Extinction of nationalism? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Muslim
#13080843
A closer look at the immigration process in many countries nowadays might suggest that nationalism is probably becoming an old-fashioned idea!

Becoming a citizen in a country is now quite similar to becoming an employee in company. There is a vacation; the country/company makes an announcement; candidates apply; an interview is held; new citizens/employees are chosen based on their qualifications. And people can decide to change citizenship at any time.

Do you think this is a better attitude? I mean, it might be argued that nationalism brought us nothing except wars. What else does nationalism worth? Does it do us any good at all?

Or it is a matter of identity, that we lose our identities once we lose nationalism? But isn't it better to define our identities as humans instead?
User avatar
By Dave
#13080865
A closer...er look at the immigration process shows that it is making the natives in question furious, leading to a worldwide surge in support for nationalist rhetoric, parties, and policies. The present liberal regime in immigration will collapse because of these growing attitudes, and the collapse of the global economy will eliminate tolerance for foreigners.

Nationalism brought freedom (in the collective sense) to nations, identity, pride, and frankly progress. Indeed it did contribute to wars (although wars were fought before political nationalism and would be continue to be fought in the absence), but people forget that in no activity does mankind apply itself so diligently as in war (this should not be taken to constitute an endorsement of warfare). We even owe much technology that we take for granted today to war.

It is not better to define our identity as humans instead, unless we encounter space aliens or if vegetarianism becomes excessive. Groups are only important in reference to others, and having national communities (in addition to other communities) gives people a unique culture and ethnicity to call home, which often includes ones ancestors and descendants. It would be very sad for mankind if we lost these nations, just as it is said when a local community loses and individual or a family.
User avatar
By Nets
#13080871
Muslim, your thesis here seems to be countered by the resurgence of the right in Europe. The countries with the liberal immigration policies you describe here have all seen far-right (read: anti-immigrant) parties do better than they have in decades. I think we are in for a major backlash in western Europe; economic troubles coupled with a torrent of immigrants from non-western countries is fertile breeding ground for nationalist politics.
User avatar
By Dave
#13080872
Not just Western Europe, Nets. Similar sentiments are growing in North America, Australia, Russia, and Israel. The end of liberalism is near. :D

Also, this is a great time for Le Pen :D:
[youtube]X6m6ZxpDkRM[/youtube]
By Muslim
#13080901
Not sure, but it sound inevitable for me.

The reason why those countries accept immigration is because they need immigration, not because it is cool. The rise of the right, IMHO, won't block immigration. It will just make the process more controlled, which is not bad actually!
User avatar
By Dave
#13080936
Nothing is inevitable.

We don't need immigration at all. Have you seen our unemployment data lately? During the superheated postwar boom in which Western Europe had unemployment rates below 2% immigration was helpful economically. Even then it was not necessary, as Japan had an even stronger boom and tighter labor market (given its inefficient agricultural and retail sectors), yet it made do without immigration. Many immigrants today also represent a net economic loss and just sponge off the state (not all or even necessarily most, obviously). Lastly I'm sure that as a Muslim you'll agree that some things are more important than the economy. ;)
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13081104
Dave wrote:Nothing is inevitable.

We don't need immigration at all. Have you seen our unemployment data lately? During the superheated postwar boom in which Western Europe had unemployment rates below 2% immigration was helpful economically. Even then it was not necessary, as Japan had an even stronger boom and tighter labor market (given its inefficient agricultural and retail sectors), yet it made do without immigration. Many immigrants today also represent a net economic loss and just sponge off the state (not all or even necessarily most, obviously). Lastly I'm sure that as a Muslim you'll agree that some things are more important than the economy. ;)


Even excluding those who don't cause a net loss in and of themselves, they take jobs in this country at lower wages, causing our citizens to be unemployed and they end up sponging off the government because of it. We have 11 million illegal aliens in this country, approx. 3.6% of our population at 306 mil. Taking into consideration 60.1% of our population, or 184 mil., are between 20-64(working age), the number reaches 5.98% of our working population, and I haven't even deducted housewives, college students, and hipsters yet. Unemployment is 9.5%, give or take on updates, and taking care of our illegal immigration problem would seriously reduce that number.
By Muslim
#13082163
I really wish that immigration could be abolished one day. When I look out to see who among the Egyptians I know have migrated through the past couple of years, I can only see the best minds and the best skills. They are the creme de la creme of Egypt. Blocking migration will stop such wealth from bleeding away from my home country.
User avatar
By Dave
#13082219
See dude? This is win-win! 8)
By Aekos
#13098146
I really wish that immigration could be abolished one day. When I look out to see who among the Egyptians I know have migrated through the past couple of years, I can only see the best minds and the best skills. They are the creme de la creme of Egypt. Blocking migration will stop such wealth from bleeding away from my home country.


Brain drain is a huge problem in second world countries. I think the ones that come back, enriched with Western education (and money :p) can benefit their countries even more than equally intelligent people that choose to stay. The problem is getting them to come back :|.
By Inexorable
#13122460
Nationalism never really goes away. Notice that most communist countries that preached international revolution are now hardcore nationalists or at least posing. The Vietnam War became a nationalist fight against China, Cambodia, and the West. North Korea has dropped Marxism for Juche, while China has sidestepped Maoism for a Chinese nepotism. Yugoslavia collapsed into ethnic genocide, and Africa is always torn by nationalism gone mad.
User avatar
By El Gilroy
#13122502
Kill and bury nationalism, it's just shtoopid.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#13122631
Nationalism never really goes away. Notice that most communist countries that preached international revolution are now hardcore nationalists or at least posing.

Communism in south-east Asia was always a thinly-veiled form of nationalism. It was their failure (or some would say refusal) to recognise this fact which led America to make such appallingly bad strategic decisions in that region of the world during the Cold War. Ho Ch Minh was, as one American diplomat put it, the George Washington of Vietnam. America should have sided with him against France; 'Communist' Vietnam would have fallen into the American sphere of influence, or at the very least become a 'non-aligned' country. Oh well, water under the bridge I suppose.... :hmm:
By Inexorable
#13122870
It was their failure (or some would say refusal) to recognise this fact which led America to make such appallingly bad strategic decisions in that region of the world during the Cold War.


I agree entirely. The Indo-Chinese Wars are one of saddest ironies of history. America withdrew and the Vietcong won. Strangely enough, a few decades later Vietnam would become a capitalist nation investing with the very colonial powers it threw off. Back in 2005 the first Boeing Jet from Vietnam Air landed in L.A. All they wanted was independence and communism was just the 'in' thing to do.
By Plaro
#13178481
they need immigration,

No, they do not need immigration, economic system could be changed, and could work in different ways.

I know you have not noticed Muslim but Anglo-Saxons/Irish/Scottish/French in Canada hate silently immigrants, especially outside of European culture group, I had an opportunity to talk to many natives here. Out of political correctness at first they will say "yes multiculturalism is great", but in private they will tell otherwise. I think immigrants like you in Canada, sadly, are bound for a surprise, in fact I think multiculturalism is dead and liberalism with it.
By Muslim
#13180472
Plaro wrote:No, they do not need immigration, economic system could be changed, and could work in different ways.

I know you have not noticed Muslim but Anglo-Saxons/Irish/Scottish/French in Canada hate silently immigrants, especially outside of European culture group, I had an opportunity to talk to many natives here. Out of political correctness at first they will say "yes multiculturalism is great", but in private they will tell otherwise. I think immigrants like you in Canada, sadly, are bound for a surprise, in fact I think multiculturalism is dead and liberalism with it.

I am a little confused. The word "natives" is usually used to refer to aboriginals; but I guess you mean "native Europeans"! Or what?!

Anyways, I am not an immigrant, I am just studying here. I also understand any person's fears of new "lifestyles" introduced to his country, but I don't understand fears of new "races"! The two terms are not equivalent (not to mention that I believe the notion of a "race" is superfluous and useless). There are tens of thousands of Anglo-Saxons both in Europe and N.America who convert to Islam every year, mostly females, which is a change in the lifestyle. While, on the other hand, Latino/Chinese immigrants usually share the same lifestyle as the Christian/Atheist Anglo-Saxons. I am not even sure if Catholics, Protestants and Atheists should be considered the same "cultural group" or not!

The point is, which change of those should be opposed? If the answer is "all of them" then probably you want to turn your country into another Fascism.
By Plaro
#13181401
The word "natives" is usually used to refer to aboriginals

Look if you really want to think in past terms, then why not I be like a European in Colonial times and simply shoot you of the land. Yes, one must look in the present and recognize that Europeans are natives here as well as the aboriginals.

but I don't understand fears of new "races"!

I'm not speaking about race here. Where did I mention race? That is completely from your imagination that you are arriving to those conclusions.

There are tens of thousands of Anglo-Saxons both in Europe and N.America who convert to Islam every year, mostly females, which is a change in the lifestyle.

Why do you post this here? What doe this have to do with anything? Is there some sort of feeling of nationalistic pride in you?

I am not even sure if Catholics, Protestants and Atheists should be considered the same "cultural group" or not.
So are you saying that religion has such a huge effect on culture that even people form same culture group will become divided?

If the answer is "all of them" then probably you want to turn your country into another Fascism.

How is one opposing all of "those change" will bring a "Fascist" state? Do you even know what Fascism is?
What changes are you speaking about anyways? Do you mean immigration, and conversion of European women?
None of this was happening prior to 1990, so was Canada fascist then?

But, to answer you, I see a state that recognizes that citizenship is not some sort of piece of paper that you receive after living in a state for some time. Instead a state should recognizes that citizenship should be based on ethnicity and culture (to me it is pretty much the same thing). Because to me when you write "change", I do not see change I see the destruction of Anglo-Saxon community and way of life, also the destruction culture and way of life of the people that migrate here. I'm still on debate how that will work though, but anyways this, is only few of those changes that must happen, and if your logic is, to oppose change is to be fascist. You are opposing change then you are being fascist.

I also understand any person's fears of new "lifestyles" introduced to his country.

It is not just life style, it is new cultures. But let us look at it as a form of life style. When you choose friend you do not choose those that are furthest from your life style do you? No you do not, because if you choose friend that have a different life style they will influence yours, and Anglo-Saxon do not want their life style to
be influenced.
By Muslim
#13181544
Plaro wrote:Yes, one must look in the present and recognize that Europeans are natives here as well as the aboriginals.

If one must look in the present, then you should recognize that Canadian immigrants from Asia, India and the ME are now natives, besides Europeans and of course Aboriginals.
Plaro wrote:I'm not speaking about race here. Where did I mention race?

So what is the common between Anglo-Saxons, Irish, Scottish and French? They don't share one language. They don't share one religion. They don't share the same history. What else except race?
Plaro wrote:Why do you post this here? What does this have to do with anything?

Because those people converting to Islam are changing their culture (or let's say a major aspect of their culture). So how do you think they should be treated? Should they still be considered part of your Anglo-Saxons/Irish/Scottish/French culture? If yes, then what is your definition of a culture? and if no then are you going to send them to inquisition or expel them or what? I am really interested in reading your answer to that particular last question.
Plaro wrote:So are you saying that religion has such a huge effect on culture that even people form same culture group will become divided?

I said I am not sure. For me, religion is a major aspect of culture. But the word culture is usually used by different people to mean different things. What do you think is closer to "your culture", a Muslim Anglo-Saxon or a Christian Latino?
Plaro wrote:How is one opposing all of "those change" will bring a "Fascist" state? Do you even know what Fascism is?
What changes are you speaking about anyways? Do you mean immigration, and conversion of European women?

Actually I meant conversion.
Plaro wrote:When you choose friend you do not choose those that are furthest from your life style do you?

I do have very close friends from different cultures. My closest friend here in Canada was a Chinese and atheist. He sometimes used to notify my when it is time to pray and he cared much about picking Halal food when inviting me for meal. I also have friendships with people who are ethnically European, Indian and Persian. I can't see a problem.
Plaro wrote:Anglo-Saxon do not want their life style to be influenced.

If all Anglo-Saxons don't want to mix with other people as you are trying to say, then they shouldn't have left Europe to mix with native American at the first place.
By Plaro
#13181716
So what is the common between Anglo-Saxons, Irish, Scottish and French? They don't share one language. They don't share one religion. They don't share the same history. What else except race?

Just ignoring the fact that language, religion, and history are French words derived from Latin, brought to England by Norman invasion. I'm not going to even speak about the other European nationalities. You need to read a history book. I'm shocked by your ignorance, this is what I mean, people come here and they have no clue about European civilization.

So how do you think they should be treated? Should they still be considered part of your Anglo-Saxons/Irish/Scottish/French culture?

Yes I think they are still of the same culture group. As there are Protestant Germans and Catholic Germans, it changes some aspect of that cultural group but I think very little.

If yes, then what is your definition of a culture?

Now that is a good question; I think a better term would be to use ethnicity instead of culture. Culture/Ethnicity to me means that an individual has for one familiar physical characteristics, ways of behavior, similar mentality. Preset, I think genetically and cultivated by parenting and up brining. These behaviors, physical characteristics, and mentality was influenced by time, thus why we have different ethnicities/cultures. I notice more and more that there are differences between ethnicities/culture and sometimes there are very vivid. I’m thinking of a good example I will post it to you once I formulated it well.

What do you think is closer to "your culture", a Muslim Anglo-Saxon or a Christian Latino?

Term Latino is a very broad concept, but what I think you mean here is a Native American/Aborigine of South America, and an English person. I think an Anglo-Saxon man/woman would be closer to me then a Latino in this situation.

I do have very close friends from different cultures. My closest friend here in Canada was a Chinese and atheist.

I had friend from many culture groups as well; However, with age you will begin to notice that people of different ethnicities wither away and the only one that are left around you are people that are ethnically closest to you.

If all Anglo-Saxons don't want to mix with other people as you are trying to say, then they shouldn't have left Europe to mix with native American at the first place.
If one must look in the present, then you should recognize that Canadian immigrants from Asia, India and the ME are now natives, besides Europeans and of course Aboriginals.

Why do you type this non-sense what are you trying to achieve with it? This is on the same level as me typing to you, “Well, why do you fly where you came from and start a multicultural society there”. Also, there is anopther thing I could say on your level of thinking. "Let us look at the present then, and live like “natives”. “If you open up a history book and you eyes, you will realize that Europeans never did mix in large numbers with the natives, and one lived separately from one another, so why do you not pack up with your native ethnical group and live outside European settlements, why do you live in our cities, go build your own settlement, Europeans did. You learn in University that was established by Europeans, if you truly want to compare this situation, presently in history, with that of 15th century and 19th , then proceed, resettle, then we will compare." Ignoramus.
By Muslim
#13182055
Plaro wrote:Just ignoring the fact that language, religion, and history are French words derived from Latin, brought to England by Norman invasion. I'm not going to even speak about the other European nationalities. You need to read a history book. I'm shocked by your ignorance, this is what I mean, people come here and they have no clue about European civilization.

So? Are you saying that English and French are one language or what? And if all Europeans are just "one homogeneous piece of culture" why did the Quebecois try to get independent?
Plaro wrote:I think an Anglo-Saxon man/woman would be closer to me then a Latino in this situation.

So you are fine living within a community of Anglo-Saxons who read the Quran, eat Halal, wear Hejab, never drink alcohol, pray for Allah five times a day facing Mecca, fast in Ramadan and belong to the Muslim Ummah; but you can't stand living with a "colored" person even if he lives exactly the same as you? And you are trying to convince yourself that it is about culture not racism?!!
Plaro wrote:If you open up a history book and you eyes, you will realize that Europeans never did mix in large numbers with the natives,

Yes, they genocided them instead.
Plaro wrote:so why do you not pack up with your native ethnical group and live outside European settlements, why do you live in our cities,

Well, they are mixed settlements. If someone doesn't like them, he can try to establish pure settlements for his race (although I doubt the government will accept such things). I, personally, like mixing with other groups!

WSWS is such a fucking dumb website. I'm shock tha[…]

September 20, Friday Colonel James Mulligan, af[…]

:roll: Trudeau isn't a racist. That's simply a stu[…]

Were they Sicilian? One Sicilian grandparent is […]