Notes on Nationalism (1945)
orwellfoundation.com
orwellfoundation.com
Summary on Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_Nationalism
The rational centre, however, is unprofitable, and will remain un-catered-to until its profitability increases.
* The 5-minute mini-rundown of the Trinidad and Tobago election strategy in 2010, at about 1hr and 1-minute into the doco, is a phenomenal eye-opener.
[0] Youtube is designed to suck you in and force feed you advertisements. Sorry, I couldn't find the fragment somewhere else.
The audio seems to be from a sales pitch, so Cambridge Analytica has incentive to lie that they did something.
The “Do So” movement seems to have started due to someone not allowing the incumbent, extremely unpopular prime minister onto their property:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Villafana
I have not found any good evidence that Cambridge Analytica orchestrated anything. At best, I am guessing they acted as an advertising firm and used an organically growing movement against an already extremely unpopular leader.
But the Netflix documentary attempts to make it seem like Cambridge Analytica started the movement and succeeded in swaying an outcome that would not have gone the way it did without Cambridge Analytica. Maybe it did, maybe it did not, but a sales rep from Cambridge Analytica trying to sell their services is certainly no proof of anything.
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.
To play devils advocate, this exploitation of our irrational (as in not involving reason) behaviours is a pretty rational process.
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.
— John Stuart Mill, The Contest in America, 1861
The hatred of a very small minority amplified by social media is the source of opinion like this.
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_...
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
But one does choose whether to condemn the war of aggression their country is waging. 99% of all the supposed "racial sanctions" "Russians losing their jobs all over the world" and so on are about pressing well-known Russian citizens in the public sphere to either condemn the war of aggression waged in their name or fuck off. It's harsh but I fail to see how it's unfair.
> There's are plenty of Russian speakers and ethnic Russians outside of Russia
Yes and across the west there have been several movements to censor the voices of Russians in every field, from sport to art. In Italy we even attempted to censor an academic course on Dostoyevsky. Luckily after many complaints from all over the country the decision was reverted. But this is the current political sentiment, you can't just ignore it.
It's nothing of the kind, and furthermore those Russian citizens who condemn this criminal war of aggression in no uncertain terms are going to be just fine.
>censor the voices of Russians in every field, from sport to art.
If your country is currently murdering civilians and committing genocide in an unprovoked war of aggression, you don't get to participate in sporting events under your country's flag. This is not about censoring you, it's about condemning your country. (Which, by the way, if you don't condemn yourself, then you yourself are complicit, particularly if you live outside of Russia).
The stereotype is that they are lazy and primitive.
The response has been absurdly hostile to the Russian people. The West's foreign policy is simple "escalate". Stay tuned for your daily programming.
This slowly shifts the window. It seems inevitable.
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.
Paul Verhoeven also deliberately made the first scene shot for shot similar to a german Nazi propaganda film.
The whole movie is to make you root for “our side” and demonize the other. I personally didn’t realize this fully when I watched it, which makes the process so insidious.
The movie is brilliant in a diffrent way. It's basically satire on all levels. Paul Verhoeven claimed he hated the book and didn't finish it.
Red Letter Media has a very good analyis of the whole thing: https://youtu.be/OkEdyq3UE5M
"How do you tell your actor that you cast them as a joke?"
"There is no effort ... I mean they do all the scientific research, but they never investigate how to communicate with them, how to have peaceful solution... their society thrive on the need of an enemy. And they have all these space ships and faster than light travel, they made all this advancements, but it's a fascist society that just breeds his bread for war." (11:07)
This cuts really deep.
Just like under fascism in Italy and Germany. Most people would spend their attention on work and entertainment, often avoiding discussing politics and ignore dissenting voices outside of the overton window.
Sounds familiar?
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 *** ****.
huh?
1. The article is Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism".
2. A parent post implies that "normal" society has actually become Fascist without us realizing it, and starts talking about how you can't go outside the Overton Window.
3. Post to which I replied says you can probably be perfectly happy in such a society, until you come to understand your situation, at which point you are "red pilled" (though refused to spell out, as that is unsayable).
Nowhere in the above is there any discussion of gender, women, trans issues, or feminism, except maybe very indirectly, insofar as "Notes on Nationalism" comes from an era with (and is partly a discussion of) Fascism, and Fascism is often said to be misogynistic.
Anyway, let's take a step back. This whole thread was saying, basically, that mainstream "liberal" society/politics is "the real fascism" and that people need to get "red pilled". I'm spelling out what's going on in the thread, not supporting it.
A group of people, often considered misogynists or anti-feminists, who think they have a secret truth about dating women, also use the term.
There is also the subtle metaphor of The Matrix, that the redpill actual refers to transitioning into women. The color was choosen because in the 90s estrogen hormone therapy were literally red pills in the 90s.
It's all Gnostic stuff. Hiding pieces of the mystery religion maybe even makes it more appealing to converts.
Though asterices could perhaps be a dog whistle too: "Only my desired recipients understand." A dog whistle of taboo gnosis.
(When you go to an art gallery you hear lots of dog whistles: The text describing each piece is full of strange word-patterns. Often the repetition or gratuitous insertion of an unexpected word, e.g. "bodies", often as a double- or triple- entendre. The cant(ations) are easy to notice, once you dwell on the strangeness and ask yourself: "Why are they talking like that?")
I suppose gnosis tends to live outside the Overton Window, thus would go hand-in-hand with dog-whistles. Related, the groups with this "knowledge" tend to have developed their own (incompatible) moralities -- and indeed, induction to such a group involves violation of the conventional morality (think killing a random person to enter a gang). "You can't leave us now; among the Others you'll feel guilt."
So these three go together: Gnosis, dog-whistles, and "righteous sin". I suppose the last one develops last.
What I have found to be a fantastic guiding principle for fascism in the West is the saying of a Peruvian dictator: "for my friends: anything, for my enemies: the law!". We're seeing this right now as the West has completely re-written the rules of The Game for the sake of hurting Russia and Russians. Going to be an interesting decade as the world re-shapes to adjust for the rule change and the West likely becomes more of an authoritarian fascist totality.
No one was interested in hurting the Russians until they invaded Ukraine. And nothing about this makes me suddenly think of my country as the good guys or makes any of the issues with my country any better.
Those aren’t anything new afaik, and I don’t understand the connection to how the West will become more authoritarian because of that.
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 Ukraine over a period of months to a year, all they while the west says "woe is me", and supplies equipment to decimate Russian armor and aircraft.
This makes Russia the indisputable bad guy for the atrocities committed against Ukraine, all the while the west has clean hands in decimating Russia's military power.
The end result is hundreds of thousands to millions of dead Ukrainians that the neocons will shed crocodile tears over.
Only cost them a few hundred million dollars to do hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to Russia.
If there was any legitimate desire to have Russia back off, they would be offering terms such as guaranteeing that Ukraine would never enter NATO as part of a treaty, lifting of sanctions, etc, contingent on a full withdrawal.
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?
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.
edit: removed emotional part
1) The propaganda for West is that "power balance" shit story. US citizens are distant enough to believe this is rational PoV. (it is not)
2) The propaganda for russians is that Ukraine is a failed state, has no legitimate govt, makes undercover nukes and nazis use ukrainian people as hostages. (all of this is lie)
3) The propaganda for Ukraine is that Russians and Ukrainians are literally "brothers", more "brothers" than ukrainians and poles. Everyone speaking russian language is part of Russia. (clear manipulation)
We Ukrainians don't like this propaganda and don't want live under Putin's (or any other non-democratic) regime. If US (and Europe) feels we can help them achieve their goals, we are fine with that. Because it aligns with our national goals -- make Russia weak, or even make it disappear from global map.
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.
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 NATO, here is a legally binding treaty stating so, contingent on X actions by Russia."
No one ever said that. Ukraine is going to be in NATO if they want to be in NATO. The claim that Ukraine would eventually be admitted to NATO is not the bullshit.
The bullshit is that NATO is offensively directed at Russia; the only reason Russia isn't in NATO and covered by its defensive shield (Russia joined the onramp Partnership for Peace program in 1994) is that Putin decided he didn't want it to be, made known-unacceptable demands to bypass the accession process, was rebuffed as he knew he would be, and used that as a reason to stop any work toward joining.
Verhoeven's book is more obviously satirical, and I recall getting the clear message of how the Humans are a mirror image of the Bugs.
Verhoeven's movie is just a campy film; the man admitted that he stopped reading the book as soon as he saw the first "fascist" element, because he thinks that "military" equals "fascism". The movie is a strawman that does not represent Heinlein's views and is best thought of as a mindless action movie with a simple message of "war bad" instead of biting political satire.
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.
My understanding in my comment comes almost entirely from the discussion in this episode of Alienating the Audience
This is a very shallow interpretation of the book. When did you read it?
I have never seen it quoted to support anything else.
There are many sloppy criticisms of the book, none of which have bothered to actually understand it.
Besides, my point is about people who quote it. This book quotes are never used for anything else except ideas like this.
Like most of its critics, you don't know what the book says.
Soldiers aren't considered superior, they don't even get to vote until they retire. It posits a voting requirement, in the individual's willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of all, not the subordination of all civil institutions to the State. Note that the book's extensive moral philosophizing talks about the collective and general good, but _not_ the importance of the State. It is largely silent about what civil society and its institutions look like. There is no suggestion of a totalitarian thought control apparatus, and indeed the book notes the risk that the electorate will panic and screw up defense policy.
And again, it notes that all persons, franchised or not, have the right to free speech, which is hardly typical of a fascist society.
Further, the book is a thought experiment. Heinlein never wrote another book of the kind, and wrote a number that most would consider positively subversive.
No. It requires being soldiers and equates being soldiers to individual willingness to sacrifice himself for the good. Unwuestioningly assuming those are the same ... and also that self sacrifice should be requires.
Those are fascist ideas, really. And here you are defending them, equating the system describe by the book with what book defends.
Because, the book is written from the point on view of fan and contain no other point of view.
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.
I'll do it.
>Showgirls was a critical failure upon release, panned for its acting (particularly Berkley's), characters, dance numbers, directing, plot, screenplay and sex scenes and is consistently ranked as one of the worst films ever made. Despite this, Showgirls has become regarded as a cult film and has been subject to critical re-evaluation, with some notable directors and critics considering it a serious satire worthy of praise.
It immediately dawned on me after though: why was no one else laughing, really? In Austria of all places.
Hadn’t anyone else paid attention during history classes - at all?
Continuously chilling yet I’ve never been really surprised by the creeping normalcy of fascist thought since the 90s - in part because of Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers.
I was early teens when I watched it, so while the "do you want to know more?" definitely hit as a "okay this is kind of absurd" we were definitely there for action and bugs exploding. But it certainly hit different when I revisited it and you realize just how effective a satire it is at pretty much every level.
And I think that's the important part: you can totally miss the point of the movie, and that's basically critical to it's message: it is written and structured as fascist propaganda, and the fact that that can seem reasonable if you accept it uncritically is the message - it's a whole movie which very subtly is pointing out that fascism and its death cult heroism worship is exactly that, but because we dressed it up to look pretty while making what's happening abundantly clear on screen (you die horrifically in a pointless war), you're almost thinking this is reasonable.
How often do we accept the story or the identity we are already part of?
For instance in the current conflict I wonder how language plays a part. Many Russians speak no to little english, and vice versa I/we often don’t speak Russian. I wonder how much this insulation adds to our conflict. I can’t learn from their viewpoint and they not from mine. Which leaves us with a one sided view like in the movie.
"They're scared"
Huge cheer.
Pretty scary.
Why do you think that a loyal preference to land, law, and shared history is cult-like?
Everybody knows that.
But I wrote "If countries were religions" not "religious".
“Savage, despicable evil. That’s what we were fighting in Iraq,” he writes after describing his first kill, a woman who walked into a street with a grenade in her hand as marines advanced into her village. After a moment’s hesitation, he drops her with a shot.
“That’s why a lot of people, myself included, called the enemy ‘savages,’” he writes of this scene. “There really was no other way to describe what we encountered there.”
The movie is a terribly stupid take on a very good (and widely, perhaps deliberately, misunderstood) book.
It says a lot about Heinlein that he wrote Haldeman to praise his take on the subject.
must have been shocking to see that in a film
In contrast, for example, to apes. Chimpanzees can only form group up to 150 members.
BTW, on wars between chimpanzees: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
One should be aware that this is an optimization and in fact the entire dichotomy of friend or foe is an optimization in itself.
Although, I do not know whether humans really had groups or unions significantly larger than 150 before the Neolithic age. If not, maybe this property developed in the last 10 000 years. Or maybe this whole idea is not true - I am not really competent to be sure.
[0] https://archive.org/details/nationalism00tagorich/page/12/mo...
Former allows to keep it at sports, lame memes and kitchen. Yet find common ground on internal politics. Even if political narratives divide, there’s still something to unite people. Meanwhile political tribalism seem to be penetrating everything with little chance for something in common.
Maybe if we eliminate states and administrative regions in favour of municipalities only (almost flat hierarchy with just two levels of government: municipality level and EU level), the localized "ethnic" tribes would be a lot weaker.
We don't need to eliminate states. We need to bring down remaining empires masquerading as nation states. Russia shall be divided by separating it's ethnic autonomies, Kaliningrad taken away, Crimea given back to Ukraine. Catalonia and Scotland shall be finally granted independence. Bavarian voices are rather silent nowadays, but why not.
Meanwhile US had plenty of action in this department too.
Amplified or quenched.
Applied in harmless ways like having a favorite musician or sportsball team or in very harmful ways like racism/nationalism/ethnocentrism/sexism.
Without flying the flags you are seen as an outsider.
Not my sense at all.
Over time, people will bond around their exclusion to create a more powerful bloc to assert their rights. It seems to me that the dominant identitarians of the past have largely created the current situation by not following the creed of "live and let live."
Conservatives and the right engage in extreme identity politics, but "identity politics" is most often used as a pejorative against liberals and the left. I wonder why that is. Modern identities probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for historical identification/classification and discrimination.
We just called it "tribalism" in our distant past.
It can never go away. It isn't specific to the US either, it's a part of us as humans. That's the real reason there are no "free" countries. I guarantee, you look closely enough, you'll find the group in that country that is not "free". People just knock the US all the time because the group in our nation that is not "free" is pretty obvious to everyone in the world. But all the other nations are just as bad. I've been to a lot of them, so I can promise you that.
There is not shining example of non-tribalist freedom out there, and only the ready and frequent application of force would ever create such a nation. Even then, it would be against the will of many of that nation's citizens.
Nowhere did I say the U.S. is worse than anywhere else nor did I imply perfection exists or even could exist.
I was responding to someone talking about "the west," and I have a U.S.-centric perspective because that's where I'm from.
It's quite obvious that tribalism will always be a thing (to some extent), but I strongly disagree that tribalism → modern identity politics.
You may believe they are different because your ideology needs for you to believe they are different. But at heart, there is no difference. Using terms like "modern identity politics" just allows you to discuss the topic in academia and polite society. On the streets, when the tiki torches, rifles, and baseball bats come out, it really is just tribalism. Different tribes going at each other precisely because they are each the "other".
> As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’…
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.
That's kind of ironic because true diversity of thought is not tolerated.
Grifters can only make money, sell their books/trainings if they keep moving the goal posts.
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.
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 intent, listening to each other, and seeking truth and fairness.
Culture is "pull", not "push". You want to pull people with empathy, not supress them. No one is forcing people to wear British invented shirts and pants. They are because people choose to over their native dress. It is utilitarian, comfortable and superior.
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.
Me: Bullshit!
It’s called logic and reasoning.
For the most part however it seems to be destructive.
It's not destructive. At worst, it's less fun for hyper individualistic type of people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion
I am certainly not saying that Russia didn't take advantage of the situation here. But as always the situation is much more complicated than what is typically presented.
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.
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")
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.
Also for those who might be mislead by the title, Orwell is discussing something much broader here:
>But here I must repeat what I said above, that I am only using the word ‘nationalism’ for lack of a better. Nationalism, in the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism. It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less to one’s own country, and it is not even strictly necessary that the units in which it deals should actually exist. To name a few obvious examples, Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat and the White Race are all of them objects of passionate nationalistic feeling: but their existence can be seriously questioned, and there is no definition of any one of them that would be universally accepted.
It makes for effective rhetoric. I think anyone reading this should keep in mind that he seems to have good things to say about what he defines as "patriotism", which is what we would mean by the word nationalism today. In other words, he would absolutely not agree with the anti-nationalists of today who hate their country. In fact, he goes out of his way in this essay to label those people as prime examples of "nationalists".
I'm not sure i prefer this instead of a raw analysis of culture & society without the fictional elements, but at the same time I personally think having such fictional elements often anchor a work better throughout time(though a downside to this might be that future artistic adaptations might "rewrite" some original thoughts).Even more interestingly: raw, almost technical analyses often get forgotten and dismissed by people even if they contain 'predictions' that turned out to be true, coming back to the first point that the masses understandably aren't interested in them.It's like we don't care about truth/future if it doesn't make us feel good.
(Yes, that’s all kinds of ironic for what is at the same time essentially a feature-length commercial.)
I’m sorry, what? I know the label “fascist” gets thrown around with reckless abandon these days, but in what way is the everting is awesome song fascistic? To me it’s just a catchy children's song.
A glance at the lyrics makes me think my memory might have made this stronger than it actually is, but when I watched the movie about five years ago I remember thinking those lyrics were the first sign something was supposed to be off, and indeed I seem to remember that when the protagonist broke away from the prescribed routine he looked on with longing at the others “working in harmony” while the song is playing in the background.
It might have been cheery Soviet plays from the 1930s making me paranoid, but that song was the strongest impression the film left on me.
Not that I have an answer. It's complicated but interesting. :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
That's good advice for a happy life for a lot of people, of course assuming that "the group" is not actively hostile to nonconformists. But nothing wrong with chosing to get a job, work hard and take care of your family, and live according to your cultural and/or religious customs.
Lego movie is a movie from the perspective of the kid who wants to play but his father who is also represented as the CEO / absolute ruler wants to keep his lego world as he once made it (the kragl glue superweapon)
After reading the first few pages of the essay I think Orwell is describing what I've heard others call "tribalism", for example in https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
There are certainly good things that come from this, but overall it sure seems like an aspect of human nature that can do a lot of damage in what should be a positive-sum world.
All jokes aside, in that book there is the quote:
"All art is propaganda; on the other hand, not all propaganda is art."
History judges which is which by virtue of whether or not it succeeds in its objective(s). But history is itself another form of propaganda, so alas, we are all once again stuck here in this mess we call "today".
But this is anecdotal and I could be wrong. Like a Christian that does not proselytize, it is probably difficult to even identify the "quiet patriots" and so it is only the more militant of patriots (perhaps with a bumpersticker along the lines of U.S.A. Love It or Leave It) that get my attention.
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 patriotic feelings.
Someplace like Cyprus maybe? But it's hard to view any forced conscription as patriotic.
There are some African countries where maybe there's a patriotic element, but they often seem to have either a strong other ideology or be very corrupt.
I'll fully admit my knowledge may be lacking, so feel free to tell me what country you think is full of altruistic patriots.
For example, I am patriotic, while you are nationalistic, but they are jingoistic and probably fascist to boot.
I hope this helps.
Nationalism as nations’ right to self determination and self rule is great. And that’s what brought down the old empires. While now empires are rebuilt under anti-nationalist slogans and we are sliding back to multinational behemoths.
Good case why healthy dose of patriotism-nationalism is necessary is Ukraine war.
Orwell seems to describe what you’re defending as patriotism, not nationalism.
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.
Worth bearing in mind when discussion abstract concepts like 'nationalism' and 'nationality' though.
As for „national interests“ and „national security“, you get the same with tribalism.
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.
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.
I find it particularly weird that you list WW2 as not brought by nationalism, given that Nazism is basically an extreme form of ethnic nationalism.
A coworker originally from Russia the other day expressed dismay about Ukraine and worry for the democracy there. Her family back home doesn't know much about the war, but she does. She became a citizen last year, and but she seemed like George fucking Washington in that moment
Ha. This is a hilarious read.
Blair supposedly changed his views of the British Empire and started hating imperialism after spending time in Burma and seeing the oppression of the locals. That transpired years before he started writing under the pseudonym George Orwell.
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 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.
OTOH, it is likely that the real reason why countries really work is because of some level of nationalism, as commitment to universalist ideas is primarily a thing for elites, while ethnicity-based tribalism is much more primal concept.
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, but does the motivation fundamentally change what it is?
> OTOH, it is likely that the real reason why countries really work is because of some level of nationalism
I think you're probably right here. The question I have is if you can make that nationalism about something other than ethnic groups?
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.
I wonder if the melting pot doesn't deserve a reboot. Everything else seems to be getting one these days.
Who decides what a nation is can be a bit tricky from time to time. Who do NOT decide is much easier to answer. In both of your examples, it is clear without a doubt that the people who inhabit the said geographical regions are the ones to decide. Not the Frenchmen from Paris or the Castiians from Madrid.
If the people of Brittany decides that they want Brittany to remain as part of France then it simply means that they do not support Breton nationalism. From a nationalist moral point of view, it is up to the people of Brittany to decide. If a French nationalist wants to keep Brittany as part of France against their will then someone must tell that "nationalist" that he is practicing imperialism rather than nationalism. If a Breton "nationalist" wants to annex all of France to bring it under Breton rule then he is an imperialist rather than a nationalist.