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

141–150 of 224 posts

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#141

Post by lolinder »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #17
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

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.

"It is almost superfluous to remark that a democratic Government always shows worst where other Governments generally show best, on its outside; that unreasonable people are much more noisy than the reasonable; that the froth and scum are the part of a violently fermenting liquid that meets the eyes, but are not its body and substance."

— John Stuart Mill, The Contest in America, 1861

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#142

Post by swagasaurus-rex »

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…

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.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#143

Post by car_analogy »

enkid wrote: post #71
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?

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_be_...

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#144

Post by dudul »

systemvoltage wrote: post #93
hereforphone wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no narrative. Humans prefer to function alongside those who hold similar values to their own. This increases efficiency (when the values are productive) and naturally results in a feedback loop that ideally will improve that value set. I know many of us have to go to HR training now and learn about the wonders of diversity, but there's a lot to be said (in nature and history) from shared values and culture.

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

Diversity of though is no longer the party line. Now it's diversity of experience. Just like equity has replaced equality, and same outcome has replaced same chances.

Grifters can only make money, sell their books/trainings if they keep moving the goal posts.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#145

Post by markvdb »

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…

Or, you know, identities might be multi-faceted.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#146

Post by grujicd »

dleslie wrote: post #89
grujicd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OMG, that Trinidad and Tobago part is so eye opening, even for middle aged cynic who thought he saw it all.

Now ask yourself what grass roots campaigns you supported were likely created by agencies like this.

Yup. There was an Otpor (resistance) movement in Serbia which helped overturn Milosevic at the end of 90-ties. It was later found out it was assisted by several US agencies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otpor

Its goal was the oposite from the Trinidad and Tobago one, to motivate as many people to take a vote. At the time noone knew they got outside help, but in retrospect, such help was very needed to overthrow a dictator.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#147

Post by cheschire »

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

Getting carried away is an open and public action. Not getting carried away must be done privately. It's tough to know how many people around are not getting carried away because they are afraid of being lashed out at for not being extreme enough.

This slowly shifts the window. It seems inevitable.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#148

Post by christophilus »

cheschire wrote: post #147
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

Getting carried away is an open and public action. Not getting carried away must be done privately. It's tough to know how many people around are not getting carried away because they are afraid of being lashed out at for not being extreme enough. This slowly shifts the window. It seems inevitable.

Two people close to me think that a hot war between the US and Russia is inevitable and that we may as well go ahead and get it over with. One is a Republican; the other is a Democrat. To me, that anecdote indicates the window has already shifted a whole lot.

Getting into a hot war with Russia over Ukraine seems like an obviously bad idea to me. Funding and supplying the Ukrainians? Sure. War? No.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#149

Post by einpoklum »

quantumwannabe wrote: post #105
einpoklum wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The book is brilliant, I would say, for being readable at the same time as an ode of support and admiration for the social order, and as a scathing critique of that order. IIANM Heinlein himself was more on the side of the first interpretation (correct me if I'm wrong) but was fair enough to offer solid footing for the opposite view; although one wonders how much of it was conscious and how much of it was his capabil…

The book is a vehicle for Heinlein's political views and he is 100% in support of the ideology described. The political system described in the book isn't fascism, rather it is democracy with the franchise limited to people who have served their country. Heinlein believes people who have never made personal sacrifices make poor decisions and therefore political power should be limited to people who have made such sac…

> it is democracy with the franchise limited to people who have served their country

That's what the system teaches you in school. But IIRC, Heinlein did not force this down your throat as an absolute truth. In fact, and again IIRC, there was never any proper public discussion we are made aware of, of the reason for the war against the bugs. It's even possible that it's a Human-initiated campaign; Rico is not told, nor is he ever concerned with those kinds of things.

> Heinlein also believes that democracy and human rights are fragile and need to be actively defended

That's one way to characterize it I guess.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#150

Post by einpoklum »

donatj wrote: post #108
einpoklum wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The book is brilliant, I would say, for being readable at the same time as an ode of support and admiration for the social order, and as a scathing critique of that order. IIANM Heinlein himself was more on the side of the first interpretation (correct me if I'm wrong) but was fair enough to offer solid footing for the opposite view; although one wonders how much of it was conscious and how much of it was his capabil…

My personal understanding of Heinlein is that he shifted from a very pro-government conservative to a far more laissez faire libertarian as he aged and as you follow his works throughout his life. Starship Troopers came far earlier in this progression.

Possibly, but what I'm saying is that he "lets" you read his book as an anti-government radical, and not feel Heinlein is forcing his beliefs onto the plot.
Post reply on HN