This is a thread to post nominations for a vote for the most overrated modern day's dogma - an "evident truth" or an ideological position that hardly anyone ever challenges anymore.
My nomination: the self-determination of nations. Case in point: Africa and Quebec.
Surely Poland is a better example of people's who aren't up to self-determination? What with the whole masturbatory fantasy of being a great power while bashing Jews.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 22, 2011, 03:48:54 PM
Surely Poland is a better example of people's who aren't up to self-determination? What with the whole masturbatory fantasy of being a great power while bashing Jews.
I tend to agree. While freeing us up from the Russian dominance was a good thing, I think we would have been better off if we stayed with Prussians after WWI.
Jews. Racism. Multiculturalism. Secularism. Sorcery. Communism. Feminism. Take your fucking pick.
The names and causes may change, but mass-psychosis stays the same.
The PRC = "hardly anyone"? :hmm:
"Freud/Marx is discredited."
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2011, 03:47:18 PM
This is a thread to post nominations for a vote for the most overrated modern day's dogma - an "evident truth" or an ideological position that hardly anyone ever challenges anymore.
My nomination: the self-determination of nations. Case in point: Africa and Quebec.
I don't want to be a contrarian prick, but this is languish so I feel the need to be to an extent. :P Is Quebec a good example as a majority has expressed a desire to stay in Canada?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 22, 2011, 04:04:43 PM
"Freud/Marx is discredited."
Although I wish this one is true. The amount of poison that spread in our societies riding in on the coattails of the good ideas is catastrophic. :(
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2011, 03:47:18 PM
This is a thread to post nominations for a vote for the most overrated modern day's dogma - an "evident truth" or an ideological position that hardly anyone ever challenges anymore.
My nomination: the self-determination of nations. Case in point: Africa and Quebec.
I hate to break it to you, but Africa isn't a nation.
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2011, 04:10:01 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 22, 2011, 04:04:43 PM
"Freud/Marx is discredited."
Although I wish this one is true. The amount of poison that spread in our societies riding in on the coattails of the good ideas is catastrophic. :(
Very true, but I think one could say the same about Locke, Hegel, Bentham, or any number of influential thinkers.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 22, 2011, 04:31:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2011, 04:10:01 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 22, 2011, 04:04:43 PM
"Freud/Marx is discredited."
Although I wish this one is true. The amount of poison that spread in our societies riding in on the coattails of the good ideas is catastrophic. :(
Very true, but I think one could say the same about Locke, Hegel, Bentham, or any number of influential thinkers.
Freud was working in the field of medicine, something that deserves scientific scrutiny. The same can't be said of Locke or Kant. Under the eye of science many of his theories are nonsense and can be disproven. Some other stuff can't be test at all and thus isn't science. His interpretation of dreams has more in common with magic then it does medicine and his "psycho-history" is just mental masturbation. His treatments weren't nearly as successful as he claimed they were (in fact they don't seem to have cured anyone). There is some evidence that he falsified his records.
Marx worked in economics something I'm a bit more wary at, but there is some math in that and some things can be proven false. Most of his predictions didn't come to pass (obviously). Someone who knows more about economics could answer that one better.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 22, 2011, 04:04:43 PM
"Freud/Marx is discredited."
Marx is totally and utterly discredited. You can either provide incentives to people to perform work or you can coerce it. It definitely doesn't spring from class solidarity and revolutionary fervor.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2011, 05:00:18 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 22, 2011, 04:04:43 PM
"Freud/Marx is discredited."
Marx is totally and utterly discredited. You can either provide incentives to people to perform work or you can coerce it. It definitely doesn't spring from class solidarity and revolutionary fervor.
You don't think ideology can persuade people to act in a manner other than their rational self-interest?
Quote from: Faeelin on June 22, 2011, 05:02:54 PM
You don't think ideology can persuade people to act in a manner other than their rational self-interest?
You think a positive answer to that question follows naturally from my previous statement?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2011, 05:06:05 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on June 22, 2011, 05:02:54 PM
You don't think ideology can persuade people to act in a manner other than their rational self-interest?
You think a positive answer to that question follows naturally from my previous statement?
Do you think that he thinks that a positive answer to his question follows from your original statement?
:P
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2011, 05:15:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2011, 05:06:05 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on June 22, 2011, 05:02:54 PM
You don't think ideology can persuade people to act in a manner other than their rational self-interest?
You think a positive answer to that question follows naturally from my previous statement?
Do you think that he thinks that a positive answer to his question follows from your original statement?
Maybe. What do you think?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2011, 05:20:04 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2011, 05:15:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2011, 05:06:05 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on June 22, 2011, 05:02:54 PM
You don't think ideology can persuade people to act in a manner other than their rational self-interest?
You think a positive answer to that question follows naturally from my previous statement?
Do you think that he thinks that a positive answer to his question follows from your original statement?
Maybe. What do you think?
:homestar:
As for Freud (again), you will have an easier time getting a degree in anime then you would in Psycho-history.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2011, 05:00:18 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 22, 2011, 04:04:43 PM
"Freud/Marx is discredited."
Marx is totally and utterly discredited. You can either provide incentives to people to perform work or you can coerce it. It definitely doesn't spring from class solidarity and revolutionary fervor.
The worst part about Marxism isn't the countries they destroy. If a people want to hamper themselves by trying Marxist doctrines, I really don't care. What I hate is the terrible effect it has had on history books. I might accidentally read one of those!
Bestiality, polygamy, incest and cannibalism are bad enough that they should be illegal.
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2011, 06:00:24 PM
Bestiality, polygamy, incest and cannibalism are bad enough that they should be illegal.
Bestiality without consent is rape.
Quote from: citizen k on June 22, 2011, 06:13:17 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2011, 06:00:24 PM
Bestiality, polygamy, incest and cannibalism are bad enough that they should be illegal.
Bestiality without consent is rape.
Go on.
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2011, 03:47:18 PM
This is a thread to post nominations for a vote for the most overrated modern day's dogma - an "evident truth" or an ideological position that hardly anyone ever challenges anymore.
My nomination: the self-determination of nations. Case in point: Africa and Quebec.
Nations in general.
I thought about the best answer to this question all day. I honestly have to say: Skinny Jeans.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 22, 2011, 06:41:14 PM
I thought about the best answer to this question all day. I honestly have to say: Skinny Jeans.
Why? You got fat legs?
Quote from: Jacob on June 22, 2011, 06:45:42 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 22, 2011, 06:41:14 PM
I thought about the best answer to this question all day. I honestly have to say: Skinny Jeans.
Why? You got fat legs?
Nope. Just hate the look. Takes away all the curves.
If we are going to complain about clothes, flip-flops.
Men should not have skinny legs.
Nationalism.
In today's world its just silly.
Quote from: Tyr on June 22, 2011, 07:37:42 PM
Nationalism.
In today's world its just silly.
In today's world, your nation (like most Euro states), sucks. Nationalism declined in Europe at the same time their nations did.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 22, 2011, 06:51:50 PM
If we are going to complain about clothes, flip-flops.
Better than crocs.
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2011, 03:47:18 PM
This is a thread to post nominations for a vote for the most overrated modern day's dogma - an "evident truth" or an ideological position that hardly anyone ever challenges anymore.
My nomination: the self-determination of nations. Case in point: Africa and Quebec.
Since when is self-determination hardly challenged? :blink:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2011, 07:49:36 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 22, 2011, 07:37:42 PM
Nationalism.
In today's world its just silly.
In today's world, your nation (like most Euro states), sucks. Nationalism declined in Europe at the same time their nations did.
And we've never been happier.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 22, 2011, 06:51:50 PM
If we are going to complain about clothes, flip-flops.
Okay, Ohio.
The problem with Freud/Marx/Postmodernism is that they make just enough sense to not die and live healthy lives among those people who don't have to live with the consequences of their actions.
Quote from: Tyr on June 22, 2011, 07:37:42 PM
Nationalism.
In today's world its just silly.
It was silly in any world.
Not really. Better to have everybody living nearby one of "us" and restrict "them" to people one has little if any contact with.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 22, 2011, 10:24:21 PM
Not really. Better to have everybody living nearby one of "us" and restrict "them" to people one has little if any contact with.
Yeah us versus them is a good code...
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2011, 10:41:49 PM
Yeah us versus them is a good code...
It was around well before nationalism too...
Nationalism *may* be outdated now, but it was certainly an improvement for "them" to be people hundreds of miles away instead of those in the next village.
American military interventionism is not good.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 22, 2011, 11:30:47 PM
American military interventionism is not good.
It really isn't though.
Agreed. Both unilateral and when egged on by the French.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 22, 2011, 11:36:03 PM
Agreed. Both unilateral and when egged on by the French.
I didn't see any egging. :hmm:
The way the media have it here, Obama was weak because he let Sarkozy lead the way/push him in to intervening in Libya.
Well, your media is terrible all around. I don't see Sarkozy having any sort of pull on Obama.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 22, 2011, 11:31:38 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 22, 2011, 11:30:47 PM
American military interventionism is not good.
It really isn't though.
I get into this argument with people all the time lately for some reason. For God's sake, we liberated Iraq from a dictator! We lost 40,000 lives, all of whom volunteered! We didn't even bomb cities this time!
So there weren't WMDs. That was a lie to get the people on board, who, for whatever twisted reason, believe national sovereignty trumps the right of democracies to topple fascism wherever it is found.
And now I will never speak of the Iraq War again!
Quote from: Tyr on June 22, 2011, 07:37:42 PM
Nationalism.
In today's world its just silly.
You think nationalism is a modern day dogma noone challenges? :huh:
Quote from: Zoupa on June 22, 2011, 11:31:38 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 22, 2011, 11:30:47 PM
American military interventionism is not good.
It really isn't though.
Then please stop asking us to do it.
Quote from: Martinus on June 23, 2011, 01:13:58 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 22, 2011, 07:37:42 PM
Nationalism.
In today's world its just silly.
You think nationalism is a modern day dogma noone challenges? :huh:
"nationalism" isn't just the stuff nazis did/do.
A gypsy complains about nationalism? :hmm:
Quote from: Zoupa on June 23, 2011, 02:01:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 23, 2011, 01:37:56 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 22, 2011, 11:31:38 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 22, 2011, 11:30:47 PM
American military interventionism is not good.
It really isn't though.
Then please stop asking us to do it.
Right.
Well, we may be backing out of Libya soon, so good luck on that.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 23, 2011, 02:34:43 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 23, 2011, 02:01:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 23, 2011, 01:37:56 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 22, 2011, 11:31:38 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 22, 2011, 11:30:47 PM
American military interventionism is not good.
It really isn't though.
Then please stop asking us to do it.
Right.
Well, we may be backing out of Libya soon, so good luck on that.
K.
Quote from: Slargos on June 23, 2011, 02:14:03 AM
A gypsy complains about nationalism? :hmm:
Oh shut up.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 22, 2011, 11:56:04 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 22, 2011, 11:31:38 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 22, 2011, 11:30:47 PM
American military interventionism is not good.
It really isn't though.
I get into this argument with people all the time lately for some reason. For God's sake, we liberated Iraq from a dictator! We lost 40,000 lives, all of whom volunteered! We didn't even bomb cities this time!
So there weren't WMDs. That was a lie to get the people on board, who, for whatever twisted reason, believe national sovereignty trumps the right of democracies to topple fascism wherever it is found.
And now I will never speak of the Iraq War again!
Right to topple dictators? Only weirdos think about rights. The question is where and when is it wisest to spend your money and blood? That was the problem with Iraq.
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2011, 03:47:18 PM
This is a thread to post nominations for a vote for the most overrated modern day's dogma - an "evident truth" or an ideological position that hardly anyone ever challenges anymore.
My nomination: the self-determination of nations. Case in point: Africa and Quebec.
It's a difficult one. A lot of "evident truths" are hard to disprove, really. In spite of it all, and the fact that I largely subscribe to it myself, I am going with rationalism. And empiricism.
Yes, it is a good thing. For the most part. However, the scientific method and ideas of rational choice seem to cement the irrationalism of certain people even more. They do not respond well to ridicule and argument and thus become more and more irrational. Cases in point are alternative medicine and the supernatural. The rationalism and empiricism used by science since the Enlightenment are suddenly turned on its head, and you get people arguing that since you cannot positively disprove the existence of angels or gods or aliens and whatnot, they exist.
Rationalism and empiricism have de-mystified so much of our existence and brought the scientific language into everyday use to an extent where rather normal and relatively sane people are easily overwhelmed and taken into pseudoscience. It sounds like science. It smells like science at times. So why not.
The lack of mystery and the feeling of being excluded from the celebrated society of scientists who crack open atoms and cure polio when the rest of us struggle with computers that refuse even to receive e-mail have created and create what seems like a raw urge for the anti-rational. Like Fight Club. Or nazism. Or a parade.
Humans are not completely rational. We run high on emotions at times. And while there certainly is no lack of touchy-feely crap that will soothe your soul, the demands for rationalism in most parts of life does seem to bore and frustrate a lot of people.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 22, 2011, 11:56:04 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 22, 2011, 11:31:38 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 22, 2011, 11:30:47 PM
American military interventionism is not good.
It really isn't though.
I get into this argument with people all the time lately for some reason. For God's sake, we liberated Iraq from a dictator! We lost 40,000 lives, all of whom volunteered! We didn't even bomb cities this time!
So there weren't WMDs. That was a lie to get the people on board, who, for whatever twisted reason, believe national sovereignty trumps the right of democracies to topple fascism wherever it is found.
And now I will never speak of the Iraq War again!
Please don't. We haven't lost 40,000 troops in Iraq, I am not sure it has even reached 5,000 dead yet.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 22, 2011, 11:28:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2011, 10:41:49 PM
Yeah us versus them is a good code...
It was around well before nationalism too...
Nationalism *may* be outdated now, but it was certainly an improvement for "them" to be people hundreds of miles away instead of those in the next village.
So it if it existed before and there is a notion in place that helps perpetuate it, we call it a draw? :hmm:
How does one disprove something that is self-evident?
I thought gnosticism and rationalism didn't work well together.
We need to get rid of "us versus them" and we need to repeal the law of gravity. I'd say repealing the law of gravity is easier and more important, so let's focus on the priority issue.
Quote from: garbon on June 23, 2011, 08:35:37 AM
So it if it existed before and there is a notion in place that helps perpetuate it, we call it a draw? :hmm:
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
I was taking issue with Maximus's statement, not Tyr's. A world with nationalism was pretty clearly preferable to one without up until the Enlightenment at the earliest.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2011, 04:58:43 PM
Marx worked in economics something I'm a bit more wary at, but there is some math in that and some things can be proven false. Most of his predictions didn't come to pass (obviously). Someone who knows more about economics could answer that one better.
Certain aspects of Marx have help up pretty well - the idea that historical change is driven significantly by fundamental changes in modes and relations of material production; the notion of ideology as superstructure which purports ground politics in moral theory but in fact primarily flows from and serves to justify the underlying mode of economic production. In its crudest form, the concept is no longer au courant, but Marx's theory is the origin point of the still influential annales school approach to history among others, and indeed much of contemporary economic and institutional history in general.
Marx's specific predictions about the inevitable staganation of the capitalism and the accompanying immiseration of the proletariat were wrong, and based on the application of an erroneous model of economic growth and development. This was already clear to intelligent observers in the socialist camp by the late 19th century and led to the articulation of "evolutionary socialism" and the mixed economy.
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2011, 09:02:51 AM
We need to get rid of "us versus them" and we need to repeal the law of gravity. I'd say repealing the law of gravity is easier and more important, so let's focus on the priority issue.
I love straw!
Quote from: Maximus on June 22, 2011, 10:15:01 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 22, 2011, 07:37:42 PM
Nationalism.
In today's world its just silly.
It was silly in any world.
I don't agree at all.
I see much of human cultural history as an expansion of the set of what defines "us" and "them". Nationalism was/is a painful progression of enlarging the set of "us" as we move towards getting rid of the artificial constructs of "us" and "them" entirely.
It kind of sucked in that it meant that the set of "us" got big enough along with technology that we could *really* start inflicting some serious damage on the "thems", but it was probably inevitable anyway.
Saying nationalism is bad is kind of like saying don't ask don't tell is bad.
Yeah, when looked at in isolation it is kind of stupid maybe, but when seen as a point in a changing shift in attitudes, it makes perfect sense, and is actually an improvement over what came before.
At least, hopefully.
Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2011, 10:05:28 AM
I don't agree at all.
I see much of human cultural history as an expansion of the set of what defines "us" and "them". Nationalism was/is a painful progression of enlarging the set of "us" as we move towards getting rid of the artificial constructs of "us" and "them" entirely.
It kind of sucked in that it meant that the set of "us" got big enough along with technology that we could *really* start inflicting some serious damage on the "thems", but it was probably inevitable anyway.
They say diversity+proximity=war. And of course excellent food.
Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2011, 10:08:37 AM
Saying nationalism is bad is kind of like saying don't ask don't tell is bad.
Yeah, when looked at in isolation it is kind of stupid maybe, but when seen as a point in a changing shift in attitudes, it makes perfect sense, and is actually an improvement over what came before.
At least, hopefully.
I don't think it is a matter of what is "hopefully" true, I think it is a matter of historical evidence. When you look at the issue of identity (i.e. how you tell the difference between "us" and "them") it is clear that, to a large extent, bigger is better. The medieval organizing principal was a personal one; "us" was everyone who was a vassal of our liege, and "them" was everyone else. This broke down when the common liege got too distant from the persons involved, or when lieges decided that they didn't want to be vassals of their own liege (for their own reasons or because their liege turned out to be a dick), and there was more than a bit of combat caused by the inadequacies of the feudal identity system. National identify didn't require the same kind of personal relationships as feudal identity, and so could unite larger groups.
The problem was that the concept of "nation" was not uniform, and so some states (Austria-Hungary, famously) eschewed nationalism in favor of dynasticism/feudal identity. That worked for a while, but it was constantly under strain and the system was adjusted many times, which made nationalists believe they could get it adjusted even more - and when they couldn't, the system collapsed.
I think you see nationalism dying out today more because of mobility than because people decided that it was somehow a bad idea... though I think Europeans did consciously reject romantic nationalism after the world wars.
Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2011, 10:05:28 AM
I see much of human cultural history as an expansion of the set of what defines "us" and "them". Nationalism was/is a painful progression of enlarging the set of "us" as we move towards getting rid of the artificial constructs of "us" and "them" entirely.
Just a quick question on this comment; are you saying that there are "natural" constructs of "us" and "them," or that the notions of "us" and "them" are artificial constructs?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 23, 2011, 09:06:19 AM
A world with nationalism was pretty clearly preferable to one without up until the Enlightenment at the earliest.
I agree, but it was a step back from what we were heading toward in the earlier enlightenment.
Now I haven't studied this period as closely as some here, probably, so I will welcome cogent arguments to the contrary. We will always have "us vs them", but it seems to me that the movement in the American Revolution and the early French Revolution, was toward citizenship that was based on what you were willing to work (and fight) for, not on birth, religion, or what language you spoke. Nationalism was a move to subvert this concept into one of blind loyalty to the nation-state.
Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2011, 10:08:37 AM
Saying nationalism is bad is kind of like saying don't ask don't tell is bad.
Yeah, when looked at in isolation it is kind of stupid maybe, but when seen as a point in a changing shift in attitudes, it makes perfect sense, and is actually an improvement over what came before.
At least, hopefully.
I think in the historical context, nationalism, in the sense of unity under a shared sense of history, common language and sometimes institutions brought together isolated communities in what became modern societies as much as ideas like liberalism did. Of course, history and tradition were in many cases invented or at the very least engineered to convey the right sort of values. That's really not the point. Membership in a nation became a way to have some pride and value as a person.
And there were and are different types of nationalism focusing on rather different things. French nationalism has had much less to do with ethnicity than for instance Serbian.
In areas where national identity/ethnicity coincided with other faultlines like economic disadvantage or political inequality, it became a more potent force for radical solutions as seen for instance after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the Turko-Greek conflict.
Nationalism is a discredited ideology today, mostly associated with a past most will want to forget. That's not really a fair verdict. Yes, there were millions of dead. But nationalism along with liberalism and humanism also brought progress. Of course, it's much easier to extend civil liberties and humane treatment to people who're "the same as we".
Quote from: Martinus on June 23, 2011, 01:13:58 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 22, 2011, 07:37:42 PM
Nationalism.
In today's world its just silly.
You think nationalism is a modern day dogma noone challenges? :huh:
Yes. Most people just accept it wholesale.
Quote from: Maximus on June 23, 2011, 10:49:34 AM
Now I haven't studied this period as closely as some here, probably, so I will welcome cogent arguments to the contrary. We will always have "us vs them", but it seems to me that the movement in the American Revolution and the early French Revolution, was toward citizenship that was based on what you were willing to work (and fight) for, not on birth, religion, or what language you spoke. Nationalism was a move to subvert this concept into one of blind loyalty to the nation-state.
Nationalism way preceded the Enlightenment - most historians date it to the last third of the Hundred Years War or so. Romantic Nationalism (the idea that the individual was subordinate to the nation and its destiny) really dates to the post-Revolutions of 1848 period, when the conservatives in places like Germany, France, and Russia needed some hook to hold the loyalties of the increasingly numerous middle and working classes. That type of nationalism, I agree, was entirely pernicious, because it was anti-intellectual and subject to bursts of mob rule. It also led to the First World War, in my opinion.
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2011, 10:45:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2011, 10:05:28 AM
I see much of human cultural history as an expansion of the set of what defines "us" and "them". Nationalism was/is a painful progression of enlarging the set of "us" as we move towards getting rid of the artificial constructs of "us" and "them" entirely.
Just a quick question on this comment; are you saying that there are "natural" constructs of "us" and "them," or that the notions of "us" and "them" are artificial constructs?
Hmmm, not sure I understand the question.
I think humans have a natural tendency to divide their world up into their tribe and the other tribe(s). I think these constructs are generally pretty artificial - if your question is do I believe that there exists some "natural" construct that exists outside what humans create, certainly not. But I suspect maybe that isn't really what you are asking....?
Quote from: Tyr on June 23, 2011, 10:52:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 23, 2011, 01:13:58 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 22, 2011, 07:37:42 PM
Nationalism.
In today's world its just silly.
You think nationalism is a modern day dogma noone challenges? :huh:
Yes. Most people just accept it wholesale.
Disagree. Nationalism is a fringe movement, which is why parties like the BNP aren't in government - in fact, they aren't even in Parliament!
Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2011, 11:00:08 AM
Hmmm, not sure I understand the question.
I think humans have a natural tendency to divide their world up into their tribe and the other tribe(s). I think these constructs are generally pretty artificial - if your question is do I believe that there exists some "natural" construct that exists outside what humans create, certainly not. But I suspect maybe that isn't really what you are asking....?
So all issues of identity are "artificial" in that they are made up by people? I don't disagree with that, though I don't see the utility of the adjective "artificial" if it is all artificial. If it was a throwaway word and not intended to convey any important distinction, then I don't have an issue at all.
Quote from: Maximus on June 23, 2011, 10:49:34 AMNow I haven't studied this period as closely as some here, probably, so I will welcome cogent arguments to the contrary. We will always have "us vs them", but it seems to me that the movement in the American Revolution and the early French Revolution, was toward citizenship that was based on what you were willing to work (and fight) for, not on birth, religion, or what language you spoke. Nationalism was a move to subvert this concept into one of blind loyalty to the nation-state.
There always was a tension between what was a people's "genius", its characteristics derived from things that were deemed very hard to change (such as history, habits, etc.) and the power of voluntary association to an ideal. Witness the late 18th c. attempts are rewriting the history of France by making the nobles the Frank "parasites" over the virtuous gallo-romans. Colonialism contributed to the debate by the emergence of more "hardwired" racial categories which would plague both American and French revolutions -- some things could never change, like the capacity for rational thought denied alternatively denied to women, blacks, poors. Commerce, on the other hand, suggested that forces existed that could tie men regardless of their origins - at once a seducing and threatening prospect. That it could be seducing is usually seen as a truism today. But it also seemed threatening because it could dissolve any sort of ideal in greed: merchants knew no other loyalty than their self-interest.
The universalist aim of the Revolutions (I would argue that the French's was more pronounced) stimulated a broadening of politics, but the tensions of "historicity", i.e., the understanding that the revolutions were either product of, or needed foundations in, specific societies, remained strong. War would in turn exacerbate those.
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2011, 10:59:25 AMNationalism way preceded the Enlightenment - most historians date it to the last third of the Hundred Years War or so.
Interesting. Thanks
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2011, 11:03:04 AM
Disagree. Nationalism is a fringe movement, which is why parties like the BNP aren't in government - in fact, they aren't even in Parliament!
Is not the fact that for most people "nation" is a synonym for "country", a symptom of widespread (albeit unconscious) nationalism?
I would be reluctant to ascribe the term "nationalism" to the kind of sense of belonging, or of community, which manifests itself during the Hundred Years War, and would not consider its birth during the Middle Ages as consensual amongst historians either.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 23, 2011, 11:35:21 AM
I would be reluctant to ascribe the term "nationalism" to the kind of sense of belonging, or of community, which manifests itself during the Hundred Years War, and would not consider its birth during the Middle Ages as consensual amongst historians either.
I would as well. Religion seemed to be primary glue that held people together in Europe at the time. I would ascribe Nationalism as a Post-Westphalia thing.
Objectivism
Neo Conservatism
and pretty much every other ism out there.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 23, 2011, 11:48:19 AM
Objectivism
Neo Conservatism
and pretty much every other ism out there.
Even Idealism? Or Cynicism?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 23, 2011, 12:07:35 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 23, 2011, 11:48:19 AM
Objectivism
Neo Conservatism
and pretty much every other ism out there.
Even Idealism? Or Cynicism?
sure, sometimes people take those isms beyond reasonableness also, It's easy to get caught up in ideals of any kind, and to put all your stock in them. Moderation in all things is my motto (that I try and fail to follow, but I try)
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2011, 10:59:25 AM
Nationalism way preceded the Enlightenment - most historians date it to the last third of the Hundred Years War or so.
?
It is more typical for it to be placed in the late18th/early 19th centuries. Kedourie, Gellner, and Anderson all put it roughly during the period: Anderson back in the 1770s; Gellner deeper in the 19th, Kedourie somewhere in between.
I think one would be hard pressed to find examples of nationalism as an ideology as early as the 15th century. .
Define nationalism.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 23, 2011, 12:16:47 PM
sure, sometimes people take those isms beyond reasonableness also, It's easy to get caught up in ideals of any kind, and to put all your stock in them. Moderation in all things is my motto (that I try and fail to follow, but I try)
Pragmatism?
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2011, 12:29:12 PM
Define nationalism.
Gellner defines it as the principle that the state and the national unit should coincide. Another way to phrase it is the belief that the area of sovereign control of the state should (as a prescriptive matter) be coincident with the area of common ethno-cultural identity. This of course presupposes clear notions of ethnicity and culture.
Quote from: Maximus on June 23, 2011, 11:12:40 AM
Is not the fact that for most people "nation" is a synonym for "country", a symptom of widespread (albeit unconscious) nationalism?
The nation isn't the country, though, it is the people. The fact that national and state boundaries didn't coincide was the cause of any number of wars. I distinguish between patriotism and nationalism; the former is attachment to a country, the latter to a people.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 23, 2011, 12:23:54 PM
?
It is more typical for it to be placed in the late18th/early 19th centuries. Kedourie, Gellner, and Anderson all put it roughly during the period: Anderson back in the 1770s; Gellner deeper in the 19th, Kedourie somewhere in between.
I think one would be hard pressed to find examples of nationalism as an ideology as early as the 15th century.
Nationalism as a conscious ideology was certainly not present before the Enlightenment, but you can certainly see its stirrings during the Hundred Years War. The abandonment of French as the language of the English upper class during the HYW was a consequence, IMO, with its identification as the language of "them." I am not arguing that the HYW was a nationalist conflict, I am arguing that nationalism started to stir its head during the HYW, and that, while its various ideologies were not articulated until the 18th century (or later, perhaps), it wasn't itself a product of the Enlightenment.
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2011, 12:29:12 PM
Define nationalism.
I would argue that it is the belief that groups of people (defined variously by language, religion, folklore, or several of these attributes) share a common destiny, and so should work together to achieve it. Generally it manifests itself as the desire to create a nation-state, as JR notes, but one can find examples (German nationalists in AH, for example) where it didn't.
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2011, 01:06:28 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2011, 12:29:12 PM
Define nationalism.
I would argue that it is the belief that groups of people (defined variously by language, religion, folklore, or several of these attributes) share a common destiny, and so should work together to achieve it. Generally it manifests itself as the desire to create a nation-state, as JR notes, but one can find examples (German nationalists in AH, for example) where it didn't.
This definition is a lot closer to what I understand nationalism to mean than the Gellner definition.
In Sweden you can certainly see it at least as early as the 15th century.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 23, 2011, 12:16:47 PM
sure, sometimes people take those isms beyond reasonableness also, It's easy to get caught up in ideals of any kind, and to put all your stock in them. Moderation in all things is my motto (that I try and fail to follow, but I try)
Ah, moderationism. Apparently this is a real word.
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2011, 11:03:04 AM
Disagree. Nationalism is a fringe movement, which is why parties like the BNP aren't in government - in fact, they aren't even in Parliament!
That's extreme nationalism. Regular nationalism is just the idea of nationality as the primary identifier.
Most people these days just take it for granted that in the few hundred square miles around here is their country, their people, and over there be another country. So many people don't realise that this isn't the way things have always been and that not too long ago more important was the city you came from for instance, not whichever king was lord over it.
I think Nationalism is alive and well in Europe. BNP isn't very strong, but the SNP does okay.
Nationalism isn't dead yet, I think it's getting better.
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2011, 01:09:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2011, 01:06:28 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2011, 12:29:12 PM
Define nationalism.
I would argue that it is the belief that groups of people (defined variously by language, religion, folklore, or several of these attributes) share a common destiny, and so should work together to achieve it. Generally it manifests itself as the desire to create a nation-state, as JR notes, but one can find examples (German nationalists in AH, for example) where it didn't.
This definition is a lot closer to what I understand nationalism to mean than the Gellner definition.
But it is far too broad. Under this definition you could e.g. talk about "Gothic nationalism" (based on common folklore) or "Roman nationalism" (based on common use of Latin) or "Catholic nationalism" (based on religion). All these groups had some sort of belief in common destiny and common action.
*shrug* And in my mind nationalists can be comfortable with ruling subject peoples. For instance I think that the British, French or German colonial empires were very much compatible with British, French or German nationalism.
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2011, 11:06:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2011, 11:00:08 AM
Hmmm, not sure I understand the question.
I think humans have a natural tendency to divide their world up into their tribe and the other tribe(s). I think these constructs are generally pretty artificial - if your question is do I believe that there exists some "natural" construct that exists outside what humans create, certainly not. But I suspect maybe that isn't really what you are asking....?
So all issues of identity are "artificial" in that they are made up by people? I don't disagree with that, though I don't see the utility of the adjective "artificial" if it is all artificial. If it was a throwaway word and not intended to convey any important distinction, then I don't have an issue at all.
Could we say they are "natural" to people who espouse them but become "artificial" to people who transcend them? They are a bit like Kohlberg's morality ladder steps - there is little doubt that higher steps are ethically and utilitarian-ly superior to the preceding ones, and people who are at a given level perceive it as natural and good - but people who are on a higher level see it as artificial and ultimately flawed.
Since morality is, in a sense, a constant progress in extending the boundaries of "us", the analogy to the Kohlberg system is pretty apt, imo.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 23, 2011, 04:24:07 PM
But it is far too broad. Under this definition you could e.g. talk about "Gothic nationalism" (based on common folklore) or "Roman nationalism" (based on common use of Latin) or "Catholic nationalism" (based on religion). All these groups had some sort of belief in common destiny and common action.
Circular reasoning. If the Romans couldn't be nationalistic because nationalism by definition doesn't include the Romans, then, sure, the Romans weren't nationalistic. But I think that the Romans were not nationalistic for reasons other than that we have decided to define nationalism as explicitly excluding them.
The term "social justice" when plain ol' justice would suffice.
Quote from: citizen k on June 23, 2011, 04:59:19 PM
The term "social justice" when plain ol' justice would suffice.
What's the dogma? That social justice is a kind of justice?
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2011, 01:06:28 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2011, 12:29:12 PM
Define nationalism.
I would argue that it is the belief that groups of people (defined variously by language, religion, folklore, or several of these attributes) share a common destiny, and so should work together to achieve it. Generally it manifests itself as the desire to create a nation-state, as JR notes, but one can find examples (German nationalists in AH, for example) where it didn't.
I would also add that an element of the ideology of nationalism is that the interplay between nations is a zero-sum game. I think this is what essentially differentiates it from patriotism.
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2011, 05:00:13 PM
Quote from: citizen k on June 23, 2011, 04:59:19 PM
The term "social justice" when plain ol' justice would suffice.
What's the dogma? That social justice is a kind of justice?
Yep
Dogme 95.
WTF? It's a substitute for shitty scriptwriting. Those assholes all need to study Mamet. Revolution in film is about WRITING, not shooting without effects.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2011, 04:06:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2011, 03:47:18 PM
This is a thread to post nominations for a vote for the most overrated modern day's dogma - an "evident truth" or an ideological position that hardly anyone ever challenges anymore.
My nomination: the self-determination of nations. Case in point: Africa and Quebec.
I don't want to be a contrarian prick, but this is languish so I feel the need to be to an extent. :P Is Quebec a good example as a majority has expressed a desire to stay in Canada?
Better than Africa. You can argue that Quebec was given self-determination, and they determined that it was in their best interest to remain a province of Canada. Self-determination was never offered to Africans--they were given independence, eventually, but they had to stick with the old borders imposed by the European powers. Eritrea might be about the only exception, at least the only one I can think of off-hand, and even that's debatable as it wasn't part of Ethiopia before WWII and was technically in a federal state with Ethiopia after the war.
Quote from: BerkutSaying nationalism is bad is kind of like saying don't ask don't tell is bad.
Yeah, when looked at in isolation it is kind of stupid maybe, but when seen as a point in a changing shift in attitudes, it makes perfect sense, and is actually an improvement over what came before.
At least, hopefully.
I've made essentially the same argument about the BCS. Few people seem to agree with it.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarbObjectivism
Neo Conservatism
and pretty much every other ism out there.
You think that they are all positions that hardly anyone ever challanges? :wacko:
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2011, 04:57:15 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 23, 2011, 04:24:07 PM
But it is far too broad. Under this definition you could e.g. talk about "Gothic nationalism" (based on common folklore) or "Roman nationalism" (based on common use of Latin) or "Catholic nationalism" (based on religion). All these groups had some sort of belief in common destiny and common action.
Circular reasoning.
All arguments about defining terms necessary involve some degree of tautological reasoning. The problem with the broader defintion is that it sweeps in just about anything that historically has caused groups of people to understand themselves as part of a community. That isn't necessarily a problem, unless one wants to make distinctions between different kinds of manifestations of that phenomenon as it appears historically. So while it is true that the Gellner defintion and its variants kind of assumes the answer, it does by drawing a real distinction of significance bewtween nationalism as it defines it, and other historical manifestation of feelings of shared community.
QuoteIf the Romans couldn't be nationalistic because nationalism by definition doesn't include the Romans, then, sure, the Romans weren't nationalistic. But I think that the Romans were not nationalistic for reasons other than that we have decided to define nationalism as explicitly excluding them.
But the Gellner definition and its variants doesnt explicitly exclude the Romans; the Romans are excluded b/c the ways they conceived of their communal connections happens not to fit the definition.
My objection is to a definition of nationalism that read plainly, includes the Romans, because a definition of nationalism that includes the Romans is not useful for making the kind of distinctions we want to be able to make.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 24, 2011, 10:24:10 AM
All arguments about defining terms necessary involve some degree of tautological reasoning. The problem with the broader defintion is that it sweeps in just about anything that historically has caused groups of people to understand themselves as part of a community. That isn't necessarily a problem, unless one wants to make distinctions between different kinds of manifestations of that phenomenon as it appears historically. So while it is true that the Gellner defintion and its variants kind of assumes the answer, it does by drawing a real distinction of significance bewtween nationalism as it defines it, and other historical manifestation of feelings of shared community.
The problem with the narrow definition of nationism is that it excludes most forms of nationalism other than romantic nationalism, and excludes even many forms of romantic nationalism (Russian nationalism and many forms of German nationalism, for instance). Nationalism centered around more than just the concept of the nation-state, IMO.
QuoteMy objection is to a definition of nationalism that read plainly, includes the Romans, because a definition of nationalism that includes the Romans is not useful for making the kind of distinctions we want to be able to make.
I don't know of a definition of nationalism that includes the Romans, so take that up with the people advocating that.
Quote from: grumbler on June 24, 2011, 01:03:27 PM
The problem with the narrow definition of nationism is that it excludes most forms of nationalism other than romantic nationalism, and excludes even many forms of romantic nationalism (Russian nationalism and many forms of German nationalism, for instance).
That is just as circular as what you are criticizing. basically you are taking what most scholars of nationalism use as a definition of nationalism, defining that to be something called "romantic nationalism" and then saying there is some problem with the "narrow definition of nationalism" because the two concepts equate.
Seems to me that if for some reason one wanted to have a distinct concept called "romantic nationalism" (and it isn't entirely clear to me why this is so), then the logical defintion would be that it is a subcategory of nationalism where the nationalist ideology is based on a Romantic conception of ancestrally derived volkish "genius." That would incorporate 19th century German and Russian nationalism while excluding American and French nationalism.
QuoteI don't know of a definition of nationalism that includes the Romans, so take that up with the people advocating that.
The only one I have heard of is this one: "the belief that groups of people (defined variously by language, religion, folklore, or several of these attributes) share a common destiny, and so should work together to achieve it. "