Israel-Hamas War 2023

[crazy canuck]

There's a strong inclusive strain in Scottish nationalism - "we're all Jock Tamson's bairns" and all that. Similarly, from discussions here it seems Quebec nationalists are fairly inclusive - as long as you're in Quebec and you consider yourself to belong, then you're Quebecois regardless of colour, creed, and origin.

I mean, I guess we can say "you're doing it wrong and you're not actually nationalists" to people who call themselves nationalists and whose big political project is national independence because they're inclusive about who they consider belonging to their nation, but I'm personally not that convinced by that line of reasoning.

I can't speak to how Scottish Nationalists conduct themselves.  But I had the misfortune of reading your characterization of Quebec Nationalists while sipping my coffee.  The mess is now cleaned up and I can now respond by saying, have you had a read of the the legislation regarding language and religious freedoms.  You know, the ones that start with a notwithstanding clause so as to avoid being struck down by a Charter challenge.  How are those laws consistent with your claim that about how inclusive Quebec is?

[Valmy]

I just want to say that in the context of this particular situation my critique of nationalism is putting the victory of Palestine or Israel above the interests of the people. Like me the glorious leader of Hamas, from my safe base in Qatar, demand victory of Palestine and will happily sacrifice millions of Palestinians for that goal.

Or certain elements of the Israeli right wing, happy to escalate the situation and empower Hamas for the purposes of securing the whole area for Israel and...um...getting rid of the dangerous and scary Palestinians in some vague but probably terrifying way.

[Jacob]

I can't speak to how Scottish Nationalists conduct themselves.  But I had the misfortune of reading your characterization of Quebec Nationalists while sipping my coffee.  The mess is now cleaned up and I can now respond by saying, have you had a read of the the legislation regarding language and religious freedoms.  You know, the ones that start with a notwithstanding clause so as to avoid being struck down by a Charter challenge.  How are those laws consistent with your claim that about how inclusive Quebec is?

Sorry about the mess

My argument is that there are Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") and who are inclusive in the way they view their nationalism. Who think of their nationalism in terms that the label "patriotism" was used earlier in the thread.

At the same time there are also Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") who are exclusionary in how they view their nationalism.

That you've identified what you consider exclusionary bad nationalists does not really undermine the point that nationalism takes different forms for different people, and that the "patriot vs nationalist" dichotomy is not necessarily widely shared.

If you're looking for a rousing argument where you can lay out your opinions on Quebec, you'll have to find someone else to have it with as I'm not interested.

[crazy canuck]

I can't speak to how Scottish Nationalists conduct themselves.  But I had the misfortune of reading your characterization of Quebec Nationalists while sipping my coffee.  The mess is now cleaned up and I can now respond by saying, have you had a read of the the legislation regarding language and religious freedoms.  You know, the ones that start with a notwithstanding clause so as to avoid being struck down by a Charter challenge.  How are those laws consistent with your claim that about how inclusive Quebec is?

Sorry about the mess

My argument is that there are Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") and who are inclusive in the way they view their nationalism. Who think of their nationalism in terms that the label "patriotism" was used earlier in the thread.

At the same time there are also Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") who are exclusionary in how they view their nationalism.

That you've identified what you consider exclusionary bad nationalists does not really undermine the point that nationalism takes different forms for different people, and that the "patriot vs nationalist" dichotomy is not necessarily widely shared.

If you're looking for a rousing argument where you can lay out your opinions on Quebec, you'll have to find someone else to have it with as I'm not interested.

I am identifying an objective fact.  The laws on their books.  And those laws defy the generous characterization you are giving to Quebec nationalists.

[grumbler]

The concept of the nation-state has become so universal that we refer to the "United Nations" even though it includes only nation-states and not such nations as the Navajo nation of the US "Christian nation."  It should be called the "United States" but that name has already been taken by a number of nation-states.  United nation-states is too cumbersome.

But, in any case, the difference between nationalists and patriots is exactly what the Brain said;  nationalism is a political movement with political goals that want to advance the cause of their "nation."  I don't think that you will get a nationalist to agree that everyone inside a given border is part of their nation.  Their concept of nation includes everyone in their group regardless of where they live. 

As regards Trump, I don't believe that he is a nationalist, because nationalism involves people other than Trump.  Trump is a Trumpist; what's good for Donald Trump is good, and what's not good for Donald Trump is bad, not matter who or what is under consideration.  His nation has only one member if he's a "nationalist."

[Valmy]

As regards Trump, I don't believe that he is a nationalist, because nationalism involves people other than Trump.  Trump is a Trumpist; what's good for Donald Trump is good, and what's not good for Donald Trump is bad, not matter who or what is under consideration.  His nation has only one member if he's a "nationalist."

Yes. Though he does what a lot of egomaniacal leaders do and confuses himself with the nation.

[Grey Fox]

I can't speak to how Scottish Nationalists conduct themselves.  But I had the misfortune of reading your characterization of Quebec Nationalists while sipping my coffee.  The mess is now cleaned up and I can now respond by saying, have you had a read of the the legislation regarding language and religious freedoms.  You know, the ones that start with a notwithstanding clause so as to avoid being struck down by a Charter challenge.  How are those laws consistent with your claim that about how inclusive Quebec is?

Sorry about the mess

My argument is that there are Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") and who are inclusive in the way they view their nationalism. Who think of their nationalism in terms that the label "patriotism" was used earlier in the thread.

At the same time there are also Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") who are exclusionary in how they view their nationalism.

That you've identified what you consider exclusionary bad nationalists does not really undermine the point that nationalism takes different forms for different people, and that the "patriot vs nationalist" dichotomy is not necessarily widely shared.

If you're looking for a rousing argument where you can lay out your opinions on Quebec, you'll have to find someone else to have it with as I'm not interested.

I am identifying an objective fact.  The laws on their books.  And those laws defy the generous characterization you are giving to Quebec nationalists.

 

Is everyone affected by the laws of Quebec also a Quebec nationalist? Even if that law, by your arguments, excludes them?

[crazy canuck]

I can't speak to how Scottish Nationalists conduct themselves.  But I had the misfortune of reading your characterization of Quebec Nationalists while sipping my coffee.  The mess is now cleaned up and I can now respond by saying, have you had a read of the the legislation regarding language and religious freedoms.  You know, the ones that start with a notwithstanding clause so as to avoid being struck down by a Charter challenge.  How are those laws consistent with your claim that about how inclusive Quebec is?

Sorry about the mess

My argument is that there are Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") and who are inclusive in the way they view their nationalism. Who think of their nationalism in terms that the label "patriotism" was used earlier in the thread.

At the same time there are also Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") who are exclusionary in how they view their nationalism.

That you've identified what you consider exclusionary bad nationalists does not really undermine the point that nationalism takes different forms for different people, and that the "patriot vs nationalist" dichotomy is not necessarily widely shared.

If you're looking for a rousing argument where you can lay out your opinions on Quebec, you'll have to find someone else to have it with as I'm not interested.

I am identifying an objective fact.  The laws on their books.  And those laws defy the generous characterization you are giving to Quebec nationalists.

 

Is everyone affected by the laws of Quebec also a Quebec nationalist? Even if that law, by your arguments, excludes them?

I'm not sure what your point is. Everyone in Quebec is certainly affected by the laws of the government of Quebec.  Jacob claimed that Quebec nationalists are welcoming of everyone of every Creed.  The law prohibiting the display of religious symbols is completely inconsistent with that claim.

[Grey Fox]

I can't speak to how Scottish Nationalists conduct themselves.  But I had the misfortune of reading your characterization of Quebec Nationalists while sipping my coffee.  The mess is now cleaned up and I can now respond by saying, have you had a read of the the legislation regarding language and religious freedoms.  You know, the ones that start with a notwithstanding clause so as to avoid being struck down by a Charter challenge.  How are those laws consistent with your claim that about how inclusive Quebec is?

Sorry about the mess

My argument is that there are Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") and who are inclusive in the way they view their nationalism. Who think of their nationalism in terms that the label "patriotism" was used earlier in the thread.

At the same time there are also Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") who are exclusionary in how they view their nationalism.

That you've identified what you consider exclusionary bad nationalists does not really undermine the point that nationalism takes different forms for different people, and that the "patriot vs nationalist" dichotomy is not necessarily widely shared.

If you're looking for a rousing argument where you can lay out your opinions on Quebec, you'll have to find someone else to have it with as I'm not interested.

I am identifying an objective fact.  The laws on their books.  And those laws defy the generous characterization you are giving to Quebec nationalists.

 

Is everyone affected by the laws of Quebec also a Quebec nationalist? Even if that law, by your arguments, excludes them?

I'm not sure what your point is. Everyone in Quebec is certainly affected by the laws of the government of Quebec.  Jacob claimed that Quebec nationalists are welcoming of everyone of every Creed.  The law prohibiting the display of religious symbols is completely inconsistent with that claim.

Quebec nationalism isn't unified under one party or one banner, especially not the banner of the CAQ.

Quebec Solidaire, a nationalist party, is vehemently against the law prohibiting the display of religious symbols and they would argue for themselves that they are a inclusive nationalist party.

[crazy canuck]

I can't speak to how Scottish Nationalists conduct themselves.  But I had the misfortune of reading your characterization of Quebec Nationalists while sipping my coffee.  The mess is now cleaned up and I can now respond by saying, have you had a read of the the legislation regarding language and religious freedoms.  You know, the ones that start with a notwithstanding clause so as to avoid being struck down by a Charter challenge.  How are those laws consistent with your claim that about how inclusive Quebec is?

Sorry about the mess

My argument is that there are Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") and who are inclusive in the way they view their nationalism. Who think of their nationalism in terms that the label "patriotism" was used earlier in the thread.

At the same time there are also Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") who are exclusionary in how they view their nationalism.

That you've identified what you consider exclusionary bad nationalists does not really undermine the point that nationalism takes different forms for different people, and that the "patriot vs nationalist" dichotomy is not necessarily widely shared.

If you're looking for a rousing argument where you can lay out your opinions on Quebec, you'll have to find someone else to have it with as I'm not interested.

I am identifying an objective fact.  The laws on their books.  And those laws defy the generous characterization you are giving to Quebec nationalists.

 

Is everyone affected by the laws of Quebec also a Quebec nationalist? Even if that law, by your arguments, excludes them?

I'm not sure what your point is. Everyone in Quebec is certainly affected by the laws of the government of Quebec.  Jacob claimed that Quebec nationalists are welcoming of everyone of every Creed.  The law prohibiting the display of religious symbols is completely inconsistent with that claim.

Quebec nationalism isn't unified under one party or one banner, especially not the banner of the CAQ.

Quebec Solidaire, a nationalist party, is vehemently against the law prohibiting the display of religious symbols and they would argue for themselves that they are a inclusive nationalist party.

The definition of nationalism is necessarily general, and there will always be outliers. My point is that Jacob attributing inclusivity to all Quebec nationalists was wrong.

The majority of Quebec nationalists have supported laws that are very much exclusive to the beliefs of what makes up the national identity of Quebec.

I think it's dangerous to make an argument that there are good nationalist and bad nationalist.

Nationalism by definition necessitates identifying the other, and excluding them from the nation.

[HVC]

IDF keeps killing international Aid workers. This time 3 Brit's died, so people care.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Accidentally. That happens in wars.

[Valmy]

Accidentally. That happens in wars.

Would you be saying that if the Palestinians kept killing aid workers?

[HVC]

Accidentally. That happens in wars.

Going on 200 aid workers since October. There's a fine line between accident and careless there. Without getting into the conspiracy theory stuff.

[chipwich]

Aid should not be given to a belligerent party.