5 ms·

> cultural nihilism that rejects the national community It did reject that, after noticing that it's just fancy language for 'racism'.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
How did you come to that conclusion? Because it sounds like a strawman or throwing the baby out with the bathwater, depending on how you mean it.
wutbrodo 9y ago
On paper, I'm a poster child for the above-described "cultural nihilism" with respect to national identity: my grandparents are Indian but spent a good chunk of their life in France, my parents moved to the US in their 20s 40+ years ago, and I was born and raised in an impossibly diverse environment, to the point that I was shocked when I came to college and discovered (e.g.) East Asians who only hung out with other East Asians or white people who only had white friends. The upshot of my background is that my family hasn't slotted easily into a given national culture for a few generations, and my personality developed around the concept of building one's identity around other (IMHO more rewarding) things. The accelerating trend towards universalist, fluid cultural identities built around mobility and big cities is practically tailor-made for a person like me. That being said, it's either very dishonest or extremely narrow-minded to claim that racism is the only reason someone could care about a cohesive national identity. Just because it doesn't suit my view of the world doesn't mean no one gets value out of it, and in fact I'm acutely aware of the extra work required to connect with someone without a shared cultural background (I just happen to think it's more than worth the benefits of such a philosophy). On top of that, this belief in a cohesive national identity is entirely possible without going anywhere near racism. "Blood n' soil" nationalism doesn't have much claim to relevance in a nation of immigrants like America, so our identity as a country is ideally built around people choosing to voluntarily join a society based on shared core values instead of the historically-common form of national identity built around ethnicity. It's possible to hold this view while having absolutely no opinion about someone's race: one could consider an ethnic nationalist (e.g.) Norwegian refusing to accept our values to be just as unfit as anyone else. You'll find that the world gets a lot more interesting if you don't desperately rush to pattern-match everything you hear into one of a few trite buckets that comprise an overly-simpleminded model of the world and its people.
- matt4077 9y ago
  Yeah, that's one of the tropes of such discussion: Nobody can disagree with that definition of "national identity", i. e. "America is altruism, tolerance, and cute puppies". Then, when people demand some women shouldn't be wearing this or that piece of clothing, the definition of "national identity" seems to have shifted somewhat.
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    > Nobody can disagree with that definition of "national identity", i. e. "America is altruism, tolerance, and cute puppies". Did you even read my comment? The whole point I was arguing against was the impulse to tar every person who feels positively about nationalism with the same brush. Saying things like "nobody can disagree" and "the definition seems to have shifted" means you clearly haven't understood a word I said. Since you're having such trouble with these pretty basic concepts, I'll lay it out even more clearly. 1) We're talking about a group of people that has more than one person in it. 2) You made a blanket statement about this group of people presumably based entirely on reading the comment section of Daily Kos. 3) I provided a counterexample that I have happened to come across that doesn't fit your criteria: there is a subgroup within the group we're discussing that has principled support for nationalism without touching any of the negative things you're describing (particularly racism). Even though I disagree with these people and in some ways their philosophy on society is diametrically opposed to my own, I'm not simple-minded enough to think "hurr durr any group of people I disagree with hold the same set of beliefs as any other group of people I disagree with" (which in this case, means that it's possible to hold these views _without_ being racist). 4) You failed to actually read my comment, pattern-matched a couple buzzwords and decided to respond by....doing the exact same thing and lumping in every person who might think that a national culture has advantages into a much-larger and more specific set of views. Against my fading hope for your reading comprehension, I'll repeat again: the fact that some people believe in both a national identity and racism doesn't mean that all people who believe in a national identity are racist. I'm not saying this like it's some mathematical proof, I'm thinking of multiple specific people, either whose writings I've read or whom I know personally. > Then, when people demand some women shouldn't be wearing this or that piece of clothing, the definition of "national identity" seems to have shifted somewhat. What on _earth_ are you talking about? I suspect this topic is hopelessly beyond your comprehension. _Nothing about the point I made and the people I'm describing include the views that you're talking about_.
theparanoid 9y ago
Cultures without a national community tend to be conquered by those with. The Arabic word for this is Asabiyyah and was coined by the historian Ibn Khaldun.
- matt4077 9y ago
  Making inference from past experiences with a low n, and no relevance to the interconnected modern world, isn't adequate to dress up racism as rational. The English word for this was coined by the physicist Richard Feynman, and it's "Bullshit".
  - Bakary 9y ago
    Have you ever wondered why these irrational behaviors are so common? It's not just racism but also overconfidence, aggression, jingoism, ultranationalism, fundamentalism and any number of similar modes of thought. Clearly the fact that they are widespread instincts indicates that while it is irrational at an individual level and is the cause a lot of suffering and injustice, there is a trade-off at the societal level. These trade-offs are also the reason why more liberal Western societies are plagued by a new generation of social ills and inefficiencies. I happen to be an very liberal person but it's easy to see that people sometimes respond poorly to the absence of value or things to believe in, no matter what these values themselves might be. Although the person you replied to did cite a medieval concept, it's still very much relevant in the modern world since we now have to deal with anomie on a large scale. I do hope the liberal modes of thought will prevail however! But if there were no trade-offs they would have won out a long time ago.
    - tremon 9y ago
      > Have you ever wondered why these irrational behaviors are so common? Yes, it's because we have tribal roots: we have spent 99% of our evolutionary lifetime in groups of countable quantities and competing with similar-sized groups. > Clearly the fact that they are widespread instincts indicates [..] there is a trade-off at the societal level. No, it merely indicates that there may have been a positive trade-off for this trait. Assuming that every trait is a net positive now or must have once been a net positive is a naturalistic fallacy. > people sometimes respond poorly to the absence of value or things to believe in Since there are narratives out there that do not paint artificial boundaries (and some do, but do not pursue confrontation because of it), this in no way excuses racism, jingoism, or nationalism.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago

How did you come to that conclusion? Because it sounds like a strawman or throwing the baby out with the bathwater, depending on how you mean it.

wutbrodo 9y ago

On paper, I'm a poster child for the above-described "cultural nihilism" with respect to national identity: my grandparents are Indian but spent a good chunk of their life in France, my parents moved to the US in their 20s 40+ years ago, and I was born and raised in an impossibly diverse environment, to the point that I was shocked when I came to college and discovered (e.g.) East Asians who only hung out with other East Asians or white people who only had white friends. The upshot of my background is that my family hasn't slotted easily into a given national culture for a few generations, and my personality developed around the concept of building one's identity around other (IMHO more rewarding) things. The accelerating trend towards universalist, fluid cultural identities built around mobility and big cities is practically tailor-made for a person like me. That being said, it's either very dishonest or extremely narrow-minded to claim that racism is the only reason someone could care about a cohesive national identity. Just because it doesn't suit my view of the world doesn't mean no one gets value out of it, and in fact I'm acutely aware of the extra work required to connect with someone without a shared cultural background (I just happen to think it's more than worth the benefits of such a philosophy). On top of that, this belief in a cohesive national identity is entirely possible without going anywhere near racism. "Blood n' soil" nationalism doesn't have much claim to relevance in a nation of immigrants like America, so our identity as a country is ideally built around people choosing to voluntarily join a society based on shared core values instead of the historically-common form of national identity built around ethnicity. It's possible to hold this view while having absolutely no opinion about someone's race: one could consider an ethnic nationalist (e.g.) Norwegian refusing to accept our values to be just as unfit as anyone else. You'll find that the world gets a lot more interesting if you don't desperately rush to pattern-match everything you hear into one of a few trite buckets that comprise an overly-simpleminded model of the world and its people.

matt4077 9y ago
Yeah, that's one of the tropes of such discussion: Nobody can disagree with that definition of "national identity", i. e. "America is altruism, tolerance, and cute puppies". Then, when people demand some women shouldn't be wearing this or that piece of clothing, the definition of "national identity" seems to have shifted somewhat.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  > Nobody can disagree with that definition of "national identity", i. e. "America is altruism, tolerance, and cute puppies". Did you even read my comment? The whole point I was arguing against was the impulse to tar every person who feels positively about nationalism with the same brush. Saying things like "nobody can disagree" and "the definition seems to have shifted" means you clearly haven't understood a word I said. Since you're having such trouble with these pretty basic concepts, I'll lay it out even more clearly. 1) We're talking about a group of people that has more than one person in it. 2) You made a blanket statement about this group of people presumably based entirely on reading the comment section of Daily Kos. 3) I provided a counterexample that I have happened to come across that doesn't fit your criteria: there is a subgroup within the group we're discussing that has principled support for nationalism without touching any of the negative things you're describing (particularly racism). Even though I disagree with these people and in some ways their philosophy on society is diametrically opposed to my own, I'm not simple-minded enough to think "hurr durr any group of people I disagree with hold the same set of beliefs as any other group of people I disagree with" (which in this case, means that it's possible to hold these views _without_ being racist). 4) You failed to actually read my comment, pattern-matched a couple buzzwords and decided to respond by....doing the exact same thing and lumping in every person who might think that a national culture has advantages into a much-larger and more specific set of views. Against my fading hope for your reading comprehension, I'll repeat again: the fact that some people believe in both a national identity and racism doesn't mean that all people who believe in a national identity are racist. I'm not saying this like it's some mathematical proof, I'm thinking of multiple specific people, either whose writings I've read or whom I know personally. > Then, when people demand some women shouldn't be wearing this or that piece of clothing, the definition of "national identity" seems to have shifted somewhat. What on _earth_ are you talking about? I suspect this topic is hopelessly beyond your comprehension. _Nothing about the point I made and the people I'm describing include the views that you're talking about_.

theparanoid 9y ago

Cultures without a national community tend to be conquered by those with. The Arabic word for this is Asabiyyah and was coined by the historian Ibn Khaldun.

matt4077 9y ago
Making inference from past experiences with a low n, and no relevance to the interconnected modern world, isn't adequate to dress up racism as rational. The English word for this was coined by the physicist Richard Feynman, and it's "Bullshit".
- Bakary 9y ago
  Have you ever wondered why these irrational behaviors are so common? It's not just racism but also overconfidence, aggression, jingoism, ultranationalism, fundamentalism and any number of similar modes of thought. Clearly the fact that they are widespread instincts indicates that while it is irrational at an individual level and is the cause a lot of suffering and injustice, there is a trade-off at the societal level. These trade-offs are also the reason why more liberal Western societies are plagued by a new generation of social ills and inefficiencies. I happen to be an very liberal person but it's easy to see that people sometimes respond poorly to the absence of value or things to believe in, no matter what these values themselves might be. Although the person you replied to did cite a medieval concept, it's still very much relevant in the modern world since we now have to deal with anomie on a large scale. I do hope the liberal modes of thought will prevail however! But if there were no trade-offs they would have won out a long time ago.
  - tremon 9y ago
    > Have you ever wondered why these irrational behaviors are so common? Yes, it's because we have tribal roots: we have spent 99% of our evolutionary lifetime in groups of countable quantities and competing with similar-sized groups. > Clearly the fact that they are widespread instincts indicates [..] there is a trade-off at the societal level. No, it merely indicates that there may have been a positive trade-off for this trait. Assuming that every trait is a net positive now or must have once been a net positive is a naturalistic fallacy. > people sometimes respond poorly to the absence of value or things to believe in Since there are narratives out there that do not paint artificial boundaries (and some do, but do not pursue confrontation because of it), this in no way excuses racism, jingoism, or nationalism.