Notes on Nationalism (1945)(orwellfoundation.com)
orwellfoundation.com
Notes on Nationalism (1945)
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/
222 comments
Just got finished watching The Great Hack* on Netflix. Demonizing "the other side", exactly as you've said, causes the polarisation that prevents even the consideration of compromise, resulting in political unproductivity that in turn erodes trust and forces us simple humans back into the basic pigeon holes that remain as the only effective politics, primarily: fear.
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.
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.
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.
[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
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=omc-5zj70M0
[deleted]
OMG, that Trinidad and Tobago part is so eye opening, even for middle aged cynic who thought he saw it all.
My cynicism is running the other way. I have been burned too many times by “factual” documentaries that leave our context and information that run counter to what the documentary is selling. Especially all the Netflix garbage which is designed to just increase the number of hours of content they have.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>> The rational centre, however, is unprofitable, and will remain un-catered-to until its profitability increases.
To play devils advocate, this exploitation of our irrational (as in not involving reason) behaviours is a pretty rational process.
To play devils advocate, this exploitation of our irrational (as in not involving reason) behaviours is a pretty rational process.
I feel the deeper thing that's going on is that you're objectifying the other side. By turning them into an object, you strip others of their humanity. You then setup a relationship in which you can rationalize doing all sorts of bad things. Not sure that "objectifying" is the right word here though.
I think dehumanizing is the more common word for what you’re expressing, but objectifying works here too.
> We must be careful that we don't get carried away by Propaganda and start demonizing "the other side" reflexively.
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.
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.
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
— John Stuart Mill, The Contest in America, 1861
I've not seen any of this. But then I avoid Twitter and other social media. In a conflict with global attention like this one there will always be a minority of extreme views (propaganda and genuine). Western leaders are not blaming the Russian people, although obviously there is an affect on them. Same with the mainstream media.
The hatred of a very small minority amplified by social media is the source of opinion like this.
The hatred of a very small minority amplified by social media is the source of opinion like this.
It's not the majority of the people luckily, although most have been in a state of propaganda shock for a few days and are recovering now. The ones proposing the worst things are politicians and the state affiliated media in concertation, which when is war time we just found out is 100% of the "independent" western media.
Which politicians are proposing the worst things, and which media are backing them up? This sounds like a too-broad generalisation. I think the most extreme calls have often come from citizens, and haven’t been taken up by those in authority.
There's nothing concrete whatsoever in your comment. It just reads like generic anti-Western rant. Can you perhaps turn it into a specific anti-Western rant and give examples?
If you think it’s upsetting that people are being called cowards or complicit for not protesting, which I agree is unfair, wait until you find out what the propaganda being used to justify the war is saying about Ukrainians.
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_...
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 don't know about modern claims, I was more talking about historical claims, where "culture" was associated with whiteness and things that were considered black were lesser and therefore not worth preserving. Black culture wasn't "American" even thought it was in America. If you claim Ukrainian culture is Russian culture even thought Ukrainians don't agree, and then use that to justify an invasion, it sure seems racist to me.
This is why, when PewDiePie infuriated his attackers by saying "I'm not White, I'm Swedish", he was actually going deeper into their "Theory" than they were.
No one's taking a "racial angle" against Russians. There's are plenty of Russian speakers and ethnic Russians outside of Russia, and nothing whatsoever is directed at them. This is about the country of Russia and its citizens (regardless if ethnicity), so whatever beef you might have with how they're treated, there's no "racial" or "ethnic" angle.
You know one does not choose citizenship, right?
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
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
> You know one does not choose citizenship, right?
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.
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.
Please be honest and recognize that discrimination on the basis of Citizenship is exactly the same as racial discrimination. The same way as nobody chooses their "race", nobody chooses the country they are born into.
> 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.
> 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.
>Please be honest and recognize that discrimination on the basis of Citizenship is exactly the same as racial discrimination.
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).
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).
Sure they do. They call Ukrainians “hohli”. Here is a gross example: https://romali83.livejournal.com/29759.html
The stereotype is that they are lazy and primitive.
The stereotype is that they are lazy and primitive.
Tell me of a single country in the world where a part of it does not consider the other lazy and primitive. We have the same exact phenomenon in Italy, the north thinks the south is lazy and primitive. That's ugly indeed and I don't support it, but if you say Russians are racist for this reason than pretty much every country on the planet is culpable of some form of racism.
By 'racial' sanctions, you mean sanctions aimed at Russian citizens? There's nothing 'racial' about that.
"and then for no reason at all putin invaded ukraine"
The response has been absurdly hostile to the Russian people. The West's foreign policy is simple "escalate". Stay tuned for your daily programming.
The response has been absurdly hostile to the Russian people. The West's foreign policy is simple "escalate". Stay tuned for your daily programming.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers
The book (one of my favourites) is a little diffrent. There the perspective is that of the mobile infantist. The classic hero arc but in a fashist world. Like in the movie, there is no enlightenment or revolution though, just the story of a regular directionless Joe who finds his true self and a purpose in life in the Mobile Infantry.
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?"
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?"
Contrary to common believes, that a fascist society must visually similar to what been portrayed in a WW2 movie, a real fascist society now days hides behind layers of outlooks that makes them look normal. People in a fascist society may work a well-paid job in a clean glassy high-rise, and their government and law might be structured like a normal one. The most obvious difference between a fascist society and a normal society is probably how the society create and changes it's laws, which is complex to observe even in a normal society. This is the reason why so many people couldn't believe it when they're already in one.
"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.
"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.
> People in a fascist society may work a well-paid job in a clean glassy high-rise
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?
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?
> Most people would spend their attention on work and entertainment
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 *** ****.
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 *** ****.
> it's called ** **.
huh?
huh?
Character counts: 3, 4. "Red pill".
Ok, still ambiguous, are we talking about becoming women or hating women?
Non sequitur.
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.
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.
The term red pill comes from The Matrix where the non-subtle metaphor is "want to know the truth? Take the red pill". There was no need to censor the term if that was the meaning.
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.
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.
Oh, I see. I hear "red pill" and think politics. As in, "converted to the Trump side".
It's all Gnostic stuff. Hiding pieces of the mystery religion maybe even makes it more appealing to converts.
It's all Gnostic stuff. Hiding pieces of the mystery religion maybe even makes it more appealing to converts.
The word you are looking for is not gnostic but "dog whistle"
Hmm, I see it currently happening. Everything is fine, until you step over certain line and then mob of self-righteous evil people descent and at least attempt to ruin your life... The left truly never changes...
The Man in the High Castle adaption by Amazon was fantastic in this. The Nazi cities were beautiful. They were orderly, clean, everyone was well dressed and nice. Infrastructure was top notch and there were only very small hints that something was off. It was the type of NIMBY paradise that the rich Californians would kill for.
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.
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.
You had me in the first part.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
I find it interesting that your language implies it is the responsibility of the west to persuade Russia to back off?
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?
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?
Because of the extension (if not the very existence) of NATO after 91?
Russia was invited to NATO in the Partnership for Peace program.
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.
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.
I believe you, yet western countries refused to discuss that very topic few weeks ago when Russia demanded that NATO was not extended further. Frankly, as a mere western Europe citizen, arguably living far away from russian borders, I could not care less about NATO extension. I feel more threatened by the war mongering in the west than by the russian army, and I suspect many other people feel the same. Yet this opinion is not represented at all in the western "democracies".
edit: removed emotional part
edit: removed emotional part
There are several layers of propaganda, and you point to only one of them.
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.
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.
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 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 NATO, here is a legally binding treaty stating so, contingent on X actions by Russia."
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."
> It's one thing to say, "Ukraine was never going to be in NATO, trust us."
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.
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.
Maybe they do want to be in NATO though? Either way, it doesn't justify the invasion.
[deleted]
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 capability for credible depiction of social and political phenomena, complete with the warts and flaws.
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 book is more obviously satirical, and I recall getting the clear message of how the Humans are a mirror image of the Bugs.
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 sacrifices. It's the same reason why children lack the right to vote in real-world democracies: a lack of experience to base decisions on. Heinlein also believes that democracy and human rights are fragile and need to be actively defended, not taken for granted.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Yes, exactly. Whether one agrees with Heinlein's views or not, his work should likely be put in context. Heinlein's interviews are a good place for that context.
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.
Do you know where Stranger in a Strange Land sits in this spectrum?
I’ve personally only read Starship Troopers and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, that said Stranger in a Strange Land came really early in his career.
My understanding in my comment comes almost entirely from the discussion in this episode of Alienating the Audience
https://alienating.libsyn.com/episode-5
My understanding in my comment comes almost entirely from the discussion in this episode of Alienating the Audience
https://alienating.libsyn.com/episode-5
> Like in the movie, there is no enlightenment or revolution though, just the story of a regular directionless Joe who finds his true self and a purpose in life in the Mobile Infantry
This is a very shallow interpretation of the book. When did you read it?
This is a very shallow interpretation of the book. When did you read it?
I have seen the book quoted in defense of near fascists ideas (like that soldiers should have more say in politics and more voting rights then civilians). In full seriousness.
I have never seen it quoted to support anything else.
I have never seen it quoted to support anything else.
The book is very clear that everyone, regardless of ability, has a right to perform the term of service necessary for the franchise, and that all have complete freedom of speech.
There are many sloppy criticisms of the book, none of which have bothered to actually understand it.
There are many sloppy criticisms of the book, none of which have bothered to actually understand it.
Convinced pacifists and those unwilling to become part of their army don't get to vote. Everybody who votes is expected to spend enough time in military to be shaped and molded by them. Plus, the book is clear on superiority of soldiers when it comes to making state and political decisions. That are fairly fascist ideas, very straightforwardly.
Besides, my point is about people who quote it. This book quotes are never used for anything else except ideas like this.
Besides, my point is about people who quote it. This book quotes are never used for anything else except ideas like this.
Never mind the people who quote it, such as you know them. The book is available on its own, to any who will give it a few hours.
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.
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.
> It posits a voting requirement, in the individual's willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of all
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.
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.
That is neither an accurate description of the book, nor my comment, nor fascism.
Shallow reading? It's a one sentence comparison with the movie not my fucking literary analysis.
I've read it a few times and think that's a fine take. What's your issue with it?
I didn't mean for my original message to come across harshly.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
You’re welcome, I think the movie can be a great starting point for both debates and further study. The war on terror (after 9/11) and the war in the movie have great parallels.
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.
I'll do it.
Similarly:
>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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showgirls
>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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showgirls
Most people I've talked to who watched Starship Troopers didn't think it was satire. To be fair, the enemy is literally not human which does make it harder to pick up on.
I remember watching it as a teenager back in 1997. I was the only one laughing in the cinema, it was just hilarious.
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.
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 think that's the mark of effective satire though - or it can be, I'd say there's a spectrum. Some satire needs to call itself out to the audience - make it clear what it is going after, and why. Others is the latter half of it - and Starship Troopers is definitely in this category - play it so straight that you do have to actually key in to it, and it might not hit right away.
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.
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.
Well said, I especially like your take “It’s seems reasonable to accept it uncritically is the message”
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.
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.
I had a similar reaction. It was so over the top as to seem obviously satirical, and indeed a poke in the eye to Heinlein's dangerously serious take on the subject matter. I forgave people for not having read the original Heinlein, but I couldn't understand how people didn't see the satire.
[deleted]
To me, it came across as badly done movie. Cringy, but not funny.
That is the trouble with good satire. It needs to be subtle enough that readers feel the pull of the thing being satirized, or there's no real lesson in it. But if it's too subtle, people will miss the point. In practice, it's impossible to get every person to hit both gates. Poe's Law [1] was coined before Starship Troopers, but it certainly applies.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
The last scene makes it pretty clear.
"They're scared"
Huge cheer.
"They're scared"
Huge cheer.
Many people are so used to nationalist propaganda that they don't see it's a parody.
Pretty scary.
Pretty scary.
When I was a teen in midwest USA I took a German foreign exchange student to an NFL game. They were mortified at the whole stadium standing to sing the national anthem, thought it was bizarre and scary.
Or reading that some schools do Pledge of Allegiance every day. That is the most fascist thing I can imagine. Something that would never happen in Europe outside single time in army or similar institution... National anthem is limited to independence day...
I find the pledge to the flag, especially in school, much worse than singing the national anthem.
When I was a teen in <large college town> I thought it was bizarre and scary that anyone would feel enough patriotism to sing the national anthem. Now I think it's bizarre and scary for anyone to feel such a lack of patriotism that they would think it's bizarre and scary to want to sing the national anthem.
You have been successfully assimilated /s
Pretty much. If countries were religions any group with that attitude would be considered a cult.
Countries were religious; when the social technology of the "nation" was developed, the primary justification lay in religion.
Why do you think that a loyal preference to land, law, and shared history is cult-like?
Why do you think that a loyal preference to land, law, and shared history is cult-like?
> Countries were religious; when the social technology of the "nation" was developed, the primary justification lay in religion
Everybody knows that.
But I wrote "If countries were religions" not "religious".
Everybody knows that.
But I wrote "If countries were religions" not "religious".
> In a 2014 interview on The Adam Carolla Show, the actor Michael Ironside, who read the novel as a youth, said that he asked Verhoeven, who grew up in the German-occupied Netherlands, "Why are you doing a right-wing fascist movie?" Verhoeven replied, "If I tell the world that a right-wing, fascist way of doing things doesn't work, no one will listen to me. So I'm going to make a perfect fascist world: everyone is beautiful, everything is shiny, everything has big guns and fancy ships but it's only good for killing fucking Bugs!"
The real cases are not much different. In the backdrop of invading a country thousands of miles away on a false pretext, the American Sniper story is a window into that[0]:
“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.”
[0] https://www.bookforum.com/print/1902/-9467
“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.”
[0] https://www.bookforum.com/print/1902/-9467
The best response to "Starship Troopers" is "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman, which gives a great account of the use of propaganda to manufacture a war.
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.
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.
>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”
must have been shocking to see that in a film
must have been shocking to see that in a film
I heard an opinion that identification of oneself with a group based on some principle (ethnicity / religion / class, etc) is a mechanism produced by evolution, allowing humans to form lager groups than the number of individuals one can personally know.
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
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
Evolution based or not, quck and cheap IFF ( identification friend or foe) is an obvious low resolution optimisation.
One should be aware that this is an optimization and in fact the entire dichotomy of friend or foe is an optimization in itself.
One should be aware that this is an optimization and in fact the entire dichotomy of friend or foe is an optimization in itself.
I'd say "form larger groups" is burying the lead. Evolution is about differential survival, and humans, as eusocial animals, are at an extreme end of the spectrum. What caused such rapid evolution? My money would be on a whole lot of murder by people who clubbed together based on more tenuous identity markers than you see used in our nearest relatives, the other great apes. Take, for example, how frequent and widespread violent ethnic cleansing is.
Yes, large groups to compete and fight with others, that what I meant.
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.
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.
wish we go back to forming groups of 150, each of them equipped with a nuclear head and some servers.
There is a very good work done by Rabindra Nath Tagore [0] on nationalism before the WWII. It's still relevant today.
[0] https://archive.org/details/nationalism00tagorich/page/12/mo...
[0] https://archive.org/details/nationalism00tagorich/page/12/mo...
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.
Something else will replace it. Tribalism is built in to our ‘firmware’.
Looking at US - it’s already being replaced by political divide. I prefer Euro style ethnic tribalism to US style political tribalism much more.
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.
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.
To take it a step further, what if the Euro style ethnic tribalism could be also decentralized, detached from any one place, to end its effect on geopolitics altogether? Unfortunately I think that'd lead directly to US style political tribalism. We may be forced to pick and choose from having localized tribes vs. politicized tribes.
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.
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.
Like... parallel societies? Separate school, health, monetary systems? That looks like a brewing conflict once there's a conflict in meatspace that can't be solved in such style.
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.
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.
The appearance of ostensible diversity, whilst an underlying consensus is actually present. Propaganda exists for a reason I suppose.
I kinda get your point but which system produced fewer wars in the last 250 years?
Seems like they aren't simply mutually exclusive.
Big part of Euro wars were caused partially by multinational empires. WW1 - Austro-Hungary and Russian empire. WW2 - Soviet Union. Yugoslavian wars if in the middle between Serbian chauvinism and Yugo multinational empire as well.
Meanwhile US had plenty of action in this department too.
Meanwhile US had plenty of action in this department too.
Not at all. Like most social constructs, tribalism can be learned and unlearned.
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.
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.
Unfortunately in the West I think this might be identity politics. There is very much a "us Vs them" attitude with the whole thing. To give an example I see a lot of LGBT "allies" with pin badges, flags, etc. To label oneself as being part of that group.
Without flying the flags you are seen as an outsider.
Without flying the flags you are seen as an outsider.
> Without flying the flags you are seen as an outsider.
Not my sense at all.
Not my sense at all.
Modern identity politics in the U.S. seems like the inevitable result of telling people they are "free" but then excluding certain identified groups from social life, jobs, etc.
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.
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.
Identity politics would always exist.
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.
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.
Your reply here comes across as reactionary and rather condescending but really doesn't address anything I said.
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.
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.
What is modern identity politics but a big word that academics and élites dreamed up for tribalism?
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".
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".
I feel weird if I select the yellow emoji color since everyone on our internal slack is gung ho about their skin color. Same with pronouns, almost indirectly mandated at this point.
[deleted]
Yes, I thought tribalism was the better word.
> As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’…
> As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’…
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.
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.
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.
Grifters can only make money, sell their books/trainings if they keep moving the goal posts.
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.
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 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Claim: 1+2 = 4
Me: Bullshit!
It’s called logic and reasoning.
Me: Bullshit!
It’s called logic and reasoning.
Not leaving room for nuance is bullshit. As an example, for manufacturing engineering, "1 + 2 = 4" may be well within the tolerances. So, it being bullshit depends on the error bars (I get it, some people don't believe in the existence of error bars)
What? Chicken is pretty new. It used to be a luxury. Industrial chicken farms didn't exist.
We need more Ukrainian style nationalism and less Russian style chauvinism.
You raise a good point. In times of emergency, desperation: nationalism can be beneficial.
For the most part however it seems to be destructive.
For the most part however it seems to be destructive.
Societies shall be designed to withstand the worst. Not just naively hoping for the best.
It's not destructive. At worst, it's less fun for hyper individualistic type of people.
It's not destructive. At worst, it's less fun for hyper individualistic type of people.
It is quite sad the propaganda machine has convinced many that Ukraine hasn't done anything wrong at all. I am still catching up with a lot of the recent history in the region.
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.
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.
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.
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.
nationalism is surely on the decline, but we can't replace it with nothing.
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")
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")
As a white American who identifies non-binary, no. It can potentially help you understand overlapping concepts, but it’s a fundamentally different experience to be ‘unusual’ in a cultural context you mostly share than to be an outsider in the cultural experience you inhabit. Even though I prefer they/them pronouns I can conveniently be male, with my beard and my masculine presentation, for any situation that warrants it. Even if I couldn’t I’m being evaluated as a member of the same community. I’m only othered in situ. The only reason other nationalists (in Orwell’s usage) would care to take notice is to exploit divisions in situ or divisions between how their “nation” regards my gender expression and how ours does, for whatever value of “ours”.
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.
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.
Insightful and relevant as ever, Orwell is always worth reading (and rereading). Sometimes I feel that his fictional works have unjustly overshadowed his enormous production of essays, so it's good to see these pop up on the front page once in a while.
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.
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.
I think what happens here is that Orwell is having a big stab at the intelligencia, and the intelligencia at the time (as now) hated nationalism. He is trying to point out all the ways their behavior is just like that of overzealous nationalists at the time, so he redefines the word so as the label all the intelligencia as the thing they hate.
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".
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".
[deleted]
More often than not it's (sadly, i guess) necessary for an author to transform/include such fictional elements in order to attract attention about a topic, especially when it's a sensible one (surveillance, trust in authority,etc).
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.
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.
I didn’t enjoy 1984. If you have been exposed to those ideas elsewhere the book just doesn’t work. I did however love his memoir of his time fighting as a socialist volunteer in the Spanish civil war [1]. Very insightful read and clearly shows where his thinking was going when he later wrote animal farm and 1984.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia
Absolutely, Homage to Catalonia is also one of my favourite works by Orwell.
The original Lego Movie (2014) has a wonderful, cheerful, catchy, and quite literally and deliberately fascist theme song (Everything is Awesome). You could say the entire (surprisingly good) film is an explanation of why it’s not as good a thing as it seems to be.
(Yes, that’s all kinds of ironic for what is at the same time essentially a feature-length commercial.)
(Yes, that’s all kinds of ironic for what is at the same time essentially a feature-length commercial.)
>” The original Lego Movie (2014) has a wonderful, cheerful, catchy, and quite literally and deliberately fascist theme song (Everything is Awesome)”
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.
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.
I mean, I might be wrong, but—in the literal one? As in it preaches conformity and finding your purpose in following the group whatever the group is doing?
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.
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.
I don't find the literal interpretation helpful. That pretty much describes any group activity anywhere in the world. Find me one major Western company that does not preach "better together" or "teamwork" or whatever. Then you have the Eastern ideas of "all under Heaven." The Communist "brotherhood and unity." Etc.
Not that I have an answer. It's complicated but interesting. :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
Not that I have an answer. It's complicated but interesting. :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
> conformity and finding your purpose in following the group
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.
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.
Yeah, the lego people where just building and destroying and weren’t allowed to think outside that norm. Master builders were outlawed and creativity was frowned upon.
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)
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)
I had the same takeaway from this movie as you did, thought indeed it has been a while since I've seen it as well. Seems quite unlikely that Everything is Awesome was simply meant as a catchy children's song.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Spice World paired with Josie and the Pussycats is a good time and a great thesis.
> In the same way, there is a habit of mind which is now so widespread that it affects our thinking on nearly every subject, but which has not yet been given a name. As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’, but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation – that is, a single race or a geographical area. It can attach itself to a church or a class, or it may work in a merely negative sense, against something or other and without the need for any positive object of loyalty.
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.
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.
But note, he distinguishes between nationalism and patriotism, and even blames the decline of patriotism for the rise of nationalism. It’s quite a subtle essay. He was also ahead of his time in knowing about – or rather, being aware of – both things like the concentration camps, and (to my surprise) the Bengal famine.
So he was a patriot after all?
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".
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".
It frustrates me to no end when people confuse patriotism with nationalism, some even cite this essay! They say despicable things (in my view) like "patriotism is the root of all evil" while enjoying the lifestyle/security provided by the altruistic patriotism of many others.
Sadly, the people I see that wear their patriotism on their sleeves are more likely to also be nationalist.
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.
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.
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 patriotic feelings.
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.
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.
You might have the good fortune to be born in a country in a stable region or with good neighbours. When life expectancy is not great in the initial active duty years (no foreign deployment, within border, defensive) I think it’s definitely not about power/prestige. It would be extremely ungrateful to state otherwise.
I still find it hard to think of a nation where the military would primarily be about patriotism.
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.
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.
Patriotism is an irregular adjective in English, which takes the conjugation of the pronoun.
For example, I am patriotic, while you are nationalistic, but they are jingoistic and probably fascist to boot.
I hope this helps.
For example, I am patriotic, while you are nationalistic, but they are jingoistic and probably fascist to boot.
I hope this helps.
Even more frustrating is confusing nationalism with chauvinism, nacism and fascism.
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.
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.
> Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power.
Orwell seems to describe what you’re defending as patriotism, not nationalism.
Orwell seems to describe what you’re defending as patriotism, not nationalism.
With all due respect to Orwell, I define nationalism as nation's self-governance.
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.
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.
If you define nationalism as something other than the commonly accepted definition, then complaining about how people use it seems like an exercise in frustration.
This is the historical definition. And still one of two definitions common definitions. The other one trying to conflate nazism and nationalism. Which is just Orwellian doublespeak.
Oh well, if YOU define it THAT way...
Technically, 'nation' can have implications of ethnicity, coming from same etymological root as 'born', though that's kind of losing it's meaning these days if it ever was valid. People are generally a bit more mongrel than they portray themselves.
Worth bearing in mind when discussion abstract concepts like 'nationalism' and 'nationality' though.
Worth bearing in mind when discussion abstract concepts like 'nationalism' and 'nationality' though.
There's nothing particularly great about nationalism, because "nation" itself is an abstract concept that's inherently malleable. And thus we get those nebulous "national interests" or "national security", which seemingly justifies everything if you can get people hysterical enough about it.
Any tribalism gradation is abstract. If we agree that humans naturally go for some sort of tribalism, then we can discuss which sort of tribalism is most efficient. Tribe-as-extended-family tribalism is brutal. Pan-* tribalism (as USA) seems to start splitting into smaller tribes because it's hard to find common ground for people living in wide variety of historically caused socio-economic conditions (e.g. rust belt vs socal). Nation seems to be bring a good common narrative (historical experiences, usually language) and usually spans small enough territory to not have too much ongoing situation variation. Even the usual urban/countryside variation is usually not too much in close-by cities and their surrounding countryside because of population exchange both ways.
As for „national interests“ and „national security“, you get the same with tribalism.
As for „national interests“ and „national security“, you get the same with tribalism.
It's not a linear scale of smaller/larger tribe. You can preserve smaller tribes within larger, and those within larger still.
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.
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.
Which wars were brought to Europe by nationalism?
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.
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.
It's harder to name wars that weren't - and empires used nationalism to whip up war propaganda just as much as everybody else.
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.
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.
I have always considered myself a patriot, even in my commie youth. The idea of America to me was revitalized and given honor and dignity in the Civil Rights era. Real sacrifice. Self sacrifice that leads to progress, not sacrificing others for personal profit. Something indefinite, yet you know it when you see it, like porn.
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
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
I would love to see an example of true altruistic patriotism you speak of. All people are selfish and everyone works for their own self-interest. Nationalism/patriotism exists because of each individual's recognition of that self-interest. No altruism involved here.
> During the last twenty years or so of his life, his entire output was in reality an endless repetition of the same thing
Ha. This is a hilarious read.
Ha. This is a hilarious read.
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).
A concerted attempt to manipulate the election is a matter of fact. The impact is often exaggerated, but that they tried to is not really in dispute.
Let's just hope one nation doesn't get too powerful, lest they abuse their power and invade other nations to "protect" their sovereignty. Its happened before and is likely to happen again.
A bit is either 1 or 0, tertium non datur
Very Orwellian definition of nationalism, I must say. I always considered nationalism as the antithesis of imperialism. A nation should be ruled from their own land and by their own people. Not by foreigners from a far far away land. Almost makes you think Orwell was some kind of an imperialist (a reformist, but still) who tried to vilify nationalism in order to keep the British empire together. Good think that failed. I hope Putin fails as well.
Isn't it the same thing, just with a larger geographic area?
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.
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.
One definition of Fascism is "imperialism coming home" and for whatever weird reason, Fascists generally portray themselves as being patriotic/nationalist often in the sense of not treating other countries and their citizens as equals, so basically imperialism.
> A nation should be ruled from their own land and by their own people
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.
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.
> 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.
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?
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?
There was an attempt in the US, with the whole concept of the melting pot. In the interest of maintaining the other cultures though, this has been phased out in favour of the "salad bowl".
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.
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 reckon you might be right about that last part, unfortunately. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere deep down in the human brain it just defaults to trusting the person who looks most like your parents/siblings/children/etc. Absent some other compelling reason/conditioning of course.
I wonder if the melting pot doesn't deserve a reboot. Everything else seems to be getting one these days.
I wonder if the melting pot doesn't deserve a reboot. Everything else seems to be getting one these days.
"Universalist" ideas don't bind elites together because they are more high-minded or educated, they bind them together because universalist ideas liberate capital flows and thereby enrich the elite (in material terms) at the expense of everyone else (and not only in material terms.) Capitalism and Schizophrenia is an in-depth discussion of this - "universalism" is simply capital flows destroying all social norms that impede them.
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 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.
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.
Or, you know, identities might be multi-faceted.
Orwell was very far from that. Read Burma Days.
I have, and as far as I know Orwell wanted to reform the empire rather than to dismantle it. That's what I meant by calling him a "reformist". I'm not an Orwell expert though and if someone knows for certain that Orwell was in favour of dismantling the Empire and supported the independence of the British oversee territories then please correct me.
Sounds like you know more than me and indeed I gave the title of Burmese Days wrong. Here's an interesting article: https://tribunemag.co.uk/2020/07/reading-some-effing-orwell-.... It seems pretty clear, though, that whatever his racial attitudes, Orwell was consciously against imperialism.
Orwell brother was one of the funding members of the UN
How Orwell defines Nationalism is in my experience what you hear getting called "statism" in libertarian circles.
Sure, it's worship of the state in the final analysis.
Summary on Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_Nationalism