Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
I would also comment that when Britain was considered 'great' e.g. when we had the Empire on which the sun never set, the lot of the ordinary man or woman was pretty shabby: child prostitution, slums, and sweatshops were rife, half the population was disenfranchised, workers could be dismissed out of hand with no compensation, foodstuffs were adulterated, married women had no right to own property (even their own earnings) or to look after their own children... need I go on?
You have to remember that in that time period, the technology wasn't up to making life "not so shabby" for the vast majority of people [even the wealthy: research what was considered "luxury" in those days and compare it to what's considered common today] - not just in The Empire The Sun Never Sets On, but worldwide.
Historical context is critical in any comparison between eras.
On the other hand... we've "traded up" from a state where life was often nasty brutish and short [to quote a philosopher of the day] and "child prostitution, slums, and sweatshops were rife, half the population was disenfranchised, workers could be dismissed out of hand with no compensation, foodstuffs were adulterated, married women had no right to own property (even their own earnings) or to look after their own children..." etc to a world where:
* Personal responsibility has atrophied to the point where people seek recourse through the courts for the result of their own stupidity and carelessness - and get compensation.
* Married women theoretically have a "right" to own property... except when The State determines that it has a better claim to it.
* A different half of the population is disenfranchised for different reasons
* Slums are still rife. [Been through the barradego areas of Brazil lately?]
* Some workers can recieve salaries even long after being dismissed and employers have few recourses [Google GM and the Auto Unions and start some indepth reading]
* Instead of child prostitution and labor, we are steadily growing nations of 30-40 year old children...
* Seen the steady growth of a professional victim class world wide, where we used to breed adult men and women instead...
Need I go on?
It's problematical wether we've had any real improvements in the intervening decades.
And, I noticed, in all of the length of your post, you neglected to tie *any* of those problems to "nationalism" as a causative, lectatege. You're going to have to forgive me [or not, your choice] for failing to take that list seriously as a cause for indictment of love of country.
Lectatage wrote:
Without wishing to offend anyones sensibilities, to me, once shorn of the rhetoric, nationalism is little more than the human equivalent of a dog piddling up a lampost to mark his territory.
Without any regard for wether I offend anyone's sensibilities, once shorn of the rhetoric, contempt of nationalism seems to be little more than the human equivalent of attempting to denigrate a sentiment one doesn't share by way of ridiculing it.
Now, if you wish to tackle this again with direct examples of the actual ills and benefits of nationalism that aren't obfuscation or simple ad hominem and straw man argumentation, I'm at your disposal.
..If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Wilfred Owen
1893-1918
And so many good ones too,,, _________________ A broken stereotype is a beautiful thing
Sorry, didn't see you there over the page Iron bear.
Most of the problems of the masses in Victorian times were not as a result of lack of technology as you surmise but a failure of will - philanthropic industrialists such as the Cadbury brothers for example were perfectly able to provide decent housing and working conditions for their workforce
The (admittedly slightly off topic) point I was trying to make was that people often take pride in belonging to a 'great' nation, without really considering the question 'great for whom?'
However it does have a more direct bearing on the debate insofar as sexual inequality, disregard for the workforce and child prostitution all arise from an attitude of mind that sees another human being as inferior and undeserving of respect because they are 'not one of us' either because of gender class, skin colour, or indeed nationality.
And this is the core of evil at the heart of Nationalism. It is a well documented that the psychological effect of arbitrarily placing people in
one group is to make them favour that group (and members of that group) above other groups or their members regardless.
It is this tribal instinct that leads to human beings that are 'not one of us' being perceived as inferior and in extreme cases sub-human - vide white racial attitudes towards black african slaves.
Surely anything that stops us from seeing another human being as brother or sister cannot be a good thing? All the benefits of nationalism, feelings of kinship, responsibility to others, altruism etc could be more widely and efficiently obtained by viewing the human race as one nation.
I would like to say that the world is my country, the human race my people, but that would sound hippy dippy and soppy so I won't
I take your point about unfairly denigrating an unshared sentiment but the high flown rhetoric of nationalism invites debunking and I know you are old enough and wise enough to look after yourself, o bear of iron. _________________ A broken stereotype is a beautiful thing
Sorry, didn't see you there over the page Iron bear.
Heh. Considering the bulk of the previous page was posted by me, it's hard to see how you missed me.
lectatage wrote:
The (admittedly slightly off topic) point I was trying to make was that people often take pride in belonging to a 'great' nation, without really considering the question 'great for whom?'
*grin* I was hoping that you would catch that my list of changes since was as only tangentially at best connected to the subject of nationalism as yours: Neither are a result or causative of Nationalism.
Unfortunately, you only caught part of that.
lectatage wrote:
However it does have a more direct bearing on the debate insofar as...
....
And this is the core of evil at the heart of Nationalism.
No it doesn't.
And no it isn't.
There are ills that stem from tribalism [nationalism is Tribalism writ large, on that at least I think both of us can agree] - but those aren't them.
And there is an evil in nationalism taken to an extreme [just as there is in almost any form of extremism] - but that's not it.
I'm having a case of slow connection at the moment, so rather than fight with it... I'm going to leave you to chew on that for a bit and see if you can figure out where I'm seeing something different from what's manifestly obvious to you, but not to me.
You and Ian are both wrong. And both *partly* right. You in particular are taking the negative aspects of the thing and extending that to be the etirety of the whole, as a blind man who feels the trunk of an elephant extrapolates that to the belief that "an elephant is thusly like a snake, long and narrow and flexible". Whereas, an elephant is both like unto a snake, a fan, a tree, and a wall... and in its entirety, is very unlike anything except what it is: an elephant - and that is a thing unto itself.
I'll return to this anon. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Take your time. It will avail you nought against the Representative of The Evil Nationalist Conspiracy. Mwahahahahahahaha! _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Perhaps we're all talking about different kinds of nationalism. Ironbear, particularly, is talking about the pride of belonging to a specific group (or, in his case, groups). My concern, and I think lectatege's, is with the nationalism which expresses itself in hostility. That's when those flags come out.
Something in America (or any other nation) might be better than the equivalent in another nation. If it is, the reason for its being better isn't that it's American.
I'm not proud to be British, because I can't think of many things about Britain to be proud of, and there's much I'd be ashamed of if I felt responsible for it.
IMP. _________________ RIVER: skin on the outside. First chapter FREE from www.ianmpalmer.com
[quote="Ironbear
No it doesn't.
And no it isn't....
....You and Ian are both wrong. "
We are getting perilously close to 'tis - tisnt' territory here
"And both *partly* right."
Damned with faint praise!
"And there is an evil in nationalism taken to an extreme [just as there is in almost any form of extremism] - but that's not it."
I would argue that the evils of Nationalism, and specifically the creation of 'not our sort of people' are inherent in Nationalism, are part of the very nature of the thing, whether taken to extremes or not.
As to the supposed benefits I would say as the lawyers do, 'cui bono'? The only people that I see benefitting directly from Nationalism are the sellers of flags and armaments.
*grin* I was hoping that you would catch that my list of changes since was as only tangentially at best connected to the subject of nationalism as yours: Neither are a result or causative of Nationalism."
So you say and yet ...
Is it not arguable that at least of some of the things of which you complain - the atrophy of personal responsibility - the nation of 30 year old children - is a consequence of national pride.
If an individual has false, or what I would call 'undeserved' pride just through being born in a certain country, the incentive to gain self worth through personal effort is surely diminished.
Perhaps we're all talking about different kinds of nationalism. Ironbear, particularly, is talking about the pride of belonging to a specific group (or, in his case, groups). My concern, and I think lectatege's, is with the nationalism which expresses itself in hostility. That's when those flags come out.
The problem is, Ian, that what you are describing isn't "nationalism" per se - a different kind or otherwise.
It is State Worship, and that is a different thing entirely, albeit related to nationalism tangentially. Tangentially in that they are both manifestations from a common source.
What we are discussing is confused by linguistic drift, some of which has been intentionally fostered over decades by the transnationally inclined.
Nationalism, Patriotism, and Statism are all outgrowths from a common root: Tribalism. And they are *not* the same thing even though they share a common source, no more than a dog is the same creature as a wolf - although both dog and wolf share common ancestors.
Something in America (or any other nation) might be better than the equivalent in another nation. If it is, the reason for its being better isn't that it's American.
Bookmarking so you won't feel bereft, palmers. I'll come back to this later. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
"I would like to say that the world is my country, the human race my people, but that would sound hippy dippy and soppy so I won't" - lectatage
But it didn't stop you from thinking it and giving the appearence of going "Schmuck" condescendingly in the back of your mind to my feeble attempts at presenting a different perspective.
lectatage wrote:
Damned with faint praise!
Damned without even faint praise. This isn't horseshoes and handgrenades - almost doesn't quite get it.
You dissapoint me, lectatege.
I had presumed that based on our previous exchanges, you were likely to come to the conclusion that as I am *not* an unintelligent and unreasoned man, and I hold a position on this that contradicts the "common wisdom"... that I might have arrived at it through reason as I have other opinions. And that that might indicate a need to examine your positions to see if you'd missed something.
Instead, you're reiterating sophomore transnationalist cliches and arguments as if Lo! this is the first time in all my 46 years I've ever heard them or given them thought and examination. Please.
Give us both some credit.
lectetage wrote:
We are getting perilously close to 'tis - tisnt' territory here
*We* aren't.
I fully intend to cut to the nut of this and extrapolate out my reasoning once I've dispensed with the strawman divergences. It will be up to you wether you choose to refute it via reason or rote.
lectatege wrote:
Is it not arguable that at least of some of the things of which you complain - the atrophy of personal responsibility - the nation of 30 year old children - is a consequence of national pride.
No. Those are the consequences of a culture of dependency. Bastard children of "modern" leftism. They have nothing to do with "nationalism", and everything to do with statism and state worship.
State Worship being the doctrinal theory that Government can do better at taking care of its citizens than the citizens themselves can do left to their own devices and ingenuity. It breeds a dependency on Authority, and inculcates an abrogation of personal responsibility and self-reliance.
The "citizen of the world" transnationalist credo that you made a half-hearted effort at joking at is a direct outgrowth of state worship.
And the ironic thing is that it leads directly to the evils of "nationalism" that you imply: both totalitarianism, national socialism, and the boneyards of Cambodia are a direct and natural outgrowth of statism and statist dependency.
lectatage wrote:
If an individual has false, or what I would call 'undeserved' pride just through being born in a certain country, the incentive to gain self worth through personal effort is surely diminished.
If one's so inclined, one can get "'undeserved' pride" from anything that isn't gained through personal effort: money, sex, power, belonging to an "In" group, fashion... one can even gain undeserved pride through things gained via personal effort when carried to an extreme.
It's not precisely a New Thing. The word for that is Hubris. Related words are "conceit" and "fatuousness".
lectetage wrote:
And this is the core of evil at the heart of Nationalism. It is a well documented...
Appeal to Noted Authority overruled in this court. If it is "well documented", then link to said documentattion to allow the Jury and The Accused to examine both the evidence and the footnotes and credentials of the Expert Witnesses... else argue solely upon Counsels naked Reason.
lectetage wrote:
that the psychological effect of arbitrarily placing people in one group is to make them favour that group (and members of that group) above other groups or their members regardless.
It is this tribal instinct that leads to human beings that are 'not one of us' being perceived as inferior and in extreme cases sub-human...
You came so close to getting to the heart of the matter... and then you didn't think it through. And you didn't follow it back to its sources and extrapolate out.
Ko... now on to the meat of things. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Google. I am not your secretary. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Profile
Search
Memberlist
Log in to check your private messages
Usergroups
FAQ & TOS
Log in
