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.
Apart from one paranoid description of Muslim terrorists hidden among us, references online seem to be mostly to physical movement of people and resources across international boundaries, which are thus rubbed away. I can't see the relevance to the discussion we (or you and lectatege) were having.
Googling "state worship", I did find "a misguided nationalism that borders on state-worship". I'm sure that should be "which", not "that". I submit that one good reason to be concerned about the thing we both recognise as nationalism is that it's on the road to what you describe as state worship, and when people see a road they tend to travel along it.
But part of the question I asked at the start of the thread wasn't about whether nationalism or patriotism or whatever is a good thing, but about how we see our own countries: are Americans proud while Brits are ashamed, and what are Brazilians, and so on? And what are we proud or ashamed of?
IMP. _________________ RIVER: skin on the outside. First chapter FREE from www.ianmpalmer.com
You came so close at several points to hitting at the meat of the thing, and then mistook the map for the territory and lost the mark.
lectetage wrote:
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?
Can't it? And... if it wasn't a good and useful thing, would it not have managed to breed itself out of the species by now?
Nationalism, Patriotism, and Statism are all outgrowths from a common root: Tribalism.
You made all the proper and accepted "common knowledge" condemnations of the potential and actualized ills of tribalism taken to an extreme - and never once went all the way back and examined why it came to be, and what if any possible benefits it had originally, what if any it still has, and why it persists to this day:
Tribalism: Me and mine are US. You and them are Other, and as such, are a possible danger until proven otherwise.
It's in the very blood and bone of human beings - innate to our natures and to our social structures going back to pre-history. It exists for a reason.
The reason is simple, and it is endemic to the nature of being human: Human beings want to know that they are a part of something larger and greater than themselves, that will continue after they do not. They want to know that they are contributing to something larger than their own personal gratification alone.
Not all humans, certainly, but the majority of them. Put two humans together in isolation and they'll either partner or kill each other. Put three of them together - and they'll invent politics and form a Tribe. We are a gregarious species.
People like me who are wontolla - outlier - and content with it are both atavists and aberrent. and even we have the compulsion to build something larger than we are, and to form together with other individuals to do so.
Family: me and my kin. Clan: my kin and my kin's kin. Tribe: my clan and my clan's allies through marriage and blood relation. Nation: my Tribe and the Tribes that are friendly to us.
Tribalism is a survival trait. It is a social mechanism that enables human beings to band together with those who share their identities, language, values, heritage, relationships, lore, goals, and genes to ensure the defense of those things from other tribes who not only may, but often *did* hold inimical goals, values, heritage, desires, and identities.
Nationalism, statism, patriotism, jingoism, government, and politics are all outgrowths of tribalism. They're all an extension of that drive to make certain that that which we are and that which we value survives against those that value otherwise and would threaten it.
"Nationalism" isn't "Good" or "Evil" in and of itself, it is a trait. The Good or Ill comes from how it's expressed. Calling a survival trait "Good" or "Evil" is like calling a knife "Good" or "Evil" - it's an object: it has no innate nature. It can cut to heal as easily as it can cut to kill - it's the mind behind the hand that expresses the nature of the act.
Nationalism is an emotion: it's the expression of that emotion into actions that are good or ill, not the emotion itself. It's a survival tool for a culture. Tools have no innate nature: their wielder's nature is expressed through the use to which they're put.
Extreme Nationalism + Socialism + Fascist Economy + State Worship = National Socialism. That's one of the two extreme outgrowths of tribalism that most people consider as the emblematic "Evil" of Nationalism. Marxism is the other: Socialism + State Worship + Centralised Economy + Leader Idolization.
Put to those uses, Nationalism and Tribalism were a tool that mobilised entire societies to devastate Europe and much of the world, and create the Gulags, the Concentration Camps, and the Boneyards of Cambodia.
It's the wielder, not the tool.
Nationalism in the hands of the Allies mobilised entire societies to lay waste to National Socialism and the Reich.
It's the wielder, not the tool.
Tribalism taken to an extreme in the hands of fanatics with ancient grudges led to the genocides of Yugoslavia, and the massacres of Rwanda.
NOW. If you and palmers had stated that there was "something in the nature of human beings that causes nationalism to invariably be perverted to ill effect" - I wouldn't be quibbling with you near as much. There's demonstrably a long history of tribalism being perverted to evil uses by men and societies.
Instead, you've repeatedly made the statement that the object is evil, rather than the users and use of the object. That's animism applied to a behavioral trait.
I could easily say "Love is Evil" because it demonstrably leads to both broken hearts, ill will, and homicide... and quite a few people would quibble with me. Even though there's a long history of love being used as a pretext for evil by those so inclined.
You are *never* going to be rid of the trait of tribalism, not until and perhaps not even when the basic nature of humanity changes to something else.
Tribalism is the collectivist nature of humanity expressing itself in the attempt to be a part of something larger than oneself for protection. It's as much a part of human nature as love or the drive for individualism.
Rather than attempting to dismiss the tool as "Evil", it might be time to examine the entire history of the thing and determine how to turn the edge towards its positive useages, rather than towards creating boneyards - it isn't going to vanish just because some dissaprove of it.
lectetage wrote:
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.
"*Everyone* can be Super! And when everyone's Super... no one will be." - Syndrome
Ahh. The ultimate expression of multiculturalism and transnationalism, boiled down to its essential nature.
When everything is equally valued, nothing will have value.
That's not ridding yourself of Nationalism. That's expanding it to a larger Tribe. It's just as innately collective as Nationalism.
Unfortunately for the transnational, it doesn't seem to work. The larger the tribe, the more easily it balkanizes into sub-tribes.
And there's an innate problem with it. The world is *not* my country, the human race are *not* my people. Not even all of my own countrymen are "my people".
There are people and peoples in "the world as a whole" that do not value my values, do not wish to allow me my culture, do not share my ideals, and do not grant to me the same rights they do to "real Human Beings". To them, I am Other.
We are seeing now the clash of societies that have ceased to find anything within themselves of value with an expansionistic culture that meets "acceptance of diversity" with "we will absorb you". I'll leave it as an excercise for the student as to which cultures and societies and where.
If there is no collective appraisal that the things that make up a culture's and a people's identity have value, then when that culture meets a violent expansionist culture that chooses *not* to assimilate, and *not* to live and let live - the pliant culture dies or is absorbed.
That's what comprises "nationalism": that appraisal that "what we are, what we believe, our language, our heritage, our peoples, our art, our history, our songs, our literature, and our way of life" has value and it is worth defending.
Belonging to and contributing to a thing that is greater than ourselves, that is unique when compared to others, and that is worth preserving because it is ours. It may not be valuable to *you*, but it is to us, and we'll defend it and preserve it.
Anti-nationalism states that it's no more valuable than anything else, and everything has equal value anyway, so it's not worth preserving... and surely enough, when you convince enough of a society of that - no one will preserve it. And at that point it probably deserves to die.
Don't kid yourself though: you're not getting rid of nationalism by transferring it to something larger. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
[quote="palmers"But part of the question I asked at the start of the thread wasn't about whether nationalism or patriotism or whatever is a good thing, [/quote]
And on part of it you did, in that "it's a wicked thing".
That part was picked up on and expanded upon, and I'm responding to that.
palmers wrote:
but about how we see our own countries: are Americans proud while Brits are ashamed, and what are Brazilians, and so on? And what are we proud or ashamed of?
And I tackled that part of the question in part before tangenting off on the "wicked thing" aspect. I seem to be one of the few here who did take a stab at that. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
And I'm guessing, but lectatege's wide documentation might include Asch, Stanford prison and Muzafer Sherif. According to my secretary, who also tells me that each of those experiments had to be terminated early because of the levels of hostility generated.
IMP. _________________ RIVER: skin on the outside. First chapter FREE from www.ianmpalmer.com
"Tribalism: Me and mine are US. You and them are Other, and as such, are a possible danger until proven otherwise.
It's in the very blood and bone of human beings - innate to our natures and to our social structures going back to pre-history. It exists for a reason.
The reason is simple, and it is endemic to the nature of being human: Human beings want to know that they are a part of something larger and greater than themselves, that will continue after they do not. They want to know that they are contributing to something larger than their own personal gratification alone."
I think we all agree on this. Where we might disagree is on whether this is a good thing. That human beings want something isn't necessarily a justification for it.
IMP. _________________ RIVER: skin on the outside. First chapter FREE from www.ianmpalmer.com
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...
This is not intirely true since the first African-American slaves even so far from home still considered themselves Africans and practiced thier ritules like they did at home.
The settlers of the time viewed the African slaves as a sub species only good for work. The had forgotten that the first slaves were pilgrims/refugees that could not afford the ticket to get to the new world. These people would work as serfs for a set time until they earned thier freedom and upon doing so was given land. The fact is that there wasn't enough serfs coming over to support the expanding colonies. This result in the African slave market and since the Africans were so diffrent not only in color but in the way they dressed , acted, and worshiped. This resembled they way they had mislearned or heard how a less evoled society that they stimmed from realizing that this new nation had the potential to catch up in the evolution chain ment a new threat and that couldn't be allowed so the best way to stop that was to enslave them and take away there rights. In the simple terms the aristocatic society was scared of something new and diffrent and decided that it must be bad. None of which is patrotic or nationallistic or even tribal.
The child prostitudes you have to look at as it was back then if you could give birth you could be married off or work in a brothel it wasn't until the last 100 0r so years that this idea was deemed bad.
just a bit of food for thought
I crumble before the onslaught.
Nah, just kidding...
You are an eloquent and subtle debater, Ironbear but I would still contend with you on several points:
[quote="Ironbear 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.
I promise you that the word 'Schmuck' never even contemplated the merest possibility of entering fore or aft of what passes for my mind and I did not intend to give that apprearance. I was trying to hide the romantic streak that lurks beneath my hard bitten callous exterior is all.
"[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."
Just because you have heard these arguments before and have rejected them does not automatically invalidate them, neither does your opinion of them as Sophomoric cliches (unless you are claiming infallibility).
Why mention your venerable age - you wouldn't be trying to pull rank would you
"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."
Just because Nationalism is not the sole cause does not mean it cannot be a contributing factor.
Thank you Palmers for quoting chapter and verse on the research mentioned, it wasn't the one I was thinking of but it serves my argument as well and actually better.
(I won't muddle the thread with extraneous matter but I can remember the experiment in some detail, if not the exact source. If anyone is interested I'll send them a PM and they can try it at home. I promise it is not as dangerous as the studies cited by palmers.)
You also argue that Nationalism stems from an innate human wish to contribute to something greater than the individual. I regret to say that I see no evidence for such a wish innate in human nature.
There may however be a wish to become part of something bigger than oneself - what better way of absolving oneself from personal responsibility and the duty to think?
Present company always excepted of course.
Nationalism is not an emotion, although it uses the emotions of a primal psychology common to all of us. It is the cynical deployment of the tribal instinct for the benefit of a powerful minority. It is neither logical nor inevitable, based as it is on arbitrary geographical boundaries.
Tribalism was indeed a very effective survival trait when we were furry mammals without much capacity for abstract thought, and its malefic qualities wre limited to the immediate area of the group.
When such primitive psychologies hold sway in a species with the capacity for mass destuction I would question their worth as a survival trait.
To say 'you will never get rid of tribalism' is to accept defeat. You could just as easily say ' We will never get rid of slavery' that does not absolve us from the responsibility to try.
You argue that Nationalism is a tool, neither good nor bad.
I say no, its innate capacity to create the 'other' in a species with our psychology makes it inherently malefic.
btw so far I'm concerned the jury's still out on the 'Is love evil' debate but if you are speaking in terms of romantic/sexual love it is certainly allied to aspects of mental illness. _________________ A broken stereotype is a beautiful thing
Last edited by lectatege on Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:42 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Jan 28, 2004 Posts: 45 Location: Massachusetts
Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:29 am Post subject: Re: National pride.
I think there is some confusion about terms. A nation is a group of people with a common cultural background. A state is a body of government. Thus nationalism is a love of one's culture, while patriotism is a love for one's government.
If that is the case GnosticAnubis is there any nations left or have they all be dilluted with other nations that no longer are held together by their ritules and teachings.
Joined: May 04, 2003 Posts: 63 Location: Sailing, sailing, over the ocean blue...
Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:07 am Post subject:
Hm. This is a helluva conversation to get into on the strength of one cup of coffee, but here goes.
I agree with Ironbear on some points - tribalism, the root of nationalism, is neither evil nor good, in and of itself; it's an expression of a fundamental part of human nature, rooted deep in our primate ancestry. The uses to which tribalism has been turn, both by scale (nationalism) and by design (jingoism) can be good or evil. Some of the side-effects are perceived as good or evil by some parties, depending on what else is driving their own personal agendas.
I would also take Ironbear's statement regarding balkanization of tribes and go further: Such balkanization already takes place, has already taken place and continues to take place. Humans have merely added on layers of tribal identification through history, and our politics reflect that. Look at how our domestic politics (and this applies to any nation, but I'm speaking of Canada here, since that's where I live) often serve to break nations into sub-groups. The western provinces feel they are different from the easter and maritime provinces. Quebec feels that's different from everyone else, to the point that a separatist party has a large number of seats in our federal government.
Moving now into a province, various municipalities and regions vie with each other for various things - patronage billets in government, ministry dollars for roads, health care, education - the list goes on. That is tribalism within the nation. Hell, you can even see it within a municipality. People living in one part of town often consider themselves distinct/better to folks living in another part of town. I tell you true - there are definitely people who consider living near the naval base in Esquimalt to be a step down in social quality.
We also form tribal identities on other grounds - skin colour, religion, sex, sexual identity. Sometimes these identities will transcend politically-based identities for a time; e.g., Gay Pride parades, which often draw participants and supporters from around the country and other countries (I believe, though I'm not sure, the last one in Toronto had about 50-60% of participants from border states in the US). _________________ "Take sides! Always take sides! You may be wrong - but the man who refuses to take sides must always be wrong! Heaven save us from poltroons who fear to make a choice." - Robert A. Heinlein, "Double Star"
Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:33 pm Post subject: Re: National pride.
Yo
Nationalism is important. Doesen't have to be at a fanatic level.
Not at all. Rather not infact, cuz it's becoming dangerous then. And there is no reason to. But where do waters part? Isen't it when religion is thrown in and is becoming the overshadowing issue? It has (to me) never been more visible what cause the trouble in this world: lack of vid & missleading information, all caused by religion..(no religion mentioned)
I'm proud of my country (DK) and that we support the U.S of A in Iraque.
Patriotism isn't the thought that your country is better than everyone else's. It's the notion that your country is the best for you and your love and appreciate all that entails.
Despite it's faults, you only want the best for your country. If it comes down to it, you will defend your country against any and everything.
So let's not look at the perverted expressions of patriotism that some see. Look at it for what it really is....a good thing that can unify a country and help it grow.
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
