Nationalism, modesty and airplanes in the Infinite age

[Tee Kay]

Brazilians, Americans, Australians, Mexicans are solely (immigrant) nations and therefore solely nationalities, not ethnicities.

Wrong.

You are right though, that these nationalities may become ethnicities in the - may I say far - future

It's already happening.

Just because most (?) Brazilians don't identify with a Brazilian ethnicity doesn't mean that there aren't those that do.

All that said, I don't think ethnicity is a useful concept other than to identify political and historical currents

That makes it an extremely useful concept.

 

[Narz]

I think maturity should lead to an increased range of emotional and behavioral possibilities, not just a shift. In other words, I never want to grow up either


Link to video.

Just paste the goobledegook at the end, not the whole URL.


Link to video.

 

[Artifis]

Then say this instead:

"Ancient Greenlanders were the first people to plot the states! I am proud of be a Greenlander."

Notice the lack of the word 'we'? Though that is a strange reasons to be proud of something.

I see nothing wrong for an American to say "I am proud of our constitution". The constitution is after all, something collectively applicable to every American. "We wrote the constitution" is something different...

Firstly, I said "stars", not "states".

Secondly, I'm not sure there's essentially much of a difference at all between those two statements you put there. Americans would say "I am proud of our constitution" because they are American. They are proud of something they had no part of, except by accident of ancestry and geography through being born in the USA.

Put this another way. Why are Americans proud of the Constitution? Because it was a modern, forward-looking, liberty-loving document written by Americans. But did they play any part in it? No. It's pretty much the same as saying, "We wrote the constitution.", even though they played no part in writing it.

I think maturity should lead to an increased range of emotional and behavioral possibilities, not just a shift. In other words, I never want to grow up either

Nice to know I'm not alone.

 

[Tahuti]

Wrong.

How so?

It's already happening.

True. That doesn't mean the process is complete, far from it in fact.

Just because most (?) Brazilians don't identify with a Brazilian ethnicity doesn't mean that there aren't those that do.

So your definition of ethnicity is (partially) based on self-identification? Let me get this straight: My mother is ethnically Dutch and my father ethnically Jewish, but in your definition, if I were to gain Italian citizenship, speak Italian like an Italian and identify myself as an Italian, I would become an ethnic Italian?

That makes it an extremely useful concept.

Not more so than identifying other social groups. Ethnicities are just social groups revolving around common ancestry, just like upper class citizens are just social groups revolving around more social influence. Yes, ethnic differences have written history and continue to shape politics, but only because people actually believe ethnicity matters, not because it has intrinsic value.

 

[aronnax]

Firstly, I said "stars", not "states".

Whoops. I typed it wrongly.

Secondly, I'm not sure there's essentially much of a difference at all between those two statements you put there. Americans would say "I am proud of our constitution" because they are American. They are proud of something they had no part of, except by accident of ancestry and geography through being born in the USA.

Seeing that the American Constitution is still a legally binding document that applies to the American legal system to which all Americans are subjected to, it is something applicable to them. Hence "our", a term of possession.

Put this another way. Why are Americans proud of the Constitution? Because it was a modern, forward-looking, liberty-loving document written by Americans. But did they play any part in it? No. It's pretty much the same as saying, "We wrote the constitution.", even though they played no part in writing it.

No, it's not by every definition of it. English is as simple as that. Saying "we" indicates participatory action. The personal achievement of an individual or individuals is not applicable to you because you didn't write it. To use "we" in that context is as simple as not understanding English.

Is it "The German Football team won the World Cup" or "We won the world Cup"?
Is it "India declared independence from the British in 1947" or "We declared independence from you in 1947"?
Is it "Obama got elected as President in 2008" or "we got elected as President in 2008"?
Is it "We are proud of our son's SATS" or "We scored my son's SATS"?

 

[Artifis]

Seeing that the American Constitution is still a legally binding document that applies to the American legal system to which all Americans are subjected to, it is something applicable to them. Hence "our", a term of possession.

It is applicable to them, but they are only participants, rather than creators.

No, it's not by every definition of it. English is as simple as that. Saying "we" indicates participatory action. The personal achievement of an individual or individuals is not applicable to you because you didn't write it. To use "we" in that context is as simple as not understanding English.

So then what of those cultures who are proud of their history? They played no part in it, and neither are they subjected to it. If I belong to a culture with thousands of years of rich history and which created thousands upon thousands of priceless contributions to art and science, there should be no reason for me to be proud of it just because I happen to belong to that culture.

 

[aronnax]

It is applicable to them, but they are only participants, rather than creators.

Exactly? They are participators (in the sense that the US Constitution applies to them) and thus can claim it.

So then what of those cultures who are proud of their history? They played no part in it, and neither are they subjected to it. If I belong to a culture with thousands of years of rich history and which created thousands upon thousands of priceless contributions to art and science, there should be no reason for me to be proud of it just because I happen to belong to that culture.

Well, there is no real reason to be proud of something just because you are born into it.
In anycase, you are subjected to your people's history for it is part of your heritage and identity. That said, just because you can identity with something doesn't make you able to say "We did it".
I don't get why I have to repeat this so many times. Be proud of whatever you want. Just don't claim that you actually did it unless you somehow participated in it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Is it "The German Football team won the World Cup" or "We won the world Cup"?
Is it "India declared independence from the British in 1947" or "We declared independence from you in 1947"?
Is it "Obama got elected as President in 2008" or "we got elected as President in 2008"?
Is it "We are proud of our son's SATS" or "We scored my son's SATS"?

The only exception in my far from consistent book is the first one.

If the Dutch Football team wins the World Cup.
"We won the World Cup."

If they lose
"They've lost the World Cup"

 

[Artifis]

Well, there is no real reason to be proud of something just because you are born into it.
In anycase, you are subjected to your people's history for it is part of your heritage and identity. That said, just because you can identity with something doesn't make you able to say "We did it".
I don't get why I have to repeat this so many times. Be proud of whatever you want. Just don't claim that you actually did it unless you somehow participated in it.

Ah but there's the flaw in the logic. Why choose to be proud of any one thing just because you're a part of that community? Why not one more so than the other? It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ah but there's the flaw in the logic. Why choose to be proud of any one thing just because you're a part of that community? Why not one more so than the other? It just doesn't make sense.

Perhaps the problem is how "pride" is being understood. If pride is a feeling of accomplishment, then, yes, simply being part of a group is no reason at all to feel pride. But pride might not be a feeling of accomplishment, it might be a feeling of satisfaction or assurance, and in that case membership of a group does not seem an unreasonable basis for pride.

 

[Slaughter]

What's up with Nationalism bashers around here?

Nationalism separates us. Separation is good. When two groups of one specie separate from each other, they often develop diferently after enough time. Such thing is good for A united humanity means that humanity would dilute into a amorphous, indefinite, boring mass of mediocrity. It would also mean no competition. It would be a slide into the end for humanity. No drive, no competition. Might as well make a collective species suicide while we are it.

 

[bhsup]

So then humanity shouldn't unite until we meet space faring races to compete against!

 

[r16]

which Reagan actually used as an argument to cajole them Russkies when he came up with the Star Wars idea , to give up competing . Only because the arms race was also hurtin' Uncle Sam mightily , the Soviets simply collapsed first .

 

[Dachs]

So then humanity shouldn't unite until we meet space faring races to compete against!

 

[Traitorfish]

What's up with Nationalism bashers around here?

Nationalism separates us. Separation is good. When two groups of one specie separate from each other, they often develop diferently after enough time. Such thing is good for A united humanity means that humanity would dilute into a amorphous, indefinite, boring mass of mediocrity. It would also mean no competition. It would be a slide into the end for humanity. No drive, no competition. Might as well make a collective species suicide while we are it.

What's your basis for believing this?

 

[Masada]

In the 2006 Census, 31.13 per cent of Australians nominated their 'ancestry' as, umm, Australian. That means that one third of the population in a country just over a 100 years old decided to call themselves Australians by virtue of birth and not citizenship.

So your definition of ethnicity is (partially) based on self-identification? Let me get this straight: My mother is ethnically Dutch and my father ethnically Jewish, but in your definition, if I were to gain Italian citizenship, speak Italian like an Italian and identify myself as an Italian, I would become an ethnic Italian?

Yes, I don't see an issue with that. There isn't such a thing as an "Italian" race or a common "Italian" lineage. The modern Italian state wasn't even "finished" until 1866 and is still something of a work in progress. Moreover, modern Italian wasn't an organic creation, it was chosen as the national language; even the Italian ethno-construct is a pastiche of behaviours that got filtered through a bunch of regional identities and came to be accepted as being of "Italian" provenance; which taken together suggests that the Italian construct is just that and not some primordial Blut und Boden nonsense. Hell a fair number of "Italians" are still loathe to associate themselves with the Italian project and are now seeking to (re-)stress their regional identities.

 

[aronnax]

What's up with Nationalism bashers around here?

Nationalism separates us. Separation is good. When two groups of one specie separate from each other, they often develop diferently after enough time. Such thing is good for A united humanity means that humanity would dilute into a amorphous, indefinite, boring mass of mediocrity. It would also mean no competition. It would be a slide into the end for humanity. No drive, no competition. Might as well make a collective species suicide while we are it.

Nationalism is the compete opposite of "diversity in unity" or multiculturalism. Nationalism is often the act of believing that one's nation is superior than other other nations and thus entitled to special privileges. (Manifest Destiny, Imperialism, the entire state of Israel) Ethnic nationalism is even worse because it narrows the scope. Nationalism serves to put down others in the betterment of one's 'nation' real or imagined.

By all means, wave the flag during the Olympics and be grouchy when your country's national team loses in football, but don't start think your the best and everyone else is beneath you. If your idea of good competition is do or die, I'll rather sit out.

 

[Masada]

Nationalism is the compete opposite of "diversity in unity" or multiculturalism. Nationalism is often the act of believing that one's nation is superior than other other nations and thus entitled to special privileges.

If anything Nationalism is the single greatest destroyer of diversity in history because it represents the raising of a single suite of identifiable - national - characteristics above all others. A Frenchman must speak French; never mind that his ancestors might have spoken regional languages like Angevin or Gascon. It's boring as hell. France was cooler when bugger all people spoke French.

 

[luiz]

Yes, I don't see an issue with that. There isn't such a thing as an "Italian" race or a common "Italian" lineage. The modern Italian state wasn't even "finished" until 1866 and is still something of a work in progress. Moreover, modern Italian wasn't an organic creation, it was chosen as the national language; even the Italian ethno-construct is a pastiche of behaviours that got filtered through a bunch of regional identities and came to be accepted as being of "Italian" provenance; which taken together suggests that the Italian construct is just that and not some primordial Blut und Boden nonsense. Hell a fair number of "Italians" are still loathe to associate themselves with the Italian project and are now seeking to (re-)stress their regional identities.

Maybe Italian was a particularly poor choice, but if he was to move to Korea, gain Korean citizenship, learn Korean, fully adopt Korean culture and way of life etc., would you call him ethnically Korean?

I agree with the general point that ethnicity is in big part a social construct, but clearly there are limits to that. It's something that is not objectively defined, but we can tell when something simply sounds wrong. An european cannot be ethnically Korean, even if he was born and raised in Korea.

 

[aronnax]

If anything Nationalism is the single greatest destroyer of diversity in history because it represents the raising of a single suite of identifiable - national - characteristics above all others. A Frenchman must speak French; never mind that his ancestors might have spoken regional languages like Angevin or Gascon. It's boring as hell. France was cooler when bugger all people spoke French.

You don't know what I'll give for a partly Huguenot France.