Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Notes on Nationalism (1945)

orwell.ru

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 91 posts

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#71

Post by mistermann »

coldtea wrote: post #70
mistermann wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My answer is that the reason actual (dictionary) nationalism has become synonymous with racism/Nazism is because Nazism was an extreme example of nationalism, and people tend to use extreme examples when discussing a phenomenon. I mean, this is certainly plausible, but I don't think it's that simple. There are all sorts of examples of degrees of one thing or another, yet is there any other example where a major por…

> It's not just that people are exaggerating things, the fundamental beliefs are such that it is considered not possible for a nationalist to not be a racist, if not worse. Rarely are such outrageous and objectively false claims challenged, and frequently any challenge is downvoted to net negative. It's not like the general public (or even more media / public figures for that matter) are well rooted in the history of…

Again, I don't completely disagree, and thank you for actually being willing to have a reasonable discussion. But it's not like I'm springing this question on people in an off-road or inappropriate way. Nationalism is literally the topic of conversation, and many people have expressed disagreement with downvotes if not slurs.

And this isn't a rare occurrence, it is fundamental ideology, apparently not up for discussion or negotiation. People who fundamentally disagree, which wouldn't be you, will not enter a discussion. Ironically, it is the same unthinking behavior that those they hate so much are known for. I'd call it extreme, but it isn't, it has absolutely taken over the mainstream psyche.

When people refuse to think any more, I think some concern and discussion is appropriate.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#72

Post by forapurpose »

mantas wrote: post #62
forapurpose wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all academic. Current nationalists base their 'nation' on skin color and religion: white and Christian (though the religious aspect is sometimes less emphasized), like ISIS'/Daesh's nationalism based on Islam. You can read people advocating it in HN, just like you can read many attempts to whitewash it. The endlessly repeated lesson of history is that if human rights are not universal, if you accept the nation…

> That's all academic. Current nationalists base their 'nation' on skin color and religion: white and Christian (though the religious aspect is sometimes less emphasized), like ISIS'/Daesh's nationalism based on Islam. You can read people advocating it in HN, just like you can read many attempts to whitewash it. That's somewhat true only in a very narrow world of USA and ISIS. In most of the world, nationalism is bas…

[flagged]

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#73

Post by icebraining »

mantas wrote: post #65
icebraining wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not just Communism, it's Russia itself. I see it even today among some members of our national Communist Party (which was historically Stalinist). They not only irrationally¹ defended the USSR, as they transferred that to current Russia and Putin. It truly boggles the mind. And they are not Russians, or particularly care about the land or the people, it's a support of the Russian nation specifically. ¹ By ir…

Those people just love to support enemy of their enemy. It's mind boggling how many mental hoops they're willing to jump. As eastern european, it was very sad to meet fellow europeans who didn't like that my country got away from monstrosity that was USSR and couldn't care about suffering of people as long as it helped to move forward their idolised ideology. Meanwhile they pretended to be "progressive" and caring ab…

Well, in our case it's a bit more complicated, because here, the USSR was actually helping the common man. We were living in a right-wing dictatorship ourselves and the communist party, which was one of the most important groups fighting against it (and whose members were tortured and sent to concentration camps in Africa), got a lot of help from the USSR.

I was born after the transition, so it's easy for me to separate the issues (and to understand that good deeds are not always done for good reasons), but to the people who lived it, there is a real dissonance that is hard to deal with.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#74

Post by Koshkin »

eklavya wrote: post #64
everybodyknows wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The meaning is that scoundrels, when confronted with evidence of their unanswerable crimes, will instead answer a different question: "Do you support some unquestionably virtuous cause?" This is the reason that that runners of big cons typically give very generously to charities. See Anthony Trollope's "The Way We Live Now".

Oh, I understood it differently. So it means that some scoundrels will use some virtue (in this case patriotism) to hide behind and not that patriotism is a bad thing?

I wonder if this particular 'virtue' has ever led to anything good. There is a parallel in the difference between, say, love (for one's land) and faith on the one hand and patriotism and (organized) religion on the other - the latter ones have invariably been used directly to promote hatred and intolerance in support of some political goals or in justifying criminal acts.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#75

Post by mistermann »

forapurpose wrote: post #72
mantas wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's all academic. Current nationalists base their 'nation' on skin color and religion: white and Christian (though the religious aspect is sometimes less emphasized), like ISIS'/Daesh's nationalism based on Islam. You can read people advocating it in HN, just like you can read many attempts to whitewash it. That's somewhat true only in a very narrow world of USA and ISIS. In most of the world, nationalism is bas…

[flagged]

What information source are you using for the above claims?

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#76

Post by dalbasal »

mistermann wrote: post #67
boomboomsubban wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two things are separate even if nationalists try to use patriotism to justify their beliefs.

What would be an example of a nationalist belief that they would try to classify as only patriotism?

Any one on that list he gave, zionism -> pick any flavour of modern israeli politics. Celtic nationalsim -> pick any flavour of modern irish politics. Neo-Tories.. same.

Most people self labeling as any of these would unanimously (if not alway honestly) all self describe the belief as patriotic by exactly the definition that Orwell gave. The other isms on his list aren't about nations. I guess Trotskyists wouldn't necessarily call themselves patriots, but what does that prove?

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#77

Post by mistermann »

dalbasal wrote: post #76
mistermann wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be an example of a nationalist belief that they would try to classify as only patriotism?

Any one on that list he gave, zionism -> pick any flavour of modern israeli politics. Celtic nationalsim -> pick any flavour of modern irish politics. Neo-Tories.. same. Most people self labeling as any of these would unanimously (if not alway honestly) all self describe the belief as patriotic by exactly the definition that Orwell gave. The other isms on his list aren't about nations. I guess Trotskyists wouldn't ne…

> Any one on that list he gave, zionism -> pick any flavour of modern israeli politics

Just so I'm not misunderstanding you....so, any thing (I'm looking for examples of specific beliefs or policy goals that are motivated by Nationalism but passed off as patriotism) any politician in Israel believes is Nationalist, but presented(?) as patriotic? What does this look like in action?

Or have I misunderstood?

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#78

Post by eklavya »

Koshkin wrote: post #74
eklavya wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I understood it differently. So it means that some scoundrels will use some virtue (in this case patriotism) to hide behind and not that patriotism is a bad thing?

I wonder if this particular 'virtue' has ever led to anything good. There is a parallel in the difference between, say, love (for one's land) and faith on the one hand and patriotism and (organized) religion on the other - the latter ones have invariably been used directly to promote hatred and intolerance in support of some political goals or in justifying criminal acts.

You seem to be defining the "nationalism" being discussed here.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#79

Post by forapurpose »

forapurpose wrote: post #46
andrepd wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The American-led world order since WWII has led to an expansion of freedom and prosperity [...] It also embodies a just and fair way of managing international affairs, through law and democracy rather than the undemocratic system of the strong forcing the weak. Wow... The people in Guatemala [1], Iran [2], Chile [3], Timor [4], and dozens other places will disagree with you. The will of the people stamped down by th…

> The people in Guatemala [1], Iran [2], Chile [3], Timor [4], and dozens other places ... Agreed, and I considered whether to include that part of the story. On one hand, every HN comment can be criticized for leaving out details - we always can write more; these aren't dissertations or books, and each comment needs to draw the line somewhere. On the other, I probably should have mentioned that side of it. But with…

Wow, do I need to proofread ... yikes. Sorry to any readers.

Re: Notes on Nationalism (1945)

#80

Post by mantas »

icebraining wrote: post #73
mantas wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those people just love to support enemy of their enemy. It's mind boggling how many mental hoops they're willing to jump. As eastern european, it was very sad to meet fellow europeans who didn't like that my country got away from monstrosity that was USSR and couldn't care about suffering of people as long as it helped to move forward their idolised ideology. Meanwhile they pretended to be "progressive" and caring ab…

Well, in our case it's a bit more complicated, because here, the USSR was actually helping the common man. We were living in a right-wing dictatorship ourselves and the communist party, which was one of the most important groups fighting against it (and whose members were tortured and sent to concentration camps in Africa), got a lot of help from the USSR. I was born after the transition, so it's easy for me to separ…

Did communist party built at least single successful country in Africa?

It's like saying that Nazis helped a common man in Germany. And they did! Life for a common German man definitely got better in mid-late 1930s. But at a cost..

Regarding USSR, that help to far away countries was one of the reason why it fell. Life in USSR was shitty (maybe not Africa-shitty, but still). And people were unhappy that resources are sent away instead of improving their lives. There were plenty of jokes that there's no food or merchandise since some revolutioner dude in South America or Africa eats or wears them.

Post reply on HN