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

Notes on Nationalism (1945)

orwellfoundation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 224 posts

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#41

Post by dash2 »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #35
phatfish wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've not seen any of this. But then I avoid Twitter and other social media. In a conflict with global attention like this one there will always be a minority of extreme views (propaganda and genuine). Western leaders are not blaming the Russian people, although obviously there is an affect on them. Same with the mainstream media. The hatred of a very small minority amplified by social media is the source of opinion l…

It's not the majority of the people luckily, although most have been in a state of propaganda shock for a few days and are recovering now. The ones proposing the worst things are politicians and the state affiliated media in concertation, which when is war time we just found out is 100% of the "independent" western media.

Which politicians are proposing the worst things, and which media are backing them up? This sounds like a too-broad generalisation. I think the most extreme calls have often come from citizens, and haven’t been taken up by those in authority.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#42

Post by ZeroGravitas »

mantas wrote: post #29
eklavya wrote: post #16

It frustrates me to no end when people confuse patriotism with nationalism, some even cite this essay! They say despicable things (in my view) like "patriotism is the root of all evil" while enjoying the lifestyle/security provided by the altruistic patriotism of many others.

Even more frustrating is confusing nationalism with chauvinism, nacism and fascism. Nationalism as nations’ right to self determination and self rule is great. And that’s what brought down the old empires. While now empires are rebuilt under anti-nationalist slogans and we are sliding back to multinational behemoths. Good case why healthy dose of patriotism-nationalism is necessary is Ukraine war.

Technically, 'nation' can have implications of ethnicity, coming from same etymological root as 'born', though that's kind of losing it's meaning these days if it ever was valid. People are generally a bit more mongrel than they portray themselves.

Worth bearing in mind when discussion abstract concepts like 'nationalism' and 'nationality' though.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#43

Post by dash2 »

janmarsal wrote: post #18

Very Orwellian definition of nationalism, I must say. I always considered nationalism as the antithesis of imperialism. A nation should be ruled from their own land and by their own people. Not by foreigners from a far far away land. Almost makes you think Orwell was some kind of an imperialist (a reformist, but still) who tried to vilify nationalism in order to keep the British empire together. Good think that faile…

Orwell was very far from that. Read Burma Days.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#44

Post by scandox »

bigDinosaur wrote: post #10
prox wrote: post #8

Starship Troopers (1997) is an interesting movie that is basically a “war propaganda” movie seen from the viewpoint of a fascistic government. The whole point of the movie is to make the enemy seem like “the other” , and in this case these are actual alien bugs in the movie. All of the human characters in the movie are beautiful and everything on “our” side as we view it is shiny and “the good side” Paul Verhoeven al…

Most people I've talked to who watched Starship Troopers didn't think it was satire. To be fair, the enemy is literally not human which does make it harder to pick up on.

The last scene makes it pretty clear.

"They're scared"

Huge cheer.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#45

Post by harryvederci »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #5
rramadass wrote: post #2

Given whats going on in the World now, Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism" is a pertinent read. We must be careful that we don't get carried away by Propaganda and start demonizing "the other side" reflexively. Summary on Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_Nationalism

Just got finished watching The Great Hack* on Netflix. Demonizing "the other side", exactly as you've said, causes the polarisation that prevents even the consideration of compromise, resulting in political unproductivity that in turn erodes trust and forces us simple humans back into the basic pigeon holes that remain as the only effective politics, primarily: fear. The rational centre, however, is unprofitable, and…

Youtube (ugh[0]) link of the fragment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omc-5zj70M0

[0] Youtube is designed to suck you in and force feed you advertisements. Sorry, I couldn't find the fragment somewhere else.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#46

Post by boomboomsubban »

eklavya wrote: post #16

It frustrates me to no end when people confuse patriotism with nationalism, some even cite this essay! They say despicable things (in my view) like "patriotism is the root of all evil" while enjoying the lifestyle/security provided by the altruistic patriotism of many others.

Using the article's definitions of patriotism and nationalism, I struggle to see who these supposed altruistic patriots are.

Certainly not in the military, which is almost solely focused on obtaining more power and prestige for itself and the nation. While there may be some "patriots" in government or policing, it's hard to say that's the dominant ideology. And businesses obsession with money far outweighs any patriotic feelings.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#47

Post by pastacacioepepe »

j4yav wrote: post #22
pastacacioepepe wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree but it's too late, it already happened. It took only about 4 days of intense propaganda, for people to start asking for racial sanctions. People started demonizing Dostoevsky. Russians have lost their jobs all over the world for not publicly taking a stance against their own people. Next step is going to be the burning of russian books. Trust me, at this rate, it will come soon.

If you think it’s upsetting that people are being called cowards or complicit for not protesting, which I agree is unfair, wait until you find out what the propaganda being used to justify the war is saying about Ukrainians.

I've seen a lot of russian propaganda and none of it takes the racial angle on Ukrainians. Russian consider Ukrainians part of their culture so it wouldn't make much sense. Any source?

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#48

Post by janmarsal »

int_19h wrote: post #30
janmarsal wrote: post #18

Very Orwellian definition of nationalism, I must say. I always considered nationalism as the antithesis of imperialism. A nation should be ruled from their own land and by their own people. Not by foreigners from a far far away land. Almost makes you think Orwell was some kind of an imperialist (a reformist, but still) who tried to vilify nationalism in order to keep the British empire together. Good think that faile…

The problem is defining what "nation" is. Are Bretons a nation, or are they a part of the French nation? Are Catalonians a nation, or are they the part of a Spanish nation? Some answers to those questions lead to contradictions, in a sense that both groups adopt your "nation should be ruled from its own land by its own people" formula, but lay claim to the same land and/or people.

I admit the definition of a nation can be a bit vague sometimes, however, the examples you gave are quite straightforward and I see no problem whatsoever. A Breton nationalist wants Brittany to be ruled by Bretons from Brittany rather than by the French from Paris. A Catalan nationalist wants Catalonia to be ruled by Catalans from Barcelona rather than by Castilians from Madrid.

Who decides what a nation is can be a bit tricky from time to time. Who do NOT decide is much easier to answer. In both of your examples, it is clear without a doubt that the people who inhabit the said geographical regions are the ones to decide. Not the Frenchmen from Paris or the Castiians from Madrid.

If the people of Brittany decides that they want Brittany to remain as part of France then it simply means that they do not support Breton nationalism. From a nationalist moral point of view, it is up to the people of Brittany to decide. If a French nationalist wants to keep Brittany as part of France against their will then someone must tell that "nationalist" that he is practicing imperialism rather than nationalism. If a Breton "nationalist" wants to annex all of France to bring it under Breton rule then he is an imperialist rather than a nationalist.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#49

Post by nirui »

progre wrote: post #13
prox wrote: post #8

Starship Troopers (1997) is an interesting movie that is basically a “war propaganda” movie seen from the viewpoint of a fascistic government. The whole point of the movie is to make the enemy seem like “the other” , and in this case these are actual alien bugs in the movie. All of the human characters in the movie are beautiful and everything on “our” side as we view it is shiny and “the good side” Paul Verhoeven al…

The book (one of my favourites) is a little diffrent. There the perspective is that of the mobile infantist. The classic hero arc but in a fashist world. Like in the movie, there is no enlightenment or revolution though, just the story of a regular directionless Joe who finds his true self and a purpose in life in the Mobile Infantry. The movie is brilliant in a diffrent way. It's basically satire on all levels. Paul…

Contrary to common believes, that a fascist society must visually similar to what been portrayed in a WW2 movie, a real fascist society now days hides behind layers of outlooks that makes them look normal. People in a fascist society may work a well-paid job in a clean glassy high-rise, and their government and law might be structured like a normal one. The most obvious difference between a fascist society and a normal society is probably how the society create and changes it's laws, which is complex to observe even in a normal society. This is the reason why so many people couldn't believe it when they're already in one.

"There is no effort ... I mean they do all the scientific research, but they never investigate how to communicate with them, how to have peaceful solution... their society thrive on the need of an enemy. And they have all these space ships and faster than light travel, they made all this advancements, but it's a fascist society that just breeds his bread for war." (11:07)

This cuts really deep.

Post reply on HN