Separatists.

[opel80uk]

I was talking about examples such as opel80uk's opinion on the EU, and how it's ran with a bias towards Germany but at the possible expense of Ireland, Portugal or Greece. Yet he doesn't not like nationalism. Just pointing out that to identify the difference and this point, and taking one national perspective is in it's self nationalistic.

He identifies as being Irish and takes the view the EU is bad for his country. That's Nationalism. I live in the north of England and can see that London gets a bigger slice of the pie. That's the same view, but I also see it as a necessary evil.

I think you are conflating what I said. As I read it, there were two distinct issues that the thread was discussing. The first was whether the EU is good or bad. What I said about Ireland was said in the context of belonging to the EU & the single currency, and whether the decisions made, specifically regarding the economic crash of 2008, benefited the Irish state, which most agree (even the EU have conceded that their response was ill fitting), did not. It would be virtually impossible to discuss anything regarding the EU if it was not at times looked at from a national perspective, as that is how the system is set up. What you’re saying is like criticising an anti-capitalist for using money.

Furthermore, I did not self-identify as being Irish, and am from London, born and bred, so would probably be labelled English or British. It just so happens that I now live in Ireland, and as such know quite a bit about the crash. I certainly don’t think that Ireland, or England for that matter, is ‘my’ country and find that type of language fairly juvenile in all honesty. The analogy between the north and London, and Ireland and the UK is flawed, because the north of England would directly receive some of that pie from London, in the shape of benefits, local authority budgets, etc. It is entirely reasonable to argue that, as London generates the most money, that without it, living standards across the rest of England as a whole would drop. Germany however do not provide any direct pieces of the pie to the Irish state. It does contribute to the Eurozone economy, but it was the precise inflexible nature of that economy, with Ireland unable to push or pull any of the normal levers that could help during a financial crash, that exacerbated the problem.

That is an entirely seperate yet consistent with me saying I don't like any form of Nationalism.

And one last point, you state ‘A county can't maintain cultural identity without Nationalism imho’. You are spot on, but that is the whole point – A country does not naturally have a cultural identity, it’s people do. Cultural identities predate borders and states; The Celts existed with their own culture years before there was any country. African tribes, with distinct culture from each other, existed long before Westerners went in and carved up the continent. Countries are and were formed around the cultural identities, not the other way. Furthermore, look at how many distinct cultural identities there are in any signle country that survive, flourish even. Using the logic that distinct identities can’t survive without nationalism, that shouldn’t be the case.

[TheAnimus]

More me the idea was more about why people have the need for an 'identity'.

I've seen it often when people in forums, in the news, in real life, want to divide a group, divide and conquer.

Some people it's race, one of my neighbours is overtly racist, he has had only two big dealings with eastern Europeans, and was criminally miss treated in both. He has decided that all eastern Europeans are the same. He knows not all people are like this, so he drew the set based on something else so he could define all of them as having the property he dislikes.

Cornwall has a bunch of people doing this right now with their politics. Apparently, they feel they've been ignored by the south east getting all the investment and such. This view is incredibly absurd, because they get more than they give. Yet the feeling is to blame the people giving them, it makes it an easy sell, it's not you local citizen, local council member, it's *them* at fault.

Political parties do the same, the BNP remind you that some religious thing you don't really know much about is bad and scary, UKIP reminding you that there is wasted money in other countries, union organisations desperately try and draw up the concept of a working class.

The EU one is a bit different because many people feel that the EU isn't very democratic or open, but plenty of people oppose it because they feel they want 'their own identity' but when pressed for what that is, they don't really have much of an anwser, it's just another way of blaming a different group of people.

It's not much different to lynching someone who made the sky gods angry.

[opel80uk]

More me the idea was more about why people have the need for an 'identity'.

I've seen it often when people in forums, in the news, in real life, want to divide a group, divide and conquer.

Some people it's race, one of my neighbours is overtly racist, he has had only two big dealings with eastern Europeans, and was criminally miss treated in both. He has decided that all eastern Europeans are the same. He knows not all people are like this, so he drew the set based on something else so he could define all of them as having the property he dislikes.

Cornwall has a bunch of people doing this right now with their politics. Apparently, they feel they've been ignored by the south east getting all the investment and such. This view is incredibly absurd, because they get more than they give. Yet the feeling is to blame the people giving them, it makes it an easy sell, it's not you local citizen, local council member, it's *them* at fault.

Political parties do the same, the BNP remind you that some religious thing you don't really know much about is bad and scary, UKIP reminding you that there is wasted money in other countries, union organisations desperately try and draw up the concept of a working class.

The EU one is a bit different because many people feel that the EU isn't very democratic or open, but plenty of people oppose it because they feel they want 'their own identity' but when pressed for what that is, they don't really have much of an anwser, it's just another way of blaming a different group of people.

It's not much different to lynching someone who made the sky gods angry.

I will, of course, disagree with your inclusion of a Union in with UKIP and the BNP, simply because a Union is a pro-members group, as opposed to an Anti - whatever group like the other 2. The difference is subtle, but important, but your last line of your post sums up the difference, to me at least, between having, wanting or celebrating a particular identity, which I think can be an extremely positive thing; I can't imagine there are too many people that don't enjoy seeing or experiencing new cultures, and what you get with Nationalism, or more specifically Nationalism based on State and/or territory. How many wars have been fought, and how many people killed, under the pretence of Nationalism? I truly believe it’s an affront to humanity.

[SeriousSam]

I will, of course, disagree with your inclusion of a Union in with UKIP and the BNP, simply because a Union is a pro-members group, as opposed to an Anti - whatever group like the other 2.

Unions can be just as much anti- as the other two examples used by TheAnimus. At first glance they may not be as objectionable as those that breed hate or fear based on race etc. however in some ways their actions are far more insidious. Reinforcing the anachronistic us and them view of society does nothing to help "better" their members lives. Now I'm sure it is a viable means to drum up support for a position, however by its very negative nature it creates an entrenched victim mentality. How can thesis and antithesis come together to form a progressive synthesis when one side firmly digs its heels in and refuses to budge when any form of change is mooted.

Now before I get back on topic one obvious counter to the "what did the Romans ever do for us" quip mentioned earlier is lead poisoning. Something that has even been mooted as one of the underlying cause for its downfall. There's was an interesting documentary on the history of lead within human society which charted its use and impact, culminating with petrol. Well worth a watch (will see if I can find a link) to see the lengths people will go to avoid a painful truth... especially when there is money to be made or power to be acquired.

As for nationalism it is an inevitable if not unwanted consequence of human nature combined with the use of fear politics. By our very nature we wish to belong to something that makes us feel more than an insignificant individual. The trouble starts when that is abused by those with an agenda, using the threat of loss of identity to create a false sense of superiority or victim mentality. Sadly with the advent of social media and the like this is going to become an ever increasing issue until we "grow up" as a species and realise that allowing ourselves to be emotionally manipulated (externally or internally) is the short road to disaster.

[opel80uk]

Unions can be just as much anti- as the other two examples used by TheAnimus. At first glance they may not be as objectionable as those that breed hate or fear based on race etc. however in some ways their actions are far more insidious. Reinforcing the anachronistic us and them view of society does nothing to help "better" their members lives. Now I'm sure it is a viable means to drum up support for a position, however by its very negative nature it creates an entrenched victim mentality. How can thesis and antithesis come together to form a progressive synthesis when one side firmly digs its heels in and refuses to budge when any form of change is mooted.

Now before I get back on topic one obvious counter to the "what did the Romans ever do for us" quip mentioned earlier is lead poisoning. Something that has even been mooted as one of the underlying cause for its downfall. There's was an interesting documentary on the history of lead within human society which charted its use and impact, culminating with petrol. Well worth a watch (will see if I can find a link) to see the lengths people will go to avoid a painful truth... especially when there is money to be made or power to be acquired.

As for nationalism it is an inevitable if not unwanted consequence of human nature combined with the use of fear politics. By our very nature we wish to belong to something that makes us feel more than an insignificant individual. The trouble starts when that is abused by those with an agenda, using the threat of loss of identity to create a false sense of superiority or victim mentality. Sadly with the advent of social media and the like this is going to become an ever increasing issue until we "grow up" as a species and realise that allowing ourselves to be emotionally manipulated (externally or internally) is the short road to disaster.

I don't think this thread is the place for a discussion of Unions, but I cannot believe you think that a Union 'is far more insidious' than the BNP, or even UKIP for that matter.

I do like the last part of your post though. I often wonder if there has ever been a study done to see what the correlation is between Nationalist sentiment countries worldwide, and the liberties and freedoms enjoyed by the citizens of those states. I'd wager that the more Nationalist a state is, the more oppressive it is to its people.

[TheAnimus]

I'd suggest that an 'anti' is just the other perspective of a 'pro' party.

If you are 'pro' anything then probably there is something it comes at the expense of. Often it's not something we worry about, but for instance I'm 'pro' having better maths and logic taught in schools, I think that if that comes at the expense of other subjects, then so be it. But someone else might say that makes me 'anti' science.

If something is only going to be Pro or Anti then it is just the views of someone's sympathies.

However nationalism is no different to say the way some union members behave, if you aren't in the union, you are a scab, and deserve to have a cinder block dropped on you.

It is when people draw a line that allows them to demonise and ignore those on the other side. It could be something from nationalism, membership of a party, geographic location, skin, religious views. It's just a classic form of divide and conquer.

Take someone in Cornwall, they might feel that if they band together, they can get a better deal by more collective bargaining, they could try and effectively make Westminster bid against Brussels. So the appeal for these things can be strong, the issue is that their wants, come at the expense of others.

[opel80uk]

I'd suggest that an 'anti' is just the other perspective of a 'pro' party.

If you are 'pro' anything then probably there is something it comes at the expense of. Often it's not something we worry about, but for instance I'm 'pro' having better maths and logic taught in schools, I think that if that comes at the expense of other subjects, then so be it. But someone else might say that makes me 'anti' science.

But being Pro better maths & logic doesn’t necessarily have to come at the expense of other subjects. You could devise a syllabus that could improve the way maths is taught for example (in fact, the mother of my exe was head of Maths in a Secondary school, and she advocated just that), that would have no impact on other subjects. The assumption that being pro something means it probably comes at the expense of something else is wrong, IMO. That’s not to say that it there are not instances where it will, or does, come at the expense of something , but it’s wrong to assume that that is the default position.

However nationalism is no different to say the way some union members behave, if you aren't in the union, you are a scab, and deserve to have a cinder block dropped on you.

It is when people draw a line that allows them to demonise and ignore those on the other side. It could be something from nationalism, membership of a party, geographic location, skin, religious views. It's just a classic form of divide and conquer.

And we were getting on so well! The overwhelming majority of Union members I know would abhor the kind of violence whereby cinder blocks are dropped on someone, even a scab. So whilst Nationalism may be no different to how some of a Union members may behave, that type of behaviour is not what defines that Union or it’s ideology. For example, anyone is welcome to join a Union, or a specific Union that is a member of the TUC. Would every member of a given country be welcome to join the (or a) Nationalist movement of said country?

The only similarity Unions and Nationalist movements have in that regard is their understandable view of strength in numbers. Most Unions are not Anti non-members; when concessions are won by Unions, it is seldom that they do not request that it is offered to all workers regardless of membership or not. They believe that there is enough for everyone, and it doesn’t have to come at the expense, or to the detriment of others. Now I completely understand why someone would entirely disagree with the economics, but that is an entirely different argument that one would have with Nationalist movements, whose whole Raison d'être means that they, inevitably, end up with oppressing some people, simply because they differ from them.

The comparison is ridiculous.

[SeriousSam]

Opel - I think you misunderstand my use of the word insidious, as it's not that I am saying unions are as bad as the BNP. More that in terms of their negative aspects there is much more art and guile about the way that they go about their business at times. I agree that this is not the thread to discuss unions, but workers vs. management is analogous to say UK vs. EU with the behavioral patterns at times following similar paths.

In terms of the correlation you mentioned I think it goes further than that, in as much as tolerance of "difference" in terms of degree and absolute is also important. Though that in a way is also impinged upon by the degree of oppression or freedom. One currently topical example would be halal or kosher meat. People in principle are tolerant of religious observances, however are less so when that group has freedoms that they themselves do not. Especially when it impinges on their ability to choose, which is one of the primary "indicators" of perceived freedom.

[j1979]

I do like the last part of your post though. I often wonder if there has ever been a study done to see what the correlation is between Nationalist sentiment countries worldwide, and the liberties and freedoms enjoyed by the citizens of those states. I'd wager that the more Nationalist a state is, the more oppressive it is to its people.

That totally depends on you view is of what oppression is.

Nazi Germany was oppressive but the non nationalist Socialist all inclusive "everyone equal" ethos were also some of the most oppressive states ever seen. Saudi Arabia, is not considered a nationalistic country but yet it's one of the most oppressive.

Oppression happens everywhere, it just depends on who is being oppressed. Here in the UK we oppress sexism, racism, homophobia, discrimination, corruption. Nazi's oppress, liberals, races, homosexuals, disabled. The socialists oppress, the educated, the thinkers, the rich & privileged.

Anyone can see that the example where we oppress sexism, racism, discrimination, corruption is the most progressive, but it's oppression all the same. That's why Russia sees the EU as oppressive, they don't wish to be forced to accept our liberal values.

[Saracen]

That totally depends on you view is of what oppression is.

Nazi Germany was oppressive but the non nationalist Socialist all inclusive "everyone equal" ethos were also some of the most oppressive states ever seen. Saudi Arabia, is not considered a nationalistic country but yet it's one of the most oppressive.

Oppression happens everywhere, it just depends on who is being oppressed. Here in the UK we oppress sexism, racism, homophobia, discrimination, corruption. Nazi's oppress, liberals, races, homosexuals, disabled. The socialists oppress, the educated, the thinkers, the rich & privileged.

Anyone can see that the example where we oppress sexism, racism, discrimination, corruption is the most progressive, but it's oppression all the same. That's why Russia sees the EU as oppressive, they don't wish to be forced to accept our liberal values.

I think you need to look up the definition of oppression.

It is not oppression to refuse to allow one group, or person, to discriminate against another.

Russia might fear EU values, including freedom (relative freedom, that is) of expression, human rights, etc, but they're not 'forced' to accept them .... unless they want to join the EU. Then, certain preconditions, including HR, have to be met. But I've not seen any suggestions it's likely Russia would want to, or seek to, join the EU. If they did, the accession process is pretty well defined now, and the same for them as every other recent accession. Only then would core values become mandatory. If they don't want that, don't join. Not that I think they want to.

[j1979]

I think you need to look up the definition of oppression.

It is not oppression to refuse to allow one group, or person, to discriminate against another.

Russia might fear EU values, including freedom (relative freedom, that is) of expression, human rights, etc, but they're not 'forced' to accept them .... unless they want to join the EU. Then, certain preconditions, including HR, have to be met. But I've not seen any suggestions it's likely Russia would want to, or seek to, join the EU. If they did, the accession process is pretty well defined now, and the same for them as every other recent accession. Only then would core values become mandatory. If they don't want that, don't join. Not that I think they want to.

Totally off topic now, but I will say this.

oppression from Oxford dictionary.
Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority.

You are looking at the word in a very contemporary way. The majority of the world is not as socially developed as you yet.

As social development progresses, the things you consider oppression will change. But that timeline is different depending on culture, environment and experiences.

Slaves were oppressed for centuries. Yet the people that owned the slaves, were so sick in the head they didn't realise these people were equals. They saw slaves as less than themselves, and some looked on slaves as less than human.

in 1800s Slave owners (after a long history of horrendous and dreadful crimes committed), felt oppressed by abolition and in 1861, the US went to war over it.

I could give to a fair few examples like this, but in the interest of good taste i'll just do that one example.

The last example of one of these crossovers might be fox hunting. Fox hunters felt oppressed, crazy to think this. But if a fox hunt ban came in 100 years earlier, it could have meant war.

fast forward to 2014. and we are on the cusp of oppression of the people wearing fur. I have no strong views on this, but I am fairly confident in 10 years it will be illegal to sell new fur coats. In 20 years it may become illegal to wear a fur coat, then people wearing fur will feel oppressed by the government.

In some countries they feel it's their right to be racist, sexist, homophobic. In fact they don't really have a full comprehension of why it's not acceptable. Crazy you think, but like I said they are not a socially developed as you yet. They feel western views are oppressive of their culture.

As for Russia (especially under Putin) they don't want to join the EU. They want to destroy it at all costs, you only need to watch RT for 2 hours to see some anti EU propaganda... Putin has already hinted that he wants to see it collapse.

Nationalism the biggest threat in the world today does come from Russia as we saw today in Sevastopol's victory Parade... Putin stating that Russia (not the USSR as in every previous year), defeated the Nazi's single handedly. They will continue to stoke it and encourage separatists in every boarder country. Interesting to see what will happen when trouble flares in the ex USSR states that are now part of NATO.

[SeriousSam]

As an aside it is just as ethically irresponsible to kill an animal just for the choicest cuts of meat as it is for its fur... the responsible thing to do is make use of all it has to offer.

[Saracen]

Totally off topic now, but I will say this.

oppression from Oxford dictionary.
Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority.

You are looking at the word in a very contemporary way. The majority of the world is not as socially developed as you yet.

As social development progresses, the things you consider oppression will change. But that timeline is different depending on culture, environment and experiences.

Slaves were oppressed for centuries. Yet the people that owned the slaves, were so sick in the head they didn't realise these people were equals. They saw slaves as less than themselves, and some looked on slaves as less than human.

in 1800s Slave owners (after a long history of horrendous and dreadful crimes committed), felt oppressed by abolition and in 1861, the US went to war over it.

I could give to a fair few examples like this, but in the interest of good taste i'll just do that one example.

The last example of one of these crossovers might be fox hunting. Fox hunters felt oppressed, crazy to think this. But if a fox hunt ban came in 100 years earlier, it could have meant war.

fast forward to 2014. and we are on the cusp of oppression of the people wearing fur. I have no strong views on this, but I am fairly confident in 10 years it will be illegal to sell new fur coats. In 20 years it may become illegal to wear a fur coat, then people wearing fur will feel oppressed by the government.

In some countries they feel it's their right to be racist, sexist, homophobic. In fact they don't really have a full comprehension of why it's not acceptable. Crazy you think, but like I said they are not a socially developed as you yet. They feel western views are oppressive of their culture.

As for Russia (especially under Putin) they don't want to join the EU. They want to destroy it at all costs, you only need to watch RT for 2 hours to see some anti EU propaganda... Putin has already hinted that he wants to see it collapse.

Nationalism the biggest threat in the world today does come from Russia as we saw today in Sevastopol's victory Parade... Putin stating that Russia (not the USSR as in every previous year), defeated the Nazi's single handedly. They will continue to stoke it and encourage separatists in every boarder country. Interesting to see what will happen when trouble flares in the ex USSR states that are now part of NATO.

Yes, I know the definition of the word.

So, without going off onto fox-hunting or slave ownership, how precisely is it "cruel or unjust" to prevent one person or group discriminating against another person or group, often for something neither group has ANY control over, like gender, colour of skin, or (arguably, at least, sexual orientation).

I remind you, you said

Oppression happens everywhere, it just depends on who is being oppressed. Here in the UK we oppress sexism, racism, homophobia, discrimination, corruption ....

How, for example, is having laws, and if necessary, prosecutions, preventing corruption "oppression"? How is it cruel or unjust, whether treatment or exercise of authority?

How is it cruel or unjust to have laws preventing discrimination on the basis of skin colour, racial background, etc?

And remember, even in the "contemporary" and "socially developed" (your words, not mine) West, you and I, and everyone else, are allowed to be as racist, bigoted and homophobic as we wish. What we aren't allowed to do, is discriminate against others on those grounds.

That sort of discrimination can certainly be said to be oppression, not least because it almost by definition is cruel or unjust, often both.

Had you said "suppression" I might have agreed, but not oppression.

And for definitions, a fuller version is

- Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority, control, or power; tyranny; exploitation. Also: an act or instance of this.

- Criminal Law. An abuse of office committed by a public official, esp. the unlawful or improper imprisonment or injury of another person. In later use also: (Sc.) unfair treatment of a defendant by a court to a sufficient degree that he or she may be granted the right to appeal against it.

Or, as Wharton's Law Lexicon put it in 1848 ...

Oppression, the trampling upon or bearing down a person, under pretence of law, which is unjust.

[j1979]

Yes, I know the definition of the word.

So, without going off onto fox-hunting or slave ownership, how precisely is it "cruel or unjust" to prevent one person or group discriminating against another person or group, often for something neither group has ANY control over, like gender, colour of skin, or (arguably, at least, sexual orientation).

I remind you, you said
How, for example, is having laws, and if necessary, prosecutions, preventing corruption "oppression"? How is it cruel or unjust, whether treatment or exercise of authority?

How is it cruel or unjust to have laws preventing discrimination on the basis of skin colour, racial background, etc?

And remember, even in the "contemporary" and "socially developed" (your words, not mine) West, you and I, and everyone else, are allowed to be as racist, bigoted and homophobic as we wish. What we aren't allowed to do, is discriminate against others on those grounds.

That sort of discrimination can certainly be said to be oppression, not least because it almost by definition is cruel or unjust, often both.

Had you said "suppression" I might have agreed, but not oppression.

And for definitions, a fuller version is



Or, as Wharton's Law Lexicon put it in 1848 ...

Listen... Don't try and drag me into a 1861 debate as to why slave traders and owners saw abolition as unjust. I have no idea how they thought like that, but they did, if you care to read history.

I just explained it all in the last post, it's off topic too. But seen as you asked...

We are a socially developed country that has accepted that sexism, racism, homophobia, discrimination, corruption are wrong so we oppress them. (you say that's not unjust, and you are correct)

However...

Do you think if we were to arrest people for wearing leather jackets, it would be oppressive? (I will answer it for you) Yes most rational people would say that it's unjust and oppressive. Yet in 100 years it won't be.

Same as if you were to be arrested 100 years ago for kicking a dog. Some people 100 years ago would have seen that as oppressive to arrest a man for such a small thing, yet the people of today see that as justified (a dog has rights too). It's social development. and just because me or you see the equality of sex, race, sexual preference as justified, it doesn't mean other cultures that haven't developed as far socially do.

What is oppressive today in our world, won't be in the future. And what is not oppressive today, may have been in the past.

What is cruel today was not cruel a few years ago. Cock fighting, performing animals at the Cirrus, bear baiting, bull fighting. All no longer socially acceptable.

What was acceptable yesterday is no longer acceptable. Men only clubs, apartheid, Priests touching children. All no longer socially acceptable.

Things currently in a state of flux... Men only in the army.

It's a simple and basic understanding of the world. People living in different countries are not as far along that social development as the UK, EU etc.