Nationality and race.
"Make America Great again" - good.
"Make white people Great again" - bad.
Why is it that nationality talk and Nationalism in particular is so easily acceptable, and race talk and Racism is so difficult and unacceptable?
For the philosopher, it is obvious that they have the same status as social constructs - imposed arbitrary classifications of humanity by humanity.
For the historian, they are pretty much the same thing. From the National Socialists of Hitler, to the famous signs in the UK of my youth "No Blacks, No Irish, no Dogs", to the incident in New Orleans my attention was drawn to recently. And more or less every violent massacre in the world ever.
So why is Nationalism still tolerated and even lauded? Why is the British flag allowed to be be waved all over the place, but the Nazi flag not so much? (Feel free to substitute your own local good and bad flags here.)
"Make white people Great again" - bad.
Why is it that nationality talk and Nationalism in particular is so easily acceptable, and race talk and Racism is so difficult and unacceptable?
For the philosopher, it is obvious that they have the same status as social constructs - imposed arbitrary classifications of humanity by humanity.
For the historian, they are pretty much the same thing. From the National Socialists of Hitler, to the famous signs in the UK of my youth "No Blacks, No Irish, no Dogs", to the incident in New Orleans my attention was drawn to recently. And more or less every violent massacre in the world ever.
So why is Nationalism still tolerated and even lauded? Why is the British flag allowed to be be waved all over the place, but the Nazi flag not so much? (Feel free to substitute your own local good and bad flags here.)
Comments (59)
Nationalism, amongst the people I know, has always been seen as the first step towards ethnocentric barbarism and to be greatly feared. Hitler himself started as a nationalist or Volk agitator.
For many people I think the British flag, for all the evil done under colonialism, can still be understood more benignly than a swastika flag. Nevertheless, I am sure the Union Jack is widely feared and/or hated by many (especially former colonies) and is a symbol of the bad and good done in its name. For the most part, it just doesn't yet hold the totemic power of hatred and negative emotion of the Nazi flag.
George Orwell's wrote a nice essay on this subject: Notes on Nationalism.
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."
"Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism.... Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power."
George Orwell
Nationality (supposedly) is made about people’s customs,heritage, history, religion and ideas. The flag is just propaganda and easy symbolism. Nevertheless, it depends a lot which country we are talking about... here in Spain most of the people hate the Spanish national flag. Some say it is fascist, homophobic, racist or mustiness. So it is interesting as you said why some flags are more tolerated than others or at least respected. When you go to Catalonia there are people who burn the Spanish flag. Personally I don’t get frustrated but others get annoyed. I guess being a spaniard goes further than a flag.
Also I guess it is very important here the social marketing. Apparently the UK flag which represents the British nationality doesn’t trigger a lot of people not like the nazi or URSS flag for a lot of reasons.
I remember one day I saw the following advertisement:
[i]When you see the UK flag you think about Big Ben
When you see the American flag you think about hamburgers or big cars
When you see the Spanish flag you think about that bigot who hates gay people[/i]
Hmm... bad propaganda.
There's a fair amount of pacifism in the US that clashes with flag waving, which is often associated with military action.
Military might is one way to protect a culture. Intolerance is another. Thou shalt have no gods nor skin color different from mine.
EVERY Human being will change colour because of:
People breed among other colours, (even inside race), alongside countless other examples like blondes, blue eyes, green eyes and grey eyes are all going extinct slowly like gingers (google it and check credited school board studies ) beauty is in rarity! ?? Anyways going back to it believe look around even BLACK’S are getting lighter and lighter because of shelter, because of healthcare products that stop the sun from darkening us, an of course from evolution to change of climate.
NOW yes I’m speculating the futures a mix of ethnicities but let me tell you how THIS and only THIS isn’t the solution it’s just the equation.
When people start looking the same, we will find other ways to separate us.
Evidence is:
Mixed people in today’s society don’t get accepted by blacks or whites, so now racism increased by 300% an the problem is, now there’s catalogues of racism in what shade, Redbone, Light skin, Latte, Caramel, Toffee, Burnt Toffee, believe these are how I’ve witnessed people either value my skin or their skin and i have made the mistake myself to label myself as Caramel why? When Caramel is made to look like my skin and not the other way round.
So let me tell you the simple solution to any problem the world has because Philosophy can over complicate an equation that gives something that can allow us to feel better, emotionally, spiritually and well health.
FOR every time you have something nice to say. SAY IT.
P.s. To save anyone from getting in trouble complimenting someone on their Porceline white skin or their Shine bright like a diamond Black skin, just keep it simple:
YOU have SUCH beautiful Skin, what products do you use...Don’t make it about something they can’t control, make it about something you can learn, connect or enjoy together.
Make the world smile peeps, you don’t know who needs you or when you’re need them!
Agree. But this is just another character inside of American nationality/customs symbolism
I guess all the pacifists and hippies movement criticised the flag of US because is one of the most powerful military countries all over the world. Nevertheless, this is not needed to be included of what is the actual means of the flag. If it has 50 stars I guess it is because of the representation of all the states.
What we can say apart from this is just personal beliefs or opinions.
Let me ask you a question.
If you ever visited a foreign country, say Africa - Nigeria one of the most beautiful modern places in earth with culture and heritage, would you use the same pronouns, push you're perspective of belief of how a black/white person acts, you don’t, it’s weird, when we become the minority we open our minds and respect walking in their shoes.
People are too comfortable offending people, an the same people are too sensitive to receive.
The problems within brother you have you’re answer.
Speak to strangers as if on interview, as you never know the value a stranger can bring to you’re life.
You could generalize 'nationalism' further to any group identifier, including sports team, religious groups, hipster groups etc etc... I think we have a need to identify with groups, and will do it regardless. For all the negative that is associated with it, it also motivates and mobilizes to transcend the purely individualistic/selfish. Doing away with all of it also would imply also doing away with some of the positive aspects of it.
So why do we still tolerate Nationalism is a bit like asking why do we still tolerate the rain? Because it will rain regardless of us tolerating it.... and we probably wouldn't want to do away with it entirely anyway, because, aside from being unpleasant, the rain also makes the crops grow.
The question to me ends up being, what kind of groups should we aim for, and how can we get the most out of it, while minimizing/making amends for the negative?
As an aside, failing to realize this, is I think the single biggest mistake the left has made in the last couple of decades and the reason for the ascent of right wing populism.
Yes because we humans tend to different us from each other through different labels. It is weird but people do this. When we see or visit a country with customs so different from us surprise a lot. If you are a person with culture you will try to understand it and learn more about it. If you are ignorant you will criticise or underrated it.
Because nationalism can unite people across a number of different boundaries like race or class. Humans naturally form into groups often based on residency; before there was a unified America people just flew and identified with their state flags: Virginia, Massachusetts, Maryland, etc.
"Make white people great again" is a ridiculous statement, but if someone were to say. e.g. "Make France great again" I don't see what's offensive about that.
When people suffer from only natural cause not human cause people can not be labeled great.
Well, you are just reiterating the received wisdom that @unenlightened is questioning. And the question is normative, not anthropological. Racism is just as easy to explain in anthropological terms as nationalism (at least at the just-so story level). But how is it that racism is less acceptable than nationalism or ethnocentrism, when they are so similar?
Quoting javi2541997
When you see the Spanish flag you think: "Hm, whose flag is that?" :joke:
A lot of "racist" statements that emphasize supporting or advancing the interests of a certain race aren't even deemed racist today, so lets just start with that. "Make black people great again" or "make hispanic great again" or "make french people great again" aren't really considered offensive or racist, it's really just when applied to certain groups like white people or Germans or maybe the English that it becomes offensive.
Lol :rofl: well I don’t care if the people don’t recognise it because I will always show the flag of my city instead. Madrid! Spain is full of regionalism. It looks like it has countries inside itself.
Within everything exists everything.
It makes sense to have some allegiance and affinity to the territory in which you reside, the languages, history and institutions of the people who reside there. These are meaningful things in the world which contribute to any life.
It makes no sense to have allegiance or affinity to a race, which is devoid of such content.
This is true, but it might make sense to have a sense of allegiance to a nationality/ethnic group like German or French or Lithuanian due someone's family heritage.
This, imo, is where it gets interesting and lines start getting blurred a bit: What exactly does this allegiance mean to them? How do they process negative historical events committed by these groups? "White pride" has never made any sense to me; "Russian pride" or "Italian pride" do.
I think this ranks as about the most idiotic thing George ever said (he didn't say that many). If he had ever seen the British Expeditionary Force trolling halfway round the world to defend our people in the Falklands, he might have had second thoughts.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Yes, all identifications have this dual aspect of unifying and separating. We are united in excluding Them.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Indeed. But circumstances can change and fragment that unity, as happened to Japanese Americans after Pearl harbour. Suddenly, they were not American enough.
To say of one identification that it can in some circumstances overcome the fragmentation of other identifications, is not a great recommendation. If racism happened to unify different nationalities, that would not be a cause for rejoicing.
Quoting NOS4A2
You are merely describing your identifications, not making any analysis of them. We make sense, they make no sense.
:100: It's always nice when someone understands the topic. So far, i seem to have attracted mainly the right-wing in defensive mode, rather than comprehensive mode. But it is more a challenge to the Neo-Marxist, Postmodern destroyers of freedom that run this site. (Yes, @Baden this means you.) Turns out they are all bourgeois lickspittles of capitalism after all. Vive l'Internationale!
As a neo-marxist, postmodern destroyer of freedom who broadly agrees with you, I still wouldn't mod a nationalist like a racist since there are socially acceptable ways to be a nationalist, but no ways of being a racist. Yes, logically this makes no sense if nationalism is a (more or less) disguised in-group favouritism narrative - which it is -, but you can't tell that to people and expect them to believe it just because it's true.
As for why it's more socially acceptable to be a nationalist than a racist or an ethnocentrist? I'd guess that because national identity isn't explicitly articulated in terms of race or ethnicity, the comparison goes under the radar. It seems to require a certain social+intellectual distance from the narratives of national identity to see it for what it is. It's a question of history informing aesthetic/moral taste.
Seeing it for what it is is still much different from ceasing to embody it/be effected by it though...
I draw a distinction between nationalism and patriotism,. It's a matter of degree and objective. The same applies to race. There's a distinction between being a proud black man wanting to advance his interests and accomplishments and one declaring racial superiority and wanting to crush those unlike himself.
MAGA is a Trump battle cry, imbued with so much crazy idiosyncracy it's hard to identify it as a meaningful political movement.
To the extent a MAGA hat is a subtle klan hood, I agree with your concerns. To the extent it represents an attempt to increase American productivity and success, I see less concern. To the extent it's a trademark for a megalomaniac, I'd hope all true patriots would want it to disappear.
Probably because countries around the world tend to be conceived of as nation states, not as race states.
For example, prior to the influx of immigrants of different races into Germany and Austria, Germans and Austrians were the same race -- yet considered eachother to be different nationalities.
In that sense, nationalism seems to be relatively neutral, in the sense that it is a given -- it's simply about countries being countries.
Quoting fdrake
Nationalism is in-group favoritism, but that in-group favoritism isn't (and definitely shouldn't be) overriding. If I were to travel to the UK and spot someone with a Boston Red Sox hat in a bar that would make me more likely to try to establish rapport with them, but it doesn't make us best friends. It's really just a jumping off point, nothing else.
Quoting Hanover
What do you think about the recent push to promote black-owned products and businesses? Does that blur the distinction at all? What do you make of a proud black man who strives to support his "people?"
It's a slope, yes. The nationalism enables the bad stuff so well it gets branded (rightly) the same.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Your framing makes it look like that is all nationalism tends to be. I think you know it's not!
Yeah, I'm not here to defend every iteration of nationalism. I have mixed feelings towards it. The moment nationalism turns into xenophobia I'm out; in the US I think our nationalism is actually rightfully predicated on a certain tolerance and adaptability given that we are a nation of immigrants. I'm not prepared to just cede nationalism to the far right.
I think what you're not prepared to cede is the "good heart" of protectionist policies; which ultimately is taking care of a community and protecting it from predators. That's orthogonal to nationalism, which is a way of deciding -usually based on sentiment- who the predators are.
Quoting fdrake
I'm actually not much of a protectionist. I more support free trade. What I am keeping an eye on is the fracturing of a common American identity and a progression towards a society where identity is more based along racial, ethnic, or ideological lines and conflict is not so much perceived as acceptable disagreement and instead more perceived as war.
On what basis are you separating out the national identity stuff from the racial, ethnic and ideological stuff? What makes national identity less suspicious and dangerous than those?
Is that really true though? White supremacists would certainly disagree and say that being "white", however we want to define that precisely, is very much associated with a specific history, culture and institutions. That's after all why they keep using the term "western culture" in place of "white supremacy".
We easily dismiss this mode of making sense of the world as a transparent veil for racism. But we don't seem to apply that same scrutiny to nationalism.
It's also interesting to note that one might argue that both the concept of the nation and the concept of human races in it's modern form developed around the same time frame - the period when Europe transformed from a collection of fragmented kingdoms into nation states, which then started to colonise the globe.
I'm only talking about American identity here, but in any case I think it's helpful in a society to have a common set of values. When we get fractured off into our own racial or ethnic identities there can certainly be conflict between groups and that conflict can turn much, much more vicious without that backdrop of a broader identity that ties us all in.
This is true (speaking for myself).
We're just accustomed to the fallout of excessive nationalism and have little experience with the absence of it, like late 19th Century Germany and Russia. Both fell apart in a bad way later on.
Still not answering the question. Yes, countries are not races and nationalism is not the same as racism, but we knew that already. The question is: why is one good and the other bad?
You could say: "just because," and leave it at that, and that would be a legitimate answer. But then you have nothing more to say on the topic. If you think you do have something to say, then you need to tell us what it is that makes racism objectionable and nationalism unobjectionable - other than them not being the same, that is.
I don't think anyone is saying that nationalism is always good, only that it can be good. Racism is always bad and stupid. American nationalism can be associated with one's values which one can choose to an extent.
As an American, I can consider other US citizens either "good" or "bad" Americans and this isn't an inherently problematic practice. A fascist, for instance, is definitely not a good American. Nor is a 'burn it all down and start from year 0' anarchist. A good American is tolerant but strong.
I think a healthy form of nationalism or national identity can emerge from common values; an unhealthy form would be reflexively demonizing outsiders.
I’m not sure how “western culture” can be construed as “white supremacy”. Europe, like Africa, Asia, North America, was never some melting-pot where everyone who had similar skin-tones carried a common culture into the future. The nations were often at war and sought to annihilate each other, even if by all outward appearances some of the soldiers looked alike.
Though it may have taken much time and bloodshed, “western culture” did much to overcome racism, slavery, discrimination, etc. as it did to spread it. The ability to criticize the past, learn from the mistakes and self-correct is one of the boons of being a part of it.
Because "races" are notionally physical demarcations, racism involves an an instant process of stigmatization and potential dehumanization based on arbitrary and immutable characteristics in a way that nationalism doesn't. A nationalist can concede that someone like you of a different nation could be part of their nation but happens not to be, whereas a racist does not recognize you of a different race as "someone" in the way they recognize themself as such, so the question of inclusion doesn't even arise. So, sure there's the common denominator of the 'us v them' dynamic but that dynamic is not fully explanatory of the underlying phenomenon. Nationalists can express mutual, if grudging, respect. The other can be another like me. A racist can't do that. Racism transforms 'us v them' necessarily into 'us v (inferior) them' and with great efficiency. Not saying here that nationalists can't or don't sometimes view those of other countries in a similar way to how racists view other races, but there is no necessary overlap in the most morally pernicious form of prejudice there.
The ideal is absolute non-discrimination based upon race, but if a group becomes oppressed, it makes sense to self promote to overcome that oppression. That is, if one side cheats and that side also controls the refereeing, I don't see how you can condemn the oppressed for not self-sacrificing by being the only ones to adhere to the non-discriminatory ideal.
It is much easier to understand people killing each other when they look different. I remember when the British and the Irish were being quite violent and killing each other, and in other places, the same thing was happening, and wondering how in the world do all these people see each other was different? Protestants and Catholics killed each other, Christians and Muslims kill each other, Jews and Muslims kill each other, and Sunni and Shia kill each other. Packs of dogs and primate groups fight against each other to defend territory for their own pack or group. I think behaving as other animals is natural, and that it takes special effort to get us to go against our nature and accept "those people" as one of us.
Do you mean like today's war of the sexes? Not only have people of color become super sensitive to discrimination and past injustices, but women, in general, seem to be having the same experience as people of color opposing the oppression they experienced. We have learned to use the word "she" where we always used the word "he". On TV and in my community I see women everywhere and wonder where the men have gone, what jobs are they doing because they are not as visible as they once were?
You missed one of the most important divisions, the religious divisions. When everyone had many gods, it may have been easier to get along with people with different gods? But when we get down to one god and this god has favorites and is a war god, then we get people who fight for this god's "power and glory". We get really crazy notions believing this god wants what we want and we can take it from those people who do not know God but have a false god. The US has freedom of religion by law because Christians of different denominations were persecuting and killing each other. Today we just say those Christians who have a different interpretation of the Bible are not really Christians. :lol:
Our brains are far more limited than we want to believe, and we need to identify with small groups to combat the problem of being alone in the crowd and unsure of our identity, worth, and position. This is why we have so many churches. The smaller groups fulfill our need to belong to a small group. In the past, we had many fraternities and social groups that fulfilled this need.
Am I right in thinking that the major distinction you're drawing between national identity and race is that, ultimately, national identity is a contingent property of a person and race is a necessary one?
I think that holds when hewing close to the categories as they're theorised, or on their own terms, but in terms of their observed function - precisely who counts as Aryan, white, black, depends on the political weather. The essentialist ontology of race is time varying in practice.
I am not sure about that. Race boundaries aren't so clear-cut (which is why there is no true race science, only pseudo-science); ethnic boundaries - even less so. National identification, in theory, is much easier: either you are a citizen or you are not; either you are from here or you are not. There are, of course, edge cases, but they are fewer.
In practice, of course, race, ethnicity, religion and nationality are often entangled in a messy way. A minority race, ethnicity or religion can make you an outsider in your own country, even to the point that your loyalties are suspect. In extreme cases, e.g. Rohingya in Burma/Myanmar, you can be denied citizenship.
What unites these identification categories is that belonging is, by and large, not up to you. It cannot be credited to or blamed on your character or your decisions. We are born into these categories, and changing them is difficult, if not impossible. (And even if you succeed in nominally transitioning from one group to another, e.g. by immigrating, it is still a question of whether you will ever fully identify with your new group and be fully accepted by it.)
Well, first of all, there are different forms of nationalism, some of which are as morally undesirable as racism. What all forms of nationalism have in common though is self-subjugation (to varying degrees) to the "big" other on the basis of a quasi-familial identity. Country is mother/father; we are children and like good children must sacrifice our individual interests for the greater (national) good etc. The nation as supreme moral guardian in return imbues its flock with a sacred and distinct essence that places it above and outside other nations and their flocks. Though racism shares the idea of a distinct essence, its orientation is not self-subjugatory but subjugatory from the get-go. If we could distil the purely aggressive aspect of nationalism and give individuals ownership of it in an absolute sense, we'd have something akin to racism (on the latter point, note that a nationalist has to earn their salt as part of the nation [through self-subjugation], and those who do not are internal enemies that can be entirely alien regardless of their citizenship, whereas whiteness and inclusion in the race is a fait accompli from birth).
So, yes, while in practical terms things are not black and white (no pun intended!), racism is in essence more pernicious than nationalism in that as a category it's (theoretically):
1) hard (immutable from birth); and therefore 2) exclusionary (in an absolute sense); 3) necessarily subjugatory, with its victims being immediately identifiable (in theory).
Quoting fdrake
That's part of it, but I agree with this too:
Quoting fdrake
And I also agree with this:
Quoting SophistiCat
but, as mentioned, I think racism is more aggressive, more absolutely exclusionary and necessarily subjugatory (there's no escaping the logic that the superior race should dominate the inferior one). That's not even to mention the inherent denial of full human diginity to the other at the most fundamental level.
Anyhow, to me the question isn't really why MAGA is more acceptable to us than the KKK. The fact that it is is just a social phenomenon. It's a lot easier to be a nationalist (now) than a racist; there's a million reasons for that and it may change. And even from a purely moral point of view, this is true:
Quoting SophistiCat
But given all that, racism is still the deeper moral insult imo in part for the reasons I've outlined above.
Belonging is never up to 'you', it's always a social matter. 'We, the empowered' make the decision to include or exclude you.
We have seen of late that one can be stripped of one's nationality at the whim of the government. As I have mentioned elsewhere, if Hitler says you are a Jew, there will be no argument, no contradiction available by recourse to mere fact. And of course the same goes for race; the one drop rule makes it nothing to do with skin colour or any kind of appearance, and everything to do with social construction.
Here's an iconoclasm: there's nothing personal about identity.
I invite everyone to join the unenlightened ones by allowing that realisation
to bite their bums into non-existence.
Quoting Baden
I think your apologetics are weak, and do not answer the counter-examples in the op.
Quoting unenlightened
In practice the Irish in Britain, and the Italians in America have suffered exactly the same moral insult - if you want to call lynching a moral insult.
Patriotism is openly lauded on this thread as a 'good thing'. But as I have already noted, it unifies by dividing, and actually consists of deliberate planned unfair practices. Buying local is an environmental good, but buying national is operating an informal cartel. One cannot promote one group without demoting another. [s]One cannot have[/s] One ought not have, and it is immoral to have, a global economy run by cartels.
Speaking of which, have y'all noticed how the Western economies have been [s]supported[/s] undermined by the Chinese purchase of government debt. This keeps consumption high because the currency is strong, and also makes Chinese goods cheaper, undermining Western manufacturing. Perhaps when y'all start to notice that you are on the losing end of patriotism, you might be more inclined to see it as problematic.
Like I said: nation states are the default, as such, they are neutral. Fretting about nationalism (insofar as it has to do with nation states) is like fretting that the sun rises in the East.
Quoting Baden
(Also, I'd like to hear your take on the Scottish and Welsh nationalists.)
1) Ideology... Saying, "Yay, USA!!" is really supporting the ideology of the country's (supposed) ideals. Equality under the law, freedoms of speech/assembly/press, multiculturalism (on the left), etc.
2) Cultural identity. Race talk is purely identity through biology. Nationalism is identity with a whole range of cultural factors or set of institutions.
What I find funny, is how nations form. In Europe, it was layers and layers of tribes taking over tribes. Do Germans "really" belong in Germany? Who did their hordes of Germanic tribes steal from? Britain is a mix of celts, anglo-saxon-jute-specific Germanic tribes, viking invadors and local neolithic people that hated all the newcomers probably :).
Then you have South America, US, Australia, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, etc. etc.. What "nation" did they form? Um, look at the history.. Essentially all colonized for the glory of gold. When they couldn't find that, the systematic destruction of the inhabitants, and then the systematic enslavement of other inhabitants to start plantations, or simply the wiping out of natives, bringing families from the home country and starting a new settlement, as if no one lived there. That's your "nation".
So tell me this, who the fuck deserves to live anywhere and call it "their" nation? Any UN definitions are a joke and ad hoc made up too.. Not advocating that or might makes right.
I like how all these rights and injustices are only "fixed" after the fact. It is only once a nation already has their institutions going for a long time, and the injustices are in the rear view mirror that it can be discussed. Their country is legitimate because the imperial wars happened in the past. Thus its justified. All of it is bullshit.
But then isn't it even imperialistic to think of things in terms of "injustices"? That's a very Western idea too. There can be any number of justifications for why one tribe feels that a certain "place" is theirs. Most people didn't just stay in one place and call foul to the aggressors for being "imperialistic". Again, that is Western ideas probably developing around 18th century.
Prior to the Americas/colonizations of 16th century, empires formed from smaller tribes coalescing and forming larger unions.. sometimes breaking apart and being taken over by other tribes who formed their own unions, etc. Colonization's model was different in terms of the tribes already had a sense of union prior to the invasion of other empires and tribes that were not as united. If they were united (Aztec/Incas) they didn't have the technology to withstand, so really it's the asymmetry and the amount of unification already in place in Europe that makes the difference in these cases.
A drunk driver who kills is not a murderer, but that doesn't make drunk driving acceptable. Some instances of nationalism are much less damaging than others, and an impotent yearning for a non-existent nation is likely to be a less damaging one. Likewise the racism of a tramp is of little consequence, but the racism of a high court judge is very harmful. Let's nuancify all round and measure whose identity is more and less divisive than another's. But I haven't done it much thus far, because I haven't established the first principle, that identities are always divisive and to that extent violent both psychologically and socially.
Perhaps we cannot avoid identification completely, perhaps we cannot even avoid the more toxic forms; thus conflict sociology, in which N.I. is the paradigm case where the alignment of identities leads to social conflict - whereas unaligned identities leads to internalised psychological conflict and social peace. To explain a little: the alignment in N.I. is such that political loyalty is strongly correlated with religion, and with class, and with place of residence, and place of work. If the fault-lines of these various identities were not aligned, most people would find themselves united on some issues and opposed on others, and then external conflict would nearly always be damaging to their own cause on another issue. Social peace and compromise would result.
So... Irish nationalists = drunks and tramps? Correction, we all are. :lol:
I haven't intended to make a positive case for nationalism, only to point to some moral distinctions I see. Which is why I'd happily shake Nicola Sturgeon's hand, whereas even a tramp racist wouldn't get the time of day from me.
Having said that, your line concerning identities I am largely onboard with even though I don't see a realistic way out of that any more than I do of violence itself.
Only if we are talking about social belonging, and even then it's true only of some groups, some of the time, but not all groups all of the time.
But I was talking about belonging to a category, not necessarily a social one. One can be a thief by virtue of stealing. One can be a kind person by virtue of having a kind character. (Now, some will argue that what character you have is not really up to you, but that's a different argument that I won't address here.) These are examples where being who you are is up to your decisions or your character. Appraising people by placing them in such categories is fairly uncontroversial. To complete the pattern, contrast that with categories that have little or no dependence on one's decisions or character, and you will find most of the things that you and I hold as unsuitable for judging a person's worth in that list: race, ethnicity, gender, age, health, disability, sexual orientation - and yes, nationality.
Well strictly, one can only steal something if 'we' agree it belongs to someone else. 'We' have very detailed rules about this.
Quoting SophistiCat
Quoting SophistiCat
Sure. But Identity is not simply being the person you are, though, it is making the identification of who you are. "I am one of the kind ones, not one of the unkind ones" is the speech act of claiming the identity of kind person. "Sophisticat is one of the kind ones." is the speech act of assigning the kind person identity. This is what I mean by saying it is always social. Identity is always reflexive and relational; always a status claimed and/or assigned, and contested and/or uncontested. That I am 5ft. 10ins. is a fact about me and an identity I have previously claimed, and it has been assigned me by the passport authority. I would be the same height even if no measurement had ever been made, but I would have no height identity.
Is it easily acceptable?
It's actually telling that people who are critical to the idea of the nation (or nation state) being this common collective entity for us and when referring to people who uphold their country and it's people, talk about nationalism and nationalists and avoid the term patriotism. And of course the better term for the nationalism they refer to would be classic chauvinism or jingoism.
Loving your country, culture and people doesn't mean you would have to hate other countries and their people and cultures. Yet likely all those who do hate say that they are just patriots. And that's the problem.
It doesn't of course. No more does loving a white woman prevent one from loving a black woman. But if you will consider what is being said about identification as distinct from being and doing, and if you will take a look at the history of nations and their conflicts, that will save me from repeating myself, and allow us a sensible discussion.
Race has had a far bigger importance in the Americas.
Nationalism becomes a thing when theres dispute over territory and the territory matters to people.
Typically it becomes an issue when the nation state is formed. There are ample examples from history about this.
Then one basically has to create a national identity. This is the time when the elite, be it political, economic or cultural, typically feel that nationalism is important. If the country has huge problems, poor economy, severe wealth inequality, widespread unemployment, lack of social cohesion, then that nationalism can morph into something extremely ugly. Once the identity of the nation state is widespread among the people, the idea falls into the category of things taken for granted and viewed only negatively.
Far too many academic people think that as a national identity is created/invented, this means that it is totally artificial and easily replaceable and malleable. I don't think this is the case: the collective history of a group of people isn't something artificial and fabricated by an elite.
And of course, one has to remember what happens when people do not feel they have a common identity or the "people" ought not to have an independent "homeland": then one result is that the group assimilates to another and the culture dies.