Agrippina wrote:Adco you're asking what is causing nationalism to rise the way it is. I pointed out that it's not Islam causing the problem, I didn't give a reason. Here's what I think. There are people who are increasingly gaining power in western countries, rightwingers who value their wealth, the power it brings, and their "elitist" culture. They don't want the masses to have political power, and if they keep them poor and desperate for work, then they, the wealthy, with stay in charge. They demonise the spread of globalism and people learning about other cultures, especially ones where the wealthy are not in charge. If they encourage their dependents to learn about the rest of the world, and to become educated beyond being able to do a job, they'll lose power, and thereby, wealth. So they push nationalism - us vs them. Us being the followers of the nationalism-inspiring oligarchs, and them being the "liberals" who want everyone to be well-educated, informed, educated, and covered by health care and other social benefits.

So where you see the rise of nationalism, you also see decreased standards, and levels of education, poverty, joblessness etc., all of this keeping the masses under control, voting for the people who promise them jobs, and the purity of their nation. They keep the "others" and especially the liberals out, and they keep control, and become even wealthier.

That's a very uncharitable generalization of nationalists. I'm an educated, middle class nationalist myself, and I don't see myself in anything you said here. Are you aware of the reasons nationalists actually offer for their nationalism? I should also point out that many liberals see liberalism and nationalism to be entirely reconcilable, even seeing themselves as liberal nationalists.

Politics is a long con, somebody gets rich no matter who's in charge. Obama didn't manage 12 million net worth (and Michelle's worth another 40 million) on his salary as Prez. Billy Jeff is worth about 80 million despite being "broke" when he left the White House. GWB is worth about 35 mil, but he had much of that before he started.

Silent Mason wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Adco you're asking what is causing nationalism to rise the way it is. I pointed out that it's not Islam causing the problem, I didn't give a reason. Here's what I think. There are people who are increasingly gaining power in western countries, rightwingers who value their wealth, the power it brings, and their "elitist" culture. They don't want the masses to have political power, and if they keep them poor and desperate for work, then they, the wealthy, with stay in charge. They demonise the spread of globalism and people learning about other cultures, especially ones where the wealthy are not in charge. If they encourage their dependents to learn about the rest of the world, and to become educated beyond being able to do a job, they'll lose power, and thereby, wealth. So they push nationalism - us vs them. Us being the followers of the nationalism-inspiring oligarchs, and them being the "liberals" who want everyone to be well-educated, informed, educated, and covered by health care and other social benefits.

So where you see the rise of nationalism, you also see decreased standards, and levels of education, poverty, joblessness etc., all of this keeping the masses under control, voting for the people who promise them jobs, and the purity of their nation. They keep the "others" and especially the liberals out, and they keep control, and become even wealthier.

That's a very uncharitable generalization of nationalists. I'm an educated, middle class nationalist myself, and I don't see myself in anything you said here. Are you aware of the reasons nationalists actually offer for their nationalism? I should also point out that many liberals see liberalism and nationalism to be entirely reconcilable, even seeing themselves as liberal nationalists.

Such generalization was inevitable since OP did not provide us with definitions and debaters then were free to talk about their own preferred version/definition.

Nationalism - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/

Silent Mason wrote:
That's a very uncharitable generalization of nationalists. I'm an educated, middle class nationalist myself, and I don't see myself in anything you said here. Are you aware of the reasons nationalists actually offer for their nationalism? I should also point out that many liberals see liberalism and nationalism to be entirely reconcilable, even seeing themselves as liberal nationalists.

SM
I was born in Canada, all my formative years and then some were spent in England, my first language was Latvian, my surname was Russian in origin, I lived in South Africa, for the last 30 y I have lived in Canada. About 60 000 years ago my ancestors left Africa and wandered around a bit.

Which bit of nationalism should I plump for? Nationalism is a self con.

If you would argue that cultures and perhaps languages should be protected, then I might have some sympathy. But these things are in a state of constant flux as is whatever your present concept of Nation happens to be.

Ex se boet, once a Seffrican always a Seffrican.

laklak wrote:Ex sê boet, once a Seffrican always a Seffrican.

Yeah you are right ... it happens when you get infected by those soul snippets®.

edit ... made mine legit

laklak wrote:Ex se boet, once a Seffrican always a Seffrican.

Ek se boet. And the "se" needs a "kappie" on the "e" to make it legit.

Calilasseia wrote: Otherwise known as "Wogs begin at Calais", as Winston Churchill succinctly summarised it.

Interesting ... Wiki did not mention this ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog#Use_i ... sh_English

Either way it, the phrase, seems to have been made popular by an MP for Dudley?

edit bit of googling

"During a debate in which the subject of the Burmese came up, the volatile George Wigg shouted at the Tory benches, 'The Honourable Gentleman and his friends think they are all "wogs". Indeed, the Right Honourable Member for Woodford [Churchill] thinks that the "wogs" begin at Calais."

and apparently the reference ... Lawrence James The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (St. Martin's Press, New York, 1994, pp.559-560).

Must be in Hansard somewhere?

Silent Mason wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Adco you're asking what is causing nationalism to rise the way it is. I pointed out that it's not Islam causing the problem, I didn't give a reason. Here's what I think. There are people who are increasingly gaining power in western countries, rightwingers who value their wealth, the power it brings, and their "elitist" culture. They don't want the masses to have political power, and if they keep them poor and desperate for work, then they, the wealthy, with stay in charge. They demonise the spread of globalism and people learning about other cultures, especially ones where the wealthy are not in charge. If they encourage their dependents to learn about the rest of the world, and to become educated beyond being able to do a job, they'll lose power, and thereby, wealth. So they push nationalism - us vs them. Us being the followers of the nationalism-inspiring oligarchs, and them being the "liberals" who want everyone to be well-educated, informed, educated, and covered by health care and other social benefits.

So where you see the rise of nationalism, you also see decreased standards, and levels of education, poverty, joblessness etc., all of this keeping the masses under control, voting for the people who promise them jobs, and the purity of their nation. They keep the "others" and especially the liberals out, and they keep control, and become even wealthier.

That's a very uncharitable generalization of nationalists.

M-W dictionary defines nationalism as:

loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups Intense nationalism was one of the causes of the war.

So let's go back to what I said, remembering that I've lived for most of my life, under nationalism. I experienced free democracy only from my fifties onwards, before that I lived with what I see the US experiencing and promoting now: consciousness of "America first", emphasis on the demonisation of "others" and their languages, dress, accents, religions.

In South Africa, the "others" were native Africans, Indians, people of mixed race, and of course everyone who wasn't identifying as a patriotic South African, even though they were accepted as the "superior" group, because of their skin colour. So Greeks were mocked as being "café owners", people of Portuguese ancestry were dismissed as "greengrocers", Italians as "mafia", Chinese as "dirty" and not "white", Japanese as honorary "whites" were given preferential treatment, but still known by a derogatory name, and people of English origin, those whose ancestors came over with the 1820 settlers, were "red necks" (rooinekke), and were told to "learn Afrikaans", or course Jews were second-class whites but because they were seen as being wealthy job providers, they were tolerated more than any other group of English-speakers. People like me, of mixed Jewish/Dutch, English-speaking ancestry, and being autistic (I didn't know it at the time), my behaviour and "oddness" were a source of much mockery and bullying at school.

So under our brand of nationalism, it was Afrikaner first, Afrikaans language was the first of the two national languages (the other was English), and everyone was expected to learn it. The Dutch Reformed Church was the church of the government, and Sunday observance was virtually compulsory in that those of us who didn't attend church were forced into the observance with everything that wasn't an essential service, closed from midday on Saturday. So if you ran out of dog food on Saturday afternoon, or washing powder, tough! You had to wait until Monday morning to shop.

This is the scenario that nationalists want. Whether they are America firsts, or Brexiters, or French people banning the burqa, they want their culture to dominate. Americans want people to speak American, to ascribe to Christianity, to promote abstinence-only birth control, to ban abortion and homosexual marriage. Brexiters want the Poles out, the Muslims to close down their mosques and to abandon their dress, and calls to prayer. The French have already banned the burqa.

I'm an educated, middle class nationalist myself, and I don't see myself in anything you said here. Are you aware of the reasons nationalists actually offer for their nationalism?

I've done a bit of reading around the internet, to search for the reasons for the rise of modern nationalism:

1) People are seeing their identity being eroded by those of immigrants. They regard this as a bad thing, losing their national identity.
2) They are seeing foreign names like "Mohammed" being the most popular name in their society, this indicates that more Muslim babies than national ones being born. This means the birthrate of the natives is decreasing.
3) They feel like they are being battered by "political correctness". When they protest, they are called "nazis" or "white supremacists".
4) They see globalisation and immigrants as eroding their national values and traditions. Instead of celebrating Christmas, they see Ramadan as becoming the majority holiday.
5) The media promotes, and protects, the interests of the "others" refusing to give a platform to the people who see their identity being eroded.

There are variations on these claims that could extend to a long list, but they are similar enough for me to be content to address the list.

1) I'm an old person, I see my values and habits being eroded. I'm losing connection to the things I used to hold dear
2) I'm seeing unfamiliar changes in language, people using words that were previously taboo, using abbreviations I don't understand, changing the meanings of words, and the spelling to words I don't understand, and my children refuse to use family names, or to use traditional names for my grandchildren!
3) I feel like I'm being battered by hypersexuality in media. Every TV show is oversexed, people talk about it more than they used to, it's everywhere.
4) I see strange styles of dress, and eating habits changing my traditions, and habits, even though I don't want them to change, I can no longer find the clothes, and foods, with which I am comfortable.
5) The media promotes and protects language and gives platforms to people who I find uninteresting, and uneducated.

Are these sufficient reasons for me to want to remove young people from my life? Should the world stagnate, allowing me, and my contemporaries to be allowed to live with our music, our clothes, our books, our tv shows, our politics? Of course not. We evolve new ways of doing things, we have always evolved, the only difference is that now, because of sophisticated technology, it's happening faster all the time. Our societies have to evolve, or they will stagnate. We have to accept that. it's not a bad thing. It's a good thing. If we want to live in a world without war and conflict, the only way to do it is to include people who are different, allowing them to absorb, assimilate and learn our ways, and teach us theres.

I'm reminded of the lyrics of the old song "Galway Bay":

If you ever go across the sea to Ireland,
Then maybe at the closing of your day,
You can sit and watch the moon rise over Claddagh,
And see the sun go down on Galway Bay.
Just to hear again the ripple of the trout stream,
The women in the meadow making hay,
Just to sit beside the turf fire in a cabin,
And watch the barefoot gosoons as they play.
For the breezes blowing o'er the sea's from Ireland,
Are perfumed by the heather as they blow,
And the women in the uplands digging praties,
Speak a language that the strangers do not know.
Yet the strangers came and tried to teach us their ways,
And they scorned us just for being what we are,
But they might as well go chasin' after moon beams, or light a penny candle from afar....

Written by Dr. Arthur Colahan in Leicester in 1947

The reason for the song lyrics is to demonstrate that 70 years ago, the Irish were bemoaning the strangers coming to teach them their ways. As much as we don't want things to change, they do, and they will. The thing to do is to embrace the best of the strangeness and just live with the worst. Just as the strangers will have to learn to live with the things they don't like about their new homes, like learning to speak the language for instance.

I should also point out that many liberals see liberalism and nationalism to be entirely reconcilable, even seeing themselves as liberal nationalists.

There is nothing wrong with being patriotic, which is what liberal nationalism is. Of course you can support your team at the Olympics, however, accept that some of the people playing for your team will be sporting beards, and might not want to compete on a Friday.

Take a look at our national cricket team, there's a Muslim who has been captain, and a few dark-skinned players, and the sky did not fall down. In fact our team has been named the world's number one team several times. So apparently the gods smile on us for our diversity.