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

171–180 of 224 posts

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#171

Post by [deleted] »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #51
harryvederci wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because I was too lazy to find the clip myself, I'll instead contribute by linking to the less user-hostile, but questionably legal (isn't that few words just indicative of the state of society we find ourselves in) Invidious clip: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=omc-5zj70M0

[deleted]

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#172

Post by janmarsal »

int_19h wrote: post #162
janmarsal wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Then it's solved like any political issue. Democratic elections seem to be pretty popular these days. Not a perfect system of course but many consider it better than the other alternatives.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#173

Post by Thorentis »

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).

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#174

Post by Nasrudith »

supercucklchaim wrote: post #19

The world needs to be rid of Nationalism sooner rather than later. The narrative is changing slowly but surely. Our ability to use the internet, aside from obvious propaganda, has made the world smaller yet more interconnected than ever.

I am no fan of nationalism but I have to acknowledge it has some function as a transitional state. It works as a mean to get disparate groups to unify without conquest and complete cultural destruction or genocide of the joining group of the infamous "kill the men, rape the women, enslave the children" style.

Nationalism has its own infamous issues of course and is more of a lesser evil than a good. Bypassing it would be nice but I don't know of any successful cases doing so.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#175

Post by sangnoir »

systemvoltage wrote: post #166
bilbo0s wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inte…

> I want people to be able to call bullshit when it is.

If only there was a universal catalog of "bullshit" things. Since there isn't, it's common for those out of tune with the majority in one aspect to dislike their opinions being called out as bullshit, subjectively.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#176

Post by BLKNSLVR »

cycomanic wrote: post #91
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…

Thank you for reminding me again of starship troopers. It is a great movie and in my experience has quite a bad rap amongst the "intelligentsia", mostly I think because people just go off the trailer and dismiss it as a "stupid alien action movie". When I discussed the satire, images etc with people they often look at me like I'm crazy.

I've avoided watching it, despite sitting firmly in the age demographic it was aiming at upon release, for exactly the reasons you've described. Even now it feels as if I have to suppress my 'higher functions' to consider seeking it out.

I'll do it.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#177

Post by jdrc »

joseph8th wrote: post #156
jdrc wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nationalism is surely on the decline, but we can't replace it with nothing.

Clearly you should have read Orwell's essay. He makes clear the distinction between patriotism and nationalism in the first couple paragraphs.

i dont think one replaces the other. and patriotism has eroded very much too, and maybe that's a good thing

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#178

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#179

Post by boomboomsubban »

joseph8th wrote: post #160
boomboomsubban wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 patrio…

I'm one. Just a schmuck, but I haven't given up on the idea of America. Not like George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln, or JFK, but like George Washington Carver, or MLK Jr. The idea that the American Revolution never ended. That the Civil Rights era was just another phase in our centuries long progressively more democratic experiment in self-government

That isn't really sounding a ton like the patriotism being discussed, but even if you consider yourself driven by patriotism you haven't explained how your altruistic patriotism has provided the lifestyle/security for others. I didn't deny that some people were patriotic.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#180

Post by BLKNSLVR »

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 (ironically, that's a classification in itself) are brought about by the lack of existing nomenclature adequately describing the group of people considered to be under that banner; "Don't categorise me".

That is individualism, that is anti-nationalism.

Is that what 'the West' should be supporting and embracing if it truly values individual freedoms?

Is the difficulty of acceptance of this gender and sexual individualism by society at large a result of the fact that it's challenging to humanity's baser instincts of "us and them" that we tend to revert to in times of instability and stress? (described in detail by Orwell).

(admittedly, I find it hard to process the gender and sexual identity 'stuff' because I happily sit in existing boxes and have only recently put enough thought into the implications of myself being "mis-classified")

Post reply on HN