Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Varche]

There has been a lot in the media these last few days about nationalism. Macron rejected nationalism on Armistice day.

Here is the latest. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-46146877

What is so wrong with nationalism ? People have always identified with their village, their country's football club, their county and so on.

I suspect it doesn't fit the globalisation or federal Europe agendas.

[Lizzie Zoom]

The simple answer, and it is very simplistic without going into all the historic evidence that I should think/know most on here fully understand already, is that out of nationalism comes a feeling that one nation is more superior than another and can dictate what happens, and out of that comes wars that cost millions of lives.

Being very proud of your national identity, as I am, is one thing but the politicians will always push it many steps further.

My opinion and that is all!

[Varche]

I think that is pretty accurate. The thing for me is for rational human beings to be able to be decent with fellow human beings from a different part of the world.

We all joke about the slow service in Greece  or the shops all being shut in the siesta in Spain or the French having a strike about price of fuel and paralysing the Channel tunnel but we don't go to war over it. I take your point that politicians might. It doesn't take a great stretch of imagination to see why Russians might want back former Russian territories for example.

I hate to bring the dreaded B word into it but maybe Macron is making a rallying call to the 27 to unite agin/for the UK as things move to a crucial point (again) in the negotiations. It might also be to unite and marginalise those countries stepping out of line-  Hungary, Poland, Italy. No matter how often it is said, one size doesn't fit all. The average olive farmer in Italy hasn't got a clue, or a care I suspect, about the coal miner in Poland.

[Gaffers]

I personally feel that the current wave of Nationalism is coming out of actual or perceived discrimination against a body or identity.  This in turn rallies normally apathetic people to the cause which makes people consider taking a side in a debate and the whole thing steam-rolls from there.  This is good for parties as it generates membership income from those people who normally don't get involved and just go with the status quo.  Trump's base is a pretty good example.  They are relatively affuent but percieve that their future is being threatened by social assistance to those less well off.  The ethos is then such that if you agree with this policy then as a member of team X you should also agree with these otherwise you are not a true member fo the team.  The idea that you can agree with policies from multiple teams seems lost at the moment.  What make sme laugh is that despite being anti Govt poverty assistance and against the Affordable Healthcare Act, once the Trump supporters they hit 65 they get on the cheap healthcare band wagon that is Medicare.  Polorising the political landscape is good for the political parties, even if it is not good for democratic ideas.  How do you encourage bi-partisan collaboration in these times?  Goodness knows, but I hope it returns soon.

[shyboy]

Very early in my business career, (Circa. 55 years ago), I was a member of our local 'Junior Chamber of Commerce' and the very progressive chairman organised a regional secondary schools 'speaking' competition which was held in front of a very large audience.
We were all asked to propose topics for presentation as a speech,, and my offering was;  'National pride is dangerous'.
Two of the contestants chose this as their topic, and I can still remember clearly the remarkable depth of logic and reasoning they both came up with, both right and left wing.
They each foresaw many of the world's current international problems and would put modern politicians and theorists to shame for their honesty and clarity of thought.
Their notions were anathema to the then current thinking, however, and caused quite a stir at the time.
In reality, I don't think their efforts altered people's thinking one iota, of course.

[Lizzie Zoom]

..............and this is the bad end of Nationalism, and what I was getting at, that makes me go cold:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-46151838

[Varche]

I personally feel that the current wave of Nationalism is coming out of actual or perceived discrimination against a body or identity.  This in turn rallies normally apathetic people to the cause which makes people consider taking a side in a debate and the whole thing steam-rolls from there.  This is good for parties as it generates membership income from those people who normally don't get involved and just go with the status quo.  Trump's base is a pretty good example.  They are relatively affuent but percieve that their future is being threatened by social assistance to those less well off.  The ethos is then such that if you agree with this policy then as a member of team X you should also agree with these otherwise you are not a true member fo the team.  The idea that you can agree with policies from multiple teams seems lost at the moment.  What make sme laugh is that despite being anti Govt poverty assistance and against the Affordable Healthcare Act, once the Trump supporters they hit 65 they get on the cheap healthcare band wagon that is Medicare.  Polorising the political landscape is good for the political parties, even if it is not good for democratic ideas.  How do you encourage bi-partisan collaboration in these times?  Goodness knows, but I hope it returns soon.

Interesting but on your last question on encouraging bi partisan co operation. Has any country ever had that? Probably in a war scenario or if you have a dictator preferably of the benevolent dictator variety.

[Lizzie Zoom]

I personally feel that the current wave of Nationalism is coming out of actual or perceived discrimination against a body or identity.  This in turn rallies normally apathetic people to the cause which makes people consider taking a side in a debate and the whole thing steam-rolls from there.  This is good for parties as it generates membership income from those people who normally don't get involved and just go with the status quo.  Trump's base is a pretty good example.  They are relatively affuent but percieve that their future is being threatened by social assistance to those less well off.  The ethos is then such that if you agree with this policy then as a member of team X you should also agree with these otherwise you are not a true member fo the team.  The idea that you can agree with policies from multiple teams seems lost at the moment.  What make sme laugh is that despite being anti Govt poverty assistance and against the Affordable Healthcare Act, once the Trump supporters they hit 65 they get on the cheap healthcare band wagon that is Medicare.  Polorising the political landscape is good for the political parties, even if it is not good for democratic ideas.  How do you encourage bi-partisan collaboration in these times?  Goodness knows, but I hope it returns soon.

Interesting but on your last question on encouraging bi partisan co operation. Has any country ever had that? Probably in a war scenario or if you have a dictator preferably of the benevolent dictator variety.

The only example of that comes to my mind is the Chartist Movement from 1838 - 1848, that consisted of numerous 'rebellious' political groups that acted as one to obtain the very peoples rights we have today, as in their 6 demands:

votes for all men;
equal electoral districts;
abolition of the requirement that Members of Parliament be property owners;
payment for M.P.s;
annual general elections; and.
the secret ballot.

They certainly changed the British political, social, and commercial scene for the 20th century. 

I think that is an example anyway!

[Sir Tigger KC]

Macron's comments might have been aimed at his domestic audience as his popularity wanes. 

[Doctor Gollum]

Perhaps he is finding his feminine side following the Trump thigh stroking incident 

[Rods2]

My view of nationalism is that it is about superiority of your country and/or groups of people within your country where is is based on discrimination. These days it is used by groups where they feel superior over others based of the amount (lack) of melanin in their skin or their ancestral bloodline and the county's associated with it, where far too many people have the ludicrous belief on judging people on what was bequeathed on them by their parents and bloodline rather than judging each person as an individual. Fascism & Communism/Marxism thrive on it, they are all for it, with the pledging of absolute loyalty and ruthless devotion to the superiority of their group/gang/cult/political party and their leadership over all others. They are all racist, in the loosest sense of the word, as discrimination against particular groups in society is their simplistic approach to complex problems that gives them their justification and collective power.

Am I a nationalist - no. Am I a patriot - yes.

My view of patriotism is being very proud of your country and the collective all of the people, their history and achievements.

Don't be a nationalist but do be a patriot.