Nationalism.

Bannasidhe

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Yes - but does anyone know what logic, or lack thereof, that believers use to justify the 'concept' of faith. They must have some sort of rationale, however banal, surely?

The same thing can be said about nationalism - I really do not see any difference between I am of xxx religion so I am favoured by God and I am of xxxx nationality so I am favoured by God/Nature. A collective psychosis rooted in our deep seated need to be special - more than an animal and exalted among our own kind. There is no 'logic' to it that I can see.

Karl Stein

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am of xxxx nationality so I am favoured by God/Nature.

What?

Bannasidhe

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

What?

What part are you having difficulty understanding?

Karl Stein

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The same thing can be said about nationalism - I really do not see any difference between I am of xxx religion so I am favoured by God and I am of xxxx nationality so I am favoured by God/Nature.

Since when did nationalism have anything to do with god or nature?

Sarky

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Since when did nationalism have anything to do with god or nature?

Since Israel and its tribes decided it was essential a few thousand years ago, at least.

Bannasidhe

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Since when did nationalism have anything to do with god or nature?

Sarky wrote: »

Since Israel and its tribes decided it was essential a few thousand years ago, at least.

Like Sarky said - also you may want to have a looksee at Race Theory or 'religious/pseudo-scientific reasons why my race is better than your race' (I assume you agree there is a relationship between race and nationality identity....do I assume too much?)

Karl Stein

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Like Sarky said - also you may want to have a looksee at Race Theory or 'religious/pseudo-scientific reasons why my race is better than your race' (I assume you agree their is a relationship between race and nationality identity....do I assume too much?)

You started with God and nature and now race now too?

Isn't that National Socialism circa 1930's Germany?

Okay I've looked at about 5 definitions, here's one.

na·tion·al·ism (nsh-n-lzm, nshn-)
n.
1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nationalism

No mention of God or nature there.

Here's what I would subscribe to, what with me having a bit of a nationalist streak in me:

Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with his or her nation.

Source

I've just done a CTRL+F search of the entire text on that wiki page (approximately 4000 words) and it turns up results for 'God' exactly 0 times, 'nature' 4 times and none of them relating to geography or locale, and race '0' times.

Interesting.

seamus

The point is that nationalism by its very nature assumes that the individual's nationality is inherently better or otherwise requires segregation or protection from other nationalities.

More often than not, the logical root of this in the person's mind is that they were "supposed" to be their nationality or that their nationality is "special" (thus it was given to them by God or nature or whatever), rather than the fact of the matter which is that nationality is an accident of birth and they would be equally nationalistic no matter where they were born. Thus nationalism is absurd by its very nature because it's like saying you're proud to be a man or to be a woman.

It's all part of the same evolutionary trickery which compels one to seek out those with whom they share a common thread and to shun those perceived to be strangers. Organised religion and racism stem from the same root.

Bannasidhe

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

You started with God and nature and now race now too?

Isn't that National Socialism circa 1930's Germany?

Okay I've looked at about 5 definitions, here's one.



No mention of God or nature there.

Here's what I would subscribe to, what with me having a bit of a nationalist streak in me:



I've just done a CTRL+F search of the entire text on that wiki page (approximately 4000 words) and it turns up results for 'God' exactly 0 times, 'nature' 4 times and none of them relating to geography or locale, and race '0' times.

Interesting.

Did I suggest you look up Nationalism or did I suggest you look up Race Theory?

Do you deny the relationship between race and national identity?

Karl Stein

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did I suggest you look up Nationalism or did I suggest you look up Race Theory?

You related nationalism to god and nature (badly) and then skewed off to race.

Do you deny the relationship between race and national identity?

I certainly deny my race has anything whatsoever to do with my feeling of belonging to this nation and don't think race should be an issue as regards being of this nation.

Karl Stein

seamus wrote: »

The point is that nationalism by its very nature assumes that the individual's nationality is inherently better

No it doesn't. The rest of what follows balances on that point and is thus moot.

Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with his or her nation.

The fact that you can only attribute negatives to nationalism only exposes your own bias.

seamus

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with his or her nation.

And what does that mean? "I am Irish"? Well then practically everybody is nationalist.

What that sentence actually means is that "Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology which holds the individual's nationality at its core". Nationality itself isn't the ideology or creed, it's just the lynchpin of nationalism.

Karl Stein

seamus wrote: »

And what does that mean?

That you're of this nation, identify with it and its people and give a shit what happens to it and its citizens. It doesn't require notions of national/race superiority or isolationism.

Religion creates a feeling of kinship based on an imaginary being.

Nationalism arises from real things - a geographic region, solidarity and identifying with others of the nation.

recedite

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

That you're of this nation, identify with it and its people and give a shit what happens to it and its citizens. It doesn't require notions of national/race superiority or isolationism.

Are you going to treat people of other nationalities differently, just because of their nationality?
If you are going to be inclusive, and treat people equally, then what's the point of being a nationalist?

Bannasidhe

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

That you're of this nation, identify with it and its people and give a shit what happens to it and its citizens. It doesn't require notions of national/race superiority or isolationism.

Religion creates a feeling of kinship based on an imaginary being.

Nationalism arises from real things - a geographic region, solidarity and identifying with others of the nation.

You paint a very rosy picture of what nationalism entails which is not supported by the evidence. I ask you again - do you deny concepts of shared racial identity and unity feed nationalism?

Let us look at Northern Ireland - people sharing a geographic location and socio-economic infrastructure but identify as two different races/religions with two different nationalities.

Karl Stein

recedite wrote: »

Are you going to treat people of other nationalities differently, just because of their nationality?
If you are going to be inclusive, and treat people equally, then what's the point of being a nationalist?

I'm courteous with my neighbours. I just don't want them coming in digging up me spuds.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I ask you again - do you deny concepts of shared racial identity and unity feed nationalism?

I'll tell you what. Give me a proper explanation (if possible) of what you wrote about God and nature and how it relates to nationalism and I'll return in kind.

Let us look at Northern Ireland - people sharing a geographic location and socio-economic infrastructure but identify as two different races/religions with two different nationalities.

That's a little like me saying 'cars are dangerous - look at this crashed car'. What fallacy is that again?

Nationalism has positives and negatives and is a broad spectrum. To magnify the negatives of nationalism without considering the positives only exposes an anti-nationalist mindset.

Bannasidhe

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Nationalism has positives and negatives and is a broad spectrum. To magnify the negatives of nationalism without considering the positives only exposes an anti-nationalist mindset.

By the same token Religion has positives and negatives and is a broad spectrum. To magnify the negatives of religion without considering the positives only exposes an anti-religion mindset. Never heard that argument before....

Karl Stein

Bannasidhe wrote: »

By the same token Religion has positives and negatives and is a broad spectrum.

Are you suggesting that people who subscribe to a religion get absolutely nothing from it?

Bannasidhe

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Are you suggesting that people who subscribe to a religion get absolutely nothing from it?

No. I am sure some religious individuals (regardless of the religion) gain much from their possession of 'faith' from the benign (comfort) to the arrogant (sense of superiority) - I question if society as a whole benefits. Euope has been torn apart for centuries by religious wars and nationalist wars - or a combination of both. Countless millions have been slaughtered in the name of religious supremacy and/or racially inspired nationalism. Same meat - different gravy.

Karl Stein

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Euope has been torn apart for centuries by religious wars and nationalist wars - or a combination of both. Countless millions have been slaughtered in the same of religious supremacy and/or racially inspired nationalism. Same meat - different gravy.

Except that it doesn't take religion or nationalism to be a war-monger.

Indeed, the pseudo-science of eugenics that culminated in the Nazi extermination camps had its origins in the universities of 'civilised' nations and had many many highly regarded advocates.

Bannasidhe

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Except that it doesn't take religion or nationalism to be a war-monger.

Indeed, the pseudo-science of eugenics that culminated in the Nazi extermination camps had its origins in the universities of 'civilised' nations and had many many highly regarded advocates.

No one said it did - I said they are both used as justification for acts of war/terror and both inspire good people to do evil things.

Are you trying to Godwin this thread?

Mardy Bum

It all goes back to in-group and out-group behaviour, organised religion and nationalism I mean.

Karl Stein

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No one said it did - I said they are both used as justification for acts of war/terror and both inspire good people to do evil things.

And so it was with saving the savages from themselves and spreading democracy. If there was no religion or nationalism tomorrow there would still be plenty of warmongers and oppressors.

Are you trying to Godwin this thread?

This is little more than a meaningless observation and distraction. My point stands.

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

.. the pseudo-science of eugenics that culminated in the Nazi extermination camps had its origins in the universities of 'civilised' nations and had many many highly regarded advocates.

Bannasidhe

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

And so it was with saving the savages from themselves and spreading democracy. If there was no religion or nationalism tomorrow there would still be plenty of warmongers and oppressors.



This is little more than a meaningless observation and distraction. My point stands.

Do you believe nationalism is a force only for good?

Karl Stein

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you believe nationalism is a force only for good?

Of course not.

Bannasidhe

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Of course not.

Could have fooled me.

Is it your contention that there are no similarities between how religious belief manifests itself and how nationalism manifests itself and that racial identity has no impact/influence on nationalism?

Mardy Bum

Joyce has a great quote on this subject.

"I do not see what good it does to fulminate against the English tyranny

while the Roman tyranny occupies the palace of the soul".

Frank Lee Midere

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Could have fooled me.

Is it your contention that there are no similarities between how religious belief manifests itself and how nationalism manifests itself and that racial identity has no impact/influence on nationalism?

Surely you would have to prove your contentious point rather than the reverse. Nationalism is not the same as religion, is not dependent on it, and in many ways is in conflict with it - for instance against its universalism.

And everybody is in some sense a nationalist, or tribal in some way. New atheism when based on Dawkinismis tribally anti-Islam and Catholicism which is what you would expect for an ideology influenced by someone of Dawkins background.

Not is nationalism a superior or racist creed, many 20th century nationalisms were anti-imperialist and anti-racist.

Nodin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Like Sarky said - also you may want to have a looksee at Race Theory or 'religious/pseudo-scientific reasons why my race is better than your race' (I assume you agree there is a relationship between race and nationality identity....do I assume too much?)

I'm a nationalist - although I'd self describe as a left wing republican. I'm certainly not beholden to that kind of nonsense.

Mardy Bum

Nodin wrote: »

I'm a nationalist - although I'd self describe as a left wing republican. I'm certainly not beholden to that kind of nonsense.

Cultural nationalist or political? Or a mixture?

Nodin

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Cultural nationalist or political? Or a mixture?

.....a mixture, I'd imagine. I've never seen my views as exclusionist as regards other cultures.

Karl Stein

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is it your contention that there are no similarities between how religious belief manifests itself and how nationalism manifests itself

They can both manifest themselves in a negative way and a positive way. Is that a similarity?

and that racial identity has no impact/influence on nationalism?

For some, perhaps. I don't really identify myself by my 'race' - it's not something I think about. There is absolutely no good reason why people of different 'races' can not have nationalist feelings as an Irish person.

I recall an 6-One news report about people leaving an auditorium in Dublin having received Irish citizenship. They were beaming with joy and telling the interviewer how pleased they were. Welcome aboard I say.

Frank Lee Midere

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Cultural nationalist or political? Or a mixture?

What does it matter - he doesn't have to be supremacist.

Here's a simple example. The British fought a vicious colonial war against the independence seeking Mau Mau in Keyna in 1955. Both sides were nationalist. Only one side was supremacist.

Mardy Bum

Nodin wrote: »

.....a mixture, I'd imagine. I've never seen my views as exclusionist as regards other cultures.

Another way of asking would be do you think we should learn Irish in school like the current system maintains?

Nodin

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Another way of asking would be do you think we should learn Irish in school like the current system maintains?

......don't think that's a tad limited in terms of defining a persons political outlook? I actually think Irish should be mandatory till 6th class and optional thereafter.

Frank Lee Midere

As for nationality vs ethnicity. In nation-states the claim to statehood is the historical claims of a people to an area with a historically different language and culture, and most often a region which was once independent. So Scottish nationalism is based on this. Scottish people can nowadays be of any ethnic group - the new Dr Who is British ( his State) and a Scottish ( nation) man of Irish-Italian (ethnic) descent.

He can still be a Scottish nationalist - not saying he is, he might be a unionist - because he is born and bred there.

This has little or nothing to do with race. If the people of Northern Ireland considered themselves "white" and that alone there would be no conflict.

Mardy Bum

Nodin wrote: »

......don't think that's a tad limited in terms of defining a persons political outlook? I actually think Irish should be mandatory till 6th class and optional thereafter.

Language is viewed as an integral part of nationalism even from a postmodern view of the world. Brian Friel's play Translations is an excellent study of this.

Frank Lee Midere

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Another way of asking would be do you think we should learn Irish in school like the current system maintains?

Why not Esperanto?

Karl Stein

Nodin wrote: »

......don't think that's a tad limited in terms of defining a persons political outlook?

The hive mind Nodin - don't forget your instructions.

I think the state should support the language but wouldn't have a clue how best that could be achieved. I'm open to being persuaded on what way would work best. The Welsh seem to be pretty good at promoting their language.

Nodin

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Language is viewed as an integral part of nationalism even from a postmodern view of the world. Brian Friel's play Translations is an excellent study of this.

Yes, and recognising that having it mandatory until the LC has had SFA effect in bringing it back is an integral part of coming to grips with reality.

robindch

IRLConor

Religion is largely about an emotional/irrational attachment to a deity.

Nationalism is largely about an emotional/irrational attachment to an arbitrary line on a map and/or an arbitrary set of cultural features.

I can see where the OP is coming from, there's a common pattern. I think the supremacy aspect seen in many religious and nationalist behaviours is actually a side issue and just a natural consequence of defining a tribe of sorts.

Mardy Bum

IRLConor wrote: »

I can see where the OP is coming from, there's a common pattern. I think the supremacy aspect seen in many religious and nationalist behaviours is actually a side issue and just a natural consequence of defining a tribe of sorts.

I think it is more exclusionary aspect which then leads to a "they are all against us" attitude i.e War on Christmas.

Karl Stein

IRLConor wrote: »

Nationalism is largely about an emotional/irrational attachment to an arbitrary line on a map

Territory is a real thing.

Frank Lee Midere

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I think it is more exclusionary aspect which then leads to a "they are all against us" attitude i.e War on Christmas.

It's funny to hear New Atheists talk about tribal identification and superiority.

Dawkins in particular is a very English chauvinist atheist, in his first polemic - written post 9/11 - he blamed both 9/11 and Northern Ireland on religion, in fact on Islam and Catholicism ignoring the effects of British Colonialism and American imperialism.

IRLConor

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Territory is a real thing.

It's an arbitrary line on a map. Pretending that someone from 100m east of a line is different to someone from 100m west of it is the kind of magical thinking that religious people love to indulge in.

Mardy Bum

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, and recognising that having it mandatory until the LC has had SFA effect in bringing it back is an integral part of coming to grips with reality.

Therefore you would not consider yourself a cultural nationalist like Douglas Hyde who in his ‘The Necessity for De’Anglicising Ireland’ emphasised his disgust at the loss of the Gaelic world. Nationalism is about sharing identity whether it be cultural, ethnic or political and therefore inherently exclusionary. Hyde used medieval Ireland as the idyllic past because it predated the Catholic/Protestant divide and famed for classical learning in contrast to a present polluted by the penny dreadful and cockney music halls i.e. English culture. Admittedly, in a globalised world it is impossible to be a cultural nationalist now I think.

Writers like Joyce came and questioned the assumptions made regarding nationalism

–But do you know what a nation means? says John Wyse.

–Yes, says Bloom.

–What is it? says John Wyse.

–A nation? says Bloom. A nation is the same people living in the same place.

–By God, then, says Ned, laughing, if that's so I'm a nation for I'm living in the same place for the past five years.

So of course everyone had the laugh at Bloom and says he, trying to muck out of it:

–Or also living in different places.

–That covers my case, says Joe.

–What is your nation if I may ask? says the Citizen.

–Ireland, says Bloom. I was born here. Ireland.

The citizen said nothing only cleared the spit out of his gullet and, gob, he spat a Red bank oyster out of him right in the corner.

The Citizen is an ethnic/cultural nationalist and does not accept a Jewish man as Irish.
Blooms definition of a nation appears all inclusive however Neds limited definition where people must share the same opinions and those that don;t will be excluded i.e a nation of one voice.

How do you define a nation and nationalism? Joyce wasn't fully sure.

Karl Stein

IRLConor wrote: »

It's an arbitrary line on a map.

Territory isn't - it's just territory. A line on a map is a political border.

Pretending that someone from 100m east of a line is different to someone from 100m west of it is the kind of magical thinking....

Who's doing that?

Mardy Bum

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Territory isn't - it's just territory. A line on a map is a political border.

What if the person does not recognise the political entity?

Karl Stein

Mardy Bum wrote: »

What if the person does not recognise the political entity?

What of it?

Mardy Bum

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

What of it?

Can that person consider themselves to be a different nationality rather than the one defined by the border?