Nationalism

[Cleopatra]

Discussing about Irgun and other underground ( or terrorist) organizations I posted the idea that in reality, militant groups contriibute very lttle in the creation of a new state and it's diplomacy that always does the trick.

If you think for a minute the wars of independence you know you will realize that the war broke only after an old order has collapsed. Think of the French Revolution. The Nobles had lost their power long before the revolution broke since they bourgeois were controlling the economy of the country.
Think of the American Revolution. The new order wanted political apart from the financial power that has already acquired and the new order had to take the power from the " foreigners" but from the locals who were doing business with the foreigners as well.

Look at the Liberation movements during the 19th and the beginning of the 20th ce in the Balkans and in Middle East. The Ottoman Empire had already collapsed when the first militants took their guns.

In Greece the War of Independance was not only against the Ottomans but against the Greek elite that enjoyed the privileges granted to them by the Ottomans.

So, in my opinion the role of the militants in the formation of a new national state is very limited and over-estimated. The militants of Hamas have very little to do with the liberation of Palestine in reality they struggle to secure their position in the future Palestinian state.

 

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra

Now, this why I have commitment issues. You start a thread, there's a moment or two of pleasure, but you can't just toss it aside when it apparently croaks. Mayflies - that's my kind of pet.

You minimise the role of militants in nation-building, but most nations are built from the ruins of uprisings. Which are militant by definition. The way things finally turn out may be influenced by politics - Greek independence, for instance, was the result of a joint French and British decision to get it for them - but that's just picking up the pieces. Nationalism is not a normal human concern, and it takes zealots - generally young, often ex-patriot - to drag the majority into their self-inflating struggle by provocation. Which, given the species, generally works. A few atrocities will usually generate atrocities from the other side, thus justifying the nationalist cause. The majority simply suffers for the dreams of glory-seeking egotists and power-hungry gangsters.

Have you ever noticed how extreme nationalists and gangsters tend to hang together? (Fascist Italy's an apparent exception, but the Mafia is a southern phaenomenon, which is relevant over there). In Japan, in the Balkans, Vichy and the Marseilles mob, the Russians, the Kuomintang, the US-friendly Saigon gangs ... OK, that is an exception. But it does seem to be a rule.

 

[JAR]

I'm against nationalism and the concept of the nation-state. While nationalism does liberate, the same liberation could have been achieved without nationalism through liberation for the sake of liberation. Nationalism causes people to desire something based on an association with their nation rather than on the more moral way of desiring something where one desires something simply because one finds it appealing.

The U.S. currently doesn't have an official language, and I think it should make an effort to make it so all countries do not have an official language. Eventually, will come a day where there is no country that represents a nation.

 

[American]

Nationalism leads to patriotism, which ranks with religion as a means of persuading people to behaviour they would never contemplate in their private lives. While it's an easy trick to persuade young men into "righteous" violence (and there will always be people around who want to do that), why make it easier by regarding patriotism as righteous? It should be consigned to the dustbin of history, like racism and sexism.

What's your point? That such tools aren't responsible for their own choices?


You ignore the fact that the majority embrace patriotism as a willful, educated choice. That's an option you seem to eliminate as impossible, because no smart person could POSSIBLY disagree with you!!

 

[Cleopatra]

Do you have commitment issues Capel Dodger? I am shocked. Maybe you should let a little cat to adopt you.

Originally posted by CapelDodger [/i]

You minimise the role of militants in nation-building, but most nations are built from the ruins of uprisings. Which are militant by definition. The way things finally turn out may be influenced by politics - Greek independence, for instance, was the result of a joint French and British decision to get it for them - but that's just picking up the pieces.

I don't have a definite opinion about this matter I just discuss it. I agree that nations are built from ruins but of ruins of social and financial structures. Militans have the role of film directors. They add the drama and they bring the attention to the ruins that they exist anyway.

Nationalism is not a normal human concern, and it takes zealots - generally young, often ex-patriot - to drag the majority into their self-inflating struggle by provocation. Which, given the species, generally works. A few atrocities will usually generate atrocities from the other side, thus justifying the nationalist cause. The majority simply suffers for the dreams of glory-seeking egotists and power-hungry gangsters.

I agree with the description, it seems that this is how nations are born. Somebody might argue with your description and use the white color where you use the black but this is the process.

I insist on a point though that you haven't addressed so far. It seems that nationalism and national states were an effective vehicle of progress when it was introduced. Nations are succesfull structures, Capel Dodger. You must admit that. Also you must admit that since God created Adam and Eve the masses weren't destined to be happy and in many cases they are the only ones to blame for their status.

Have you ever noticed how extreme nationalists and gangsters tend to hang together? (Fascist Italy's an apparent exception, but the Mafia is a southern phaenomenon, which is relevant over there). In Japan, in the Balkans, Vichy and the Marseilles mob, the Russians, the Kuomintang, the US-friendly Saigon gangs ... OK, that is an exception. But it does seem to be a rule.

Indeed, I am shocked how Ben Gurion escaped from your list of nationalists/gangsters.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't have a definite opinion about this matter I just discuss it. I agree that nations are built from ruins but of ruins of social and financial structures. Militans have the role of film directors. They add the drama and they bring the attention to the ruins that they exist anyway.

Consider the case of Greece in 1821. There was no social or political collapse, just the same-old same-old. There was no strong nationalist movement or national sentiment. The population was a mixture of Greek, Albanian and Turkish, plus smaller numbers of Roma, Jews, Armenians, Italians, Catalans and what-all else. Ther were no national institutions such as a Greek school system or universities. No certainty as to where the borders would be. No chance, and no reason to try.

The revolt was launched by Ipsilantis from outside the country. and the result was a devastated country which is only now recovering from the effects. And when the British granted the Greeks their independence, they didn't know what to do next. The struggle was the exciting - and often profitable - bit, not boring constitutions. Ushering in banditry and warlordism right down to the 1960's. Hopefully, Greece within the trans-national EU has finally got past that.

I agree with the description, it seems that this is how nations are born. Somebody might argue with your description and use the white color where you use the black but this is the process.

And usually not one that's worth the price. One reason why I reject nationalism.

I insist on a point though that you haven't addressed so far. It seems that nationalism and national states were an effective vehicle of progress when it was introduced. Nations are succesfull structures, Capel Dodger. You must admit that. Also you must admit that since God created Adam and Eve the masses weren't destined to be happy and in many cases they are the only ones to blame for their status.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Nations became established in Europe more as a consequence of material progress than a driving force. 300 political units in Germany, for instance, each with its own taxes, tolls, imposts, guild rules, weights-and-measures, etc., was not good for business. The "natural" nations of Britain and post-Revolution France didn't have these problems, and made for an attractive model to replace the detritus of the Holy Roman Empire. The result of the same logic is seen in the trans-national EU today.

Nations haven't worked well in Africa, Central Asia or the Middle East. The US isn't a nation in the usual sense. Latin America has had its problems. And I expect trouble to break out amongst the Mars colonies if they choose the nationalist model.

Indeed, I am shocked how Ben Gurion escaped from your list of nationalists/gangsters.

Do tell!! I had him down as an egotistical zealot, not a crook. If you've got any dirt on him, I'd love to hear it. Arik's family and clique mix with some very dubious characters.

Do you have commitment issues Capel Dodger? I am shocked. Maybe you should let a little cat to adopt you.

One cat, one bullet. I will be slave to no beast.