On Nationalism.

Rabble Rabble

This isnt a redux of the "to all you anti-(Irish) nationalists" thread but a discussion on nationalism itself.

I tend to the socio-biological position. That is, it is ethnic, group evolutionary and innate. Every time I hear the blank slate theories, or the ideas of imaginary communities, I ask where is the proof.

So strong is nationalism that most left wingers are nationalist, although - as Orwell pointed out - the nationalism can be transferred. In fact Orwell was himself a nationalist. O'Brien was O'Brien for a reason.

The English left is for instance, anti-Catholic and anti-American and anti-Israeli. There can be justifications for some of these ideas ( which also seep into Ireland), but that is pretty much where British conservatism was in the 19th century. The Irish left used to be working class and anti-British Imperialist, but the rise of the revisionist 1968 left - largely a Trinity college "construct" - has turned that on it's head to be anti-Irish nationalist, anti-American, and anti-Israeli. The British Empire is largely written out of history.

Thats just one example. There are greek leftists who hate the Turks. Palestinian Marxists who wanted to destroy Israel. And so on.

However let that open the debate, counter theories about how nationalism is constructed, and is apparently "capitalist" ( which makes no sense) would be welcome. I am here to shoot them down.

del_c

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

The English left is for instance, anti-Catholic and anti-American and anti-Israeli.

Why would this be a contradiction? I would have thought it would be natural that the left would anti, what they would consider to be overtly nationalistic and overbearing entities?

I don't see how this makes them nationalist themselves.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

I tend to the socio-biological position. That is, it is ethnic, group evolutionary and innate.

I think I have similar views. I think nationalism may have stemmed from the sub-conscious idea that those you are affiliated with are your ''tribe''.

However it is obviously a bit more complex than that because most people accept someone who is not genetically native (say children of nigerian immigrants) but grew up here as 100% Irish.

Though also the fact some people wouldn't see that child as Irish could be seen as a throwback to when it made sense to be racist.

Think this thread is more political theory/humanities than politics to be honest/

T runner

Interesting topic. What may come out of this is that nationalism and Irish nationalism, in particular, means different things to different people.

Here are different forms of people in Ireland who call themselves nationalists with numeric approximations:

1. Those resident in the ROI who see the Irish nation as Gaelic and wish to impose this identity on all citizens within the ROI. (tiny numbers)
ROI nationalists (NI unionist)

2. Those resident in the ROI who see the Irish nation as Gaelic and wish to impose this identity on all citizens within a united all Ireland state. (very small numbers). ROI Nationalists

3. Those resident in NI who see the Irish nation as Gaelic and wish to impose this identity on all citizens within a united all Ireland state. (small numbers)
NI Nationalist.

4. Those resident in the ROI who see themselves as Irish be it Gaelic, Jewish, Protestant whatever and wish to see an expanded (and politically reformed) all Ireland state. Large numbers here. (Im one) They would recognise other nationalities within the state. Multiculturalist expansionist? Possibly the largest group.

5. Those resident in the ROI who see themselves as Irish be it Gaelic, Jewish, Protestant whatever but do not wish to see an expanded and reformed all Ireland state. Another large group.

6 Does resident in NI who see themselves as Irish be it Gaelic, Jewish, Protestant whatever and wish to see an expanded (and politically reformed) all Ireland state.

I tend to the socio-biological position. That is, it is ethnic, group evolutionary and innate. Every time I hear the blank slate theories, or the ideas of imaginary communities, I ask where is the proof.

Taking your definition would mean that the Irish "nation" would be of the Gaelic Irish/Catholic ethnic group?

This may well be an acuurate definition but it may mean that the majority of Irish nationalists are not really nationalists at all. They wish to see a unified Ireland but not for the ends of monoculturalisation by one ethnic group.

This is significant as many Northern Unionists would see Irish nationalists as falling into groups 2 and 3 above.

The English left is for instance, anti-Catholic and anti-American and anti-Israeli. There can be justifications for some of these ideas ( which also seep into Ireland), but that is pretty much where British conservatism was in the 19th century.

Not necessarily. The form of anti-ness is exremely relevant. E.G anti-Catholocism in the left wing is largely passive. In the 19th century it was active with some Laws penalising membership of that Church. (Penal Laws).

There is a huge difference between the passive forms of anti-Catholicism we see now and the active forms we see in 19th century Britain (and 20/21st century NI).

Denerick

I think nationalism is a horrible idea that panders to the prejudices of ordinary people, divides those who belong and those who are 'other'. Perhaps in a scientific sense it is inevitable, as homogenous societies tend to be the most cohesive, and therfore some amount of nationalism is indeed necessary for a functioning state. On the other hand, I shall continue to dream my liberal dreams.

dsmythy

There's a larger thread on this subject existing already.