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

191–200 of 224 posts

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#191

Post by rixed »

bandushrew wrote: post #151
InvaderFizz wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I find it interesting that your language implies it is the responsibility of the west to persuade Russia to back off? Surely the responsibility for the actions of Russia rest on the Russian leadership? Russia has decided to invade Ukraine. Russia needs to decide to stop doing that. Where does it become the responsibility of the west?

Because of the extension (if not the very existence) of NATO after 91?

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#192

Post by mantas »

macintux wrote: post #164
mantas wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is the historical definition. And still one of two definitions common definitions. The other one trying to conflate nazism and nationalism. Which is just Orwellian doublespeak.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#193

Post by mantas »

int_19h wrote: post #181
mantas wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which wars were brought to Europe by nationalism?

WW1 was brought by multinational empires. WW2 was brought by SSRS and Nazi (National-socialists). Yugoslavia was an attempt to build multi-national pan-slavic empire as well.

Historically imperialistic multi-national tribes try to build some sort of pseudo-national identity and erase small tribes. Be it SSRS with the new soviet man, Spain trying to incorporate Basques and Catalonians, UK and Scotland and so on.

If you look at 19th century and beginning of 20th century, nations/nationalism brought down the big empires. Austro-Hungary, British and Ottoman empires... Russian empire is still trying to survive but it will follow that way soon.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#194

Post by prox »

rixed wrote: post #191
bandushrew wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it interesting that your language implies it is the responsibility of the west to persuade Russia to back off? Surely the responsibility for the actions of Russia rest on the Russian leadership? Russia has decided to invade Ukraine. Russia needs to decide to stop doing that. Where does it become the responsibility of the west?

Because of the extension (if not the very existence) of NATO after 91?

Russia was invited to NATO in the Partnership for Peace program.

And invading a country without provocation and which was elected democratically is kind of the reason for a defensive alliance in the first place.

Furthermore with Russia being a defacto dictatorship it becomes hard to deal with the actual position of the Russian people (who aren’t allowed to protest or have free media or vote)

After all that, there is still the Russia–NATO Council that was established in 2002 for handling security issues and joint projects.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#195

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

goodpoint wrote: post #104
nirui wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people would spend their attention on work and entertainment And most of their life would be normal, happy, even fulfilling until the very moment they "stepped over the red line". I've observed many instances in the past, so yes, I'm very familiar of it. In fact, people has invented a term for it already, it's called *** ****.

> it's called ** **. huh?

Character counts: 3, 4. "Red pill".

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#196

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

car_analogy wrote: post #143
enkid wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia saying Ukrainian culture is the same as Russian culture could be considered racist. It's similar to claims that African Americans don't have a unique culture. The result is people justifying suppression of that culture because it "doesn't exist" independently.

Are there really semi-common claims that African Americans don't have a unique culture? Opinion: There is no 'White culture' - https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/18/opinions/american-culture-and... White culture steals because it has no soul of its own. White people are fleeing Whiteness because they do not have a way to exist apart from their history of oppression. - https://www.salon.com/2013/04/25/how_can_white_americans…

This is why, when PewDiePie infuriated his attackers by saying "I'm not White, I'm Swedish", he was actually going deeper into their "Theory" than they were.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#197

Post by quacked »

wpietri wrote: post #131
quacked wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 This is a very shallow interpretation of the book. When did you read it?

I've read it a few times and think that's a fine take. What's your issue with it?

I didn't mean for my original message to come across harshly.

The plot is ancillary; the novel is really a description of a certain kind of martial logic, and a criticism of larger society that the author grew up in. Juan Rico is a stand-in for the reader, only there to be a blank slate upon which Heinlein's ideas about society and the military are imparted. It's most more of a treatise than a story.

A lot of people seem to be comparing the book and the movie as if they're on equal footing, which I do not think they are.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#198

Post by quacked »

goodpoint wrote: post #167
darkwater wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have been successfully assimilated /s

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

Countries were religious; when the social technology of the "nation" was developed, the primary justification lay in religion.

Why do you think that a loyal preference to land, law, and shared history is cult-like?

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#200

Post by pastacacioepepe »

archagon wrote: post #188
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?

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.

Tell me of a single country in the world where a part of it does not consider the other lazy and primitive. We have the same exact phenomenon in Italy, the north thinks the south is lazy and primitive. That's ugly indeed and I don't support it, but if you say Russians are racist for this reason than pretty much every country on the planet is culpable of some form of racism.
Post reply on HN