3 ms·

> That's all academic. Current nationalists base their 'nation' on skin color and religion: white and Christian (though the religious aspect is sometimes less e

by mantas 8y ago

> That's all academic. Current nationalists base their 'nation' on skin color and religion: white and Christian (though the religious aspect is sometimes less emphasized), like ISIS'/Daesh's nationalism based on Islam. You can read people advocating it in HN, just like you can read many attempts to whitewash it. That's somewhat true only in a very narrow world of USA and ISIS. In most of the world, nationalism is based on very different terms. > One step this way, I love them; one step the other way, I oppose them? It's absurd. Nah. Nationalism doesn't mean opposing anybody. It's belonging to community and working for it's greater good. > Finally, nationalism is an obsession of a small group imposed on others. Most people don't care about any political, societal or any other philosophical discourses. They just follow few people who are interested in that kind of stuff. As far as I looked all revolutions were imposed by a small group of concerned citizens on the rest of the community. I'm yet to find an exception where majority people truly believed in the original idea from day 1. They just followed people who seemed worthy.

forapurpose 8y ago
Rather than speaking generally, let's discuss specific political movements; the following is just off the top of my head: * Nationalism in the US: Based on white skin and, often, Christianity; it includes demonization of and state discrimination against Latinos, African-Americans, Muslims, Jews, and immigrants who are non-white and non-Christian - apparently anyone non-white and non-Christian - and also against the political left. It also includes militarism and an attack on democracy, including freedom of the press, the rule of law, and separation of powers. * Nationalism in India includes state and individual-level discrimination against Muslims. * Nationalism in Turkey includes a reduction in democracy and civil rights, oppression of Kurds, and a move toward militarism. * Nationalism in France includes discrimination against Muslims and people without white skin, as exemplified by the National Front, and state level actions including laws discriminating against Muslims and, if the state of emergency continues, reduction in civil rights. * Nationalism in Hungary includes discrimination against immigrants, attack on democracy, including separation of powers and the rule of law. * Nationalism in Poland includes state-level discrimination against non-Catholics (based on limited reading), and a reduction in free speech by censoring discussion of Poland's role in the Holocaust, and anti-semitism. * Nationalism in England includes demonization of and discrimination against immigrants and non-Whites, such as by UKIP. * Nationalism in Germany includes demonization of and discrimination against immigrants. * Nationalism in China includes demonization of Japanese and Americans, and a belief in the natural inferiority of other countries and, IIRC, non-Han in general. It also has included a move away from democracy, and toward international militarism > Nationalism doesn't mean opposing anybody. It's belonging to community and working for it's greater good. That's exactly what Hilter said, and many at the time believed, about his nationalistic policies. He was a man of peace, they insisted, until they invaded. They all make those claims, but that's not what they do or how it ever works out. Nationalism results in and comes from ethnic hatred, and ends in war, oppression and brutality. There's no mystery to it.
- mistermann 8y ago
  What information source are you using for the above claims?
- mantas 8y ago
  Sure, let's discuss specific political movements. For example spring of nations in mid-19th century Europe or fall-of-iron-curtain movements of late 1980s/early 1990s in, again, Europe. In both cases they effectively ended oppression and brutality. In most cases, it was direct result of ethnic hatred towards those people who called themselves nationalists. Humans naturally gravitate towards tribalism. We're simply not capable to feel connected to every human on planet earth. Nationalism is probably one of the better and more sustainable forms of tribalism. Definitely better than highly polarised or multi-cultural (which is totally different from multi-ethnic or multi-racial) societies. Most of what you listed if chauvinism, not nationalism. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong if society wants to stay (not become) homogenous. It's easier to come to social contract that way. Which is the most important for healthy society.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > Humans naturally gravitate towards tribalism. We're simply not capable to feel connected to every human on planet earth. Human have lots of bad instincts - violence, war, hatred, greed, etc etc - but history shows beyond a doubt that we overcome them and it works astoundingly well. But we've overcome those things and built democracies, liberty, a world where violence and war is at historic laws, lifespans are probably double what they were for most of history, women are in the workforce, we walk on the moon, human rights and prosperity have expanded by orders of magnitude. All of that came from the embrace of universal rights and liberty. > We're simply not capable ... In fact, we certainly are! The question is, why would anyone want to take away all that success and ruin it?
    - mantas 8y ago
      > but history shows beyond a doubt that we overcome them and it works astoundingly well Yes, yes, end of history and all that jazz. Yet greed is at all time high. We had a couple attempts at that in 20th century and it didn't went well at all. Hatred and violence are still strong. I'm A lot of things you listed were done in societies that didn't fully embrace liberty/democracy/universal rights. USSR or commie China or Japan or Singapore. Western civilisation that did fully embrace them built their prosperity without any of those things and now just run on their former glory. Walking on the moon was possible specifically because of war effort. > > We're simply not capable ... > In fact, we certainly are! Dunbar number. Anything above that needs a super simple approach to keep people together. Greece crises was a fantastic example. Lots of people were against bail out. Meanwhile they were pissed others don't want to help them too. If fellow europeans don't feel strong connection, I doubt they'd truly feel it for culturally much more different people on the other side of the globe. > The question is, why would anyone want to take away all that success and ruin it? What success? The success to not be able to keep population at replacement levels? Rampant mental illnesses? All that while democracy support is at 50 years low, liberty is in danger and people are too afraid of violence and war to solve any problem? Oh and it's been a while since we were on the moon and it doesn't look like it's happening any time soon...

by mantas 8y ago

forapurpose 8y ago

Rather than speaking generally, let's discuss specific political movements; the following is just off the top of my head: * Nationalism in the US: Based on white skin and, often, Christianity; it includes demonization of and state discrimination against Latinos, African-Americans, Muslims, Jews, and immigrants who are non-white and non-Christian - apparently anyone non-white and non-Christian - and also against the political left. It also includes militarism and an attack on democracy, including freedom of the press, the rule of law, and separation of powers. * Nationalism in India includes state and individual-level discrimination against Muslims. * Nationalism in Turkey includes a reduction in democracy and civil rights, oppression of Kurds, and a move toward militarism. * Nationalism in France includes discrimination against Muslims and people without white skin, as exemplified by the National Front, and state level actions including laws discriminating against Muslims and, if the state of emergency continues, reduction in civil rights. * Nationalism in Hungary includes discrimination against immigrants, attack on democracy, including separation of powers and the rule of law. * Nationalism in Poland includes state-level discrimination against non-Catholics (based on limited reading), and a reduction in free speech by censoring discussion of Poland's role in the Holocaust, and anti-semitism. * Nationalism in England includes demonization of and discrimination against immigrants and non-Whites, such as by UKIP. * Nationalism in Germany includes demonization of and discrimination against immigrants. * Nationalism in China includes demonization of Japanese and Americans, and a belief in the natural inferiority of other countries and, IIRC, non-Han in general. It also has included a move away from democracy, and toward international militarism > Nationalism doesn't mean opposing anybody. It's belonging to community and working for it's greater good. That's exactly what Hilter said, and many at the time believed, about his nationalistic policies. He was a man of peace, they insisted, until they invaded. They all make those claims, but that's not what they do or how it ever works out. Nationalism results in and comes from ethnic hatred, and ends in war, oppression and brutality. There's no mystery to it.

mistermann 8y ago
What information source are you using for the above claims?
mantas 8y ago
Sure, let's discuss specific political movements. For example spring of nations in mid-19th century Europe or fall-of-iron-curtain movements of late 1980s/early 1990s in, again, Europe. In both cases they effectively ended oppression and brutality. In most cases, it was direct result of ethnic hatred towards those people who called themselves nationalists. Humans naturally gravitate towards tribalism. We're simply not capable to feel connected to every human on planet earth. Nationalism is probably one of the better and more sustainable forms of tribalism. Definitely better than highly polarised or multi-cultural (which is totally different from multi-ethnic or multi-racial) societies. Most of what you listed if chauvinism, not nationalism. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong if society wants to stay (not become) homogenous. It's easier to come to social contract that way. Which is the most important for healthy society.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > Humans naturally gravitate towards tribalism. We're simply not capable to feel connected to every human on planet earth. Human have lots of bad instincts - violence, war, hatred, greed, etc etc - but history shows beyond a doubt that we overcome them and it works astoundingly well. But we've overcome those things and built democracies, liberty, a world where violence and war is at historic laws, lifespans are probably double what they were for most of history, women are in the workforce, we walk on the moon, human rights and prosperity have expanded by orders of magnitude. All of that came from the embrace of universal rights and liberty. > We're simply not capable ... In fact, we certainly are! The question is, why would anyone want to take away all that success and ruin it?
  - mantas 8y ago
    > but history shows beyond a doubt that we overcome them and it works astoundingly well Yes, yes, end of history and all that jazz. Yet greed is at all time high. We had a couple attempts at that in 20th century and it didn't went well at all. Hatred and violence are still strong. I'm A lot of things you listed were done in societies that didn't fully embrace liberty/democracy/universal rights. USSR or commie China or Japan or Singapore. Western civilisation that did fully embrace them built their prosperity without any of those things and now just run on their former glory. Walking on the moon was possible specifically because of war effort. > > We're simply not capable ... > In fact, we certainly are! Dunbar number. Anything above that needs a super simple approach to keep people together. Greece crises was a fantastic example. Lots of people were against bail out. Meanwhile they were pissed others don't want to help them too. If fellow europeans don't feel strong connection, I doubt they'd truly feel it for culturally much more different people on the other side of the globe. > The question is, why would anyone want to take away all that success and ruin it? What success? The success to not be able to keep population at replacement levels? Rampant mental illnesses? All that while democracy support is at 50 years low, liberty is in danger and people are too afraid of violence and war to solve any problem? Oh and it's been a while since we were on the moon and it doesn't look like it's happening any time soon...