(2) Why nationalism? [Archive]

Rodion Romanovich

08-17-2007, 19:35

Two interesting control questions that I think make the difference between an extremistic nationalist/patriot, and a non-extremistic one:
1. Assume a surrender of your forces to an outside occupying force would allow for an easy revolt against the occupant in less than 10 years. What would you do?
a. surrender, then revolt in 10 years, and win with a minimum of bloodshed
b. fight like a maniac no matter what out of principle, i.e. acting by rule-ethics

2. Let's say we see that eliminating talibans in one place makes them pop up elsewhere. Assume that there are plenty of people who reason there must be somewhere in the world where sharia law is to be tolerated, and are prepared to die for this. Assume you're part of a nation whose cultural values are very different from taliban life style. What is the best thing to do to defend these values? If talibans attack you, you have the 3 standard options:
1. seek to eliminate talibanism in response
2. seek to find a way of assuring that peaceful talibans will be able to have a taliban state somewhere that you respect
3. surrender
You now have 2 options:
a. choose no. 1 out of "principle" always
b. the one that gives you best kill-loss ratio compared to the talibans
c. choose the one of these 3 alternatives that minimizes your own bloodshed in the long run, including all indirect effects

The answers I prefer to hear are obviously:
1a, 2c
It's mainly those who would answer 1b, 2a/2b that I think deserve to be called prejudiced. Basically if your goal is to seek long term preservation of your people and/or your culture (with preference to important things such as juridical ideas over things such as hanging balls in a fir tree in the winter), most of the time you won't have to do anything unethical.

--

The nationalism idea in itself doesn't really state any of these extreme things. It calls for people to move between nations until the nations have homogenous populations in terms of political opinions, but nobody is forced to move. This movement will make it more democratic than the 51-49% elections in very heterogenous populations, where all countries basically end up having almost exactly the same politics. Instead, there will be different places to go for people with different opinions on how the state should be organized, and life should work. However, the failure came when this idea was turned into an ideology.

One reason was how easy it was to turn into disrespect as soon as it was exaggerated just a little bit, as ideologies (as opposed to weak principles among others) always tend to become eventually (this was one of the main flaws of making nationalism a full-fledged ideology instead of a principle). The second reason for failure was when they started basing the "homogenousness" on race, culture, religion or other insignificant properties that have nothing or little to do with political opinion. Then came the implementations, which were even further away from the original idea: it was more often used as an excuse to conquer and annex foreign lands, than of trying to give more people political decisions that were more liked by them. In fact it even got hypocritical enough to be implemented by dictatorship regimes!

In short, I think nationalism received the same fate as communism: it is built on clever but not 100% finished or generally true principles (they are not generally true enough to be basis for a full-fledged ideology). Then its "implementation" was just a number of incredibly evil dictatorship regimes who took its name to sound like they represented the good things the ideology was based on (though as I said above I wouldn't call either communism or nationalism an ideology, but just a set of ideas and analyses meant to be used more as principles and insight, than to be used as political ideology), and from them the original ideas got a bad reputation, even though its original form had little to do with the implementations.

Conradus

08-17-2007, 19:46

Nationalism is the best way to preserve the peace. Before the rise in nationalistic feelings, you had a more feudal-oriented society, and more violent society. For example.

The greatest war humanity has known come after the advent of nationalism. Have we forgotten them? The society certainly didn't become less violent with nationalism.

I can't say I know anything about nationalism. I'm not nationalistic in any case. I can't see why I should love my country more because I happen to be born in it. For the same reason I can't see why other men should love their country enough to die for it. After all, it are just borders that were once drawn.
Of course I'd hate to live in a country where they don't share the cultural values I'm accustomed too, but that's because I've raised with them. And I consider them to be better than most. But I'm probably biased. As sort of cultural nationalism then.

:thinking2: am I showing nationalistic feats?

Don Corleone

08-17-2007, 19:52

Question to the nationalists:
Assume a surrender of your forces to an outside occupying force would allow for an easy revolt against the occupant in less than 10 years. Would you still fight like a maniac instead of surrendering to cause minimum bloodshed?

Same question put differently - are you simply a "rule ethics/prejudiced nationalist", or a person who truly wishes to protect your own culture?

Then another interesting hypothetical question. Let's say we see that eliminating talibans in one place makes them pop up elsewhere. We may assume there are plenty of people who reason there must be somewhere in the world where sharia law is to be tolerated, and are prepared to die for this. Assume you're part of a nation whose cultural values are very different from taliban life style. What is the best thing to do to defend these values? To try to extinct (read: more or less genocide) all who like taliban life style, or to make sure there's some place the talibans can be, as long as they stay there and won't interfere with your business? I.e. if talibans attack you, would you seek to eliminate talibanism, or make sure you can find a compromise as soon as possible with as little bloodshed as possible that 1. makes them not interfere with you again and 2. makes so there's some place those who like sharia (but not those who both like sharia, and hurting your country) can live undisturbed in return? Would you try to seriously choose the best of these 3 alternatives (that minimizes your own bloodshed), or the one that gives you best kill-loss ratio compared to the talibans?

In other words - are you a patriot who truly wish your own cultural values to exist, or are you a "patriot" who more strongly wishes to eliminate all competing cultural values? I.e. a patriot who by default makes a paranoid assumption that all others want you dead without reason, or a patriot who tries to understand the conflict and solve it with minimum bloodshed (which in some cases will be to attack and win, in some cases to find a way of satisfying the enemy's needs, and in some cases be to surrender, all depending on situation)?

It's mainly those who would answer the extreme answer to one or both of those questions (assuming the answer was honest) that I think deserve to be called prejudiced.

--

The nationalist ideology in itself doesn't really state any of these extreme things. It calls for populations moving between nations until the nations have homogenous populations in terms of cultural and political opinions, but nobody is forced to move. This movement will make it more democratic than the 51-49% elections in very heterogenous populations, where all countries basically end up having almost exactly the same politics. The failure of the nationalism ideology lies in the fact that it was exaggerated and resulted in intolerance of anything but the own culture, as well as basing the "homogenousness" on race, culture, religion or other insignificant facts that have nothing or little to do with political opinion. And that, when used as a full-fledged ideology instead of a weak principle among others, keeping it from becoming extremistic was impossible. It was more often used as an excuse to conquer and annex foreign lands, than of trying to give more people political decisions that were more liked by them. In fact it even got hypocritical enough to be implemented by dictatorship regimes. In short, nationalism received the same fate as communism: it is built on clever principles, it was never meant to be a full fledged standalone ideology but a principle and source of insight, and its implementation gave the "ideology" (though as I said I wouldn't call either an ideology) a bad reputation.

I'm not certain, but somewhere in there, I think there's a question. It's hard to tell, because Legio imparts so heavily on the editorialism and answering his own question by putting words in people's mouths. Maybe if he really wants an answer, he'll simplify the above into a form even a ranting crackpot like me can understand.

As for the concept of Nationalism, let me ask a different question. Let's assume you have a job and a family to care for, Innocentius. Do you pay your taxes, then donate the remainder to the local state aid agency... when your kids get hungry you send them into the soup kitchen you helped fund and when they need clothes, send them down to the Salvation Army store? No, you take care of your children first, then with what's left, you do your part to help take care of others that might need help. Nationalism is an extension of that. Sure, people are people and we should try to help everyone as best as we can. But there's those that believe charity begins at home, and those that don't. One thing I find strange... most people that decry Nationalism and scorn those that adhere to it are perfectly willing to accept the positive benefits of it. I don't see too many Americans that are opposed to Nationalism donating their last possession and dollar and moving to a slum in Lagos.

seireikhaan

08-17-2007, 19:59

Well, I am not nationalistic. I hear so often, people saying we should support the war, support our president, etc... I ask why, and they give me some kind of incredulous look like I'm some kind of traitor, and they say, "well, because you're American and should support Americans". Again, I ask why I should uphold that belief that I should support Americans just for being Americans. They never seem to get any answer that adequately answers. Additionally, the ways in which nationalism can be twisted and warped can result in terrible, destructive events, and to bigotry and racism as well. Simply, I see no reason to be a nationalist, and I'm far too wary of the potential consquences of it to support it.

Don Corleone

08-17-2007, 20:04

"My country, right or wrong" is definitely not my motto either, GK. But that's not the only version of Nationalism out there. You could argue that anybody that doesn't believe in a 1-world government is inherently a Nationalist. Why should Americans get to control America's great wealth and resources? Shouldn't the good people of Myanamar have as much to say about the running of the New York Stock Exchange as the SEC? I mean, after all, the SEC is very exclusionary... only Americans are in it. That's very Nationalistic.

Boyar Son

08-17-2007, 20:19

The greatest war humanity has known come after the advent of nationalism. Have we forgotten them? The society certainly didn't become less violent with nationalism.

Well the Greeks united using nationalism to defeat the persians a couple times, and by doing that they saved their particular form of society which we use today:2thumbsup:

Nationalism isnt all that bad, but when everyone has it and tesions start to rise as to who's better and who should have this and that...then we have another world war (I).

Soulforged

08-17-2007, 20:32

why nationalism? People tend to like being part of something greater than themselves. Go to a football match of any nation and you'll understand why, notice that I'm not even talking about something serious, like a war in wich the very essence of what makes a nation is at stake, in wich case one is made into a nationalist if one wants to survive. Sometimes we do it because we care for others and those others share some common root with ourselves. Notice the difficulty on defining nations this days...

What triggers this? Is it a need for security and the feeling of belonging somewhere? To me it's just a geographic area inhabitated by certain people that happened to end up there thanks to history.Geography is not necessarily determinant. My country (Argentina) is known for having a rather large territory, but there's many nations within it and it's very hard to talk about argentinian nationality outside of legal boundaries. The feeling that one has of belonging to a certain community is an start to defining what makes a Nation, is the subjective element. Then you can add a common culture, common customs, common past, common roots, wich are all objective elements. If you've one subjective element and one objective element together you've got yourself a Nation.

What is good and what is bad with this social phenomena?It's good because it unites people, and it does so much more the more a Nation is in danger. It's good also because it gives a sense of variety to the world, if there were no Nations then it's probably because there's no different cultures to talk about.

It can be bad in those cases in wich Nation is confused with State, there's a few cases in wich that was truth (like France a century ago) but it may lead to jingoism. As always the problem is on taking it to the extreme. As long as you're not blinded by your feelings it's ok to feel something for your community.

Innocentius

08-17-2007, 20:33

It's not the Nation. It's the values of my culture and my people.

But doesn't that mean you assume your entire culture share the same views? At least I have difficulties even identifying with my own culture (capitalism, consumerism, not so much imperialism, but other western countries contribute on that part).

You see, it is first the love of my family that drives me to a protective and proud disposition. This then extends to my community and neighborhood, and naturally to my country after that.

Loving your family and the ones close to you is a very natural and human (note: not humane) thing to do, and most people without psychological disorders do that to some extent. I can even understand how you could consider the welfare of your neighbourhodd to be valid to your interests, but an entire country? People you don't know, who might not identify with you or share your views, people who might actually hate you for your views - and you are willing to die for this? I don't see how love for your family naturally extends to your entire country, it's not like your country has ever done anything for you specifically. A country is incapable of feeling love as it is not a living being, and therefore I don't see why it should be worth defending and protecting. You may be pleased by the way things are in your country and in your current position, but many others in your country are probably not experiencing the same. Is it worth killing for your own welfare and for the poverty of people who, thanks to an imaginative border, apparently have something in common with you? What if you'd be better off elsewhere or under a different regime or culture?

Nationalism is the best way to preserve the peace. Before the rise in nationalistic feelings, you had a more feudal-oriented society, and more violent society. For example.

I'm afraid that's not entirely true. Differencies and alienation has always lead to conflicts, and while keeping the peace may have become easier with the invention of nations in the 19th century (I know of no evidence for this), war certainly gets a lot worse with a nationalistic theme. Also, nationalism in itself often leads to chauvinism and war (which happened in Germany in the 1920ies and 30ies).
Nations are just stronger, bigger and more violent versions of medieval kingdoms, which in turn are just stronger, bigger and more violent versions of prehistoric tribes. War has always been around, but it certainly hasn't become any more pleasant with the arrival of nation states.

As for the concept of Nationalism, let me ask a different question. Let's assume you have a job and a family to care for, Innocentius. Do you pay your taxes, then donate the remainder to the local state aid agency... when your kids get hungry you send them into the soup kitchen you helped fund and when they need clothes, send them down to the Salvation Army store? No, you take care of your children first, then with what's left, you do your part to help take care of others that might need help. Nationalism is an extension of that. Sure, people are people and we should try to help everyone as best as we can. But there's those that believe charity begins at home, and those that don't. One thing I find strange... most people that decry Nationalism and scorn those that adhere to it are perfectly willing to accept the positive benefits of it. I don't see too many Americans that are opposed to Nationalism donating their last possession and dollar and moving to a slum in Lagos.

You answered in my place regarding your question. Anyway, I don't think nationalism is a neccessary extension of the will to protect what's your's and those you love. I must be able to love my family, pay my taxes etc, without being ready to die for some abstract culture that is called my country. Also, what gives I should like to help everyone in the same cultural "sphere" as me? I know of people in Sweden who think everyone not ready to die for Sweden should, well, die.
Anyway, I'm not much for charity. I know I'm egoistic, but we all are, I'm just open about it (which might surprise some as I tend to argue in favour of more leftish ideologies, in fact according to all political tests I've done I'm a socialist... I just like to argue I guess). I basically agree with Stirner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner) on the subject.

Don Corleone

08-17-2007, 20:48

You answered in my place regarding your question. Anyway, I don't think nationalism is a neccessary extension of the will to protect what's your's and those you love. I must be able to love my family, pay my taxes etc, without being ready to die for some abstract culture that is called my country. Also, what gives I should like to help everyone in the same cultural "sphere" as me? I know of people in Sweden who think everyone not ready to die for Sweden should, well, die.
Anyway, I'm not much for charity. I know I'm egoistic, but we all are, I'm just open about it (which might surprise some as I tend to argue in favour of more leftish ideologies, in fact according to all political tests I've done I'm a socialist... I just like to argue I guess). I basically agree with Stirner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner) on the subject.

It was a rhetorical question, but if you really would send your kids off to the soup kitchen to be fed, by all means, feel free to correct me.

Not much for charity, but you believe in Socialism. So in other words, you're all about being generous with other people's money, just not your own. Interesting perspective. You've got my vote for honesty, I'll give you that.

Don Corleone

08-17-2007, 20:54

Innocentius

08-17-2007, 21:00

I knew the question was rhetorical and only stated the obvious.

I never said that, did I? Don't put words in my mouth, please.

Not much for charity, but you believe in Socialism. So in other words, you're all about being generous with other people's money, just not your own. Interesting perspective. You've got my vote for honesty, I'll give you that.

Nah, I don't believe in Socialism as I'm way too aware that people are too egoistic for such a society to work (some would call it cynisism). Also, I don't see what Socialism has to do with being generous at all.

In any case, you appear to be building a case in your own mind for calling people like me, those that would take military action to defend their own way of life, predjudiced. So be it. Call me any name you want. I'm not really concerned with your opinion of me or what names you can come up with.

Well, on the subject of Talibans, they didn't really cause any trouble to the average American before the US decided it was a good idea to put troops in the Middle East and deal with weapons with various countries. Of course, why would you be so desperate (paranoid?) about defending your way of life that you go for a pre-emptive strike against a militant religious sect hundreds of kilometres away?

Don Corleone

08-17-2007, 21:06

I knew the question was rhetorical and only stated the obvious.

I never said that, did I? Don't put words in my mouth, please.
Like I said, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I was thinking out loud about what a normal person would do. If your argument is that you would in fact send your kids off to the soup kitchen to fetch a meal (or are currently doing so), consider me properly chastised.

Nah, I don't believe in Socialism as I'm way too aware that people are too egoistic for such a society to work (some would call it cynisism). Also, I don't see what Socialism has to do with being generous at all. Hahaha, you don't know how right you are. Socialism is about taking everyobdy's money away from them, then handing it out as the government sees fit, after they get their cut. Similar to the generosity of charity, it is one way to see to it that nobody starves, though nobody excels either (well, nobody outside the government, that is).

Marshal Murat

08-17-2007, 21:07

I guess I needed to edit my above post.
When I said 'preserving the peace' I referred to inside the nation in question.
Also, while the wars aren't as pleasant, there aren't as many.

The current United States.
Northerners, Southerners, Westerners, Texans, they all have different viewpoints on subjects. Georgians are mostly Christian, conservatives. Mostly.
Californian people are mostly liberals. They are both Americans though, and thats probably the only thing keeping the two states in the same union is nationalism. There was the Civil War yes, but that was before everyone identified themselves as Americans.

If there was no nationalism, then it would be on family and regional values, not by country. The US would be similar to 17th Century Germany with everyone speaking English, but all very different.

Everything in moderation, that's the best way to do things.
To much nationalism leads to a pre-WW1 situation. To little would probably cause more regionalistic tendencies. Evidence?
Modern Sudan.
There are the Darfur residents and the Sudanese in northern Sudan. The northern Sudanese don't identify the Darfur residents as 'Sudanese' but as a seperate people. People are less likely to involve themselves in a civil war if they identify the other combatant as a person like themselves.

Nigeria.
Muslim north, Christian south. They are Nigerians, but in name only. They are separate groups with separate values and ideals. Conflict results.

Iraq.
Kurd north, Sunni center, Shi'ite everywhere else. If they identified themselves as 'Iraqis' rather than by clans and religion, then it would be like the Taliban, a terrorist group seeking to regain former glory. Now it's sectarian and divided.

All 3 examples could be resolved if the combatants didn't separate into religious or ethnic groups but joined as part of their nation. No longer identified as 'Sunni' or 'Christian' but as Sudanese or Nigerian.

A historical example of non-nationalism?
Poland in the 18th century. While everyone was 'Polish', there were Lithuanians, Poles, Germans, Ruthenians, Cossacks, etc. They weren't united and when they were partitioned, they didn't rise up immediately because they didn't identify themselves as a part of a larger nation, but as an ethnic group. The Poles did rise up (continuously) because they believed in 'Poland' as a nation. All the years later, many people in Poland consider themselves Polish, rather than Pomeranian German or Ruthenian.

[rant]
Nationalism has probably prevented more modern-day imperialism because no-one would accept that they are 'American' or 'Russian' or 'British'. Economic imperialism would be the only way now, with puppet regimes of some sort.
I would prefer the WW2 nationalism, cause then America could get more done without everyone trying to be independent and peaceful, trying to be so individualistic that they forget they are Americans.
[rant]

P.S.
Legio, there were to many assumptions about what a person would do or what you could do. It's to iffy for me to respond.

Don Corleone

08-17-2007, 21:09

Well, on the subject of Talibans, they didn't really cause any trouble to the average American before the US decided it was a good idea to put troops in the Middle East and deal with weapons with various countries. Of course, why would you be so desperate (paranoid?) about defending your way of life that you go for a pre-emptive strike against a militant religious sect hundreds of kilometres away?

I don't consider responding to this https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/tharris00/210px-Seconds_after_first_plane.jpg as being desparate, paranoid, or pre-emptive, but by all means, feel free to rewrite history if it makes it easier for you. [/sarcasm]

HoreTore

08-17-2007, 21:09

The greatest war humanity has known come after the advent of nationalism. Have we forgotten them? The society certainly didn't become less violent with nationalism.

He did say that it has prevented violence WITHIN a nation, not without. Which is entirely true. Nationalism has brought peace and stability on the inside, but created huge barriers towards other nations, resulting in a bunch of wars and ethnic cleansing of "the others".

Also, I don't see what Socialism has to do with being generous at all.

A common error people make, learn to live with it... As I see it, socialism is best described with the words of our former union leader; "do your duty, demand your right". I suppose the misconception is due to the fact that we want to help the people who are not doing their duty, not punish them, to make them do what they should(in the interest of ze glorius red reich, etc etc)...

And you know Don, that I hate lazy brats just as much as you do ~;)

Innocentius

08-17-2007, 21:42

Hahaha, you don't know how right you are. Socialism is about taking everyobdy's money away from them, then handing it out as the government sees fit, after they get their cut. Similar to the generosity of charity, it is one way to see to it that nobody starves, though nobody excels either (well, nobody outside the government, that is).

Sounds like someone's got a case of the Red Fear. Why am I not surprised that you're American? Anyway, this thread is not for discussing what Socialism is, but I suggest you read on the subject (Wiki is a good start) rather than relate to what has been taught by former presidents of your country.

I don't consider responding to this as being desparate, paranoid, or pre-emptive, but by all means, feel free to rewrite history if it makes it easier for you. [/sarcasm]

So you're denying the fact that the US had troops in the Middle East and dealt with weapons in the same region before 9/11? I don't think many Americans would have too much of a problem with launching terrorist attacks on a country if that country had troops on American ground and was generally acting world-police.
When I said pre-emptive, I had the "cultural" threat in mind: that the Talibans would spread their views onto America and threaten the culture over there, I wasn't talking about terrorism. There was, and never were, any great risk that the Talibans would "invade" USA and turn it into an Islamistic Sharia state.

Anyway, how about getting back on topic?:clown:

Don Corleone

08-17-2007, 21:49

Sounds like someone's got a case of the Red Fear. Why am I not surprised that you're American? Anyway, this thread is not for discussing what Socialism is, but I suggest you read on the subject (Wiki is a good start) rather than relate to what has been taught by former presidents of your country.

So you're denying the fact that the US had troops in the Middle East and dealt with weapons in the same region before 9/11? I don't think many Americans would have too much of a problem with launching terrorist attacks on a country if that country had troops on American ground and was generally acting world-police.
When I said pre-emptive, I had the "cultural" threat in mind: that the Talibans would spread their views onto America and threaten the culture over there, I wasn't talking about terrorism. There was, and never were, any great risk that the Talibans would "invade" USA and turn it into an Islamistic Sharia state.

Anyway, how about getting back on topic?:clown:

You ask me a series of loaded questions that are off topic, then scold me about getting back on topic... How rude. Why am I not surprised you're not American. :clown:

Rodion Romanovich

08-17-2007, 22:07

I guess Legio really is looking for answers.

On question 1, its a nonsense question. There's no way you could completely and utterly submit, with confidence that after 10 years of slavery, you'd be able to throw off your shackles and oppress your overlords (who you weren't able to beat at the peak of your power, let alone after 10 years of bondage). What moronic conquerers are these that once they enslave a population, they disarm themselves and expect their slaves to obey them without threat of violence.

The communists, for example. And the nazi occupation of Germany. Most unwanted occupation doesn't result in strengthening of the occupying side, but rather the opposite. Some East European nations got away quite well with this strategy during the cold war, seeing as they weren't receiving any other help than pure talk from the west. They were true patriots who endured a few years of occupation in order to give their children a better life, and wait until all states broke off more or less simultanouesly in 1989, which made it militarily impossible for the USSR to retake the lost land - the combined power of the many simultanous rebels/freedom fighters was too great. And now their nations are able to improve their economy, military and societies a lot, and have a much larger population than if they had just fought even when at inferior strength. If they had fought when at inferior strength, they would have been taken one at the time, lost plenty of lives, and would hardly have had the strength to coordinate the massive 1989 revolution and prevent the USSR from resisting it and retaking the land. Similarly, the Free French were a far more effective force, than the French resistance force. The French resistance had much smaller impact on the war fortune than the Free French. Had the Free French tried to land in France right away in 1941, they would have been slaughtered, and the war prolonged.

On question 2, again, a nonsense question. The Taliban don't fight to see to that Sharia is tolerated in some little corner of the world. They fight to impose it wherever they can. I would actually try to answer the nuances of your second question, but I cannot understand your second question.

Not all talibans do. Some of them are devout followers of Islam or particular major directions of Islam. Quite interesting, there are as much as 20,000 talibans in Afghanistan now, fighting for the establishing of a taliban state. Not all of these are USA-haters. Then we have the rise of the new taliban-like government in Ethiopia. Ethiopia, who have cooperated and coordinated military operations with the USA recently (in Somalia). Need I mention that also Osama and the Afghani talibans - the Mujaheddin - once cooperated with USA? The amount of land with taliban law hasn't really increased much. The talibans in Afghanistan arose when others fell, and when they fell, the talibans in Ethiopia arose.

In any case, you appear to be building a case in your own mind for calling people like me, those that would take military action to defend their own way of life, predjudiced.

I call those prejudiced nationalists who regardless of whether there's proof that using military action to defend a mere piece of cloth called a flag will hurt your culture and people more in the long term than another solution would, you will always choose to use military force as a prejudiced principle.

Another hypothetical example to illustrate the difference between the "just because" behavior and being a true defender of ones culture and people. Div said he thought British culture was so similar to US culture that he would be ready to die for Britain as well, as long as it wasn't US culture vs British. Now, if Britain doesn't cause the same feelings for you, replace Britain below with another country that does. Then say a Hitler-like person would become US president by fooling the voters, then being able to step by step sneakily extend his power and use terror and the army against opposition, by somehow gaining popularity among the troops. He declares war on Britain. With this dictator as your leader, you are less like the US culture you want to defend, than Britain is similar to those values. Thus British occupation would be more like life with your cultural values, than would life under the dictator. And it is also not certain (but rather unlikely) that Britain would maintain occupation of your country after victory, but instead confine their operations after victory to overthrowing the maniac, and reestablishing democracy. In this scenario, would you support Britain in overthrowing this leader, or would you fight for the US side and try to crush Britain?

A good example of when such an early military defeat and surrender gives the greatest victory, is Italy in ww2. To such a point, that Italy was a greater winner of ww2 than both Britain and France - if not even USA as well!

So be it. Call me any name you want. I'm not really concerned with your opinion of me or what names you can come up with.
I wonder how and when you got the impression that my post was directed as an attack on you, since my initial post had no references or quotes to your post and didn't come below it. Suddenly I'm attacked and accused of "calling you names". Since I have not directed any word directly at you until now, I'm very curious how you got into the picture. There are other people in this world - and in this forum - than you. Am I supposed to, whenever I say something, expect Don Corleone to think the post is directed at him? Do I have to explicitly write it is not, when it isn't? This is exactly the type of paranoia and constant search for a fight that I'm referring to. If there's any fight or flame war, it's quite obvious that you started it. Or maybe you're trying to diminish the factual content and points of insight in my post by "poisoning the well"? I don't like the tone and would prefer a more peaceful and mature discussion.

Odin

08-18-2007, 01:10

Well, on the subject of Talibans, they didn't really cause any trouble to the average American before the US decided it was a good idea to put troops in the Middle East and deal with weapons with various countries.

I attempt to be respectful of other people on the board. I dont use terms like "euro weenie" because I know it bothers people.

Your quote above bothers me, while Im sure you will reply with the requsite "think whatever you like" blah, blah.... The respect I had for you as a conversationalist/someone worth the time has expired.

Sadly here in the backroom I cant use colorful language, and technology hasnt progressed to the point where I can reach through the screen.

What I do have are these ridiculous simlies. ~:pissed:

Its comments like yours, that are unchecked, biased and clearly hostile that lends to apathy and a general frustration with what appears to be at times an inequity in correcting posters tone.

HoreTore

08-18-2007, 01:19

Uh........ Odin, what in gods name has happened to your avatar??

Remove that mask, we want to look you in the face when we're talking to you damnit!

Don Corleone

08-18-2007, 01:36

The communists, for example. And the nazi occupation of Germany. Most unwanted occupation doesn't result in strengthening of the occupying side, but rather the opposite. Some East European nations got away quite well with this strategy during the cold war, seeing as they weren't receiving any other help than pure talk from the west. They were true patriots who endured a few years of occupation in order to give their children a better life, and wait until all states broke off more or less simultanouesly in 1989, which made it militarily impossible for the USSR to retake the lost land - the combined power of the many simultanous rebels/freedom fighters was too great. And now their nations are able to improve their economy, military and societies a lot, and have a much larger population than if they had just fought even when at inferior strength. If they had fought when at inferior strength, they would have been taken one at the time, lost plenty of lives, and would hardly have had the strength to coordinate the massive 1989 revolution and prevent the USSR from resisting it and retaking the land. Similarly, the Free French were a far more effective force, than the French resistance force. The French resistance had much smaller impact on the war fortune than the Free French. Had the Free French tried to land in France right away in 1941, they would have been slaughtered, and the war prolonged.

Not all talibans do. Some of them are devout followers of Islam or particular major directions of Islam. Quite interesting, there are as much as 20,000 talibans in Afghanistan now, fighting for the establishing of a taliban state. Not all of these are USA-haters. Then we have the rise of the new taliban-like government in Ethiopia. Ethiopia, who have cooperated and coordinated military operations with the USA recently (in Somalia). Need I mention that also Osama and the Afghani talibans - the Mujaheddin - once cooperated with USA? The amount of land with taliban law hasn't really increased much. The talibans in Afghanistan arose when others fell, and when they fell, the talibans in Ethiopia arose.

I call those prejudiced nationalists who regardless of whether there's proof that using military action to defend a mere piece of cloth called a flag will hurt your culture and people more in the long term than another solution would, you will always choose to use military force as a prejudiced principle.

Another hypothetical example to illustrate the difference between the "just because" behavior and being a true defender of ones culture and people. Div said he thought British culture was so similar to US culture that he would be ready to die for Britain as well, as long as it wasn't US culture vs British. Now, if Britain doesn't cause the same feelings for you, replace Britain below with another country that does. Then say a Hitler-like person would become US president by fooling the voters, then being able to step by step sneakily extend his power and use terror and the army against opposition, by somehow gaining popularity among the troops. He declares war on Britain. With this dictator as your leader, you are less like the US culture you want to defend, than Britain is similar to those values. Thus British occupation would be more like life with your cultural values, than would life under the dictator. And it is also not certain (but rather unlikely) that Britain would maintain occupation of your country after victory, but instead confine their operations after victory to overthrowing the maniac, and reestablishing democracy. In this scenario, would you support Britain in overthrowing this leader, or would you fight for the US side and try to crush Britain?

A good example of when such an early military defeat and surrender gives the greatest victory, is Italy in ww2. To such a point, that Italy was a greater winner of ww2 than both Britain and France - if not even USA as well!

I wonder how and when you got the impression that my post was directed as an attack on you, since my initial post had no references or quotes to your post and didn't come below it. Suddenly I'm attacked and accused of "calling you names". Since I have not directed any word directly at you until now, I'm very curious how you got into the picture. There are other people in this world - and in this forum - than you. Am I supposed to, whenever I say something, expect Don Corleone to think the post is directed at him? Do I have to explicitly write it is not, when it isn't? This is exactly the type of paranoia and constant search for a fight that I'm referring to. If there's any fight or flame war, it's quite obvious that you started it. Or maybe you're trying to diminish the factual content and points of insight in my post by "poisoning the well"? I don't like the tone and would prefer a more peaceful and mature discussion.

First of all, the hypothetical situation you posed was 10 years, not 45. Second, the Soviets would not have let their guard down had they ever had the chance to properly manage their new found slave holdings. Without France, UK, Turkey and the US (aka NATO) challenging their every movement, the Soviets surely could and would have done a better job at maintaining their grip on the necks of Eastern European countries. By the way, 45 years is 2 generations. How many generations of home invasions, rapes and outright theft are you willing to endure for 'peace' as you put it.

AS for your last paragraph of tripe, let me call it what it is, crap. You originally posted a hypothesis that anyone that feels a need to defend their homeland is a paranoid, predjudiced *:daisy:* and then challenge those who oppose you to answer you on that charge. I answered, surprise, surprise. No, you dont' need to worry about hurting my feelings. Their health doesn't rest upon the opinions of those such as yourself.

Funny thing about debating people, and getting to know people who view issues differntly than yourself. There's actually a few people around here who call me out on issues that I respect and actually take stock of their arguments. The difference? They actually have a brain behind their mouth, you my friend don't. You, my friend, are a clanging gong that likes to puppet pretty words from arguments you've heard offered by somebody else that you think sound nice but you don't really understand. Hence, not worthy of my notice.

econ21

08-18-2007, 01:50

. Then we have the rise of the new taliban-like government in Ethiopia.

What a curious claim. What on earth makes you say that? The Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front has absolutely nothing in common with the Taliban. Ethiopia is not an Islamic country, nor is the EPRDF at all religious. Geopolitically, it is close to the US - as you say. The President is widely seen as one of the most eloquent and intelligent African politicians around - hence his involved in the UK Africa Commission and various other international initiatives.

Yes, Ethiopia has its human rights problems, as might be expected from such a desperately poor country with such a tragic past. But it is nothing like the (self-imposed) pariah state that Taliban Afghanistan was.

Odin

08-18-2007, 01:59

Uh........ Odin, what in gods name has happened to your avatar??

I Still play STW from time to time and a few nights ago was startled when my advisor yelled "NOBLE LORD" Plus I updated my sig, thought a new icon was appropriate for how I feel at the moment.

Remove that mask, we want to look you in the face when we're talking to you damnit!

You and I both know HoreTore your perfectly capable of looking into mens souls.... A mask is merely a challenge for your ilk.

By the way did I ever tell you your my favorite Norwegian poster with an "H", double "o" double "r" a "T" and a double "e" in his nick?

Don Corleone

08-18-2007, 02:04

Boyar Son

08-18-2007, 02:35

I'll keep this short.

Nationalism is a powerful force for change. The Greeks used it to unite against the persians, and again to rebel against the Ottomans. This example shows nationalism being used for the common goal of the people. Isreal and it's will to defend itself from terrorists and foreign invaders can also be described as nationalism.

Though nationalism can be easily used for conflict and personal interest. WW1started because of an assassination of Archduke Ferdinand by the Black Hand, an orginization with the intent of uniting all of the territories containing South Slav populations, as part of the Pan-Slavism nationalist movement.

I was so on topic ~D

HoreTore

08-18-2007, 02:50

The Greeks used it to unite against the persians

It seems you've been watching 300 for too long... Your feudal overlord is not your nation, you know ~;)

Answering the original topic, you're absolutely right on this matter, Innocentius. Sweden has a thriving economy and a terrific social care system. Let's dissolve Sweden and transport all refugees, politiical or otherwise that care to go there, to Sweden immediately. Hey, let's end Sweden and Norway and just name the whole peninsula "Rescueland". You of course will have to leave. You offend the soon-to-be new inhabitants, with your atheistic ways.

I've been saying that about Northern Norway for years. My father had a brilliant suggestion; why not simply build a huge wall on Dovre(The mountain separating the civilized world and the unwashed hordes), and make it one-way, ie. anyone dumb enough to go north, won't ever get back...

You and I both know HoreTore your perfectly capable of looking into mens souls.... A mask is merely a challenge for your ilk.

What the.... Did the worms tell you?!?!

By the way did I ever tell you your my favorite Norwegian poster with an "H", double "o" double "r" a "T" and a double "e" in his nick?

Haha!

Boyar Son

08-18-2007, 03:01

It seems you've been watching 300 for too long... Your feudal overlord is not your nation, you know ~;)

so you deny Greeks uniting against a common enemy for the common goal of each city-state? (nows the time to say "nevermind!")

IrishArmenian

08-18-2007, 03:32

Nationalism is but patriotism taken too far.

Incongruous

08-18-2007, 06:19

The original thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=90162) got locked pretty immediately, so I'm trying a more diplomatic approach here.

As the topic indicated; why nationalism? Not a nationalist myself, I'm having difficulties understanding what makes a person love his or her country simple because. What triggers this? Is it a need for security and the feeling of belonging somewhere? To me it's just a geographic area inhabitated by certain people that happened to end up there thanks to history.

To not make this a thread entirely for nationalists to write in, it'd be interesting to see some kind of debate also. What is good and what is bad with this social phenomena? My, rather biased, opinion - that got the first thread locked - can be read in the link at the top of the post. It's all yours.

History, is a strong word, people have connections with history. Some increadibly personal, this a natural thing and no phenomena. If you want to question that then you'll be questioning strongly ingrained assumptions of the Human mind. Nations are far more than a Geographical area inhabited by certain people. In some countries there are more than just a certain type of people, but they are usually of the same nationality. I assume you are in fact talking about nation-states/ states? The Kurds consider themselves a nation but they are not a state. It is natural for people to group together, ever since the dawn of history. We have seen a general progression in the size of these groupings, thus history tells us they will only get bigger. Eventually I reckon the Earth will be our only gouping, but it takes time, evolution rather than revolution.

Brenus

08-18-2007, 08:32

Err, I would first make a difference between Nationalism and Patriotism. I think, and the Ancient Greece example is good, that Nationalism defines itself against the others, when Patriotism defines itself with others people.
The Ancient Greeks separated the world between them (the Civilises) and the others, the Barbarians. The Non-Greeks were by definition barbarians, with all this complex understanding of boughless, un-educated and lesser people…
Patriotism came later on the surface and it is more an agreement of values in which the population can recognises itself.
Nationalism is the fear or/and disdain for others, Patriotism is a common background, recognised as such which can cement a community when the old “natural” unification factors disappeared (ex King got his neck cut).
The main problem is it is very difficult to keep the fence straight between these two notions.
Now what is a nation, a country? Yugoslavia was a country but not a nation. Except for the Albanian, they spoke the same language, shared the same space had different religions… Well, nothing special… However, these communities didn’t share the same idea of who they were, so they become Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians (mainly).
When I went in USA, I was amazed by the extreme diversity of population, not in term of races/ethnicities but in term of way of living. Going from Las Vegas to Salt Lake City is something… But all (well I presume most of them) feel to be American. Flags every where, even on the shoulder of the workers repainting San Francisco Bridge…

So, nationalism define who is Serbs, Croats and Bosnians (based on mostly religious background), me against the others.
Patriotism is more a US thing, they share the same dream. The American Dream, they want the other to embrace, they want to share.

The problem is when you start to impose it on others, like the French Revolution did.

Rodion Romanovich

08-18-2007, 08:48

You originally posted a hypothesis that anyone that feels a need to defend their homeland is a paranoid, predjudiced
I'm quite certain I did not. I called those who think military short term defense of the flag, with the people and culture suffering as a result, prejudiced, whereas I called those who wished to always choose what would be best for defending their people and culture rational.

Are you going to keep throwing insults at me despite the fact that it's very clear I haven't thrown any insult at you?

Here's my other cheek for you, go ahead.

---

First of all, the hypothetical situation you posed was 10 years, not 45.

I gave another example, which lasted less than 4 years. Clearly it isn't impossible to imagine a hypothetical scenario of something in between, such as 10 years?

Second, the Soviets would not have let their guard down had they ever had the chance to properly manage their new found slave holdings. Without France, UK, Turkey and the US (aka NATO) challenging their every movement, the Soviets surely could and would have done a better job at maintaining their grip on the necks of Eastern European countries. By the way, 45 years is 2 generations. How many generations of home invasions, rapes and outright theft are you willing to endure for 'peace' as you put it.

Wow - "challenging" the USSR? How on earth did any western country at all ever "challenge" the USSR? Some loose talk is all that was ever done, and hints that USSR would get problems if they touched the western European countries, but were fine as long as they stuck to raping Eastern European countries. Then a war in East Asia - in Vietnam - were you shamed your army and undermined all respect for your army and slaughtered millions of Americans and Vietnameese to virtually no gain at all. The Vietnam war did not help the Polish, Czech, Ukrainian and other occupied territories during the Soviet era. The Polish, Czech and Ukrainian peoples helped themselves, and did so very cleverly - they realized there wasn't going to be any help from the west, and acted accordingly, and were victorious with less suffering than any alternative strategy I can think of would have given. The west wanted the East European countries to take up arms against the USSR to be picadores before the western countries who would come in as toreadors or not at all if they felt the picadores hadn't hurt the bull enough.

Making a desperate attempt to defeat an occupant when victory is unlikely is something you probably only do if you only look to your own interests and can't live a life under occupation, even if this will threaten the existence of your own people and culture more in the long term, i.e. you're not patriot, but egoist. In some cases what you need to do if you're a true patriot is to wait for a time when you can defeat the enemy with almost no casualties at all - or even when you can defeat him with a declaration of independence - an oral statement alone. You can always also opt to flee from the country, and return when the occupant is weakened either military, or by having enough enemies that a coordinated coalition of greater strength than the occupant can be formed to liberate the occupied land and in return go on counter-offense after that in the cases where it seems necessary to demonstrate strength and punishment to get any longer lasting peace - but only depending on the situation. You can even mathematically approximate which decision will provide the most gain, if you make a mathematical model of your own survival. Sometimes faking acceptance of the invader is also an excellent strategy for making him overextend. Fake acceptance for 5-10 years, and he will be much easier to defeat when there's an enormous united front against him. But it all depends on the situation. Sometimes the best solution is simply to fight the invader as he crosses your border, sometimes it is not. A true patriot chooses the most rational option, but a fake patriot makes his decision by prejudice and with completely disregarding the actual circumstances.

I would be interested to hear about how often you think unwanted occupation pays off for the occupant compared to how often it doesn't.

From my reading of history, I think it's something like 1:10, but in the cases where it succeeds, you're usually weakening yourself anyway by losing respect and turning neutrals against you, plus you most probably only held a very small amount of land if you were successful, which made the gain quite small anyway. Example: Iraq war giving USA oil. Counter-statement: the oil goes to companies, not to the USA government and people. The USA government and people loses money, is nearing an economical crisis, and has lost 10,000 or more casualties in Iraq, created a huge terrorist recruitment pool, and turned passive allies into neutral or even passive enemies after the use of phosporous mass destruction weapons in Fallujah and similar events. Conclusion: the occupation of Iraq has severely weakened American capability of defending itself against true threats to its people and culture.

Rodion Romanovich

08-18-2007, 09:53

Answering the original topic, you're absolutely right on this matter, Innocentius. Sweden has a thriving economy and a terrific social care system. Let's dissolve Sweden and transport all refugees, politiical or otherwise that care to go there, to Sweden immediately. Hey, let's end Sweden and Norway and just name the whole peninsula "Rescueland". You of course will have to leave. You offend the soon-to-be new inhabitants, with your atheistic ways.
If Sweden and Norway becomes muslim countries, the biggest blame lies on USA for causing the massive immigration waves of muslims by constant warfare policies in the Middle East, and not on Sweden and Norway for having a principle of showing hospitality to refugees (because then a very small percentage of the immigrants would be muslim, and immigrants from other places would prevent the state from becoming muslim). Sweden and Norway may thus as a result of the American policies in the Middle East now have to close the borders completely to immigrants and refugees due to these policies, or risk becoming muslim countries. But if they close their borders, they will run into problems (similar to or worse than those in France) among their already existing immigrant populations. A lot of civil wars may ensue, Europe lies wide open to Russia, which cooperates with the Middle East countries. The greatest threat towards American security doesn't lie in Iraq now, but in entire Europe turning muslim, Russian or both as a result of American policy in the Middle East.

War in Iraq patriotism? I don't think so.

Still, leaving completely open borders as Sweden and Norway does is a bit naive in any case. It's safer to go for "I'm by default neutral, so you must be neutral back to me" than "I help you now, so I expect you to help me later". The latter seldom works, in fact most people don't get thankful for being helped, but nervous and feeling less worth because they can't return it - or envy you for having the capability of helping and feeling good, and will want to take that for themselves, oppressing you to get the ability to then save you. Friendship, alliances and love don't last if you try to get pervertly close to the other part - there must always be a decent distance between friends. Historical examples of admitting refugees that actually worked well, was when someone who fled from a regime fled to a country which was also enemy of that regime, and the refugees were thus stimulated to contribute greatly towards crushing that opponent and helping the country who admitted the refugees. During the 30 years war era for example, Huguenots and Southern Dutch refugees provided very valuable assistance to those who allowed them to settle on their ground.

Conradus

08-18-2007, 10:15

Well the Greeks united using nationalism to defeat the persians a couple times, and by doing that they saved their particular form of society which we use today:2thumbsup:

You care to tell me when this was?
At Marathon, it were only the Athenians who fought. They received no help whatsoever from other city-states.
10 years later, Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataeae, not even half of all Greek city-states supported the Greek army fighting the Persians. The Greeks certainly weren't nationalistic in a Greek way, the Hellenic world wasn't considered a 'nation'. Each polis was however a nation. You can't call it nationalism that triggered their response to Persian actions.

He did say that it has prevented violence WITHIN a nation, not without. Which is entirely true. Nationalism has brought peace and stability on the inside, but created huge barriers towards other nations, resulting in a bunch of wars and ethnic cleansing of "the others".

Indeed, he said inside, should've read that message more carefully before responding. Although, after nationalism we still had the expulsion of outsiders. The Jews and Roma in particular suffered then.

HoreTore

08-18-2007, 11:46

so you deny Greeks uniting against a common enemy for the common goal of each city-state? (nows the time to say "nevermind!")

They allied all right, but it was not because of nationalism, there wasn't even any nation! They allied because they found out that it was a wise thing to do, kinda like England and France found out that it was a good idea to ally against Germany.

As I've said, I think you've been watching 300 too much ~;)

Boyar Son

08-18-2007, 20:50

At marathon the spartans agreed to help. And after their victories you cant say their wasnt nationalism among the ranks, former enemies now fighting along side each other.

HoreTore

08-18-2007, 20:53

former enemies now fighting along side each other.

And that doesn't apply to france and britain...?

Boyar Son

08-18-2007, 21:04

HoreTore

08-18-2007, 21:20

Were they enemies as of 1913? no, they werent (correct me if I'm wrong). Also wouldnt you want to leave the 100's year war in the past? or the Nepoleonic wars?

I mean that was then it does not mean they have to continue to be enemies.

They ceased to be enemies since they had germany to think about - first Bismarck, then WWI and finally WWII...

Anyway, I can't see any evidence of nationalism when it comes to the greeks, I see it as nothing more than a strategic alliance put in place because it that's what served their own interests best. As most alliances are. They allied with each other to further their own interests, they didn't ally because they saw themselves as brothers, which they would if nationalism was involved....

Conradus

08-18-2007, 21:47

At marathon the spartans agreed to help. And after their victories you cant say their wasnt nationalism among the ranks, former enemies now fighting along side each other.
Actually you can say there wasn't any nationalism. After the Persian Wars the allies had no troubles in starting to fight each other: the Peloponnessian Wars.
The Spartans agreed to help, but they weren't there. If the Athenians would've waited for them, chances are it was already in rubble.
And the fact that you mention that they were fighting to defend their society only proves that you've seen 300 a little too much ;) (loved that movie though)
The Spartans were as despotic as any nation. And Athens' democracy is far from what we use today. Democracy itself was never in any danger.

And regarding France and Britain. It was a choice of the mind, certainly not of the heart. It always confused my why the UK allied with France, rather than Germany. Anyhow, they were still fighting colonial quarrels, if not wars, untill late in the 19th century. Only when Germany became the main power on the continent, the Britains started to support France, the underdog, as they have always done to preserve a balance in Europe.

Boyar Son

08-18-2007, 23:47

Where did I say fighting to defend society?

Tribesman

08-19-2007, 00:14

Where did I say fighting to defend society?

errrr.....
Greeks uniting against a common enemy for the common goal of each city-state? .....there:idea2:

KrooK

08-19-2007, 00:59

All in all
If you win - you are patriot.
If you loose - you ar nationalist.

Into twenties nationalism meant patriotism.

Geoffrey S

08-19-2007, 01:02

I'd have thought patriot would apply more to pride in a country, with nationalist applying more to someone so fearful of his own nation's inadequacy that he sees other nations as a natural enemy trying to put down his own.

They allied all right, but it was not because of nationalism, there wasn't even any nation! They allied because they found out that it was a wise thing to do, kinda like England and France found out that it was a good idea to ally against Germany.

As I've said, I think you've been watching 300 too much ~;)
And it wasn't even a majority. A few citystates banded together, some joined the Persians of were conquered by them, and even more stayed well out of it. After that they all went back to killing each other, until someone else killed more of them and went off to Persia again. And in general, Greekness had nothing to do with it; such a word would have been meaningless in any case.

Slyspy

08-19-2007, 01:15

Boyar Son

08-19-2007, 01:25

errrr..........there:idea2:

He meant society as in a way of life tribes.....

Tribesman

08-19-2007, 02:41

He meant society as in a way of life tribes.....

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What you mean like the way of life in their city states:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Brenus

08-19-2007, 09:15

“It always confused my why the UK allied with France” UK allied with France for several reasons: The constant aggression of Germany before WW1. Germany raged war on Austria (Sadowa), and then united (after a war and ENORMOUS war reparation -5 billions of Golden Francs- to be paid and the annexion of Alsace-Lorraine) in VERSAILLES (France), started to go overseas and to create a Colonial Empire and built a fleet.
So in term of balance of power in Europe, UK had to ally with France which was in good term with Russia.
UK DECLARED war on Germany because Germany invaded Belgium…

Conradus

08-19-2007, 10:37

Where did I say fighting to defend society?

Well, I was referring to this, but Tribesman also quoted an interesting point.

Well the Greeks united using nationalism to defeat the persians a couple times, and by doing that they saved their particular form of society which we use today

“It always confused my why the UK allied with France” UK allied with France for several reasons: The constant aggression of Germany before WW1. Germany raged war on Austria (Sadowa), and then united (after a war and ENORMOUS war reparation -5 billions of Golden Francs- to be paid and the annexion of Alsace-Lorraine) in VERSAILLES (France), started to go overseas and to create a Colonial Empire and built a fleet.
So in term of balance of power in Europe, UK had to ally with France which was in good term with Russia.
UK DECLARED war on Germany because Germany invaded Belgium…
I know the reasons that led to the alliance and division of Europe into two blocks (UK, Fr, Russia vs Germany, A-H, Italy). But that hasn't kept me from wondering about them.
Germany's colonial empire was small -as Blackadder put it: a sausagefactory of Tanganyika- and they disputed more the French colonies than they did England's. England and France were still fighting over North Africa in the 19th Century. Same with their fleetprogram, they still had a huge disadvantage compared to the English.
And the UK would've declared war on Germany even if they didn't invade Belgium imo. It was just conveniant to rally the public.

Brenus

08-19-2007, 12:52

I think it was just real politic. Before, because it huge birth rate, France was the continental power. After Napoleon adventure, and the Industrial Revolution, the new raising Continental Power was Germany. And the English never liked a Continental Power having a big fleet as well… They tried it during the American Revolution and didn’t like it.

Innocentius

08-19-2007, 14:42

I attempt to be respectful of other people on the board. I dont use terms like "euro weenie" because I know it bothers people.

Your quote above bothers me, while Im sure you will reply with the requsite "think whatever you like" blah, blah.... The respect I had for you as a conversationalist/someone worth the time has expired.

Sadly here in the backroom I cant use colorful language, and technology hasnt progressed to the point where I can reach through the screen.

What I do have are these ridiculous simlies. ~:pissed:

Its comments like yours, that are unchecked, biased and clearly hostile that lends to apathy and a general frustration with what appears to be at times an inequity in correcting posters tone.

Would you instead explain to me why I am unchecked and biased so that I might learn something instead of just stating that I'm wrong?

Answering the original topic, you're absolutely right on this matter, Innocentius. Sweden has a thriving economy and a terrific social care system. Let's dissolve Sweden and transport all refugees, politiical or otherwise that care to go there, to Sweden immediately. Hey, let's end Sweden and Norway and just name the whole peninsula "Rescueland". You of course will have to leave. You offend the soon-to-be new inhabitants, with your atheistic ways.

Stop putting words in my mouth, I've never said anything like that. In fact, I think the Swedish immigration politic is quite horrible. I don't like people very much, and having more people coming over here means I'll have to put up with it, sout from an egoistic perspective (and all actions are egoistic, no matter what) I'm against immigration. Another - rather odd - aspect of the immigration is the nationalism of the immigrants. People who've never seen their "home country" talk of it with prowess and tatoo the flag of "their" country onto various body parts, while you could get beaten down and accused of racism if you have a tatoo of the Swedish flag. Illustrates in what great ways nationalism works...

But really, is the scenario you write of any worse than the "them against us" politics of today? I watched a Danish documentary on genocides a couple of days back - it was about the genocide of Jews in eastern Europe during WWII and the killing of Albanians in Kosovo in the early 90-ies. A Serbian soldier being interwieved said he felt no remorse for killing all those innocent people, in fact he didn't consider them people at all, yet his government insisted on ruling over these "subhumans", isn't that great?

Geoffrey S

08-19-2007, 14:46

The German Empire's attitude at the time didn't help, either. Foreign policy was characterised by agression and bluster fueled by fears of others conspiring to put down the Germans, which made for an unreliable partner at best.

HoreTore

08-19-2007, 14:55

People who've never seen their "home country" talk of it with prowess and tatoo the flag of "their" country onto various body parts, while you could get beaten down and accused of racism if you have a tatoo of the Swedish flag. Illustrates in what great ways nationalism works...

Even seen swedish football supporters? Or any swedish sports fans for that matter.

Innocentius

08-19-2007, 15:43

Yes, sports is a strange phenomena; they are our modern substitue for war... Well, anyone wearing a "viking helmet" (the little plastic ones with horns) in a situation not related to sports would probably be considered a racist by AFA and such.

HoreTore

08-19-2007, 18:41

Innocentius

08-19-2007, 19:19

Rascist? No.
Idiot with no fashion sense? Certainly!

I take it that the Norwegian AFA isn't as paranoid as its Swedish counterpart then?:juggle2:

HoreTore

08-19-2007, 20:21

I take it that the Norwegian AFA isn't as paranoid as its Swedish counterpart then?:juggle2:

No idea what AFA is.... Though I'm a member of SOS Rasisme, might be the same thing... Anyway, there's hardly anyone but nazi's who would want to tattoo a flag on their body, and they are quite racist...

Boyar Son

08-19-2007, 20:47

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What you mean like the way of life in their city states:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

No what do you mean? I know this is funny too you but...need clearer answers plz.

Innocentius

08-19-2007, 20:59

No idea what AFA is.... Though I'm a member of SOS Rasisme, might be the same thing... Anyway, there's hardly anyone but nazi's who would want to tattoo a flag on their body, and they are quite racist...

I though Norway had "an" AFA (Antifascistisk Aktion, Anti-Fascist Action) as all other countries:no: If you consider everyone with a flag tattoo'd on their body a racist, that's "slightly" prejudiced.

I checked the website of SOS Rasisme and it seems to be about the same thing as the Swedish NMR (Nätverket Mot Rasism, the Network Against Racism), which in turn does about the same thing as AFA: walk around in groups of 20+ and attack everyone who appears to be a nazi (i.e. anyone who express even the slightest sign of nationalism). Occasionally they will paint someone's house in red or set something on fire (mostly buildings used as meeting halls for nationalists or right-wing Christians with homophobic values).

Crazed Rabbit

08-19-2007, 22:01

Really? That sounds like they've become like the monsters they claim others are.

But in their minds, I assume they think they're doing it for good reasons, which makes it okay.

CR

Tribesman

08-19-2007, 22:46

No what do you mean? I know this is funny too you but...need clearer answers plz.
The words you used that I originally quoted are pretty much the precise definition of the word in that application .

HoreTore

08-20-2007, 01:29

I though Norway had "an" AFA (Antifascistisk Aktion, Anti-Fascist Action) as all other countries:no:

The commies take care of that area well enough...

If you consider everyone with a flag tattoo'd on their body a racist, that's "slightly" prejudiced.

I never said that, I said that the only ones I could think of wanting such a tatto would be extreme nationalists, and they're usually quite racist... Come on, who with the slightest bit of fashion sense would want a flag tattoo? That's just ugly.

I checked the website of SOS Rasisme and it seems to be about the same thing as the Swedish NMR (Nätverket Mot Rasism, the Network Against Racism), which in turn does about the same thing as AFA: walk around in groups of 20+ and attack everyone who appears to be a nazi (i.e. anyone who express even the slightest sign of nationalism). Occasionally they will paint someone's house in red or set something on fire (mostly buildings used as meeting halls for nationalists or right-wing Christians with homophobic values).

Never done anything like that... Our only action against the nazi's(they have a foothold here as an underground network), is to stand outside wherever they have a party/gathering, with banners and distribute anti-racism propaganda... And we do the same thing on concerts, etc. as well as having stands in town centres... Oh, and arrange demonstrations and marches when appropriate, like when someone is killed because of racism and the yearly Kristallnacht march. And we usually join allies when they're doing something smart.

JR-

08-20-2007, 21:58

This may not be a dictionary correct definition, but i have always characterised it thus:
1) Patriot - Enthusiastically Pro your nation
2) Nationalist - Aggressively Anti other nations

By that definition I am very much a patriot.

Q - Why am i a patriot?
A - Because I am proud of what my nation has achieved, proud of the values it holds, and proud of the choices it has made. In short, i feel that broadly speaking GB is populated by the kind of people I would like and admire, I am therefore happy to consider them my 'tribe'.

This goes regardless of colour or creed. I will happily call a indian emigree who considers himself British my brother, just as I would any other decent British person.

I would have less loyalty to those who reject their British'ness, be they anti-establishment whites or radicalised second generation muslim's, because they hold no loyalty to my 'tribe'.

And yes, I would fight to defend my nation/tribe.

That which defines my fondness for GB is also relevant to other nations that hold similar values, and would make the same choices when it comes to the crunch. So, i have a great deal of time for the anglosphere nations, and those nations that have been influenced by GB such as the Commonwealth.

Generally speaking, I respect those nations that are willing to put the time and effort into defending themselves, as they to me are vibrant nations with a will to survive.
In the same vein, I respect those nations that maintain sovereign responsibility for their own actions, as they are effectively choosing to be responsible for the outcome of their decisions.
I also have something of a hard-on for constitutional monarchies, as perhaps it suggest to me a certain social stability that precludes bloody revolutionary tendencies.

If i were to list my top-ten countries in the world today with whom i instinctively trust and approve it would run something like follows:
1) GB
2) Oz
3) Canada
4) NZ
5) US
6) Norway
7) Netherlands
8) India
9) Poland
10) Singapore
...................
11) France

So there you go, i am a nationalist with a bizarre set of criteria that causes me to massively prefer some nations over others, but i'm happy with that.

Fragony

08-20-2007, 23:32

Well, why anti-antinationalism?

Strike For The South

08-21-2007, 14:58

Im pro Texan but then again who isnt

seireikhaan

08-21-2007, 15:49

Im pro Texan but then again who isnt
Umm, me?
:creep:

Innocentius

08-21-2007, 16:32

Q - Why am i a patriot?
A - Because I am proud of what my nation has achieved, proud of the values it holds, and proud of the choices it has made. In short, i feel that broadly speaking GB is populated by the kind of people I would like and admire, I am therefore happy to consider them my 'tribe'.

You clearly lack perspective in this. Why are you proud of your nations achievments? Why are you proud of the values it holds?

Are you in support of such actions as the Falklands War where the British went to fight the completely chanceless Argentinian army (consisting to a degree by minors) to maintain control of a few islands hundreds of kilometres away? Are you in support of slavery and general racism for a few hundred years? Aren't you just being irrational in assuming what your country does is good, just because it is your country and your "tribe"? Also, are we not past stone age tribe thinking by now? Have thousands of years of evolution been in vain?
Also, what says everyone in your tribe is good? Have you met all Brits? Are you happy to consider violent left- or right wing extremists Brits? Are you happy to consider serial killers, "ordinary" mudererers, rapists and other criminals your tribe? They may have no less loyalty to their country than you, just that they beat people up or even kill them for some reason (race, sexual satisfaction etc).

I think you should consider why you are so fond of your coutnry and its "achievments" before stating you're proud of it. Of course, you might be a conservative racist Christian warmonger, that's up to you - but I really don't think you are.

And yes, I would fight to defend my nation/tribe.

Again, why?

I also have something of a hard-on for constitutional monarchies, as perhaps it suggest to me a certain social stability that precludes bloody revolutionary tendencies.

So revolution is something bad according to you then? Interestingly enough you list both the USA and France as the more "trustworthy" countries in the world...
Also, one might wonder what people of today consider positive about monarchies - it's not like people benefit from them, rather the opposite (I know, I know: they attract tourists, yes, we have a royal house in Sweden also, but they live on their people after all - what do you owe them and what have they done for you?).

JR-

08-21-2007, 18:13

You clearly lack perspective in this. Why are you proud of your nations achievments? Why are you proud of the values it holds?
explain why i lack perspective?
i realise i could have written on my views of every historical event involving Britian, but this is not perhaps the place for a treatise.

1) Are you in support of such actions as the Falklands War where the British went to fight the completely chanceless Argentinian army (consisting to a degree by minors) to maintain control of a few islands hundreds of kilometres away?
2) Are you in support of slavery and general racism for a few hundred years? 3) Aren't you just being irrational in assuming what your country does is good, just because it is your country and your "tribe"?
4) Also, are we not past stone age tribe thinking by now? Have thousands of years of evolution been in vain?
5) Also, what says everyone in your tribe is good? Have you met all Brits? Are you happy to consider violent left- or right wing extremists Brits? Are you happy to consider serial killers, "ordinary" mudererers, rapists and other criminals your tribe? They may have no less loyalty to their country than you, just that they beat people up or even kill them for some reason (race, sexual satisfaction etc).
1) Yes
2) everyone has been involved in slavery and 'general' racism at one point or another, but i am proud that we tasked Royal Navy ships to anti-slavery duty during a war of survival and kept it going at stupendous expense for over thiry years.
3) it is you who is being irrational in assuming that I agree with arbitrary actions of GB just because i am from there.
4) Are you past the idea of loving your family? You are talking about hundreds of thousands of years of genetic conditioning towards social groupings as if it is of no consequence.
5) I do not in any way claim all members of my tribe are good, or even likeable.

I think you should consider why you are so fond of your coutnry and its "achievments" before stating you're proud of it. Of course, you might be a conservative racist Christian warmonger, that's up to you - but I really don't think you are.
Again, why?
I have given this plenty of thought, nearly thirty years as it happens, thanks for the thought tho.
What is wrong with being conservative? I am.
What is wrong with being christian? I am not.
You automatically asscoiate "racist" with "conservative" and "christian" which i find very bigotted.
Your implication is that all war is bad, given that you associate it with other nasty things like racism, do i read this inference correctly?

So revolution is something bad according to you then? Interestingly enough you list both the USA and France as the more "trustworthy" countries in the world...

I gave several reasons why i like particular nations, but to elaborate for you:
France = because it maintains a serious defence potential
America = defence + anglophile
Norway = defence + independance + monarchy
India = defence + commonwealth
To name but a few, but surely you can now see that there are many criteria i consider when making a judgement of this kind?

Also, one might wonder what people of today consider positive about monarchies - it's not like people benefit from them, rather the opposite (I know, I know: they attract tourists, yes, we have a royal house in Sweden also, but they live on their people after all - what do you owe them and what have they done for you?).
I cannot speak for swedens monarchy, but the ammount of value i believe the british monarchy achieves for britain is huge. I know of no-one who spends such a staggering ammount of time promoting the british interest as the queen.
Therefore, i believe that they do a great deal for my 'tribe'.

HoreTore

08-21-2007, 23:26

You automatically asscoiate "racist" with "conservative" and "christian" which i find very bigotted.

Or, it could be that he associated "conservative christian" with racist... And that leap isn't that great... Or it could be that he simply lumped the first words that entered his mind together,,,

Norway = defence + independance + monarchy

Defense? In Norway? Really? Where? When? What?

Slyspy

08-22-2007, 02:36

Or, it could be that he associated "conservative christian" with racist... And that leap isn't that great...

Nice. My Mum goes to Church and is rather conservative, but as yet has not been to any right-wing meetings. Unless you count Lady's Circle, but they mainly do charity dinners and cakes rather than firebombing Jewish businesses.

Edit:

Most of the racists I've had the misfortune to encounter have had no obvious religious leanings.

Papewaio

08-22-2007, 03:10

:coffeenews: Keep playing nicely, I'm reading the comics and I don't want to roll up the paper and come back there... its hard enough drinking coffee, reading the newspaper, bouncing the baby on the knee and driving at the same time... so don't make me go all Britany on you and spear you with the sharp and pointy rolled up newspaper. :2thumbsup:

Seriously, this thread has gone very well so far, try and tone down any potential flames please.

JR-

08-22-2007, 08:29

Or, it could be that he associated "conservative christian" with racist... And that leap isn't that great... Or it could be that he simply lumped the first words that entered his mind together,,,
being a conservative christian is not something i have ever found to be particularly associated with racism. i might not agree with it in the slightest, but i have never noted the above.

Defense? In Norway? Really? Where? When? What?

Norway spemds nearly $5 billion/year, and maintains a very modern and well trained armed forces by all accounts.

JR-

08-22-2007, 08:31

Nice. My Mum goes to Church and is rather conservative, but as yet has not been to any right-wing meetings. Unless you count Lady's Circle, but they mainly do charity dinners and cakes rather than firebombing Jewish businesses.

Edit:

Most of the racists I've had the misfortune to encounter have had no obvious religious leanings.
it is amazing how the "right-wing" has been demonised, where to merely use the word indicates extremism even with using the word; "extreme" as a prefix to "right-wing".

its a funny world.

Rodion Romanovich

08-22-2007, 12:05

it is amazing how the "right-wing" has been demonised, where to merely use the word indicates extremism even with using the word; "extreme" as a prefix to "right-wing".

its a funny world.
yeah, in some parts of Europe right-wing = extremist racist, in some parts of America left-wing = extremist communazi. Quite silly labelling if you ask me :dizzy2: Probably has to do with the dominating side in these respective countries are trying to do it as an attempt to demonize their opposition

HoreTore

08-22-2007, 12:38

being a conservative christian is not something i have ever found to be particularly associated with racism. i might not agree with it in the slightest, but i have never noted the above.

I was thinking of the mother of all rascist types; the klansman. Conservative, christian and oh yes, very, very racist...

Norway spemds nearly $5 billion/year, and maintains a very modern and well trained armed forces by all accounts.

Again, what?

You should check the state of things again, it might have been that way in the 70's, but there's nothing left of it now... The money is spent on cruises for the top brass instead.

Slyspy

08-22-2007, 12:56

it is amazing how the "right-wing" has been demonised, where to merely use the word indicates extremism even with using the word; "extreme" as a prefix to "right-wing".

its a funny world.

True, but I chose the phrase deliberately. If we are honest though it isn't as if "left-wing" doesn't have any baggage associated with it. I suppose politics today is much more inclusive and rather less ideological than in years gone by so that in truth only the extremists are left in the wings.

Banquo's Ghost

08-22-2007, 13:01

I was thinking of the mother of all rascist types; the klansman. Conservative, christian and oh yes, very, very racist...

Racism is not in any way the singular preserve of conservatives or christians. As a member of an anti-racist group you should know that.

If you think the KKK qualifies as the "mother" of racist types then I can only trump you with the "grandmother": Nazism.

Socialist, atheist and racist x 20 million verys.

Fragony

08-22-2007, 13:04

If we are honest though it isn't as if "left-wing" doesn't have any baggage associated with it.

Well there's a start at least. Let's see we got Hitler, Mao, Stalin just to name a few small fries. Few million deaths, we all make mistakes.

Ironside

08-22-2007, 15:23

Racism is not in any way the singular preserve of conservatives or christians. As a member of an anti-racist group you should know that.

If you think the KKK qualifies as the "mother" of racist types then I can only trump you with the "grandmother": Nazism.

Socialist, atheist and racist x 20 million verys.

Technically it would be more of a "insane bastard child" or something, the KKK is older.

But socialist and athiest (non-christian is acceptable)? :inquisitive:

That said, I do agree with the first part of your statement.

Innocentius

08-22-2007, 15:36

You automatically asscoiate "racist" with "conservative" and "christian" which i find very bigotted.

No, I didn't. As HoreTore already suggested, I just lumped all the words I came up with that fit with the stereotype British Lord of the 19th century.

Your implication is that all war is bad, given that you associate it with other nasty things like racism, do i read this inference correctly?

Why, yes. Now please explain to me how war could be good, aren't we past that stage of barbary?

Don Corleone

08-22-2007, 15:40

I was thinking of the mother of all rascist types; the klansman. Conservative, christian and oh yes, very, very racist...
.

This is what's known as a syllogism: Klansmen claim to be conservative Christians, Klansmen are racist, therefore conservative Christians are racist.

Perhaps you should rethink your logic.

JR-

08-22-2007, 16:56

No, I didn't. As HoreTore already suggested, I just lumped all the words I came up with that fit with the stereotype British Lord of the 19th century.

Why, yes. Now please explain to me how war could be good, aren't we past that stage of barbary?
The "stereotype" British Lord! Isn't this thread (in its original incarnation) supposed to be a diatribe against 'illogical' and emotionally derived mental constructs that pre-condition the mind into a rigid and inflexible opinions on society and culture? lol.

I would say that British armed intervention in Sierra Leone was a jolly good idea to give just one example.

HoreTore

08-22-2007, 20:06

This is what's known as a syllogism: Klansmen claim to be conservative Christians, Klansmen are racist, therefore conservative Christians are racist.

Perhaps you should rethink your logic.

Racism is not in any way the singular preserve of conservatives or christians. As a member of an anti-racist group you should know that.

If you think the KKK qualifies as the "mother" of racist types then I can only trump you with the "grandmother": Nazism.

Socialist, atheist and racist x 20 million verys.

Uhm... You two misunderstood completely. It's generally not a very good idea to put words in other peoples mouth, you know...

The logic Don speaks of isn't mine. My logic is quite different; Klansmen are conservative christians, Klansmen are racist, therefore klansmen are conservative christian racists. Quite simple.

The KKK is the mother of all racism, and nazism is the other mother, in a glorious lesbian partnership.

Don Corleone

08-22-2007, 20:17

Edit: Never mind, that was ruder than I intended....

HoreTore, you made a statement about conservative Christians, racism and Klansmen all in the same breath. If it was not your intent to link the 3, my mistake.

HoreTore

08-22-2007, 20:42

I wasn't putting words into anybody's mouth. You mentioned the Klan and conservative Christians in the same breath, I apparently misread what the intent of your statement was, or so you now claim.

What is this, you and Innocentius's favorite new tactic? Be deliberately vague,then when somebody misunderstands you, claim that they're putting words in your mouth? You could solve this by being more clear in your statements and come and say what you mean, instead of trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I do believe I mentioned conservative christian racists and klansmen in the same breath. When I hear "conservative christian racist", the first thought that enters my mind is the KKK. When I hear "conservative christian", I don't think of the KKK, I think of words like "anti-abortion". When I hear "racist", I don't think of conservative christians, I think "idiots", plain and simple. If a political ideology enters my mind, then it's nazism.

I hope that was clear enough...

If your point is that more often than not, I tend to misunderstand you (and hence you feel I misrepresent your statements when I respond to them)

Nah, can't think of that happening before... I do believe that was the first time you've misunderstood me.

EDIT: Hah! Too slow! :laugh4: