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

161–170 of 224 posts

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#161

Post by joseph8th »

mantas wrote: post #136
macintux wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. Orwell seems to describe what you’re defending as patriotism, not nationalism.

With all due respect to Orwell, I define nationalism as nation's self-governance. Yes, it's sort of desire to take power from bigger multinational structures back to the nation. But at the same time it's defensive from nation's perspective.

Oh well, if YOU define it THAT way...

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#162

Post by int_19h »

janmarsal wrote: post #48
int_19h wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What if the people are split 50/50? Or even 60/40, for that matter?

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#163

Post by SyzygistSix »

tenpies wrote: post #99
nirui wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 norm…

The Man in the High Castle adaption by Amazon was fantastic in this. The Nazi cities were beautiful . They were orderly, clean, everyone was well dressed and nice. Infrastructure was top notch and there were only very small hints that something was off. It was the type of NIMBY paradise that the rich Californians would kill for. What I have found to be a fantastic guiding principle for fascism in the West is the sayi…

You had me in the first part.

No one was interested in hurting the Russians until they invaded Ukraine. And nothing about this makes me suddenly think of my country as the good guys or makes any of the issues with my country any better.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#164

Post by macintux »

mantas wrote: post #136
macintux wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. Orwell seems to describe what you’re defending as patriotism, not nationalism.

With all due respect to Orwell, I define nationalism as nation's self-governance. Yes, it's sort of desire to take power from bigger multinational structures back to the nation. But at the same time it's defensive from nation's perspective.

If you define nationalism as something other than the commonly accepted definition, then complaining about how people use it seems like an exercise in frustration.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#165

Post by SyzygistSix »

Ekaros wrote: post #139
cmurf wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was a teen in midwest USA I took a German foreign exchange student to an NFL game. They were mortified at the whole stadium standing to sing the national anthem, thought it was bizarre and scary.

Or reading that some schools do Pledge of Allegiance every day. That is the most fascist thing I can imagine. Something that would never happen in Europe outside single time in army or similar institution... National anthem is limited to independence day...

I find the pledge to the flag, especially in school, much worse than singing the national anthem.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#166

Post by systemvoltage »

bilbo0s wrote: post #155
systemvoltage wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> HR training now and learn about the wonders of diversity That's kind of ironic because true diversity of thought is not tolerated.

Shared values and culture necessitate limited tolerance for diversity of thought. That's just reality. You can't share values if you tolerate people thinking other values are better. Culturally also. In the US, back when everyone ate chicken, spoke English, and went to some form of Christian church on Sundays, there was very little cultural diversity tolerated. Chicken, English, and Church was the culture.

> You can't share values if you tolerate people thinking other values are better.

It seems like a toxic, dystopian, totalitarian nightmare to live in a society like that. I want dissent. I want good debate. I want people to be able to call bullshit when it is. I want to bring down people that have posted up themselves to these unproductive positions, dogmatizing their ideology by force and by shame, not by good intent, listening to each other, and seeking truth and fairness.

Culture is "pull", not "push". You want to pull people with empathy, not supress them. No one is forcing people to wear British invented shirts and pants. They are because people choose to over their native dress. It is utilitarian, comfortable and superior.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#167

Post by goodpoint »

darkwater wrote: post #130
quacked wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was a teen in I thought it was bizarre and scary that anyone would feel enough patriotism to sing the national anthem. Now I think it's bizarre and scary for anyone to feel such a lack of patriotism that they would think it's bizarre and scary to want to sing the national anthem.

You have been successfully assimilated /s

Pretty much. If countries were religions any group with that attitude would be considered a cult.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#168

Post by danbst »

InvaderFizz wrote: post #122
prox wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain further? What are these rules and what is “The Game”? You mean the sanctions? Those aren’t anything new afaik, and I don’t understand the connection to how the West will become more authoritarian because of that.

Not OP, but I wonder is he is having the same feeling I am on this whole Ukraine situation. Below is a paste from a conversation I had with a close group of friends: I feel sorry for Ukrainians. I can't help but shake the feeling that they are being used as a pawn for the US to drain the military resources of Russia. I would guess that, the optimal outcome from the neocon/neolib perspective is for Russia to rubblize…

There are several layers of propaganda, and you point to only one of them.

1) The propaganda for West is that "power balance" shit story. US citizens are distant enough to believe this is rational PoV. (it is not)

2) The propaganda for russians is that Ukraine is a failed state, has no legitimate govt, makes undercover nukes and nazis use ukrainian people as hostages. (all of this is lie)

3) The propaganda for Ukraine is that Russians and Ukrainians are literally "brothers", more "brothers" than ukrainians and poles. Everyone speaking russian language is part of Russia. (clear manipulation)

We Ukrainians don't like this propaganda and don't want live under Putin's (or any other non-democratic) regime. If US (and Europe) feels we can help them achieve their goals, we are fine with that. Because it aligns with our national goals -- make Russia weak, or even make it disappear from global map.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#169

Post by avodonosov »

wpietri wrote: post #135
avodonosov wrote: post #11

I heard an opinion that identification of oneself with a group based on some principle (ethnicity / religion / class, etc) is a mechanism produced by evolution, allowing humans to form lager groups than the number of individuals one can personally know. In contrast, for example, to apes. Chimpanzees can only form group up to 150 members. BTW, on wars between chimpanzees: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanz…

I'd say "form larger groups" is burying the lead. Evolution is about differential survival, and humans, as eusocial animals, are at an extreme end of the spectrum. What caused such rapid evolution? My money would be on a whole lot of murder by people who clubbed together based on more tenuous identity markers than you see used in our nearest relatives, the other great apes. Take, for example, how frequent and widespr…

Yes, large groups to compete and fight with others, that what I meant.

Although, I do not know whether humans really had groups or unions significantly larger than 150 before the Neolithic age. If not, maybe this property developed in the last 10 000 years. Or maybe this whole idea is not true - I am not really competent to be sure.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#170

Post by saila »

bilbo0s wrote: post #152
saila wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern identity politics in the U.S. seems like the inevitable result of telling people they are "free" but then excluding certain identified groups from social life, jobs, etc. Over time, people will bond around their exclusion to create a more powerful bloc to assert their rights. It seems to me that the dominant identitarians of the past have largely created the current situation by not following the creed of "liv…

Identity politics would always exist. We just called it "tribalism" in our distant past. It can never go away. It isn't specific to the US either, it's a part of us as humans. That's the real reason there are no "free" countries. I guarantee, you look closely enough, you'll find the group in that country that is not "free". People just knock the US all the time because the group in our nation that is not "free" is pr…

Your reply here comes across as reactionary and rather condescending but really doesn't address anything I said.

Nowhere did I say the U.S. is worse than anywhere else nor did I imply perfection exists or even could exist.

I was responding to someone talking about "the west," and I have a U.S.-centric perspective because that's where I'm from.

It's quite obvious that tribalism will always be a thing (to some extent), but I strongly disagree that tribalism → modern identity politics.

Post reply on HN