View Full Version : Nationalism makes peace
Rhyfelwyr
07-23-2008, 23:43
Yes it does. According to my father at least.
Basically, he said something along the lines of religion is for idiots and God doesn't exist (not that he knows I am religious). And so I said, is this not strange coming from a nationalist? And I was told that while religion caused wars, nationalism has brought peace to the world, his chosen example being Bannockburn. Yes, slaying thousands of English and Welsh peasant levies summoned through feudal obligiations is a good and peaceful thing to do.
So, I said that his above comment was incredibly stupid and that nationalism caused both the World Wars (debatably for the first), and that I was fed up hearing nationalist jargon preached from right-wing middle-class liberals. But I was told that people should look after their country and their own national interests. I was then told that nationalism did not emerge from the middle-classes, and when I pointed to Bismarck, Cavour, Mazzini etc I was told that nationalism did not = fascism. I then had to point out that Mazzini was not Mussolini, and then he just complained that seeing my friends had a bad influence on me. And then he wonders why I want to sit on my PC all day.
My dad is a clever person when it comes to maths and engineering, but having heard some of his views I am continuing to lose faith in democracy. He votes for the SNP - why? Because Scotland is for the Scots!
Religion can be and often is perverted to try to justify the acts of cruel people, ie the Crusades, Islamic Terrorism, etc.
As far as I know, nationalism has started wars, not end them.
HoreTore
07-23-2008, 23:57
As far as I know, nationalism has started wars, not end them.
A good and always fun example of that would be the delightful Balkans...
I long for the days when the World Government arrives. The end of this meaningless bickering over who is born within what line on a map. It'll be a good day.
A good and always fun example of that would be the delightful Balkans...
I long for the days when the World Government arrives. The end of this meaningless bickering over who is born within what line on a map. It'll be a good day.
The thing is, it is not just Nationality. It is religious, ethnical and national divisions that have caused violence.
HoreTore
07-24-2008, 00:25
The thing is, it is not just Nationality. It is religious, ethnical and national divisions that have caused violence.
Nationalism is usually based in a common ethnicity and religion. National divisions happen because two different groups of nationalists are living in the same spot.
CountArach
07-24-2008, 02:18
I long for the days when the World Government arrives. The end of this meaningless bickering over who is born within what line on a map. It'll be a good day.
Or on this Continental landmass...
Basically, he said something along the lines of religion is for idiots and God doesn't exist (not that he knows I am religious). And so I said, is this not strange coming from a nationalist? And I was told that while religion caused wars, nationalism has brought peace to the world, his chosen example being Bannockburn. Yes, slaying thousands of English and Welsh peasant levies summoned through feudal obligiations is a good and peaceful thing to do.
I suppose he could then claim that Nationalism led to Hitler conquering France, which in a very round-about fashion led to peace...
LittleGrizzly
07-24-2008, 03:54
Planetism is the next big thing, The Earth rules1!!1!
Or on this Continental landmass...
There is only one landmass, some of it is just below what we call sea level, which also isn't level because the planet is almost, generalizingly speaking round and the moon....etc. etc.
Apart from that I agree on the world government, the EU is just one step into that direction. :2thumbsup:
Kralizec
07-24-2008, 04:51
I long for the days when the World Government arrives. The end of this meaningless bickering over who is born within what line on a map. It'll be a good day.
Gah!
I can't for the love of [insert deity of choice] understand why people think this is a good idea. I could imagine a very loose confederation as being workable; but certainly not the behemoths we currently have on a world scale.
PanzerJaeger
07-24-2008, 05:11
Nationalism does bring peace so long as the particular nation is strong.
Craterus
07-24-2008, 05:18
Nationalism creates an us vs them sentiment. That can only lead to conflict.
CountArach
07-24-2008, 06:14
Nationalism does bring peace so long as the particular nation is strong.
What if the nation isn't strong? What then?
Incongruous
07-24-2008, 07:56
Nationalism creates an us vs them sentiment. That can only lead to conflict.
So does every social movement, there is always someone to fight.
Of course nationalism leads to peace because nationalists care about their own turf first. Scotland is for the scots, damn straight it is. I will never have any conflict with this man.
Tribesman
07-24-2008, 08:18
Of course nationalism leads to peace because nationalists care about their own turf first. Scotland is for the scots, damn straight it is.
Damn straight , Serbia is for the Serbs , Croatia is for the Croats and Bosnia is buggered nice and peacefull like .
Adrian II
07-24-2008, 08:29
Caledonian, just remember what John F. Kennedy said when asked if his father Joe wasn't a royal pain in the ... sometimes: "We all have fathers, don't we?' :smash:
Damn straight , Serbia is for the Serbs , Croatia is for the Croats and Bosnia is buggered nice and peacefull like .
Multicultures
Tribesman
07-24-2008, 09:36
Multicultures
What you mean like Scotland with its 3 languages , its pile of different religions and the Highland Lowland and Island cutures ?
Adrian II
07-24-2008, 09:40
What you mean like Scotland with its 3 languages , its pile of different religions and the Highland Lowland and Island cutures ?Frag doesn't yet understand that all culture is 'multiculture'. In the words of Salman Rushdie: 'Culture is, by its very nature, impure; it is the result of a clash of traditions, languages, ideas.'
HoreTore
07-24-2008, 09:45
I can't for the love of [insert deity of choice] understand why people think this is a good idea. I could imagine a very loose confederation as being workable; but certainly not the behemoths we currently have on a world scale.
I am, of course, talking about a very decentralized government, not like the EU dictatorships. More like the US.
Tribesman
07-24-2008, 10:05
Frag doesn't yet understand that all culture is 'multiculture'.
I would never have guessed:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Though you would have thought that his experience in moving away from the bible belt should have taught him that nationality isn't a good indication of a uniform "culture" within the nation .
But anyway back to Caledonian , ask your old fella what his views on Berwick are .
Is it part of Scotland and should it be made part of Scotland for the Scots ?
Then you can ask him about a whole pile of other border towns .
Then you can ask him about the status people in Scotland who are not scottish .
Let him mull it over a bit and if he gets a little confused politely suggest that his confusion is because his idea is of the complete bollox category .
Geoffrey S
07-24-2008, 10:16
Nationalism is no different from beer.
Tribesman
07-24-2008, 10:27
Nationalism is no different from beer.
What ?
You mean like too much of it can be very bad both for you and those around you .
Nationalism creates an us vs them sentiment. That can only lead to conflict.
an us-vs-them sentiment is hard-coded into us. are you in my tribe (someone i trust) or not (someone i don't).
the ability to trust people allows social and community cohesion, and encourages you to act for the benefit of others.
it ain't all bad.
Adrian II
07-24-2008, 11:01
an us-vs-them sentiment is hard-coded into us. are you in my tribe (someone i trust) or not (someone i don't).
the ability to trust people allows social and community cohesion, and encourages you to act for the benefit of others.
it ain't all bad.The ability to trust and hate is hard-coded, not its object(s). The first object of a person's trust is the mother, the second is a wider circle of family, friends, teachers, followed by still wider, abstract conglomerates.
The more abstract and interchangeable they become (such as 'nation'), the more people will project their fears and hatred onto them.
By interchangeable I mean what I say. The 'need to belong' can take many forms, and some people simply don't have it at all; they are satisfied with what friends they have and feel no need for a wider identification. And its objects have changed constantly throughout history. Nationalism for instance is a historically recent phenomenon. It is in no way hard-coded in the human being. Nor are race, church or language.
CountArach
07-24-2008, 12:12
Nationalism is no different from beer.
Its fun to laugh at people who have too much of it.
Craterus
07-24-2008, 14:59
an us-vs-them sentiment is hard-coded into us. are you in my tribe (someone i trust) or not (someone i don't).
the ability to trust people allows social and community cohesion, and encourages you to act for the benefit of others.
it ain't all bad.
Get rid of borders and the concept of nations. If things like that didn't exist and it was just Earth and humans, there could be just an 'us'. Until aliens arrived but then we'd have a worldwide movement to repel 'them'.
Impossible task.
Frag doesn't yet understand that all culture is 'multiculture'. In the words of Salman Rushdie: 'Culture is, by its very nature, impure; it is the result of a clash of traditions, languages, ideas.'
When it's all in concert it's cultur, when it's not it's multiculture. What happened in former yugoslavia is the ultimate consequence. How many examples do you need.
edit, Salman Rushie should learn how to write a decent book. Dig a hole and fill it up with nothing and you have just as much talent.
Tribesman
07-24-2008, 15:56
How many examples do you need.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
one that makes sense would do .
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
one that makes sense would do .
Well to further expand on AdrianII's quote of that crappy author that got it totally wrong, cultures eventually became nations and no nation is pure but the culture that allows the nation to exist just makes up for that and it is perfectly possilbe for it to be a multi-ethnic one, where cultures didn't become real nations with a healthy sense of belonging things go wrong, one that makes sense: Yugoslavia. Some say it broke up but it never really existed.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
07-24-2008, 19:42
I can see the arguement that nationalism promotes peace because it causes you to look after your own borders, Bannockburn being a good example because in the main it was part of a war fought to get the English out of Scotland, not to invade England.
However, the arguement breaks down as soon as you decide that what is good for your country is invading your neighbour.
However, the arguement breaks down as soon as you decide that what is good for your country is invading your neighbour.
Not the argument but the idea.
Watchman
07-24-2008, 20:57
Meh. Nationalism blows period. A major reason for this is that it near automatically leads to the idea of "nation-state" in the concrete sense, that is, "ein Volk, ein Land, eine Sprach"... which is not only a completely artificial fabrication, but also has nothing to do with how people have settled and borders been drawn historically. Nevermind now the little detail that the assorted building blocks that constitute any given "national identity" are an artificial mishmash of whatever customs, patterns of speech, folk traditions etc. whoever now put the thing together elected to include from amongst the grossly heterogenous and often quite mutually unintelligible way of life real people actually pursued.
Basically, constructing an idealised, conveniently monolithic abstract and then (trying to) impose it on a considerably less convenient and monolithic reality.
Merely as a particularly glaring example, the national "standard languages" used today are nigh without exception 19th-century artifacts based chiefly on whatever exactly the nation-makers thought was the sub-variant everybody ought to be speaking, and imposed (not all that succesfully) atop the regional dialects people mostly spoke (and which could often just as well have been completely foreign languages insofar as mutual intelligibility went) through the vehicles of the modern printing press and compulsory basic universal education.
Oh, and the ubiquitous diverse minorities, odd leftover ethnic groups, enclaves etc. everybody had in abundance ? Screw them. They were generally lucky if they got away with their specific languages, customs, traditions etc. being actively suppressed and ostracised; in worse cases, well, as one historian drily summed up the difference between the Western and East-Central European approaches to the issue, "Breton children might suffer at school; they did not have their homes and villages burned down."
Or to sum it up in general terms, the 19th-century imposition of the fictive idea of truly distinct and cohesive "nations" onto a reality of thoroughly polyglot, mixed and multi-ethnic, -religious and -cultural states and empires whose borders (and most inhabitants) had never cared one whit about such irrelevancies chiefly resulted in a long and very ugly spate of vicious oppression, forced "russification" of subject populaces, outright massacres and ethnic cleansings and generally just plain lots of bad :daisy:.
Oh, yeah, and the kind of raging nationalist egotism and superiority complex that gave the world two World Wars of completely unprecedented scale and brutality.
Particularly hard hit were the "old school" multi-ethnic empires like Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire and Russia. All ruled over hideously complicated patchworks of different ethnic, religious, linguistical and cultural groups, and had for centuries more or less managed to run things smoothly by working out with each group the specific relationship between the ruler and the subject, and then mostly leaving them to their own devices.
Throw in nationalist fervour, and pretty soon you not only had whatever ethno-whatever group was dominant (say, Great Russians) increasingly trying to "russify" the others, but also the whole shebang of subject groups suddenly (and not a little in direct response to the hostility of the dominant groups) starting to become acutely aware of their own identity and usually developing separationist urges somewhere down the road.
In other words, a recipe for a complete domestic disaster.
Usually the rulers proper (who in most of Europe came from extremely international and widely connected families of sometimes very colourful backgrounds - the Bernadottes of Sweden being a good case in point) initially sought to put a damper on any and all such stirrings, readily recognising their salient perilousness. Pretty much invariably, however, somewhere down the road they themselves either were infected with the same poisonous ideas, or simply bowed to the inevitable and threw their lot in with the most prominent and important group.
Endgame, by 1914 all were powder kegs about to blow. By 1918, none were around any more.
The redrawing of the nationality maps (typically with force, ie. through ethnic cleansings) went on in Central and Eastern Europe until the aftermath of WW2 - besides the expulsion of ethnic Germans, most states merrily took advantage of the general chaos and the big boys being busy with other things to "resolve the issue" of any major ethnic minorities still stuck inside their borders.
The Yugoslavian succession wars can probably be regarded as a late delayed flare-up of this phenomenom, aside from being a fine cautionary example of why exactly the fire-breathing nationalist zealots should not be allowed into positions of power...
Geoffrey S
07-24-2008, 22:15
What ?
You mean like too much of it can be very bad both for you and those around you .
Yeah. Emphasis on too much. Got nothing against nationalism in principal.
Nationalism does bring peace so long as the particular nation is strong.
I'd like to see you try to back that up. Nazi Germany was nationalist, was there "peace in our time"? The Balkans are very nationalist, have they created any peace lately?
There we go again. Since when aren't the nazi's socialists. Lefties bees clueless.
Watchman
07-24-2008, 23:08
There we go again. Since when aren't the nazi's socialists. Lefties bees clueless.Since, say, when Hitler sidelined the "red Nazi" wing of the party who were taking the "socialist" and "workers'" part of the NSDAP name a bit too seriously ?
Or when they fought both the Communists and Social Democrats tooth and nail in the days before getting into power ?
Or the explicit and rabid hatred of Marxism of the Nazi dogma ? :dizzy2:
Populists are populists. When it comes to what they promise to the "disgruntled blue-collar" electorate there's rarely that much difference between the Left and Right of the political spectrum. They promise people what they most acutely want, stability in their lives, basic creature comforts, decently paying jobs and a better, fairer economy, usually also reining in the bugbears of the Great Unwashed mental landscape like selfish multinational corporations etc.
It's really the same thing as how when they're competing for the middle-class vote the Left and Right parties start sounding an awful lot like each other.
Lunatic ultranationalism, a whole cesspool of really nasty racial dogmas, a fetishistic adoration of war and violence, social reactionarism and a general solipsistic national particularism - among other peculiarities-, however, should leave an observer in full possession of his senses little doubt as to where the Nazi brand of populism parted ways with the Leftie form...
Heck, the Nazis were :daisy: crazy even by period fascist standards.
There we go again. Since when aren't the nazi's socialists. Lefties bees clueless.
Please, the Nazis were far right, VERY far right...you know, fascism. Hitler himself stated that Communism, a very far left ideology, must be destroyed.
HoreTore
07-24-2008, 23:19
There we go again. Since when aren't the nazi's socialists. Lefties bees clueless.
No, look at the conservative-thread - Hitler was a conservative.
There we go again. Since when aren't the nazi's socialists. Lefties bees clueless.
Ignoring a certain poorly thought equation in the above post; since when has socialism and nationalism been exclusive?
LittleGrizzly
07-25-2008, 01:08
Since when aren't the nazi's socialists. Lefties bees clueless.
clueless or not its says alot for someones cluefulness when they can correctly identify political labels, your making the lefties look very clueful, hitler was about as much of a socialist as you are frag, do you think your a socialist ?
Maybe somone should start a hitler is a socialist topic, seems to be a hot issue....
Nationalism makes peace like shagging makes virginity
I would say a number of modern conflicts have a mix of nationalism in them, if its not a sole reason its usually at least part of the problem....
CountArach
07-25-2008, 02:57
There we go again. Since when aren't the nazi's socialists. Lefties bees clueless.
Yay! Frag going on another Hitler = left rant!
hitler was about as much of a socialist as you are frag, do you think your a socialist ?
That's the trouble I think. Frag is in denial about his own views.
Tribesman
07-25-2008, 03:31
Yay! Frag going on another Hitler = left rant!
Actually hitler was a Muslim and a muticulturalist , when he said the nationalist volk should look east he meant mecca , but he wasn't very good with maps . Thats why the Germans never had winter clothing when they got to Moscow .
Please, the Nazis were far right, VERY far right...
n-n-n-nope.
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler
tada
Marshal Murat
07-25-2008, 06:16
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
That sounds like Hugo Chavez.
So does that make Castro Mussolini?
That sounds like Hugo Chavez.
It most certainly does
hehe
Lord Winter
07-25-2008, 06:36
The whole left right thing is more of a circle anyway, instead of a line.
So are we France, UK or still us?
Banquo's Ghost
07-25-2008, 06:57
Some excellent arguments have been made in this thread which provide more than enough material for an informed discussion.
The "Hitler was a [insert your ideological opponent]" diversions of recent times are pointless, tiresome and in this context, irrelevant. Not to mention having a Godwinian quality.
Please drop the bone and return to topic.
Thank you kindly.
:bow:
Actually hitler was a Muslim and a muticulturalist , when he said the nationalist volk should look east he meant mecca , but he wasn't very good with maps . Thats why the Germans never had winter clothing when they got to Moscow .
:laugh4:
Kralizec
07-25-2008, 07:21
The whole left right thing is more of a circle anyway, instead of a line.
So are we France, UK or still us?
More like a horseshoe:
https://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj68/Anathema-nl/Horseshoe.jpg
Watchman
07-25-2008, 10:52
The far Right and far Left populists certainly do have this funny habit of kind of coming a full circle and ending up with a fair few of the same "Helping The Common Man" rhetoric; although they kind of arrive at the shared ground from the opposite directions.
Anyone incapable of telling the two apart due to this, however, cannot have been paying much attention to the glaring differences in the rest of their rhetoric and policies.
Merely as one example, the general hostility of the Left to "capitalism" stems from the Marxist analysis concerning the exploitative relationship between Capital and Labour, and/or more practically the obvious social ills unregulated capitalism is wont to spawn. That of the populist Right is similarly concerned with the "honest working man" and his rights, but nigh invariably whereas the Left stresses internationalism, universalism and social progressivism, the Right goes for conservative (if not downright reactionary) values and nationalist particularism (and usually a whole lot more xenophobia).
The Nazis for their part were further fully convinced most of the world economy was in the hands of an all-pervasive "Jewish conspiracy" (most manifest in the "Wall Street Jewry" supposedly calling the shots in the US) hostile to the German Volk, and the selfsame conspiracy was also behind the Freemasons, the "Judaeo-Bolshevik" USSR, jazz music, modern art, and pretty much anything and everything else the German ultranationalists disliked...
That they were rather distrustful of "big business" - at least, such as was not run by Germans - should hardly come off as surprising in this light.
Plus, regardless of the "understanding" they arrived into with the business circles of Germany and their avid hatred of labour unions, the fact is the Nazis actually by and large were quite serious about their populist, pro-lower-class agenda. They really did pursue policies that sought to ameliorate the chronic shortage of low-cost housing, unemployement, the agricultural land shortage, etc. A lot of those programs failed because they didn't have the resources for it and/or just plain didn't actually understand the issue at all, and as we all known their proposed solution to the shortage of farmland (and general resource shortage) in Germany was to go and take by force that of other peoples, on the side wiping out a great lot of those vile Untermenschen to the east...
While this kind of blinkered, warmongering approach to solving national problems was hardly unusual among period fascist and proto-fascist movements, the Nazis took it to quite unrivaled extremes. And it should be obvious enough here that while the extreme Right and Left of the period indeed did share a number of concerns (especially in regards of the "working poor") there was a world of difference in the solutions they proposed and pursued...
But enough of that silly sidetrack.
Nationalism does bring peace so long as the particular nation is strong....but, as I've already mentioned, for some odd reason the process of making that "particular nation" "strong" has a funny tendency to always have involved a lot of strife, oppression and outright violence (although not necessarily physical) against at least domestic minorities - in order to get rid of "divisive alien elements", "fifth columns", potential separationists and plain old resistance to the project of consolidating a monolithic "national identity" - and not rarely other states, in the spirit of the imperial competition and a vulgar-darwinist reading of international relationships that were rife in the heydays of fire-breathing nationalism.
Two bouts of worldwide industrial war, millions upon millions of dead and the collapse of Great Powers en masse kind of put the buzzkill on that breand of thinking for some reason. A bit like how the Thirty Years' War helped convince all but the most blinkered fanatics that grapeshot indeed was a pretty lousy theological argument, I imagine.
I'll reiterate my basic thesis on the issue: nationalism sucks arse, and never did anyone any good.
Actually, I though Fragony hit the nail on the head by underlining the Orwellian nature of the thread title.
"Nationalism makes peace"
"Nazis are socialists"
Or as Grizzly suggests:
"shagging makes virginity"
All rather reminds me of this:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Oh, and:
I'll reiterate my basic thesis on the issue: nationalism sucks arse, and never did anyone any good.
QFT
Tribesman
07-25-2008, 14:01
Oh, and:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I'll reiterate my basic thesis on the issue: nationalism sucks arse, and never did anyone any good.
QFT
I am sure there are plenty of arse suckers out there who will disagree and find that nationalism in that context makes them feel good .
Watchman
07-25-2008, 14:10
Well, you know (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleThirtySix)... :shrug:
LittleGrizzly
07-25-2008, 14:47
I may start another topic for the whole hitler is (insert your disliked ideaology here) as i feel this need to respond, its kind like an itchy typing finger...
The main good thing i could come up with for nationalism is something like the UK back in ww2, i put nationalism as one of the factors for starting the war, but i think it probably slightly helped UK, sure the enemy is stronger, smarter and better equipped, but we are brits what can't we do ?!
Then i would say a mix of nationalism and religious fundamentalism has helped damn the palestinians and the israelis in a seemingly endless cycle of violence, over here in UK the only thing nationalism seems to encourage is our crazy racist partys, which is a bad thing, and plaid cymru, snp, which is a bit more subjective but i see devolution as a waste of money and i think the main reason its being pushed is because of nationalism...
Kralizec
07-25-2008, 15:47
The far Right and far Left populists certainly do have this funny habit of kind of coming a full circle and ending up with a fair few of the same "Helping The Common Man" rhetoric; although they kind of arrive at the shared ground from the opposite directions.
That, and the collectivist nature of both fascism and communism. I certainly can't recall Hitler or Mussolini arguing for a sphere of private initiative. In fact both Germany and Italy sported had planned economies, though obviously by different principles than the USSR.
I'll reiterate my basic thesis on the issue: nationalism sucks arse, and never did anyone any good.
Some would argue that it was nationalism led to the progressive warfare of the pruisian commanders , and miraculously enough some do. When it wasn't in their interests to wage war oldschool (rivers of blood) because of the idea of a nation and the accountability of being a nation instead of the temporarily playground of ambitious royals. Some would argue that national identity shaped the precedent for a national conscience. And some do. I think they are right.
Watchman
07-25-2008, 16:20
The last I checked the Franco-Prussian War was fought pretty "old skool" with closed ranks and massed volleys, just with better guns than before. Heck, the cavalry was still pulling off effective "cold arms" charges too.
Pretty much everybody was *still* trying that approach at the start in 1914. With due horrendous slaughter of exposed infantry.
The heck you talkin' about, Frags ?
The last I checked the Franco-Prussian War was fought pretty "old skool" with closed ranks and massed volleys, just with better guns than before. Heck, the cavalry was still pulling off effective "cold arms" charges too.
Pretty much everybody was *still* trying that approach at the start in 1914. With due horrendous slaughter of exposed infantry.
The heck you talkin' about, Frags ?
If anything Frederique of wtf revolutionised the idea of bloodless (or progressive) battle, no matter what the frenchies say those were enemies at the time but people love listening to the french. His idea was that the atrocities of a nation was something that could kick you in the face instead of it being a gentlemen's game for royals.
LittleGrizzly
07-25-2008, 16:35
When it wasn't in their interests to wage war oldschool (rivers of blood) because of the idea of a nation and the accountability of being a nation instead of the temporarily playground of ambitious royals.
Ambitious royals and parliments alike used nationalism to get young men to die for terroritorial gains, and the glory of thier leaders, nationalism sent young men to thier slaughter it didn't make men less likely to ge thier own soldiers slaughtered because they were the same nationality...
When it wasn't in their interests to wage war oldschool (rivers of blood) because of the idea of a nation and the accountability of being a nation instead of the temporarily playground of ambitious royals.
Ambitious royals and parliments alike used nationalism to get young men to die for terroritorial gains, and the glory of thier leaders, nationalism sent young men to thier slaughter it didn't make men less likely to ge thier own soldiers slaughtered because they were the same nationality...
Well what other then nationalism can ever make them accountable for these acts? Why would you care about what your neighbour does unless you know you are in the same place. It's like family. Can't like all but you share something. The netherlands is certainly not dutch speaking people talking dutch within a border it's much more to me I notice that when I am not here. I like it here.
Watchman
07-25-2008, 16:54
If anything Frederique of wtf revolutionised the idea of bloodless (or progressive) battle, no matter what the frenchies say those were enemies at the time but people love listening to the french. His idea was that the atrocities of a nation was something that could kick you in the face instead of it being a gentlemen's game for royals.Comprehensive coherence failure. Please reword and reiterate to make any sense.
...
...seriously, you drunk or something ?
Comprehensive coherence failure. Please reword and reiterate to make any sense.
...
...seriously, you drunk or something ?
syntax error omgwtf
And no, why, out of cash and got a roaring throat? Me buy that's just me. But what, I seriously need drink now yes.
Watchman
07-25-2008, 17:19
"Don't talk to the invisible people, even if they follow you around" I take it ?
"Don't talk to the invisible people, even if they follow you around" I take it ?
More like don't talk to the finish unless you really have to. Which I never did really. Makes sense.
Watchman
07-25-2008, 17:38
I don't see how that explains largely incomprehensible arguments though. Inebriation, on the other hand, would...
Tribesman
07-25-2008, 18:08
I don't see how that explains largely incomprehensible arguments though. Inebriation, on the other hand, would...
its easily explained , are you familiar with the strange occurance that every irishman is a nationalist and sings nationalist songs when he is pissed ?
Whats the betting that even Banquo at Sandhurst gave a stirring and emotional rendition of only the rivers run free once his batman had delivered too many pink gins .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
PanzerJaeger
07-27-2008, 04:05
I'd like to see you try to back that up. Nazi Germany was nationalist, was there "peace in our time"? The Balkans are very nationalist, have they created any peace lately?
Unfortunately, Germany pursued a poor diplomatic policy, attacking nations before they had finished with previous ones. Had Hitler not made some rather poor choices, things surely would have been different.
On the other hand, the United States has followed a very nationalist agenda and its turned out quite well. Instead of attempting the old school goal of conquering the world, America has engaged in a sort of neocolonialism, using its economic and military power to ensure that the world works in America's best interest.
For the First World, ie - the people that matter, things have been quite peaceful and prosperous.
CountArach
07-27-2008, 06:05
Unfortunately, Germany pursued a poor diplomatic policy, attacking nations before they had finished with previous ones. Had Hitler not made some rather poor choices, things surely would have been different.
On the other hand, the United States has followed a very nationalist agenda and its turned out quite well. Instead of attempting the old school goal of conquering the world, America has engaged in a sort of neocolonialism, using its economic and military power to ensure that the world works in America's best interest.
Neo-colonialism is not peace in any way. You also ignore the sponsoring of terrorists, which is again, far from peaceful.
Tribesman
07-27-2008, 09:50
Unfortunately, Germany pursued a poor diplomatic policy, attacking nations before they had finished with previous ones. Had Hitler not made some rather poor choices, things surely would have been different.
wow , unfortuanately the crazy nationalists lost the war ????
On the other hand, the United States has followed a very nationalist agenda and its turned out quite well.
Yeah apart from people doing strange things like flying planes into buildings .
PanzerJaeger
07-27-2008, 10:29
Yeah apart from people doing strange things like flying planes into buildings .
Considering the devestation wrought throughout Europe, Russia, Asia, Africa and of course the Middle East in just the last 100 years, I'd say the US is doing a fairly good job at keeping such things away from North America. Of course 9/11 was the exception, but as we've all seen - the threat, once realized, has been kept in other countries. Seven years and counting.. who would have thought? :2thumbsup:
Considering the devestation wrought throughout Europe, Russia, Asia, Africa and of course the Middle East in just the last 100 years, I'd say the US is doing a fairly good job at keeping such things away from North America. Of course 9/11 was the exception, but as we've all seen - the threat, once realized, has been kept in other countries. Seven years and counting.. who would have thought? :2thumbsup:
Yeah, having two massive seas on both sides of ones country does indeed work wonders, though I'd hesitate crediting nationalism for that. :laugh4:
Tribesman
07-27-2008, 13:03
Seven years and counting.. who would have thought?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
America is a great example of why nationalism brings peace. Such a huge ethnically diverse country but the idea of america is imprinted in all. Only one (though extremily cruel) civil war, absolutily amazing, europeans are murderous psychopaths.
America is a great example of why nationalism brings peace. Such a huge ethnically diverse country but the idea of america is imprinted in all. Only one (though extremily cruel) civil war, absolutily amazing, europeans are murderous psychopaths.
Yeah, because Europe is clean shaven of nationalism. :yes:
And as for the 'diverse ethinicity', it's white-white and a few black and Asians. :laugh4:
Tribesman
07-27-2008, 15:39
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
America is a great example of why nationalism brings peace. Such a huge ethnically diverse country but the idea of america is imprinted in all. Only one (though extremily cruel) civil war, absolutily amazing, europeans are murderous psychopaths.
So all these many wars America had since the civil war were real peaceful like :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Hey england hasn't had a civil war for centuries is that a great example of how nationalism brings peace ?
Yeah, because Europe is clean shaven of nationalism. :yes:
And as for the 'diverse ethinicity', it's white-white and a few black and Asians. :laugh4:
I see american nationalism as a positive force. It is, it's the most confident nation, tell me when a black man can run for president in Norway, we euros get confused about what nationalism really is. Here in the Netherlands, an Obama, no way, we like those bubba's gratefull and needy. Yay for american nationalism and it's honesty and the domestic stability it provides.
I see american nationalism as a positive force. It is, it's the most confident nation, tell me when a black man can run for president in Norway, we euros get confused about what nationalism really is. Here in the Netherlands, an Obama, no way, we like those bubba's gratefull and needy. Yay for american nationalism and it's honesty and the domestic stability it provides.
Well, yeah that would be sort of hard since no one has actually done it before :beam:; but if you mean as a prime minister then I don't see what would be preventive; apart from that are barely any black politians at all. :clown: Oh, and we just have our first non-white cabinet member (Manuela Ramin-Osmundsen) appointed back in 2007, and she wasn't even born in Norway. :thinking:
Why not until 2007 you say? Well where's the Native American president candidate? Here's an idea, it simply does not live that many native Americans in the U.S., nor that many non-white people in Norway. Tadaa.
Well nobody cares, tada. That's what sets the US apart. Norway is convenience sitting on oil America has an idea, and a clue.
Well nobody cares, tada.
So, when it turns out you might be wrong after all, it doesn't matter? :laugh4:
So, when it turns out you might be wrong after all, it doesn't matter? :laugh4:
Nothing matters when you think nothing matters, I am pretty sure america is going to outlast Norway. No progression will ever come from Norway because it has no drive, citizinship in Norway is a marriage of convenience at best but closer to nothing at all. All is fine as long as it works but any new development will be fatal for Norway, not for the US.
Nothing matters when you think nothing matters, I am pretty sure america is going to outlast Norway. No progression will ever come from Norway because it has no drive, citizinship in Norway is a marriage of convenience at best but closer to nothing at all. All is fine as long as it works but any new development will be fatal for Norway, not for the US.
Aww, don't be so jealous, Frag ~:pat:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
07-27-2008, 23:18
Nothing matters when you think nothing matters, I am pretty sure america is going to outlast Norway. No progression will ever come from Norway because it has no drive, citizinship in Norway is a marriage of convenience at best but closer to nothing at all. All is fine as long as it works but any new development will be fatal for Norway, not for the US.
Well, you sometimes wonder if maybe the Nordic history has anything to do with that, 1,300 years ago a Northumbrian asked for shore taxes and the result was 400 years of raids and invasions.:oops:
Seriously though, Norway has remained relatively homogenous, or rather has only recently suffered the upset of new ethnic intake into their social equation.
yesdachi
07-28-2008, 16:37
Nationalism will make a country strong and unified. It’s probably the only long term way to get different races and religions to all function as a society; you got to bring um all under one flag that doesn’t ridicule the individual’s differences.
It’s the neighbors that usually need to watch out. ~D
The US is a pretty good example of positive Nationalism, there are probably more but I am not that traveled. Canada and Australia both seem to have a pretty strong sense of pride for their country that hasn’t led them to many unjustifiable conflicts.
Rhyfelwyr
07-28-2008, 16:54
Well Canada and Australia are quite nicely located in the middle of nowhere, that's maybe got something to do with it.
CountArach
07-29-2008, 09:53
The US is a pretty good example of positive Nationalism, there are probably more but I am not that traveled. Canada and Australia both seem to have a pretty strong sense of pride for their country that hasn’t led them to many unjustifiable conflicts.
Pride in a country, and nationalism are not the same thing. Many Australians love our country, but are not in any way Nationalistic. At the same time our domestic policies have been negatively effected by these same nationalists and have led to the rise of some very racist parties in the recent past.
Also our country has almost no military power, instead we decide to support America blindly into almost all of their conflicts... in fact I can think of very few that we haven't joined.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
07-29-2008, 15:27
Nationalism does have a positive side, despite Watchman's analysis though. "For the Nation" will neatly replace "For the King" in most people's minds and is really the only element that can. The opposite of a nation really is a monarchy, where the political entity is defined by the area the monarch controls.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
07-29-2008, 16:16
Nationalism does have a positive side, despite Watchman's analysis though. "For the Nation" will neatly replace "For the King" in most people's minds and is really the only element that can. The opposite of a nation really is a monarchy, where the political entity is defined by the area the monarch controls.
Hardly. Nationalism was strong enough in Britain and Germany before the Great War, and they were both monarchies. A monarch can be a part of the nation instead of being the nation.
LittleGrizzly
07-29-2008, 16:27
I would say nationalism can work out nicely for the countrys practicing it, sometimes, Nazi Germany up until up 1942 or 41 ? it was working out quite nicely for them, lots of extra land they conquered, its only when the other countries stopped them that the nationalist policy stopped working so well.
Nationalism probably helped play a part in Britian making its empire, a feeling superiority and deserving all the stuff we take, worked out wonderful for us, bit of a shame for our colonys though....
I suppose this sums up my views on nationalism, can be great for your country, its all the poor sods that don't live in your country that need to watch out...
Nationalism makes as much peace as Krook makes sense :2thumbsup:
Yes it does. According to my father at least.
Basically, he said something along the lines of religion is for idiots and God doesn't exist (not that he knows I am religious). And so I said, is this not strange coming from a nationalist? And I was told that while religion caused wars, nationalism has brought peace to the world, his chosen example being Bannockburn. Yes, slaying thousands of English and Welsh peasant levies summoned through feudal obligiations is a good and peaceful thing to do.
He has the wrong battle. It was Culloden that brought peace. :surrender2: ~;) :laugh4:
Rhyfelwyr
07-31-2008, 16:55
He has the wrong battle. It was Culloden that brought peace. :surrender2: ~;) :laugh4:
And just try explaining to him that that battle was not 'Braveheart 2' but rather part of a Scottish (and indeed British) civil war.
Nah, it was a rebellion not a civil war. There were no English or Welsh units on the Jacobite side, no sundering of the British nation as a whole. It wasn't even a Scottish civil war since, although most of the combatants were Scottish, the purpose of the rebellion was to change the leadership of Britain rather than just Scotland.
Its just amazing how easy it is to silence what you might call "Braveheart nationalism" just by mentioning Culloden.
Rhyfelwyr
07-31-2008, 23:31
Its just amazing how easy it is to silence what you might call "Braveheart nationalism" just by mentioning Culloden.
Once they've got their kilts on and had a haggis or two its impossible to get through to them. :wall:
Culloden is really a tough one to label though isn't it?
Scotland's true history of Calvinism and industrialisation is just too dull and gloomy, so lets sugar-coat it all with tartan and shortbread. :2thumbsup:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.