist (a Republican) must do the opposite, even though it pains him.
Any xenophobic urges can then be directed towards "the brits".
The situation in the Republic then becomes somewhat unstable,being further away from the brits and the unionists. The Sinn Féin leadership trys very hard at times to keep a lid on anti-immigration sentiment amongst their supporters.
Fair play to them for succeeding so far though.

There are a few others; the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Solidarity in POland and so on. Advocating the history of a nation is not inherently racist and right wing. It can be so, and often is but not automatically.

recedite

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Many (but by no means all) would have such links/sympathies with the BNP (or similar factions)

"Loyalism" is just another form of Nationalism. Only they (obviously) identify with a different Nation to "Republicans"

Absolutely.
There is a lot of overlap between geography, nation, country and state on these two small islands which complicates things. Between us we manage to send 5 soccer teams to contest the World Cup(which is fine), whereas China with one fifth of the world's population sends one.
Other than Belgium (2 factions) the situation in continental Europe is more straightforward. If you are a French nationalist, living in France, there is no chance of ever being confused with a German nationalist, and vice versa. Therefore they don't mind adopting each others policies and mannerisms, and are more likely to link up to pursue a common cause.

Mike 1972

Nationalism by its nature tends to be more of a right wing ideology than a left wing one (plenty of exceptions though) particularly the versions based in already established states (e.g. Britain, Italy, Germany)

timespast

recedite wrote: »

Nationalism is indeed a first cousin of racism, sexism, ageism and any other "ism" which seeks to exclude one group of people from another.

But here's an interesting question; Why is Ireland the only European country where nationalism is not associated with the far right racist types and their anti immigration policies?
Could it be that this particular niche is already occupied by the more extreme elements within Ulster loyalism, and therefore an extreme Irish Nationalist (a Republican) must do the opposite, even though it pains him.
Any xenophobic urges can then be directed towards "the brits".
The situation in the Republic then becomes somewhat unstable,being further away from the brits and the unionists. The Sinn Féin leadership trys very hard at times to keep a lid on anti-immigration sentiment amongst their supporters.
Fair play to them for succeeding so far though.

What absolute nonsense......I think you should read up a little on what Sinn Fein have to say on racism, immigration etc.

Sinn Fein is a Republican not Nationalist Party. However, I do believe there is a difference between Nationalists whose country hasn't become an independent state (Scotland, Wales etc) than Italian, British, German nationalists who of course are far right wing.

Iwasfrozen

timespast wrote: »

What absolute nonsense......I think you should read up a little on what Sinn Fein have to say on racism, immigration etc.

Why not tell us instead?

timespast wrote: »

Sinn Fein is a Republican not Nationalist Party. However, I do believe there is a difference between Nationalists whose country hasn't become an independent state (Scotland, Wales etc) than Italian, British, German nationalists who of course are far right wing.

Sinn Fein are nationalists, they are Irish nationalists. Although I do agree with you on the nationalists being different from various countries.

timespast

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why not tell us instead?


Sinn Fein are nationalists, they are Irish nationalists. Although I do agree with you on the nationalists being different from various countries.

From what Ive read here if I state where Sinn Fein stand on Racism and Immigration then it's "Sinn Fein hoodwinking their membership"..... damned if they do damned if they don't.

I'll tell you what.... have a pint in a rural bar with the FF and FG brigade and you'll see where middle Ireland is on Racism and Immigration.

I still disagree with you regarding SF being Nationalist. (other then the North)

Iwasfrozen

timespast wrote: »

From what Ive read here if I state where Sinn Fein stand on Racism and Immigration then it's "Sinn Fein hoodwinking their membership"..... damned if they do damned if they don't.

I'll tell you what.... have a pint in a rural bar with the FF and FG brigade and you'll see where middle Ireland is on Racism and Immigration.

What? Sorry, I'm not being funny. I really don't understand what you wrote. Where do Sinn Fein stand on immigration?

timespast wrote: »

I still disagree with you regarding SF being Nationalist. (other then the North)

Sinn Fein are nationalist, they even say so on their website!
http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/18473

timespast

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What? Sorry, I'm not being funny. I really don't understand what you wrote. Where do Sinn Fein stand on immigration?


Sinn Fein are nationalist, they even say so on their website!
http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/18473

If you read again I said "other than the North".... they can hardly describe the SDLP as Republican. (For the North they describe a Community like West Belfast as Nationalist....they can't speak for everyone as being Republican)

As you took a look at the site...... google Sinn Fein Racism, Immigration, Sexism etc etc.

Put it this way......show me where they are anti- immigration? remembering a completely open door is as stupid as a completely closed door. (my opinion)

Iwasfrozen

timespast wrote: »

If you read again I said "other than the North".... they can hardly describe the SDLP as Republican. (For the North they describe a Community like West Belfast as Nationalist....they can't speak for everyone as being Republican)

As you took a look at the site...... google Sinn Fein Racism, Immigration, Sexism etc etc.

Put it this way......show me where they are anti- immigration? remembering a completely open door is as stupid as a completely closed door. (my opinion)

Your posts are extremely hard to understand. I've asked you where do Sinn Fein stand on immigration and you are yet to give me a clear answer.

timespast

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Your posts are extremely hard to understand. I've asked you where do Sinn Fein stand on immigration and you are yet to give me a clear answer.

How are they hard to understand?

I answered your point on your link to Nationalism.

Im not here to lecture you...you took time to search......search for their immigration policy........ Ive found many links to them stating past immigration policies were racist.

All that you come up with is Sinn Fein= Nationalist= Racist.

Why don't you e mail them and ask what their policies are?

My point is that those pointing out that Sinn Fein are Nationalist and therefore racist is a crock of ****e.

Most of those with that opinion are old FF and FG who are the real Nationalists.