Nationalism

[CapelDodger]

Looking down at the world from the moral high ground (where I like to spend my afternoons) I notice that many of its problems are either caused by nationalism or made more difficult to solve by nationalism. The idea of drawing lines on maps and assigning absolute sovereignty to the nations thus defined will have to be discarded if humanity is going to have any chance of peace and prosperity (and perhaps survival).

Organisations like the League of Nations and the UN have been attempts to move on from this model, and (not coincidentally) have been created after major conflicts in which nationalism played a major part. But they are fundamentally flawed since they are composed of sovereign nations, and the rulers of sovereign nations are not well-disposed to seeing that sovereignty diluted. If the US decides to act unilaterally against another sovereign nation (which may happen, who knows) the UN is powerless and nations that oppose the action are left with only two options - put up with, or good old military action. Is this where we are in the 21stCE? Must it always be this way - nations lavishing blood and treasure on warfare and living in fear of everybody else's weapons?

Environmental problems of regional or global importance are left to fester as nations follow their own perceived self-interest (as nations are expected to do). Rivers pass through a variety of nations, each concerned only with its own needs and the actions of those upstream (be warned, water wars are going to be a feature of the near future if things don't change). Scientific projects that require multi-national input are halted by arguments about which nation gets to host it. Natural economic zones are disrupted by having national borders running through them.

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.

I'll mention Israel because it is a particularly egregious example of the damage nationism does, and because I expect to use this thread to absorb a continuing but intermittent debate with the esteemed Cleopatra over the nature of the zionist project. My contention is that the Jewish State was conceived as a nationalist project; Cleopatra feels otherwise.

What the world needs is a new political model. The United States was an experiment in this direction (the Constitution is actually a treaty between sovereign states). The Constitution provides guarantees of certain rights and minimum democratic standards but within those limits states have sovereignty. Citizens of the states can appeal to the centre for protection of their rights and the centre can enforce its decisions. I would like to see a global equivalent, a central authority which enforces standards of human rights but leaves local decisions to local people. This local control could be exercised in nations, where that makes sense, or regions or cities or whatever is rational.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I would like to see a global equivalent, a central authority which enforces standards of human rights but leaves local decisions to local people. This local control could be exercised in nations, where that makes sense, or regions or cities or whatever is rational.

I'll support it if you make me president.

[Cleopatra]

Ok Capel Dodger. Let's play. The rules are simple. Only you and I are allowed to "insult" each other and troll ( a bit) the rest must behave themselves.:)

Thanks for starting this thread I was bored with the Histoire d' "O". The JREF version is worse than the original book if this is ever possible...

Let me bring my books and notes....

[Skeptic]

Looking down at the world from the moral high ground (where I like to spend my afternoons) I notice that many of its problems are either caused by nationalism or made more difficult to solve by nationalism...

...as I read the first paragraph, I wondered to myself: "hmmm... one guess as to which country he will recommend should give up its nationalism first in order to advance the 'world peace' project..."

I'll mention Israel because it is a particularly egregious example of the damage nationism does...

...and, of course, I was correct.

By sheer coincindence, the "particularly egregious" example of nationalism CapelDodger finds is not, say, the ones in Africa (where unending tribal wars killed millions) or in the Arab world (where chauvinistic Islamism and Arabism destroyed the previously-pluralistic societies of the middeteranean when the Arab nations emerged after WWII, "clearing" most Arab countries of jews and Christians who lived there for centuries) or Yugoslavia (you know the story) or India (millions of refugees), to say nothing of fascist Italy or Nazi Germany or dozens of others I could name.

No, all of that can wait; by sheer coincidence, the #1 "nationalistic" (and therefore, "bad" or "problem") nation in the entire world is, as usual, israel; and--presumably--it is it which must be the first to become non-nationalistic and see how that sort of thing works out in practice. Otherwise, israel deserves continuing criticism for daring to be nationalistic when that interferes with yet another "save the world thought world government" project. Yes, I'm sure that it is a mere coincidence that all previous attempts at such a utopian world had ended with disaster, and if only israel gives up its nationalism first, this time the project will succeed.

(Hmmmmmm.... come to think of it, wasn't it the jews' fault that the previous utopian world-government projects failed, too? I distinctly remember talk about how "jewish Bolshevists" are stopping the Aryan heaven in the east, and how the "jewish plutocrats" are slowing the advance of the Communist paradise of the workers. But I digress.)

Tell you what, CapelDodger. You first. Why don't you demand that your nation stop being nationalistic before you start talking about israel? It would be easy, for instance, to declare that from now on your capital city belongs to all the nations in the world as international territory, allow open immigration from all over the world, stop teaching your nation's history or exploits at school lest children become infected with the "patriotism" bug, and forbid the flying of the national flag, and so on.

Once you defeat the evil of nationalism in your own country--and have the results to prove it improved things--then you can come to israel with demands, or criticize its nationalism. It is rather rude to make demands of israel when your nation still is nationalistic, is it not?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by capelDodger:
Organisations like the League of Nations and the UN have been attempts to move on from this model, and (not coincidentally) have been created after major conflicts in which nationalism played a major part. But they are fundamentally flawed since they are composed of sovereign nations, and the rulers of sovereign nations are not well-disposed to seeing that sovereignty diluted.

You might find that the common people of said sovereign nations have something to say on the matter too.

Environmental problems of regional or global importance are left to fester as nations follow their own perceived self-interest (as nations are expected to do).

Examples?

Scientific projects that require multi-national input are halted by arguments about which nation gets to host it.

I know, how long are we waiting for the first draft of the human genome? Oh, hang on a minute..........

Natural economic zones are disrupted by having national borders running through them.

I've a feeling that national borders are irrelevant. Barriers to trade, investment and employment are the problem.

Nationalism leads to patriotism, which ranks with religion as a means of persuading people to behaviour they would never contemplate in their private lives.

I believe Georges Clemanceu that said "A patriot loves his country, a nationalist hates all others". Don't assume that does of us who feel patriotic about our respective countries engage in irrational and destructive behaviour as a result.

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.

And Islam? I've noticed people doing very strange things lately in the name of Islam.

What the world needs is a new political model.

Probably the last thing we need is a "new political model", considering the harm wrought by "new political models" like fascism and communism.

The United States was an experiment in this direction (the Constitution is actually a treaty between sovereign states).

Would I be right in saying that in theory, so was the soviet block?

This local control could be exercised in nations, where that makes sense, or regions or cities or whatever is rational.

What would happen in the event of their being a conflict between the local and the central as to what makes sense, what is rational, or to the exact demarcation of rights between the two entities?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I'll mention Israel because it is a particularly egregious example of the damage nationism does, and because I expect to use this thread to absorb a continuing but intermittent debate with the esteemed Cleopatra over the nature of the zionist project. My contention is that the Jewish State was conceived as a nationalist project; Cleopatra feels otherwise.


If one is going to be an anti-nationalist crusader, wouldn't it be best to start with a nation that has the least to lose by giving up its national identity?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Mycroft


If one is going to be an anti-nationalist crusader, wouldn't it be best to start with a nation that has the least to lose by giving up its national identity?

...or one's own nation?

[Cleopatra]

Skeptic I do not wish to defend Capel Dodger but we have been discussing to have this thread since I joined this forum ( in fact it was in my 10th post that I provoked him to start this thread :) ). In the mean time that matter [Zionism that is] kept re-appearing in every discussion we had, so we thought to discuss it.

So, I have thrown the glove regarding two issues: Nationalism as a phaenomenon and Zionism as an expression of Nationalism. This is the reason why Capel Dodger referred to Israel. We thought to avoid including the word Israel or Zionism in the title of the thread in order to keep the resident trolls away.

Now.

Contrary to what Capel Dodger believes I am persuaded that Nationalism has been a vehicle of progress for the Western Societies regardless the problems that created and keeps creating. There is no such a thing as a perfect system anyway.

The idea of National identity is not as modern as many people believe. It was born in Greece in the early 5th ce B.C. The Greeks were the first who understood that their language and their lifestyle ( civilization) made them different from the people that surrounded them and those they traded with.

So, very soon in Greek texts appears the idea of " US" versus the " barbarians". As barbarians were defined those who didn't embrace the Greek lifestyle, they didn't share the same genealogical and mythological background and of course "they did not speak the language of people who think": Greek.

Sophocles in the famous Antigone goes as far as talking about "Our country" that describes it as a ship that travels in the ocean and the existence of its passengers is totally dependable on the "well being" of this ship.

So, even if they didn't talk about a Nation, they described one and they described what constitutes the very philosophical idea of a Nation: The Identity and the feeling of belonging to a group.

The feeling and the need was always there. It's absurd to suggest that nationalism doesn't address real and existent needs, Capel Dodger. Tell me that this is not the case and I will bump this thread about Wales. :)

Jewish Nationalism though is different as a phaenomenon. It didn't spring from the necessity to describe an identity. However much it shocks you Capel Dodger, Jews and Israelites all around the world are above all Jews. Maybe in a 1000 years they will become something else but above all they feel Jews.

Jewish Nationalism did not srping from the need to define an identity but from the need for security.

Being born in Wales Capel Dodger you have never felt a pariah in your society. This is what Jews were experiencing for almost 2000 years until the 19th century. The emancipation of the Jews took place under the most dramatic circumstances ( I am willing to agree that this was the case in most societies although between the two of us CD you know that this wasn't the case...) and only 50 to 80 years later the Holocaust came to justify Herzl and his basic idea that the Jews will never become citizens of the western countries and they needed a country of their own.

The Jews didn't create a country in order to learn who they were but in order to live their lives in safety.

I think that this is enough for an introduction. Of course I could be talking for hours but there is no rush. :)

[evildave]

The U.S. is fairly egregious in its nationalism.

It seems to be simply assumed that we're "the best", even as Wal*Mart rapidly becomes the biggest corporation in the world, a retail outlet that doesn't *produce* anything, whose primary function is to destroy any local competition, turn shopping districts into ghost towns, and fund it all by selling cheap foreign labor camp imports while waving a flag claiming it sells 'Made In America' products.

Sort of a model of America.

http://www.endgame.org/corps-ranked.html

[Abdul Alhazred]

'Nationalism' is not a single entity because different cultures (and sub-cultures) have different notions of nationalilty.

I would consider myself a patriot and perhaps therefore a nationalist.

Yet I believe I have nothing in common with those nationalists of any type who define nationality in terms of 'race'. And in Europe, that seems to be what is meant by nationalist.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Yet I believe I have nothing in common with those nationalists of any type who define nationality in terms of 'race'. And in Europe, that seems to be what is meant by nationalist. Huh? In Europe nobody discusses about races although it is in Europe that has been born and survived for the longest period of time one of the worse forms of racism;antisemitism.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Huh? In Europe nobody discusses about races although it is in Europe that has been born and survived for the longest period of time one of the worse forms of racism;antisemitism. Careful, Cleo, you almost said something nice about Europe. You made a great save at the end, though. BTW, why is antisemitism worse than other forms of racism?

In regard to nationalism, I too expect (hope) this concept will disappear within the next few hundred years. I think the concept was a natural development from hunter-gatherer status to farmers to cities and then to nationhood. It has however IMO outlived its usefulness.

[evildave]

Well, Europeans did actively and successfully exterminate the Moors in Spain, for instance. Various other successful historic pogroms simply eradicated cultures for being various beliefs and ethnicities from Europe. They carried on with these traditions into the Americas and Africa, and everywhere else. The Jews just happen to be one of the few persecuted groups that survived into modern times with their culture fairly intact.

To pretend all of this is 'in the past' is simply inviting it to happen again in the future.

There are a lot of different people in the world, and there is a lot of profit (financial and political) to be made by stirring people against other people by magnifying those 'differences'.

Example:
1. Bad old Iraqis who torture and rape people, and have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

2. We GOOD Americans (TM) better go in and overthrow these bad guys! We use some of our abundant supply of Weapons of Mass Destruction to do so.

3. Good Americans proceed to torture and rape people, and then take self-incriminating photographs to share among themselves. Wave the flag, be proud! Not only 'bad', but STUPID. Must be 'bad apples'. Don't look at the chain of command, please.

At least the 'bad old Iraqis' must've had the sense not to produce incriminating evidence against themselves - that is if they were engaged in the practices they were accused of. Much of this happened while America was 'good friends' with the Iraqi regime, during their long war with Iran, anyway.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by evildave
Example:
1. Bad old Iraqis who torture and rape people, and have Weapons of Mass Destruction.


Are you seriously arguing that the United States went to war with Iraq out of racism?

[Cleopatra]

Ahem... :)

Please do not derail this thread. The topic is vast anyway!!

Sorry but I will insist on that.

[evildave]

No, we went to war with them to secure petroleum.

We justified it to the American people using racism and nationalism.

America is SO GOOD, we deserve to invade Iraq!

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Skeptic I do not wish to defend Capel Dodger but we have been discussing to have this thread since I joined this forum ( in fact it was in my 10th post that I provoked him to start this thread ). In the mean time that matter [Zionism that is] kept re-appearing in every discussion we had, so we thought to discuss it.


That seems to me to be a pretty clear affirmation of Skeptic's point.

That CD feels that Zionism is a "particularly egregious" form of nationalism among all the various forms of nationalism that have resulted in the deaths of tens of millions in the 20th century illustrates the narrowness of his point of view. You're only pointing out that this narrowness of view doesn't begin with this thread.

It seems to me that if one wants to speak against nationalism, one should be able to offer an alternative. There is in the Middle East another nation that very recently lost a government and is in the process of figuring out how to replace it. At the moment the consensus seems to be towards some sort of democracy, but we could, just as an intellectual exercise, discuss how CD's anti-nationalism could be used towards its benefit.

[demon]

Don`t want to derail this thread so just a few remarks...

"It should be consigned to the dustbin of history, like racism and sexism."

Only in theory, and only then in the west. Racist policies are pursued as vigorously and cruelly as ever by the west in Africa and other third world countries IMO. See the uproar about depriving white Zimbabweans of their (?) land and the relative silence about the same thing in Palestine. Also the illegal testing of drugs on people in the third world on the one hand and the refusal to supply affordal drugs on the other by pharmaciticals. Willingness to allow millions to die of starvation, to profit by supplying arms to regimes that can not even afford to feed their citizens,etc etc.

Nationalism is all dependent upon which nation you come from, it is mainly a western perspective too I think.
Both the "World" Wars were European wars of colonisation, imperialism and domination. The fact of existing imperial territory in the thirdworld meant that they had the luxury of using what they saw as gormeless Indians and Africans as meatsacks to throw at the opposition. This was realised to some extent by people like Netaji (the First Indian President) who tried to align India with the Nazis in order to free it of the "decent" Brits.

The American isolationist trait, ignoring the fact of their profiting from the genocide of that continent's original inhabitants (who unfortunately had a less warlike culture than Europeans), was a desire to avoid European wars.

Global government in theory and in practice (the UN/League of Nations) is a most dangerous idea.
Theoretically, the greater the aggregation of power (and it can't really get any greater than One World Government) the more damage corrupt leaders and cliques can do.

Finally, I don't think it is accurate to refer to "nations" having "self-interests." The "interests" are actually those of the various centers of power, such as corporations, military etc. Any other interests are secondary.
It`s always, I believe, a deception to talk of a "nation's interest", since it obscures the actual players within the power game.

[charley_bigtime]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Huh? In Europe nobody discusses about races although it is in Europe that has been born and survived for the longest period of time one of the worse forms of racism;antisemitism.

Are you seriously suggesting that one form of racism is more preferable than another?

Can you give us a run down of what - in your opinion - the "top ten" is?

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra of the Eminent Priority:

Just to wave my erudition, I'll quote Aristotle to Alexander ("Big Al" to you other people) : "The relationship between Greeks and people of other races is like that between human beings and animals". What a nice chap. Of course, the primary example of "other races" was the Persian Empire, for which the Greeks had no great fondness.

There have indeed been pockets of nationalism here and there through history, but the general political experience has been of multi-ethnic Empire. The classical Greek experience was peculiar because Greece was remote and retained its independence until the Romans - assuming Macedonians are accepted as Greek. Alexander certainly thought of himself as Greek, but a lot of Greeks disagreed. They regarded the Macedonians as a mongrel race less worthy than the Scythians; if Aristotle shared that opinion he was clever enough not to show it, obviously.

Defining nationalism is a problem in itself. Where is the divide between nationalism and tribalism?

The nationalism that governs thinking these days is a product of 19thCE Europe. I am prepared to be unequivocal on that. It was finalised in Germany to suit German requirements, and was originally a progressive, left-wing idea. What was needed in Germany was an alternative to the existing hereditary ideology that left Germany so fractured and weak and hampered the progress of the people as a whole (particularly its middle class). There were nations in existence already - Britain (a whole argument in itself), France, Spain, Greece in a way - two of which were doing very well in the modern age, as was that peculiar Union across the Atlantic, and there were a lot of Germans who wanted the same thing. The "nation" they effectively came up with involved a defined geographical extent, sovereignty and a common culture and language ("ethnicity"). That seemed to encapsulate the nature of the existing nations and would bring together all the parts of Germany where this thinking was going on - Saxony and surrounds. If achieved in Germany it would wipe away the hereditary system and allow the creation of a representative government sensitive to the needs of the people. When everybody was part of such a nation rivalries would cease, since each nation existed within its natural boundaries and would recognise the natural nature of their neighbouring nations. Imperialism would be dead, war would be a thing of the past, peace, prosperity and progress (a naive century, the European 19th) would be universal.

The problem is, that model doen't even work for Germany. The western boundary with France is well-defined but there is no eastern boundary. The North German plains carry on through Poland, Russia and the Ukraine with a gradual fade from German to Slav. Bismarck and the Prussians brought Germany into existence, but Prussia was almost half Slav. (Austria was left out because it would bring its empire with it, utterly screwing up the national ideal.) Other places that took the idea on, such as the Balkans, were even less suited for it, but German political and philosophical ideas had a deservedly high status. People strugging against oppressive empires saw nationalism as the alternative ideology but that required definition of ethnicity. So Orthodox Balkan Slaves gained the name Serb, Catholic Slavs became Croat, Muslim Slavs became Albanian or Bosnian. We all know how badly nationalism has performed in the Balkans.

But the same nationalism is to be imposed on Iraq once again. There's a sanctity attributed to a nation that was drawn up by the British in the 1920's. Kurds, Sunnis and Shias (and the rest) all thrown together under the "national" umbrella, all assuming that one or other will dominate when they get the chance. And sovereignty means that when they do, the outside world will be of no help. Only if a cross-border threat is involved will the world community intervene - because national sovereignty is sacrosanct. Why try to create this monster in the first place? Why worry about Iraq breaking up - why not look to managing the process instead of going down the same old tired path?

Sorry, Cleopatra, this has become a statement of position rather than a response.
The feeling and the need was always there. It's absurd to suggest that nationalism doesn't address real and existent needs, Capel Dodger. Tell me that this is not the case and I will bump this thread about Wales.
Don't entirely follow that, but as to the needs, I think they are satisified by tribalism, not nationalism. The nation is too big a concept to be really grasped, which is one reason why it can be perceived as transcendent. Just like religion, it can be manipulated by clever people because it is so mysterious. Family, clan, tribe, sentient being. That last might seem a bit of a jump, but it works for me. (Welsh Nationalism is very silly.)
Jewish Nationalism though is different as a phaenomenon.
I'll come to that separately, if you'll indulge me.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Are you seriously arguing that the United States went to war with Iraq out of racism?


That may have been part of it.
Nationalism is furthered by categorising people; THEM vs US perspectives, demonising the perceived enemy, developing a fear in the citizens of those that seek to harm US. NAtionalism is furthered by an ideology of if we make THEM more like US it would serve to protect out interests, our society, furthering our ambitions, our authority.

[CapelDodger]

from Segnosaur:
I'll support it if you make me president.
Right, your name's got a circle round it. Let me have men around who are unambitious. Power should never be given to those who desire it. That's why I'm taking on the major burden myself. No: make that the supreme burden.

from Shane Costello:
You might find that the common people of said sovereign nations have something to say on the matter too.
The opinion of the common people is a reflection of the culture created by the uncommon people (Murdoch's Law.) If there are good arguments against nationalism they are good whatever the opinion of the common people. Facts on the ground are created by movers and shakers, not the common people. In short, screw the opinion of the common people. We'll design that at the same time as we design the new model.
Examples? [of environmental problems]
Global warming is the most obvious. The US will pursue policies that serve what it perceives as its national interests, if the US government is to be believed (in this case I think it can be), and the interests of the Texan on the Rio Grande will be the same interests as the Alaskan's (implied). And bollocks to the world.

(Here I've referred to the US as if it's a nation, and it does have this blurry superposition of nation/post-nation about it. The Civil War is right there on top, but the Constitution comes through in the weave. Perhaps South Carolina's imminent secession will collapse the wave function.)
I know, how long are we waiting for the first draft of the human genome? Oh, hang on a minute..........

There are other scientific projects. The fact that one didn't get impeded hardly implies that others aren't. Please try to be substantive in your posts, I've got a lot on my plate here.
I've a feeling that national borders are irrelevant. Barriers to trade, investment and employment are the problem.
Different laws apply across the border, different tax systems, different utility suppliers, there are tariffs, immigration controls (the nation is for its nationals, after all - but the US national experience looks post-national from that angle), delays and discontinuities of all sorts. In the post-national world there will be free trade and free movement just as there is within nations now.
Don't assume that does of us who feel patriotic about our respective countries engage in irrational and destructive behaviour as a result.
But patriotism is irrational in itself. It doesn't have to be destructive to be irrational - look at Buddhism. (Yeah, I know, Korean monks have been killing other monks over control of the Temple funds, but that's an exception.) You were born somewhere - so what? I was born in Wales, it's a great place, I've seen other great places. I'm back here by chance, not nostalgia or patriotism (although its nice to watch rugby in a pub where England supporters are in the minority). I have no pride in an accident of birth. I can't claim credit for anything another Welshman might have done in the past. Their triumphs and tribulations were there own; I'm interested in them, but no more than in other people's stories. That, to me, is rational.
And Islam? I've noticed people doing very strange things lately in the name of Islam.
I will happily consign religion to the dustbin of history as well.
Probably the last thing we need is a "new political model", considering the harm wrought by "new political models" like fascism and communism.
For some reason I'm put in mind of the Simpsons episode when the comet that's going to hit Springfield boils away. At the end Moe gathers a mob and says "Now let's burn down the observatory so this never happens again". We can see what the current national model is doing for the world right now. To pluck one out of the air: the nation of Congo (Democratic Republic Of), which is about 1500km wide and bears no relation to anything but the marching range of a bunch of Belgians, is in a bit of a state. People are suffering and dying - but the sanctity of the Congo as a nation, all of 50 years antiquity, is the primary concern of the political world. There's got to be an alternative.
Would I be right in saying that in theory, so was the soviet block?
The USSR was a similar experiment, the Soviet Bloc was more of an empire.
What would happen in the event of their being a conflict between the local and the central as to what makes sense, what is rational, or to the exact demarcation of rights between the two entities?
What happens when this kind of conflict occurs in the US? Only one Civil War in over two centuries, that's a good record. Europe isn't in the same league. The US experience has to have a lot to teach us - after all, that's what an experiment is for.

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:
If one is going to be an anti-nationalist crusader, wouldn't it be best to start with a nation that has the least to lose by giving up its national identity?
I think it's best to start with all of them. Otherwise someone'll be going on about being the first, and then somebody else will claim that they were, and it all kicks off again somewhere down the line. We get everything prepped, work like hell over the weekend, and bring the new system on-line on Monday morning.
That CD feels that Zionism is a "particularly egregious" form of nationalism among all the various forms of nationalism that have resulted in the deaths of tens of millions in the 20th century illustrates the narrowness of his point of view.
As to narrowness of mind, I rest on my record. Israel is a particularly egregious example of nationalism's results because it is so artificial - even more than the nebulous Balkan nations. I will deal with this further in my response to Cleopatra tomorrow.
It seems to me that if one wants to speak against nationalism, one should be able to offer an alternative. There is in the Middle East another nation that very recently lost a government and is in the process of figuring out how to replace it. At the moment the consensus seems to be towards some sort of democracy, but we could, just as an intellectual exercise, discuss how CD's anti-nationalism could be used towards its benefit.
I seem to have addressed that in passing.

from Abdul Alhazred:
Yet I believe I have nothing in common with those nationalists of any type who define nationality in terms of 'race'. And in Europe, that seems to be what is meant by nationalist.
The US experience of nationalism is not at all like the European experience. The European experience of immigration involves hooligans on horses to a traumatic extent. Not so for the US (but so for the Aztecs and Incas). (If the Sioux had had a few hundred years to work on it, they could have filled the role, but history is full of disappointments.) In Europe, nations either grew naturally in stable, peripheral places (Britain, Spain, France) or they were created by design, as in Italy, Germany and Serbia, with the whole ethnicity element, which quickly translated to racism. The US of today just happened, when you come right down to it, and made itself a new nation in retrospect every few years. People flooded in from all over and just spread. There could be no element of ethnicity in the national picture. There are even different national pictures - the South's idea of nation today is not identical to the average Illinois take on the subject, but their experience of immigration (voluntary/involuntary) is also diferent. Ethnicity and race have featured a great deal on the local scale, but the national cliche has been "Melting Pot" for a long time.

Hi Cleopatra:
Huh? In Europe nobody discusses about races ...
You haven't been in the UK recently, have you? It's an issue over here. The European elections are highlighting it just now, but it's worrying. The right-wing press - Daily Mail, Torygraph, Sun and Express in particular - have been working the race seam for a couple of years, to significant effect. Even in Celtic regions. It may be time to get my hard-hat out again ...

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
If there are good arguments against nationalism they are good whatever the opinion of the common people. Facts on the ground are created by movers and shakers, not the common people. In short, screw the opinion of the common people. We'll design that at the same time as we design the new model.

What was it Churchill said about democracy being the least perfect form of government, save for all those other forms tried? Edmund Burke also said something along the lines that when comparing the faults of government by elites and oligarchies to the faults of government by the common man, the benefit of the doubt had to go to the common man.

Global warming is the most obvious. The US will pursue policies that serve what it perceives as its national interests, if the US government is to be believed (in this case I think it can be), and the interests of the Texan on the Rio Grande will be the same interests as the Alaskan's (implied). And bollocks to the world.

There's nothing "obvious" about global warming. Nor are those nations who clamoured loudest for Kyoto necessarily living up to their obligations. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2996219.stm)

Different laws apply across the border, different tax systems, different utility suppliers, there are tariffs, immigration controls (the nation is for its nationals, after all - but the US national experience looks post-national from that angle), delays and discontinuities of all sorts. In the post-national world there will be free trade and free movement just as there is within nations now.

But there could also be restrictive labour laws, punitive taxation and vested interests, indeed the same things plaguing the pan-european economy at the moment. And for all the talk about a united Europe citizens of the accession states aren't going to enjoy full freedom of movement for sometime.

There are other scientific projects. The fact that one didn't get impeded hardly implies that others aren't. Please try to be substantive in your posts, I've got a lot on my plate here.

Well if it's self evident that national sovreignty is impeding scientific progress then it shouldn't be too much trouble to give a few examples, now should it?

But patriotism is irrational in itself. It doesn't have to be destructive to be irrational - look at Buddhism. (Yeah, I know, Korean monks have been killing other monks over control of the Temple funds, but that's an exception.) You were born somewhere - so what? I was born in Wales, it's a great place, I've seen other great places. I'm back here by chance, not nostalgia or patriotism (although its nice to watch rugby in a pub where England supporters are in the minority). I have no pride in an accident of birth. I can't claim credit for anything another Welshman might have done in the past. Their triumphs and tribulations were there own; I'm interested in them, but no more than in other people's stories. That, to me, is rational.


So what? Just because something lacks a rational basis is that reason for it's elimination. Should art galleries be closed or deprived of public funding, because there is little rational basis for their existance?

For some reason I'm put in mind of the Simpsons episode when the comet that's going to hit Springfield boils away. At the end Moe gathers a mob and says "Now let's burn down the observatory so this never happens again". We can see what the current national model is doing for the world right now. To pluck one out of the air: the nation of Congo (Democratic Republic Of), which is about 1500km wide and bears no relation to anything but the marching range of a bunch of Belgians, is in a bit of a state. People are suffering and dying - but the sanctity of the Congo as a nation, all of 50 years antiquity, is the primary concern of the political world. There's got to be an alternative.

Some of us are doing quite well out of the current national model. Ireland, for instance. Norway and Switzerland would be two more. Nor would I accept that the Congo is an indictment of the nation state. An indictment of colonialism perhaps, but not of national sovreignty.

The USSR was a similar experiment, the Soviet Bloc was more of an empire.

Not in theory, though.

What happens when this kind of conflict occurs in the US?

The US separates from the empire, if we take the example of the revolutionary war. Ireland seperates from the British Empire could be considered another example.

The US experience has to have a lot to teach us - after all, that's what an experiment is for.

People were prepared to fight and die for states' rights and the preservation of the Union. Personally I think we've a bit to much to lose for the sake of an experiment.

[RPG Advocate]

Your arguments are contradicting each other:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Organisations like the League of Nations and the UN have been attempts to move on from this model, and (not coincidentally) have been created after major conflicts in which nationalism played a major part. But they are fundamentally flawed since they are composed of sovereign nations, and the rulers of sovereign nations are not well-disposed to seeing that sovereignty diluted. If the US decides to act unilaterally against another sovereign nation (which may happen, who knows) the UN is powerless and nations that oppose the action are left with only two options - put up with, or good old military action. Is this where we are in the 21stCE? Must it always be this way - nations lavishing blood and treasure on warfare and living in fear of everybody else's weapons?

and

Originally posted by CapelDodger
What the world needs is a new political model. The United States was an experiment in this direction (the Constitution is actually a treaty between sovereign states). The Constitution provides guarantees of certain rights and minimum democratic standards but within those limits states have sovereignty. Citizens of the states can appeal to the centre for protection of their rights and the centre can enforce its decisions. I would like to see a global equivalent, a central authority which enforces standards of human rights but leaves local decisions to local people. This local control could be exercised in nations, where that makes sense, or regions or cities or whatever is rational.

First you say that the problem is that the UN are fundamentally flawed because they are composed of sovereign states, but in then you go on to say that we should have a central authority that sets forth certain standards for its member states. Doesn't this sound like the UN to you? The UN charter and resolutions purport to set forth standards and procedures for resolving conflicts between member states, but look at something like the ICC or UN peacekeeping operations and notice the pattern of dismal failure.

The reason our Constitutional Republic in the US works fairly well is because each state is reasonably equal in its level of social and economic development. Not so on the world stage. In terms of social development, you have developed countries like the US standing in the general assembly with African dictatorships. Economically, you have stagnant nations and prosperous nations. The level of tension between states with such large differences in development is much greater than the level of tension between two neighboring states in the US.

To summarize, this "new political model" won't work unless the world's level of development becomes more uniform.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
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.

Patriotism by itself is benign, but you're right that it's easy to manipulate people using patriotism. Trying to remove such benign patriotism is pointless, in my opinion. I do hope social evolution causes a steady decline in its importance, though.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I'll mention Israel because it is a particularly egregious example of the damage nationism does, and because I expect to use this thread to absorb a continuing but intermittent debate with the esteemed Cleopatra over the nature of the zionist project. My contention is that the Jewish State was conceived as a nationalist project; Cleopatra feels otherwise.


I agree that the creation of Israel was a bad idea, but Israel is hardly the only state that has a dominant ethnic identity Take Japan, for instance, one of the most ethnically homogenious states in the world. Racism (http://www.debito.org/otarulawsuit.html) is rampant in Japan. I really hope that globalization causes ethnic majorities in all states to dissapate. You mention Israel. With an ethnically Jewish state, others can simply label Jews as "THEM". That's much harder when your next door neighbor is a Jew. An ethnically unsegregated world is the best way to build tolerance and understanding.

[CapelDodger]

from RPG Advocate:
First you say that the problem is that the UN are fundamentally flawed because they are composed of sovereign states, but in then you go on to say that we should have a central authority that sets forth certain standards for its member states. Doesn't this sound like the UN to you? The UN charter and resolutions purport to set forth standards and procedures for resolving conflicts between member states, but look at something like the ICC or UN peacekeeping operations and notice the pattern of dismal failure.
My proposal doesn't sound like the UN. The UN was created by sovereign states and explicitly has no effect on sovereignty unless there are trans-national implications in sovereign actions. It doesn't have the authority that, say, the US Federal government has to interfere when states contravene the Constitution. We all knew what was going on in Iraq, and what still goes on in Burma, but the UN cannot become involved because of sovereignty. The UN was a good vision but it could only be implemented by compromising it into impotence. Thus the many failures in the Balkans, Rwanda, Congo and so on . (But there have been UN successes in health and education where international politics aren't so involved.)
The reason our Constitutional Republic in the US works fairly well is because each state is reasonably equal in its level of social and economic development.
Might it be that the reasonably equal development is a result of the Constitutional Republic? Most of the states didn't exist when the Republic was formed. When you consider their very different experiences, economies, climates and resources it would be an amazing coincidence if they converged without some levelling influences. The absence of internal boundaries to trade and movement and a common legal structure are likely candidates (among others), and those could act on a global scale. A levelling of development across the world would go a long way to reducing conflicts, and seems to me a moral aim itself.
To summarize, this "new political model" won't work unless the world's level of development becomes more uniform.
It's a chicken and egg question, isn't it?
Take Japan, for instance, one of the most ethnically homogenious states in the world. Racism is rampant in Japan.
Japan is fundamentally bloody weird. Let's not go straight to the hard cases and devilish details. But it is one of the natural "nations", and like the others has been sufficiently peripheral to have a simple ethnic make-up and cultural homogeneity. Its geographical boundaries are also well-defined. It is indeed racist in the extreme, but nationalism and racism have a demonstrated affinity for each other. (Nationalism and gangsterism also crop up together quite frequently.)
An ethnically unsegregated world is the best way to build tolerance and understanding.
Absolutely, but nationalism works against that.

[Skeptic]

As to narrowness of mind, I rest on my record. Israel is a particularly egregious example of nationalism's results because it is so artificial

Yes, the silly idea that jews have any connection to the land of israel. Preposterous!

How artificial, CP? More artificial than all the Arab states with their completely straight borders, all drawn up on a map by the British? More artificial than the plethora of 1960s-established African nations that were cobbled together from the end of colonialism? If "artificial states" is a problem, I'd say you have quite a few countries in the world who are a bit more artificial than israel.

Your problem is that you, like many idealists, focus on israel as a bogeyman--as the anti-ideal of whatever ideal you are proposing. The "human rights" idealists on this forum have israel pegged as the supreme "anti-human-rights" nation; you, the anti-nation idealist, consider israel as the supreme "nationalist" state; the "anti-racists" (who oppose racism against anybody--except jews) have israel as the ultimate "racist" country, and so on. If there was someone in this forum calling attention to discrimination against midgests, and who saw that as the core of the world problems, no doubt he'd post hearbreaking stories from that #1 midget-opressing nation, israel.

None of these descriptions has much relation to reality (not that you would know--like most of the israeli critics in this forum, you'd probably never been to the middle east, let alone israel). It is merely an unconscious re-shaping of the jew as the "other", the negation of everything the idealist holds dear, only this time morphed into treating the jewish state as the "other" instead of the individual jews.

So, CarpelDoger, you've got a). a wonderful plan that will save the world, and b). you believe the jewish state, in particular, exemplifies all the bad things about the world, those things which your plan will eradicate? Join the crowd. I think there might be a few empty seats between the Islamists in the third row and the Communists on the fourth, to name just two of the myriad movements which believe the same thing.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
What the world needs is a new political model. The United States was an experiment in this direction (the Constitution is actually a treaty between sovereign states). The Constitution provides guarantees of certain rights and minimum democratic standards but within those limits states have sovereignty. Citizens of the states can appeal to the centre for protection of their rights and the centre can enforce its decisions. I would like to see a global equivalent, a central authority which enforces standards of human rights but leaves local decisions to local people. This local control could be exercised in nations, where that makes sense, or regions or cities or whatever is rational.


Your idea is too ahead of it's time.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Cleo :
Jewish Nationalism though is different as a phaenomenon. It didn't spring from the necessity to describe an identity.

I hate these conversations but.....................

Do You even hear yourself Cleo?

Skeptic ,as large a proponent of all things Israel as one would ever encounter : "only this time morphed into treating the Jewish state as the "other" instead of the individual Jews. "

"Skeptic" as maladroit and contrary a nom de plume as any could be.
That's what Israel is a .......... "Jewish state for Jews".

Damn it don't you see that the rationalization for that country's behavior mimic every justification of ill behavior from ancient Rome to Bush's attempt at prolonging Pax Americana ( via war ironic , no ? ) and more barbaric modes of conduct from all tribal entities from the Hutus to the Serbs to the idiot Palestinian "martyrs"?

That's the deal tho, unconscionable behavior by everyone else but you ( general sense ) is dis-allowed because your's is the exceptional case. This is founded on a model that gives excuse to the most egregious behavior by Nation/States and even individuals, it is appalling and wrong. You will not see it, none of the armies of the self-convinced and fanatics will see it

A Man for All Seasons, Moore to son in law Roper:

And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

All the extremists on all sides disgust me Your constant claims and counter claims based of some stretched historical or religious imperative is almost as offensive as your appetites for destruction. I wish all your respective gods would vanquish you to Gehenom and let the rest of humanity exist in a peace that is devoid of a 2000 yr. old canker sore that has been the middle east.

Have a nice day.

.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tony



Your idea is too ahead of it's time.

I think the same could have been said of the Constitution some 200-odd years ago. ("A nation without a hereditary ruler? Oh, come on, you can´t be serious...")

There´s a nice proverb about this - not sure where or when it from: "It is not true that we do not try things because they are impossible. Instead, things are impossible because do not try."

Personally, I think that a world without nationalism would be such a good thing that it is worth trying, however bad the odds might be.

[Skeptic]

I think the same could have been said of the Constitution some 200-odd years ago. ("A nation without a hereditary ruler? Oh, come on, you can´t be serious...")

Ah, but the brilliance of the US Constitution is that it does NOT try to change human nature or bring forth some utopia. It is essentially a document LIMITING what the government could do, while the utopian anti-nationalists dream of GIVING a world government power to rule over everybody else, in the name of an unrealizable ideal.

There´s a nice proverb about this - not sure where or when it from: "It is not true that we do not try things because they are impossible. Instead, things are impossible because do not try."

Oh, I dunno. I think someone should put in a good word for the guy who doesn't try and says that an idea is stupid and impossible. He gets all the bad press, but at least doesn't make any trouble. On the other hand, they tried Communism, Fascism, and Islamism, too. These wonderful ideas for a new, perfect world succeeded well enough to ruin the lives of billions of people, in the most literal sense of the world, but that's about it. If only people considered nice but impossible fantasies...

Personally, I think that a world without nationalism would be such a good thing that it is worth trying, however bad the odds might be.

Yes, but again--you first. When your country gives up its national identity, flag, history, capital, etc., etc., etc., in the name of anti-nationalism, and it all works out just fine, then you'd have a case. No fair being generous and trying to give the benefits of non-nationalism to others before you do it yourself.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Yes, but again--you first. When your country gives up its national identity, flag, history, capital, etc., etc., etc., in the name of anti-nationalism, and it all works out just fine, then you'd have a case. No fair being generous and trying to give the benefits of non-nationalism to others before you do it yourself.


I think CD makes a good point when he talks about the United States as an example of this anti-Nationalism. We have fifty states all of whom have given their individual sovereignty for the benefits of free and unrestricted trade and immigration between states.

Given the success of this model, maybe trying to get out of Iraq is the wrong way to go. Maybe instead we should be thinking about making it state # 51, then we would only have about another 149 to go before realizing this utopian ideal.

The United States of Earth has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
Being born in Wales Capel Dodger you have never felt a pariah in your society.
You don't think I've always lived here, do you? I may not have got about as much as you, but being born in Wales isn't much to do with who I am. You might not think so when I'm watching Wales play rugby, but that's my way of getting inside the nationalist experience (you gotta love the adrenaline, the highs, the lows, the way none of my own blood is getting spilled). I'm fiercely ant-racist, but I make an exception for Serbs so I can share the experience without offending anyone that matters.
Jewish Nationalism though is different as a phaenomenon.
Excellent, we start on common ground.
However much it shocks you Capel Dodger, Jews and Israelites all around the world are above all Jews.
I don't want to be shocking myself, but that is not my experience.
Jewish Nationalism did not spring from the need to define an identity but from the need for security.
...
the Holocaust came to justify Herzl and his basic idea that the Jews will never become citizens of the western countries and they needed a country of their own.
...
The Jews didn't create a country in order to learn who they were but in order to live their lives in safety.
And so we come to it.

If zionism had a manifesto it was surely Herzl's The Jewish State (http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/6640/zion/judenstaadt.html) . In it Herzl did not predict the Holocaust or anything like it. Nor did he claim that Jews would never become European citizens. To quote from the book:
At the same time, the equal rights of Jews before the law cannot be withdrawn where they have once been conceded.
So Herzl wasn't justified by the Holocaust, he was actually proven wrong. What he claimed could not happen happened in Germany-Austria. Herzl made his claim because the most common response to zionism amongst Jews was to accuse zionism of endangering the Jews of Europe by disallowing them nationality of the states they actually lived in (and wished to continue living in). If there was a state that was declared to be Jewish, anti-semitic Europeans could use that to accuse Jews of owing allegiance to a foreign power, of being a fifth column whose primary loyalty was to Israel. Herzl didn't want that to be so (since it argued so strongly against his dream) so he said it wasn't. No argument is given, no reasoning, just "No they won't". He was wrong, of course, but the risk of endangering actual Jews was far less important to him than his transcendent Jewish State. Arguments against zionism weren't to be considered on their merits but were to be dismissed as impediments.

Herzl actually argues that if the Jews had their own nation they would gain the respect of other Europeans and so anti-semitism would vanish just like that. Those who rejected that nation "...would be able to assimilate in peace, because the present Anti- Semitism would have been stopped for ever. They would certainly be credited with being assimilated to the very depths of their souls, if they stayed where they were after the new Jewish State, with its superior institutions, had become a reality." The idea that anyone would say "Right, you've got your own nation and that's where you belong" is simply dismissed as unwelcome. Any rational person realises that that would happen, and does.

Herzl had bought into the European idea that nationhood puts a people a cut above peoples without a nation. This is not a Jewish idea and it is not a Middle Eastern idea. It was not welcomed by the Jews of Western Europe and had absolutely nothing to say to (or about) the Jews of Muslim world. If,as you claim, zionism was born from a need for security for European Jews, why was it so unpopular? Why did it come to prominence in the 1880's when there had been a long period - since the days of Revolutionary France - of increasing emancipation, prosperity and security for European Jews (with a backward step in Russia, which was backward anyway, in 1881)? Is it not likely that the arrival of nationalism and imperialism as mature ideologies about this time was the reason?

Where Herzl is concerned, as for many nationalists, his own glorification was a significant factor. When the state was formed there'd be statues to him, Father of the Jewish State, all over it. A lacklustre journalist and, frankly, terribly tedious writer would not die in the obscurity he deserved but would be clebrated through the ages. A strong motivation. The same egotism can be seen in Weizmann, ben Gurion and Sharon (who adds sociopathic tendencies to the mix). Providence protect us from the dreams of Great Men ...

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:
What was it Churchill said about democracy being the least perfect form of government, save for all those other forms tried?
I would include as a basic right, protected by the centre, that all people have democratic rights. I would also like to see complete transparency in government, independent electoral commissions and an independent auditing body. These could be agencies of the centre - which would also have to be transparent - or separate entities. I'm not claiming to have all the answers and details, but I think there would be a wide consensus on what we would wish a governing system to provide - much of it is in the US Constitution, but we have to find ways of preventing the corruption and machine politics that have been endemic in the US.
Edmund Burke also said something along the lines that when comparing the faults of government by elites and oligarchies to the faults of government by the common man, the benefit of the doubt had to go to the common man.
I read Randi's Commentaries (amongst other things) and I wouldn't put a dog in the care of the common people. Burke was an idealist in a pre-Murdoch world.
There's nothing "obvious" about global warming. Nor are those nations who clamoured loudest for Kyoto necessarily living up to their obligations.
I had ripe strawberries last November and in mid-May; trust me. it's obvious. If nations aren't living up to their obligations it's likely to be because of national interests, which is the problem.
But there could also be restrictive labour laws, punitive taxation and vested interests, indeed the same things plaguing the pan-european economy at the moment. And for all the talk about a united Europe citizens of the accession states aren't going to enjoy full freedom of movement for sometime.
These things would have to be designed out, and I am talking about designing a new model. We don't want these things, so let's put that in the specification.

The European movement is an example of post-nationalism, and has made remarkable strides since WW2. We have actually seen leaders of sovereign nations compromising that sovereignty without a gun to the head, for the common good. There may be problems at the moment - we need someone to go postal at the ECB - because of nationalism and a worrying resurgence of racism but the accession will, I'm sure, prove itself beneficial within a decade. There's been a lot going on in the last 15 years - fall of The Wall, end of the Comintern, the break-up of the USSR, the Euro, expansion, developments in the Muslim communities, problems with the US - so a little quiet time is called for. But all in all the EU is a good example of what post-nationalism could achieve. If you'd known Spain and Portugal pre- and post-accession you'd know what I mean.
So what? Just because [patriotism] lacks a rational basis is that reason for it's elimination. Should art galleries be closed or deprived of public funding, because there is little rational basis for their existance?
Art galleries don't cause wars.
Some of us are doing quite well out of the current national model. Ireland, for instance. Norway and Switzerland would be two more.
Ireland and Norway are classic "peripheral" natural nations. Switzerland is a confederation of cantons, not a nation. It has three(?) official languages, apart from anything else. Like the US, it's an experiment that has a lot to teach us, and it's been running for a lot longer. Ireland, of course, has benefited greatly from membership of the post-national EU. It was a priest-ridden pit prior to that (but very pretty).
Nor would I accept that the Congo is an indictment of the nation state. An indictment of colonialism perhaps, but not of national sovreignty.
What do you see as the rationale behind the Congo? The borders were drawn up by imperialists with no reference to anything but other imperialists. There is no cultural, economic,tribal or linguistic homogeneity to it. The same is true all over Africa, where national boundaries and national structures have been imposed from offices in London and Paris and borders cut right through tribal, linguistic and cultural groups. As a result we have the Sudetan Syndrome over and over again. There's also little or no identification with the state by the people - or vice versa. The European idea of nation states simply does not work in places where there is a complex ethnic mix, as there is in much of the world.
The US separates from the empire, if we take the example of the revolutionary war. Ireland seperates from the British Empire could be considered another example.
I was asking what happens when conflicts arise between Federal and State institutions in the US. That has only led to (attempted) secession once, so there is clearly something else going on in the normal run of things. If we can understand why the US works we'll know better how to handle conflicts in the post-national new model.
People were prepared to fight and die for states' rights and the preservation of the Union. Personally I think we've a bit to much to lose for the sake of an experiment.
My point is that the US was an experiment at its inception, and it's that experiment we should try to learn from. It was, after all, created with the best of intentions (by the standards of the day, which we've moved on from).

[TillEulenspiegel]

Mycroft : "The United States of Earth has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?"

When I was a little kid I saw re-runs of a Sci-Fi show called the "Outer Limits". There was a particular episode that had the forces of "The United Earth " ( who's emblem was a strikingly familiar icon of an earth globe against a light blue back ground ala the UN ) engaged in an interstellar battle with aliens. Ya that's original. The story line was that the war had been ongoing for countless years. and the protagonist was captured. He escaped and gained control of the aliens base.

The punchline was when he confronted the leader of the aliens, the alien stated that they had been conquered by the UE forces long ago and that the reason that the "war" was still on going was because the humans need an outlet for their homicidal urges...... Rollerball ( first incarnation).

If anyone has a clue as to how to elevate man form an ape with car keys, I am all ears.

Bread and circuses man, bread and circuses.

[CapelDodger]

from Skeptic:
How artificial, CP?
A language had to be invented for it. It wasn't created where its designers had ever lived but on a different continent, in a different climate, amongst people - Jewish, Chriatian and Muslim -who had no affinity with the designers. In a land where the olive has been the mainstay of life for five thousand years its determination is to grub up every last tree. Just how much more artificial could it be? It's supposed to be a Jewish State, but it was only made possible by Christian Zionists who want shot of Jews. It claims to be the saviour of Jewishness but it has corrupted Jewishness to fit a European secular ideology and calls believers in traditional Jewishness "self-hating" (a particularly vicious term, since it gives licence to zionists to hate them in turn.) It co-operated with the Nazis to break the world-wide boycott of German goods, then calls critics Nazis. It has created a new state religion based on nationalism to replace the religion is claims as its justification.

You have nothing to say and you're saying it too loud.

[CapelDodger]

TillEulenspiegel: There are still cabinet posts available - do you fancy Secretary of State for Interplanetary Affairs? It's a light work-load.

[CapelDodger]

from Chaos:
Personally, I think that a world without nationalism would be such a good thing that it is worth trying, however bad the odds might be.
If we're going to have a feast of aphorisms (and I'm all in favour), remember "This, too, will pass". I take the long view of history and recognise that there's nothing special about the time I live in. All of human history may have been leading up to this point, but it sure as hell is going to carry on past it. Nationalism as an ideology and dominant principle of international affairs is a recent phaenomenon, born in one part of a continent that was the arbiter of the world for a while. There will be something that comes after, just as there will be something that follows fading European global dominance. (I include the US in this use of European.) Whatever it is will probably come about by default - after all, the JREF Forum is unlikely to ever earn the iconic status of the Roman one - but if we can come up with something better at least we can take comfort in the aphorism "Told you so".

The sight of a book called "The End of History" cracked me up. Reaganomics as the culmination of cultural advance, oh dear, the tears ran down my trouser-leg. As a hobby I write unpublishable sci-fi, and never, ever, anything pre-2300 when I'll be long gone. But if just a couple of my ideas actually turn out, I'll be a prophet. (They may not be published, but they'll exist in silico.) Frances Fukiyama has a better chance of being remembered in a few hundred years, even if unfairly (Knut gets a bad press; Fukiyama deserves worse).

[peptoabysmal]

It sounds like what you are proposing here is a Socialist Super-State. This is the way that EU is headed right now. The International Court would require a super-state in order to be functional. Any real court needs a government to define it's jurisdiction.

If this is what you are proposing, you can have it. Not for America, thank you.

As with any socialist state, eventually a super state will crumble under the weight of it's own bureaucracy.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
The punchline was when he confronted the leader of the aliens, the alien stated that they had been conquered by the UE forces long ago and that the reason that the "war" was still on going was because the humans need an outlet for their homicidal urges...... Rollerball ( first incarnation).


If you liked that one, Alan Dean Foster wrote a series of books where humans become involved in an intergalactic war. In this series, humans are valuable because other sentient species are really bad at war, the norm being to become violently ill at even the thought of bringing harm to another sentient species. It goes on and on about how even the most pacifist human is more capable of violence than a normal “civilized” alien.

But enough derailing of the thread.

[American]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Looking down at the world from the moral high ground (where I like to spend my afternoons) I notice that many of its problems are either caused by nationalism or made more difficult to solve by nationalism. The idea of drawing lines on maps and assigning absolute sovereignty to the nations thus defined will have to be discarded if humanity is going to have any chance of peace and prosperity (and perhaps survival).

Organisations like the League of Nations and the UN have been attempts to move on from this model, and (not coincidentally) have been created after major conflicts in which nationalism played a major part. But they are fundamentally flawed since they are composed of sovereign nations, and the rulers of sovereign nations are not well-disposed to seeing that sovereignty diluted. If the US decides to act unilaterally against another sovereign nation (which may happen, who knows) the UN is powerless and nations that oppose the action are left with only two options - put up with, or good old military action. Is this where we are in the 21stCE? Must it always be this way - nations lavishing blood and treasure on warfare and living in fear of everybody else's weapons?

Environmental problems of regional or global importance are left to fester as nations follow their own perceived self-interest (as nations are expected to do). Rivers pass through a variety of nations, each concerned only with its own needs and the actions of those upstream (be warned, water wars are going to be a feature of the near future if things don't change). Scientific projects that require multi-national input are halted by arguments about which nation gets to host it. Natural economic zones are disrupted by having national borders running through them.

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.

I'll mention Israel because it is a particularly egregious example of the damage nationism does, and because I expect to use this thread to absorb a continuing but intermittent debate with the esteemed Cleopatra over the nature of the zionist project. My contention is that the Jewish State was conceived as a nationalist project; Cleopatra feels otherwise.

What the world needs is a new political model. The United States was an experiment in this direction (the Constitution is actually a treaty between sovereign states). The Constitution provides guarantees of certain rights and minimum democratic standards but within those limits states have sovereignty. Citizens of the states can appeal to the centre for protection of their rights and the centre can enforce its decisions. I would like to see a global equivalent, a central authority which enforces standards of human rights but leaves local decisions to local people. This local control could be exercised in nations, where that makes sense, or regions or cities or whatever is rational.


That's all very interesting.

You forgot to mention that the U.S. makes all other nations look pathetic in every area that counts, and even our own allies can't keep up with us.

BOOO-YA!!! :j1:

[Cleopatra]

Well. I don't know any other National Movement that its adjective has been used and is been used an an insult. "Zionist" is used by many people as an insult and if you find this hyperbolic maybe you should read again the passionate post of a person who lives in Wales.

One phrase from the "Jewish State" is enough for Capel Dodger to debunk a whole movement of people that predates Hertzl.

But there dawns the day that you realize that you are fed up with reading the same old stories and myths , especially in a skeptical forum and you decide to make a list of facts.

I post the table below first for those they think that Zionism means Hertzl. Second for those that believe that Israel sprung from nothing in 1948 , third for those that insist to ignore the historical needs that gave birth to Zionism and its uniqueness in comparison to other nationalistic movements.

Jews are not those who must apologize.

Instead of narrating stories let's talk about the facts here.I will post within the day a Glossary of "jewish terms" I use in my table because I don't wish to leave the explanation of the jewish terms to Capel Dodger and a short bibliography I used in order to create this table. I hope that you will find it interesting.I end the chronology with the year the "Jewish State" was published but I will continue it if I read more fiction in this thread.

A Historical Evolution of Zionism:

<table border="1"><tr><td></td><td>Political Evolution</td><td>Culture, Intellectual Life<td>Evolution of Yishuv</td></td></tr><tr><td>1830
</td><td>-----</td><td>-----</td><td> Waves of immigrating Jews from Magreb arrive in Palestine</td> <tr><td>1839</tr></td><td>Rabbi Yahouda Hai Alkalai( 1798-1878) expresses his ideas regarding the vanity of the "wait and see" policy among the Jews. He migrates in Jerusalem in 1874 </td><td>-----</td><td>------</td><tr><td>1845</tr></td><td> ---- </td><td>Alkalai Publishes Min'hat Yehouda</td><td> ---- </td><tr><td>1851</tr></td><td> ---- </td><td>N.Krochmal, Guide for the Mislead of our times</td><td> ---</td><tr><td>1853</tr></td><td>----</td><td> Publication of the famous jewish roman of Abraham Mapou, Ahavat Zion ( The Love of Zion) 1853-1876. H.Graetz, A History of the Jews ( in 11 volumes)</td><td>----</td><tr><td>1856</tr></td><td>---</td><td> Creation of the newspaper Ha Maggid</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1856</tr></td><td>The hungarian Rabbi Joseph Natonek introduces the proto-zionist activism " Emancipation means suicide"</td><td>Creation of the newspaper HaMelitz</td><td>----</td><tr><td>1860</tr?</td><td>Paris: establishment of the " Allience Isreaelite Universelle" ( Universal Alliance of the Israelites)NOTE: The greek Jews describes themselves until today with the term Israelite</td> <td>---</td><td> Around 1860, La halouka( see the vocabulary) concerne almost the 80% of the residents of Yishuv</td><tr><td>1861</tr></td><td> Creation of the Society for the Collonization by Haim Lorje in Francfort-on-Oder ( Bradenburg-Germany)</td><td>----</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1862</tr></td><td>----</td><td>Moses Hess publishes Rome and Jerusalem</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1863</tr></td><td>----</td><td>Saint Petersburg: Creation of the Society for the promotions of "the instruction" among the Jews by Y.Gordon,L.Pinsker)</td><td>-----</td><tr><td>1865</tr></td><td>London:establishment of the Palestine Exploration Fund</td><td>---</td><td>----</td><tr><td>1868</tr></td><td>----</td><td>Peretz Smolenskin publishes in Vienna the magazine HaShahar in Hebrew--the language that Capel Dodger called artificial</td><td>----</td><tr><td>1869-1870</tr></td><td>Emancipation of the Jews of Prussia</td><td>----</td><td>Establishment of the Agricultural School of Mikveh Israel by the Universal Alliance of the Israelites</td><tr><td>1871</tr></td><td>Emancipation of the Jews in Germany</td><td>---</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1876</tr></td><td>---</td><td> Publication on the first travel guide of Jerusalem in Hebrew--the language that Capel Dodger called artificial</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1877</tr></td><td>Yehouda Leib Gordon publishes the first anonymous brochure that asks for the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine under british sovereignty</td><td>---</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1878</tr></td><td>---</td><td>---</td><td>Establishment of Petah-Tikva(the first permanent settlement for the returning Jews) by the Jews of Jerusalem</td><tr><td>1879</tr></td><td>Establishment of the first society of Mahzikei Ha Das as an opposition to the Haskala( I leave dear CapelDodger to explain the significance of this historical event since he is the one who talked about a total rejection of Zionism in Europe)<td>---</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1881</tr></td><td> In April 15 1881: assassination of the Tsar Alexander the II in Elisabethgrad. Initiation of fierce progroms against the Jews that will last for three years. Creation of the first groups of the "Lovers of Zion" (the famous Hibbat Zion and Ahavat Zion)</td><td>---</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1882</tr></td><td> January: foundation in Karkhov of the group "BILU"( see glossary) Foundation in Vienna by Nathan Birnbaum of the Society friends of Palestine "Kadima" First international antisemitic congress in Dresde( Germany)</td><td> (underlined and bolded for Capel Dodger)starts the publication of a series of 13 volumes under the title Yeroushalaim by A.M.Luncz on the geography of Eretz Israel</td><td> The pioneers of BILU arrive in July of 1882 in Palestine.The first Alya( waves of immigrants) of 25.000 people arrive in Palestine. 17 settlements are established. Baron Edmond de Rothschild initiates his aid dor the returning Jews of Palestine that continues until 1899</td><tr><td>1884</tr></td><td>November: First Congress of Hibbat Zion( Lovers of Zion) in Kattowice ( in Austia-Hungary)(whaaaat?? Jews were talking about zionism before evil Hertzl?)</td><td>----</td><td>Foundation of Gedera (http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/places/gedera.html) ( Sorry but I had to post this because I am fed up with the myth of the prosperous Arabs that lost everything when the evil Zionists came in 1948 to erect Hertzl's statue(sic). Name one similar Arabic organization in Palestine during the same period)</td><tr><td>1885</tr></td><td> Nathan Birnbaum launces the newspaper Selbstemanzipation( auto-emancipation--explanation provided upon request)</td><td>---</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1887</tr></td><td> Uh-hoh! Second Congress of Hibbat Zion in Druskieniki (Russia)</td><td>----</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1889</tr></td><td> Uh-hoh! Third Congress de Hibbat Zion( The lovers of Zion) in Vilna</td><td>---</td><td> Establishment of the first Hebrew School in RishonLeZion( Israeli Town)</td><tr><td>1890</tr></td> <td>Legalization of the "Lovers of Zion"( Hebbat Zion) in Russia</td><td> Creation in Yishuv ( Palestine) of Va'aad HaLashon( Commitee for the Hebrew language) Nathan Birnbaum coins the term Zionism</td><td>Establishment of the cities of Hadera and Rehovot in the country that today is known as Israel</td><tr><td>1891</tr></td><td> Baron Maurice De Hirsch creates the Association for the Jewish Collonization Expulsion of the Jews of Moscow</td><td>---</td><td> First petition of the Arabs of Jerusalem against the jewish immigration</td><tr><td>1892</tr></td><td>---</td><td> First school of higher hebrew studies in Haifa Publication of the Religious Zionist Collection Shivat Zion( Yeah! It's this book: The Return to Zion) First association of the Jewish Professiors of the Hebrew Language<td>----</td><tr><td>1894</tr></td><td>----</td><td>----</td><td> Ben Yehouda gets arrested in Jerusalem</td><tr><td>1896<td>Vienna, February: Theodor Hertzl : On The Jewish State: Searching for a modern solution to the jewish question"</td><td>----</td><td>----</td></table>


edited ad nauseam for the code....

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Oh, I dunno. I think someone should put in a good word for the guy who doesn't try and says that an idea is stupid and impossible. He gets all the bad press, but at least doesn't make any trouble. On the other hand, they tried Communism, Fascism, and Islamism, too. These wonderful ideas for a new, perfect world succeeded well enough to ruin the lives of billions of people, in the most literal sense of the world, but that's about it. If only people considered nice but impossible fantasies...

Communism, Fascism and Islamism, as they have been tried and are still tried, are/were basically dictatorships with a framework around it - economic and social for Communism, social for Fascism, and religious for Islamism. (By the way, I can show exactly how the premises from which Marx developed the ideas that were to become Communism are wrong - if you are interested)
The idea of a world community would be, basically, a democracy with a social, and perhaps economical, framework - much like the Constitution was. It would be on a much larger scale, of course, but given the advances in travel, information technology etc, I think the world is much better equipped to handle that than the USA was back then.

Yes, but again--you first. When your country gives up its national identity, flag, history, capital, etc., etc., etc., in the name of anti-nationalism, and it all works out just fine, then you'd have a case. No fair being generous and trying to give the benefits of non-nationalism to others before you do it yourself.

One moment... I said nothing about giving up "national identity, flag, history, capital etc. etc. etc."
Nobody is giving up - or taking away - any history. We´re not doing Stalinist (or Nazi) revisions of history. Capitals will remain, if for no other thing than as administration centers - much like the state capitals in the US.
What you - and I and everyone else - should give up is the sense that it is good, and something to be proud of, to belong to nation/country/ethnic group X, and that other groups just can´t be our equals, and that because we want to do something, we have a right to do it.
As for me, personally, I might well be the least patriotic person on the board. I am not proud to be a German - which has nothing to do with the Nazi era and its legacy; I just don´t see a reason why I should be proud of having been - by pure chance - into this nation instead of some other. If I feel the need to be proud of something, I look at my own achievements, not those of 80 million others, most of whom I don´t even know - not to mention the hundreds of millions of Germans who lived before me. For me nationalism is just a tool that rulers use to make people do things that, deciding reasonably, they would never do. (Imagine what might have been if in 1914, the people of Europe would have told their governments: "There´s no way WE are going to fight YOUR war. If you want war, well, here´s a rifle, the front is in this direction. Have fun.")

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger


A language had to be invented for it. It wasn't created where its designers had ever lived but on a different continent, in a different climate, amongst people - Jewish, Chriatian and Muslim -who had no affinity with the designers. In a land where the olive has been the mainstay of life for five thousand years its determination is to grub up every last tree. Just how much more artificial could it be? It's supposed to be a Jewish State, but it was only made possible by Christian Zionists who want shot of Jews. It claims to be the saviour of Jewishness but it has corrupted Jewishness to fit a European secular ideology and calls believers in traditional Jewishness "self-hating" (a particularly vicious term, since it gives licence to zionists to hate them in turn.) It co-operated with the Nazis to break the world-wide boycott of German goods, then calls critics Nazis. It has created a new state religion based on nationalism to replace the religion is claims as its justification.

You have nothing to say and you're saying it too loud.

I will try to overlook the emotional part of this ( no I won't characterize it with the word that comes to my mind) and I will try to address some issues.

The jewish language has always been a problem for the jews all around the world. The language was preserved thanks to the Torah. This is how the Greek language survived the 4 centuries of the Ottoman Occupation BTW; children were learning Greek from the Bible.

As far as I know Jews were the only group on the planet that have been accused for speaking Hebrew that only them understood in order that it's easier for them to conspire against the world and this is the reason why the Haskala movement proposed that Jews should abandon the language of their ancestors, for their safety.

If you are prejudiced you can say that Hebrew is an artificial language.It was revived by Ben Yehuda in 19th ce , even before the publication of the "Jewish State".

I found amusing the accusation that the borders of Israel were artificial. Really? This appears really exceptional to me. Do you know any other countries that have artificial borders? One of the things that Greece and Israel have in common is that they have been created by Christian Zionists, your ancestors Capel Dodger, who happen to have created every State in Europe, Africa and Middle East as well so I really miss your point here.

We have discussed the issue of the Zionist leaders who met the Nazis at least twice in this forum but I see that you have made some progress here. You have changed your previous claims that "Zionists claimed that they broke the boycott of the German products and in reality they have done nothing of sort " to "they co-operated with the Nazis to break the world-wide boycott of German goods". Zionist leaders have met the Nazis twice but the Nazis in the most characteristic way allowed the Jews to go everywhere but in Palestine. If you consider that nobody could foresee the extend of the genocide I find dishonest ( to say the least) to suggest that Zionists are in any way responsible for it.

But let us return to Hertzl....

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:

It was never my intention to confine the discussion to Herzl, or claim that zionism - even nationalist zionism - started with Herzl's book. The Jewish State was influential, and it was Herzl who organised the First Zionist Congress. And it seems to me important to point out that Herzl did not predict a Holocaust or anything like it. His motivations were different, and principally nationalist.

There is more than one type of zionism, and the zionism of Herzl is better described as nationalist zionism, but that's a rather clumsy phrase to keep repeating. The formulation "Nat-Zi" is obviously problematic so I'm just using "zionism". It was this form of zionism that led to the creation of Israel. The older non-nationalist zionists had no ambition to set up a Jewish State and expel the existing inhabitants, rather they expected to live amongst them until the coming of the Kingdom of God. It was an optimistic century.

Nationalist Zionism, the re-conquest of the Holy Land, cropped up occasionally in the 19thCE but was regarded as weird and gained no momentum. It was only after the assassination of Tsar Alexander II and the pogroms initiated under the reactionary Alexander III that nationalist zionism was turned to by serious people in Russia. Without that assassination Israel would never have been created. The idea still had no impact in the West, who regarded Russia as backward anyway. The expectation was that Russia would follow thw West in time, and that, in Herzl's words, "the equal rights of Jews before the law cannot be withdrawn where they have once been conceded".

Hebrew fell out of use a very long time ago and only survived as an archaic religious language, much like Latin in the Catholic Church. It was deliberately revived and modernised, not least by Asher Ginsberg (a zionist) who was of the opinion, at the end of the 19thCE, that modern Hebrew was not then ready for use as a national language. HaShahar may have been published in Hebrew, but there are magazines published in Esperanto.

Rabbi Judah Alkalai was far from the mainstream and, as I recall, lobbied for the British to take over the Holy Land and enable the return of the Jews, which would in turn usher in the Kingdom of God (quite the opposite of normal Judaism). How Jews were to be made to return I don't know; perhaps he thought the British could help there too. Whether he advocated Jewish sovereignty I don't know. (I only know of him from British history - the Great Game and the Turkish Question overlap with zionism at quite a few points.)

It seems likely that Rabbi Joseph Natonek's aphorism " Emancipation means suicide" refers not to personal suicide but to the loss of Jewish identity, which I assume he was against. It would, after all, put him out of a job. If Jewishness dies out because people aren't interested in it any more, that's their business. I rather think the Rabbi didn't want his flock having, or at least exercising, that option.

This thread is about nationalism, so it's nationalist zionism I'll be referring to. I'll just finish this piece with a quote from The Siege by Conor Cruise O'Brien:
Herzl's challenge to the rabbis [was]: tough, sardonic, neat, concise, funny and a little unfair - and by that combination maddening to the adversary, and meant to be so.
So who's going to do that version of your avatar?

[DanishDynamite]

Capeldodger:Defining nationalism is a problem in itself. Where is the divide between nationalism and tribalism?Good question. Originally, I think it is fair to say that nationalism was a development of tribalism.

One question is whether tribalism is genetic. I don't know, but I doubt it. And if it is not genetic it can certainly be done away with.

I think it is time to do away with it. There is no a priori reason why someone born in coordinates (x,y) should be subjected to fewer basic "rights" than someone born in coordinates (w,z). He should be free to travel where he wants and to interact whith who he wants.

One World Government Now! :)

The UN is a very limited step in that direction, but it doesn't go anywhere near far enough. In fact, it consecrates the existence of national entities.

What we need is a One World Government, possibly even based on the US Constitution (to pacify our American righties ;) ).

Kindly be aware that I'm not arguing for the PaxAmericana, just for the withering away of nationalism.

[CapelDodger]

from Chaos:
As for me, personally, I might well be the least patriotic person on the board.
Not while I'm alive you ain't. Let's call it level, since I'm in agreement with every point you make. It's almost spooky.

There's a verse by Rudyard Kipling (patriot and imperialist, but by no means stupid)
It's "Tommy this", and "Tommy that",
And "Tommy, here's my boot".
But it's "Tommy you're a hero"
When the guns begin to shoot.
which sums up patriotism for me. At least you can get to be a hero, because you're going to get bugger-all else.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Capeldodger:Good question. Originally, I think it is fair to say that nationalism was a development of tribalism.

One question is whether tribalism is genetic. I don't know, but I doubt it. And if it is not genetic it can certainly be done away with.

I think it is time to do away with it. There is no a priori reason why someone born in coordinates (x,y) should be subjected to fewer basic "rights" than someone born in coordinates (w,z). He should be free to travel where he wants and to interact whith who he wants.

One World Government Now! :)

The UN is a very limited step in that direction, but it doesn't go anywhere near far enough. In fact, it consecrates the existence of national entities.

What we need is a One World Government, possibly even based on the US Constitution (to pacify our American righties ;) ).

Kindly be aware that I'm not arguing for the PaxAmericana, just for the withering away of nationalism.

What happens if one or more countries do not agree to be a part of this OWG?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It was never my intention to confine the discussion to Herzl, or claim that zionism - even nationalist zionism - started with Herzl's book. The Jewish State was influential, and it was Herzl who organised the First Zionist Congress. And it seems to me important to point out that Herzl did not predict a Holocaust or anything like it. His motivations were different, and principally nationalist.

First of all I don't know why you keep mentioning that Hertzl had not predicted the Holocaust. Who has claimed the opposite. As my table demonstrates the first jewish Congress was not really the first.

The formulation "Nat-Zi" is obviously problematic so I'm just using "zionism".
I wish you haven't posted this Capel Dodger.

It was this form of zionism that led to the creation of Israel. The older non-nationalist zionists had no ambition to set up a Jewish State and expel the existing inhabitants, rather they expected to live amongst them until the coming of the Kingdom of God. It was an optimistic century.
No things are not like that as the table above demonstrates I am sorry.

Nationalist Zionism, the re-conquest of the Holy Land, cropped up occasionally in the 19thCE but was regarded as weird and gained no momentum. It was only after the assassination of Tsar Alexander II and the pogroms initiated under the reactionary Alexander III that nationalist zionism was turned to by serious people in Russia. Without that assassination Israel would never have been created. The idea still had no impact in the West, who regarded Russia as backward anyway. The expectation was that Russia would follow thw West in time, and that, in Herzl's words, "the equal rights of Jews before the law cannot be withdrawn where they have once been conceded".You know how I feel about hypothesis that concern the past. This is called historical anachronism and it is a fallacy. I'd say that it was the Holocaust the turning point.

Hebrew fell out of use a very long time ago and only survived as an archaic religious language, much like Latin in the Catholic Church. It was deliberately revived and modernised, not least by Asher Ginsberg (a zionist) who was of the opinion, at the end of the 19thCE, that modern Hebrew was not then ready for use as a national language.And has this happened only with Hebrew, right? HaShahar may have been published in Hebrew, but there are magazines published in Esperanto. And others in Ladino, newpapers were published in Hebrew and this means a lot that's why I mentioned it.
It seems likely that Rabbi Joseph Natonek's aphorism " Emancipation means suicide" refers not to personal suicide but to the loss of Jewish identity, which I assume he was against. It would, after all, put him out of a job. If Jewishness dies out because people aren't interested in it any more, that's their business. I rather think the Rabbi didn't want his flock having, or at least exercising, that option. You try to trace his true motives that are not the point here. I agree with you but this is not the point. The point that you pretend you don't see is that Zionism and the wish to return to Israel was alive long before Herztl.
So who's going to do that version of your avatar? Good question. Here is somebody I would like to create that version of my avatar:The author of The True-Born Englishman, Defoe ( I think)

While ev'ry nation that her powers reduced,
Their languages and manners introduced;
From whose mix'd relics our compounded breed;
By spurious generation does succeed;
Making a race uncertain and uneven,
Derived from all the nations under heaven.

Make my day now. Tell me that you are not English but Welsh.

edited to add:I found the reference: D.Defoe,The True-Born Englishman in Works,London 1871. I learned it from a Scot who has gone as far as composing odes for Hertzl. Odes, libels ...sometimes the motives are the same.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Grammatron


What happens if one or more countries do not agree to be a part of this OWG? There would be no countries. They would be as passe as city-states.

[Edited six million times]

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
There would be no countries. They would be as passe city-states.

Let's say Turkey and Mongolia -- to pick two random countries -- refuse to have anything to do with OWG even to be city states, how does that affect them?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Let's say Turkey and Mongolia -- to pick two random countries -- refuse to have anything to do with OWG even to be city states, how does that affect them? Ah, now you are asking for the operational plan. Short answer, I don't have one. Longer answer, look at what the EU is doing. A few months ago 10 new countries willingly joined the EU. An EU constitution is in the works.

Despite my lack of an operational plan, do you agree with the basic goal?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Despite my lack of an operational plan, do you agree with the basic goal? Of course not because it overlooks the very nature and the essence of nationalism.

Nationalism basically springs from the need of the people to define themselves. It might not be necessary for you (although your avatar and your nickname suggest otherwise) but millions of people disagree with you.How do you plan to persuade every single individual or the opinion of every single individual doesn't count? Also, correct me if I am wrong about I thought that you were against the European Constitution.

And although I know how Capel Dodger composes at least half of his posts this came as a surprize from you.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Of course not because it overlooks the very nature and the essence of nationalism.

Nationalism basically springs from the need of the people to define themselves. It might not be necessary for you (although your avatar and your nickname suggest otherwise) but millions of people disagree with you.I have no problem with people defining themselves based on where they were born. Look at the US where there is quite a bit of regional identity. Someone from the South is different in his identity to someone from the North. They still have the same basic rights, though.
How do you plan to persuade every single individual or the opinion of every single individual doesn't count?Make it worth their while. Why do you think 10 new countries just willingly signed up to the EU?
Also, correct me if I am wrong about I thought that you were against the European Constitution.I was against several parts of it, yes. I'm also against a lot of other stuff about the EU administration, such as it's lack of transparancy and democracy.
And although I know how Capel Dodger composes at least half of his posts this came as a surprize from you. Glad I can still surprise you, wifey. ;)

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite:
Make it worth their while. Why do you think 10 new countries just willingly signed up to the EU?

Handouts?

Why do you think that two of Europe's richest and most stable countries, Norway and Switzerland, continue to stay out?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Handouts?Possibly. The bottom line is that they joined willingly.
Why do you think that two of Europe's richest and most stable countries, Norway and Switzerland, continue to stay out? Historical reasons and the fact of their very success. They are so succesful that the entisements aren't appetizing enough.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
I will try to overlook the emotional part ...
I'm disappointed you see it that way, I was trying to be ice-cold. I was, after all, making what will probably be my only reply to Skeptic.
The jewish language has always been a problem for the jews all around the world. The language was preserved thanks to the Torah. This is how the Greek language survived the 4 centuries of the Ottoman Occupation BTW; children were learning Greek from the Bible.
Welsh survived more or less as a biblical language (the bible was tanslated in 1588, the use of Welsh having been legalised by Henry Twdr). Even into the 1920's it was banned in schools, and a child heard speaking Welsh would be required to wear a placard, the "Welsh Not" ("This Child Spoke Welsh"). They would wear it until they heard and snitched on another child speaking Welsh, at which point the placard was transferred. Whoever was wearing it at the end of the day got a beating. It was all for their own good, of course; Welsh would get them nowhere in the wider world. More recently, research indicates that a bi-lingual upbringing correlates with higher intellectual and social attainment in general, but how sound it is I don't know.
As far as I know Jews were the only group on the planet that have been accused for speaking Hebrew that only them understood in order that it's easier for them to conspire against the world and this is the reason why the Haskala movement proposed that Jews should abandon the language of their ancestors, for their safety.
You're missing out on a lot. It's a common urban myth amongst the English that the Welsh only speak their language when there are English people around. When I say common, if you mention that you're born in Wales across any dining-table in England someone will bring this up. How they know what language people speak when they're not there I don't know, but often ask. Why they think that Welsh-speaking people with their Welsh-speaking friends wouldn't be speaking Welsh is also an unsolved mystery. The English are an unsolved mystery.

Catalan, Breton and Basque have probably had the same sort of problem.

Cockney rhyming slang, which evolves rapidly in its homeland, is intended to be incomprehensible. The authorities (and particularly the filth (police) which isn't rhyming slang and is meant to be understood) were seldom local. Cockney language and culture also has a lot of Yiddish and Jewishness in them, by the way. I gather the same can be said for New York.

Anyhoo, Hebrew was not a living language even in Jeebus's days, and what people were complaning about was more likely Yiddish. Welsh was revivied in the mid-19thCE, as were the Gaelic, Breton, Hebrew and others as a result of the nationalist ideas that were pervading European philosophy at the time. The whole Druidic pageant you see in Wales and Cornwall and Stonehedge was entirely invented in the 19thCE.
I found amusing the accusation that the borders of Israel were artificial.
I wouldn't say that. I distinctly remember recently laying out my reading of the rational borders of the region - the Sinai in the South, the Jordan Valley in the east (the valley, not the river) and the Lebanese hills in the north. Eretz Israel is a commonly used term for it. It has a historic continuity as a recognised region because it is so rational.

I was pointing to the artificiality of a nation created, not where the creators actually lived (as other nations were), or even in the same climate (like German colonies in the Ukraine) but in a different continent, with a completely different history and culture. The zionists may have been capable of understanding the culture, but they made no effort to. It was, to them, a backward culture, incapable of forming nations and therefore full of "natives" who could be played with by "advanced", nation-building, European peoples. Which esteemed company European Jews were going to join - thereby no longer being "natives" themselves but worthy of respect. Respect from the only people that mattered, of course - other "advanced" Europeans.
... your ancestors ...
I repeat, I claim nothing from my ancestors, neither their triumphs not their tribulations. You can't silence me by claiming that I have no right to comment because of my ancestry - which, remember, you know little or nothing about. You can't even silence me with the Curse of the Cat - I'll go down screaming and spitting and haunt you with the rattling of chains and the bumps in the night and the "Woo ... Wooo...". (You'd be right to suspect, from my boldness, that I've recruited a few Druids to my side.)

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
If you consider that nobody could foresee the extend of the genocide I find dishonest ( to say the least) to suggest that Zionists are in any way responsible for it.
Assuming that you consider that nobody could foresee the Holocaust, what persuades you that the zionist movement of the 1880's on was based on a fear of such persecution? As I pointed out, Herzl claimed that zionism created no dangers for Jews because the argument of the majority of Jewish thinkers and commentators was that it did. Whether or not zionism harmed the interests of European Jews in practice, Herzl and his like were prepared to do that harm in the furtherance of their nationalist dream. They weren't interested in Jewish people, they were interested in The Jewish People, a transcendent ideal beside which (in the eyes of such people) individuals mean nothing. This is what makes nationalism - like religion - so damaging, the reduction of the individual, the dismissal of the actual death, the actual injury, the actual eviction in terror in the night as the bullets, bombs and bulldozers of the nationalists grind up the valley. The actual damage in the name of romantic fantasy.

I'm agin it.

[Cleopatra]

Ok one last for tonight.
Originally posted by CapelDodger
Welsh survived more or less as a biblical language (the bible was tanslated in 1588, the use of Welsh having been legalised by Henry Twdr). Even into the 1920's it was banned in schools, and a child heard speaking Welsh would be required to wear a placard, the "Welsh Not" ("This Child Spoke Welsh"). They would wear it until they heard and snitched on another child speaking Welsh, at which point the placard was transferred. Whoever was wearing it at the end of the day got a beating. It was all for their own good, of course; Welsh would get them nowhere in the wider world. Yes I know that and the funny thing is that I learned those things by an Israeli friend who is married with a welsh. Poor man. More recently, research indicates that a bi-lingual upbringing correlates with higher intellectual and social attainment in general, but how sound it is I don't know. I grew up learning three languages but in a house that at least five different languages were spoken. :)

You're missing out on a lot. It's a common urban myth amongst the English that the Welsh only speak their language when there are English people around. When I say common, if you mention that you're born in Wales across any dining-table in England someone will bring this up. Ok Ok. I accept that.
Anyhoo, Hebrew was not a living language even in Jeebus's days, and what people were complaning about was more likely Yiddish. Welsh was revivied in the mid-19thCE, as were the Gaelic, Breton, Hebrew and others as a result of the nationalist ideas that were pervading European philosophy at the time. The whole Druidic pageant you see in Wales and Cornwall and Stonehedge was entirely invented in the 19thCE. You come to my words now Capel Dodger. The case of Israel is not exceptional but rather common.
I was pointing to the artificiality of a nation created, not where the creators actually lived (as other nations were), or even in the same climate (like German colonies in the Ukraine) but in a different continent, with a completely different history and culture. The zionists may have been capable of understanding the culture, but they made no effort to. It was, to them, a backward culture, incapable of forming nations and therefore full of "natives" who could be played with by "advanced", nation-building, European peoples. Which esteemed company European Jews were going to join - thereby no longer being "natives" themselves but worthy of respect. Respect from the only people that mattered, of course - other "advanced" Europeans. Capel Dodger things are not even that simple. Sefardic Jews considered Askenazis barbarians and saukraut eaters. You wouldn't want to know what my grandmother said about zionists and Askenazis but the point is elsewhere, you know it very well.The point is that people were sent there.

You can't even silence me with the Curse of the Cat - I'll go down screaming and spitting and haunt you with the rattling of chains and the bumps in the night and the "Woo ... Wooo...". (You'd be right to suspect, from my boldness, that I've recruited a few Druids to my side.) The curse of the cat wouldn't work on you Capel Dodger because you can charm even the cats I don't trust them when you are around. I have more powerful weapons for cases like yours...
:c1:

[CapelDodger]

from DanishDynamite:
One question is whether tribalism is genetic. I don't know, but I doubt it.
I disagree. We are mostly monkey, when you come down to it. Chimps and gibbons are tribal. Other great apes not so much, admittedly, but then they are rather "great" and require a lot of territory each. Tribalism, I think, is a reflection of the human state-of-nature, which has been our species' experience for far longer than our civilized days. But tribalism doesn't have to be about a genetic group, it can be about sport or work or music or whatever. It doesn't have to be confrontational. Fundamentally, we have to learn to understand our true nature and work with it (rather than exploiting it).
There would be no countries. They would be as passe as city-states.
Again ... I like city-states. Like tribes, they're on a human scale. Nations aren't. It's hard to fool people about what the tribe's interests are, but easy to fool them over national interests (which generally turn out to be the perceived interests of a wealthy minority). I like the idea of a world of city-states and regions, with a central guaranteeing authority. Great Cities like New York, Singapore, London, Kabul, Shanghai, Cairo, Salonika, Moskva, cities with real histories and rationales.
Ah, now you are asking for the operational plan. Short answer, I don't have one.
Good answer, me neither. I'm indulging in blue skies thinking. Exactly how we get the Mongolians on board is too much of a distraction. But I'm not against letting the US bug out, considering the crap-pile they're racing towards. We can let the seceding bits join in separately.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
First of all I don't know why you keep mentioning that Hertzl had not predicted the Holocaust. Who has claimed the opposite.
...
The point that you pretend you don't see is that Zionism and the wish to return to Israel was alive long before Herztl.
Back on page 1:
... 50 to 80 years later the Holocaust came to justify Herzl and his basic idea ...
You've suckered me into this whole exercise, haven't you? You pop up here, there and everywhere off-thread with the Herzl thing, and when I finally address it specifically you're all, like, "Well, who cares?". I've got pre-Herzl zionism up to here but I politely deal with Herzl and wham, you're getting your retaliation in first. I don't often get played with like this in conversation, let alone when I've got time to compose. I take my hat off to you. You should be a lawyer.

And a female one at that.
I wish you haven't posted this Capel Dodger.
Which confirms the problematic nature of the formulation. Damn, I'm right again.
As my table demonstrates the first jewish Congress was not really the first.
The First Zionist Congress was.
You know how I feel about hypothesis that concern the past. This is called historical anachronism and it is a fallacy. I'd say that it was the Holocaust the turning point.
Zionism got moving in the 1880's in Russia, and made a huge stride with the Balfour Declaration in 1917. Long before the Holocaust, or even any hint of it. From that moment the trajectory towards the violent creation of Israel (or at least the attempt) was inevitable. The Yishuv and the Jewish Agency had a strategy, quite explicit, of gaining as much as they could under the British then kicking them out when they were ready to take on the Palestinians. Had the Holocaust not happened, had Hitler caught a bullet in the war, had Heydrich's father had another couple of brandies that fateful night, zionism was going to go to war for its Jewish State.

Had Alexander II lived for another ten years zionism would have remained non-nationalist and Russian Judaism would have continued on the path of assimilation. There's no good reason to think otherwise.
And has this happened only with Hebrew, right?

Addressed in a crossed post, I think.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
I grew up learning three languages but in a house that at least five different languages were spoken.
That backs up the research mightily.
The case of Israel is not exceptional but rather common.

You jump from the common resurrection of dead languages by tiny groups of Jewish and Welsh intelligentsia to the common experience of Israel and Wales. "Hebrew" and "Israel" are not interchangeable words. I can't help thinking that the revivers of Hebrew in the 19thCE would be utterly appalled to see the Israeli bulldozers of today wreaking destruction on the villages and olive groves of the Holy Land. And even more appalled to hear that what they had done had contributed to it.
Capel Dodger things are not even that simple. Sefardic Jews considered Askenazis barbarians and saukraut eaters. You wouldn't want to know what my grandmother said about zionists and Askenazis but the point is elsewhere, you know it very well.The point is that people were sent there.
Cleopatra, I have heard it from the camel's mouth. I don't just get this stuff from books and my own analysis. Among the people that were "sent there" were thousands of traumatised displaced persons who were rounded up by zionists claiming authority over them and shipped away from the supplies and support that were available to them in Europe in order to make a propaganda point in Israel. These were Jewish people, remember, meaningless to zionists when set against The Jewish People and their Jewish State. At times even The Jewish God is summoned by zionists, who actually follow what you have described as the modern religion - nationalism.

Done for. Signing off.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite:
Historical reasons and the fact of their very success. They are so succesful that the entisements aren't appetizing enough.

Exactly. Thus we see the practical benefits of national sovereignty. If it ain't broke........

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
Again ... I like city-states. Like tribes, they're on a human scale. Nations aren't.

What about nations like Ireland, with populations considerably smaller than the likes of London and New York?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
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. I haven't read the thread, just this first post. I appologize if I am a day late and a dollar short.

The above is overly simplistic and focuses only on the negative aspects of patriotism and assuming that patriotism can only be expressed via tribalism or Nationalism which tends to be an us vs them philosophy. Patriotism is the love of ones country and is not exclusive of respect or admiration of other countries.

Perhaps unique to Americans is the feelings of patriotism that transcend ideas of race or ethnicity. We are not simply English or Italian or Spanish, etc. We are simply American, E Plurbius Unium. From many one. And patriotism for many or most Americans isn't even about geography. Patriotism for us is the love of freedom and opportunity and the values on which our nation was founded.

I am proud to be a patriot.

O beautiful for heroes prov'd
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life.

--Katherine Lee Bates

[Cleopatra]

Capel Dodger.

Last night I dismissed the "guard" of the crocodiles before posting my last reply and of course you took advantage of that and you started your games again.You haven't left even ONE word of what I said that you haven’t twisted. This won’t happen again take my word for it...

Now let's drop Zionism for a moment because it makes you very excited and passionate and I am not sure if a British can handle so much passion when he is so far away from the volcano.Seriously now ( although my last comment was serious) I want to address a couple of issues your posts raised about Nationalism as a political philosophy also I wonder if we could discuss how we can talk about Nationalism and USA the same time, to me is an oxymoron ( what do Americans know about nationalism) I might let you illuminate me on that.I have taught you so many things about the History of Jewish Nationalism do something for me in return. :c1:

Now let's see how tribal is a nation. What is a nation?

Nation is a community
constituted by shared belief and mutual commitment.
extended in history
connected to a specific land
distinguished by other communities by its public culture.

I think that all of us can agree on that definition. Now comes the question. Is nationality a modern phaenomenon ( post-Renaissance or Post-Enlightment –your call) or it’s something tribal?

I want to reply here to Danish Dynamite too. Replying to this question is important and it shouldn’t be apt to personal interpretation and I will epxlain why.
Those who see it as a modern phaenomenon see it allied to notions of democracy etc or they might consider it as an evil invention of the late 18th ce and in contrast with the rationalism of the Enlightment. On the other hand those who see it as a continuation of old loyalties consider it as a vehicle of progress, as a cement that hold people together and guided them to progress or they can see it as a barbarian relic ( This is where capel Dodger meets Fridrich Heyek :p ). It wouldn't be of much importance if they didn't designed future policies based on that but they do.

Don’t listen to Capel Dodger( I am joking). He is British. The term has a different form in every European language. Originally the term was used for kin groups and it was used to describe groups of foreigners, for example in medieval universities it was used to classify students by country of origin ( “ the nation of France”—I don’t know if you have read the last book of Umberto Eco he refers extensively to this fashion).

Check OED for example: It cites a passage from Fortescue’s Absolute and Limited Monarchy( c. 1460) in which he describes the Scots, the Spaniards as "nations".( nothing about the Welsh. Ha ha.) In the silly poem that I quoted above to tease Capel Dodger , the word “nation” is applied to Romans,Saxons, Danes and Normans and to people that he ironically identifies as those who contributed to the “heterogeneous things , an Englishman”.

If you check the French History we encounter referencies to Nation a century earlier. ( If you want to torture me ask me for full references I will provide them if you insist).

So, it’s wrong to sugget that the concept of Nation entered politics with the rise of the 19th ce Nationalism it was already recognizable to places at least a century earlier. The same happens with Zionism ( ok I won’t continue that) but Capel Dodger refuses to see it.

Ok this is long I will return later to continue the lecture :p I want to make a couple of points of what distinguishes the ancient from the modern notion of nationality.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
You can't even silence me with the Curse of the Cat...
Well, since I've been summoned... ;)

Originally posted by Chaos
By the way, I can show exactly how the premises from which Marx developed the ideas that were to become Communism are wrong - if you are interested[...]
It would be interesting to drag Marx's corpse out and give it another drubbing, but in a new thread maybe? Would such a discussion be too much of a distraction from the main topic here?

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Exactly. Thus we see the practical benefits of national sovereignty. If it ain't broke........
Except for the instances in which it was broke from day one, being imposed on a disparate group of people by force. To pre-empt Skeptic's involuntary patellar flexion, I'm actually thinking about the creation of Iraq in this instance.

Originally posted by RandFan
The above is overly simplistic and focuses only on the negative aspects of patriotism and assuming that patriotism can only be expressed via tribalism or Nationalism which tends to be an us vs them philosophy. Patriotism is the love of ones country and is not exclusive of respect or admiration of other countries.
I suspect you may have missed the fundamental point of CapelDodger's post; no nations, no patriotism. Let's not forget the way that feelings of patriotism can be manipulated to encourage decent people to commit indecent acts. It's not as if this point is particularly controversial, what with the number of examples kicking around recent history. Or maybe I'm giving the [reference to indecent acts involving sheep deleted] Welsh guy more credit than he deserves. ;)

Perhaps unique to Americans is the feelings of patriotism that transcend ideas of race or ethnicity. We are not simply English or Italian or Spanish, etc. We are simply American, E Plurbius Unium. From many one. And patriotism for many or most Americans isn't even about geography. Patriotism for us is the love of freedom and opportunity and the values on which our nation was founded.
That's a great ideal, but have you ever considered the co-incidence of your viewpoint with, for instance, the collectivism in communist ideology?

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Check OED for example: It cites a passage from Fortescue’s Absolute and Limited Monarchy( c. 1460) in which he describes the Scots, the Spaniards as "nations".( nothing about the Welsh. Ha ha.) In the silly poem that I quoted above to tease Capel Dodger , the word “nation” is applied to Romans,Saxons, Danes and Normans and to people that he ironically identifies as those who contributed to the “heterogeneous things , an Englishman”.

I'm missing the irony here; we're a nation of mongrels. Anyway:

Happy is the country which has no history... attributed to Montesquieu.

The myth of history is built on lies. Miroslav Krleza

I think it might be more accurate, if more clumsy, to use the term "nation-state" here, which is the dominant political construct of the past couple of centuries and is probably what most people mean when they talk about countries or nations. From the OED Disctionary of Social Sciences:
The conjoining of political institutions and collective identity in a single sovereign unit. In the modern era, the link between state and nation has increasingly become the sine qua non of political legitimacy: nationhood is confirmed and realized in an independent state.

[Cleopatra]

*Clears throat and continues*

As I said to my first post the notion of nationality if far from being a new one. The Greeks were the first who distinguished themselves from the "barbarians". The idea that each people had a homeland and that the rule of foreigners constitute oppression that must be resisted gives us the right to suggest that this first form of nationalism has political implications and goes far beyong the triban sentiment and feeling.

So, it's sort of absurd to suggest that in 19th ce we observe the invention of a new way of approaching human communities. Ideas of national character with political implications were really old. What is new though is the introduction of the belief that a body of people, a nation, has the right to act collectively. In 19th ce we have the introduction of the idea that there is such a thing as a national will that can be expressed by institutions and policies.

As Isaiah Berlin has pointed out ( a person whose political philosophy has influenced me tremendously and not because he has justified politically the need for the creation of Israel ) there is no necessary link between nationalism and democracy( as the Americans want to persuade us these days) but it shouldn't surprize us if certain kind of conservatives see it as such.

Berlin says that those who view politics as an activity that should be left in the hands of the elite view with distaste the philosophy on which sovereign nations are built. I add that they create banana nations and banana republics exactly to show how they despise democtracy.

Although this is an argument from authority I find interesting the fact that he connects the criticism to nationalism with the extreme conservatism.

Think about it Capel Dodger and do not reject Berlin because the man was not a Zionist.

[richardm]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
There's a verse by Rudyard Kipling (patriot and imperialist, but by no means stupid)



I seem to recall it as:


It's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and Chuck him out, the brute!
But it's "Saviour of his country" when the guns begin to shoot

A good poem, that, one of my favourites from old Kippers. Interesting chap, but ruddy 'ard to get on with.

Edited to add: Can't be that hard to find a link. Here it is. (http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/tommy.html)

/poetry corner

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
*Clears throat and continues*

As I said to my first post the notion of nationality if far from being a new one. The Greeks were the first who distinguished themselves from the "barbarians". The idea that each people had a homeland and that the rule of foreigners constitute oppression that must be resisted gives us the right to suggest that this first form of nationalism has political implications and goes far beyong the triban sentiment and feeling.

So, it's sort of absurd to suggest that in 19th ce we observe the invention of a new way of approaching human communities. Ideas of national character with political implications were really old. What is new though is the introduction of the belief that a body of people, a nation, has the right to act collectively. In 19th ce we have the introduction of the idea that there is such a thing as a national will that can be expressed by institutions and policies.

As Isaiah Berlin has pointed out ( a person whose political philosophy has influenced me tremendously and not because he has justified politically the need for the creation of Israel ) there is no necessary link between nationalism and democracy( as the Americans want to persuade us these days) but it shouldn't surprize us if certain kind of conservatives see it as such.

Berlin says that those who view politics as an activity that should be left in the hands of the elite view with distaste the philosophy on which sovereign nations are built. I add that they create banana nations and banana republics exactly to show how they despise democtracy.

Although this is an argument from authority I find interesting the fact that he connects the criticism to nationalism with the extreme conservatism.

Think about it Capel Dodger and do not reject Berlin because the man was not a Zionist.
Berlin makes an excellent point in questioning the connection between nation(-state)s and democracy and particularly in highlighting the link between conservatism and feudalism. If we look to British history as an example, we don't see a discrete jump to parliamentary democracy but rather a gradual erosion of both unrepresentative monarchic sovereignty, and the parliamentary plutocracy which preserved feudalist notions of privilege even into the 20th century. In fact, this erosion could be characterised as more the result of negotiations and concessions of power between established and newly formed elites than any specific intent to enact a democratic system.

But what is the philosophy of sovereign nations? And how (and why) did it become popular?

[Chaos]

BillyTK

My pleasure. I´ll start a thread about it soon.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The Greeks were the first who distinguished themselves from the "barbarians".


I suspect the Chinese, amongst others, might dispute this since by 500 BC they were already well into their fourth (third?) Imperial dynasty.

Graham

[RandFan]

Originally posted by BillyTK
I suspect you may have missed the fundamental point of CapelDodger's post; no nations, no patriotism. Let's not forget the way that feelings of patriotism can be manipulated to encourage decent people to commit indecent acts. Actually I didn't miss his point at all. And your argument is fallacious. That patriotism can be manipulated does not make it wrong or bad. Many human emotions can be manipulated for bad purposes. The fact does not mean that we should strive to not have emotions.

It's not as if this point is particularly controversial, what with the number of examples kicking around recent history. I would posit that the examples have more to do with nationalism and little if anything to do with patriotism.

[Skeptic]

Despite my lack of an operational plan, do you agree with the basic goal?

I believe that all resources should be distributed equally, so that class distinctions will disappear and everybody will have the same, ending class struggle, strife, poverty, and unemployment. Surely this will bring world peace, as nobody would have reason to envy others for having more.

I haven't figure out yet what to do with those stubborn 50,000,000 or so anti-revolutionary reactionaries who refuse to share their wealth with the starving workers, but despite my lack of an operational plan, don't you agree the basic goal is wonderful?

If history teaches us anything, DD, it teaches us that an utopian "basic goal" + lack of any "operational plan" idea how to bring it about = gulags, executions, starvation, and terror, as the unwilling masses must be forced into submission so that the utopian dream could be realized. You can't make an omlette without breaking eggs; and what are a few lousy millions of dead now compared to the infinite bliss of the future utopia?

To answer "Grammatron"'s question, the real outcome of Turkey or Tibet or anybody else refusing to join the one world government would be the same as the outcome of Poland refusing to join the Nazi empire, the Baltic states refusing to join the USSR, China refusing to join the Japanese "greater sphere of co-operation and prosperity", and so on.

The world government would bomb them into the stone age and then force them to submit on the point of a bayonet. After all, you're not going to let a few lousy nationalists stop WORLD PEACE when it is finally just around the corner (just like the Marxist revolution and the all-Aryan Europe were), are you?

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The Greeks were the first who distinguished themselves from the "barbarians".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And replied to by Graham
I suspect the Chinese, amongst others, might dispute this since by 500 BC they were already well into their fourth (third?) Imperial dynasty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


I suspect that the Chinese today might have a thing or two to say about falling under the banner of any world government other than their own.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
Except for the instances in which it was broke from day one, being imposed on a disparate group of people by force. To pre-empt Skeptic's involuntary patellar flexion, I'm actually thinking about the creation of Iraq in this instance.

Beside the point. CD seems to advocate the eradication of all nation states. The flip side is that history is littered with failed attempts at supranational government.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by RandFan


Perhaps unique to Americans is the feelings of patriotism that transcend ideas of race or ethnicity. We are not simply English or Italian or Spanish, etc. We are simply American, E Plurbius Unium. From many one. And patriotism for many or most Americans isn't even about geography. Patriotism for us is the love of freedom and opportunity and the values on which our nation was founded.

I am proud to be a patriot.




Wouldn't it be more correct to say that you are proud to be an ideologue?

[DanishDynamite]

CapelDodger:I disagree. We are mostly monkey, when you come down to it. Chimps and gibbons are tribal. Other great apes not so much, admittedly, but then they are rather "great" and require a lot of territory each. Tribalism, I think, is a reflection of the human state-of-nature, which has been our species' experience for far longer than our civilized days. But tribalism doesn't have to be about a genetic group, it can be about sport or work or music or whatever. It doesn't have to be confrontational. Fundamentally, we have to learn to understand our true nature and work with it (rather than exploiting it).The word "tribal" to me carries a flavour of "limited extent".

It is my understanding that humans went from small groups of hunter-gatherers (a few families) to larger groups with clans and then on to tribes. But why should a tribe be the largest "natural" unit that humans would naturally gather in? We know for a fact that much larger groups are possible (see nation-state). I suppose it is debateable whether they are "natural".

The bottom line is that humans are social animals. And I see no evidence there must be a limit to how large a group we will socialize with. (:))
Again ... I like city-states. Like tribes, they're on a human scale. Nations aren't. It's hard to fool people about what the tribe's interests are, but easy to fool them over national interests (which generally turn out to be the perceived interests of a wealthy minority). I like the idea of a world of city-states and regions, with a central guaranteeing authority. Great Cities like New York, Singapore, London, Kabul, Shanghai, Cairo, Salonika, Moskva, cities with real histories and rationales. Depending on what powers you would give to the central guaranteeing authority, I think we agree.
Good answer, me neither. I'm indulging in blue skies thinking. Exactly how we get the Mongolians on board is too much of a distraction. But I'm not against letting the US bug out, considering the crap-pile they're racing towards. We can let the seceding bits join in separately. We just need to make it worth the Mongolians time to get on board.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Exactly. Thus we see the practical benefits of national sovereignty. If it ain't broke........:D

Shane, how does the economic success of these two nations, compared to the many who are not as succesful, show anything about the benefits of a nation-state?

[DanishDynamite]

Cleopatra:Now let's see how tribal is a nation. What is a nation?

Nation is a community
constituted by shared belief and mutual commitment.
extended in history
connected to a specific land
distinguished by other communities by its public culture.

I think that all of us can agree on that definition. Well, no, I don't think we can. The only part of that definition I can partially agree with is the "connected to a specific land", and even that is very shaky as the borders of most nations have changed throughout history.
Now comes the question. Is nationality a modern phaenomenon ( post-Renaissance or Post-Enlightment –your call) or it’s something tribal?

I want to reply here to Danish Dynamite too. Replying to this question is important and it shouldn’t be apt to personal interpretation and I will epxlain why.
Those who see it as a modern phaenomenon see it allied to notions of democracy etc or they might consider it as an evil invention of the late 18th ce and in contrast with the rationalism of the Enlightment.I don't see it as having anything at all to do with democracy.
On the other hand those who see it as a continuation of old loyalties consider it as a vehicle of progress, as a cement that hold people together and guided them to progress or they can see it as a barbarian relic ( This is where capel Dodger meets Fridrich Heyek :p ). It wouldn't be of much importance if they didn't designed future policies based on that but they do.Such flowery words. How about defining it something like "A community of people possessing a more or less defined territory and government".
So, it’s wrong to sugget that the concept of Nation entered politics with the rise of the 19th ce Nationalism it was already recognizable to places at least a century earlier. I would agree with that.
Ok this is long I will return later to continue the lecture :p I want to make a couple of points of what distinguishes the ancient from the modern notion of nationality. Looking forward to it.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:I believe that all resources should be distributed equally, so that class distinctions will disappear and everybody will have the same, ending class struggle, strife, poverty, and unemployment. Surely this will bring world peace, as nobody would have reason to envy others for having more.

I haven't figure out yet what to do with those stubborn 50,000,000 or so anti-revolutionary reactionaries who refuse to share their wealth with the starving workers, but despite my lack of an operational plan, don't you agree the basic goal is wonderful?No.
If history teaches us anything, DD, it teaches us that an utopian "basic goal" + lack of any "operational plan" idea how to bring it about = gulags, executions, starvation, and terror, as the unwilling masses must be forced into submission so that the utopian dream could be realized. You can't make an omlette without breaking eggs; and what are a few lousy millions of dead now compared to the infinite bliss of the future utopia?Really? Is that what history teaches us? Perhaps I can refer you to Ghandi.
To answer "Grammatron"'s question, the real outcome of Turkey or Tibet or anybody else refusing to join the one world government would be the same as the outcome of Poland refusing to join the Nazi empire, the Baltic states refusing to join the USSR, China refusing to join the Japanese "greater sphere of co-operation and prosperity", and so on. You certainly do seem to bring up wars of acquisition a lot. Wars between nation-states. What does that have to do with anything I've said?
The world government would bomb them into the stone age and then force them to submit on the point of a bayonet. After all, you're not going to let a few lousy nationalists stop WORLD PEACE when it is finally just around the corner (just like the Marxist revolution and the all-Aryan Europe were), are you? The World Government would bomb no one. Please try to get rid of your "nation-states must exist" mindset.

[Skeptic]

Really? Is that what history teaches us?

Yes, DD, that is what history teaches us. As Alexander Solzenichin (sp?) put it, "even Shakespeare's worst villans stopped at a dozen killed--because they had no ideology".

If you see someone who is pushing an utopian solution to the world's problems... but only has to iron out a few details about how it should work out... and just isn't sure what to do about those who oppose his wondeful solution... KILL HIM!

You will rid the world of an idiot--a good thing in itself--and, in addition, might just save a few millions lives trying to reach this utopia would undoubtebly cause, as it always does.

Perhaps I can refer you to Ghandi.

Ghandi was a nationalist, DD. He didn't have any world-saving solutions. He cared about India first and foremost. He wisely didn't try to solve the world's problems. It is the international revolutionaries, the one-worlders, the no-more-war, happy-ever-after crowd, that leave piles of corpses in their wake.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite:
Shane, how does the economic success of these two nations, compared to the many who are not as succesful, show anything about the benefits of a nation-state?

Nothing, necessarily. Neither do the economic failings of other nation states necessarily mean that nationhood is antithical to economic prosperity.

World Government would bomb no one. Please try to get rid of your "nation-states must exist" mindset.

How do you know?

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:Really? Is that what history teaches us?

Yes, DD, that is what history teaches us. As Alexander Solzenichin (sp?) put it, "even Shakespeare's worst villans stopped at a dozen killed--because they had no ideology".

If you see someone who is pushing an utopian solution to the world's problems... but only has to iron out a few details about how it should work out... and just isn't sure what to do about those who oppose his wondeful solution... KILL HIM!

You will rid the world of an idiot--a good thing in itself--and, in addition, might just save a few millions lives trying to reach this utopia would undoubtebly cause, as it always does.What is so utopian about a One World Government? If you think it is utopian, presumably you agree that it is a worthy goal?
Perhaps I can refer you to Ghandi.

Ghandi was a nationalist, DD. He didn't have any world-saving solutions. He cared about India first and foremost. He wisely didn't try to solve the world's problems. It is the international revolutionaries, the one-worlders, the no-more-war, happy-ever-after crowd, that leave piles of corpses in their wake. Ghandi had a goal. The goal was freeing the people of his nation-state from being governed by force by another nation-state. His "operational plan", so to speak, was civil disobedience. Not much of a plan, but it worked.

[DanishDynamite]

Shane Costello:Nothing, necessarily. Neither do the economic failings of other nation states necessarily mean that nationhood is antithical to economic prosperity. I never said it was.
How do you know?How do I know that the OWG would not bomb anyone? It would be part of their constitution.

[Skeptic]

What is so utopian about a One World Government?

Guess.

P.S.

Anybody wants dibs on that as .sig file material?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Skeptic
What is so utopian about a One World Government?

Guess.

P.S.

Anybody wants dibs on that as .sig file material? "Guess"?

I have to guess what you think? Man, that would be an interesting conversation with myself. Would you jump in to correct me now and then?

Oh, and you didn't answer my question in regard to whether your self-characterization of a One World Government as utopian, means that you are in favor of such an entity.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
"Guess"?

I have to guess what you think?

The point is that asking "what is utopian about one world government" is a bit like asking "what is so bad about cancer".

You don't need my help to figure it out; just think about it for 30 seconds, I'm sure the answer will occur to you.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Skeptic


The point is that asking "what is utopian about one world government" is a bit like asking "what is so bad about cancer".

You don't need my help to figure it out; just think about it for 30 seconds, I'm sure the answer will occur to you. I'll repeat my previous post in case you need a second reading before answering:

"Guess"?

I have to guess what you think? Man, that would be an interesting conversation with myself. Would you jump in to correct me now and then?

Oh, and you didn't answer my question in regard to whether your self-characterization of a One World Government as utopian, means that you are in favor of such an entity.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite:
I never said it was.

And I don't think I said you did. It just seems to me that the failings of government are being laid at the door of the nation state. Abolishing the nation state will not eliminate nearsighted, craven, and stupid government.

How do I know that the OWG would not bomb anyone? It would be part of their constitution.

What if recalcitrant rebel groups engaged in a terrorist campaign against the institutions of OWG?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Nikk
Wouldn't it be more correct to say that you are proud to be an ideologue? No, but thank you for given me an opportunity to respond.

I could probably cite a thousand reasons why I am definitely not an ideologue but I will post a few that come to my mind. Please feel free to ask me to expand on any points or people you are unfamiliar with.

I'm certainly right of center. However, I strongly support the separation of church and state. I support a woman's right to choose. I want prostitution to be legalized. I want to end the moronic and wasteful war on drugs. I want gays to enjoy all of the rights of heterosexual couples. I fervently support the minimum wage and would like to see it increased. I was extremely angry at the Borking of Cynthia McKinney and the character assassination she received. I agree with her ideas about voting and I don't think her ideas constitute quotas. I think the right is often too intolerant and I think conservative Christians have too much power in right leaning politics. My favorite pundit is Pat Cadell (left leaning). Some of my political heros of the past include Tip Oniel, Mario Cuomo and Ed Koch. I often vote for Democrats and Republicans and have actively campaigned for a Democrat in both the School Board and a Judge.

One of my all time favorite writers was Upton Sinclair and I have read the Jungle many times.

I abhor rigid adherence to ideology. I believe that such a position is antithetical to critical thinking.

That being said, I don't think critical thinking and patriotism are mutually exclusive.
Again,

Thank you very much for given me the opportunity to respond.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Again ... I like city-states. Like tribes, they're on a human scale. Nations aren't. It's hard to fool people about what the tribe's interests are, but easy to fool them over national interests (which generally turn out to be the perceived interests of a wealthy minority). I like the idea of a world of city-states and regions, with a central guaranteeing authority. Great Cities like New York, Singapore, London, Kabul, Shanghai, Cairo, Salonika, Moskva, cities with real histories and rationales.


City-states are preferable to nation-states?

Environmental problems of regional or global importance are left to fester as city-states follow their own perceived self-interest (as city-states are expected to do). Rivers pass through a variety of city-states, each concerned only with its own needs and the actions of those upstream (be warned, water wars are going to be a feature of the near future if things don't change). Scientific projects that require multi-regional input are halted by arguments about which city-states gets to host it. Natural economic zones are disrupted by having city-state borders running through them.

I don't see how changing the scale changes any of the issues. I can understand how a smaller unit, a city or a region, is easier to identify with, but that's an issue of personal taste. If there is a central guaranteeing authority, isn’t that just a super-state with all the problems associated with it?

[RandFan]

In my previous post I said Cyntia Mckinney had been Borked when in fact it had been professor Lani Guinier. However Cynthia Mckinney was also accused by Conservatives as a quota queen.

I'm not as impressed with McKinney as I was with Guinier and can't comment on whether or not she was what conservatives said she was.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Skeptic

If you see someone who is pushing an utopian solution to the world's problems... but only has to iron out a few details about how it should work out... and just isn't sure what to do about those who oppose his wondeful solution... KILL HIM!

Hmm, you may want to read this (http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/871.shtml)

[Skeptic]

City-states are preferable to nation-states?

...and we all know how full of harmony and peace Greece was during the time it was divided into city-states... and how peaceful and mild life was in Italy when it was divided into city-states during the Reneissance...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
Hmm, you may want to read this (http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/871.shtml) What president is pushing Utopia? Bush has said that we can win the war on terror but it will be very difficult.

I'm sorry, what's your point.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Skeptic
It is the international revolutionaries, the one-worlders, the no-more-war, happy-ever-after crowd, that leave piles of corpses in their wake.

If you don´t mind the reference to Hitler (among others), history has shown us that it is the nationalists.
Hitler didn´t try to save the world, or humanity; all he cared for was the welfare of the Aryan race, at the cost of whatever number of non-Aryans (and a considerable number of "traitorous" and "disloyal" Aryans, as well) it would take.
I could go on like that with Stalin (who is responsible for up to 40 million dead), Pol Pot (who killed 15% of his country´s population within three years) and lots of others.

As you can see, it is precisely the us-versus-them (or good-versus-evil) stance of nationalism (or religion, for that matter) that causes piles of corpses - and you think it is a bad idea to put an end to that?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Chaos


If you don´t mind the reference to Hitler (among others), history has shown us that it is the nationalists.
Hitler didn´t try to save the world, or humanity; all he cared for was the welfare of the Aryan race, at the cost of whatever number of non-Aryans (and a considerable number of "traitorous" and "disloyal" Aryans, as well) it would take.
I could go on like that with Stalin (who is responsible for up to 40 million dead), Pol Pot (who killed 15% of his country´s population within three years) and lots of others.

As you can see, it is precisely the us-versus-them (or good-versus-evil) stance of nationalism (or religion, for that matter) that causes piles of corpses - and you think it is a bad idea to put an end to that? I'm not convinced that it is that simple. It seems to me that we identify a percieved cause and then declare it bad. And why not? The effects are bad, right?

But in reality, aren't the problems you talk about endemic to human nature and while we might be able to get rid of nations we will never be able to eradicate culture or percieved differences?

Pol Pot killed his own country men because they had a different ideology. The farmers in the Ukraine were masacred not because they belonged to a different nation but because they would not conform to their nation's demands.

Ulitmately the problem isn't with nations. It's with people. Solving problems by eliminating nations won't solve the problems.

[Chaos]

I admit that nationalism is not all there is to it. Among other thing, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were all extremely paranoid. People with aspirations as a dictator all seem to be paranoid.

On the other hand, national (and international) politics is a field that, to a certain degree rewards paranoia, at least all but the most extreme kinds. Paranoia only grows worse, unless it is treated, and a politician´s paranoia is rarely recognized as such.

[Cleopatra]

RandFan said: Perhaps unique to Americans is the feelings of patriotism that transcend ideas of race or ethnicity. We are not simply English or Italian or Spanish, etc. We are simply American, E Plurbius Unium. From many one. And patriotism for many or most Americans isn't even about geography. Patriotism for us is the love of freedom and opportunity and the values on which our nation was founded.

I am proud to be a patriot.

To which Nikk responded with the following question:Wouldn't it be more correct to say that you are proud to be an ideologue?


I think that the posts above describe beautifully my observation regarding the different way Americans and Europeans perceive Nationalism and that Americans talking about nationalism is an oxymoron. I agree with Nikk. Randfan described an ideology not patriotism that srpings from what we know in Europe as nationalism.

Nice reply Randfan although I disagree with you.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Chaos
As you can see, it is precisely the us-versus-them (or good-versus-evil) stance of nationalism (or religion, for that matter) that causes piles of corpses - and you think it is a bad idea to put an end to that?

For there to be a conflict, there has to be an us and a them, but it doesn't logically follow that us and them causes conflict. To say that is to ignore all the various us's and thems that are not in conflict.

Wars are not caused by making distinctions between people. Wars happen when different peoples (nations, city-states, tribes, whatever) recognize differences in needs/goals (real or imagined) that bring them into conflict with each other.

National identity is only one of many distinctions that can be made between people. Taking away this one identifying characteristic will not end conflict, it will just change conflict so that it follows different identifying characteristics.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Graham
I suspect the Chinese, amongst others, might dispute this since by 500 BC they were already well into their fourth (third?) Imperial dynasty.

Graham I don't doubt the antiquity of the Chinese civilization I am just saying that the Greeks were the first that they not only perceived but expressed in their writings and turned into a policy the idea that they differ as a group from the people that surrounded them.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Cleopatra:Well, no, I don't think we can. The only part of that definition I can partially agree with is the "connected to a specific land", and even that is very shaky as the borders of most nations have changed throughout history. and then you continue:
Such flowery words. How about defining it something like "A community of people possessing a more or less defined territory and government".


Actually Danish Dynamite things are not that simple especially when two groups of people dispute over one land( example: Israelis and Palestinians) or they dispute as to where they have to draw the border line( the example that comes to my mind is the following.Can Hungary annex the part of Slovakia whose population is predominately Hungarian?) The notion of government came much later as I explained to my previous post. You cannot dispute over a territory without describing your group in terms of History and culture ( language).

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by RandFan

What president is pushing Utopia?
I assume your question is rhetorical.

Here's (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=utopian)a quick definition of utopian.

Excellent or ideal but impracticable; visionary: a utopian scheme for equalizing wealth.

Proposing impracticably ideal schemes.

Neo-conservatives certainly want to remake the world. George W seems to believe he's peculiarly chosen by time and events to do so.

Consider Iraq. Do you believe that any realistic planning went into the post-invasion? Things were supposed to somehow work out on their own - the Iraqi people would line the streets and throw oil, I mean flowers, and everything would pay for itself.

Right?

What is real is less important to the current administration than that which is believed. I think I'm being quite generous by giving them that much.

[Cleopatra]

Oh please Frank. Do not turn this into an Iraq thread.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
What if recalcitrant rebel groups engaged in a terrorist campaign against the institutions of OWG? The right of self-defense would of course be allowed.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I don't see how changing the scale changes any of the issues. I can understand how a smaller unit, a city or a region, is easier to identify with, but that's an issue of personal taste. If there is a central guaranteeing authority, isn’t that just a super-state with all the problems associated with it? Depends on the power invested in this central guaranteeing authority.

[DanishDynamite]

RandFan:Ulitmately the problem isn't with nations. It's with people. Solving problems by eliminating nations won't solve the problems.I wonder if you would have some statistics regarding the number of civil wars or equivalent that a nation state engages in compared to the number of inter-nation-state wars?

[DanishDynamite]

Cleo, the Mighty:
Actually Danish Dynamite things are not that simple especially when two groups of people dispute over one land( example: Israelis and Palestinians) or they dispute as to where they have to draw the border line( the example that comes to my mind is the following.Can Hungary annex the part of Slovakia whose population is predominately Hungarian?) The notion of government came much later as I explained to my previous post. You cannot dispute over a territory without describing your group in terms of History and culture ( language). Disputes over where to draw the border line is immaterial to the definition of a nation-state.

It is time that people realize that there is nothing "obviously right" in the existence of a nation-state. It is a concept invented at some point in human history, like all religions, and if people could just see past their indoctrination they would realize that there is nothing holly about this construct.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Mycroft


For there to be a conflict, there has to be an us and a them, but it doesn't logically follow that us and them causes conflict. To say that is to ignore all the various us's and thems that are not in conflict.

Wars are not caused by making distinctions between people. Wars happen when different peoples (nations, city-states, tribes, whatever) recognize differences in needs/goals (real or imagined) that bring them into conflict with each other.

National identity is only one of many distinctions that can be made between people. Taking away this one identifying characteristic will not end conflict, it will just change conflict so that it follows different identifying characteristics.

I didn´t say "us and them together causes conflict". I said that the stance of us versus them causes it. With "stance" I mean the belief that

- "we" are better than "they" are
- "we" have the right to take what "they" own, if we want it
- "we" are the good guys, "they" are the bad guys
- whatever "we" do is justified, whatever "they" do that "we" don´t like is evil

This is not limited to nationalism. It also applies to religion, ethnic identity, politcal stances, and probably to other fields I didn´t think of.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
The right of self-defense would of course be allowed.

A-HA!!!! So the OWG WILL be armed, and WILL be allowed to excercise force against its enemies! But, surely, it will do so only in self-defense. trust us. It couldn't possibly happen that the armed OWG will ever abuse its power.

Right?

Your solution to rogue nations, nations who abuse human rights, nations who engage in agressive war, etc., etc., etc., is to create a "one-world government"--in effect, a super-nation ruled by a super-government. But... Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards? Suppose there is a one-world government... and it becomes, through corruption (power corrupts) or some other reason, itself tyrannical and evil. Who will you turn to then?

To illustrate, we hear a lot from the left about how the US's so-called "partiot act" abuses human rights. Let's suppose that's true. If worse truly comes to worst, one could emigrate from the US to another nation--say, Finland--which (in one's view) has a higher respect for human rights. But where will you go, if the OWG declares its own "patriot act"--"temporarily" suspending civil liberties across the globe in the interest of "self-defense" or "world peace" or "war on terror" or "stopping the counter-revolutionary nationalists from X" or whatever?

When a nation-state's government turns evil, its citizens can at least hope for help from outside. There is no "outside" (barring alien invasion) to a one-world government. Who will, or could, make sure that the all-powerful OWG does not abuse its power? Nobody. So if it ever turns bad or tyrannical, you will really have an Orwellian 1984 scenario: "A boot stepping on a human face--forever", as O'Brien tells Winston Smith.

So, no, DD, I do not agree that a OWG is a worthy goal. Quite apart from being utterly impossible to implement without rivers of blood, which is another issue, a OWG, any OWG, once in power, would be nothing more than a one-way ticket to unending tyranny. The motto of your "dream" OWG shouldn't really be "one world of peace" (or whatever), but "abandon all hope, ye who enter here!".

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Skeptic

A-HA!!!! So the OWG WILL be armed, and WILL be allowed to excercise force against its enemies! But, surely, it will do so only in self-defense. trust us. It couldn't possibly happen that the armed OWG will ever abuse its power.

Right?Skeptic, my wrongly named friend, a One World Government would by definition not have any external enemies (save aggresive aliens).

However, in the interim, they would obviously be allowed to defend themselves when attacked.
Your solution to rogue nations, nations who abuse human rights, nations who engage in agressive war, etc., etc., etc., is to create a "one-world government"--in effect, a super-nation ruled by a super-government. But... Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards? Suppose there is a one-world government... and it becomes, through corruption (power corrupts) or some other reason, itself tyrannical and evil. Who will you turn to then? Who will you turn to if the government of the US becomes likewise? Are you afraid that the checks and balances won't balance?
To illustrate, we hear a lot from the left about how the US's so-called "partiot act" abuses human rights. Let's suppose that's true. If worse truly comes to worst, one could emigrate from the US to another nation--say, Finland--which (in one's view) has a higher respect for human rights. But where will you go, if the OWG declares its own "patriot act"--"temporarily" suspending civil liberties across the globe in the interest of "self-defense" or "world peace" or "war on terror" or "stopping the counter-revolutionary nationalists from X" or whatever? Indeed. The US constitution, while a good template, needs to be enhanced before it would be acceptable to a OWG, to avoid the type of problems you are currently faced with.
When a nation-state's government turns evil, its citizens can at least hope for help from outside. There is no "outside" (barring alien invasion) to a one-world government. Who will, or could, make sure that the all-powerful OWG does not abuse its power? Nobody. So if it ever turns bad or tyrannical, you will really have an Orwellian 1984 scenario: "A boot stepping on a human face--forever", as O'Brien tells Winston Smith. Sorry, what?

Are you saying that US citizens ultimately depend on foreign assistance to help them in case their their government somehow bypasses the US Constitution?
So, no, DD, I do not agree that a OWG is a worthy goal. Quite apart from being utterly impossible to implement without rivers of blood, which is another issue, a OWG, any OWG, once in power, would be nothing more than a one-way ticket to unending tyranny. The motto of your "dream" OWG shouldn't really be "one world of peace" (or whatever), but "abandon all hope, ye who enter here!".So why is a OWG a utopian concept in your view?

[Skeptic]

Skeptic, my wrongly named friend, a One World Government would by definition not have any external enemies (save aggresive aliens).

However, in the interim, they would obviously be allowed to defend themselves when attacked.

Yes, it will... all those evil, secretive, counterrevolutionary people who still harbor verboten nationalistic sympathies would be its enemies.

Let me put it very simply: If ever such a government is proposed in my lifetime (which I consider extremely unlikely) I, and literally billions like me, will be its enemies from the very start, no matter what promises it makes or what constitution it declares, for a variety of reasons.

I, and literally billions like me, will take up arms to fight it with force, and will fight it to the death. This is not bravado since, as I said, I might as well pledge to fight to the death the alien invaders from Zeta Rectuli, if and when they finally arrive here, for all the likelihood of me ever being called on this promise.

So, what is your OWG going to do, "in the interim", with its "right of self defense", against me? Please be specific...

[Nikk]

Originally posted by RandFan
No, but thank you for given me an opportunity to respond.

I could probably cite a thousand reasons why I am definitely not an ideologue but I will post a few that come to my mind. Please feel free to ask me to expand on any points or people you are unfamiliar with.

I'm certainly right of center. However, I strongly support the separation of church and state. I support a woman's right to choose. I want prostitution to be legalized. I want to end the moronic and wasteful war on drugs. I want gays to enjoy all of the rights of heterosexual couples. I fervently support the minimum wage and would like to see it increased.

/snipped for brevity/

I abhor rigid adherence to ideology. I believe that such a position is antithetical to critical thinking.

That being said, I don't think critical thinking and patriotism are mutually exclusive.
Again,

Thank you very much for given me the opportunity to respond.

Well lets turn first to your original post in which you said.....

......" Perhaps unique to Americans is the feelings of patriotism that transcend ideas of race or ethnicity. We are not simply English or Italian or Spanish, etc. We are simply American, E Plurbius Unium. From many one. And patriotism for many or most Americans isn't even about geography. Patriotism for us is the love of freedom and opportunity and the values on which our nation was founded..............."

Firstly patriotism does not necessarily have anything to do with race or ethnicity ( whatever they are ) in other nation states. Feelings associated with race are closer to nationalism than patriotism. In the last but one election for the British Conservative party a leading contender was Michael Portillo, the son of refugees from Franco's Spain. The current leader is Michael Howard the son of Romanian jewish immigrants/refugees. Neither would thank you for suggesting that they are at heart patriotic Spaniards/Romanians/Jews. A likely future contender for the French Presidency is an Hungarian immigrant. Again his patriotism is not at issue.

As the word is derived from "patria" which is much closer to homeland than nation state it is probably fair to say that patriotism means little more than a rather incoherent emotional attachment to a particular territory and way of life. In my opinion is not only one of the commonest of human emotions but also one that easily transcends "race and ethnicity".

Secondly you suggest that American patriotism is primarily about...... the love of freedom and opportunity and the values on which our nation was founded....... .

What you are describing here is surely a set of beliefs or principles on which you believe your nation state is based.

And what is an ideology but....."a theory, or set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party or organization is based:"...........

And what is an ideologue but ......."a person who believes very strongly in particular principles and tries to follow them carefully".

Needless to say it is possible to be a patriot and an ideologue but I maintain that American patriotism is unique only in the sense that all forms of patriotism are unique.

You mention that you have views which sometimes cross party boundaries and that you have voted for candidates of different parties. As all successful parties in a representative democracy are coalitions and need to adapt and compromise to meet the demands of the electorate this is hardly surprising. Indeed it rather supports my point that you are an ideologue ( this is not an insult by the way ) as you putting your beliefs ahead of party loyalty.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
RandFan said:

To which Nikk responded with the following question:


I think that the posts above describe beautifully my observation regarding the different way Americans and Europeans perceive Nationalism and that Americans talking about nationalism is an oxymoron. I agree with Nikk. Randfan described an ideology not patriotism that srpings from what we know in Europe as nationalism.

Nice reply Randfan although I disagree with you.

A major difficulty in discussing nationalism is a lack of agreement on definitions. It is quite common to see nationalism and patriotism used as synonyms, something I disagree with. The fact that the term "Patria" predated the nation state suggests that they are different ideas after all.

As far as I am concerned Orwell gets to the heart of the difference between the two ideas when he says ( in "Notes on Nationalism" ):-

"By Patriotism I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseperable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality".

It is of course rather easy for Patriotism to slide into Nationalism. If you believe that your own way of life/religion etc is inhererently superior to all others it only too easy to think that you have the moral right and indeed duty to impose it on others..................Then they kill you. :D

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Oh please Frank. Do not turn this into an Iraq thread.
Got ether (http://ws02.hp.infoseek.co.jp/SEVEN/7hukuzin/70/Climax_Blues_Band_1971.JPG)?

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
Nation is a community


constituted by shared belief and mutual commitment.
extended in history
connected to a specific land
distinguished by other communities by its public culture.

I would add "shares a set of national myths".
...for example in medieval universities it was used to classify students by country of origin ...
It was also used this way amongst the Knights of Malta, where it caused all sorts of problems in co-ordinating the defence against the Ottomans. Rioting between the different "nations" of the Paris universities was almost a recognised sport. Give young men some means of dividing themselves into "teams" and inter-team violence follows. Patriotism, like religion, is one of the ways older minds manipulate young male violence to their own ends.
In the silly poem that I quoted above to tease Capel Dodger , the word “nation” is applied to Romans,Saxons, Danes and Normans and to people that he ironically identifies as those who contributed to the “heterogeneous things , an Englishman”.

Eddie Izzard recently presented a series called "Mongrol Nation" about Britain, I recommend it (I'm a big fan anyway). You'll recall I did mention "Britain (a whole argument in itself)" earlier on. Fortescue was wrong about Scotland being a "nation", but right not to think that Wales was (never was, still isn't).
So, it’s wrong to sugget that the concept of Nation entered politics with the rise of the 19th ce Nationalism it was already recognizable to places at least a century earlier.
Indeed, but it was a tool of philosophy rather than a dominant political reality. The theorising that led to 19thCE Nationalism - which is politically dominant today - was part of an attempt to create an alternative ideology to the heriditary, "Mandate of Heaven" ideology that was holding back progress in Germany. (Socialism, which is explicitly anti-nationalist, was another such effort.) The finished product was taken up by subjects of the Austrian Empire, despite it being mostly inappropriate (Hungary, at least, excepted). Spain, France and Portugal were "natural", peripheral nations that coalesced in the late 15th/early 16thCE (post-1492 in Spain, post Louis XI in France, every now and again in Portugal). There was no precise theory of nation leading the way. It was these examples which theorists of nationalism looked to for their defined ideology, without, perhaps, recognising their real nature. And it this model which has been imposed on the world outside Western Europe (where your examples come from). That's what I see as the problem.
The Greeks were the first who distinguished themselves from the "barbarians".
...I don't doubt the antiquity of the Chinese civilization I am just saying that the Greeks were the first that they not only perceived but expressed in their writings and turned into a policy the idea that they differ as a group from the people that surrounded them.
You do make some wild claims. I doubt that the Sumerians missed this idea, or the early Chinese. Ezra was pushing the idea of at least a religious nation when he banned marrying-out. The Greeks happen to have been particularly well-reported, and we can see from those reports that nationalism was only ever the preferred ideology of the dominant city of the time. Writing the idea down and having those writings still extant is hardly relevant.
The idea that each people had a homeland and that the rule of foreigners constitute oppression that must be resisted gives us the right to suggest that this first form of nationalism has political implications and goes far beyong the triban sentiment and feeling.
Actually, the Greeks had the idea that they had a homeland. Alexander took to the idea of Empire - with Greece as part of it - without any hesitation, as did the Seleucids and your Ptolomaic ancestors. Rule of foreigners as appression ... I imagine the problem wasn't thought about much, them being Greeks and all.
Berlin says that those who view politics as an activity that should be left in the hands of the elite view with distaste the philosophy on which sovereign nations are built.
In modern terms, such people are eager to grasp the ideology, since it gives them cover for exercising their rapacity within their own borders. The outside world, dazzled by the idea of "sovereignty" that must not be denied, leaves them to it. "Nations" sprang up all over Central America post-Empire, ruled by just that type. The 1880's have been described as the decadde when nationalism completed its migration fro left (democratic) to right (demagogic).
Think about it Capel Dodger and do not reject Berlin because the man was not a Zionist.
I don't dismiss anyone because a label has been stuck on them. It is my ambition to be right, not to have any prejudices confirmed. I won't achieve that by rejecting useful thinking, and even erroneous thinking can be stimulating.

Edited to add:

I'm assuming Ptolemaic descent from your avatar, but apologies if you're referring to Cleopatra mother of Herod Philip.

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:
Exactly. Thus we see the practical benefits of national sovereignty. If it ain't broke........
If it ain't broke, why is the world making such a grinding noise at it turns?
What about nations like Ireland, with populations considerably smaller than the likes of London and New York?

Distance may be more important than population. London is famously described as a series of overlapping villages, and I suspect New York has much the same feel - there's Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn and the rest but all their population are New Yorkers. Cities have their hinterlands, areas around them that are economically dominated by the city, and great cities have satellite cities. Between the cities and their hinterlands are rural areas, and there is a natural tension between rural (down-to-earth) and city (slickers, sorry, I mean sophisticates). Nations extend the hinterlands too far and impose their own terms on the regions.
CD seems to advocate the eradication of all nation states. The flip side is that history is littered with failed attempts at supranational government.
I advocate a central guaranteeing authority (guaranteeing rights we'd all be in broad agreement with) with local power in a variety of units defined and arranged according to circumstances, but accepted by the locals. If the local unit turns out to be national in scope, fair enough, but sovereignty will be limited by the guarenteed rights. Hard to achieve, but still worth thinking about. The flip-side of the failures is that we can learn something from them; the flip-side of national failures, like Iraq, is that we can learn from their experiences too. At the very least we should be reviewing the borders that have been laid out over the last century (mosty over the last 50 years). I'd like to go further.
What if recalcitrant rebel groups engaged in a terrorist campaign against the institutions of OWG?
Rebels do this within nation states, and they are dealt with ... by various methods. If they're nationalist rebels, the validity of the nation is obviously in question. The OWG would prohibit local units inciting or supporting such rebellions, and transparent democracies (as guaranteed to everyone) should be less subject to them than many nations today.

[CapelDodger]

from BillyTK:
... [reference to indecent acts involving sheep deleted] ...
See what I have to put up with from cat-people? Go tell your satanic masters they're barking up the wrong tree trying to undermine me.
... Welsh guy more credit than he deserves.
I am not Welsh. I claim no nation and allow no nation to claim me. And there isn't any more credit than I deserve; I am the one great hope of mankind in the face of the cat-threat. Preventing human unity is the sine qua non of their strategy. When we all get together and compare notes, their evil machinations will become clear to everyone. Then there shall be a squealing and a screeching and the clawing and the biting (that's just the dupes that own and nurture them) throughout the land, but not for long. Not for long at all ...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger


See what I have to put up with from cat-people? Go tell your satanic masters they're barking up the wrong tree trying to undermine me. Admit it Capel Dodger what you hate most in cats is the fact that they don't come to rub to your feet and beg for your love.

I am not Welsh. I claim no nation and allow no nation to claim me. Oh come on. Don't be so modest I am sure that many nations are dying to claim you...
And there isn't any more credit than I deserve; I am the one great hope of mankind in the face of the cat-threat. Preventing human unity is the sine qua non of their strategy. When we all get together and compare notes, their evil machinations will become clear to everyone. Then there shall be a squealing and a screeching and the clawing and the biting (that's just the dupes that own and nurture them) throughout the land, but not for long. Not for long at all ... LOL They will let you survive when the last battle is over to show the world what happens to those that mess up with the authorities. :c1:

[CapelDodger]

from RandFan:
Perhaps unique to Americans is the feelings of patriotism that transcend ideas of race or ethnicity. We are not simply English or Italian or Spanish, etc. We are simply American, E Plurbius Unium. From many one. And patriotism for many or most Americans isn't even about geography. Patriotism for us is the love of freedom and opportunity and the values on which our nation was founded.
The US is a limited example of the model I've suggested - a central guaranteeing authority overseeing local rule by States, which in turn oversee local rule by counties and cities. If this can arouse feelings of patriotism, why should not a world-wide version? Why not respect for an institution, created by fallible humans, that has banished war and superceded atavisitic tribal and narrow national interests? The "in" population would be the entire human race. As a plus, this might prompt a closer consideration of what being human is, and how unattractive a species we really are.
That patriotism can be manipulated does not make it wrong or bad. Many human emotions can be manipulated for bad purposes.
...
Ulitmately the problem isn't with nations. It's with people. Solving problems by eliminating nations won't solve the problems.
I don't see patriotism as an emotion, more something that people get emotional about. I'd bracket it with religion, nationalism and attachment to an economic class; perhaps you could suggest others. All of these are very often used to manipulate people via what they perceive as righteous feelings, and much harm results.
But in reality, aren't the problems you talk about endemic to human nature and while we might be able to get rid of nations we will never be able to eradicate culture or percieved differences?
Pessismistic. I think education and the demonisation of those who seek to promote such differences could work. Look at the way that mainstream attitudes to homosexuality have changed in the developed world over the last few decades. I've seen remarkable changes in my half-century, such as wouldn't have been predicted, I think, in the 50's.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
Oh come on. Don't be so modest I am sure that many nations are dying to claim you...
The clamour is deafening, but I rebuff them. "Get thee behind me," I say, that being where my agent has his desk. So far, no sensible offers have come in.
LOL They will let you survive when the last battle is over to show the world what happens to those that mess up with the authorities. :c1:
I'm under no illusions as to which side of the barricades you'll be on. Let's meet in no-man's land on the night before Catmageddon, share some wine, sing sad songs ...

[CapelDodger]

Mycroft: You edited a quote from me, replacing "nation" with "city-state", without making it clear that you had done so. Perhaps you could have bolded the changes and pointed them out .
I don't see how changing the scale changes any of the issues. I can understand how a smaller unit, a city or a region, is easier to identify with, but that's an issue of personal taste. If there is a central guaranteeing authority, isn’t that just a super-state with all the problems associated with it?
The US is a super-state, with some associated problems. All in all it's done a good job. If the guaranteeing authority (Humanistan? Perhaps not ...) is designed correctly, and protected from corruption by good people not doing nothing, there should be fewer problems than there are in the world now. There will also be absolutely humungous new resources available with military spending all but eliminated, which should see a lot of problems solved.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by RandFan
Actually I didn't miss his point at all. And your argument is fallacious. That patriotism can be manipulated does not make it wrong or bad. Many human emotions can be manipulated for bad purposes. The fact does not mean that we should strive to not have emotions.
Non-sequitur; there's a bit of a conceptual difference between emotional states and ideology (even though the latter is used as a method to manipulate the former). An analogy; cars cause pollution, but the solution wouldn't be to stop making metal.

I would posit that the examples have more to do with nationalism and little if anything to do with patriotism.
You can have nationalism without patriotism? :eek: If only it were so easy to disentangle nations, patriotism and nationalism.

Edited to fix tags

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Beside the point. CD seems to advocate the eradication of all nation states.
Quite to the point, actually; nation-statism was supposedly the "cure" for the "broke" places; but even where it's not broke, it's mostly in part of the homogeneity of the local culture, which was achieved by having the pointy stuff beaten out of them. Like for instance, the successive invasions and occupations of the area which later became your country at the hands of my country, and come to think of it, the successive invasions of what came to be my country at the hands of, well just about everyone.

The flip side is that history is littered with failed attempts at supranational government.
Examples, please? How would these relate to the views being expressed here?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from BillyTK:

See what I have to put up with from cat-people? Go tell your satanic masters they're barking up the wrong tree trying to undermine me.

I am not Welsh. I claim no nation and allow no nation to claim me. And there isn't any more credit than I deserve; I am the one great hope of mankind in the face of the cat-threat. Preventing human unity is the sine qua non of their strategy. When we all get together and compare notes, their evil machinations will become clear to everyone. Then there shall be a squealing and a screeching and the clawing and the biting (that's just the dupes that own and nurture them) throughout the land, but not for long. Not for long at all ...
...I was being a good little patriot ;) I'm not English, either; that was just an accident of birth. Reading this thread reminded of staying with some friends in Shrewsbury a couple of years back; they told me about a local gang called the Border Patrol, who went out looking for people with a Welsh accent to beat up. "But how can they tell them apart?" I asked, because to my ears there was no difference in accent that I could detect...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Nikk
You mention that you have views which sometimes cross party boundaries and that you have voted for candidates of different parties. As all successful parties in a representative democracy are coalitions and need to adapt and compromise to meet the demands of the electorate this is hardly surprising. Indeed it rather supports my point that you are an ideologue ( this is not an insult by the way ) as you putting your beliefs ahead of party loyalty. I didn't quite understand your post. Sorry. I have some very important projects to complete and I'm going to have to take a break for a time so perhaps we can deal with the rest when I have more time.

As to ideologue,

i·de·o·logue ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d--lôg, -lg, d-)
n.
An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology. I don't really have a particular ideology. I think "particular" as it is used here is static rather than dynamic. Ideologues tend to "tow the party line" or "vote according to party lines". And while it might seem that I do that I really don't. My rhetoric paints a caricature of me in large part due to my emotional and visceral responses to certain issues.

Furthermore I don't in all actuality advocate my own brand of ideology (whatever that is). I have stated categorically that I don't want all people to think as I do nor do I think that any one ideology is right or good for all people. If anything I advocate tolerance of other beliefs ahead of any particular ideology because such fanatical adherence to any ideology is antithetical to both truth and progress. So in the end, while there are issues that I advocate I do not advocate my ideology. My ideology exists for my own purposes. I do not vainly or arrogantly think my ideology is somehow superior to others (see Rush Limbaugh) and therefore need to advocate it. Nor do I dogmatically cling to my ideology. I have changed positions on a number of issues since I have joined this forum.

Thanks again Nikk

[RandFan]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Non-sequitur; there's a bit of a conceptual difference between emotional states and ideology (even though the latter is used as a method to manipulate the former). An analogy; cars cause pollution, but the solution wouldn't be to stop making metal. No, it is not a non sequitur. You make a couple of fundamental errors in your response. First, I'm not talking about ideology, though I realize that you are. It is not however relevant to my point.

By definition patriotism is love of country. One can love or not love his or her country regardless of ideology.

Propostion: Patriotism is not inherently bad and we need not strive to eliminate it from the human condition.

Premise: Patriotism is simply an emotion.

Premise: Like all emotions it can be manipulated.

Premise: That it can be manipulated is not a reason to see it in a negative light.

You can have nationalism without patriotism? Did I make that claim? No!

Let me give you an analogy. Love for ones mate can escalate into destructive obsession just as love for ones country can escalate into something more destructive. That it can does not mean it will.

If only it were so easy to disentangle nations, patriotism and nationalism. Whether or not something is easy is not a measure of its truth. Your argument is fallacious.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by RandFan
No, it is not a non sequitur.
Yes it is; you conflate patriotism with emotions in that they both can be manipulated; they're different things, and as I pointed out, it would be more accurate to say that patriotism is used to manipulate emotions, not something that in and of itself can be manipulated.
You make a couple of fundamental errors in your response. First, I'm not talking about ideology, though I realize that you are. It is not however relevant to my point.
You make the fundamental errors yourself; just because you refuse to recognise that patriotism is an ideology, doesn't make it any less of an ideology. Sorry.

By definition patriotism is love of country. One can love or not love his or her country regardless of ideology.
The object of your affections is an ideological construct; go figure.

Propostion: Patriotism is not inherently bad and we need not strive to eliminate it from the human condition.

Premise: Patriotism is simply an emotion.

Premise: Like all emotions it can be manipulated.

Premise: That it can be manipulated is not a reason to see it in a negative light.
Premise [1] is false; the rest of your argument falls down because of this.

Did I make that claim? No!
That bit where you make an explicit separation between nationalism and patriotism. Here it is:
I would posit that the examples have more to do with nationalism and little if anything to do with patriotism.
Did you mis-speak?
Let me give you an analogy. Love for ones mate can escalate into destructive obsession just as love for ones country can escalate into something more destructive. That it can does not mean it will.
Except that my mate is not an ideological construct with a distinct set of norms, values and mores attached to [her] (well, to some extent she is, but we don't want to get too Foucauldian here). Your analogy is inappropriate.

Whether or not something is easy is not a measure of its truth. Your argument is fallacious.
I have no idea as to what your point is in response to here. I was remarking on the ease with which you distinguished between nationalism and patriotism, therefore for my argument to be fallacious what you said is not what you intended to say. Although your protestations that patriotism is not an ideology leads me to conclude this is not the case, if it is then could you please explain what you intended to say? Thanks!

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Yugoslavia:
Quite to the point, actually; nation-statism was supposedly the "cure" for the "broke" places;

I'm not sure about that, and I couldn't care less. Nation statism can work very well, and when and where it doesn't work shouldn't be used as an argument against where it does.

Examples, please? How would these relate to the views being expressed here?

Yugoslavia. The Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire etc etc.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


I'm not sure about that,
The nation-building authored by the British Empire, for instance.
and I couldn't care less.
Though your intention may be otherwise, that comes across as fairly smug.
Nation statism can work very well, and when and where it doesn't work shouldn't be used as an argument against where it does.
How about; where it does work, it's redundant and where it doesn't work, it's destructive, which makes the entire project futile.

Yugoslavia. The Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire etc etc.
I'm probably being a bit more acerbic than is necessary—probably as a result of being renamed Yugoslavia—but I'm compelled to note that those are pretty weak examples of "history [being] littered with failed attempts at supranational government", what with two of these examples occuring before we had nations anyway. But credit where it's due; I was expecting something along the lines of the League of Nations or the UN; thanks for exceeding my expectations! :)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
[...]
Eddie Izzard recently presented a series called "Mongrol Nation" about Britain, I recommend it (I'm a big fan anyway).
[..]
Do you have a flag? (http://www.auntiemomo.com/cakeordeath/d2ktranscription.html#history)
So, yeah. There was a lot of that, and we built up empires - we stole countries! That's what you do, that's how you build an empire. We stole countries with the cunning use of flags! Yeah, just sail around the world and stick a flag in.

"I claim India for Britain!"

They go, "You can't claim us, we live here! 500 million of us!"

"Do you have a flag?"

"We don't need a bloody flag! It's our country, you bastards!"

"No flag, no country, you can't have one! That's the rules that I've just made up, and I'm backing it up with this gun that was lent from the National Rifle Association."

That was it, you know?

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:
Yugoslavia. The Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire etc etc.
Yugoslavia wasn't a failed super-national state, the preceding Confederation of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was. It wasn't likely to work since only Serbia had been independent before 1919, and only Serbia had an army (evacuated by the Allies in 1915 then returned via Salonika). The national army was de facto a Serbian one (and remained mostly so even under Tito), and the King of Serbia became King of Yugoslavia in a coup. Serbian nationalists had a vision of Greater Serbia, and considered Yugoslavia as exactly that. Anyhoo, the Balkans is a bad place for nations. Far, far from peripheral. Ethnically mixed (in spades), with different groups inter-mingled and filling different economic functions. It was pretty successful under Tito but Serbian Nationalism never went away. Gotta hate them Serbs.

The Roman Empire lasted over 1600 years. I'd call that working. It's generally thought that European standards-of-living didn't return to the standards of the 3rdCE until the 18th. It had to be doing something right. Even after it's fall in the West the invaders tried to emulate it, and in fact the original desire of Alaric's Goths was to join the Empire, not damage it. (The Roman powers-that-be really screwed up there.) When Charlemagne declared himself Roman Emperor in the West he meant exactly that. Greek snobbery (sorry Cleopatra, but there it is) meant a great opportunity was missed to restore the old Empire with who knows what results. (Perhaps even the rolling back of Islam.)

Charlemagne's creation became known as the "Holy" Roman Empire because the Vatican poached it and claimed the right to appoint future Emperors. (Charlemagne was never crowned by the Pope, but it was so claimed from the pulpit, which was a PR tool Charlemagne couldn't match. He was livid.) "Christendom" was definitely an example of a failed supra-national state, but what can one expect from a self-serving bunch of believers.

[CapelDodger]

Thank you for the link, BillyTK. It's of no relevance at all, but the Welsh flag is the oldest "national" flag in the world. And it's the one that isn't represented on the Union Flag, that over-busy, frankly ugly mish-mash. Green half, whilte half, big red dragon on top. That's what I call a flag.

The Dragon was introduced by a Roman auxiliary cavalry unit from North Africa but I'd better not go into that. I have a tendency to wander.

[CapelDodger]

Apologies if I've missed it, but nobody seems to have brought up globalisation, trans-national corporations and flows of capital. Even the US government declares itself powerless in the face of these. If nothing is done the sort of rule-by-corporation predicted by sci-fi - such as Fred Pohl or the Alien writer, Alan Dean Foster? - might come about by default. Shanek would love that, which is good enough reason to take up arms agin it.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
The nation-building authored by the British Empire, for instance.

Which we could more suitably blame upon the Foreign Office, or imperialism, rather than nationalism or the nation state.

Though your intention may be otherwise, that comes across as fairly smug.

Couldn't care less about that either!

How about; where it does work, it's redundant and where it doesn't work, it's destructive, which makes the entire project futile.

Redundant how exactly? And how would the failure of relatively artificial states in Africa make Irish nationhood futile?

I'm probably being a bit more acerbic than is necessary—probably as a result of being renamed Yugoslavia—but I'm compelled to note that those are pretty weak examples of "history [being] littered with failed attempts at supranational government", what with two of these examples occuring before we had nations anyway. But credit where it's due; I was expecting something along the lines of the League of Nations or the UN; thanks for exceeding my expectations!

How about the Napoleonic empire, Soviet Empire, or the Nazi empire? I think you'll find that Ireland did fulfill many of the concepts of nationhood in ancient and medieval times - a common language, common customs and a common system of law.

Originally posted by Capel Dodger:
Yugoslavia wasn't a failed super-national state, the preceding Confederation of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was. It wasn't likely to work since only Serbia had been independent before 1919, and only Serbia had an army (evacuated by the Allies in 1915 then returned via Salonika). The national army was de facto a Serbian one (and remained mostly so even under Tito), and the King of Serbia became King of Yugoslavia in a coup. Serbian nationalists had a vision of Greater Serbia, and considered Yugoslavia as exactly that. Anyhoo, the Balkans is a bad place for nations. Far, far from peripheral. Ethnically mixed (in spades), with different groups inter-mingled and filling different economic functions. It was pretty successful under Tito but Serbian Nationalism never went away. Gotta hate them Serbs.

So how will OWG solve all this then?

The Roman Empire lasted over 1600 years. I'd call that working. It's generally thought that European standards-of-living didn't return to the standards of the 3rdCE until the 18th. It had to be doing something right. Even after it's fall in the West the invaders tried to emulate it, and in fact the original desire of Alaric's Goths was to join the Empire, not damage it. (The Roman powers-that-be really screwed up there.)

True, but the success of the Roman Empire lay in no small part to the dominance of Latin culture. Indigenous languages were abandoned for Latin, while the ruling classes adapted Roman culture. How would OWG emulate this?

Charlemagne's creation became known as the "Holy" Roman Empire because the Vatican poached it and claimed the right to appoint future Emperors. (Charlemagne was never crowned by the Pope, but it was so claimed from the pulpit, which was a PR tool Charlemagne couldn't match. He was livid.) "Christendom" was definitely an example of a failed supra-national state, but what can one expect from a self-serving bunch of believers.

And you can guarantee that OWG wouldn't similarly be hijacked by a powerful vested interest?

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:
So how will OWG solve all this then?
It's a bit much to ask it to change history. It won't wash your whites even whiter either.
True, but the success of the Roman Empire lay in no small part to the dominance of Latin culture. Indigenous languages were abandoned for Latin, while the ruling classes adapted Roman culture. How would OWG emulate this?
The real reasons for the success of the Empire led to the cultural homogenization. Something similar is happening in the McWorld today. Greek was, in fact, the lingua franca (always gotta get that one in) of the Empire, even in the West (which was not the most important part).
And you can guarantee that OWG wouldn't similarly be hijacked by a powerful vested interest?
I would hope so, by designing the system carefully and intelligently. There's certainly no guarantee that nation-states won't be taken over by vested interests, and look at the sort of trouble that's caused.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
The real reasons for the success of the Empire led to the cultural homogenization. Something similar is happening in the McWorld today. Greek was, in fact, the lingua franca (always gotta get that one in) of the Empire, even in the West (which was not the most important part).

So how come so many people in Europe speak latin derived languages?

I would hope so, by designing the system carefully and intelligently.

Well that's kinda like the man who designed a careful and intelligent system for predicting winners in horse races. The system didn't work any better than chance. He claimed that the system was fine, and he couldn't be blamed for the failure of the horses to run in a careful and intelligent manner.

There's certainly no guarantee that nation-states won't be taken over by vested interests, and look at the sort of trouble that's caused.

And if the horses in the OWG steeplechase don't run in an intelligent and careful manner, then the whole world is in trouble.

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:
Well that's kinda like the man who designed a careful and intelligent system for predicting winners in horse races. The system didn't work any better than chance. He claimed that the system was fine, and he couldn't be blamed for the failure of the horses to run in a careful and intelligent manner.
So, even before the new model is designed you not only have it failed but you're pointing out the stupid way its designers will react. Do you have no faith at all in the careful and intelligent design of anything? Do you never fly? I haven't heard of the failure of the 747 to fly being blamed on the wrong kind of atmosphere, or poorly-performing gravity. But when you walk around under one you just know it can't fly, I mean, look at it ... It's hard enough keeping a kite in the air.

The US Constitution was carefully and intelligently designed, and has performed pretty well given the fact that it was a novel exercise. While the circumstances were ideal - a large, empty, almost untouched continent and a huge inflow of human and financial capital from an already developed (and seriously picked-over) world - it's still a remarkable achievement. With that example, and another two centuries of history, to learn from I don't see why something even more successful couldn't be designed today.

I won't even go into the very successful betting system worked out and applied to Hong Kong racing, which is the big-money end of the business. Such systems only work when they are not used to such an extent that they change the circumstances they're based on, which is what caused the junk-bond fiasco. I'm not going to go into it because I do have a tendency to wander.

I suspect, sir, that you are an inveterate nay-sayer.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
So, even before the new model is designed you not only have it failed but you're pointing out the stupid way its designers will react. Do you have no faith at all in the careful and intelligent design of anything?

I said nothing about the designers, I was thinking about the users. While political systems can differ in terms of efficiency, accountabilty, etc, ultimately the best of them can only be as good as the people taking part.

Do you never fly? I haven't heard of the failure of the 747 to fly being blamed on the wrong kind of atmosphere, or poorly-performing gravity. But when you walk around under one you just know it can't fly, I mean, look at it ... It's hard enough keeping a kite in the air.

We're discussing systems of government here, not feats of engineering or air currents. Stick to what's relevant.

The US Constitution was carefully and intelligently designed, and has performed pretty well given the fact that it was a novel exercise. While the circumstances were ideal - a large, empty, almost untouched continent and a huge inflow of human and financial capital from an already developed (and seriously picked-over) world - it's still a remarkable achievement. With that example, and another two centuries of history, to learn from I don't see why something even more successful couldn't be designed today.

Something as successful, if not more so was designed and is currently in use: The Irish constitution. The Republic of Ireland has enjoyed eight decades of political stability and unbroken democracy, and by some accounts is the second richest country in the EU. It's taken us a while to get there, longer than was necessary IMO, but it's undeniable that statehood has been a success.

I suspect, sir, that you are an inveterate nay-sayer.

And I suspect that you are a purveyor of pie in the sky. You argue in the hypothetical, I base my "nay-saying" in fact.

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:
Something as successful, if not more so was designed and is currently in use: The Irish constitution.
Until the accession of Ireland to the EU it was a priest-ridden pit. You may not have noticed it yourself, but these things are often more obvious to an outside observer. Ireland's current attempts to enter the modern world are remarkable, but have been achieved within the trans-national EU. Prior to that they were an adjunct to the British and US economies, suppliers of cheap labour and fleet-footed talent. Now the flow is the other way, but the change occurred in the 90's. I won't even touch on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland because of that wandering tendency (which may well be indicative of adult ADD, I've just learnt). Gimme a break. You're peddling pie-in-the-past.
I said nothing about the designers, I was thinking about the users.
The quote I was replying to:
Well that's kinda like the man who designed a careful and intelligent system for predicting winners in horse races. The system didn't work any better than chance. He claimed that the system was fine, and he couldn't be blamed for the failure of the horses to run in a careful and intelligent manner.
You should be more clear. The "man who designed" sounds just like the sort of designer you said nothing about. And whatever he was meant to be, said person is the fount of the stupid response to failure.

People are not horses, and political models are not horse-races. The analogy is pointless, which is why my immediate response to that post was "?". There have been enough political models tried during the last 5000 years for an evolutionary analogy to be appropriate; some models have survived for considerable periods and have spawned new models, others not so much. Spatial separation has led to speciation, and changes in the separation (in the political sense, changes in technology) lead to new hybrids and extinctions. At the end we have one world-girdling species - the nation-state. Just like we have one species of Homo. Both situations strike me as tenuous.

Being human and so, so smart (credit to Lisa Simpson) we can surely learn something from all this, if we put our prejudices aside and just try to be right. And we can use what we learn to try and create the successor to the nation-state - because there's going to be one. Assuming the other tenuous situation doesn't make the whole question moot.

Before Cleopatra dives in, I am not going to start a thread entitled "Eugenics" just because of some bloody analogy.

[Cleopatra]

From all our differences Capel Dodger the one I find the most insufferable is your liking "The Simpsons". :nope:

It makes me want to scream.

We must have this thread about Eugenics,maybe after July 8 when we hope that the new rules will keep the trolls away.

I didn't know that you have read about that although I am no surprized. I have read many things since the day I was with my twin sister at the hospital (we are identical twins we participate in an Israeli programe that studies identical twins) and a silly doctor mentioned the experiments of Dr. Mengele on twins.Since I avoid to read about the details of the Holocaust because I am getting stressed I didn't know those things, it took me some time to get over the shock of what I have found out but I am thinking now that if we were not afraid to talk about those things ( about Eugenics I mean) in open air life would be better.

There is another thread in the forum where people wonder if blood type affects personality and it seems that there is no answer to that. I bet that this happens because such matters are a taboo and you know how I feel about taboos.

I will be back to the essence of your posts later.

Interesting dialogue gentlemen.Thank you.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Mycroft: You edited a quote from me, replacing "nation" with "city-state", without making it clear that you had done so. Perhaps you could have bolded the changes and pointed them out .

My mistake. At the time I wrote it, I thought what I was doing was obvious and didn't need explanation. Now that I look again I see that I should have made it more clear.

Originally posted by CapelDodger [B
The US is a super-state, with some associated problems. All in all it's done a good job. If the guaranteeing authority (Humanistan? Perhaps not ...) is designed correctly, and protected from corruption by good people not doing nothing, there should be fewer problems than there are in the world now. There will also be absolutely humungous new resources available with military spending all but eliminated, which should see a lot of problems solved. [/B]

I'm guessing that this super-nation you imagine is something you feel will happen naturally and will not be imposed, is this correct?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
Until the accession of Ireland to the EU it was a priest-ridden pit. You may not have noticed it yourself, but these things are often more obvious to an outside observer. Ireland's current attempts to enter the modern world are remarkable, but have been achieved within the trans-national EU.

Ireland remained a priest-ridden pit for two decades after accession to the EU. Laws governing availabilty of contraceptives weren't liberalised until 1992, divorce didn't become available until 1997. Ireland negotiated a clause in the Maastricht treaty ensuring the abortion was not imposed on Ireland from the EU level. The EU couldn't care less whether we remained a priest ridden pit. You're not the astute observer of Irish affairs you might have thought you were.

Prior to that they were an adjunct to the British and US economies, suppliers of cheap labour and fleet-footed talent. Now the flow is the other way, but the change occurred in the 90's.

The 1990's being two decades after Ireland joined the EU. And the Irish economy is still arguably an adjunct to the British and American economies.

Gimme a break. You're peddling pie-in-the-past.

Gimme a break. Open a book on recent Irish history.

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:
I'm guessing that this super-nation you imagine is something you feel will happen naturally and will not be imposed, is this correct?
Imposing it will be half the fun.

It's hard(!) to see a path from here to there, but I can't see imposition working. There'd be resentment by those imposed upon, and the whole thing would be poisoned at birth. Some sort of movement would have to be started, perhaps a trans-national political party. The idea would have to be explained and promoted. Flexibility and creative thinking will be called for. Getting everybody on-board at the same time is unlikely, so relations with those outside would have to be defined, as well as a joining process.

A lot of hard work. To hell with it, imposition sounds good. Benevolent Dictatorship is the answer.

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:
Ireland remained a priest-ridden pit for two decades after accession to the EU.
It seems to me the generation that grew up during those decades has had a lot to do with the changes of the 90's. I read Gemma Hussey's Ireland Today (that would be Ireland '93) a few years ago, and she identified the increase in home-grown entrepreneurs as central. That seems to have continued after '93, with the "tiger economy". A cultural lack of entrepreneurism has often been blamed for Ireland's slow growth, and the change happened after accession to the EU. It seems to have opened the Irish up to a wider world and different expectations. It's tempting to point to the change of constitutional status of the Catholic Church at accession as important, but I doubt if it was more than symbolic. Whatever, Ireland's recent progress has happened in the context of the EU, and the importance of that was amply argued during the Maastricht referendum. It would be nice if someone in the UK government would make the same case, but they're all too scarified.

As priest-ridden pits go, Ireland's a damn fine place. Any culture that appreciates bards and wordsmiths so much can't be bad.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:

I am a slave to the Simpsons. Sorry, but there it is. All of human life is there. I identify with Lisa, for my sins.
We must have this thread about Eugenics ...
Isn't that going to bring down a serious sheetstorm? Assuming anyone would argue in favour.

Mengele's crimes were vivisection, not eugenics. My mother (who is very sensitive about these subjects) tells of her doctor who felt that the worst aspect of that whole program - which he would never condone - was that it learnt nothing. Done in the name of science, it was simply an exercise in sadism by sickos. I'm still not able to get my head around the idea of SS members being imprisoned after WW2. If they were found in uniform, why waste food, space or time on them? If they're found later and proven to be SS, kill them. The Russians had the right idea; they regularly sent captured SS back where they came from, out of a plane.
I bet that this happens because such matters are a taboo and you know how I feel about taboos.
I, too, have a problem with taboos. But one has to treat them delicately when in company.
I will be back to the essence of your posts later.
That banishes any thought of sleep tonight. I can feel my essence draining away already.:eek:

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It's hard(!) to see a path from here to there...

I can't see a path to the city-states you're so fond of, but a one world government isn't hard to imagine. You've already cited the example of the United States, and if the European Union keeps expanding, it's easy to extrapolate that in another century or two national borders would become unimportant.

[Cleopatra]

Capel Dodger, I am sleepy right now so I will resist the temptation to compose a psychograme of the smarties and the overeducated ( in the pure Classical Greek sense which is not very positive) who like Simpsons and those who create them...

Lucky hedgehog.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Skeptic:What is so utopian about a One World Government? If you think it is utopian, presumably you agree that it is a worthy goal?
Ghandi had a goal. The goal was freeing the people of his nation-state from being governed by force by another nation-state. His "operational plan", so to speak, was civil disobedience. Not much of a plan, but it worked.

Pol Pot had a goal too.... :(

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:
You've already cited the example of the United States, and if the European Union keeps expanding, it's easy to extrapolate that in another century or two national borders would become unimportant.
That's a good point. The EU has already seen the voluntary surrender by sovereign leaders of some of that sovereignty. A "European model" could become an alternative to the nation-state model in other regions, and eventually various blocks could merge. This would require the definition of the "European model", which we don't really have yet - it's still rather ad hoc, but a constitution would help.

The embryonic EU was created by people who had just come through a war and were not, by and large, nationalists (who hadn't come out of the war well). Nowadays, sadly, the emphasis is all on "defending national interests", in the leadership and the populace in general. (In the UK at least, the media have a lot to do with that.) But a huge amount has happened - Maastricht, the Euro, recent expansion - so patience is called for. None of this is happening tomorrow.

If the EU performs well in the next world crisis it would be in a position to push itself as a model. I don't think we'll be waiting terribly long to find out.

[CapelDodger]

from rikzilla:
Pol Pot had a goal too....
Do you see any other parallels between Ghandi and Pol Pot? Would you have difficulty telling them apart if they were described to you without prior knowledge? And their goals - would you find them difficult to distinguish? I'm not trying to pry, I'd like to know what your point might be. I could take it to mean "Pol Pot had a goal, so anyone with a goal is a bad person and goals are not desirable", but perhaps you're just being cryptic so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[rikzilla]

CD,

What I was trying to illustrate for you is that all forward looking efforts to change the world for the better come with consequences,...sometimes dire even when unintentional.

Ronald Reagan fought Communism in Central America...he won...CA remains free yet the cost in lives was considerable. Consequences that were unintended, yet unavoidable. His dream of American continents free of Communism was realised, yet many died in the upheaval of even this very limited reform.

What you advocate; One World Government...is a very big dream indeed. It's a lofty, and perhaps even worthy goal...how many are you willing to kill to see it realised?

Radical reform means radical upheaval. Theodore Kacinski, aka "The Unabomber" wanted a return to nature. Sounds good doesn't it? Yet he was willing to murder random people just to get publicity for his great manifesto of ideas. I remember reading the Unabomber's Manifesto...had it been followed technology would have been outlawed. Can you imagine how many million would die just from lack of modern medical care? He also advocated a simple agrarian life like the Amish....how many millions or even billions would starve if modern agriculture ceased? Old Ted had a great and romantic idea,...problem is he was willing to see billions die in order to reach his wild utopia.

CD, I wasn't comparing Ghandi to Pol Pot,...I was comparing the sweeping reformation called OWG to Pol Pot, and Hitler, and Mao, and Jim Jones of Guyana, and Osama Bin Laden.... Ghandi was a man who had limited goals and saw them through as best he could...just as Martin Luther King did. Your OWG would not be limited. It's scope would be that of Mao's Cultural Revolution....and it's cost would be even greater.

So, how many CD? How many people have to be sacrificed on the altar of your idea of heaven on earth? For Reagan, the limited goal of anti-communism in CA cost a couple hundred thousand lives. Yet to him the goal was reachable and worth the cost...depending on where you stand he was right, or he was wrong. But his goal was limited in scope, and thus was reasonably assured of success. The same is true in Iraq right now. But your idea of a OWG?? Why, that's Iraq allover again, only writ large. Very large. Why do you think it's even possible? Why do you think it's worth the cost?

-z

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
It seems to me the generation that grew up during those decades has had a lot to do with the changes of the 90's.

Yes, but most important was the fact that generation (of which I am part)didn't emigrate en masse.

I read Gemma Hussey's Ireland Today (that would be Ireland '93) a few years ago, and she identified the increase in home-grown entrepreneurs as central. That seems to have continued after '93, with the "tiger economy".

One important thing that happened around 1993 was the collapse of the ERM. By many accounts this proved the catalyst for economic growth in the UK and probably in Ireland. Nor am I sure that Gemma Hussey, a former education minister, is the best commentator on economics.

A cultural lack of entrepreneurism has often been blamed for Ireland's slow growth, and the change happened after accession to the EU. It seems to have opened the Irish up to a wider world and different expectations.

The brightest and best of the population continued to leave in droves for two decades after EU accession. It's a mtter of causation or correlation. You could also argue that greater EU integration seems to have translated into economic decline in much of the continent.

Whatever, Ireland's recent progress has happened in the context of the EU, and the importance of that was amply argued during the Maastricht referendum.

Your forgetting that at the time of the Maastricht Treaty absolutely no one foresaw the advebnt of the Celtic Tiger. As I remember the argument in favour of Maastricht was that Ireland was going to get a big ole handout. And I'll repeat that Germany's malodorous decline has also happened in context of the EU.

It would be nice if someone in the UK government would make the same case, but they're all too scarified.

Umm, haven't the likes of Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine and a sizeable chunk of New Labour being doing just that?

If the EU performs well in the next world crisis it would be in a position to push itself as a model. I don't think we'll be waiting terribly long to find out.

It's impending domestic crises the EU has to worry about.

[Skeptic]

So, how many CD? How many people have to be sacrificed on the altar of your idea of heaven on earth?

Oh, who cares! It's the IDEA that counts! And besides, it's not going to be anybody he knows who will die for the wonderful ideal of a OWG...

[Skeptic]

And their goals (Pol Pot's and Ghandi's) - would you find them difficult to distinguish?

I sure would.

Pol Pot's goals were a LOT better than Ghandi's. Ghandi, openly, merely wanted one nation to be ruled by other people than those currently ruling it. He not only admitted that this will not created heaven on earth, but that the change in rulers would not even create heaven in that nation. He readily admitted that India without England would still be poor, still have suffering millions, still will have lots of problems... "but", as he said, "they would then be OUR problems".

Compare that pathetic goal--merely a change of rulers in a country with lots of problems--to the wonderful, WONDERFUL ideals of Pol Pot. Pol Pot's ideals were a world revolution! A new heaven of the proletariat, with equality and freedom for all! The end for capitalist (and all) opression! The free people of the world living in peace! (And so on and so forth). If only Pol Pot was given a chance, he would create not another country with problems, like Ghandi, but a heaven on earth.

Yes, Pol Pot had the better, universal, one-world-(marxist)-government goals, unlike that annoying, cynical nationalist (and even patriot), Ghandi. Which is why the racist, nationalist Ghandi is reviled the world over, while Pol Pot is considered a symbol for all. It's all about having the right ideals. Pol pot could say, like "Danish Dynamite" did in this thread, "regardless of how they will be put into practice, don't you agree that my ideals themselves are good?".

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Radical reform means radical upheaval...

Does it have to?

We have a tendency to write our history in terms of conflicts that mark turning points and it's easy to get the impression that change must be paid for in blood, but aren't there also reforms that happen quietly, without war?

[DanishDynamite]

rikzilla:What I was trying to illustrate for you is that all forward looking efforts to change the world for the better come with consequences,...sometimes dire even when unintentional.OK. I'm afraid that thought didn't come across. My interpretation was more along the lines:

DD: "State built highways are a good idea."
Rik: "Hitler had state built highways."
Ronald Reagan fought Communism in Central America...he won...CA remains free yet the cost in lives was considerable. Consequences that were unintended, yet unavoidable. How could they be unintended if they were unavoidable?
What you advocate; One World Government...is a very big dream indeed. It's a lofty, and perhaps even worthy goal...how many are you willing to kill to see it realised?Why would you think anyone would need to be killed? How many were killed when 10 countries recently willingly joined the EU?
Radical reform means radical upheaval. Theodore Kacinski, aka "The Unabomber" wanted a return to nature. Sounds good doesn't it? Yet he was willing to murder random people just to get publicity for his great manifesto of ideas. I remember reading the Unabomber's Manifesto...had it been followed technology would have been outlawed. Can you imagine how many million would die just from lack of modern medical care? He also advocated a simple agrarian life like the Amish....how many millions or even billions would starve if modern agriculture ceased? Old Ted had a great and romantic idea,...problem is he was willing to see billions die in order to reach his wild utopia.I fail to see the relevance of a lone terrorist's thoughts to that of a OWG.
CD, I wasn't comparing Ghandi to Pol Pot,...I was comparing the sweeping reformation called OWG to Pol Pot, and Hitler, and Mao, and Jim Jones of Guyana, and Osama Bin Laden.... Ghandi was a man who had limited goals and saw them through as best he could...just as Martin Luther King did. Your OWG would not be limited. It's scope would be that of Mao's Cultural Revolution....and it's cost would be even greater.Rik, an organization exists today called the World Trade Organization. Most of the world's nation-states are members. All joined willingly. Not a single shot was fired.

All members of the EU joined willingly. They all gave up parts of their sovereignty in doing so.

Why do you continue to put the the willing loss of sovereignty into terms of war and death? Are those the only terms you understand?
So, how many CD? How many people have to be sacrificed on the altar of your idea of heaven on earth? For Reagan, the limited goal of anti-communism in CA cost a couple hundred thousand lives. Yet to him the goal was reachable and worth the cost...depending on where you stand he was right, or he was wrong. But his goal was limited in scope, and thus was reasonably assured of success. The same is true in Iraq right now. But your idea of a OWG?? Why, that's Iraq allover again, only writ large. Very large. Why do you think it's even possible? Why do you think it's worth the cost?Once again, why would even one person need to die?

[Edited to add: BTW, Rik, your valueable input is needed on the SkepticalCommunity board. (http://www.skepticalcommunity.mu.nu/phpbb2/) :) ]

[DanishDynamite]

Just wanted to respond to this part of Skeptic's usual hysteria:

Skeptic:Pol pot could say, like "Danish Dynamite" did in this thread, "regardless of how they will be put into practice, don't you agree that my ideals themselves are good?". As you know, that is not what I said or what I meant. I said that although "I don't have an operational plan, do you agree with the basic goal?"

See the difference?

[CapelDodger]

from rikzilla:
Ronald Reagan fought Communism in Central America ...
Ah, the famous Nicaraguan threat. They nearly had you guys, didn't they? Another few years and, well, California would just be the start. Ronnie never did get up the courage to fight the gangster governments of Central America, did he? Maybe the fix was in - those Colombians aren't short of a dollar, after all, and even a Republican needs funding.
... how many are you willing to kill to see it realised?
How many should the US have been prepared to kill to keep the Somozistas in power in Nicaragua? Having missed that trick (a lot were killed, but clearly not enough), how many did they kill to bring down the Sandinistas? How many were killed to keep the sickos in power in El Salvador and Honduras? Where it comes to killing, I won't be doing it to achieve One World Government, it'll be to prevent regimes like that ruling the future. The problem I'll have is that they'll have plenty of US weaponry - I guess I'd be more likely to be dying than killing.
Radical reform means radical upheaval. Theodore Kacinski, aka "The Unabomber" wanted a return to nature. Sounds good doesn't it? Yet he was willing to murder random people just to get publicity for his great manifesto of ideas.
He was not normal. Several cards short of a deck. Not the full picnic. Mainifestly weird, Insane. "Back to nature" might sound good to a conservative, but I like my simple comforts, and I've spent most of the day compromising with nature in my garden, not getting back to it. I'm sure there are others like me, and others who also think "Back to nature" sounds good. It takes all sorts - including the Unabomber sort, sadly.
I was comparing the sweeping reformation called OWG to Pol Pot, and Hitler, and Mao, and Jim Jones of Guyana, and Osama Bin Laden....
Well thank you very much. At least in one person's eyes I'm up there with the big guys.
Your OWG would not be limited.
Not if TillEulenspiegel takes me up on the Secretary for Interplanetary Affairs position, otherwise there are certain practical limitations.
How many people have to be sacrificed on the altar of your idea of heaven on earth?
Your concept of heaven is rather paltry.
Why do you think it's even possible? Why do you think it's worth the cost?
Not having your belief in psychic powers, I really don't know. I'm just trying to get some ideas bouncing around, it amuses me and, I hope, some others.

[CapelDodger]

from Skeptic:
Oh, who cares! It's the IDEA that counts!

Just like Israel.

(Forgive me people, this is against my normal policy, but when something sits up and begs like that ...)

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:
One important thing that happened around 1993 was the collapse of the ERM. By many accounts this proved the catalyst for economic growth in the UK and probably in Ireland. Nor am I sure that Gemma Hussey, a former education minister, is the best commentator on economics.
The ERM didn't collapse, but the UK did fall out of it. The UK entered the ERM with sterling at far too high a rate, with the inevitable dampening effect on the economy. Thatcher had insisted on the high rate if the UK was to go in at all - she never had any understanding of economics, and the sterling rate was, to her, the measure of the UK's Greatness Quotient. Once the defence the value was overwhelmed - with the transfer from the Treasury to Soros and other speculators of untold billions (untold because it's still secret) - the economy improved enormously. And the Tories tried to take the credit! That dog just would not hunt anymore. This was in September '92, as I recall.

This would have had an effect on the Irish economy, since about a third of Irish exports went to the UK at that time. About half went to the rest of the EU. That was the reverse of the situation in '73.

Gemma Hussey:graduated with a degree in economics and political science; ten years as an entrepreneur; leader of Irish women's movement; election to Senate. The book was very well received and had excellent reviews, which is one reason I bought it. The rapid changes in Ireland in the 90's do draw one's attention, at that point good information and insightful analysis is what one looks for. I found it.
The brightest and best of the population continued to leave in droves for two decades after EU accession.
A feature of Ireland in the 90's has been the return of recent emigrants who see opportunities in Ireland. Just as America provided greater scope than Ireland in the 19thCE, Ireland offers more scope today, or at least has done recently. It's business backwardness provided opportunities that didn't exist any more in a mature US business environment.
And I'll repeat that Germany's malodorous decline has also happened in context of the EU.
And we could argue about that decline, and Ireland, and who knows what else. Sorry, but we're kind of getting off-track and bogged down in detail here.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Does it have to?

We have a tendency to write our history in terms of conflicts that mark turning points and it's easy to get the impression that change must be paid for in blood, but aren't there also reforms that happen quietly, without war?

Yes Sir: Every four years or so we change government. No blood spilled , plenty of Rhetoric tho.

[CapelDodger]

What we can learn from the EU:

Sovereignty can be compromised voluntarily.
National currencies can be surrendered voluntarily.
Free trade boosts efficiency and flexibility.
Ideas can be realised.

It isn't heaven on earth (in mine, Firefly was never cancelled, for a start), but neither has the US ever been. There are things we can learn from the US experiment:

All of the above.
There'll be a problem if anyone thinks they can take sovereignty back.

The Constitution was, after all, a product of diplomacy. It's actually a Treaty between sovereign states, arguably. Like most diplomacy it was a bit of a con-job. It can be read in enough different ways to apparently satisfy everyone, but it doesn't actually resolve the differences. The Civil War resulted, when lawyers and diplomats had to stand aside while their clients slugged it out. This is something best avoided.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It isn't heaven on earth (in mine, Firefly was never cancelled, for a start), but neither has the US ever been. There are things we can learn from the US experiment:


You liked that show too? I thought I was the only one.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
The ERM didn't collapse, but the UK did fall out of it.

Right, and that parrot in "Monthy Python" was asleep after all.

The UK entered the ERM with sterling at far too high a rate, with the inevitable dampening effect on the economy. Thatcher had insisted on the high rate if the UK was to go in at all - she never had any understanding of economics

Neither do you, I think. The problem is that it's nigh impossible to set optimal rates for X number of countries.


This would have had an effect on the Irish economy, since about a third of Irish exports went to the UK at that time. About half went to the rest of the EU. That was the reverse of the situation in '73.

I doubt it (http://www.idaireland.com/facts/vitalstats.asp)


Don't forget where our imports come from (http://www.cso.ie/principalstats/pristat4.html)

Gemma Hussey:graduated with a degree in economics and political science; ten years as an entrepreneur; leader of Irish women's movement;

So what would I have bought from Gemma Hussey lately?

The book was very well received and had excellent reviews,

Yet strangely absent from the bookstores I've browsed in lately.

A feature of Ireland in the 90's has been the return of recent emigrants who see opportunities in Ireland. Just as America provided greater scope than Ireland in the 19thCE, Ireland offers more scope today, or at least has done recently. It's business backwardness provided opportunities that didn't exist any more in a mature US business environment.

So you're saying that business opportunities didn't exist in the American economy during the 1990's?

And we could argue about that decline, and Ireland, and who knows what else. Sorry, but we're kind of getting off-track and bogged down in detail here.

Well I do apologise. After all details are of little importance when discussing the abandonment of established and successful political systems for Ed only knows what. Silly for me to presume that you might explain what's going on in Germany when you have Ireland and the UK completely sussed.

[Skeptic]

ust wanted to respond to this part of Skeptic's usual hysteria:

Well, of course. I disagree with the OWG idea, noting it would end in catastrophe, so I am hysterical.

Well, this, too, has precedent in the world of the utopians: mental hospitals were full of dissidents under the Soviet regime--I mean, they actually dobuted the dictatorship of the proletariat is good idea, so they must be insane, right?

You still haven't answered my question, though, DD. I will oppose such a OWG by force. What will the OWG do with me, now that you conceded it has the "right to self-defense" and an will have an army to do so?

Please give some details, so we'll see the other side of your plan, the part which tells us how the wonderful, just, and beautiful OWG deals with the insane, violent nationalist that still oppose its goodness, for some reason.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Skeptic:


Just like Israel.

(Forgive me people, this is against my normal policy, but when something sits up and begs like that ...)

Well, not really.

Never mind that you don't know a damn thing about israel, never having been to the middle east, let alone israel, in your entire life.

(For some reason, the less people know about israel, and the farther away they are from it physically, the more cocksure they are in their opinion about how awful it is. The two worst israel-bashers in this forum, for instance, are Australians...)

But let's play along, and say israel is all the awful things you believe about it put together. zionism never tried to solve the world's problems, and has nothing at all to do with, say, Malaysians or Argentinians or Spaniards or 99.9% of the world's population--whether for good or for ill.

Compare this to the "world revolution" movements whose goal is some utopia: the Nazis, the Communists, the Islamists, or any other version of "one world government"-ism. For them, nothing is off-limits; there are only areas of the world that are already "liberated" (e.g., living under their boot) and those that are not yet so (e.g., targets for attack). They must stifle all dissent in their countries, lest the attack on the rest of the world will be weakened.

See the difference? One-World-Government revolutionaries are not only invariably fanatics, but a world menace.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You still haven't answered my question, though, DD. I will oppose such a OWG by force. What will the OWG do with me, now that you conceded it has the "right to self-defense" and an will have an army to do so?


Skeptic, just as an aside, I'd be interested in your opinion:

If such a thing as a OWG could come into being not as a violent revolution, but as the result of natural social evolution taking place over decades or centuries, would it still be a bad thing?

Isn't it possible for someone to hold a "utopian" ideal, but be against imposing it on anyone? To be content to work towards it in baby-steps, through international alliances and trade agreements, believing that when it becomes a reality it will be a good thing even if it's not realized within his lifetime?

[Skeptic]

If a OWG comes about through gradual change of hundreds of years, that means it would be the result of human nature gradually changing so as to make the world stable enough and peaceful enough for it. In that case, I would have no objection... since if human nature changed that much, probably its tyrannical drives have mellowed, too. (Although I consider such a possiblity extremely unlikely.)

If, however, the OWG is created in order to make peace in a world still wracked by wars and conflict, and is given enough power to do so (at least initially), it would merely be a "super-state" in all but name, and would almost certainly become corrupt and tyrannical. It is obvious that the kind of OWG DD & co. propose is of the second kind: a "Super-state" to force the other, weaker states to make peace. They might as well campaign directly for Orwell's "Big Brother" and save everybody the pretense.

But, as you would note, DD--and most other advocates of a OWG--do not believe a word they say about how the OWG will not be corrupted by power. Just consider their view of the USA: now that it is unquestionalby the most powerful nation on earth, we hear little from the OWG advocates except for how it is (supposedly) controlled by a tiny elite of businessmen and evil Republican puppers, how everybody in it (except those who agree with them) is "brainwashed", how it is "really" a theocratic dictatorship, etc., etc. Clearly they think power irredeemebly corrupted the USA and made it, in about ten or twenty years, a dictatorship in all but name. Yet, in order to solve the problem of such "rogue" powerful nations, they are suggesting a far more powerful OWG--and are convinced that it will NOT be corrupted?

They had either a). not thought this "OWG" thing through before campaigning for it, or b). are advocating the OWG out of spite, as an fantasy "alternative" to the "bad" USA.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Which we could more suitably blame upon the Foreign Office, or imperialism, rather than nationalism or the nation state.
Um, no; if we're examining the ideologies which precipitated these things, then wrt the British Empire, it's nationalism which preceded imperialism. Compare and contrast the British Empire with the Ottoman Empire, for instance.

Couldn't care less about that either!
My name's still not Yugoslavia.

Redundant how exactly? And how would the failure of relatively artificial states in Africa make Irish nationhood futile?
Because the necessary pre-conditions for successful nation-statism don't inevitably end in nation-statism; but those conditions are typically arrived at via conquest and oppression, which imo isn't a good thing. And don't mix up my words; I said the project of nation-statism is futile, not Irish nationhood, which IMO is preferable to the constant English meddling that Ireland suffered under; albeit there's still that stuff in the north to sort out. Considering this, how is the Republic any less artificial than the relatively artificial states in Africa?

How about the Napoleonic empire, Soviet Empire, or the Nazi empire?
How about the UK? Three and a bit countries living in relative harmony? My objection to the use of empires as trans-national governments is that they were achieved through force and at the expense of the sovereignty of the subjugated; not exactly great examples of the kind of one world government we've been discussing here.
I think you'll find that Ireland did fulfill many of the concepts of nationhood in ancient and medieval times - a common language, common customs and a common system of law.
How about centralised government, sovereignty and a national identity? And how did that common language, the customs and system of law come about?

Edited for tidiness.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Mycroft


You liked that show too? I thought I was the only one.
I'm still mourning the end of Angel, but looking forward to a more popular channel than Sci-Fi picking up Firefly... but I digress.

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:
You liked that show too? I thought I was the only one.
Best damn thing I've ever seen on TV. Loved it. I gather there's a film being made to tie up some of the loose ends.

This is, of course, relevant since at the heart of the story is the imposition of rule by the Core planets - for the common good, as ever.

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:
Neither do you, I think. The problem is that it's nigh impossible to set optimal rates for X number of countries.
The Bretton Woods arrangements worked for a goodly period, until the crisis of the early 70's. The ERM didn't collapse in 1992, the pound and the lira dropped out, the peseta devalued (as allowed for within the ERM) and the temporary speculative onslaught on other curencies was resisted by co-ordinated action. The pound was over-valued, and the UK had been pressed to devalue within the ERM rules but refused. The lira was always a little different, like Italian banking (which I did get my head around for one project, giving the lie to your first point). The ERM continued and the Euro came into existence at the beginning of 1999 - unlikely if the ERM had "collapsed" in '92. And another step towards a trans-national state. A system of fixed exchange rates has lasted even longer between the US states.
After all details are of little importance when discussing the abandonment of established and successful political systems for Ed only knows what.
This is, I suppose, an example of the loyalty which a system can generate after less than 70 years existence.

"And always keep a hold of nurse,
For fear of finding something worse" (AA Milne?)

The current model won't last for ever, there is nothing climactic in the nation-state. I've mentioned how globalisation is reducing the power of nation-states already, with open recognition by some governments (US, UK) which even welcome it. Another voluntary surrender of sovereignty.

[CapelDodger]

from Skeptic:
If a OWG comes about through gradual change of hundreds of years, that means it would be the result of human nature gradually changing so as to make the world stable enough and peaceful enough for it.
There's no evidence that human nature changed while tribal systems were replaced by feudal, monarchical, imperial, national, federal and latterly democratic ones. Nation-states are not the natural state of things, towards which the human race has been groping over the last 10,000 years. As intelligent beings we can examine the models that have been tried, we can study human behaviour, we can formulate a set of human rights that should be guaranteed, and we can design a system that attempts to deliver those rights. Your claims that the result will be dystopian aren't impressive. The US may be regarded as a failure by some, but in a few months the right-wing clique that currently runs it could be voted out peacefully and legally. Just as the first Bush regime was. This is after two hundred years of the basic system, which itself was designed for only 13 states. Checks and balances, and public scrutiny - for which they relied on the printing-press - have worked remarkably well. We have the InterNet, and the sort of intelligent observers we find on these forums. The chances of the system being taken over by shady characters will be far less than in the US, especially as there will be no excuse of "national security" to conceal what's really going on.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:Well, of course. I disagree with the OWG idea, noting it would end in catastrophe, so I am hysterical. Acknowledging you have a problem is the first step.
Well, this, too, has precedent in the world of the utopians: mental hospitals were full of dissidents under the Soviet regime--I mean, they actually dobuted the dictatorship of the proletariat is good idea, so they must be insane, right?Uh...?
You still haven't answered my question, though, DD. I will oppose such a OWG by force. What will the OWG do with me, now that you conceded it has the "right to self-defense" and an will have an army to do so? Well, if you are a citizen of the OWG, i.e. your country has willingly joined, you will be treated in accordance with the criminal laws democraticly passed in the OWG. If you attacked from outside the OWG, the OWG would defend iself as appropriate.
Please give some details, so we'll see the other side of your plan, the part which tells us how the wonderful, just, and beautiful OWG deals with the insane, violent nationalist that still oppose its goodness, for some reason. Tell me if you need further details, and I'll see what I can do.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:If a OWG comes about through gradual change of hundreds of years, that means it would be the result of human nature gradually changing so as to make the world stable enough and peaceful enough for it. In that case, I would have no objection... since if human nature changed that much, probably its tyrannical drives have mellowed, too. (Although I consider such a possiblity extremely unlikely.)Human nature won't change in a few hundred years and it won't need to. Even today, humans will willingly join an organization which will benefit them.
If, however, the OWG is created in order to make peace in a world still wracked by wars and conflict, and is given enough power to do so (at least initially), it would merely be a "super-state" in all but name, and would almost certainly become corrupt and tyrannical. It is obvious that the kind of OWG DD & co. propose is of the second kind: a "Super-state" to force the other, weaker states to make peace. They might as well campaign directly for Orwell's "Big Brother" and save everybody the pretense. Have you been reading my posts at all?
But, as you would note, DD--and most other advocates of a OWG--do not believe a word they say about how the OWG will not be corrupted by power. Just consider their view of the USA: now that it is unquestionalby the most powerful nation on earth, we hear little from the OWG advocates except for how it is (supposedly) controlled by a tiny elite of businessmen and evil Republican puppers, how everybody in it (except those who agree with them) is "brainwashed", how it is "really" a theocratic dictatorship, etc., etc. Clearly they think power irredeemebly corrupted the USA and made it, in about ten or twenty years, a dictatorship in all but name. Yet, in order to solve the problem of such "rogue" powerful nations, they are suggesting a far more powerful OWG--and are convinced that it will NOT be corrupted? Under Clinton, the perception of the US as a rogue bully was not very widespread. Even under Bush Sr., a coalition was quickly gathered to repel Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Under Bush Jr though....

[Skeptic]

Uh...?

Well, under most "one world government in progress" rules--Communism and Fascism come to mind--those who disagreed with the OWG idea had three options:

1). Usually, they were simply killed or imprisoned.

2). Sometimes, the OWGers decided that the opposition to the OWG was a result of them being "ignorant", so they were sent to "reeducation camps".

3). When the OWGers were feeling especially lenient, they mercifully claimed the opposition to their wonderful ideal was a sign of mental illness, or, as you put it in my case, of "hysteria". So they put the dissident into a mental hospital to be cured of their dangerous nationalistic or burgenois delusions.

Apparently, you consider me in to be one of those in the third group: you don't think my opposition to your wonderful, wondeful OWG idea is because I am naturally evil, or a secret agent of dark forces, but due to my general weakness of mind, my mental imbalance, my "hysteria".

So you probably would not kill me outright for opposing the OWG, if you could avoid it, but only put me in a mental hospital until I love Big Brothe... I mean, until I am cured of my "hysteria". Thanks; it's better than the alternative, I guess.

Well, if you are a citizen of the OWG, i.e. your country has willingly joined, you will be treated in accordance with the criminal laws democraticly passed in the OWG.

Translation: "You will be imprisoned".

If you attacked from outside the OWG, the OWG would defend iself as appropriate.

Translation: "You will be killed".

But you see, DD, I will not be alone. There are hundreds of millions of of people (at least) who feel like me, and would never accept a OWG and always fight it. So the OWG, in order to "democratically protect itself" will, in practice, have to kill, or imprison, hundreds of millions of people, myself among them.

Yes, I know, I know: the OWG wouldn't have to kill and imprison all those hundreds of millions who think like me if they would just give up their stupid and irrational--I mean, "hysterical"-- opposition to the OWG, so it's all their fault.

But, boy, have we heard THAT song before, haven't we, DD? After all, Jihadists wouldn't have to kill all those people if they stopped their stupid and irrational opposition to converting to Islam; Stalin wouldn't have to kill all those people if they'd stopped their stupid and irrationa opposition to the Communist revolution; Hitler wouldn't have to...

[Skeptic]

Skeptic:Human nature won't change in a few hundred years

I agree; this is why I said I consider such a possiblty extremely unlikely.

and it won't need to.

Oh, yes it will.

Have you been reading my posts at all?

Yes, I have. The problem is, you haven't been reading your own posts. Not really. You think they mean one thing, but in reality, they mean something else.

Think of it as the difference between a paytient's undestanding of red spots that appear on someone's skin and a physician's understanding of it. If the patient is totally ignorant of medicine, you might think: "Cool! I now look better with these beautiful spots!". A physician would say, however, "Uh-oh, these spots mean you're going to feel sick for a week pretty soon."

If the person is ignorant enough of medicine, he might be mad at the physician for being a spoilsport, even claim he is "hysterical" for thinking such beautiful spots might mean something bad when he's actually feeling fine right now.

Same thing here. You think to yourself, "Cool! This OWG idea shows I am an idealist, unselfish man concerned with the good of humanity". I am coming along and merely saying, "uh-oh, This OWG means you caught the 'utopia' disease. You're going to be killing people for thought crimes pretty soon."

You are naturally mad, thinking I am a spoilsport, and that I am "hysterical" for thinking such wonderful, wonderful ideas for the benefit of humanity might mean something bad, or that you will ever do such horrible things, when you don't feel like doing them at all right now.

But, history shows that I am correct: those who start with utopian one-world government and/or other "world saving" ideas usually do end up as murderers, for reasons I will not repeat here.

You already admitted, in a previous post, that if the OWG comes into being and I continue to oppose it, I will be killed or imprisoned. As there are hundred of millions like me, at least, this means that if the OWG ever comes into being, it will kill or imprison hundreds of millions.

See my problem? You are doing nothing but posting idealistic utopian ideas for the benefit of humanity now; but if the revolusion--sorry, the "democratically-elected OWG"--ever comes, you would be doing something a lot more sinister.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
Um, no; if we're examining the ideologies which precipitated these things, then wrt the British Empire, it's nationalism which preceded imperialism. Compare and contrast the British Empire with the Ottoman Empire, for instance.

What exactly does this have to do with Ireland, or any other nation state?

My name's still not Yugoslavia.

Your parents had impeccable taste.

Because the necessary pre-conditions for successful nation-statism don't inevitably end in nation-statism; but those conditions are typically arrived at via conquest and oppression, which imo isn't a good thing.

Typically? Possibly, but context is important. Are modern states ethically dubious because of what happened in the 12th century?

I said the project of nation-statism is futile, not Irish nationhood

But surely the fact that Irish nationhood has been a relative success disproves the idea that nation-statism is futile?

Considering this, how is the Republic any less artificial than the relatively artificial states in Africa?

Ireland is predominantly populated by one tribe: the Irish.

How about the UK? Three and a bit countries living in relative harmony?

Yes, but England is absolutely predominant within the UK. The relative harmony

My objection to the use of empires as trans-national governments is that they were achieved through force and at the expense of the sovereignty of the subjugated; not exactly great examples of the kind of one world government we've been discussing here.


The examples given were historical attempts at OWG, while we are arguing in the hypothetical. It's just occured to me that the nearest historical equivalent to what we're discussing is the Austro-Hungarian empire, which if memory serves came about primarily due to marriage alliances, rather than military conquest. We should probably debate the merits of OWG using that example as a yardstick.

How about centralised government, sovereignty and a national identity?

Centralised government: There were High Kings of Ireland, although their power and influence varied.

And how did that common language, the customs and system of law come about?

Who knows, were taking about pre-history here.

[BillyTK]

A couple of points I feel compelled to make; firstly, I'm surprised that anyone with any attachment to critical thinking would use such a term as "human nature" in an unproblematic way; and secondly, the "big capitalism" thing with trans-national corporations is making the whole nation-state thing seem kind of redundant; it maybe the most that any government may do is (attempt to) safeguard its subject's rights (and do we need nation-states for that?) but considering the idea of market-place justice integral to neo-liberal economics, maybe not even that.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


What exactly does this have to do with Ireland, or any other nation state?
It's the topic being discussed. More specifically, it's a response to your point that, "we could more suitably blame [nation-building by the British Empire] upon the Foreign Office, or imperialism, rather than nationalism or the nation state." Sorry, that doesn't make sense; why would an empire set about nation-building if they didn't think nation-states were a good thing?

Your parents had impeccable taste.
I know, but I'm still wondering why you decided to call me that a couple of posts back.

Typically? Possibly, but context is important. Are modern states ethically dubious because of what happened in the 12th century?
I don't understand your question. Could you explain, please?

But surely the fact that Irish nationhood has been a relative success disproves the idea that nation-statism is futile?
I'd be hesitant about making such a claim considering the Republic's short history as a nation (about 90 years isn't it?) and the as yet unresolved situation in the north of the island. But context is (often) all, and we need to be hesitant about making compositional fallacies; you've already acknowledged that the nation-statist project has been a bit of a failure in Africa.

Ireland is predominantly populated by one tribe: the Irish.
Is it a tribe that's good at assimilation and/or ethnic cleansing or something?

Yes, but England is absolutely predominant within the UK. The relative harmony
Please to complete your thoughts.

The examples given were historical attempts at OWG, while we are arguing in the hypothetical. It's just occured to me that the nearest historical equivalent to what we're discussing is the Austro-Hungarian empire, which if memory serves came about primarily due to marriage alliances, rather than military conquest. We should probably debate the merits of OWG using that example as a yardstick.
Okay. Let me read up and I'll get back to you.

Centralised government: There were High Kings of Ireland, although their power and influence varied.

Who knows, were taking about pre-history here.
So the High Kings were a centralised government which wasn't? And that "common language, the customs and system of law" remained unchanged from prehistory?

[DanishDynamite]

(Mid-way break in the European Championship match between Denmark and Italy. )

Skeptic, it is apparently hopeless trying to have a rational discussion with you. For some reason, you equate a OWG with communism and tyranny. I have explicitly stated many times that such an entity would have a US-like constitution and would only grow by non-OWG states willingly joining. As CapelDodger said somewhere, the union of the 50 states of the US is arguably a willing union of nation-states. In this sense, the US is a OWG in the making. Is the US a communist or tyrannical state?

I've also mentioned the EU which is undoubtedly a union of nation-states, each member joining willingly, some of them even having a public vote as to whether to join and/or whether to accept the latest treaty which removes a bit of sovereignty. (Whether a state has such a vote or not depends on the state's constitution).

So, unless you can actually start addressing my posts in a meaningful way, i.e. by addressing what I actually say, our "discussion" will end here.

[Skeptic]

Skeptic, it is apparently hopeless trying to have a rational discussion with you. For some reason, you equate a OWG with communism and tyranny. I have explicitly stated many times that such an entity would have a US-like constitution and would only grow by non-OWG states willingly joining.

Yes, but Marx also claimed that the revolution will be due to the proletariats "willingly" joining it, and the USSR had a wonderful constitution that guarantees all sorts of rights to everybody. Reading the constitutions, one would get the impression that the USSR was significantly more advanced and free than the USA. The problem with OWG (of any sort) is that all that remains dead letter when the utopia turns tyrannical.

But never mind that. Fine, I'm irrational. Whatever you say. That, in fact, is to the point: the question you and all other OWG-ers have never answered honestly is, what will the OWG do with all those hundreds of millions of irrational people? ("Irrational" in the sense of opposing the OWG, or the "world revolution of the masses", or the "Aryanized Europe", or the islamic Chaliphate, or whatever.)

Your answer is pretty clear: imprisonment and killing, to keep 'em in line. Thanks, but I knew THAT already. That, usually, is the sole actual outcome of the OWG. The benefits keep receeding into the future; the "temporary" gulags remain.

As CapelDodger said somewhere, the union of the 50 states of the US is arguably a willing union of nation-states. In this sense, the US is a OWG in the making. Is the US a communist or tyrannical state?

According to many people here, it is, is it not? And look at US history: after 90 years of union, it suffered a terrible civil war! Yes, the US is free, and the constitution has a great deal to add to that, but even when you had virtually identical populations with the same culture and the same general values, as in the US, they STILL found something to go to war about. How much more so with the OWG!

So, unless you can actually start addressing my posts in a meaningful way, i.e. by addressing what I actually say, our "discussion" will end here.

You mean you'll take your OWG and go home because I'm not playing nicely with it?

[DanishDynamite]

(Damn!!!! Only a draw with the gondolier-boys. We deserved at least a 1-0 victory. Anyway....)

Skeptic:Yes, but Marx also claimed that the revolution will be due to the proletariats "willingly" joining it, and the USSR had a wonderful constitution that guarantees all sorts of rights to everybody. Reading the constitutions, one would get the impression that the USSR was significantly more advanced and free than the USA. The problem with OWG (of any sort) is that all that remains dead letter when the utopia turns tyrannical. Unresponsive.
But never mind that. Fine, I'm irrational. Whatever you say. That, in fact, is to the point: the question you and all other OWG-ers have never answered honestly is, what will the OWG do with all those hundreds of millions of irrational people? ("Irrational" in the sense of opposing the OWG, or the "world revolution of the masses", or the "Aryanized Europe", or the islamic Chaliphate, or whatever.) What hundreds of millions of dissenters? If your country willingly joined, either your parliament voted for such a union or the general populace did. So where are these 100's of millions coming from?
Your answer is pretty clear: imprisonment and killing, to keep 'em in line. Thanks, but I knew THAT already. That, usually, is the sole actual outcome of the OWG. The benefits keep receeding into the future; the "temporary" gulags remain. More ridiculous strawmen.
According to many people here, it is, is it not? And according to you, is the US a communist and tyrranical state?
And look at US history: after 90 years of union, it suffered a terrible civil war!Exactly! It took 90 years before the one and only civil war occured. Compare that to the number of inter nation-state wars the US has been in.
Yes, the US is free, and the constitution has a great deal to add to that, but even when you had virtually identical populations with the same culture and the same general values, as in the US, they STILL found something to go to war about. How much more so with the OWG! See above.
You mean you'll take your OWG and go home because I'm not playing nicely with it?No, I'm saying that your responses are not addressing my questions and that I'm learning little, if anything, from them.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
It's the topic being discussed. More specifically, it's a response to your point that, "we could more suitably blame [nation-building by the British Empire] upon the Foreign Office, or imperialism, rather than nationalism or the nation state." Sorry, that doesn't make sense; why would an empire set about nation-building if they didn't think nation-states were a good thing?

A good thing for whom is the question. In the case of Iraq an important mitigating factor was the presence of large oil reserves. So did the FO think an Iraqi state was a good thing for the Iraqis, or could they have been motivated by something else? It might not make sense to you or I, but the FO probably thought it expedient.

I know, but I'm still wondering why you decided to call me that a couple of posts back.

Must have been a typo.

I don't understand your question. Could you explain, please?

Neither do I understand your reasoning. You stated that the preconditions for nation statehood invariably came about by oppression and conquest, and this appears to be a sticking point. My attitude is so what? Oppression and conquest were par for the course back then. Don't forget that for most of history the majority of the populace were poor peasants, who were oppressed and conquered regardless of who was living in the manor house or castle.

I'd be hesitant about making such a claim considering the Republic's short history as a nation (about 90 years isn't it?) and the as yet unresolved situation in the north of the island.

Why the hesitancy? Have you good reason to believe the Republic of Ireland is teethering on some abyss? Not from where I'm standing from.

FWIW the situation in the North could have been resolved, nay avoided, with a little bit of imagination and foresight. The Irish State helpfully reduced the IRA to irrelavency. All that was required in the North was reasonable behaviour by the Unionist majority (whose entirely shameful attitude was acquiesced in by successive British administrations, including bleeding heart Labour govts) and the Nationalist minority would have been relatively happy with the status quo. Until the conflagaration of the 1960's, the IRA enjoyed very little support among the Nationalist community, attempts at armed campaigns invariably fell flat. Even after that the constitutional SDLP had majority support amongst Nationalists, not Sinn Fein.

But context is (often) all, and we need to be hesitant about making compositional fallacies; you've already acknowledged that the nation-statist project has been a bit of a failure in Africa.

So what? Does that imply that the nation statist project has been a failure in Ireland?

Is it a tribe that's good at assimilation and/or ethnic cleansing or something?

There has been a lot of assimilation of successive "invaders", but genetic analysis shows that we as a "tribe" are fairly homogenous in our ancestry.

Please to complete your thoughts.

England is by far the largest and most important country in the UK. It's not unreasonable to conclude that relative harmony was in part the result of the other countries inability to challenge English hegemony.

So the High Kings were a centralised government which wasn't?

It depended on the King and the influence he could wield (and yes, that involved conquest of other Irish kingdoms). There was a common culture extant, and a common religion, and a common system of law. While political unity may have been fleeting and weak at the best of times, the Irish displayed all the characteristics of nationhood.

And that "common language, the customs and system of law" remained unchanged from prehistory?

It evolved certainly, but an evolution can be traced.

[CapelDodger]

No offence, but could we forget Ireland? If there is a useful role for Ireland as a national unit within the Guaranteeing Authority, then let it have that role. There's nothing to prevent it if that's what the people of Ireland are happy with, and all the units will have to have that legitimacy. The Putney Declaration - that no people should be ruled without their consent or involvement - should be the starting-point, as in many ways it was for the US. If there are issues that are best determined at an Irish island level, have a democratic executive at that level to determine them. Issues that are more local should be determined at that point. In some ways, the concerns of Dublin are not the concerns of Cork.

Ireland is a natural nation, clear boundaries and a peripheral state with a relatively uncomplicated ethnic mix. The Plantations are a bit of a problem, but the Belfast entity more or less soaks that up and is functionally different from the majority of Ireland anyway. Belfast, by now, is naturally oriented towards the Liverpool entity, as is North-East Wales. It may have been even without the Plantations, since Belfast is naturally Atlantic, like Liverpool, but unlike Dublin.

That's a sketchy description of Ireland, a natural nation. Where does that leave the places with complicated ethnic mixes which have traditionally been ruled by multi-ethnic empires (which are inately anti-nationalist)? When the empires were done away with, a version of what Ireland has was stamped out all over, what freakin' sense does that make? A democratic version of the traditional Empire was obviously required but the whole thing was decided by people who were used to Empiring rather than being Empired. Thus the quagmire we have now in much of the world.

Watch out for the East Asians. Who are currently funding the US, for some reason. The Overseas Chinese are a force to be reckoned with, very trans-national, very flexible and very experienced. I suspect they are the unseen lubricant of the West Pacific engine, but if I ever found out how somebody would porbably have to kill me.

The rights that the Guaranteeing Authority (help me out here, people, "Humanistan" was meant be shock tactics) will enforce will be those that we can all agree on - a right to representation, a right not to be discriminated against due to, etc, rights to life, liberty and happiness, rights against arbitrary seizure of person or property, such like. A common currency and supervision of banking. Transparency of government, with plenty of TV and net access. After all, there won't be any national security to hide behind.

And perhaps rights against certain kinds of taxes, such as tariffs, or restrictions on movement (outside law-enforcement, of course).

A single Earth assault on the New Frontier, a single asteroid-kicking program, a single fusion program, a single response to the environmental effects of a planetary infestation of Hom Sap. Not a heaven on earth, but a place very much like what we have now but without the military expenditure, without the constant fear that "the other" is going to come at us in the night because "they" hate us and are evil. That kind of talk will be pounced upon and demolished by sound argument, and woe become those who would try to promote such feelings, for public opinion will be against them and they shall be denounced and forcibly debated live on TV and the InterNet by the finest - the finest - debunkers of the JREF community. That'll teach 'em.

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:
England is by far the largest and most important country in the UK. It's not unreasonable to conclude that relative harmony was in part the result of the other countries inability to challenge English hegemony.
Relative harmony resides more in the ability to beat England at rugby. Not all the time, obviously, which means not enough, but the Welsh, the Scots, the Irish can all do that. Symbolically, we can get in amongst their goats and womenfolk and that's enough. Personally, I get a boost when the All Blacks stuff them.

[CapelDodger]

from DanishDynamite:
Exactly! It took 90 years before the one and only civil war occured. Compare that to the number of inter nation-state wars the US has been in.
And the number of civil wars Europe has had in the same period.

[CapelDodger]

The fascism thing comes up here, which is utterly ludicrous and needs to be addressed. Fascism is a tricky thing to pin down - Italy, Germany, Spain, Romanis, Croatia, all fascist, yes, but try defining it. Things that are absolutely common : nationalism and national myths. The Council of Guardians will be entirely at odds with both. There will be a commitment to education, obviously. What is democracy without education? A non-religious, non-sectarian, fact-based education that no child can be denied. Critical thinking taught, and teachers who say to their pupils "Question me!" How could such a scheme ever overlap with fascism?

Unless it's a pan-human form of fascism after alien contact is made, and I'd like to think that the sort of society I'm proposing would recognise speciesism as being just as reprehensible as the racism people had in "the bad old days".

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Berlin says that those who view politics as an activity that should be left in the hands of the elite view with distaste the philosophy on which sovereign nations are built. I add that they create banana nations and banana republics exactly to show how they despise democtracy.

Is that Leo Strauss you're referring to? ;)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

Is that Leo Strauss you're referring to? ;)

The truth is that I was having Leo Strauss at the back of my head while composing this reply :D

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Yes, but Marx also claimed that the revolution will be due to the proletariats "willingly" joining it, [...]
No he didn't, sorry!

[Cleopatra]

I repost my previous post along with Capel Dodger's replies since it was posted some days ago




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleopatra:Nation is a community


constituted by shared belief and mutual commitment.
extended in history
connected to a specific land
distinguished by other communities by its public culture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capel Dodger:I would add "shares a set of national myths".

I agree that nations and national identities contain an element of myth. The nation is conceived as community extended in history and with a distinct character that its member consider natural. If you dig a bit deeper though you discover that there is a discontinuity in the people who have occupied a specific terrirory and that many features that the members of a specific nation regard as primordial are rather artificial and in most of the times exist to serve a specific political purpose.

It's true that in most of cases national identities cannot survive a critical examination so does this mean that we have no justification to give to national identities and nations any merit in our political reality as you suggest Capel Dodger?

Hardly because as usual you tend to make an observation that is rather obvious to everybody and jump into hasty conclusions.

Personally I am not aware of any national myths that run counter to what we know for sure to be an historical fact. Myths fill in the blanks when no direct evidence is not available but they do not replace the existence of facts. National histories contain myths in order to interpret events in a particular way by stressing some events and diminishing others. We don't encounter national mythological events.

So, as always you protest too much Capel Dodger. :)

Cleopatra:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...for example in medieval universities it was used to classify students by country of origin ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Capel Dodger : It was also used this way amongst the Knights of Malta, where it caused all sorts of problems in co-ordinating the defence against the Ottomans. Rioting between the different "nations" of the Paris universities was almost a recognised sport. Give young men some means of dividing themselves into "teams" and inter-team violence follows. Patriotism, like religion, is one of the ways older minds manipulate young male violence to their own ends. [/quote]

And when you will have accomplished your plans about demolishing Israel first and the rest of the world later you will have rugby in order to control people by dividing them into teams.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[b]Cleopatra :So, it’s wrong to sugget that the concept of Nation entered politics with the rise of the 19th ce Nationalism it was already recognizable to places at least a century earlier.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Capel Dodger :Indeed, but it was a tool of philosophy rather than a dominant political reality. The theorising that led to 19thCE Nationalism - which is politically dominant today - was part of an attempt to create an alternative ideology to the heriditary, "Mandate of Heaven" ideology that was holding back progress in Germany. (Socialism, which is explicitly anti-nationalist, was another such effort.)

*taps her fingers irritated on the back of the crocodile that lies on her lap...*

Do you think that you are addressing an ignorant here don't you? A tool of philosophy and not of a political reality. Leave those tricks aside that you have used extensively while talking about Zionism Capel Dodger.

There is something that is called political philosophy in case you don't know. Usually it predates the creation of political ( applied) ideologies but you cannot view it separately unless you want to support your theories.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleopatra:The Greeks were the first who distinguished themselves from the "barbarians".
...I don't doubt the antiquity of the Chinese civilization I am just saying that the Greeks were the first that they not only perceived but expressed in their writings and turned into a policy the idea that they differ as a group from the people that surrounded them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capel Dodger:You do make some wild claims. I doubt that the Sumerians missed this idea, or the early Chinese. Ezra was pushing the idea of at least a religious nation when he banned marrying-out. The Greeks happen to have been particularly well-reported, and we can see from those reports that nationalism was only ever the preferred ideology of the dominant city of the time. Writing the idea down and having those writings still extant is hardly relevant.

Could you please provide me an non- Greek text that supports what you say? Unless again you will reply with the cliche the absence of evidence is not an indication of evidence of absence or better unless you have contacted the spirits of the Chinese and the Sumerians.



I'm assuming Ptolemaic descent from your avatar, but apologies if you're referring to Cleopatra mother of Herod Philip.

:mad: We have analyzed that ad nauseam. Of course it's all my fault. You remember that post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=392002&highlight=seleucids+and+ptolemies#post392002) where you first pose the question a year ago? In fact the topic of the discussion was almost the same.
" Better the Ptolemies than the Seleucids." What sort of person makes that statements? A Simpsons's lover for sure. I should have known better back then and fed you to the crocodiles right away...


__________________

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


A good thing for whom is the question. In the case of Iraq an important mitigating factor was the presence of large oil reserves. So did the FO think an Iraqi state was a good thing for the Iraqis, or could they have been motivated by something else? It might not make sense to you or I, but the FO probably thought it expedient.

Must have been a typo.

Neither do I understand your reasoning. You stated that the preconditions for nation statehood invariably came about by oppression and conquest, and this appears to be a sticking point. My attitude is so what? Oppression and conquest were par for the course back then. Don't forget that for most of history the majority of the populace were poor peasants, who were oppressed and conquered regardless of who was living in the manor house or castle.

Why the hesitancy? Have you good reason to believe the Republic of Ireland is teethering on some abyss? Not from where I'm standing from.

FWIW the situation in the North could have been resolved, nay avoided, with a little bit of imagination and foresight. The Irish State helpfully reduced the IRA to irrelavency. All that was required in the North was reasonable behaviour by the Unionist majority (whose entirely shameful attitude was acquiesced in by successive British administrations, including bleeding heart Labour govts) and the Nationalist minority would have been relatively happy with the status quo. Until the conflagaration of the 1960's, the IRA enjoyed very little support among the Nationalist community, attempts at armed campaigns invariably fell flat. Even after that the constitutional SDLP had majority support amongst Nationalists, not Sinn Fein.

So what? Does that imply that the nation statist project has been a failure in Ireland?

There has been a lot of assimilation of successive "invaders", but genetic analysis shows that we as a "tribe" are fairly homogenous in our ancestry.

England is by far the largest and most important country in the UK. It's not unreasonable to conclude that relative harmony was in part the result of the other countries inability to challenge English hegemony.

It depended on the King and the influence he could wield (and yes, that involved conquest of other Irish kingdoms). There was a common culture extant, and a common religion, and a common system of law. While political unity may have been fleeting and weak at the best of times, the Irish displayed all the characteristics of nationhood.

It evolved certainly, but an evolution can be traced.
In respect of CapelDodger's request to move away from the specific subject of Ireland, I'm going to outline my position nationalism and nation-statism; this should (hopefully) address the points you've raised above. Some of this is repetitive, but bear with me as I'm trying to collect all my thoughts together into one easily digested lump.

Firstly, we need to differentiate between nations and nation-states; although there's been many examples in history of peoples and areas with nation-like characteristics (and yes, apart from when I'm feeling particularly grumpy, I'll happily concede that Ireland is one such example), but nation-states have a specific set of characteristics which nations don't always have, of which the most pertinent are, "The conjoining of political institutions and collective identity in a single sovereign unit" [from the Oxford Dictionary of Social Sciences (it's the over-arching collective identity bit which informs nationalism and patriotism in their modern iterations, IMO; i.e. I am English/Irish/French/*insert preferred nationality here* above all else. ).

Nation-statism is not a gradually evolving entity, but a distinctive ideology which became popularised and applied around 19thCE. Whilst there's been successes for some countries, nation-statism as a project (which is to say, the attempt to re-cast the world in the mould of nation-states) has been a failure, in that (and I admit I haven't done any serious quantitive analysis here, but off the top of my head, Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East for example) the frequency and extent of the project's failure outweigh its successes; in fact in certain instances the success of certain nation-states is intrinsically linked to the failure of others (the British Empire vs. the Ottoman Empire is the example which springs to mind here, as well as the British Empire and the partition of the Asian sub-continent into India, Pakistan and the Kashmir).

The successful nation-states are typically those which already had—although not necessarily the inevitable consequence of—a degree of homogeneity in their culture, and often that homogeneity resulted from use of force and the reppression of "undesirable" (sub-)cultures (eg Normans v. Anglo-Saxons, England v everywhere else ). As a general observation, I'm not a big fan of invasion and repression, but this doesn't necessarily offer a position wrt the morality of nation-statism; whereas the failures, which typically result from the imposition of boundaries from without, which often bring disparate cultures into confrontation, does.

Finally (for now–lunch break's nearly over), whilst longevity is not the sole indicator of success of political entities, it's an important one; IMO big capitalism is increasingly rendering nation-states redundant. By the next century, we could all be living in my anarcho-socialist grassroots utopia or (more likely) the United States of SmithKleinBeecham. Or even as satellites of China, even. But I imagine that nation-states will have been consigned to the dust-bin of history, as they say.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I agree that nations and national identities contain an element of myth. The nation is conceived as community extended in history and with a distinct character that its member consider natural. If you dig a bit deeper though you discover that there is a discontinuity in the people who have occupied a specific terrirory and that many features that the members of a specific nation regard as primordial are rather artificial and in most of the times exist to serve a specific political purpose.

I am curious if the "distinct character....considered natural" is a liberal one respecting all as equal or an exclusionary one, like Athens and Sparta.

Guessing it's the latter.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
It's true that in most of cases national identities cannot survive a critical examination so does this mean that we have no justification to give to national identities and nations any merit in our political reality as you suggest Capel Dodger?
As a rule I don't give ideas that can't survive a critical examination any merit in itself, although they can often tell you something about the people who hold to such ideas. As to national identity, each case should be examined separately. While some people have a traditional sense of nationality - there was a sense of German nationality before there was a German nation-state, for instance - there are many others who don't. These are primarily people in areas which have been ruled by empires and which have a mixed population, such as Mesopotamia or Afghanistan. There people identify themselves by clan, tribe, guild, and/or religion. Nations that are imposed in these areas, often with borders that are arbitrary or reflect recent accidents of history (Afghanistan's borders are a result of both), are dangerous constructs.
And when you will have accomplished your plans about demolishing Israel first and the rest of the world later you will have rugby in order to control people by dividing them into teams.
Firstly, this is all going to take time and Israel won't be there that long. I won't have to demolish it, it will collapse from its own contradictions. The thing about "teams" is that they can be manipulated, not that they necessarily will be. In general I think sport can be a means of displacing rivalries whcih might otherwise become violent (as I mentioned above, light-heartedly). Football - soccer - has, for some reason, become associated with mob violence, but rugby has never had that association even though its supporters are at least as passionate. The reasons for that might teach us something, if we ever work them out.

A question for Americans: are there any sports in the US which are traditionally associated with crowd violence (as opposed to ice hockey, which appears to be sanctioned team violence reminiscent of the Roman Arena)?
There is something that is called political philosophy in case you don't know. Usually it predates the creation of political ( applied) ideologies but you cannot view it separately unless you want to support your theories.
I agree, and it was the point I was trying to make. Nationalism as a subject of political philosophy pre-dated nation-states in Germany and Italy, but post-dated nation-states like France and Spain. It was the nature of these latter states that the political philosophy was trying to analyse, and to use in the synthesis of a new ideology.
Could you please provide me an non- Greek text that supports what you say?
It just seems to me self-evident that city-dwelling, "sophisticated" people are going to describe their more rustic (and possibly violent) neighbours as "barbarians" or equivalent. If I find myself in that part of my library, I'll look up some Sumerian texts (descriptions of campaigns and conquests are probably the best bet) and see what I can find, but I don't think the survival of such texts is an important point. I have my opinion, but I can't prove it. If you have the opinion that the Greeks were the first, fair enough.
I should have known better back then and fed you to the crocodiles right away...
Unfair. As a very young child I saw a pantomime version of Peter Pan and had nightmares afterwards about the crocodile that had eaten Captain Hook's hand and was determined to get the rest of him. Threaten me with magic, please: I don't believe in that, but I do believe in your crocodiles.

[Cleopatra]

Capel Dodger.

I have just returned from a continental meeting for volunteers of the Olympic Games. I am assigned to Namimbia which belongs to Africa of course.

When you hear of the stories of the African countries you conclude that nationalism has been something really bad for them.

After a couple of whiskeys we all become brothers of course but still... There was a lady in that meeting( a volunteer appointed to the team of Kongo) who giggled with my silly lawyer jokes. We stared at each other for two seconds and the next question was:

" Are you jewish?"

Both of us were indeed.

You cannot turn blood into water I am afraid and this is why nations were founded.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Capel Dodger.


After a couple of whiskeys we all become brothers of course but still... There was a lady in that meeting( a volunteer appointed to the team of Kongo) who giggled with my silly lawyer jokes. We stared at each other for two seconds and the next question was:

" Are you jewish?"

Both of us were indeed.




was that followed be a passionate kiss...perhaps?

[Cleopatra]

I see Capel Dodger that in the other thread you repeat your claims about the marginal nature of zionism while historical evidence shows otherwise, so I am reposting this post.


Originally posted by Cleopatra
Well. I don't know any other National Movement that its adjective has been used and is been used an an insult. "Zionist" is used by many people as an insult and if you find this hyperbolic maybe you should read again the passionate post of a person who lives in Wales.

One phrase from the "Jewish State" is enough for Capel Dodger to debunk a whole movement of people that predates Hertzl.

But there dawns the day that you realize that you are fed up with reading the same old stories and myths , especially in a skeptical forum and you decide to make a list of facts.

I post the table below first for those they think that Zionism means Hertzl. Second for those that believe that Israel sprung from nothing in 1948 , third for those that insist to ignore the historical needs that gave birth to Zionism and its uniqueness in comparison to other nationalistic movements.

Jews are not those who must apologize.

Instead of narrating stories let's talk about the facts here.I will post within the day a Glossary of "jewish terms" I use in my table because I don't wish to leave the explanation of the jewish terms to Capel Dodger and a short bibliography I used in order to create this table. I hope that you will find it interesting.I end the chronology with the year the "Jewish State" was published but I will continue it if I read more fiction in this thread.

A Historical Evolution of Zionism:

<table border="1"><tr><td></td><td>Political Evolution</td><td>Culture, Intellectual Life<td>Evolution of Yishuv</td></td></tr><tr><td>1830
</td><td>-----</td><td>-----</td><td> Waves of immigrating Jews from Magreb arrive in Palestine</td> <tr><td>1839</tr></td><td>Rabbi Yahouda Hai Alkalai( 1798-1878) expresses his ideas regarding the vanity of the "wait and see" policy among the Jews. He migrates in Jerusalem in 1874 </td><td>-----</td><td>------</td><tr><td>1845</tr></td><td> ---- </td><td>Alkalai Publishes Min'hat Yehouda</td><td> ---- </td><tr><td>1851</tr></td><td> ---- </td><td>N.Krochmal, Guide for the Mislead of our times</td><td> ---</td><tr><td>1853</tr></td><td>----</td><td> Publication of the famous jewish roman of Abraham Mapou, Ahavat Zion ( The Love of Zion) 1853-1876. H.Graetz, A History of the Jews ( in 11 volumes)</td><td>----</td><tr><td>1856</tr></td><td>---</td><td> Creation of the newspaper Ha Maggid</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1856</tr></td><td>The hungarian Rabbi Joseph Natonek introduces the proto-zionist activism " Emancipation means suicide"</td><td>Creation of the newspaper HaMelitz</td><td>----</td><tr><td>1860</tr?</td><td>Paris: establishment of the " Allience Isreaelite Universelle" ( Universal Alliance of the Israelites)NOTE: The greek Jews describes themselves until today with the term Israelite</td> <td>---</td><td> Around 1860, La halouka( see the vocabulary) concerne almost the 80% of the residents of Yishuv</td><tr><td>1861</tr></td><td> Creation of the Society for the Collonization by Haim Lorje in Francfort-on-Oder ( Bradenburg-Germany)</td><td>----</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1862</tr></td><td>----</td><td>Moses Hess publishes Rome and Jerusalem</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1863</tr></td><td>----</td><td>Saint Petersburg: Creation of the Society for the promotions of "the instruction" among the Jews by Y.Gordon,L.Pinsker)</td><td>-----</td><tr><td>1865</tr></td><td>London:establishment of the Palestine Exploration Fund</td><td>---</td><td>----</td><tr><td>1868</tr></td><td>----</td><td>Peretz Smolenskin publishes in Vienna the magazine HaShahar in Hebrew--the language that Capel Dodger called artificial</td><td>----</td><tr><td>1869-1870</tr></td><td>Emancipation of the Jews of Prussia</td><td>----</td><td>Establishment of the Agricultural School of Mikveh Israel by the Universal Alliance of the Israelites</td><tr><td>1871</tr></td><td>Emancipation of the Jews in Germany</td><td>---</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1876</tr></td><td>---</td><td> Publication on the first travel guide of Jerusalem in Hebrew--the language that Capel Dodger called artificial</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1877</tr></td><td>Yehouda Leib Gordon publishes the first anonymous brochure that asks for the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine under british sovereignty</td><td>---</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1878</tr></td><td>---</td><td>---</td><td>Establishment of Petah-Tikva(the first permanent settlement for the returning Jews) by the Jews of Jerusalem</td><tr><td>1879</tr></td><td>Establishment of the first society of Mahzikei Ha Das as an opposition to the Haskala( I leave dear CapelDodger to explain the significance of this historical event since he is the one who talked about a total rejection of Zionism in Europe)<td>---</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1881</tr></td><td> In April 15 1881: assassination of the Tsar Alexander the II in Elisabethgrad. Initiation of fierce progroms against the Jews that will last for three years. Creation of the first groups of the "Lovers of Zion" (the famous Hibbat Zion and Ahavat Zion)</td><td>---</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1882</tr></td><td> January: foundation in Karkhov of the group "BILU"( see glossary) Foundation in Vienna by Nathan Birnbaum of the Society friends of Palestine "Kadima" First international antisemitic congress in Dresde( Germany)</td><td> (underlined and bolded for Capel Dodger)starts the publication of a series of 13 volumes under the title Yeroushalaim by A.M.Luncz on the geography of Eretz Israel</td><td> The pioneers of BILU arrive in July of 1882 in Palestine.The first Alya( waves of immigrants) of 25.000 people arrive in Palestine. 17 settlements are established. Baron Edmond de Rothschild initiates his aid dor the returning Jews of Palestine that continues until 1899</td><tr><td>1884</tr></td><td>November: First Congress of Hibbat Zion( Lovers of Zion) in Kattowice ( in Austia-Hungary)(whaaaat?? Jews were talking about zionism before evil Hertzl?)</td><td>----</td><td>Foundation of Gedera (http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/places/gedera.html) ( Sorry but I had to post this because I am fed up with the myth of the prosperous Arabs that lost everything when the evil Zionists came in 1948 to erect Hertzl's statue(sic). Name one similar Arabic organization in Palestine during the same period)</td><tr><td>1885</tr></td><td> Nathan Birnbaum launces the newspaper Selbstemanzipation( auto-emancipation--explanation provided upon request)</td><td>---</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1887</tr></td><td> Uh-hoh! Second Congress of Hibbat Zion in Druskieniki (Russia)</td><td>----</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1889</tr></td><td> Uh-hoh! Third Congress de Hibbat Zion( The lovers of Zion) in Vilna</td><td>---</td><td> Establishment of the first Hebrew School in RishonLeZion( Israeli Town)</td><tr><td>1890</tr></td> <td>Legalization of the "Lovers of Zion"( Hebbat Zion) in Russia</td><td> Creation in Yishuv ( Palestine) of Va'aad HaLashon( Commitee for the Hebrew language) Nathan Birnbaum coins the term Zionism</td><td>Establishment of the cities of Hadera and Rehovot in the country that today is known as Israel</td><tr><td>1891</tr></td><td> Baron Maurice De Hirsch creates the Association for the Jewish Collonization Expulsion of the Jews of Moscow</td><td>---</td><td> First petition of the Arabs of Jerusalem against the jewish immigration</td><tr><td>1892</tr></td><td>---</td><td> First school of higher hebrew studies in Haifa Publication of the Religious Zionist Collection Shivat Zion( Yeah! It's this book: The Return to Zion) First association of the Jewish Professiors of the Hebrew Language<td>----</td><tr><td>1894</tr></td><td>----</td><td>----</td><td> Ben Yehouda gets arrested in Jerusalem</td><tr><td>1896<td>Vienna, February: Theodor Hertzl : On The Jewish State: Searching for a modern solution to the jewish question"</td><td>----</td><td>----</td></table>


edited ad nauseam for the code....

[DanishDynamite]

Boring. :vk:

[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]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
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. :c1:

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
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. :c1: 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.