Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Notes on Nationalism (1945)

orwell.ru

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 91 posts

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#31

Post by coldtea »

mistermann wrote: post #26
thankthunk wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both nationalism nor patriotism barely make sense any more. Time are changing. People said the same thing in the late and early 20th century before ww1 and ww2. They were wrong. > If you read it, you will realize that all of civilization is fundamentally based on global markets and the global shipping of crude oil and other resources. Modern nations are dependent on oil for sure. That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought…

Very well said. Along the same line of thinking, I'd like to point out a few things from the article that were a bit of a revelation for me: "As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’, but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation — that is, a sin…

>The only definition even remotely close to race/racism is #3, yet do a google search for "nationalism" in the news and on forums (including this one, and in this very thread) and I bet you'll discover that in the vast majority of cases you'll find it being used in a way that's synonymous with racism.

That's because, US and a few other multi-ethnic nations aside, most nation states are either somewhat ethnically consistent, or have one dominant ethnic majority -- and thus nationalism there is also related to ethnicity (and/or race).

Race is also not always seen as meaning whole classes of people (like black, white, asian, latin, etc) but can seen as defined for historically and genetically similar lineage too, so, e.g. Norwegians could be seen as different to Swedish in racial terms (and often such arguments invoke such terms).

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#32

Post by forapurpose »

mistermann wrote: post #26
thankthunk wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both nationalism nor patriotism barely make sense any more. Time are changing. People said the same thing in the late and early 20th century before ww1 and ww2. They were wrong. > If you read it, you will realize that all of civilization is fundamentally based on global markets and the global shipping of crude oil and other resources. Modern nations are dependent on oil for sure. That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought…

Very well said. Along the same line of thinking, I'd like to point out a few things from the article that were a bit of a revelation for me: "As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’, but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation — that is, a sin…

That's all academic. Current nationalists base their 'nation' on skin color and religion: white and Christian (though the religious aspect is sometimes less emphasized), like ISIS'/Daesh's nationalism based on Islam. You can read people advocating it in HN, just like you can read many attempts to whitewash it.

The endlessly repeated lesson of history is that if human rights are not universal, if you accept the nationalist argument that 'people on my side have rights and those on the other don't', then it ends up justifying denying rights to any person or group, and the brutality that follows. That's why the foundation of the United States is universal human rights, 'all men are created equal and endowed ... with inalienable rights'. We've had enough slavery, segregation, Holocausts, Tutsi massacres, Milosovic's, ISIS's, oppression of women, Nazis, etc, etc. to know how it turns out; we don't need to try again and hope it's different this time.

In contrast, universal human rights as the basis of the post-WWII order has provided the greatest expansion of freedom and prosperity in human history, with no comparison. Why would anyone want to give that up? Why are we looking for ways to divide people and to justify and whitewash hate?

What is the basis of nationalism? That a human being's rights and my regard from them depend on an imaginary line on the earth? One step this way, I love them; one step the other way, I oppose them? It's absurd.

Finally, nationalism is an obsession of a small group imposed on others. The nationalists say all white Christian people are part of their nation, but a most of those people don't see it that way. Certain nationalists claim me as part of their 'nation', but I abhor and oppose them and certainly am not a member. Nationalists are a small group of people who, just like the tyrants and evil people before them, simply try to impose their will on others. I believe the others should live free.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#33

Post by mistermann »

coldtea wrote: post #31
mistermann wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very well said. Along the same line of thinking, I'd like to point out a few things from the article that were a bit of a revelation for me: "As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’, but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation — that is, a sin…

> The only definition even remotely close to race/racism is #3, yet do a google search for "nationalism" in the news and on forums (including this one, and in this very thread) and I bet you'll discover that in the vast majority of cases you'll find it being used in a way that's synonymous with racism. That's because, US and a few other multi-ethnic nations aside, most nation states are either somewhat ethnically con…

Sure, but this doesn't address the phenomenon of why actual (dictionary) nationalism has become synonymous with racism/Nazism. If anything, and I don't mean this disrespectfully, your difficulty in seeing how Western multicultural societies are different in this respect (the assumption that nothing but extreme malice can possibly be behind nationalism) demonstrates my point. Unless I've misinterpreted you, which is very easy (and common) to do in these types of conversations.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#34

Post by andrepd »

thankthunk wrote: post #19
JohnStrangeII wrote: post #17

Both nationalism nor patriotism barely make sense any more. Time are changing. When Orwell wrote this piece he was influenced by the war, extreme situations like wars or famines always cloud your judgements. I recommend reading the seemingly unrelated The Knowledge by Lewis Dartnell. It describes the skills that would be necessary to rebuild civilisation after a hypothetical global cataclysm. Why is it relevant? If y…

> Both nationalism nor patriotism barely make sense any more. Time are changing. People said the same thing in the late and early 20th century before ww1 and ww2. They were wrong. > If you read it, you will realize that all of civilization is fundamentally based on global markets and the global shipping of crude oil and other resources. Modern nations are dependent on oil for sure. That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought…

>Modern nations are dependent on oil for sure. That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought over.

This is simply, objectively, not true.

>Certain nations, like the US, don't have to work with anyone. We are one of the few nations who have enough resources ( including oil ) to keep our civilization running.

Doesn't the US import almost double what it exports (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6)? Also, why has the US worked so hard in the past 70 years to maintain influence across the world, warring and pillaging and murdering, and trading and bribing as well? Doesn't their standard of living rest on the global state of affairs they strive to maintain (or further exploit)?

>The post ww2 era is an anomaly in human history where one nation ruled the world.

In terms of technology, the last 100 years have been more transformative than the 10,000 before. It's silly to compare this to the mongol empire.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#35

Post by andrepd »

forapurpose wrote: post #29
thankthunk wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both nationalism nor patriotism barely make sense any more. Time are changing. People said the same thing in the late and early 20th century before ww1 and ww2. They were wrong. > If you read it, you will realize that all of civilization is fundamentally based on global markets and the global shipping of crude oil and other resources. Modern nations are dependent on oil for sure. That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought…

There's no basis offered for any of the parent. Some things are obviously false: > oil ... That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought over. > Certain nations, like the US, don't have to work with anyone > expand the US to include the anglo-nations ( Canada, Australia, etc ) etc. These are arguments of white christian nationalists, who, as Orwell pointed out about nationalists in general, have no interest in reality, only jus…

>The American-led world order since WWII has led to an expansion of freedom and prosperity [...] It also embodies a just and fair way of managing international affairs, through law and democracy rather than the undemocratic system of the strong forcing the weak.

Wow... The people in Guatemala [1], Iran [2], Chile [3], Timor [4], and dozens other places will disagree with you. The will of the people stamped down by the boot of American might and imperialism, for the benefit of themselves: for the maintenance of their supreme place in the world on the back of neocolonialist exploitation of weaker countries. Is this not the picture of "undemocratic system of the strong forcing the weak"? Let's not forget the odious bootlicking of Saudi princes, for instance, and their positively medieval rule, for their economic favour.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._intervention_in_Chile#The...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Timor_genocide

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#36

Post by dalbasal »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #23
lukeschlather wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distinction doesn't work very well as phrased here. It's too easy to convince oneself that I am a patriot, and they are nationalists. So it ultimately just becomes another tribal marker.

The two things are separate even if nationalists try to use patriotism to justify their beliefs.

I don't think they are. To put it in orwellian-ish terms, it's pretty likely that the only people that will really insist on the distinction would self describe as patriots.

You will probably find a patriotism-nationalism-like relationship between moderate and extremist flavours of any "ism." Social-democrats & Marxist-purists, conservative-traditionalists & fundamentalist-theocrats; Democrats & Anarchists.... These all tend to come in at least 2 flavours: moderate or extra spicy.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#37

Post by andrepd »

humanrebar wrote: post #21
JohnStrangeII wrote: post #17

Both nationalism nor patriotism barely make sense any more. Time are changing. When Orwell wrote this piece he was influenced by the war, extreme situations like wars or famines always cloud your judgements. I recommend reading the seemingly unrelated The Knowledge by Lewis Dartnell. It describes the skills that would be necessary to rebuild civilisation after a hypothetical global cataclysm. Why is it relevant? If y…

I suppose there's some semantic clarification needed here. I don't see why identifying with one's ancestors [1] (patriotism) or nation (nationalism) precludes free trade, multiculturalism, human decency, etc. On the contrary, if we want people to think long-term, it's important to get them to associate personal motivations (love of their grandchildren, love of their neighborhoods) with the sacrifices needed to keep c…

Do you love your country, your homeland, your family, your culture? Then that's very okay. Do you think that your country, your homeland, your family, or your culture are objectively superior to others? Then you're a fanatic/xenophobe.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#38

Post by dmarusic16 »

andrepd wrote: post #37
humanrebar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose there's some semantic clarification needed here. I don't see why identifying with one's ancestors [1] (patriotism) or nation (nationalism) precludes free trade, multiculturalism, human decency, etc. On the contrary, if we want people to think long-term, it's important to get them to associate personal motivations (love of their grandchildren, love of their neighborhoods) with the sacrifices needed to keep c…

Do you love your country, your homeland, your family, your culture? Then that's very okay. Do you think that your country, your homeland, your family, or your culture are objectively superior to others? Then you're a fanatic/xenophobe.

Are politics becoming outdated, in your opinion, too?

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#39

Post by dctoedt »

andrepd wrote: post #35
forapurpose wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no basis offered for any of the parent. Some things are obviously false: > oil ... That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought over. > Certain nations, like the US, don't have to work with anyone > expand the US to include the anglo-nations ( Canada, Australia, etc ) etc. These are arguments of white christian nationalists, who, as Orwell pointed out about nationalists in general, have no interest in reality, only jus…

>The American-led world order since WWII has led to an expansion of freedom and prosperity [...] It also embodies a just and fair way of managing international affairs, through law and democracy rather than the undemocratic system of the strong forcing the weak. Wow... The people in Guatemala [1], Iran [2], Chile [3], Timor [4], and dozens other places will disagree with you. The will of the people stamped down by th…

The incidents you cite are indeed deeply regrettable and even shameful. But quaere whether you're overweighting them.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#40

Post by Zuider »

mistermann wrote: post #28
eklavya wrote: post #2

Boy oh boy if only I could make more people read this. So many people in India just conflate patriotism with nationalism and it has become a fashion to brand any patriotic talk as "nationalistic". And they assume they are right because they think great people of past agree.

> it has become a fashion to brand any patriotic talk as "nationalistic" Considering modern usage of the word, I can't tell what you mean by this. I've explained why here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17059121 EDIT: Aaaaand, immediately downvoted with no reply. I rest my case. :)

I didn't downvote, but it may be more inspired by your style of presentation than your opinion. It is hard to make out what you are saying because your writing looks more like lecture notes or a shorthand of your private thinking process than a means of communicating to others. Please understand that I don't mean to be snarky, and I would be the first to acknowledge that writing clearly is difficult.
Post reply on HN