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

51–60 of 91 posts

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#51

Post by dmarusic16 »

andrepd wrote: post #41
dmarusic16 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are politics becoming outdated, in your opinion, too?

?? I don't follow.

Maybe I was reading too far into your statement. But in general terms, politics (and conflict in general) stems from a struggle over the power to allocate scarce resources towards conflicting conceptions of what is “good” or “deserving”. Often times, statements against privileging your own group to the detriment of others—and I concede you didn’t make that case directly, but I’ve often seen your comparison invoked in such arguments—implicitly assumes that politics, too, should be transcended. There is a sentiment that politics is a vestige of irrationality, and that if everyone was properly educated and could see the greater good, they would necessarily favor that over parochial group interests.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#52

Post by coldtea »

mistermann wrote: post #33
coldtea wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 v…

>Sure, but this doesn't address the phenomenon of why actual (dictionary) nationalism has become synonymous with racism/Nazism.

Because it was an extreme example, and those tend to dominate further discussion.

Plus nationalism (even in the legit patriotism version) has fallen out of favor in the age of globalism, so everyone who wants to follow the cultural party line feels free to compare it to 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.

Well, for what is worth, I'm not an American, and not exactly westerner either.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#53

Post by bouvin »

Koshkin wrote: post #48
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.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. --Samuel Johnson

As Ambrose Bierce wrote in The Devil's Dictionary: "In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first." http://dd.pangyre.org/p/patriotism.html

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#55

Post by mistermann »

Zuider wrote: post #40
mistermann wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm genuinely confused how writing in a transparent manner, being detailed, providing links to claims, etc can be considered hard to understand. And as usual, I am always happy to answer any question asked of me in an honest manner, so feel free.

I had a more substantial reply, but since my sincere and valid question was enthusiastically and immediately downvoted requiring me to keep the tab open until my censorship is lifted, I accidentally closed the tab. To me, the anti-intellectual groupthink overtaking online sites is rather alarming, especially considering how they are now where the vast majority of news (and accompanying discussion) is hosted and due to private ownership, no freedom of speech is required. And even if it was, a deliberate "misrepresentation" of someone's words can turn a controversial-at-best comment into a claimed (see this subthread) racial slur or threat of violence.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#56

Post by boomboomsubban »

dalbasal wrote: post #36
boomboomsubban wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

He laid out fairly specific definitions for both patriotism and nationalism. Under those definitions, they're clearly separate things. In short, he sees patriotism as a love of your home, while nationalism is the worship of the state/similar entity.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#57

Post by everybodyknows »

eklavya wrote: post #49
Koshkin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. --Samuel Johnson

Why, how? In what sense?

The meaning is that scoundrels, when confronted with evidence of their unanswerable crimes, will instead answer a different question: "Do you support some unquestionably virtuous cause?"

This is the reason that that runners of big cons typically give very generously to charities. See Anthony Trollope's "The Way We Live Now".

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#58

Post by mistermann »

coldtea wrote: post #52
mistermann wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 v…

> Sure, but this doesn't address the phenomenon of why actual (dictionary) nationalism has become synonymous with racism/Nazism. Because it was an extreme example, and those tend to dominate further discussion. Plus nationalism (even in the legit patriotism version) has fallen out of favor in the age of globalism, so everyone who wants to follow the cultural party line feels free to compare it to Nazism. > If anythin…

> Because it was an extreme example, and those tend to dominate further discussion.

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your line of thinking. What is an extreme example? And this explains what (I'm referring to "because....")?

> Plus nationalism (even in the legit patriotism version) has fallen out of favor in the age of globalism, so everyone who wants to follow the cultural party line feels free to compare it to Nazism.

No disagreement here, but if this is the case, are people simply unable to see this in themselves? Do they intuitively (as seems to be the case) know not to reply to any questions that might broach that particular possibility?

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#59

Post by pasbesoin »

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. :)

This makes me think of a new (to me) term I may find useful: Trickle down participation.

Politics such as this: The real winners are the political and financial elite. But their supporters experience trickle down participation.

Professional sports: Trickle down participation.

A bit simplistic, and ignoring local-scale advantages to the participants. But I'm going to keep it in mind.

A few people getting very rich and powerful. And the rest celebrating this, while propping them up through their participation.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#60

Post by wu-ikkyu »

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.

I googled "nationalism", and it's defined as "patriotic feeling". What do you think the difference is, according to your definition?
Post reply on HN