NationStates Jolt Archive

!!!

ya, it worked for rome, napoleon and the british empire

*waves American flags all over thread*

Nationalism distracts us from the evils of government and capitalism. It also imposes a national culture on people who do not share it.

*waves American flags all over thread*

*Runs after with a chainsaw.*

look at what strong nationalism did to the germans in ww2

Nationalism is just another passing fad of scale.

First, there were tribes and clans. Then there were chiefdoms and pre-state societies. Then there were city-states, and then empires. We got up to nation-size and stopped arbitrarily, because nations works so far. But the rise of internationalism isn't far off, if it's not in fact here already. Communication and transportation advances turned city states into empires, and it will turn nations into internations eventually. Assuming general progress of what we call civilization continues, anyway.

And for all those steps, from families to clans to kingdoms, there was the equivalent of nationalism; honor for your level of organized political scale; loyalty for those above you and a sense of union beyond boundaries. The bar just keeps raising.

Anarchist take down!

Your precious state doesn't love you boys and girls, you're like baying dogs before your masters, all they do is throw you a bone occasionally to placate you from thinking.

I'm British, and let me tell you the British empire was nothing to be proud of, our wonderful "Britain has a divine right to rule" ideas, along with everyone else who thought along similar lines has lead to the terrible state of Africa and the like today. The Roman empire was built on blood, however much they helped out nations they subdued. (And god knows I'm glad that they introduced plumbing, aquaducts and doormice into britain!) And why is Napoleon's empire a good thing exactly?

Fact of the matter is, ultimately the worship of an abstract concept such as the state eventually leads towards glorifying it above its constituent parts, which is fascism.

Now thats some tight reasoning! I defy any of you to argue with that!

The love of one country leads to the hate of another.

I'm British, and let me tell you the British empire was nothing to be proud of, our wonderful "Britain has a divine right to rule" ideas, along with everyone else who thought along similar lines has lead to the terrible state of Africa and the like today.

I like to think that the British Empire was a worthwhile institution, solely because it kept the French Empire in check.

I like to think that the British Empire was a worthwhile institution, solely because it kept the French Empire in check.

Heh, yeah this country very nearly became french. The english, in part, used the threat of them annexing the place to get the Moari to sign the treaty of Waitangi.

*waves American flags all over thread*
*fires up the flamethrower*

Anarchist take down!

Your precious state doesn't love you boys and girls, you're like baying dogs before your masters, all they do is throw you a bone occasionally to placate you from thinking.

I'm British, and let me tell you the British empire was nothing to be proud of, our wonderful "Britain has a divine right to rule" ideas, along with everyone else who thought along similar lines has lead to the terrible state of Africa and the like today. The Roman empire was built on blood, however much they helped out nations they subdued. (And god knows I'm glad that they introduced plumbing, aquaducts and doormice into britain!) And why is Napoleon's empire a good thing exactly?

Fact of the matter is, ultimately the worship of an abstract concept such as the state eventually leads towards glorifying it above its constituent parts, which is fascism.

Now thats some tight reasoning! I defy any of you to argue with that!

I know my nation doesn't "Love" me I am to small to matter compared to a large and powerful nation such as my own of America. What nation isn't built on blood? Its horrible yes but it is our past and probebly our future. I am not forced to love my Country it is of my own free will. I am aware of the world outside of my country I have seen it from many points of view and i can distinguish propoganda from facts. There is nothing wrong with taking pride in your homeland one way or another I have had this pride for it all my life and have seen no reason not to be.

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what your country is doing for you.-Me

Anarchist take down!

I'm British, and let me tell you the British empire was nothing to be proud of,

3 quarters of the world or something, wasn't it? Seems like enough to be pround of to me :)

has lead to the terrible state of Africa and the like today.

Just out of interest, what do you know of pre-colonial African history?

I'm British, and let me tell you the British empire was nothing to be proud of, our wonderful "Britain has a divine right to rule" ideas, along with everyone else who thought along similar lines has lead to the terrible state of Africa and the like today. The Roman empire was built on blood, however much they helped out nations they subdued. (And god knows I'm glad that they introduced plumbing, aquaducts and doormice into britain!) And why is Napoleon's empire a good thing exactly?



Seems like enough to be pround of to me
Yeah, i'm from britain, and i'm proud of the fact we had the largest empire on the planet, covering nearly 1/3 (I think, feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, anyone) of the world, and it seems to me that all the problems in Africa started after all the countries were made independent (same as in the middle east)

Although i'll admit that Napoleon was quite cheeky with the invading of most (all?) of France's neighbors

The love of one country leads to the hate of another.

While there is some truth to this, I don't think this always the case. One can love one's country, yet still not be blinded to its faults. It's only when one's love of country becomes more important than one's love of one's fellow human beings that it crosses the line into idolatry.

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what your country is doing for you.-Me

Or doing to you!

3 quarters of the world or something, wasn't it? Seems like enough to be pround of to me :)

How much of the world they ruled wouldn't seem as important as HOW they ruled it.

3 quarters of the world or something, wasn't it? Seems like enough to be pround of to me :)

Yep, and the massacre of 100's of Indians peacefully protesting in Delhi - shot down by thier own countrymen brings tears of patriotism to my eyes - what a glorius chapter in British history.

Moron.

Yeah, i'm from britain, and i'm proud of the fact we had the largest empire on the planet, covering nearly 1/3 (I think, feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, anyone) of the world, and it seems to me that all the problems in Africa started after all the countries were made independent (same as in the middle east)

Although i'll admit that Napoleon was quite cheeky with the invading of most (all?) of France's neighbors

Let me get this straight: Britain invades a host of countries and builds an empire and this is something to be proud of, but when France invades its neighbors in an attempt to build an empire, this is cheeky?

To have my knowledge of pre-colonial Africa refuted is laughable. They were self sufficient before we arrived. We raped their lands of anything of value, treated them as slaves and left them impoverished. Hell, we sold lots of them to America using the slave triangle system. Any tinpot dictatorship can rule the world, thats nothing special, nothing to be proud of

One does not choose where one is born, ergo it is foolish to be proud of the place. Why not be proud of the hospital you were born in, you had as much say in the matter as in what country you were born into.

Your state just oppresses you.

And now the British Empire is starting up again with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a machine fuelled by oil and the blood of foreigners

Nationalism is the wayThe way to what, WWIII?

To have my knowledge of pre-colonial Africa refuted is laughable. They were self sufficient before we arrived. We raped their lands of anything of value, treated them as slaves and left them impoverished.
Take a look at the most successful nations in Africa - places like South Africa (recently straightened out) and Egypt - they were formerly controlled by the British Empire to some degree. Yeah, we screwed the continent up but we left on much better terms than the French etc did.

But to pretend it was all peace, love and sustainable hunting before we arrived is bollocks: Most of the wars seem to be racially motivated.

Hell, we sold lots of them to America using the slave triangle system. Any tinpot dictatorship can rule the world, thats nothing special, nothing to be proud of.
The British Empire was the first to ban slaves, and the trade was carried out by traders, not military vessels. Hell, quite a few Africans were sold in to slavery by other Africans.

One does not choose where one is born, ergo it is foolish to be proud of the place. Why not be proud of the hospital you were born in, you had as much say in the matter as in what country you were born into.
To be proud of a map reference is absurd, I agree, but I'm proud of what my country (Britain) now symbolises, a multicultural society with good freedom of speech and the first nation in the world to have a parlimentary democracy.

Your state just oppresses you.
The State has fed, clothed, educated and treated me from an early age: It gave me my freedom.

And now the British Empire is starting up again with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a machine fuelled by oil and the blood of foreigners
You're reading from the wrong book of rhetoric, that's what everyone says about the US...

Nationalism is the way. To failure and ruin.

Renard, first things first

we may have been the first to ban slaves, but god knows we sold enough of them

your state doesn't love you, when you die, it won't care. PEOPLE have clothed and fed you, looked after you, cared for you, your family, friends, parents, not some abstract concept dreamt up to defend the rights of the rich and powerful-the state

And I'm right about the British Empire, and it isin't empty rhetoric. Where does global war end? Why not invade Ireland, there's terrorists there isin't here?
You notice how we haven't declared war on Zimbabwe despite the horrific stuff going on there, much of it to our own citizens, yet we have the cash to declare war on two innocuous oil producers? The only reason we haven't attacked Saudi is that the Empire likes an easy bloodless fight that the oposistion can't hope to win.

We raped their lands of anything of value, treated them as slaves and left them impoverished.
Suuure, Africa was a paradise. The Arabs didnt take any slaves from Africa ever since the 7th century. And African tribes didn't conquer and opress their neighbours, in Ruanda for ex.

Anarchist take down!

Your precious state doesn't love you boys and girls, you're like baying dogs before your masters, all they do is throw you a bone occasionally to placate you from thinking.

I'm British, and let me tell you the British empire was nothing to be proud of, our wonderful "Britain has a divine right to rule" ideas, along with everyone else who thought along similar lines has lead to the terrible state of Africa and the like today.



Africa has always been in a terrible state, is in a terrible state, and will forever be in a terrible state.

Let me get this straight: Britain invades a host of countries and builds an empire and this is something to be proud of, but when France invades its neighbors in an attempt to build an empire, this is cheeky?

lol Britain was morally better than France as France's revolution to rid itself of oppressive rulers ie the aristocracy basically screwed up, ending with an Emperor, whereas Britain had a more democratic government.
And anyway, Britain managed to allow it's Empire to become independent nations mostly peacefully, unlike some others
*looks over at France*

Suuure, Africa was a paradise. The Arabs didnt take any slaves from Africa ever since the 7th century. And African tribes didn't conquer and opress their neighbours, in Ruanda for ex.

True. We just carried on what had been happening for centuries, but instead of one tribe conquering their neighbor, we conquered all of them!
Muwuhahaha lol

lol Britain was morally better than France as France's revolution to rid itself of oppressive rulers ie the aristocracy basically screwed up, ending with an Emperor, whereas Britain had a more democratic government.
And anyway, Britain managed to allow it's Empire to become independent nations mostly peacefully, unlike some others
*looks over at France*

The French Revolution & Empire instilled Republican ideas all throughout Europe, the British worked tiringly hard to turn back these ideas after Napoleon was defeated, democratic tradition right? Allowed it's Empire to become independent peacefully? You mean like Transvaal and the Orange Free state, or the Zulu Empire, the Indian Independence movement, the American colonies, Iraq, Palestine/Isreal, Ireland. Compared to what in France, Algeria and Indo-China.

For a nations people to be nationalist is one of the greatest things. That is one of the things I admire most about russia, the sense of nationalism that its people share. Knowing that they are the true russians. In america there are so many different religions, races, everything. IN russia, its anglo-saxon. Nothing else. No complaining and whining like here in a america where color iss still and always will be a barrier. That is done away with .one less distraction from the goals of the nation.

For a nations people to be nationalist is one of the greatest things. That is one of the things I admire most about russia, the sense of nationalism that its people share. Knowing that they are the true russians. In america there are so many different religions, races, everything. IN russia, its anglo-saxon. Nothing else. No complaining and whining like here in a america where color iss still and always will be a barrier. That is done away with .one less distraction from the goals of the nation.

Have you ever visited Russia beyond the Urals?

True. We just carried on what had been happening for centuries, but instead of one tribe conquering their neighbor, we conquered all of them!
Muwuhahaha lol
Muwuhahaha lol. Lot's of times there wasn't even a conquest. As the local rulers called upon one of the colonial powers to come. Like in the case of German Witu. In south Kenya. The local Sultan wanted the Prussians to establish a protectorat as a defence against the Sultan of Sansibar who were backed by Britain.

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what your country is doing for you.-Me


"Ask not what you can do for your country,
Ask what your country has been doing to you"

The Avengers
The American In Me
7" EP on White Noise Records, 1978

For a nations people to be nationalist is one of the greatest things. That is one of the things I admire most about russia, the sense of nationalism that its people share. Knowing that they are the true russians. In america there are so many different religions, races, everything. IN russia, its anglo-saxon. Nothing else.

Would you be so kind as to explain to me again at what point exactly in history was Russia colonised by the descendents of the Angles and the Saxons?

Would you be so kind as to explain to me again at what point exactly in history was Russia colonised by the descendents of the Angles and the Saxons?
Yeah, thats what I would like to know as well.

Yeah, thats what I would like to know as well.

Slavs and Finns (not the people form Finland) if anything?

You might have an easier time connecting Russia to a latin country like France then an anglo-saxon one, isn't Russia of a slavic/nordic origin (not counting the Pacific Maritime areas)

With the native Africans, Britain traded weapons and ammunition for already captured slaves. Most of the enslaving was done by African to African, and has been done for many centuries. We just used the slaves in cotton farms, plantations etc like most 'civilised' countries in the world did. When we realised slavery was wrong, and that there was no real difference in the Africans besides upbringing and culture, we made it illegal for them to be owned, like you can own an animal.

As for India: India was the result of Britain industrially standardising a handful of well developed regional principalities and having their brightest young minds study at Oxford and Cambridge. The largest democracy on Earth is the result of the British Empire, so it can't all have been that bad.

As for nationalism, what's all this talk of 'the state'. The state is a load of rubbish, in my opinion. What is important in nationalism is the people of one nation collectivly looking after each others backs. Helping each other to improve. Some say the state is just the extension of the nation but this is not the case. Our political elite are so far apart from the rank and file of the nation as to be almost from a different planet, or different race, if you like. They are not like us, and therefore cannot look after our interests as well as a government of the people, for the people, by the people. The Nazis took popular national sentiment and turned it into statism - the SS took oaths of personal loyalty to the Fuhrer, not the country.

So yeah, nationalism is the way, but not this flag-waving, Xenophobic rubbish everyone seems to think is nationalism when in fact it is not.

The CIA worldfactbook is not the most illuminating here:

"Russian 81.5%, Tatar 3.8%, Ukrainian 3%, Chuvash 1.2%, Bashkir 0.9%, Belarusian 0.8%, Moldavian 0.7%, other 8.1% (1989)"

It does however point towards your friend and mine Greater Duestchland being somewhat misinformed.

The Russians refered to above are slavs, are they not?

Slavs and Finns (not the people form Finland) if anything?
Well, there were some Vikings as well. Small in numbers. But they were responsible for the creation of the first Russian state. The empire of Kiev. And they gave the Russians their name.

The largest democracy on Earth is the result of the British Empire, so it can't all have been that bad.

Pakistan is also the result of the British Empire, so the fact that India became a relatively uncorrupt and relatively well-functioning democratic state may not be completely thanks to it having been one of the pink bits on the globe.

You might have an easier time connecting Russia to a latin country like France then an anglo-saxon one, isn't Russia of a slavic/nordic origin (not counting the Pacific Maritime areas)

Correct. The Viking took over a large area. They are also the reason why the orthidox Religion happened there. But that is a different story! ;)

Anglo-Saxon? Nope!

You might have an easier time connecting Russia to a latin country like France then an anglo-saxon one, isn't Russia of a slavic/nordic origin (not counting the Pacific Maritime areas)


The French language and culture had a massive influence on C19th Russia, to a far greater extent than the English/British, if I remember my Turgenev novels correctly, but I think in terms of contributions to the gene pool there it would still remain fairly neglible compared to their more geographically closer cousins.

The French language and culture had a massive influence on C19th Russia, to a far greater extent than the English/British, if I remember my Turgenev novels correctly, but I think in terms of contributions to the gene pool there it would still remain fairly neglible compared to their more geographically closer cousins.
Who were those cousins?

Who were those cousins?

Oh, just a way of saying 'bloodlines from countries/ethnic groups closer than France'.

The French Revolution & Empire instilled Republican ideas all throughout Europe, the British worked tiringly hard to turn back these ideas after Napoleon was defeated, democratic tradition right? Allowed it's Empire to become independent peacefully? You mean like Transvaal and the Orange Free state, or the Zulu Empire, the Indian Independence movement, the American colonies, Iraq, Palestine/Isreal, Ireland. Compared to what in France, Algeria and Indo-China.

Well, Britain already had some democracy, although nowhere near the level in Britain etc today, but France's revolution did screw up, you'll have to admit, leaving them in basically the same position as they were before, but with a well-liked leader (Emperor Napoleon) instead of a king. the revolution was a nice idea, and had a lot of appeal to many people, but went wrong when Napoleon seized power.
What i meant was that when it was clear that the British could not hold on to a part of their empire, they were (usually) willing to let it go without first resisting until a full-blown civil war began

Well, Britain already had some democracy, although nowhere near the level in Britain etc today, but France's revolution did screw up, you'll have to admit, leaving them in basically the same position as they were before, but with a well-liked leader (Emperor Napoleon) instead of a king. the revolution was a nice idea, and had a lot of appeal to many people, but went wrong when Napoleon seized power.
What i meant was that when it was clear that the British could not hold on to a part of their empire, they were (usually) willing to let it go without first resisting until a full-blown civil war began

Yes, I'll agree with your statement, the Revolution did indeed screwup horribly, though Nappy was a bit better then Lious. The British were a lot more willing to let their Empire go then the French Fourth Republic, but this may have been influenced by their realization that their economy had been dried up in the great struggle against Nazism and Fascism.

Yes, I'll agree with your statement, the Revolution did indeed screwup horribly, though Nappy was a bit better then Lious. The British were a lot more willing to let their Empire go then the French Fourth Republic, but this may have been influenced by their realization that their economy had been dried up in the great struggle against Nazism and Fascism.

Good point, their economy was quite screwed and too many of their colonies wanted independence for them to batter them all if they rebelled.
I've run out of arguments...lol mebbe i'll go find something else to argue about...

One does not choose where one is born, ergo it is foolish to be proud of the place. Why not be proud of the hospital you were born in, you had as much say in the matter as in what country you were born into.



If you think being proud of your country is arbitrary then how does being particularly ashamed of it make sense?

Oh, and if you'll pardon the bitchiness, what's the difference between 'ergo' and 'therefore'?

Oh, and if you'll pardon the bitchiness, what's the difference between 'ergo' and 'therefore'?

lol tis to stop you from repeating yourself, ergo it makes your post look more interesting and you more educated, therefore making people more impressed with the arguments you make, and more likely to reply without descending into mindless insults, thus preserving the integrity and... goodness of the thread for all.
Hurrah for long words!

lol tis to stop you from repeating yourself, ergo it makes your post look more interesting and you more educated, therefore making people more impressed with the arguments you make, and more likely to reply without descending into mindless insults, thus preserving the integrity and... goodness of the thread for all.
Hurrah for long words!

Ah, well, suffice it to say then that the usage did not have the desired effect in this instance. Rather, it led me to conclude the author was a bit of a - pour manque d'un meilleur mot - ponce for using an overly obscure word that added no new meaning in comparison to equally fitting synonyms and was attempting to impose his views through demonstrations of his linguistical superiority rather than debate. Tsk, such classism.

Then again maybe i'm paranoid.

Ah, well, suffice it to say then that the usage did not have the desired effect in this instance. Rather, it led me to conclude the author was a bit of a - pour manque d'un meilleur mot - ponce for using an overly obscure word that added no new meaning in comparison to equally fitting synonyms and was attempting to impose his views through demonstrations of his linguistical superiority rather than debate. Tsk, such classism.

Then again maybe i'm paranoid.

Damnation and poo to the forums! I was concocting an elaborate and sophisticated response to demonstrate my eloquence, but i left the internet idle for too long, and when i tried to post, my sublimely suberb post was lost into cyberspace.
Anyway, back to the topic... Napoleon sucked, the British are great, woo!
My work here is done... :)

Rather, it led me to conclude the author was a bit of a - pour manque d'un meilleur mot - ponce for using an overly obscure word ...

Dear God, man, have you no classical education? Has the phrae cogito ergo sum completely escaped your attention?

Ermmm..elaborate please, Bodies. Isn't that just 'i think therefore i am'?

Ermmm..elaborate please, Bodies. Isn't that just 'i think therefore i am'?

Yes, which should have lead you to understand that there was no essential difference between the meanings of the words "ergo" and "therefore".

That was my point, my friend.

That was my point, my friend.

And so having realised that there was no essential difference in meaning, you didn't make the intuitive leap to realizing that they did have different stylistic qualities?

Stylistic? You've lost me there. Is the gist of what your saying that because the words have technically the same meaning there must be a particular reason for the choice of using one over the other?

nationalism is stupid - just dumb luck where youre born...

My allegiance is only to the almighty dollar

nationalism is stupid - just dumb luck where youre born...

My allegiance is only to the almighty dollar
Well, I agree with your first statement...

It's too close to fascism, which - as we all know - is a form of life just below slugs.

Maybe there's a confusion in some of your woefully limited vocabularies as to the real terms' meanings. Are you getting confused with patriotism? There's nothing wrong with being proud of your country (although I have to say that I think my country, the UK, is a piss-poor excuse for a 'nation'. I would never even consider dying for it...). However, read this quote by Louis de Bernières:

"There are two types of patriotism, although sometimes the two are mingled in one beast. The first kind one might call nationalism; nationalists believe that all other countries are inferior in every respect, and one would do them a favour by dominating them. Other countries are always in the wrong, they are less free, less civilised, are less glorious in battle, are perfidious, prone to falling for insane and alien ideologies which no reasonable person could believe, are irreligious and abnormal. Such patriots are the most common variety, and their patriotism is the most contemptible thing on earth."

If anyone has trouble understanding this I'll happily translate it into hick for you...

"If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists!"

I find it odd that the southern americans are the most patriotic (to the US, not the confederate states)...they have the lowest incomes, and there's that whole "war of northern agression" thing. Yet you see US flags on every mobile home.

I find it odd that the southern americans are the most patriotic (to the US, not the confederate states)...they have the lowest incomes, and there's that whole "war of northern agression" thing. Yet you see US flags on every mobile home.

True.

!!!
You sound like a /\/@Z|

True.
Hell yeah! Yall know it!