6 ms·

Neo-nationalism seems to be on the rise everywhere. Look at the UK (Scotland trying to secede, the crazy extreme right-wing party getting seats in Parliament, e

Neo-nationalism seems to be on the rise everywhere. Look at the UK (Scotland trying to secede, the crazy extreme right-wing party getting seats in Parliament, etc.), France (the National Front did very well in recent elections), South Korea (IIRC, textbooks are edited to replace history with nationalist propaganda), Israel, Turkey, Russia, China, Donald Trump, etc. etc. When is the last time you heard someone stand up and point out how dangerous nationalism is, how it's historically led to wars, massacres, and other oppression and brutality. I suspect the public, hearing no criticism or counterpoints, goes along with the nationalists. Where are the liberal and moderate conservative elite? Asleep at the wheel? Cowed? Complacent?

ue_ 11y ago
I would have hoped the world moved on to post-nationalism by this point. I can't say I had much hope for it, though. I don't know if it's right to link all the countries which seem to be heading toward a more nationalistic government together, though. I think each case has its own causes and conditions. For example, in some parts of Europe, it's the real or perceived threat to national security, and lots of reporting on terrorist attacks, and party leaders knowing how to take advantage of this. What's the cause in Japan? Could it be that there's fear over what's happening in Europe, or could it be a threat from China, or something else completely? The question is interesting to me, as I'm a wannabe immigrant. What would life be like if the trend continues? As I said, for my own wellbeing and happiness, I would have hoped we'd be heading toward post-nationalism. It's as if the "us and them" divide in Japan (this is the only country I know of) wasn't strong enough already.
- sirkneeland 11y ago
  >What's the cause in Japan? Could it be that there's fear over what's happening in Europe, or could it be a threat from China, or something else completely? Threat of China, and the sense of angst that comes from 2 decades of economic stagnation, I'd wager...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - adrtessier 11y ago
    Economic stagnation for whom? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of younger Japanese seem to hate Abenomics and his ultranationalist policies. The majority of the jobs and wealth in Japan is concentrated in its fast aging populace. From what I can tell, it is these interests that are pushing for a return to Japanese ultranationalism, not the people affected the most by Japan's stagnant economy.
sirkneeland 11y ago
>the crazy extreme right-wing party getting seats in Parliament The BNP doesn't have any seats in Parliament. I assume you might be referring to UKIP?
- bnb_luic 11y ago
  The label applies to both. But just one gained seats in May.
  - alextgordon 11y ago
    Technically speaking UKIP lost half their seats in May :)
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  The BNP have been replaced by UKIP.
Alupis 11y ago
While I agree with the spirit of your post, your premise is wrong. Being nationalistic has nothing to do with being conservative; there is no correlation there. Many liberals are blindly nationalistic as well. Intense nationalism does cause conflicts (look at the US and Russia relationship at the moment), often fabricated for pure political gain by controlling/power individuals. Very few individuals look at the core of an issue, but instead follow the example set forth by people in authority positions and/or the frenzied click-baiting-gotta-get-eyeballs-on-as-many-ads-as-possible media. For example, a Russian jet is shot down over Syria by Turkey. Almost immediately the spin machine kicks into high gear to paint a picture of a plotting Putin carefully strategizing how to dismantle NATO by means of getting his soldiers killed (which makes little sense)... all because the nationalistic side says "USA good, Russia bad". People died, we should have some compassion.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > Being nationalistic has nothing to do with being conservative ... I disagree strongly with this point: The more nationalistic parties, pushing nationalistic and nativistic (e.g., anti-immigrant) plicies, are always conservative: The Republicans in the U.S., the Tories and the right-wing extremists in the UK, the Republicans and National Front in France, the LDP in Japan, Likud in Israel, etc. Internationalists, international cooperation, and international organizations are the province of the left and of moderates. In the U.S., a common conservative criticism of liberals is that they are unpatroitic and 'don't love America'. > Intense nationalism does cause conflicts ... often fabricated for pure political gain by controlling/power individuals. / Very few individuals look at the core of an issue, but instead follow the example set forth by people in authority positions Agreed. That's what I was referring to when pointing out the lack of response by liberals and moderates in authority positions - why are they silent?
  - Alupis 11y ago
    > criticism of liberals is that they are unpatroitic and 'don't love America' Being patriotic has nothing to do with being nationalistic. It's one thing to love your country, support it, etc... but it's another thing entirely to believe your country is so great, all others fail in comparison, everyone's out to get you (because you're so great), your nation must always be "top dog" and set all global policies, etc... Being ultra-nationalistic could be paralleled with a phobia of sorts. > lack of response by liberals and moderates in authority positions - why are they silent? They aren't silent. The US Executive Branch is currently liberal (as is the State Department, and Secretary of Defense... all foreign policy makers), and certainly has aided the growing sense of extreme nationalism with all the anti-non-european-countries rhetoric. The general message often conveyed is, if you aren't part of North America or Europe, then you're out to get us. This instead of saying "We may have our differences, but we have worked together in the past and achieved great things, and we can work together now to achieve great things." > The more nationalistic parties, pushing nationalistic and nativistic (e.g., anti-immigrant) plicies, are always conservative: The Republicans in the U.S., the Tories and the right-wing extremists in the UK This is extreme partyism, and just as wrong as extreme nationalism. All parties are guilty. As are all ideologies. They just have different ways of showing it.
DonaldFisk 11y ago
The SNP (Scottish National Party) isn't nationalist in the usual sense of the word. It's well to the left of, and more liberal than, the other UK parties, with the exception of the Greens, and potentially Labour if Jeremy Corbyn remains leader. It's better described as separatist.
- mhurron 11y ago
  > It's better described as separatist. Nationalism is not part of the political spectrum. You can easily have right and leftist Nationalists. They're separatists because of the belief of a strong Scottish identity. That is basically the definition of Nationalism.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - kagamine 11y ago
    The SNP are very much pro multiculturalism, the 'nationalist' agenda in Scotland is about the long and complex history with England/Westminster, not the rest of the world. It is about self-determination and it is difficult to get a handle on from abroad as the media fails in it's attempts to understand what the Scottish referendum is really about (as did many Yes voters). This could have something to do with almost all of the Scotland's media being controlled from south of the border, which emphasizes the point really.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > The SNP (Scottish National Party) isn't nationalist in the usual sense of the word. It's well to the left of, and more liberal than, the other UK parties Thanks; that's a great counter-example. I wonder how the politics works - what draws liberals to support it? Is it the usual xenophobia, or something else? Incidentally: At the time of the referendum, I watched a debate between leading advocates on both sides. A major priority for both sides was to emphasize how national health care, referred to as a treasured institution, would be preserved if their side won. Apparantly everyone in Scotland loves it.
RightWingRabble 11y ago
Nationalism doesn't lead to wars, massacres and other oppression and brutality. That's tribalism leading to that. Tribalism is one of those built in human behaviors we have that we can't get rid of. People have tried with globalism, with cultural marxism, with communism. The pendulum always swings back toward tribalism because genetics is a powerful force. Nations are the people, not the dirt, as is pretty obvious to see after 3 decades of mass immigration. If you want real danger, you should want to curb and reverse the mass immigration we're still seeing. History is very clear on this point; if immigration continues unabated, eventually the immigrants will become targets. Hopefully it's just expulsion that they're targeted for, but genocide isn't unheard of in these situations.
- hackuser 11y ago
  The meaning of nationalism (and tribalism) is not clearly defined, at least not in this thread. I thought about that as I wrote my comment, but I decided I couldn't cover every contingency ... Without disputing the definitions, I agree with some aspects of what you say, but I disagree about that there is some inevitable bad ending. Generally, as the U.S. shows, it turns out well. The U.S. is filled with the descendents of immigrants who think of each other as 'Americans'. Today's nativists are the descendents of immigrants that suffered the same discrimination. A few examples: Ben Franklin (and his peers, AFIAK) openly disparaged German immigrants, Italian and Irish immigrants used to riot against each other ... generations later, does anyone care? I read a study that said by the third generation, 3% of immigrants spoke the language of their former country and 80% married outside their group (I might misremember the stats to a degree). > The pendulum always swings back toward tribalism because genetics is a powerful force. I don't think it's tied to genetics. People are tribalistic about all sorts of groups that aren't genetically related to each other, and over time the groupings change. I believe genetic studies show enormous diversity within groups.
  - userulluipeste 11y ago
    "The meaning of nationalism (and tribalism) is not clearly defined" Wikipedia would have been helpful: "[Nationalism] can be expressed as a belief or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with or becoming attached to one's nation." "Tribalism is [...] a way of thinking or behaving in which people are more loyal to their tribe than to their friends, their country, or any other social group." None of these in itself implies that it also has to bear a negative emotional charge of any kind. I think you're confusing nationalism/tribalism with xenophobia.
cryoshon 11y ago
Nationalism is a disease of the mind that is among the most pernicious. I am vocal about this whenever the issue arises. The trick, of course, is convincing the proles. For the most part, people understand tribalism, but not humanism. Perhaps intellectually a small fraction of people will agree that strong moral feelings about their country may lead to brutality, but most will not assent to the idea that any tribe is as vulnerable to committing genocide as any other.
- clock_tower 11y ago
  I'm certainly no fan of tribalism; but if you think in terms of "convincing the proles," you can probably answer your own question as to why you can't persuade anyone.
  - cryoshon 11y ago
    The concept of proles is just a convenient shorthand that I used; I assume most people fit the bill as selling their labor for a living, the conventional definition of proletarian. The admission that most people can but won't think for themselves drives my thoughts on this matter. There is a large segment of the population whose media diet consists of middlebrow newspapers, talk radio, and primetime television-- these media will absolutely never divest them of a tribal mindset.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      If only it were that simple. A fair percentage of the ultra-rightwing voters in NL are university educated. You're not going to get too far if you label everybody that votes for these parties as people that 'won't think for themselves'. They do, they just end up with the wrong conclusions for all the right reasons.
tim333 11y ago
I'd say Scotland was an example of things getting more laid back in that some Scots wanted independence and the British Government kind of said whatever, have a vote. Compare that to say Erdogan or Putin freaking out if the Kurds/Ukrainians want to do their own thing.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  Well, there's not been any tanks yet, but the only reason they gave a vote was that they thought they'd narrowed the options down sufficiently that they'd win soundly and have a mandate. A bit of a political miscalculation. As is the offering of a vote on the EU to avoid the right wing splintering, yet the business interests the conservatives represent don't want that to happen and the voter intention, once again, is not doing what was expected. There's a reason that even members of his own party consider David Cameron to be a) winging it, b) very lucky. We'd likely have seen the ugly side of the UK state if the vote had gone against them, they were already openly threatening to financially ruin an independent Scotland.
force_reboot 11y ago
They haven't pointed it out because the relationship is unclear. E.g. the soviet union was leftist, but engaged in oppression, wars an brutality. The left in Europe have no more respect for free speech than the right in Japan, they just censor different things (so called hate speech). I would say that it is the moderate liberals and moderate conservatives who value freedom most, because (almost by definition) they don't have some ideology that they consider more important than mere freedom. Indeed, the far left think of freedom (especially freedom of speech) as a false equivalence between liberating and oppressive speech, (we can see this in the "safe spaces" movement), while the far right think of freedom as open season for degenerate, but appealing, ideas.

ue_ 11y ago

I would have hoped the world moved on to post-nationalism by this point. I can't say I had much hope for it, though. I don't know if it's right to link all the countries which seem to be heading toward a more nationalistic government together, though. I think each case has its own causes and conditions. For example, in some parts of Europe, it's the real or perceived threat to national security, and lots of reporting on terrorist attacks, and party leaders knowing how to take advantage of this. What's the cause in Japan? Could it be that there's fear over what's happening in Europe, or could it be a threat from China, or something else completely? The question is interesting to me, as I'm a wannabe immigrant. What would life be like if the trend continues? As I said, for my own wellbeing and happiness, I would have hoped we'd be heading toward post-nationalism. It's as if the "us and them" divide in Japan (this is the only country I know of) wasn't strong enough already.

sirkneeland 11y ago
>What's the cause in Japan? Could it be that there's fear over what's happening in Europe, or could it be a threat from China, or something else completely? Threat of China, and the sense of angst that comes from 2 decades of economic stagnation, I'd wager...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- adrtessier 11y ago
  Economic stagnation for whom? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of younger Japanese seem to hate Abenomics and his ultranationalist policies. The majority of the jobs and wealth in Japan is concentrated in its fast aging populace. From what I can tell, it is these interests that are pushing for a return to Japanese ultranationalism, not the people affected the most by Japan's stagnant economy.

sirkneeland 11y ago

>the crazy extreme right-wing party getting seats in Parliament The BNP doesn't have any seats in Parliament. I assume you might be referring to UKIP?

bnb_luic 11y ago
The label applies to both. But just one gained seats in May.
- alextgordon 11y ago
  Technically speaking UKIP lost half their seats in May :)
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
The BNP have been replaced by UKIP.

Alupis 11y ago

While I agree with the spirit of your post, your premise is wrong. Being nationalistic has nothing to do with being conservative; there is no correlation there. Many liberals are blindly nationalistic as well. Intense nationalism does cause conflicts (look at the US and Russia relationship at the moment), often fabricated for pure political gain by controlling/power individuals. Very few individuals look at the core of an issue, but instead follow the example set forth by people in authority positions and/or the frenzied click-baiting-gotta-get-eyeballs-on-as-many-ads-as-possible media. For example, a Russian jet is shot down over Syria by Turkey. Almost immediately the spin machine kicks into high gear to paint a picture of a plotting Putin carefully strategizing how to dismantle NATO by means of getting his soldiers killed (which makes little sense)... all because the nationalistic side says "USA good, Russia bad". People died, we should have some compassion.

hackuser 11y ago
> Being nationalistic has nothing to do with being conservative ... I disagree strongly with this point: The more nationalistic parties, pushing nationalistic and nativistic (e.g., anti-immigrant) plicies, are always conservative: The Republicans in the U.S., the Tories and the right-wing extremists in the UK, the Republicans and National Front in France, the LDP in Japan, Likud in Israel, etc. Internationalists, international cooperation, and international organizations are the province of the left and of moderates. In the U.S., a common conservative criticism of liberals is that they are unpatroitic and 'don't love America'. > Intense nationalism does cause conflicts ... often fabricated for pure political gain by controlling/power individuals. / Very few individuals look at the core of an issue, but instead follow the example set forth by people in authority positions Agreed. That's what I was referring to when pointing out the lack of response by liberals and moderates in authority positions - why are they silent?
- Alupis 11y ago
  > criticism of liberals is that they are unpatroitic and 'don't love America' Being patriotic has nothing to do with being nationalistic. It's one thing to love your country, support it, etc... but it's another thing entirely to believe your country is so great, all others fail in comparison, everyone's out to get you (because you're so great), your nation must always be "top dog" and set all global policies, etc... Being ultra-nationalistic could be paralleled with a phobia of sorts. > lack of response by liberals and moderates in authority positions - why are they silent? They aren't silent. The US Executive Branch is currently liberal (as is the State Department, and Secretary of Defense... all foreign policy makers), and certainly has aided the growing sense of extreme nationalism with all the anti-non-european-countries rhetoric. The general message often conveyed is, if you aren't part of North America or Europe, then you're out to get us. This instead of saying "We may have our differences, but we have worked together in the past and achieved great things, and we can work together now to achieve great things." > The more nationalistic parties, pushing nationalistic and nativistic (e.g., anti-immigrant) plicies, are always conservative: The Republicans in the U.S., the Tories and the right-wing extremists in the UK This is extreme partyism, and just as wrong as extreme nationalism. All parties are guilty. As are all ideologies. They just have different ways of showing it.

DonaldFisk 11y ago

The SNP (Scottish National Party) isn't nationalist in the usual sense of the word. It's well to the left of, and more liberal than, the other UK parties, with the exception of the Greens, and potentially Labour if Jeremy Corbyn remains leader. It's better described as separatist.

mhurron 11y ago
> It's better described as separatist. Nationalism is not part of the political spectrum. You can easily have right and leftist Nationalists. They're separatists because of the belief of a strong Scottish identity. That is basically the definition of Nationalism.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- kagamine 11y ago
  The SNP are very much pro multiculturalism, the 'nationalist' agenda in Scotland is about the long and complex history with England/Westminster, not the rest of the world. It is about self-determination and it is difficult to get a handle on from abroad as the media fails in it's attempts to understand what the Scottish referendum is really about (as did many Yes voters). This could have something to do with almost all of the Scotland's media being controlled from south of the border, which emphasizes the point really.
hackuser 11y ago
> The SNP (Scottish National Party) isn't nationalist in the usual sense of the word. It's well to the left of, and more liberal than, the other UK parties Thanks; that's a great counter-example. I wonder how the politics works - what draws liberals to support it? Is it the usual xenophobia, or something else? Incidentally: At the time of the referendum, I watched a debate between leading advocates on both sides. A major priority for both sides was to emphasize how national health care, referred to as a treasured institution, would be preserved if their side won. Apparantly everyone in Scotland loves it.

RightWingRabble 11y ago

Nationalism doesn't lead to wars, massacres and other oppression and brutality. That's tribalism leading to that. Tribalism is one of those built in human behaviors we have that we can't get rid of. People have tried with globalism, with cultural marxism, with communism. The pendulum always swings back toward tribalism because genetics is a powerful force. Nations are the people, not the dirt, as is pretty obvious to see after 3 decades of mass immigration. If you want real danger, you should want to curb and reverse the mass immigration we're still seeing. History is very clear on this point; if immigration continues unabated, eventually the immigrants will become targets. Hopefully it's just expulsion that they're targeted for, but genocide isn't unheard of in these situations.

hackuser 11y ago
The meaning of nationalism (and tribalism) is not clearly defined, at least not in this thread. I thought about that as I wrote my comment, but I decided I couldn't cover every contingency ... Without disputing the definitions, I agree with some aspects of what you say, but I disagree about that there is some inevitable bad ending. Generally, as the U.S. shows, it turns out well. The U.S. is filled with the descendents of immigrants who think of each other as 'Americans'. Today's nativists are the descendents of immigrants that suffered the same discrimination. A few examples: Ben Franklin (and his peers, AFIAK) openly disparaged German immigrants, Italian and Irish immigrants used to riot against each other ... generations later, does anyone care? I read a study that said by the third generation, 3% of immigrants spoke the language of their former country and 80% married outside their group (I might misremember the stats to a degree). > The pendulum always swings back toward tribalism because genetics is a powerful force. I don't think it's tied to genetics. People are tribalistic about all sorts of groups that aren't genetically related to each other, and over time the groupings change. I believe genetic studies show enormous diversity within groups.
- userulluipeste 11y ago
  "The meaning of nationalism (and tribalism) is not clearly defined" Wikipedia would have been helpful: "[Nationalism] can be expressed as a belief or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with or becoming attached to one's nation." "Tribalism is [...] a way of thinking or behaving in which people are more loyal to their tribe than to their friends, their country, or any other social group." None of these in itself implies that it also has to bear a negative emotional charge of any kind. I think you're confusing nationalism/tribalism with xenophobia.

cryoshon 11y ago

Nationalism is a disease of the mind that is among the most pernicious. I am vocal about this whenever the issue arises. The trick, of course, is convincing the proles. For the most part, people understand tribalism, but not humanism. Perhaps intellectually a small fraction of people will agree that strong moral feelings about their country may lead to brutality, but most will not assent to the idea that any tribe is as vulnerable to committing genocide as any other.

clock_tower 11y ago
I'm certainly no fan of tribalism; but if you think in terms of "convincing the proles," you can probably answer your own question as to why you can't persuade anyone.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  The concept of proles is just a convenient shorthand that I used; I assume most people fit the bill as selling their labor for a living, the conventional definition of proletarian. The admission that most people can but won't think for themselves drives my thoughts on this matter. There is a large segment of the population whose media diet consists of middlebrow newspapers, talk radio, and primetime television-- these media will absolutely never divest them of a tribal mindset.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    If only it were that simple. A fair percentage of the ultra-rightwing voters in NL are university educated. You're not going to get too far if you label everybody that votes for these parties as people that 'won't think for themselves'. They do, they just end up with the wrong conclusions for all the right reasons.

tim333 11y ago

I'd say Scotland was an example of things getting more laid back in that some Scots wanted independence and the British Government kind of said whatever, have a vote. Compare that to say Erdogan or Putin freaking out if the Kurds/Ukrainians want to do their own thing.

ZeroGravitas 11y ago
Well, there's not been any tanks yet, but the only reason they gave a vote was that they thought they'd narrowed the options down sufficiently that they'd win soundly and have a mandate. A bit of a political miscalculation. As is the offering of a vote on the EU to avoid the right wing splintering, yet the business interests the conservatives represent don't want that to happen and the voter intention, once again, is not doing what was expected. There's a reason that even members of his own party consider David Cameron to be a) winging it, b) very lucky. We'd likely have seen the ugly side of the UK state if the vote had gone against them, they were already openly threatening to financially ruin an independent Scotland.

force_reboot 11y ago

They haven't pointed it out because the relationship is unclear. E.g. the soviet union was leftist, but engaged in oppression, wars an brutality. The left in Europe have no more respect for free speech than the right in Japan, they just censor different things (so called hate speech). I would say that it is the moderate liberals and moderate conservatives who value freedom most, because (almost by definition) they don't have some ideology that they consider more important than mere freedom. Indeed, the far left think of freedom (especially freedom of speech) as a false equivalence between liberating and oppressive speech, (we can see this in the "safe spaces" movement), while the far right think of freedom as open season for degenerate, but appealing, ideas.