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

181–190 of 224 posts

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#181

Post by int_19h »

mantas wrote: post #137
int_19h wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing particularly great about nationalism, because "nation" itself is an abstract concept that's inherently malleable. And thus we get those nebulous "national interests" or "national security", which seemingly justifies everything if you can get people hysterical enough about it.

Any tribalism gradation is abstract. If we agree that humans naturally go for some sort of tribalism, then we can discuss which sort of tribalism is most efficient. Tribe-as-extended-family tribalism is brutal. Pan-* tribalism (as USA) seems to start splitting into smaller tribes because it's hard to find common ground for people living in wide variety of historically caused socio-economic conditions (e.g. rust belt…

It's not a linear scale of smaller/larger tribe. You can preserve smaller tribes within larger, and those within larger still.

What nation and nationalism brought to Europe is a series of wars that were as destructive as religious ones, at the time when religious fervor finally died down. And it is still doing more of that.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#182

Post by eyelidlessness »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #180

Forgive this, for it is only the beginnings of an idea: Can the trend of fluid gender identity and increasingly fractured sexual identity be a somewhat 'equal and opposite' force to that of nationalism? Nationalism, as defined in Orwell's notes, is a grouping of people under a single banner, whether positive or negative. The new classifications and terms that have sprung from the Gender and Sexual identity movement (…

As a white American who identifies non-binary, no. It can potentially help you understand overlapping concepts, but it’s a fundamentally different experience to be ‘unusual’ in a cultural context you mostly share than to be an outsider in the cultural experience you inhabit. Even though I prefer they/them pronouns I can conveniently be male, with my beard and my masculine presentation, for any situation that warrants it. Even if I couldn’t I’m being evaluated as a member of the same community. I’m only othered in situ. The only reason other nationalists (in Orwell’s usage) would care to take notice is to exploit divisions in situ or divisions between how their “nation” regards my gender expression and how ours does, for whatever value of “ours”.

Edit: I wrote this kind of in a rush and I feel remiss that I didn’t address “overlapping concepts” more: this is at the root of intersectionalism. Some of the experience of every marginalized group is similar to the experience of other groups. Recognizing those similarities is really valuable especially among people marginalized in different ways. I don’t mean to dismiss your recognition either, because this is a good instinct to have. My point is it’s different, even though it’s similar. But its similarity does matter as you’ve recognized.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#183

Post by kspacewalk2 »

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.

There's nothing concrete whatsoever in your comment. It just reads like generic anti-Western rant. Can you perhaps turn it into a specific anti-Western rant and give examples?

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#184

Post by kspacewalk2 »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #47
j4yav wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No one's taking a "racial angle" against Russians. There's are plenty of Russian speakers and ethnic Russians outside of Russia, and nothing whatsoever is directed at them. This is about the country of Russia and its citizens (regardless if ethnicity), so whatever beef you might have with how they're treated, there's no "racial" or "ethnic" angle.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#185

Post by kspacewalk2 »

Thorentis wrote: post #173

I can't help but think the extreme reaction to Russia (sanctions on anything even remotely related to Russia) is "revenge" for what some of the elite might still be convinced was Russian involvement in the 2016 election (despite evidence to the contrary).

A concerted attempt to manipulate the election is a matter of fact. The impact is often exaggerated, but that they tried to is not really in dispute.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#186

Post by wolverine876 »

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

> We must be careful that we don't get carried away by Propaganda and start demonizing "the other side" reflexively.

While that is inarguable truth, we also must be careful not to assume all sides are equally good or credible - that is, we should both not assume that and not demonize (or objectify). The answer is to think critically, using all our skills; no algorithm will save us.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#187

Post by esyir »

ByteJockey wrote: post #80
zajio1am wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A nation should be ruled from their own land and by their own people Leftists sometimes consider nationalism 'good' when it is nationalism of a small nation against an imperium (or minority ethnicity against a nation state), but 'bad' when it is a powerful nation trying to conquer its neighbors (or opressing its ethnic minorities). But in facts, both of these nationalisms are based on the same toxic concept of ingr…

> concept of ingroupness based on shared ethnicity, language and culture, in contrast of ingroupness based on shared commitment to universalist ideas like freedom, rule of law and democracy. Is the latter not also nationalism, if you believe that those ideals create a group that is worthy of self-determination? Maybe it deserves its own qualifier, such as ideo-nationalism, to distinguish it from ethno-nationalism, bu…

There was an attempt in the US, with the whole concept of the melting pot. In the interest of maintaining the other cultures though, this has been phased out in favour of the "salad bowl".

Imo, the catch is that by prioritizing ethnic cultures, you then allow them to supersede the national identity. Ethnocentricism is the default thanks to our monkey brains and in the absence of reinforcement, or the presence of discouragement, it'll probably win over other identities.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#188

Post by archagon »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #47
j4yav wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sure they do. They call Ukrainians “hohli”. Here is a gross example: https://romali83.livejournal.com/29759.html

The stereotype is that they are lazy and primitive.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#189

Post by johnny22 »

InvaderFizz wrote: post #153
swagasaurus-rex wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s true the west does not want to get their hands dirty, and the people of Ukraine suffer all the more because of it. The reason is Nuclear Weapons. Putin is holding the world hostage and saying “don’t get involved or I blow us all to hell.” The blame is on Putin. He invaded. He cried the crocodile tears about NATO while approving unjustified war on the people of Ukraine.

> The blame is on Putin. Not arguing that point. He made the decision to invade, he has agency of his own and is responsible for his actions. My point is that if people think his Nazi and NATO talk is bullshit, call it by offering terms that completely neutralize those points. It's one thing to say, "Ukraine was never going to be in NATO, trust us." It's a completely different thing to say, "Ukraine will never be in…

Maybe they do want to be in NATO though? Either way, it doesn't justify the invasion.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#190

Post by rixed »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #184
pastacacioepepe wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No one's taking a "racial angle" against Russians. There's are plenty of Russian speakers and ethnic Russians outside of Russia, and nothing whatsoever is directed at them. This is about the country of Russia and its citizens (regardless if ethnicity), so whatever beef you might have with how they're treated, there's no "racial" or "ethnic" angle.

You know one does not choose citizenship, right?

I'm currently spending some time and money helping friends that happen to be Russian citizens despite not having been in Russia for years (I'm also going to spend time and money trying to help unknown Ukrainians).

Let's not spread the same hatred in Europe than was done in the Middle East.

edit: fixed the emotional phrasing

Post reply on HN