If Racism is Bad…

[Fisherking]

What makes Nationalism acceptable?

Racism is the feeling that you are superior to others because of their color or there looks.

Nationalism is the belief that your nation, usually of birth, is better than any other. How is this different from racism?

[Kadagar_AV]

What makes Nationalism acceptable?

Racism is the feeling that you are superior to others because of their color or there looks.

Nationalism is the belief that your nation, usually of birth, is better than any other. How is this different from racism?

I don't find either bad.

Racism is OK if studies show racial differences. Northmen are better at handling milk than asians, as an example. I also believe black men are better at running than white men.



Nationalism is about loving and respecting your country, that does not have to include HATING the others. I feel more strongly about Sweden than I do Norway... I also care about Norway more than Nigeria as Norway is closer to Sweden, geographically as well as ethnically.

I see it as just human common sense, you care more about the ones closer to you.

I care more for my family than I do about other families.

I care more about my dog than I do about you dog. Doesn't mean I hate your dog or wants anything bad to happen to it. Same with racism and nationalism imho.

[Fragony]

If someone would accuse me of nationalism a d racism I wouldn't really be able to defend myself. Doesn't really mean that am either. Protectivism probably; if you call it sort of conservatism I wouldn't disagree. I can reverse this really easily, and call leftists coservatives.

[Pannonian]

What makes Nationalism acceptable?

Racism is the feeling that you are superior to others because of their color or there looks.

Nationalism is the belief that your nation, usually of birth, is better than any other. How is this different from racism?

Racism is founded on demarcating differences. Nationalism is founded on finding common cause. I don't think British nationalism is better than any other nationalism. But I do think that believing in Britain as a nation, and working for it, will make the nation better for all. Other nations are free to do the same for theirs.

[Crandar]

Here, nationalism is the feeling when you consider your nation above the rest, while patriotism is the "good" version, where you are just proud of your nationhood without simoultaneously underestimating the other nationalities.
I am not sure, of course, if there is the same difference in the English language.

[Kadagar_AV]

Here, nationalism is the feeling when you consider your nation above the rest, while patriotism is the "good" version, where you are just proud of your nationhood without simoultaneously underestimating the other nationalities.
I am not sure, of course, if there is the same difference in the English language.

Welcome to the backroom Crandar, I hope you enjoy your stay!!

As to your points, they are blatantly stupid.

Ok, really they are not. Just wanted to get you into the right atmosphere at once. Again, welcome

[Fisherking]

In racism you look at real or imagined physical and cultural differences.

In nationalism you look at cultural and political differences.

Both can result in one nation hating another they know basically nothing about.

Essentially I see no difference in the two.

[HopAlongBunny]

You could make the case for any '-ism.
Calvinism, Catholicism, Marxism, almost any economic theory...etc.
A structure of beliefs, often deeply held, that are at root artificial intellectual constructs people hold with faith.
Very few have not led to blood in the streets at some point.

[Kadagar_AV]

What makes Nationalism acceptable?

Racism is the feeling that you are superior to others because of their color or there looks.

Nationalism is the belief that your nation, usually of birth, is better than any other. How is this different from racism?

In racism you look at real or imagined physical and cultural differences.

In nationalism you look at cultural and political differences.

Both can result in one nation hating another they know basically nothing about.

Essentially I see no difference in the two.

Essentially I see no worthwhile difference between your OP and your last post.

[Beskar]

Essentially I see no difference in the two.

They are both man-made social constructions.

There is no intrinsic nationality, it is merely a organisation we were born into which is allocated a portion of land. As Massimo d'Azeglio put it, "We have made Italy. Now we must make Italians". Nationalism can be taken to the extremes which it has negative impacts upon people simply because they popped-out of a mother from another nation with no choice involved.

'Race' is taking minor genetic differences and trying to blow them out of proportion, this gets even more disturbing when the vast majority of the labels are inaccurate and leads to very unpleasant discrimination on factors that are not valid or even genetic.

[Pannonian]

They are both man-made social constructions.

There is no intrinsic nationality, it is merely a organisation we were born into which is allocated a portion of land. As Massimo d'Azeglio put it, "We have made Italy. Now we must make Italians". Nationalism can be taken to the extremes which it has negative impacts upon people simply because they popped-out of a mother from another nation with no choice involved.

'Race' is taking minor genetic differences and trying to blow them out of proportion, this gets even more disturbing when the vast majority of the labels are inaccurate and leads to very unpleasant discrimination on factors that are not valid or even genetic.

And as far as I'm concerned, anyone can count themselves into Britishism. I've mentioned the guy whose son turned up in Syria. The father is as British as I can ask for, despite not being born here, because he sees himself as British. That's good enough for me. His son isn't British in my eyes despite being born here, because he doesn't see himself as British. That's also good enough for me. If you live in these isles and are willing to work towards making it a better place, that's all the Britishness you need. It's an inclusive definition and entirely reasonable.

[Rhyfelwyr]

They are both man-made social constructions.

There is no intrinsic nationality, it is merely a organisation we were born into which is allocated a portion of land.

I would say that while no particular nationality is intrinsic, the concept of nationhood is. It is really just an extension of the tribe, which is in turn an extension of the family, which is the basic social unit.

To bind yourself together with people who share a common culture and common values is human nature. In this regard, I would say that nationalism is the basis of democracy - democratic institutions can never represent all their people unless they share a sense of common purpose or destiny.

[Husar]

Nationalism was also born out of necessity when it became obvious that nations were militarily superior to tribes. Weren't the first nations founded in areas where a lot of wars happened while other areas of the planet stuck to tribes until they were colonized and the nation system was forced upon them? How can it be in any way intrinsic if these people still don't really feel comfortable with the concept to a large degree? Personally I can just switch between identifying as German and identifying as European. I am absolutely convinced that there are just as many people in other European countries who I have common interests with than there are Germans for whom this is true.

A whole lot of my best friends are also not 100% Germans and have family from wlsewhere in Europe just like I have myself. It's not that I don't like Germany but I wouldn't mind if it became part of a bigger "nation" with even more friends and people I feel I have common goals with.

I usually find there is more of a divide along the lines of income and education than nationality.

[Kadagar_AV]

Does it matter if nationality is a man made social construction, if it's working?

I feel closer related to Swedes than I do to Norwegians. I would rather be surrounded by Swedes in my day to day life, than I would be Norwegians.

Some nations characteristics I openly despise, Somalia as an example.

I know I'd feel rubbish being surrounded by Somalis in my day to day life.

Nationalism is about TOGETHER striving towards a goal for the nation at large. People not sharing this vision isn't welcomed in a nationalistic society.

All people in a nation helps influencing the nations will and goals. That's why it's on the positive side if people follow some pre-set ideas and goals.

As an example, Sweden's goals include healthcare for everyone and womens rights...

I for one absolutely despise some cultures, and don't want them to influence my nation. Gypsys comes to mind, so does Somalis... As their goals conflict with Swedens.

[Beskar]

Does it matter if nationality is a man made social construction, if it's working?

"Working" is very subjective.

I am sure if you started asking the Skanes or Sami people in Sweden you start hearing about a history of oppression by the Swedes and denial of cultural heritage and refusal of the state to be officially recognised as minorities until recently. There are other examples of it not working: Ukraine being a high profile one. The Kosovo question with Serbia and the breakaway regions of Georgia. You also have 'Britain' which is split up into English, Welsh and Scottish, with the Scots and Wales wanting devolution and independence, including Cornwall. Within England there is the North/South divide then there is even the Red-White rose divide between counties. I can start to continue to other areas such as Spain, France, Germany. I can start to point to the wars of nationalist imperialism in the 19th and 20th Century.

So with a great number of factors involved, on what level is it actually 'working' ?

As Rhy correctly said, you can talk how there is a need for better cooperation, we need to associate ourselves with our neighbours. So nations evolved and mostly played a big part with the rise of faster communications and transport, in the form of industrialisation and the rail-networks. With our present system where communication is almost instantaneous from one side of the world to another, we can in many respects go 'larger' and talk about global governance and conflict resolution. As seen with the pitfalls of nationalism, this would require a decentralised government, but the whole pretense of 'British' 'German' 'French' could simply be abandoned in the modern age and treat everyone equally as human beings.

[Husar]

How can you say nationality works and then bring up Somalia?

Isn't Somalia a great example for the fact that nationality does not always work?

Wasn't nationality forced on most Africans even though they never knew such a concept before? And might that not explain why it doesn't work as well there?

[Greyblades]

As seen with the pitfalls of nationalism, this would require a decentralised government, but the whole pretense of 'British' 'German' 'French' could simply be abandoned in the modern age and treat everyone equally as human beings.

No: The concept of abandoning national identities is simple, the reality is anything but, You do not overturn thousands of years of history and millions of years of human evolution, period. You can bend it, make a population think national differences aren’t worth fighting or even arguing over, but to eliminate the idea of nationalism is wishful thinking at best. Especially in an era where the effects of 3 massive wars dedicated to maintaining/advancing/eliminating those nationalities are still in living memory.

[Fisherking]

No: The concept of abandoning national identities is simple, the reality is anything but, You do not overturn thousands of years of history and millions of years of human evolution, period. You can bend it, make a population think national differences aren’t worth fighting or even arguing over, but to eliminate the idea of nationalism is wishful thinking at best. Especially in an era where the effects of 3 massive wars dedicated to maintaining/advancing/eliminating those nationalities are still in living memory.

Nationalism is not that old! It is older in England and France than anywhere else but it is a few hundred years old and not thousands.

It is the product of strong centralized governments and not the reverse. Most countries didn’t come to it until the 19th century. Before it people were loyal to localities or regions. They had to be convinced by politicians or monarchs that they were members of a larger family. It is still much less of an issue in other parts of the world.


The big mistake is to assume that citizenship = nationality and therefore all citizens of a county form one nation, and any deviation of opinion is treasonous.

[Kadagar_AV]

"Working" is very subjective.

I am sure if you started asking the Skanes or Sami people in Sweden you start hearing about a history of oppression by the Swedes and denial of cultural heritage and refusal of the state to be officially recognised as minorities until recently. There are other examples of it not working: Ukraine being a high profile one. The Kosovo question with Serbia and the breakaway regions of Georgia. You also have 'Britain' which is split up into English, Welsh and Scottish, with the Scots and Wales wanting devolution and independence, including Cornwall. Within England there is the North/South divide then there is even the Red-White rose divide between counties. I can start to continue to other areas such as Spain, France, Germany. I can start to point to the wars of nationalist imperialism in the 19th and 20th Century.

So with a great number of factors involved, on what level is it actually 'working' ?

As Rhy correctly said, you can talk how there is a need for better cooperation, we need to associate ourselves with our neighbours. So nations evolved and mostly played a big part with the rise of faster communications and transport, in the form of industrialisation and the rail-networks. With our present system where communication is almost instantaneous from one side of the world to another, we can in many respects go 'larger' and talk about global governance and conflict resolution. As seen with the pitfalls of nationalism, this would require a decentralised government, but the whole pretense of 'British' 'German' 'French' could simply be abandoned in the modern age and treat everyone equally as human beings.

Skåne and the Sami wasnt' strong enough ethnically to be nation builders, so they got swallowed up. I don't see that as a sign of nation building not working, on the contrary, it shows that nation building can work even with large minorities.

The sami and the people of Skåne, with all the whining about Sweden, still would prefer to be Swedish rather than, say, somali.

nations are "working", because they are. Heck, nation building in Europe has gone so far that even ethnical groups are now divided, even by language. Danes, Norwegians and Swedes had the same language. Nowadays I don't understand a thing when Danes speak.

How is nation building NOT working, when you see functional nations all over?

How can you say nationality works and then bring up Somalia?

Isn't Somalia a great example for the fact that nationality does not always work?

Wasn't nationality forced on most Africans even though they never knew such a concept before? And might that not explain why it doesn't work as well there?

Ah, Somalia... See "racism". I believe Africans are behind in the areas regarding nation building. They have understood the idea of "tribe", but the idea of "nation" is above their collective ability to understand.

This might be blamed on cultural reasons... But "culturism" isn't really a word, so racism is as close as you get.

[Greyblades]

Nationalism is not that old! It is older in England and France than anywhere else but it is a few hundred years old and not thousands.

It is the product of strong centralized governments and not the reverse. Most countries didn’t come to it until the 19th century. Before it people were loyal to localities or regions. They had to be convinced by politicians or monarchs that they were members of a larger family. It is still much less of an issue in other parts of the world.


The big mistake is to assume that citizenship = nationality and therefore all citizens of a county form one nation, and any deviation of opinion is treasonous.

Kneejerk much? Can't exactly blame you considering I do it a lot but you might want to reread my statement: Nationalism is recent, I'm not arguing that, I never said otherwise, but national identity is old: China has existed in one form or another for at the very least a thousand years, France predates the turn of the first millenia, germany could be said to have been one nation in cvil war between 1000 and the 1800's and supposedly Japan has existed continuously under the unbroken line of emperors for over 2000 years. It might not have become a science until recently but national identity, of German, French, Chinese, Japanese has been around for millenia. The idea of making everyone think not in those terms of country/fief/tribe but as fellow human is idealistic and impossible as humanity is now.

[Crandar]

Welcome to the backroom Crandar, I hope you enjoy your stay!!

As to your points, they are blatantly stupid.

Ok, really they are not. Just wanted to get you into the right atmosphere at once. Again, welcome

Don't worry, I had already lost my flower in the Iraqi and Ukrainian threads.
It was a thrilling experience, indeed!

[Pannonian]

Nationalism is not that old! It is older in England and France than anywhere else but it is a few hundred years old and not thousands.

It is the product of strong centralized governments and not the reverse. Most countries didn’t come to it until the 19th century. Before it people were loyal to localities or regions. They had to be convinced by politicians or monarchs that they were members of a larger family. It is still much less of an issue in other parts of the world.


The big mistake is to assume that citizenship = nationality and therefore all citizens of a county form one nation, and any deviation of opinion is treasonous.

I think you'll find that the oldest continuously running idea of nationhood that's still running today is the Chinese, which is 3000 years give or take a few centuries and counting. However, the idea of nationhood that's most relevant to me is the collection of tax payers. I and other tax payers pay into a kitty that collectively benefits a group which is represented by the state. Successively larger groups provide differing levels of benefit, paid for by this kitty. All of us have reasonably similar interests that are benefited by us being part of a larger entity than the individual. Where there are no great conflicts of interest, but a significant level of overlap that can be benefited by being organised into a greater whole, there I have no objections to defining a level of nationhood. I live in my area, within a county, within a region, within England, within Britain, within the EU. I can identify with all these levels of nationhood. Those who agree with my interests and want to count themselves with my group are welcome to do so. Those who are outside my group I will simply ignore. I won't persecute them, nor will I even want to interfere with them, unless they want to interfere with me.

[Fisherking]

Kadagar AV, I appreciate your canted honesty and consistency. Even if I don’t happen to agree your fearless non-PC commentary is welcome.

I am not a big fan of the Nation State. Its main purpose is war making, as which it uses as an excuse to further centralize. It accrues more and more power to its self at the expense of the population. It ignores the wants and needs of smaller groups and localities and forces a one size fits all on everyone. The larger the state, the greater the propensity for this to happen.

[Fisherking]

I think you'll find that the oldest continuously running idea of nationhood that's still running today is the Chinese, which is 3000 years give or take a few centuries and counting. However, the idea of nationhood that's most relevant to me is the collection of tax payers. I and other tax payers pay into a kitty that collectively benefits a group which is represented by the state. Successively larger groups provide differing levels of benefit, paid for by this kitty. All of us have reasonably similar interests that are benefited by us being part of a larger entity than the individual. Where there are no great conflicts of interest, but a significant level of overlap that can be benefited by being organised into a greater whole, there I have no objections to defining a level of nationhood. I live in my area, within a county, within a region, within England, within Britain, within the EU. I can identify with all these levels of nationhood. Those who agree with my interests and want to count themselves with my group are welcome to do so. Those who are outside my group I will simply ignore. I won't persecute them, nor will I even want to interfere with them, unless they want to interfere with me.

China, huh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_China & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...roups_in_China many of the dialects are unintelligible other than the written word. Considering most of their major wars were one group warring with another I would not attribute nation hood to them any earlier than it occurred in Europe.

Other that, at least in theory, the more local the government and the less centralized the more responsive it should be to the will, and needs of its constituents. Would you disagree?

[Greyblades]

as which it uses as an excuse to further centralize. It accrues more and more power to its self at the expense of the population. It ignores the wants and needs of smaller groups and localities and forces a one size fits all on everyone. The larger the state, the greater the propensity for this to happen.

Everything you have ever said about nation states goes doubly for the corporations that would take over without them. You know that checks and balances thing you americans are so proud of? Kill off your federal government and you kill the only thing keeping those coporations even remotely in check. those small governments would be nothing more than shallow bumps against the unshackeld psychopathic will of the same mega corps your deregulation have been breeding.

China, huh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_China & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...roups_in_China many of the dialects are unintelligible other than the written word. Considering most of their major wars were one group warring with another I would not attribute nation hood to them any earlier than it occurred in Europe.

Neither language, ethnicities or civil war stopped you, american.

Other that, at least in theory, the more local the government and the less centralized the more responsive it should be to the will, and needs of its constituents. Would you disagree?

I think anyone with a working mind would disagree.

I joked a while back that you must be sean hannity in disguise.

I cannot joke anymore, the only way I can see someone spouting the levels of anti consumer/pro rich bullshit you are is either they are shills writing for a paycheck, they're the wannabe rich padding their future nest, or they just so brainwashed and deluded they're propping up the same people profiting in society's downfall. You know, I might even think you were one of the rich assholes who subscribe to randian crap in an effort to excuse thier psychpathy, but you are way too naiive to the workings of your own country to have actually made a fortune.
Also:

Its main purpose is war making,

How the hell could you get on a total war website for 9 years and not know of pax romana?

[Husar]

Ah, Somalia... See "racism". I believe Africans are behind in the areas regarding nation building. They have understood the idea of "tribe", but the idea of "nation" is above their collective ability to understand.

This might be blamed on cultural reasons... But "culturism" isn't really a word, so racism is as close as you get.

They are also behind in destroying the environment so being behind does not always equate to being worse.

[Kadagar_AV]

They are also behind in destroying the environment so being behind does not always equate to being worse.

Correction: They haven't got to an industrial level where they can begin destroying the earth.

Once they get there, I am sure they will be as bad as the west or worse.

Non-industrial-ability does not equal caring about the planet. Geez, I already mentioned that "tribe" is as far as, say, Somalis take their brains. There are quite a few steps from there to: caring about nation - caring about ethnicity - caring about humanity - caring about the world at large.

[Pannonian]

China, huh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_China & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...roups_in_China many of the dialects are unintelligible other than the written word. Considering most of their major wars were one group warring with another I would not attribute nation hood to them any earlier than it occurred in Europe.

Other that, at least in theory, the more local the government and the less centralized the more responsive it should be to the will, and needs of its constituents. Would you disagree?

The dominant Chinese group had a sense of common identity as far back as the mythical past that Confucius regularly alludes to. Since Confucius lived around the 6th century BC, that puts the sense of Chinese nationhood at least a few centuries before that.

As for the locality of the identity being more responsive to the needs of its constituents, maybe, but I'm not going to theorise on that, as I have little interest in doing so. However, the other end of that argument is that, the larger the body, the more heft it has in making an argument. The relative decline and rise of the UK and US is evidence enough of this. Even if the most local body of identity is the most responsive of all to my demands, I'm not going to cut myself off from the larger body. I have no interest in brave last stands.

[Fisherking]

Everything you have ever said about nation states goes doubly for the corporations that would take over without them. You know that checks and balances thing you americans are so proud of? Kill off your federal government and you kill the only thing keeping those coporations even remotely in check. those small governments would be nothing more than shallow bumps against the unshackeld psychopathic will of the same mega corps your deregulation have been breeding.

Neither language, ethnicities or civil war stopped you, american.



I think anyone with a working mind would disagree.

I joked a while back that you must be sean hannity in disguise.

I cannot joke anymore, the only way I can see someone spouting the levels of anti consumer/pro rich bullshit you are is either they are shills writing for a paycheck, they're the wannabe rich padding their future nest, or they just so brainwashed and deluded they're propping up the same people profiting in society's downfall. You know, I might even think you were one of the rich assholes who subscribe to randian crap in an effort to excuse thier psychpathy, but you are way too naiive to the workings of your own country to have actually made a fortune.
Also:
How the hell could you get on a total war website for 9 years and not know of pax romana?

Sounds like your getting pretty personal there.

I think you should explain how I have proposed some rightwing conspiracy for the rich to take over the world.

Pax Romana indeed! If you prefer to live under an emperor or dictator then I more understand your accusations of republican, as opposed to totalitarian.

How anti-authoritarian equates to right wing you will need to show us all.

Most people who would lecture you about nationalism would be lobbying for world government. A noble concept. World domination. Except if you dislike the form of government, where do you go?

[Fisherking]

Kneejerk much? Can't exactly blame you considering I do it a lot but you might want to reread my statement: Nationalism is recent, I'm not arguing that, I never said otherwise, but national identity is old: China has existed in one form or another for at the very least a thousand years, France predates the turn of the first millenia, germany could be said to have been one nation in cvil war between 1000 and the 1800's and supposedly Japan has existed continuously under the unbroken line of emperors for over 2000 years. It might not have become a science until recently but national identity, of German, French, Chinese, Japanese has been around for millenia. The idea of making everyone think not in those terms of country/fief/tribe but as fellow human is idealistic and impossible as humanity is now.

I didn’t see this post earlier. Sorry.

Not all my post was directed at you. Mostly just the age of nationalism. With the bold part here, I agree.

The dominant Chinese group had a sense of common identity as far back as the mythical past that Confucius regularly alludes to. Since Confucius lived around the 6th century BC, that puts the sense of Chinese nationhood at least a few centuries before that.

As for the locality of the identity being more responsive to the needs of its constituents, maybe, but I'm not going to theorise on that, as I have little interest in doing so. However, the other end of that argument is that, the larger the body, the more heft it has in making an argument. The relative decline and rise of the UK and US is evidence enough of this. Even if the most local body of identity is the most responsive of all to my demands, I'm not going to cut myself off from the larger body. I have no interest in brave last stands.

Of course most of this is theory and depends upon the principle of nonaggression.

To no one in particular.

As I said, The modern Nation State is the perfect instrument for empire building and aggressive war.

If you like to fight by all means keep and expand the nation state, it is just it will leave nothing but slaves and leaders.