Nationalism

[Captain Hurrah]

This might be of interest.

 

[deke t lefel]

So why not identify ourselves with some things that actually have some real importance?

Like what?

 

[ericjarvis]

Like what?

Urban 75. Scunthorpe United. London. The European Union. Touareg blues. Socialism. Anti-racism. The Angell Town Estate. The London Borough of Lambeth. Windows XP...

Stuff that actually makes sense.

 

[dilute micro]

Hmmm. I see where you are coming from but I would argue the crown no longer justifies its authority in terms of class or divine right. Not since Cromwell. Rather it formally bows to the authority of Parliament and through it the "people" ("It reigns but does not rule".) and justifies its position in terms of nation, national unity and cultural continuity. It clearly does symbolise a nation defined by class but this is not acknowledged. In fact it is specifically denied. We are all British. "The peoples Princess". The manner in which Royal events such as weddings are celebrated as national celebrations and opportunities for sharing in the happiness of the Royal couple etc.

(Hmmm. Im not very convinced by my reply here tbh. I will have to think about your point and come back to you later)

I thought the crown still had ultimate authority even if it's not used.

 

[obtuseobserver]

What is nationalism? An easy question to answer perhaps. The belief in your nation right? but of course that begs the question what exactly is a nation.

Nation is a cultural term to be distinguished from a state. It has a squishy definition but generally means shared language, history, geography to a degree. A nation may or may not have a state.

Nationalism, then, is deriving one's identity from the nation. Whether Copts and Muslims in Egypt are of the same nation is a matter of debate but I think in that case it may be more accurate to say they are members of the same state with one supporting the other. Why? Clearly some Muslim groups identify the Copts as not their nation, as "other" and to a large degree they are correct. This certainly forms no basis to justify violence but it does expose a distinction in "nation."

 

[obtuseobserver]

What we have here is the early glimmering of the understanding that the nation state is obsolete. We no longer operate economically, politically, culturally, or socially, on the basis of a nation state. So why not identify ourselves with some things that actually have some real importance?

I want my Urban 75 passport.

citizen of the world huh?

We do have a great deal of world economic intigration as the past three years have shown. Largely this is dealt with by trade agreements between.... nation states. Politically there is a good deal of intigration insofar as many states cluster into spheres of influence and owing to geopolitically reality the dominant state of a sphere can in many ways dictate to member states. However, these are still nation states. Culturally there is a lot of intigration too but try to get a Welsh speaker to speak only English and let me know how it works out... nations are culturally significant and even moreso than nation states. These things have great importance. What things do you think are more important?

Lastly, most importantly... nation states have navies and armies. It takes a nation state to sustain them. If nation states dissolve they'll simply be absorbed into another nation state(s) as a minority population.

What do you think would take the place of a nation state?

 

[ericjarvis]

citizen of the world huh?

We do have a great deal of world economic intigration as the past three years have shown. Largely this is dealt with by trade agreements between.... nation states. Politically there is a good deal of intigration insofar as many states cluster into spheres of influence and owing to geopolitically reality the dominant state of a sphere can in many ways dictate to member states. However, these are still nation states. Culturally there is a lot of intigration too but try to get a Welsh speaker to speak only English and let me know how it works out... nations are culturally significant and even moreso than nation states. These things have great importance. What things do you think are more important?

Wales isn't a nation. Which kind of makes my point. The cultural values that people identify with aren't inevitably congruent with national borders. So it isn't a common culture that makes a nation state work, it's purely a political entity. When there is no political need for nation states then the very concept is obsolete. I contend that if we haven't reached that situation yet it isn't far off.

As for global economic integration. My point is that it isn't largely dealt with by treaties between nations. In terms of what actually happens (as opposed to what gets bullshitted about in various political forums) it's mostly down to multinational companies dealing within multinational regional trading blocs. Big companies don't give a toss about national governments, they can generally buy them off if they won't play ball, so the only regulation that actually makes any difference happens at an international level. At the level of the EC it's possible to limit the actions of a multinational company, at the level of the UK government it no longer is.

Lastly, most importantly... nation states have navies and armies. It takes a nation state to sustain them. If nation states dissolve they'll simply be absorbed into another nation state(s) as a minority population.

Nation states largely no longer have military forces that can operate entirely independently of other nations.

What do you think would take the place of a nation state?

I think the multinational trading blocs have already taken over many of the functions, as have military alliances such as NATO, those are the levels at which the real action happens. So the question is whether the next level down should be national or more local. In many nations, the UK being one, I believe that the latter makes more sense.

 

[dylans]

Nation is a cultural term to be distinguished from a state. It has a squishy definition but generally means shared language, history, geography to a degree. A nation may or may not have a state.

Nationalism, then, is deriving one's identity from the nation. Whether Copts and Muslims in Egypt are of the same nation is a matter of debate but I think in that case it may be more accurate to say they are members of the same state with one supporting the other. Why? Clearly some Muslim groups identify the Copts as not their nation, as "other" and to a large degree they are correct. This certainly forms no basis to justify violence but it does expose a distinction in "nation."

i disagree, nationhood is a statement of inclusion or exclusion. It is therefore first and foremost a political term. Egyptian Copts share national identity with Egyptian Muslims in every way except religious belief. Ethnicity, language, geography and identity as Egyptians. Now I agree that religious identity is one aspect of cultural identity (though by no means the only one) and that in this respect there are cultural differences between Muslims and Copts but this is the case of many groups within a nation. There are wide cultural differences between urban and rural Egyptian Muslims for example and even between working class and middle class urbanites. Culture is not a claim to nationhood except in very deliberate political ideological terms. Terms specifically devised to further a political agenda aimed at exclusion. Many, in fact I would say most, nations do not exhibit cultural homogeneity. India is the classic example where a political sense of nationhood is very strong and is very inclusive of a myriad of cultural differences. You can be Muslim or Jain or Christian or Hindu and yet still be Indian. You can speak any one of many different languages and yet still be Indian. You can be from many different ethnic backgrounds and yet you are Indian. Attacks on this very democratic concept of multi cultural definition of nationhood are always ideological and therefore political.

The claim that Copts are not members of the Egyptian nation is therefore an ideological one. An attempt to redefine an already existing concept of national belonging away from the concept of nation that is commonly shared by most Egyptians. Islamic groups are not correct in excluding Copts from the concept of Egyptian nation at all. In fact Islamic groups that attempt to define Copts as non Egyptian are also unconsciously defining Egyptian Muslims as non Egyptian because they are emphasizing religious identity of Egyptian Muslims over and above their Egyptian identity. They are emphasising the trans national commonality (ie nationhood) of Egyptian Muslims with the global ulema.

The concept is ideological and one that is refuted by Egyptians who emphasise the multiethnic identity of all Egyptians. This claim to exclusion based on religion is no different to other ideological based attempts to exclude minority groups from democratic concepts of nation. German Nazis who attempted to exclude German Jews from the German nation. Shiv Sena who attempt to exclude Indian Muslims from Indian nationhood. EDL racists who attempt to exclude British Muslims from British nationhood. It is the presentation of an undemocratic, ethnic based, ideological concept of nation based on exclusion in contrtast to a multi ethnic, democratic political concept of nation based on inclusion. And precisely because it is an ideological conception it can be countered and fought politically. The millions of Egyptians who demonstrated in tahrir holding crosses and crescents or who rallied to defend churches under attack are engaged in an ideological battle of definition of nation, presenting a democratic inclusive vision in opposition to a sectarian exclusive vision of nation

 

[roryer]

I always viewed nationalism as a means by which the ruling elites exploit the people.

I'm not good at semantics but are nationalism and patriotism the same thing? If so then Wilde's quip, "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" resonates on this question.

I'm in the middle of reading Paxman's 'The English' which tries to answer the question of whhat does it mean to be English / British? Scunthorpe United, Urban 75 are just as valid as his answers so far, although I do like his assertion that it is a distrust of government, and individualism that defines us.

In his introduction he also states the obvious, that as global flows of capital are of increasing importance, the role of the nation state is now primarily to protect our culture. So is nationalism just about culture?

As we all get mixed up through global travel and communications, surely culturally we get more blurred, and nationalism is therefore defunct?

So, does this mean we are moving towards a single world government? I think that it seems so, but it is a development we must view with intense suspicion, and not allow it to fall under the control of the global Corporations.

But nationalism is too useful to the elites to be given up too easily, even with the emergence of a single world currency.

I'm currently in China where nationalism is used as one of the few justifications left for the continued rule of the totalitarian regime, so I believe it will remain a tool to be used to pit common man against common man, much as religion has for generations.

 

[obtuseobserver]

Wales isn't a nation. Which kind of makes my point. The cultural values that people identify with aren't inevitably congruent with national borders. So it isn't a common culture that makes a nation state work, it's purely a political entity. When there is no political need for nation states then the very concept is obsolete. I contend that if we haven't reached that situation yet it isn't far off.

But the Welsh are... which was my point. You're stuck on a political definition of "state" and not recognizing how adding "nation" to it changes the meaning.

The Welsh are a stateless nation like the Cherokee in the US. Actually they have a good deal more of the trappings of a state but that's really beside the point. Nation states are anything but obsolete. Non-nation states like Russia or China may be obsolete (they are contiguous empires with a dominant nation weilding most of the poilitical power). but that remains to be seen in the next 100 years or so. My take... they aren't either. Why? Small nations cannot exist absent the consent of larger and more powerful states. Before you get in a huff about that comment.... don't confuse recognizing a fact with approving of the fact. don't confuse "ought" with "is."

As for global economic integration. My point is that it isn't largely dealt with by treaties between nations.

The US comprises 25% of the world's economy and it intigrates that through treaties. Those treaties provide the framework within which those compaines operate. Without treaties companies go in to other states at their own risk without the protection of either state. Corporations are aware of this and avoid foolish risks without great potential upside for their efforts. Treaties are immensely important and for the most part regulate world trade.

Nation states largely no longer have military forces that can operate entirely independently of other nations.

Most states do not. Those states with effective militaries are by and large nation states (with notable exceptions in China and Russia). Effective militaries make nation states regional (and sometimes global) powers. Power make nation states anything but obsolete.

I think the multinational trading blocs have already taken over many of the functions, as have military alliances such as NATO, those are the levels at which the real action happens.

NATO is window dressing for American military power to create a political shield and little more. Trading blocs result from... ding ding ding.... treaties.

So the question is whether the next level down should be national or more local. In many nations, the UK being one, I believe that the latter makes more sense.

Well, you can ask the question but the world desn't work that way. Parts of the US probably do. But parts of the UK are not the world.

 

[obtuseobserver]

i disagree, nationhood is a statement of inclusion or exclusion.

Well, yes. And in broadest terms history, culture and language create that statement.

It is therefore first and foremost a political term.

the state or polis is a political term. either may encapsulate a nation but it need not. state is clearly not a cultural term... therefore nation is cultural and state is political. If not there is no need to distinguish between the terms nor add "nation" to state to get the term nation state.. it woudl be redundant.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationstate

: a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state; especially : a state containing one as opposed to several nationalities

 

[deke t lefel]

so maybe...... nation is cultural/religious, state is political/legal and kingdom is class/economic?

none of which have the corporate power of empire

 

[nino_savatte]

For a more sociological perspective, try Benedict Anderson.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Imagined-Co...=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307208321&sr=1-2