11th Sep "Catalonia National Day"

oscarBravo

SeanW wrote: »

If, for some bizarre reason they wanted it, why not?

If Letterkenny wanted to secede from Donegal, should they get their own country? What if the Thornberry housing estate wanted to secede from the Republic of Letterkenny? What if the family in number 12 didn't feel they had anything in common with the political elites of the Thornberry government?

Should the Scottish secede from the UK if they vote for it?

If they can come to an amicable arrangement with the rest of the UK, sure. I hope I haven't given the impression that I think any group of people should be prevented from forming a country, particularly if to do so is in the best interests of everyone concerned.

What I have a problem with is the idea that it's not merely acceptable, but actually laudable, for a group of people to decide that they are better than other people, and that as a result of their intrinsic national superiority they have a god-given right to cordon off their resources from the foreign untermenschen who would otherwise have their grubby paws all over it.

I think nationalism is like religion: fundamentally irrational. If there are rational reasons to do something, fair enough: do it for those reasons, as long as you're not harming others by doing so. But don't do something for irrational reasons and then claim that there's something inherently right about doing so.

donaghs

So what should replace Nationalism? Why bother having an EU then?

oscarBravo

donaghs wrote: »

So what should replace Nationalism?

Why does it need to be replaced?

Why bother having an EU then?

I don't understand the question.

SeanW

oscarBravo wrote: »

If Letterkenny wanted to secede from Donegal, should they get their own country? What if the Thornberry housing estate wanted to secede from the Republic of Letterkenny? What if the family in number 12 didn't feel they had anything in common with the political elites of the Thornberry government?

Ah yes, the old Reductio Ad Absurdum, or "Reduction to the absurd" argument.

I hope I haven't given the impression that I think any group of people should be prevented from forming a country, particularly if to do so is in the best interests of everyone concerned.

You and The Browser made it crystal clear that you want the removal of national borders in general, not the creation of new ones. TB was most explicit on this point.

It has been done in the past of course, just usually with disasterous results for everyone involved. Hence, my lack of sympathy for what appears to be your shared position.

What I have a problem with is the idea that it's not merely acceptable, but actually laudable, for a group of people to decide that they are better than other people,

Is that happening in Catalonia though? Are the people there who want independence just saying "we're better than the Spanish?" or are you simply casting aspersions(sp) on them? I suspect it is the latter.

and that as a result of their intrinsic national superiority they have a god-given right to cordon off their resources from the foreign untermenschen!!!!!!!! who would otherwise have their grubby paws all over it.

Great, now you've just invoked Reductio ad Nazium. a.k.a. Godwins Law.

<mod snip: this isn't AH.>

I think nationalism is like religion: fundamentally irrational. If there are rational reasons to do something, fair enough: do it for those reasons, as long as you're not harming others by doing so. But don't do something for irrational reasons and then claim that there's something inherently right about doing so.

And those who sought to erase nationalism under new regimes were by far more irrational, and as often as not, extremely cruel and brutal. Yougoslavia, much like the current EU for that matter, was a misguided effort to bring people together, only it had the opposite effect.

The Catalan people want to have their country, Catalonia, much like the Americans wanted to build the United States in 1776, we Irish wanted Ireland, etc. etc. etc. They seek this because they consider Catalonian to be a unique identity. To my mind there is no other reason needed.

oscarBravo

SeanW wrote: »

Ah yes, the old Reductio Ad Absurdum, or "Reduction to the absurd" argument.

Yes, which you haven't countered, merely identified. Your argument was that if any given group of people wants to call itself a nation and demand a country, that they should automatically qualify for one. I'm questioning that view by pointing out how quickly it breaks down under rational analysis.

You and The Browser made it crystal clear that you want the removal of national borders in general, not the creation of new ones. TB was most explicit on this point.

I most certainly haven't called for the removal of national borders. I aspire to a time when people don't obsess over ways to differentiate themselves from other people in order to discriminate against them; I haven't suggested that anyone should be forced into such a situation.

Is that happening in Catalonia though? Are the people there who want independence just saying "we're better than the Spanish?" or are you simply casting aspersions(sp) on them? I suspect it is the latter.

Perhaps you have a more compelling explanation for the increase in separatist sentiment in the richer region of Spain at a time of economic difficulty.

The fact is that nationalist sentiment is inextricably linked with the implied assumption that people of one's own nationality are more deserving than those of others. I caught a few minutes of last week's Frontline program, where a member of the audience made the claim that all foreign aid should be completely cut off during a recession, on the grounds that "charity begins at home". That's window dressing for the sentiment that Irish people are more deserving of help than foreigners, even if the foreigners are in more desperate need of it.

And those who sought to erase nationalism under new regimes were by far more irrational, and as often as not, extremely cruel and brutal. Yougoslavia, much like the current EU for that matter, was a misguided effort to bring people together, only it had the opposite effect.

If your only argument in favour of nationalism is to keep dragging up examples of regimes that have attempted to destroy it by force and how nasty they were, you're missing the point in a rather spectacular fashion.

The Catalan people want to have their country, Catalonia, much like the Americans wanted to build the United States in 1776...

They're paying taxes without parliamentary representation?

...we Irish wanted Ireland...

They've suffered centuries of oppressive rule by a neighbouring nation that considers them barely human?

They seek this because they consider Catalonian to be a unique identity. To my mind there is no other reason needed.

That's because you see nationalism as an end in itself, which is begging the question.

I don't get the fascination with nationalism. As I've pointed out, and as you've singularly failed to engage with in any meaningful way, it's basically irrational. I accept that people do all sorts of things with all sorts of irrational motivations, but I don't feel the need to applaud those behaviours.

If Catalonia becomes its own country, it will be at Spain's expense. You have absolutely no problem with the idea that one group of people will be left worse off as a result of another country's nationalism, because nationalism. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

SeanW

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, which you haven't countered, merely identified. Your argument was that if any given group of people wants to call itself a nation and demand a country, that they should automatically qualify for one. I'm questioning that view by pointing out how quickly it breaks down under rational analysis.

Any viewpoint can be countered in a "Reduction to the Absurd" fashion. For example, if one supports building railways, it can be reduced to the absurd by saying "how about wallpapering the country with railway tracks?"

The idea that Donegal people might not consider themselves Irish and want to secede is somewhat bizarre. Then you go on to consider that Letterkenians might want to form their own micro-state, then a housing estate within that, then a single property with that estate.

Even the absolutely smallest micro-states, like the Vatican City, Monaco, Liechtenstein etc have something resembling a city as part of their territory, there is simply no precedent - and there likely never will be - for a single house to become a country, let alone for this to happen on any large scale.

I most certainly haven't called for the removal of national borders.

The Browser did, and you thanked his post (suggesting that you agreed) as he has been thanking yours. So I assume you both agree on this topic.

Perhaps you have a more compelling explanation for the increase in separatist sentiment in the richer region of Spain at a time of economic difficulty.

You have it right there "increase." i.e. it has always been there. Always an undertone in Catalan society.

Tell me why Dublin never wanted to secede from Ireland at a time when it was carrying all of Ireland (it still is to large extent, Dublin and the GDA are net tax payers, the regions are net tax recipients). The Western lobby held such power in the past that it was able to make Dublin pay for an airport in Shannon that was top-class while Dublin Airport was intentionally built to a lower specification to hamstring it in "competetion" with Shannon for large cargo planes etc. In fact it used to be that if you lived in Dublin, you had to travel over land to Shannon to get a flight to the U.S. or fly to Heathrow, because the Irish government, full of powerful Western whingers, banned airlines from serving transatlantic flights out of Dublin altogether.

Why then, despite all this, has there never been "nationalist" sentiment in Dublin? Why have the Dubs never said "let's keep our wealth out of the hands of the grubby Western ubermenschen?"

"... That's window dressing for the sentiment that Irish people are more deserving of help than foreigners, even if the foreigners are in more desperate need of it."

Yes, like the Prime Minister of Uganda ...

If your only argument in favour of nationalism is to keep dragging up examples of regimes that have attempted to destroy it by force and how nasty they were, you're missing the point in a rather spectacular fashion.

And if only you hadn't cast the people of Catalonia as builders of the Fourth Reich ...

They've suffered centuries of oppressive rule by a neighbouring nation that considers them barely human?

But the British no longer see us as "barely human" so why should we not rejoin the UK?

If Catalonia becomes its own country, it will be at Spain's expense

that would be unfortunate, but remember that Catalonia would have to take some of Spain's debt with it.

oscarBravo

SeanW wrote: »

Any viewpoint can be countered in a "Reduction to the Absurd" fashion. For example, if one supports building railways, it can be reduced to the absurd by saying "how about wallpapering the country with railway tracks?"

Yes, that would be a suitable counter to a blanket support for the building of railways. In turn, it should prompt a discussion on when it is in the best interests of all the stakeholders concerned that a given, specific railway should be built - which would be a much more intelligent discussion than one predicated on the view that if someone wants a railway, they should get one.

The idea that Donegal people might not consider themselves Irish and want to secede is somewhat bizarre. Then you go on to consider that Letterkenians might want to form their own micro-state, then a housing estate within that, then a single property with that estate.

Even the absolutely smallest micro-states, like the Vatican City, Monaco, Liechtenstein etc have something resembling a city as part of their territory, there is simply no precedent - and there likely never will be - for a single house to become a country, let alone for this to happen on any large scale.

OK, we're getting somewhere - you've drawn the line at the city-state as the smallest entity you consider deserving of independent nationhood. Unfortunately, in the same post you've rejected the idea that a county deserves independence; a logical inconsistency that I can only conclude is rooted in your pre-conceived ideas of nationality (Donegal is part of Ireland; you're a believer in Irish nationalism; therefore Donegal people can only be considered Irish and any idea to the contrary won't be entertained).

The Browser did, and you thanked his post (suggesting that you agreed) as he has been thanking yours. So I assume you both agree on this topic.

Perhaps if you did less assuming and more discussing, we'd get further.

I don't support the forcible dissolution of borders. I would like to see a world without borders, because it would mean that we have grown up as a species. I think we're a very, very long way from that level of enlightenment, but I live in hope.

You have it right there "increase." i.e. it has always been there. Always an undertone in Catalan society.

Sure. I'm not denying the existence of nationalism; just disagreeing with it as a sentiment, and pointing out that an increase in such sentiment in times of economic difficulty tends to suggest that it's not an attractive sentiment in the first place.

Tell me why Dublin never wanted to secede from Ireland...

Because there isn't that distinct a cultural identity in Dublin; Dubliners tend to self-identify as Irish. To me, this is a good thing, to the extent that it's better than self-identifying as Dubliners to the extent of wanting to hoard resources away from other Irish people.

Now, take that sentiment further. Imagine a future time when Dubliners self-identify as Europeans, and don't feel a need to demand isolation from people in other parts of Europe. Take it further and imagine a time when everyone in the world self-identifies as human beings, and the notion of hoarding resources for one nationality at the expense of others is looked back on with the same revulsion we feel for slavery today.

If you can imagine that, you'll start to understand where I'm coming from. If you can't imagine that, it's almost certainly because you don't want to.

Yes, like the Prime Minister of Uganda ...

Oh look, you demolished my entire argument with one smart-ass quip. Just think: if the prime minister of Uganda was a less corrupt person, you might have had to actually think about my arguments instead of dismissing them with some hand-waving. I guess that was a lucky escape.

And if only you hadn't cast the people of Catalonia as builders of the Fourth Reich ...

I didn't. I made the mistake of using a phrase that allowed you another excuse not to bother trying to understand my argument.

I could rephrase it, but I doubt you'll let it go, because - again - you don't want to accept the idea that I could have a point.

But the British no longer see us as "barely human" so why should we not rejoin the UK?

Why should we? I don't want to be a part of the UK.

My argument for a world without borders isn't an argument for bigger countries, or fewer countries. It's an argument for not having countries.

that would be unfortunate, but remember that Catalonia would have to take some of Spain's debt with it.

But you do accept that Spain would, on balance, be worse off without Catalonia? And you think it's OK for the Catalonians to do something that makes them better off and other people worse off, because nationalism?

SeanW

OK, we're getting somewhere - you've drawn the line at the city-state as the smallest entity you consider deserving of independent nationhood.

True. The idea of individual houses setting up their own micro-states is so bonkers it frankly isn't worth debating.

Unfortunately, in the same post you've rejected the idea that a county deserves independence

False. You brought up Donegal, I merely think the idea somewhat bizarre because the probability of separatism in Donegal is very, very remote. Just as it is in Dublin, which I also pointed out.

As I said previously if, for some bizarre reason that were to change and the people of Donegal were to want to build their own country, I'd be ... interested.

Perhaps if you did less assuming and more discussing, we'd get further.

I assumed based on the evidence - all the mutual thanking that was going on between you two.

I would like to see a world without borders, because it would mean that we have grown up as a species.

So did the Communists ... I once read that true communism required the whole world to be as one, i.e. that the Soviet Union only became corrupted and collapsed because it had to have external borders and a military. Hence I'm a little skeptical of people claiming nationalism is bad and we should all want to be one people.

Sure. I'm not denying the existence of nationalism; just disagreeing with it as a sentiment,

I'm just pointing out that Catalan nationalism has always been there - unlike other cases where one region carries another, such as Dublin and the West, where regional nationalism has never been an issue.

The Catalans didn't just suddenly decide "we don't need to send all this money to Madrid, we are Catalans" rather that feeling of identity and nationality has always been there.

I contend that if the Catalan people are denied a referendum on independence, then Spain will be every bit as much an artificial state as the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia.

Now, take that sentiment further. Imagine a future time when Dubliners self-identify as Europeans, and don't feel a need to demand isolation from people in other parts of Europe. Take it further and imagine a time when everyone in the world self-identifies as human beings, and the notion of hoarding resources for one nationality at the expense of others

At a time when we're savaging the most vulnerable in our own country (carers of those with severe disabilities) it makes sense to question whether we can afford so much foreign aid, especially when a lot of it goes into the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt government officials.

To take your idea of "hoading resources for one nationality at the expense of others" to its limit, how far should we go in handing money over to Africa? If "hoarding resources for our nationality" is a bad thing, shouldn't we give dramatic volumes of our money to the 3rd world, regardless of what happens at home? Where does it end?

I didn't. I made the mistake of using a phrase that allowed you another excuse not to bother trying to understand my argument.

I suspect its more telling of your mindset and the contempt in which you hold the Catalan people - "untermensch" has very specific connotations with racial hatred and was a central plank of the theory of the leaders of Nazi Germany.

I don't want to be a part of the UK.

Why not? If and if you don't want to be part of the UK, why should the people of Catalonia be part of Spain?

My argument for a world without borders isn't an argument for bigger countries, or fewer countries.

Yet in the case of Catalonia and Spain, it clearly is.

It's an argument for not having countries.

That's as bizarre as having every house being a country. The world has too many different cultures, different languages, different world views to be borderless any time in the next millenium. In the meantime, people who share a common identity should IMHO have the right to self-determination.

oscarBravo

SeanW wrote: »

So did the Communists ... I once read that true communism required the whole world to be as one, i.e. that the Soviet Union only became corrupted and collapsed because it had to have external borders and a military. Hence I'm a little skeptical of people claiming nationalism is bad and we should all want to be one people.

You're just determined not to accept the possibility that there's any reason to be suspicious of nationalism other than imperialism or colonialism, aren't you?

I contend that if the Catalan people are denied a referendum on independence, then Spain will be every bit as much an artificial state as the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia.

And I contend that every state is artificial. The idea that the existence of any state is the natural order of things is, frankly, ridiculous.

At a time when we're savaging the most vulnerable in our own country (carers of those with severe disabilities) it makes sense to question whether we can afford so much foreign aid, especially when a lot of it goes into the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt government officials.

It always makes sense to question whether we can afford "foreign" aid, as long as you're working from the premise that members of your own tribe are more deserving than members of another tribe. I'm arguing for a world in which the idea of one tribe being more deserving than another is an obsolete and slightly embarrassing memory.

To take your idea of "hoading resources for one nationality at the expense of others" to its limit, how far should we go in handing money over to Africa? If "hoarding resources for our nationality" is a bad thing, shouldn't we give dramatic volumes of our money to the 3rd world, regardless of what happens at home? Where does it end?

Let's turn that around. If hoarding resources for one's own nationality is a good thing, shouldn't the most powerful nation-states take whatever they want by force from the less deserving foreigners?

Now, that's going to look like a pretty horribly bad deal if you happen to be on the receiving end of such aggression, but tough: nationalism is inherently subjective. It only works if you refuse to look at it completely objectively.

I suspect its more telling of your mindset and the contempt in which you hold the Catalan people - "untermensch" has very specific connotations with racial hatred and was a central plank of the theory of the leaders of Nazi Germany.

Yes, that's right. You caught me out. I'm not in fact arguing for a world in which nobody considers themselves more deserving than anyone else just because of an accident of birth; I'm actually a closet Nazi who hates Catalans. Nobody else; just Catalans. Because that makes perfect sense.

It's kind of ironic that you can keep Godwinning me over and over and over again without stopping to notice that you keep constantly comparing my perspective to Stalinism and British imperialism, despite the minor detail that they have nothing whatsoever in common beyond the fact that it suits your argument to make the comparison.

The world has too many different cultures, different languages, different world views to be borderless any time in the next millenium.

I have different world views from my girlfriend. That doesn't require a border between us. She speaks a different language from me (although she also speaks mine fluently, and I hers badly). That doesn't require a border between us. We come from very different cultures. We don't need a border.

The idea that a border is an automatic requirement between groups of people who have different ideas about the world is the one that I've spent this entire thread rejecting. I detest the idea that it's important to wall yourself off from other groups of people because you perceive them as being different in some way. I think the idea of defining yourself by a group identity whose chief characteristics are in turn defined by how they differ from those of other groups is primitive, counter-productive, harmful and ultimately doomed.

In the meantime, people who share a common identity should IMHO have the right to self-determination.

The phrase "common identity" is pretty much the perfect oxymoron.

The difference between nationalists and me is that I'm trying to broaden my horizons in determining with whom I share characteristics. I don't understand why I should feel an affinity with Irish people at the expense of Korean or Brazilian or American people. We're all people. What makes Irish people so special?

SeanW

Let's turn that around. If hoarding resources for one's own nationality is a good thing, shouldn't the most powerful nation-states take whatever they want by force from the less deserving foreigners?

No - because that would be a violation of the rights of the "foreigners" in the same way that robbing someones' wallet on the street is totally wrong.

"Hoarding" resources for one's own nationality is not wrong where the resources BELONG to that nationality. If you want, for example, to build the DART Underground, the cost will have to come from Irish taxpayers. The same is true of Carers Allowance paid to those caring for the severely disabled. It comes from other Irish people (or debt underwritten by the government of the Irish people). So it makes sense that the resources of the Irish people should be used for the benefit of the Irish people, especially for things like capital infrastructural investment that will make Irish people even more productive, i.e. even more able to spend money potentially overseas.

If we can afford to spend money overseas, great, but people are right to question if we can do that now. And we have a collective right to do so, because its our money, collected by the Irish government from the Irish people.

Now, that's going to look like a pretty horribly bad deal if you happen to be on the receiving end of such aggression, but tough: nationalism is inherently subjective. It only works if you refuse to look at it completely objectively.

It works if you assume that an individual has property rights and so does a soverign over its territory and any assets held on behalf of its people. I.E. we can't go to another country and take their resources, because they don't belong to us and we have no right to take them. We only have the right to "hoard" those resources that belong to us: that applies both to the individual and to the soverign and is a consistent, logical standard.

Yes, that's right. You caught me out. I'm not in fact arguing for a world in which nobody considers themselves more deserving than anyone else just because of an accident of birth; I'm actually a closet Nazi who hates Catalans. Nobody else; just Catalans. Because that makes perfect sense.

I did not say that you are a Nazi, but rather than you are casting the Catalan people as Nazis. In your mind, they're building the Fourth Reich, designating the Spanish people as "untermenschen" (racially inferior) and greedily grasping "mein mein mein" as though it was the main reason for them wanting independence.

It fails Godwins Law and it doesn't explain why Dublin supports the Regions of Ireland, despite clear evidence that the GDA would be far better off on its own, not chained to regional lobbies that have - at times - acted like a drowning victim (i.e. trying to drown their rescuer).

The phrase "common identity" is pretty much the perfect oxymoron.

Yet it is the basis for just about culture on Earth.

oscarBravo

I'm giving up. Your arguments in favour of nationalism are grounded entirely in assumptions that only make sense with nationalism as a starting point, which - as I've already pointed out - is begging the question. I don't know whether you are genuinely incapable of grasping my point or just completely unwilling, but I know I'm unwilling to bang my head off the wall any longer.

SeanW

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm giving up. Your arguments in favour of nationalism are grounded entirely in assumptions that only make sense with nationalism as a starting point, which - as I've already pointed out - is begging the question. I don't know whether you are genuinely incapable of grasping my point or just completely unwilling, but I know I'm unwilling to bang my head off the wall any longer.

Ok, if you want a rational justification for nationalism, here goes:

Let us assume, for a moment, that you are not a Stalinist, i.e. that you believe that a person has a right to the fruits of their labour.

A person must, therefore spend those labours on things he/she requires. Food, shelter etc, as well as discretionary spending, i.e. a few pints with his mates.

There are some things that one cannot procure on their own - they must be collective efforts. For example, the construction and maintenance of roads and railways, the running of a system of justice, education etc.

For that you must pay taxes, those taxes go into a common pool to pay for larger undertakings of this kind. It makes sense that these should be done locally, as much as possible, for two reasons:

1. If all resources were to go on a strictly as-needed basis worldwide, all our money would go to feed starving Africans or something, the things that we currently pay for so as to have a share of (roads, railways, police and fire) would all be funded to pathetic or non-existant levels) despite on average paying for dramatically more local services.
   
   The entire basis for having a government is that you contribute to things you need a share of but cannot fund on your own.
   
   If you don't have countries and everything goes into one big pot, you will find that "we" would be paying lots of money and recieving very little. I.E. the entire basis for paying a government taxes would cease to exist.
2. Different areas have different problems, requiring different solutions and different resource allocations. I would imagine that the main problem in, for example, Africa is the amount of people who don't have enough to eat. Our problems are minor by comparison, but in different areas.
   
   Even where the problem is the same - for example, the government manages the electricity supply - the solutions must differ. In a cold climate, electricity needs will follow one pattern, in a warm climate, they will follow another.

oscarBravo

SeanW wrote: »

...all our money would go to feed starving Africans or something...

And that wouldn't do at all, at all.

SeanW

oscarBravo wrote: »

And that wouldn't do at all, at all.

I mean all of it, or most of it. Most importantly, the things we need to be a productive economy - roads, railways, education etc. would effectively cease to exist.

In the medium to long term, that would result in "our" first world economies ceasing to be first world economies as the foundation would have been cannibalised.

And you'd still have millions of starving Africans, probably more.

SeanW

oscarBravo wrote: »

And that wouldn't do at all, at all.

Our nation is no more obliged to spend all our peoples money in Africa, than you personally are obliged to hand all your wages/salary to homeless people.

Arasnatra

Hi There,

Last year we see the largest demonstration and this year Hundreds of thousands of Catalans will link hands on Today to form a human chain stretching from the French border to the southern tip of the region, in the latest attempt to rally support for a historic break with Spain and the creation of an independent Catalan state.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/aba75112-1a0e-11e3-93e8-00144feab7de.html#axzz2eZsKyNz9
http://http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/catalans-unite-for-human-chain-as-part-of-bid-to-separate-from-spain-1.1521308
http://http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/11/323235/spain-rally-to-urge-catalonia-selfrule/

Barna77

Yes, why not have a referendum, with all its consequences.
If it says Yes, off you go. Remember, the EU has said no to Cataluña as a new member. So taxes, taxes and taxes on imports and exports.
If it says No, you stay and never to hear about it again.

I hear, the human chain "invaded" Castellón?

Also, I thinks it's sickening that the Generalitat (Catalonian regional government) is cutting back on so many social services but is quite happy to spend millions to celebrate the 300 anniversary of 1714.


Bored to death of y'all.

MRnotlob606

so many new states in europe,since the cold war ukraine and belarus have joined in and a few others, czechoslovakia was divided,yugoslavia was divied after a three sided war.is this all a good thing should some/all of these states remained as they were?

Arasnatra

I don't think you can compare them with Catalonia.