Natioanlism

reasa · February 2005

<div class="IPBDescription">Too much?</div> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Feb 24 2005, 10:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I don't like patriotism because it leads too easily to nationalism (which is a big problem right now).

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Nationalism was a problem right before WWI started...I don't see how it's a problem now. If anything I see a lack of nationalism in the world.

Of course if you have any examples of nationalism being a problem in this day and age, I would love to see them.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Feb 24 2005, 11:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Feb 24 2005, 10:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I don't like patriotism because it leads too easily to nationalism (which is a big problem right now).

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Nationalism was a problem right before WWI started...I don't see how it's a problem now. If anything I see a lack of nationalism in the world.

Of course if you have any examples of nationalism being a problem in this day and age, I would love to see them. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Feb 24 2005, 11:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> You don't think many Americans are nationalistic, nowadays?

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
No.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There are way too many people with absolute confidence in Bush, American foreign policy, the American military, etc. I don't have a problem if you support these things, but way too many people are ignorantly putting their full support behind these things without thought. The black and white world of view of Bush, is one example.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

For every supporter of Bush there is someone who hates him. And for everyone who has a political opinion ether way there are twice as many people who don't care at all. America is no where near nationalism; we are barely even a united nation after this election. I'm sorry but I see real nationalism as the entire nation being united, as much as is possible, to complete a task. America could be said to have been a nationalistic country during WWII. Unfortunately we don't have anywhere near that kind of unity and purpose of mind right now.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>He thinks that there are only two ways in the world, the right way (America's way), and the wrong way (the terrorist's way), which is not true.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

In your opinion.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Feb 24 2005, 11:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>He thinks that there are only two ways in the world, the right way (America's way), and the wrong way (the terrorist's way), which is not true.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

In your opinion. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Bush:<a href='http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/' target='_blank'>You are either with us or against us</a>

"President Bush said Tuesday that there was no room for neutrality in the war against terrorism."

I'm in the middle of this story, and this is what I've found so far:
<a href='http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=21#' target='_blank'>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=21#</a>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As befits a nation of immigrants, American nationalism is defined not by notions of ethnic superiority, but by a belief in the supremacy of U.S. democratic ideals. This disdain for Old World nationalism creates a dual paradox in the American psyche: <b>First, although the United States is highly nationalistic, it doesn’t see itself as such. </b>Second, despite this nationalistic fervor, U.S. policymakers generally fail to appreciate the power of nationalism abroad.
...
Polling organizations routinely find that Americans display the highest degree of national pride among Western democracies. Researchers at the University of Chicago reported that before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, 90 percent of the Americans surveyed agreed with the statement “I would rather be a citizen of America than of any other country in the world”; 38 percent endorsed the view that “The world would be a better place if people from other countries were more like the Americans.” (After the terrorist attacks, 97 and 49 percent, respectively, agreed with the same statements.) The World Values Survey reported similar results, with more than 70 percent of those surveyed declaring themselves “very proud” to be Americans. By comparison, the same survey revealed that less than half of the people in other Western democracies—including France, Italy, Denmark, Great Britain, and the Netherlands—felt “very proud” of their nationalities.

Americans not only take enormous pride in their values but <b>also regard them as universally applicable</b>. According to the Pew Global Attitudes survey, 79 percent of the Americans polled agreed that “It’s good that American ideas and customs are spreading around the world”; 70 percent said they “like American ideas about democracy.” These views, however, are not widely shared, even in Western Europe, another bastion of liberalism and democracy. Pew found that, among the Western European countries surveyed, less than 40 percent endorse the spread of American ideas and customs, and less than 50 percent like American ideas about democracy.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Here's an interesting thing about that article I cited above. American nationalism comes from a pride in American values, rather than ethnicity, religion, language, or geography, as has been the case with many other nationalistic countries. This allows America to export the source of its nationalism to other countries, something it has done for half a century.

I don't know of any more nationalist action, than forcing other countries to embrace the source of your national pride. Whether you think this is wrong or not, it is still true. We are exporting democracy to Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Russia, etc. All these regions are democratic, were unsuccessfuly forced to become democratic, or are becoming democratic, through the export of American values. That's one of the major reasons why terrorism is a problem. We are forcing our values and culture on countries that haven't ever experienced it. Thus, nationalists and radicals from those countries (e.g. Bin Laden), become incensed with hatred towards us.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Dear god, I accidentally hit Post to soon, please excuse the **** poor spelling, I normally proof read all my posts, but due to said accident, I now look like a moron. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

I have got to get to bed now, but I think this is a good topic, I'll see what’s here in the morning.

CommunistWithAGun · February 2005

I think nationalism is wrong because it leads to people more willing to sacrifice things for a cause, be it right or wrong. I don't hate any group of people, I only hate people who do things without thoughly thinking about it. Reasa is obviously conservative but I welcome his posts because its nice to see well written rebuttals from "The other side" Personally I don't have one side, I just do what I feel is right.

About this, I think nationalism is a slow effect poison, look at how willing germany was to accept hitler, and he just played upon the nationalism he created. While evil, Hitler was very good with propaganda and utilizing the tools forged through that nationalism.

Bottom line for me:

Love your country if you want but don't be in love with it.

Snidely · February 2005

I don't think there's anything wrong with nationalism or patriotism per se. I don't approve of jingoism; is that what we mean by "nationalism" here?

I disagree that nationalism was the cause of the Nazis' rise to power. It was a combination of appeal-to-all philosophy and luck with the economy. I believe in 1929, the NSDAP recieved their <i>lowest </i>amount of votes in an election, despite Hitler and co.'s best efforts. It was the Depression that boosted them higher, as people turn to radical solutions when the economy hits the fan (the communist party also got a large share of the votes). Hitler was surprised as anyone. From there, it was politics complemented by aggression.

I'm not saying that nationalism didn't play any part in it. That would be untrue; the "stab in the back" myth was prevalent ever since the end of WWI. However, it was not the primary cause of Hitler's rise to prominence.

-----

I see no problem with loving your country. I love England, and if an enemy did want to invade her soil, and the situation were desperate, I would sign up to defend her (believe it or not). It's when you believe your country is better than everyone else's that problems arise, as far as I'm concerned; the same way there's nothing wrong with Socialism or Christianity until people use it as an excuse to belittle others. I won't deny that England does not have a perfect record.

Fat_Man_Little_Coat · February 2005

Nationalism has a tendency to lead to moral relativism or absolutism which is pretty much the cause of most wars in the world (and much of the injustice in my opinion)

So yes, I think nationalism is pretty bad.

If you could be nationlistic and also a pragmatist then by all means go for it, but I don't really think thats the case since its pretty much an emotion based idealogy vs. logic based.

Legat · February 2005

please excuse the bad spelling. im writing this in my break and don't have time to spellcheck, so bear with me.
Im going over it again if I got some time, but don't count on it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

QUOTE (theclam @ Feb 24 2005, 11:16 PM)
You don't think many Americans are nationalistic, nowadays?

No.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It is a difficult thing to define I guess, which leads to very different personal impressions about the term "nationalism".
Maybe some of you somehow compare "nationalists" with nazis.
Being a nationalist however does not automatically mean being a facist, too.
The idea of nationalism was established in the late medeival period, when slowly the idea of an abstact entity like a "nation" began to emerge in the head of the people. It went alongside with the development of wealth among comoners and the decline of feudal power. In earlier times, one mighty ruler conquered a land and formed a kingdom. In case the kingdom survived his creator, and his heir was able to keep the new kingdom together, then there was a dynasty and a new "nation". however, the commoners did not follow the idea of their "motherland", but they followed the man that inherited the right to rule.
With the growníng power of the towns and their wealthy citizens, the world changed.

So basically, a nationalist is one that is greatly submitted to the idea of his nation and basically what you would call a patriot nowadays.
The term "nationalist" has been somewhat spoiled because of the fact that nationalistic sentiments might easily be mixed up with xhenophobic and facistoid tendencies.

The dangers in overly nationistic behavior, or too easily adapted patriotism still remain, as they do before WW1 and WW2.
They tend to make the people more willing to submit into conflicts, as strategic interests are covered in more or less realistic threat or otherwise decalred nesessities to do war.

This behavior is typical and recreational, and the methods are similar every time. Just the terminology is changed to fit the taste of the audience.
E.g, after WW2, the Pentagon initiated soziological researches about how and in what form facism would or could manifest in the US society. The conclusion of this was, that it would most likely take the shape of "super-patriotism".

If you take it down to the core, nationalism does, when tending towards facism, always perform the same tasks.
<b>
A.):it does give a sense of identity for those people that have a lack of it. It apeals to the masses, as it unites them to a whole being, where everybody has his place and purpose and is equal to others.
</b>
Examples:

Stalinist communism: The Idea of communism is taken to a point, where the small man is becoming a hero, whether he is ugly, pretty, strong or weak illiterate or not, he is part of a greater being.

National sozialism:
The Nazis did pretty much the same. The word "sozialism" is not in there for nothing. The worker was elaborated to the status of a hero that upholds the nation. The working class was credited for being the nations backbone.

Islamic radicalsits:
They pray the (twisted) word of god and call for the faithful to unite and defend the holy ground touched by the prophet. They give the poorer or oppressed part of the arab population something to count on, something to resort to.
Arabic migrates tend to form in more or less official mosques and seperate themselves from the people surrounding them. They form parallel societies and prevent integration. often there are radical elements and teachings involved.

<b>
B.): It radicalises the population and directs their anger or fear upon an opponent of strategic interest.
</b>
To stick with the examples above:

Stalinist communism:
The great enemy(after the defeat of Nazi-Germany) was quickly found. It was the West and the imperialistc market which floods the world with decadence and war. They succeded in telling their people that they were creating a nation of freedom, an utopia for everybody to live in. We know what happened in reality.

National sozialism:
The Nazis were not picky about their targets. The Treaty of Versaille was the biggest button. Yet it was justificable, since it was absolutely unjustified and crippled germany in the long run.
The democrats were the next one, as the were unable to stop the deterioration of the
Germanys economy and sozial life. the Weimar republic was drowning in poverty, unemployment and civil unrest. Riots were daily buisness in many Urban centers.
The Jews, as they were behind of it all ....<b>(Note: that is NOT my opinion. )</b>
The communists, the polish .... the list is long.

Islamic radicalsits:
They have a primary and a secondary target. The primary target , in my opinion, is NOT the west and its freedom/ religion.
Ther primary targets are regimes and foreing nations considered oppressive agains their believe and their way of life.
Those regimes are the saudi monarchy, saddams former dictatorship, the turkish government, the philipine government etc...
The oppressive countrys would be nations like Israel or Russia, as they are engaged
in conflict with muslims.

Their secondary target is mainly the US, because they either support, or have suported these enemies at some point in the past.

In the current stage of the conflict, the islamic facists have focused their effords on the US (as it seems) most likely because they assume that most of their primary enemies will fall easily once US support ends. (which is not nessesarily true as seen in case of Saddam)

I base my opinion on a vide variety of experts from many different cultural backrounds. As they are all printed sources, I will link to 2 sources brought up by
Euoplocephalus in <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=86116&st=60' target='_blank'>another thread</a> a few weeks before:

<a href='http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1129/dailyUpdate.html' target='_blank'>http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1129/dailyUpdate.html</a>

<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/</a>

<b>C.): They militarize the population.
This is achieved by emphasising the heroism of the armed forces and the cause they are fighting for. The ideals transported by the nationalist/facist regime are brought en par with the strategic targets. </b>

Stalinist communism: The forces defend the people agains the harmful western influence (the anti-imperialistic defensive barrier, a.k.a "the Iron curtain") Under the promise of ensuring the communistic utopia for all people, and to expand the influence of the sovjet regime, they annexed smaller soverein nations, influenced their political landscape, and even gunned down independece movements.

National sozialism: the People were sworn in to a point where offensive warfare was tolerated. This is done by stressing the territorial claims of the "german race" in the east and the reviving the greatness of the ancient german tribes which shaped the political boders of europe during the dark age following the fall of the Roman Empire.
The people needs room to live in the east, and it is rightfully theirs to claim. Then, by clever desception, (so clever that everybody in the world knew it was bogus exept the people of nazi-germany completely brainwashed by propaganda) the weakly polish neigbors are declared a threat and the stone is rolling.

Soviets and Nazis alike did militarize their population and made their armies something to admire greatly. Both countries people did join armies that defended freedom and defended their homes and families against the multitude of enemies lurking on the borders. War is nesseary. Either ensure the survival of the German race or to preserve the communist utopia for all people.
Under this premise both regimes conquered smaller sovereing nations, influenced and puppeteered their politics and subdued secession movements.

Islamic radicalsits:
the idea of defending religion (and homeland) against the intruders is used to bring people to a point where they strap on the dynamite belt. Monetary aid for the familiy left behind is also more often that not a good enough reason.
Many suicide bombers are poor to the last, recruited in the refugee camps and without any perspective but being barely left enough to survive. They have a lot of hate for themselves, as they are unable to improve their own standing, and for those they deem responible for their misery.
<b>
D.): It deteriorates intellectual thinking and leads towards more streamlined and "authorised" media outlet.
This is done by simply limiting the influx of foreign media and isolating the people from other sources as the official ones. It is not nessesarily media censorship per se, as a countries own media agencies, even the "independent" ones (independent in the context of "not owned by Government") tend to take on the general line, since they are selling their program to an audience and thus have to concur their audiences taste. If the audience wants to be pround of their military, the media will be too. There are of course, allways opposing voices. Rule of thumb is, the more facist the regime is, the less tolerant they are toward these.</b>

Back to our examples.

Both Nazis and Soviets did either internate or exile their intellectual elite in favor for the proletaric and equalized sozitey. The only intellectuals tolerated had to be in line with the doctrine and were nessesary to conduct research and keep the nation running. Those were either memebers of "the inner circle" or closely monitored...
Intellectual property like books, art and news are censored and either destroyed or dicredited. the media outlet was completely streamlined and had to match the norms.

In the case of the islamists, this has taken the most tragic form mossible as it is carried to an extreme. Les and less scientific literature is translated into arabic. Intellectuals are exiling because of lack of possiblities to conduct research. The long term influence of foreing powers in arabic affairs and the catastrophic damadge is has caused in some cases has led to rection of western influence. THe strong emphasis on religion is adirect result of this. Arabs in foreing countries displying symbols of arab culture (like the womens clothing) is a sign of this extremely reactionary behavior (is that the correct term?)
It eventually will harm their own progress, which will render the "islamic revolution" ,if you want to call it like this, even less likely to survive for a prolonged period than the communist soviets (in case it ever succeeds in the first place).
<b>
<span style='color:orange'>E </span>.): <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><i>(no, YOU did not miss it, theclam <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /> )</i></span>
Isolating political opposition:
this is done by dicrediting the oppositions credibility by accusing him of missing patriotism or even treachury and/or harmful political agendas.</b>

I case of the Nazis, it was either the zeonistic world conspiracy and the greedy Jews strangeling the german race via their puppets, like the French ( interesting, since the French were quite anti-semitic in those days themselves ...) etc.. or the bolshewistic revolutionists that will lead to the downfall of western/arian culture. (also very interesting, since the political and economical principles were very similar, both heavily tending towards central planning. A principle, quite successful in case of Japan and China by the way ....)

The soviets had it basically the other way round.
You really simply have to change the names by which someone calls his political opponent and you can apply it to to basically every existing nation/ conflict.

Edit: just doing some typo corrections when I have the time to get a glimpse on it.
Again, excuse the horrible spelling, I am short on time.

theclam · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fat Man Little Coat @ Feb 27 2005, 07:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Nationalism has a tendency to lead to moral relativism or absolutism which is pretty much the cause of most wars in the world (and much of the injustice in my opinion)

So yes, I think nationalism is pretty bad.

If you could be nationlistic and also a pragmatist then by all means go for it, but I don't really think thats the case since its pretty much an emotion based idealogy vs. logic based.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Moral relativism leads to war?<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' />

Snidely · February 2005

I would say that war tends to beget nationalism, but I'm not sure it's ever been the other way around. An example would help loads.

theclam · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Feb 28 2005, 12:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I would say that war tends to beget nationalism, but I'm not sure it's ever been the other way around. An example would help loads.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
German and Italian nationalism beget WW2. Nationalism on all sides beget WW1.

Snidely · February 2005

I'd put WW2 down to: Hitler's greed for lebensraum in the east, inconsistant politics on France and Britain's behalf, and the weakness of the League of Nations.

WW1 was due to a dangerous "balance of power" situation between the powers in Europe (and the Russian Tsar) which proved ultimately untenable. The Kaiser's "rock the boat" politics didn't help.

That's how I see it, anyway. I may be mistaking people's interpretations of "nationalism".

Fat_Man_Little_Coat · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Feb 28 2005, 12:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fat Man Little Coat @ Feb 27 2005, 07:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Nationalism has a tendency to lead to moral relativism or absolutism which is pretty much the cause of most wars in the world (and much of the injustice in my opinion)

So yes, I think nationalism is pretty bad.

If you could be nationlistic and also a pragmatist then by all means go for it, but I don't really think thats the case since its pretty much an emotion based idealogy vs. logic based. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Moral relativism leads to war?<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' />  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
No no, it is the cause of most wars.

And its not just moral relativism but absolutism as well.

With moral relativism you can basically justify anything you do (regardless of logic) on the idea that good is relative.

theclam · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Feb 28 2005, 12:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'd put WW2 down to: Hitler's greed for lebensraum in the east, inconsistant politics on France and Britain's behalf, and the weakness of the League of Nations.

WW1 was due to a dangerous "balance of power" situation between the powers in Europe (and the Russian Tsar) which proved ultimately untenable. The Kaiser's "rock the boat" politics didn't help.

That's how I see it, anyway. I may be mistaking people's interpretations of "nationalism".  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Hitler was democratically elected (not the fairest election, but he was elected). If the german people didn't support him so much, then they wouldn't have gone to war with such fervor.

I would say that almost all wars are fought over nationalism (or at least have nationalism as a cause). Nations go to war to protect their national sovereignty or to gain more power for their nation. Even as far back as Roman times, when the Romans expanded their territory because of nationalistic greed.

theclam · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fat Man Little Coat @ Feb 28 2005, 08:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Feb 28 2005, 12:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fat Man Little Coat @ Feb 27 2005, 07:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Nationalism has a tendency to lead to moral relativism or absolutism which is pretty much the cause of most wars in the world (and much of the injustice in my opinion)

So yes, I think nationalism is pretty bad.

If you could be nationlistic and also a pragmatist then by all means go for it, but I don't really think thats the case since its pretty much an emotion based idealogy vs. logic based. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Moral relativism leads to war?<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
No no, it is the cause of most wars.

And its not just moral relativism but absolutism as well.

With moral relativism you can basically justify anything you do (regardless of logic) on the idea that good is relative.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I don't think you've got the right definition of moral relativism.

Extreme moral relativism means that everyone's ideals are good. Thus, you don't go to war, because your neighbor's political/religious/social systems are good. If your ideals aren't any better than anyone else's ideals, then the only reason to go to war is to defend yourself (in which case you wouldn't have initiated the war).

Hippies are a good example of extreme moral relativism. When was the last time you heard a hippy argue in favor of war?

It's moral absolutism that leads to wars. If your ideals are the only good ones, then everyone else should be converted to your ideals.

SkulkBait · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Feb 28 2005, 09:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I don't think you've got the right definition of moral relativism.

Extreme moral relativism means that everyone's ideals are good.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Thats just rediculous, does anybody actually think that? You're extremely confused here. Moral reletivism is the idea that one can view morality from someone elses position and understand it. For instance, (and not to get off topic here) I can understand why Christians want to push their religion on everybody, because they think that it is the only way to save our souls. This is morally wrong in my view, but I can understand it from their point of view. Does this mean that I have to accept that Christian evangalism is good? Not at all.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Thus, you don't go to war, because your neighbor's political/religious/social systems are good. If your ideals aren't any better than anyone else's ideals, then the only reason to go to war is to defend yourself (in which case you wouldn't have initiated the war).

Hippies are a good example of extreme moral relativism. When was the last time you heard a hippy argue in favor of war?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
As I understand it, and I could be wrong, the "hippies" argue against war for a morally absolutist reason: Death and destruction are bad. War causes death and destruction undoubtedly, typically more death and destruction than would be caused without it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It's moral absolutism that leads to wars. If your ideals are the only good ones, then everyone else should be converted to your ideals.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
That is often a cause for war, yes.

theclam · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Feb 28 2005, 05:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> National sozialism:
The Nazis did pretty much the same. The word "sozialism" is not in there for nothing. The worker was elaborated to the status of a hero that upholds the nation. The working class was credited for being the nations backbone.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
National Socialism isn't well named. It wasn't socialist at all. The rhetoric may have glorified the average German, but the policy did not, at all.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A.):it does give a sense of identity for those people that have a lack of it. It apeals to the masses, as it unites them to a whole being, where everybody has his place and purpose and is equal to others.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
See: America. Look at all the flags, these days. The masses are united behind the American flag (although they don't agree on many policy issues, besides stopping terrorism). America loves equality (America is conservative, meaning they lean towards equal opportunity more than equal outcomes; I'll explain this further if you want).
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>B.): It radicalises the population and directs their anger or fear upon an opponent of strategic interest.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
See: America. Americans have focues their anger and fear upon terrorists. Note that Americans don't appear to be united, because they disagree on the way to accomplish this goal, but they do agree almost unanimously on the goal, itself.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>C.): They militarize the population.
This is achieved by emphasising the heroism of the armed forces and the cause they are fighting for. The ideals transported by the nationalist/facist regime are brought en par with the strategic targets. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
See: America. Notice how the average soldier is glorified in the eyes of America. Only extreme leftists are against the American fightingman. We haven't militarized fully, at all (Bush doesn't wear a military uniform), but we have many militaristic traits.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>D.): It deteriorates intellectual thinking and leads towards more streamlined and "authorised" media outlet.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
See: America. CNN, Fox News, and network news are all very pro-establishment, at the moment. So are mainstream newspapers. Among mainstream news sources, I'd say that only mainstream liberal news (Air America, although very liberal, they are still mainstream) isn't pro-establishment. They aren't anti-establishment, although they are anti-Bush.

Intellectualism is dying, in my opinion. Intellectuals and Academics are painted as radicals by conservatives, but they aren't embraced at all by Democrats. The Bush administration is sacrificing scientific truth for ideology. Creationism is encroaching upon American schools. Americans are in the mist of another "Great Awakening" (i.e. they are extremely religious). Religion is by definition, a rejection of rationality, which is the basis for intellectualism. At the very best, we aren't pro- or anti-intellectualism. At the very worst, we are in the process of rejecting intellectualism completely.

One interesting thing to note (although somewhat OT) is intellectualism in North Korea. In Soviet Russia, intellectuals were attacked by the government. In North Korea, the brush (symbolizing intellectuals) is added to the traditional hammer and sickle (symbolizing industrial and agricultural workers, respectively).

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>F.): Isolating political opposition:
this is done by dicrediting the oppositions credibility by accusing him of missing patriotism or even treachury and/or harmful political agendas.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
See: America (did I miss E?). This has been attempted by both the American right and the American left against each other (not successful in persuading moderates yet, which is important for nationalism). This has been successfully carried out by the government against radical Islamists (they aren't universally terrorists, I might add); see the innocent before proven guilty acts by the Bush administration against suspected terrorists (detaining people for years without access to a lawyer), with no outcry, except by liberals. Discrimination against Muslims (especially by conservatives) is a large problem at the moment, although it has been rejected by many conservative pundits (not Ann Coulter, who well respected by many conservatives).

Outside of America, this has been carried out against Iran (which has an extremely active democratic uprising among young Iranians), Afghanistan, Syria, and North Korea (although not Pakistan, which has an oppressive dictatorship, but is still our friend), although not against their people (only their government).

theclam · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Thats just rediculous, does anybody actually think that? You're extremely confused here. Moral reletivism is the idea that one can view morality from someone elses position and understand it. For instance, (and not to get off topic here) I can understand why Christians want to push their religion on everybody, because they think that it is the only way to save our souls. This is morally wrong in my view, but I can understand it from their point of view. Does this mean that I have to accept that Christian evangalism is good? Not at all.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I may have misspoken. Moral Relativism doesn't necessarily mean that everyone's ideals are good. It means that everyone is entitled to their own ideals, which shouldn't be violated by anyone.

This still means that Moral Relativists are still opposed to offensive wars, because it would violate the ideals of others.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As I understand it, and I could be wrong, the "hippies" argue against war for a morally absolutist reason: Death and destruction are bad. War causes death and destruction undoubtedly, typically more death and destruction than would be caused without it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You're right, bad example. I wasn't alive during the hippy years, so I don't have intimate knowledge of their ideology, only what has passed down through popular culture.

meep · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>National Socialism isn't well named. It wasn't socialist at all. The rhetoric may have glorified the average German, but the policy did not, at all.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Maybe you'd better look up <a href='http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=socialism' target='_blank'>the definition of socialism</a>. The central concept of socialism is central ownership of production. WWII Germany was a completely mechanized state organized to produce war-time goods, thus it was socialist (note: the same argument can be aptly applied to FDR's United States). National Socialism is a very extreme version of socialism and idealistically opposed to Communism.

Legat · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Feb 28 2005, 12:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'd put WW2 down to: Hitler's greed for lebensraum in the east, inconsistant politics on France and Britain's behalf, and the weakness of the League of Nations.

WW1 was due to a dangerous "balance of power" situation between the powers in Europe (and the Russian Tsar) which proved ultimately untenable. The Kaiser's "rock the boat" politics didn't help.

That's how I see it, anyway. I may be mistaking people's interpretations of "nationalism".  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
That are very incomplete prospects of the political situation in those times.

You should read more deeper literature regading both world wars to gain an understanding of the events that lead to those calamities.

Snidely · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Mar 1 2005, 12:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Feb 28 2005, 12:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'd put WW2 down to: Hitler's greed for lebensraum in the east, inconsistant politics on France and Britain's behalf, and the weakness of the League of Nations.

WW1 was due to a dangerous "balance of power" situation between the powers in Europe (and the Russian Tsar) which proved ultimately untenable. The Kaiser's "rock the boat" politics didn't help.

That's how I see it, anyway. I may be mistaking people's interpretations of "nationalism". </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
That are very incomplete prospects of the political situation in those times.

You should read more deeper literature regading both world wars to gain an understanding of the events that lead to those calamities.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
My post was not meant to be taken as a breathtakingly indepth review of the world wars, just a quick synopsis.

theclam · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (meep @ Mar 1 2005, 05:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>National Socialism isn't well named. It wasn't socialist at all. The rhetoric may have glorified the average German, but the policy did not, at all.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Maybe you'd better look up <a href='http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=socialism' target='_blank'>the definition of socialism</a>. The central concept of socialism is central ownership of production. WWII Germany was a completely mechanized state organized to produce war-time goods, thus it was socialist (note: the same argument can be aptly applied to FDR's United States). National Socialism is a very extreme version of socialism and idealistically opposed to Communism.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I would argue that nazi economics were different that socialism. Socialism argues for the popular control over the economy. This is often accomplished by having the state control the economy, which is the only similarity between nazism and socialism. However, Nazis embraced corporatism and market control over prices, which socialists really don't like (although moderate socialists like a certain amount of market forces). Socialism likes universal equality. Nazism likes a moderate amount of equality between an aristocracy (Aryans) who rule over everyone else.

The similarities between socialism and nazism were the result of the two crises during Nazi rule. The first is the global depression, which caused most governments to exert greater control over their economy. The second is World War II, which caused most governments to engage in "total war" (FDR doesn't have anything to do with this, even Reagan would have done the same thing). I would say that the Nazi economic ideology isn't socialist. These two crises forced the Nazis to embrace state control over much of the economy, which caused them to seem socialist.

<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism</a>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The German National Socialists (Nazis) claimed to be "socialist," but many scholars generally argue that the term "socialism" in "national socialism" did not meaningfully extend beyond propaganda purposes, and that, in practice, the Nazis allowed (friendly) capitalists to thrive while liquidating socialists everywhere else (including from within their own party in the Night of the Long Knives). Unlike 'national socialists,' many socialists who considers themsleves nationalist reject the racialist theories and totalitarianism of the Nazis. (see:Socialism and Nazism).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Natioanlism

Comments