News Are patriotism and nationality still relevant in today's world?

[cesiumfrog]

Are patriotism and nationality still relevant in today's world?

No, they shouldn't be.

Obviously, they still are relevant if you want to understand current events. Which is sad, but I'm sure things will slowly improve. (I also expect future generations will look back on our blatant speciesism in much the same way we look at the racism of our grandparents.)

Since this is a basically American forum, it's likely most people on PF don't even have a passport, which doesn't suggest they've progressed far towards identifying themselves as citizens of the world (first, and perhaps of a particular country secondarily) yet. Perhaps it's easier for people like me: I've moved away from my home town (only ever returning to visit), for education in a state I also don't expect to stay in long-term (it's not like I've got a deep commitment to the suburb I happen to be renting in), and many of my strong personal interests (aikido, go, anime) are specific to a country that is one of the most foreign from where I am (and obviously we're also washed in cultural influence from the north-atlantic). Even here in "the multicultural nation" (that slogan may be biased but I think is justifiable in the context of "western" nations) a major election issue ("tough on boat people") revolves around the gross denial of human rights to genuinely desperate people, for reasons that still boil down to whether they had the fortune to be born on one side or another of some line somebody drew on a map..

 

[cesiumfrog]

IMO, it's a bit skewed to say you'd rather see 1,000 innocent US soldiers that are risking their lives than 1,001 innocent Afghanis. You have placed a value on the worth of one set of people over another.

Skewed, how so? One of those numbers is larger than the other, I think Jack is valuing each individual person equally. I also note you added an extra instance of the word innocent. All other things equal, I'd value each civilian life higher than a person who has deliberately chosen to devote themself to the business of killing (implicitly accepting risk to their own life, gambling with it even, and being willing to not just talk about but actually acting to take lives from many others, doing so at a moment's order - without even a claim to verifying the big picture for themselves first, accepting the fact of "collateral damage" without trying for alternate solutions). I think that kind of personality should be discouraged, not glorified.

 

[Pattonias]

Skewed, how so? One of those numbers is larger than the other, I think Jack is valuing each individual person equally. I also note you added an extra instance of the word innocent. All other things equal, I'd value each civilian life higher than a person who has deliberately chosen to devote themself to the business of killing (implicitly accepting risk to their own life, gambling with it even, and being willing to not just talk about but actually acting to take lives from many others, doing so at a moment's order - without even a claim to verifying the big picture for themselves first, accepting the fact of "collateral damage" without trying for alternate solutions). I think that kind of personality should be discouraged, not glorified.

Are you serious? Soldiers put themselves into harms way as a service to their people. Not to fulfill some sort of bloodlust or to get the opportunity to kill other people. You may like to think in ideological terms, but somewhere in your or your ancestors past someone sacrificed their life so that you could have the freedom to discuss your world view.

Soldiers sacrifice a portion of their humanity to serve their people. Whether we had a globilized world or a nationalist world both would require these blood thirsty monsters to keep the peace. Otherwise someone else would recruit professional killers to take away your freedom to complain on the internet.

Sweeping statements like this are far to broud to make any sense in a real world scenario. If all the world's nations/people threw down their arms and refused to fights a single violent individual could rule the world and do as they pleased.

 

[brainstorm]

Since this is a basically American forum, it's likely most people on PF don't even have a passport, which doesn't suggest they've progressed far towards identifying themselves as citizens of the world (first, and perhaps of a particular country secondarily) yet.

Passports, international travel, and the emphasis on cultural differences that often results actually help promote nationalism more than undermine it. Nationalism is challenged more by the person who questions the need for a passport or the depth of cultural differences attribute to ethnicity/nationalism. It's not so much the fact of traveling that promotes differentiation and borders - it's just that people immerse themselves in it when they travel because they don't want to challenge border security, which can be dangerous.

Skewed, how so? One of those numbers is larger than the other, I think Jack is valuing each individual person equally. I also note you added an extra instance of the word innocent. All other things equal, I'd value each civilian life higher than a person who has deliberately chosen to devote themself to the business of killing (implicitly accepting risk to their own life, gambling with it even, and being willing to not just talk about but actually acting to take lives from many others, doing so at a moment's order - without even a claim to verifying the big picture for themselves first, accepting the fact of "collateral damage" without trying for alternate solutions). I think that kind of personality should be discouraged, not glorified.

The issue isn't whether you call it "collateral damage." It is whether you consider it worth while to make an effort to minimize such damage. People who emotionalize the damage of conflict may actually contribute to making it worse by adding emotional reaction to the existing violence. On the other hand, if people have no basis for recognizing violence as bad, what basis would they have for minimizing harm done?

Are you serious? Soldiers put themselves into harms way as a service to their people. Not to fulfill some sort of bloodlust or to get the opportunity to kill other people. You may like to think in ideological terms, but somewhere in your or your ancestors past someone sacrificed their life so that you could have the freedom to discuss your world view.

Soldiers sacrifice a portion of their humanity to serve their people. Whether we had a globilized world or a nationalist world both would require these blood thirsty monsters to keep the peace. Otherwise someone else would recruit professional killers to take away your freedom to complain on the internet.

Gandhi would say that only the violent can resist violence. The problem with defending the sacrifice of soldiers is that it does to soldiers exactly what war does to them, i.e. puts them on the front line of defense - only in this case it's ideological instead of physical. Why should it be necessary for soldiers to sacrifice their humanity to engage in conflict? Isn't it possible for people to engage in violence in a particular situation as simply being the path of least harm or the most ethical path in a particular situation? For example, if people are getting away with unfairly abusing others and you stand up to them with a fight, isn't that more ethical than allowing them to continue the abuse without intervention? You can even look at it from the perspective of the abuser: if you were abusing someone unfairly, wouldn't it be ethical for someone to intervene in your actions to prevent you from continuing down the road you're on?

Sweeping statements like this are far to broud to make any sense in a real world scenario. If all the world's nations/people threw down their arms and refused to fights a single violent individual could rule the world and do as they pleased.

True. People forget that non-violent domination and abuse are possible and occur all the time. Why would it be more ethical to fight passive-aggression with passive-aggression than with active aggression? What's more, less-violent domination is usually achieved through more systematic authoritarian power, which is a tool of the powerful - so by renouncing all forms of violence, you are actually promoting the right of dominant powers to dominate without resistance.

 

[cesiumfrog]

Are you serious? Soldiers put themselves into harms way as a service to their people.

If someone is to be harmed better it be soldiers, since they already knowingly chose to insert themselves into harms way, than civilians, since they did not volunteer for (nor assist) harms way to come to them.

Soldiers sacrifice a portion of their humanity to serve their people.

That is plainly saying there is less of what we value left in a soldier than a civil-person.

Whether we had a globilized world or a nationalist world both would require these blood thirsty monsters to keep the peace. Otherwise someone else would recruit professional killers to take away your freedom to complain on the internet. [..] If all the world's nations/people threw down their arms and refused to fights a single violent individual could rule the world and do as they pleased.

Gandhi (India) is one demonstration that you are wrong to assume it always has to work that way.

 

[Cyrus]

Gandhi (India) is one demonstration that you are wrong to assume it always has to work that way.

Hitchens has argued that this is simply untrue. The British rule of India was coming to an end, and was well known by many, well before Ghandi became popular for his movements. Ghandi had the good fortune of being in the right place at the right time to claim credit for what happened. Ghandi was also a crackpot that wanted to have people spin their own clothing, rather than pursue math and science. So overall, not a great person to use as your example.

 

[Cyrus]

Since this is a basically American forum, it's likely most people on PF don't even have a passport, which doesn't suggest they've progressed far towards identifying themselves as citizens of the world (first, and perhaps of a particular country secondarily) yet.

Americans are, well, American. They have no need, reason, or desire, to 'identify' themselves as 'global citizens of the world:' - whatever that's supposed to mean.

Perhaps it's easier for people like me: I've moved away from my home town (only ever returning to visit), for education in a state I also don't expect to stay in long-term (it's not like I've got a deep commitment to the suburb I happen to be renting in), and many of my strong personal interests (aikido, go, anime) are specific to a country that is one of the most foreign from where I am (and obviously we're also washed in cultural influence from the north-atlantic). Even here in "the multicultural nation" (that slogan may be biased but I think is justifiable in the context of "western" nations) a major election issue ("tough on boat people") revolves around the gross denial of human rights to genuinely desperate people, for reasons that still boil down to whether they had the fortune to be born on one side or another of some line somebody drew on a map..

All this is irrelevant stories about your personal life. In regards to your last sentence, immigration issues are far more complex and important than 'whether they had the fortune to be born on one side or another of some line somebody drew on a map..' We can have a rational discussion about this issue iff you recognize this simple fact of life.

 

[player1_1_1]

globalisation is one of the worst things in today's life. it leads to minimalization of the role of the country's government, and as a result people from my country have less to say about our state than foreign institutes like euro parliament. one of the results is the introduction of very dangerous GMO food to our country by donald tusk's government, which Our President Lech Kaczynski and his brother, Jaroslaw Kaczynski were fighting against. but Lech Kaczynski and 95 great people have been assassinated, which happened indirectly by globalisation.

 

[brainstorm]

Americans are, well, American. They have no need, reason, or desire, to 'identify' themselves as 'global citizens of the world:' - whatever that's supposed to mean.

That's like saying that Chinese workers are communists and have no desire to see themselves as the global manufacturing sector. Nationalist ideology just doesn't match the economic reality of a long-globalized world. The U.S. republic is probably one of the most successful globalizing institutions throughout all of colonialism. It's not hard to block reality out by interpreting everything through the lenses of nationalism, but it can't erase the fact that every national government exists as part of global discourses of economic and political power.

All this is irrelevant stories about your personal life. In regards to your last sentence, immigration issues are far more complex and important than 'whether they had the fortune to be born on one side or another of some line somebody drew on a map..' We can have a rational discussion about this issue iff you recognize this simple fact of life.

So are racial issues, but it doesn't change the fact that what body you're born into and where is a matter of chance - or perhaps karma if you believe in predestination. The simple fact is that national territorialism is maintained to ensure higher levels of privilege for some people and exclusion and relegation of others elsewhere for others. If this makes you feel guilty, you can spend pages and pages rationalizing it - but why deny the basic fact that national separatism is about raising some people's standard of living while denying others access to the same opportunities?

Ghandi was also a crackpot that wanted to have people spin their own clothing, rather than pursue math and science. So overall, not a great person to use as your example.

Well, if you consider that civil conflict and war are fought over economic privilege, then getting people to spin their own clothing prevents a certain amount of class division that could brew into violence. Math and science are wonderful, but when mathematicians and scientists are part of an elite class who require the servitude of the multitudes to make their clothes and other necessities for them, it contributes to class conflict and violence doesn't it?

 

[Office_Shredder]

That's like saying that Chinese workers are communists and have no desire to see themselves as the global manufacturing sector.

Actually it's nothing like that. Being the global manufacturing sector is a statement of national dominance, nothing to do with actual globalization. And I don't know where the communist part is supposed to fit in

 

[brainstorm]

globalisation is one of the worst things in today's life. it leads to minimalization of the role of the country's government, and as a result people from my country have less to say about our state than foreign institutes like euro parliament. one of the results is the introduction of very dangerous GMO food to our country by donald tusk's government, which Our President Lech Kaczynski and his brother, Jaroslaw Kaczynski were fighting against. but Lech Kaczynski and 95 great people have been assassinated, which happened indirectly by globalisation.

From your post, it sounds like you claim some form of European national citizenship. You should take a step back from your position and analyze what has led you to have such a negative view of "foreign institutes," "foreign intervention," "foreigners in general," and basically anything else that can be propagandized to be a threat to your "generous, peaceful, and prosperous" socialist welfare nation-state. Europe has a strong track-record of ethnic-nationalism and promoting intranational solidarity by means of demonizing other nation-states in terms of generalized observations of ethno-national cultural differences. For some reason, some people have made Europe all about division and ethno-national pride/egoism. It's ironic that Europeanist ideologies is so staunchly humanistic and yet the culture of classifying and differentiating people and culture according to ethnic lines is so strong. If you think about it, though, it makes sense to defend and promote national separatism by claiming that ethno-cultural exclusion is a universal human right and wish instead of critically recognizing that it promotes exploitation and ethnic-conflict.

 

[Office_Shredder]

From your post, it sounds like you claim some form of European national citizenship.

Yes, you're such a global citizen you can't even tell what country he is from based on his post. Although I have to agree there's some paranoia that makes him state as fact the assassination of Lech, unless I missed something. Googling doesn't reveal any definitive end to the investigation

 

[brainstorm]

Yes, you're such a global citizen you can't even tell what country he is from based on his post. Although I have to agree there's some paranoia that makes him state as fact the assassination of Lech, unless I missed something. Googling doesn't reveal any definitive end to the investigation

As I recall, fixed surnames emerged during Napoleonic times as people were supposed to be registered according to their paternal lineage. I think that assessing where someone is from serves a similar purpose in modern nationalist control ideology. You should study the nazi ideology regarding how Jews were viewed as nomadic and therefore a threat to any nation-state. The function of this ideology seems to have been to incite people to voice allegiance to a particular national identity. This was often done by thrusting the hand into the air and chanting "sieg heil." Fortunately, today people are not expected to assert their national loyalty with such vigor. We can simply acknowledge "where we are from" and accept the assumption that what country we are from defines us globally. True, I avoid doing this because it seems too similar to chanting "sieg heil" to me, but I'm sure that under the most evocative interrogation tactics, I could be brought to claiming some national origin. Who wouldn't, except maybe Job and Jesus? The more interesting question to me, however, is why people are so obsessed with establishing national identity if not because they have been terrorized into elevating national/ethnic identity to a level of value close to life itself. It is sad when ideology is elevated to such a level, imo.

 

[drizzle]

Global citizenship applies the concept of citizenship to a global level, and is strongly connected with the concepts of globalization and cosmopolitanism. World citizenship is a related term which can be distinguished from global citizenship, although some may merge the two concepts[citation needed]. Various ideas about what a global citizen is exist.[1][2] Global citizenship can be defined as a moral and ethical disposition which can guide the understanding of individuals or groups of local and global contexts, and remind them of their relative responsibilities within various communities. The term was used by U.S. President Obama in 2008 in a speech in Berlin.[3][4]

According to some accounts, citizenship is motivated by local interests (love of family, communal fairness, self-interest), global interests (a sense of universal equality), and concern for fellow human beings, human rights and human dignity. The key tenets of global citizenship include respect for any and all fellow global citizens, regardless of race, religion or creed and give rise to a universal sympathy beyond the barriers of nationality.
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_citizenship"

One don’t need a global government to think global!... Of course you won’t be one if you’re a saturnian!

 

[Cyrus]

That's like saying that Chinese workers are communists and have no desire to see themselves as the global manufacturing sector. Nationalist ideology just doesn't match the economic reality of a long-globalized world. The U.S. republic is probably one of the most successful globalizing institutions throughout all of colonialism. It's not hard to block reality out by interpreting everything through the lenses of nationalism, but it can't erase the fact that every national government exists as part of global discourses of economic and political power.

Sure, while I agree with your last statement, that does not imply that the US citizens are part of a 'global citizenry of the world.' By citizen, I mean a global government, setting rules (a better word would be imposing) that usurps the countries constitutional law. Having said that, I don't necessarily agree or support a globalized market (I guess you call this a 'free market') because the playing fields are not 'level' among competing nations. (Very cheap labor in India outsourcing American Jobs and Business, but a better example would be one of a government subsidizing an industry to gain an edge in a global market).

So are racial issues, but it doesn't change the fact that what body you're born into and where is a matter of chance - or perhaps karma if you believe in predestination. The simple fact is that national territorialism is maintained to ensure higher levels of privilege for some people and exclusion and relegation of others elsewhere for others.

This is fundamentally wrong. It is to maintain sovereignty via protection of the boarders, to control the people and commerce through said boarders, and provide security. It is not to bar out poor immigrants who just want to come to America, nor are they even entitled to such a right - it is a privilege you are selected for.

If this makes you feel guilty, you can spend pages and pages rationalizing it - but why deny the basic fact that national separatism is about raising some people's standard of living while denying others access to the same opportunities?

It doesn't make me feel guilty, why should it? You don't seem to understand that its not a 'basic fact' that is about denying others the same access to the same opportunities.

Well, if you consider that civil conflict and war are fought over economic privilege, then getting people to spin their own clothing prevents a certain amount of class division that could brew into violence. Math and science are wonderful, but when mathematicians and scientists are part of an elite class who require the servitude of the multitudes to make their clothes and other necessities for them, it contributes to class conflict and violence doesn't it?

brainstorm, live up to your username. Ghandi's notion of everyone spinning their own clothing was, for a lack of a better word(s), utterly stupid. Your notion of what math and science does is radically, and again, fundamentally flawed. It has done precisely the opposite of what you have claimed - get rid of classicism and violence. You can Google Steven Pinkers talks for more detail on this.

 

[Al68]

Americans are, well, American. They have no need, reason, or desire, to 'identify' themselves as 'global citizens of the world:' - whatever that's supposed to mean.

It means nothing. A citizen is "a native or naturalized member of a state or nation".

The phrase "citizen of the world" is like the phrase "wheel of the grape". It's utter nonsense to anyone who knows what the words mean.

 

[brainstorm]

Sure, while I agree with your last statement, that does not imply that the US citizens are part of a 'global citizenry of the world.' By citizen, I mean a global government, setting rules (a better word would be imposing) that usurps the countries constitutional law. Having said that, I don't necessarily agree or support a globalized market (I guess you call this a 'free market') because the playing fields are not 'level' among competing nations. (Very cheap labor in India outsourcing American Jobs and Business, but a better example would be one of a government subsidizing an industry to gain an edge in a global market).

During the war on terror, while GW Bush was in office, nationalist ideology fought strongly against unilateralism without UN consensus, and the very notion that anyone had the right to declare a war against a global problem like "terrorism" without operating on a nation-by-nation basis. At the same time, EU and other "multinational institutions" were forming to garner nationalist resistance (i.e. fear) to the undermining of nationalism. Globalization news/propaganda was also strongly disseminated with the effect of evoking widespread anti-globalization resistance and the scapegoating of the US as the globalizing force-in-chief. The effect of this was to create a global climate of national submission, since individuals the world over have been trained to believe that the US is more powerful than their nation, and so the only possible way for them to avoid being dominated by the US is to bond together with their national compatriots and internationally on a nation-with-nation level.

The result of this was/is a kind of confederationism similar to what the CSA had achieved among states-rights loyalists during the US civil war era. The US was then too viewed as a cultural imperialist insofar as the republican party including Lincoln wanted to push a universal ban on slavery instead of respecting each state's cultural autonomy to decide for itself whether to allow slavery. Lincoln, like GW Bush, became exceedingly unpopular among both opponents and supporters because people were tired of the war and were willing to compromise universal rights in the interest of peace.

This is fundamentally wrong. It is to maintain sovereignty via protection of the boarders, to control the people and commerce through said boarders, and provide security. It is not to bar out poor immigrants who just want to come to America, nor are they even entitled to such a right - it is a privilege you are selected for.

Controlling migration is just one part of it. Another part is to create economic conditions that render some territories labor pools for the economic benefit of others. It is basically colonialism with as little intermigration as possible, except of course for the privileged.

It doesn't make me feel guilty, why should it? You don't seem to understand that its not a 'basic fact' that is about denying others the same access to the same opportunities.

Then why is there a global ideology of protecting "our jobs" by restricting migration and international out-sourcing? Why is there incessant whining about migrants utilizing public resources?

brainstorm, live up to your username. Ghandi's notion of everyone spinning their own clothing was, for a lack of a better word(s), utterly stupid. Your notion of what math and science does is radically, and again, fundamentally flawed. It has done precisely the opposite of what you have claimed - get rid of classicism and violence. You can Google Steven Pinkers talks for more detail on this.

Hint: anyone who calls something "utterly stupid" as their primary argument against something is utterly stupid. Math and science has benefits, but it does not prevent people from using their proficiencies in these skills to claim class privilege of consuming the fruits of other people's labor. Why can't people learn math and science AND spin their own clothes? If uneducated people can do it, why can't educated people?

It means nothing. A citizen is "a native or naturalized member of a state or nation".

This is like saying "cooties is a condition caused by infection by the cooties virus when the host has not been inoculated by the cooties shot." In other words, you're validating something in reference to itself without any comprehension of the actual basis for the institution of nationalism.

The phrase "citizen of the world" is like the phrase "wheel of the grape". It's utter nonsense to anyone who knows what the words mean.

People use the expression to contrast with the idea of national citizenship because they don't like the elitism of it. Citizenship may also denote a sense of public responsibility and stewardship. Someone who cares as much about ecological and resource preservation on any continent or region as any other could call themselves a global citizen in this sense. Similarly, a person who thinks the point of war is to minimize casualities and oppression among ALL people touched by the war, regardless of which flag is flying near them, could call themselves a global citizen. Someone who believes that freedom and individual rights are universally self-evident regardless of ethnic/national identity could also call themselves a global citizen. There are lots of ways that this term makes sense.

 

[russ_watters]

Note, "globalization" or at least identification beyond national boundaries matters more for some than for others largely because of their geographical situation. The USA is large and mostly surrounded by water so there is no need for an American to regularly interact with people outside their country. European nations are much smaller and packed densely, so in a lot of cases, just getting a change of scenery requires travel outside the country.

To me, the existence of the EU is more about geographical necesssity than philosophical desire. And by the same token, the USA's physical isolation has enabled and maybe even driven its political isolation.

 

[brainstorm]

Note, "globalization" or at least identification beyond national boundaries matters more for some than for others largely because of their geographical situation. The USA is large and mostly surrounded by water so there is no need for an American to regularly interact with people outside their country. European nations are much smaller and packed densely, so in a lot of cases, just getting a change of scenery requires travel outside the country.

To me, the existence of the EU is more about geographical necesssity than philosophical desire. And by the same token, the USA's physical isolation has enabled and maybe even driven its political isolation.

Global communications networks and media broadcasting have existed for a while, along with transit networks that make global transit fairly easy and convenient. I believe it takes as long to fly from New York to Paris as it does to go from NY to LA or Mexico city, etc. So geography has become more of a weathering foundation for nationalist ideology than an actual cause. I think that in the anti-globalization propaganda of the 1990s, it was more the FEAR that the internet could actually undermine physical geography that drove people to protest and violence than it was geography itself. Nationalism may have emerged from geographical proximity, but it has evolved into an ideology that grasps for geography or anything else to ground its eroding validity. When nationalists feel sufficiently threatened with the total untenability of their ideology in the face of reason, they resort to terrorism and war to try to intimidate people into maintaining and supporting nationalist institutions. Ironically, ethnicity, language diversity, and most other cultural freedoms could be preserved without nationalist control, but without sufficient precedent for this it's no wonder that people don't trust global freedom.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Global communications networks and media broadcasting have existed for a while, along with transit networks that make global transit fairly easy and convenient. I believe it takes as long to fly from New York to Paris as it does to go from NY to LA or Mexico city, etc.

To make the search equal I searched for flights from LA to NY and from NY to Paris (so they both go in the same direction), along with flights from Paris to NY and NY to LA. All flights are on Saturday, and from Continental.

Flights from LA to NY: approximately 5 hours 15 minutes
Flights from NY to Paris: 7 hours 30 minutes

Flights from NY to LA: approximately 5 hours 50 minutes
Flights from Paris to NY: 8 hours 30 minutes

 

[Cyrus]

During the war on terror, while GW Bush was in office, nationalist ideology fought strongly against unilateralism without UN consensus, and the very notion that anyone had the right to declare a war against a global problem like "terrorism" without operating on a nation-by-nation basis. At the same time, EU and other "multinational institutions" were forming to garner nationalist resistance (i.e. fear) to the undermining of nationalism. Globalization news/propaganda was also strongly disseminated with the effect of evoking widespread anti-globalization resistance and the scapegoating of the US as the globalizing force-in-chief. The effect of this was to create a global climate of national submission, since individuals the world over have been trained to believe that the US is more powerful than their nation, and so the only possible way for them to avoid being dominated by the US is to bond together with their national compatriots and internationally on a nation-with-nation level.

The result of this was/is a kind of confederationism similar to what the CSA had achieved among states-rights loyalists during the US civil war era. The US was then too viewed as a cultural imperialist insofar as the republican party including Lincoln wanted to push a universal ban on slavery instead of respecting each state's cultural autonomy to decide for itself whether to allow slavery. Lincoln, like GW Bush, became exceedingly unpopular among both opponents and supporters because people were tired of the war and were willing to compromise universal rights in the interest of peace.

I'm really failing to see the point of this long answer. In the first paragraph, you talk about declaring war on terrorism without regard for a nation-nation basis. I don't understand what you mean by this, because a 'war on terrorism' is a slogan, not an actual declaration of war so what, exactly, is your gripe here? I'm not sure what you mean by this line:

Globalization news/propaganda was also strongly disseminated with the effect of evoking widespread anti-globalization resistance and the scapegoating of the US as the globalizing force-in-chief.

which appears to do a 180 of the argument you just made in the line prior. Your Lincoln analogy escapes me because unlike the situation under Bush, there is no 'universal rights' going on in this situation that can be compromised on. Honestly, your above two paragraphs really confuse me, can you restate it more effectively please?

Controlling migration is just one part of it. Another part is to create economic conditions that render some territories labor pools for the economic benefit of others. It is basically colonialism with as little intermigration as possible, except of course for the privileged.

This is simply nonsense. In the case of the US boarder with Mexico, blocking it off does not 'create' any economic conditions to the labor pool of Mexico. If you want to complain about the economic situation there, you can try pointing your finger at the Mexican government and the high levels of corruption. Blaming US boarder policy is distasteful, to say the least.

Then why is there a global ideology of protecting "our jobs" by restricting migration and international out-sourcing? Why is there incessant whining about migrants utilizing public resources?

What 'global ideology'? This is an ideology held by Americans, and as far as I can tell, our view does not constitute the view of the entire globe. Your last question amazes and astounds me - you're honestly asking why tax paying Americans are 'incessantly whining' about immigrants utilizing public resources? First, take the time to understand exactly what it is Americans are complaining about - not 'migrants', but illegal immigrants. People who do not pay taxes but use public resources. Are you intentionally being dishonest here?

Hint: anyone who calls something "utterly stupid" as their primary argument against something is utterly stupid. Math and science has benefits, but it does not prevent people from using their proficiencies in these skills to claim class privilege of consuming the fruits of other people's labor. Why can't people learn math and science AND spin their own clothes? If uneducated people can do it, why can't educated people?

Then you can explain to me what socio-economic benefit there is to everyone living a peasant life spinning their own clothing - knock yourself out on this one. Again, you make these outlandish statements. Consuming what fruit of other peoples labor. Your last statement is very telling about your radical viewpoint.

 

[brainstorm]

I'm really failing to see the point of this long answer. In the first paragraph, you talk about declaring war on terrorism without regard for a nation-nation basis. I don't understand what you mean by this, because a 'war on terrorism' is a slogan, not an actual declaration of war so what, exactly, is your gripe here? I'm not sure what you mean by this line:

Because how you frame war is a propaganda statement of ideology. If you frame war as a conflict between nations, you're propagating nationism. If you frame it as a global war between good and evil, democracy and terrorism, sobriety and drugs, or whatever - you're avoiding propagating nationalism in your declaration of war. I believe Bush actually gave a speech where he explained that globalization was rendering international-conflicts a thing of the past but that without war peace could not exist. This explains the need for global warfare that operates without nationalist ideology. This in turn evoked the sentiment in many that they wanted warfare to occur between nations instead of globally as a means of containing conflict in order for some people to be left out of it. I.e. nationalism allows people to claim neutrality during war, even though in practice the people claiming neutrality probably actually support one side of the conflict more than the other. This is why it makes more sense to frame wars as ideological conflicts than as ethnic-conflicts between "nations." This is especially the case since there are always political differences among people sharing the same nationality or other ethnic identity.

which appears to do a 180 of the argument you just made in the line prior. Your Lincoln analogy escapes me because unlike the situation under Bush, there is no 'universal rights' going on in this situation that can be compromised on. Honestly, your above two paragraphs really confuse me, can you restate it more effectively please?

For Lincoln the universal right was to be free of slavery. For Bush it was freedom from rule by terror. Both struggles were oriented toward freedom from repressive control. With slavery, the field is economics - with terrorism it is hegemony through violence. Terrorism was part of maintaining slavery and it continues to be used as a tactic to attempt to control people globally. Freeing people from rule by fear is complex because their fear is often to exercise freedom; i.e. they submit willingly to authoritarianism. The Bush reign undermined the will of people to authoritarian submission and fear by basically confronting them with ideological violence at a level that they had to overcome in order to function. Currently there is probably little potential for generating fear through terrorism, wire-tapping, the threat of torturous interrogation, etc. because these propaganda tactics were brought to their limits and people overcame the fear. Prior to that, all these prospects were significantly feared enough that people globally disciplined their behavior in a way that avoided the threat of any of them. Try to understand that most people in the modern world are driven to authoritarian submission by propaganda/hegmony and not direct violence. During the war on terror, much of this hegemony was deconstructed. You probably can't understand that unless you study cultural social control.

This is simply nonsense. In the case of the US boarder with Mexico, blocking it off does not 'create' any economic conditions to the labor pool of Mexico. If you want to complain about the economic situation there, you can try pointing your finger at the Mexican government and the high levels of corruption. Blaming US boarder policy is distasteful, to say the least.

If Mexico and the US were not distinguished as separate nations, what would stop anyone from doing anything in one region that they wouldn't do in the other?

What 'global ideology'? This is an ideology held by Americans, and as far as I can tell, our view does not constitute the view of the entire globe. Your last question amazes and astounds me - you're honestly asking why tax paying Americans are 'incessantly whining' about immigrants utilizing public resources? First, take the time to understand exactly what it is Americans are complaining about - not 'migrants', but illegal immigrants. People who do not pay taxes but use public resources. Are you intentionally being dishonest here?

I wasn't asking why people whine about migration. I was saying that the reason they whine is to limit access to public resources and jobs to citizens. This means that nationalism is a method for limiting access to opportunities. The reasoning for doing that comes after you admit that this is the purpose of nationalism.

Then you can explain to me what socio-economic benefit there is to everyone living a peasant life spinning their own clothing - knock yourself out on this one. Again, you make these outlandish statements. Consuming what fruit of other peoples labor. Your last statement is very telling about your radical viewpoint.

All I said is that class-differences can lead to class conflict, which can lead to social problems. It's not always the case, but class-conflict problems are not uncommon either. If people utilized more of their own labor instead of using other people to serve their needs, class-conflict could be reduced and the consequences thereof lessened. I say "could" because there are a lot of factors involved, but mainly my point was that Gandhi's suggestion was not senseless.

 

[Cyrus]

Sorry for the delay in my reply. Anyways, here it is...

Because how you frame war is a propaganda statement of ideology. If you frame war as a conflict between nations, you're propagating nationism. If you frame it as a global war between good and evil, democracy and terrorism, sobriety and drugs, or whatever - you're avoiding propagating nationalism in your declaration of war. I believe Bush actually gave a speech where he explained that globalization was rendering international-conflicts a thing of the past but that without war peace could not exist. This explains the need for global warfare that operates without nationalist ideology. This in turn evoked the sentiment in many that they wanted warfare to occur between nations instead of globally as a means of containing conflict in order for some people to be left out of it. I.e. nationalism allows people to claim neutrality during war, even though in practice the people claiming neutrality probably actually support one side of the conflict more than the other. This is why it makes more sense to frame wars as ideological conflicts than as ethnic-conflicts between "nations." This is especially the case since there are always political differences among people sharing the same nationality or other ethnic identity.

Thanks for the clarification, much better this time - and an interesting analysis/perspective.

For Lincoln the universal right was to be free of slavery. For Bush it was freedom from rule by terror. Both struggles were oriented toward freedom from repressive control. With slavery, the field is economics - with terrorism it is hegemony through violence. Terrorism was part of maintaining slavery and it continues to be used as a tactic to attempt to control people globally. Freeing people from rule by fear is complex because their fear is often to exercise freedom; i.e. they submit willingly to authoritarianism. The Bush reign undermined the will of people to authoritarian submission and fear by basically confronting them with ideological violence at a level that they had to overcome in order to function. Currently there is probably little potential for generating fear through terrorism, wire-tapping, the threat of torturous interrogation, etc. because these propaganda tactics were brought to their limits and people overcame the fear. Prior to that, all these prospects were significantly feared enough that people globally disciplined their behavior in a way that avoided the threat of any of them. Try to understand that most people in the modern world are driven to authoritarian submission by propaganda/hegmony and not direct violence. During the war on terror, much of this hegemony was deconstructed. You probably can't understand that unless you study cultural social control.

Now I follow you better.

If Mexico and the US were not distinguished as separate nations, what would stop anyone from doing anything in one region that they wouldn't do in the other?

But the US and Mexico are separate nations. I have a policy on not playing the 'hypothetical' game. Let's stick to what are the given facts of a situation. Answering this will lead down speculation path of no return.

I wasn't asking why people whine about migration. I was saying that the reason they whine is to limit access to public resources and jobs to citizens. This means that nationalism is a method for limiting access to opportunities. The reasoning for doing that comes after you admit that this is the purpose of nationalism.

No - they're not. Illegals are not citizens. Your analysis is fundamentally wrong here.

All I said is that class-differences can lead to class conflict, which can lead to social problems. It's not always the case, but class-conflict problems are not uncommon either. If people utilized more of their own labor instead of using other people to serve their needs, class-conflict could be reduced and the consequences thereof lessened. I say "could" because there are a lot of factors involved, but mainly my point was that Gandhi's suggestion was not senseless.

I see no explanation in this answer as to what is sensible about Gandhi's nonsense views on living a peasant lifestyle. Now, Ghandi did effectively eliminate the Untouchable class in the Indian class system, but that does not excuse his other positions. You state that if more people used their own labor instead of relying on others this would reduce class-conflict. This is a statement of fact, with no evidence on your part to support it - I don't buy it.

 

[russ_watters]

I believe it takes as long to fly from New York to Paris as it does to go from NY to LA or Mexico city, etc.

Your analogy is improper: You've taken one of the longest extremes as the basis for comparison: New Yorkers can't really take a weekend-trip to LA but Parisians can take a weekend-trip to one of half a dozen different countries. The fact that they can't also take a weekend-trip to Moscow doesn't alter that reality.

Heck, I have a girlfriend in Florida (I live just south of New York) and visit her once a month. The flight is 2:30 each way and costs about $200 round trip. The cheapest flight I see to Paris is about $750 and takes more than 7 hours. From Paris, 2:30 by plane covers almost all of Western Europe and part of Northern Africa - probably 2 dozen countries!

 

[ThomasT]

As gender and racial discrimination become less prevalent today as compared to the past ...

I'm 62 years old and I don't think that racial discrimination is less prevalent, just less overt and obvious. Maybe gender discrimination is, but maybe not. I don't know.

... and as globalisation brings people together both physically and in terms of communication, how significant are nationalities today?

Still pretty significant it seems. Nationalism is alive and well.

And with environmental issues becoming more and more urgent an issue, should we all embrace internationalism instead?

Of course we should, but people are not going to do that on their own, proactively, without being pressured to do it. And who's going to pressure them to do it. Well, nobody. If you're American, then you're pressured to be American, not a 'citizen of the world'. If Japenese, then you're Japenese. And so on.

Are patriotism and nationality still relevant in today's world?

Of course they're relevant, and this is a precursor to conflict. No country is strong enough to take control and be the 'central government' of the entire world, so to speak, at this time. Perhaps China in the 22nd century. Who knows. The US is destined to be a 3rd world country by 2100. Russia is a question mark. Maybe the European collective will emerge as the dominant force in 2110.

 

[Pattonias]

The US is destined to be a 3rd world country by 2100. Russia is a question mark. Maybe the European collective will emerge as the dominant force in 2110.

Is this just a statement off hand, or are you citing some sort of research or trend?

Until the world's policy comes up with a better solution to the word's problems than taking my labor and redistributing it to all those around the world that it feels need my support, I'm going to support the nation that is concerned with my interests. If the world's solution to poverty is to make everyone live in poverty, I would rather be a nationalist. Which has apparently been decided to be an evil concept. I think that nationalism has been a tool by which a nation has been mobilized by its leaders to do wrong. I don't think it is evil by default.

 

[cesiumfrog]

Until the world's policy comes up with a better solution to the word's problems than taking my labor and redistributing it to all those around the world that it feels need my support, I'm going to support the nation that is concerned with my interests. If the world's solution to poverty is to make everyone live in poverty, I would rather be a nationalist.

What are you talking about?

"World's policy"? I take it no UN declaration nor international treaty fits what you're describing.

How can anyone take your labour anyway? Unless you're in prison (incarceration rate: there's a statistic in which the USA tops the page), you're free to do something people find productive. Are you complaining about your employer (or the producer of the whatever you consume) having the freedom to outsouce overseas? (I like that this benefits poorer countries, but it's hardly a deliberate moral redistribution effort.)

What is it you actually want your nation to do regards to labour to "support your interests"? (I take it you're not interested in reaping benefits of global free trade?) How is it you think nations are keeping everyone from living in poverty?

Edit: Are you talking about taxation? That is, by viewing the sole function of nation-states as to tax their people to support the welfare of their people, you have no vested interest in any nation-states except your own. So you don't care what happens elsewhere, except to the extent it affects your tax rate or use of social services? If tax revenue were completely under local control (without necessarily altering the rate/services) you would stop identifying yourself as a citizen of the larger nation? (Cease evaluating people from different towns within the state as your equals?) And furthermore, your understanding of social welfare is that it causes most people to live worse off than they would be without such policies, so you would model life as a zero sum game? (I wonder whether you might even go so far as to suppose each instance of free trade is detrimental to one party and beneficial only to the other?)

 

[apeiron]

The fallacy here is to try to identify some optimal scale of organisation when what actually matters is things are organised across all scales.

Societies are organised on the principle of competition~co-operation.

From the bottom-up comes the individuating or differentiating tendency. The expression of freedoms to do things that are perceived of local benefit. People are in competition, towns are in competition, nations are in competition, and this can be good - enterprising and creative. It produces the necessary variety which allows adaptive learning in a system.

Then from the top-down comes the collectivising or integrating tendency. This is also good when it works. People work together, towns work together, nations work together. There emerge common constraints, general laws, that act downwards to produce co-operation. What gets locally invented can become generally practiced as an adaptive habit.

So an organised society, or organised world, would find this balance between competition and co-operation across all scales. They would be in dynamic equilibrium.

This is the general principle. Both tendencies are necessary, even if they appear mutually opposed. (In fact, they are synergistic - oppositions that produce a complex adaptive system.)

Patriotism and nationalism are just a particular scale of competition that arose once human societies became large enough to bump into their neighbours. And co-operation also needs to be negotiated at this scale. Trade is as old as warfare. The exchange of ideas just as old as the rejection of them.

The evolution of the adaptive system at this level has not been smooth. We have been through a lot of competition-dominated times - all those world wars. And with globalisation, the EU, human rights charter, and other trends, some could say there is now too much co-operation going on.

But anyway, it is essential to see that you have two tendencies that need to strike a balance at any scale of social organisation. And it is a dynamic pragamatic balance, not some absolute one.

Which then leads to another bigger issue - is the system stable or growing? You can have stable equilibriums and also growing or accelerating ones.

An example of a society with a strong stability ethic was confucian China. Confucianism is explicitly a systems philosophy (the locally good, in the terms of smart and inventive scholars, can rise to the top of ths system, while those at the top had great responsibility to look after their subjects - not that they always did, but we are talking about the philosophy).

An example of a society with a strong growth ethic is the anglo-saxon one. Growth was unlocked by technology. First coal, then oil, were harnessed by technology to create a new growth based social system.

The same general competition~co-operation dynamic applied. But the settings were subtly different. Well, not so subtly I guess.

But anyway, when asking about patriotism and nationalism (the proper place for competition, and thus proper place for co-operation at this scale of social organisation) we then have to consider the further question of should the system ideally be steady-state or freely growing?

If you feel there are no limits to energy and resources, then free growth can be the goal (and you can set your competition~co-operation settings accordingly). Otherwise...you can't.

 

[Pattonias]

What are you talking about?

"World's policy"? I take it no UN declaration nor international treaty fits what you're describing.

How can anyone take your labour anyway? Unless you're in prison (incarceration rate: there's a statistic in which the USA tops the page), you're free to do something people find productive. Are you complaining about your employer (or the producer of the whatever you consume) having the freedom to outsouce overseas? (I like that this benefits poorer countries, but it's hardly a deliberate moral redistribution effort.)

What is it you actually want your nation to do regards to labour to "support your interests"? (I take it you're not interested in reaping benefits of global free trade?) How is it you think nations are keeping everyone from living in poverty?

Edit: Are you talking about taxation? That is, by viewing the sole function of nation-states as to tax their people to support the welfare of their people, you have no vested interest in any nation-states except your own. So you don't care what happens elsewhere, except to the extent it affects your tax rate or use of social services? If tax revenue were completely under local control (without necessarily altering the rate/services) you would stop identifying yourself as a citizen of the larger nation? (Cease evaluating people from different towns within the state as your equals?) And furthermore, your understanding of social welfare is that it causes most people to live worse off than they would be without such policies, so you would model life as a zero sum game? (I wonder whether you might even go so far as to suppose each instance of free trade is detrimental to one party and beneficial only to the other?)

Thats just it, in the system you are describing my taxes are not being spent where I care. They would be spent where my government cared. In a world government the decision would be so far away from me that I would have little say where it would be spent. My tax rate is not the issue although it is something that I am concerned with. Right now the US has one of the lowest tax rates in the developed world due to our less socialized system. Of course that will change soon enough. Free trade can be detrimental to my local economy if you outsource all of our jobs. This is fairly obvious if you just look at the current trends in the US. While I am in favor of participating in the world economy, I don't feel we should dive in without any regard to the affects that will be felt by our nation's citizens.

 

[heusdens]

As gender and racial discrimination become less prevalent today as compared to the past, and as globalisation brings people together both physically and in terms of communication, how significant are nationalities today?

And with environmental issues becoming more and more urgent an issue, should we all embrace internationalism instead?

Are patriotism and nationality still relevant in today's world?

Nope!

Workers have no fatherland!

Workers of all countries, unite!