Printable View
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'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
It seems you've been watching 300 for too long... Your feudal overlord is not your nation, you know ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
What the.... Did the worms tell you?!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
Haha!Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
so you deny Greeks uniting against a common enemy for the common goal of each city-state? (nows the time to say "nevermind!")Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Nationalism is but patriotism taken too far.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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.
---
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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.
You care to tell me when this was?Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
As I've said, I think you've been watching 300 too much ~;)
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.
And that doesn't apply to france and britain...?Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
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....
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
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.
Where did I say fighting to defend society?
errrr.....Quote:
Where did I say fighting to defend society?
.....there:idea2:Quote:
Greeks uniting against a common enemy for the common goal of each city-state?
All in all
If you win - you are patriot.
If you loose - you ar nationalist.
Into twenties nationalism meant patriotism.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
He meant society as in a way of life tribes.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
He meant society as in a way of life tribes.....
What you mean like the way of life in their city states:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
“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…
Well, I was referring to this, but Tribesman also quoted an interesting point.Quote:
Originally Posted by K_Cossack
Quote:
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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?
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.
Even seen swedish football supporters? Or any swedish sports fans for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
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.