Nationalism Revisited
Aran C Cox
Lets try again, and maybe I'll be clear enough that someone will want
to argue (debate style not just insults, those are fun too though)
PS: this may represent a split in my old opinion, based on new thoughts,
especially from reading the replies to my first post on the subject.
I see a trend. A sorta individualization trend, ignore the nationalism
issue for now.
The Crichton article was incomplete (I think) and wrong (I think) in many
respects, but he was right the media will change. The current media-corps
may never go away, who reported that soon a HUGE percent of our media
channels will be owned by a TINY percent of companies, BUT I think they will
have to change, or they already have.
Let me first look at the music biz. In recent years the 'industry' has
fragged into many sub-groups with some special interests. Rap, 'alternative',
pop (specific not vague), rock, heavy metal, jazz, whatever, etc.
(oh ya country, I forgot). The big-companies have been of late buying
some smaller 'indie' labels because they now realize the world is
made of individual markets and can't sell the same record to all.
They will try though and I think there *will* always be huge stars
like billy ray and maddona what have you. Still, the point I am
trying to make is it is more targeted.
This correlates to media news etc. too. We have SPORTS channels, NEWS
channels, WEATHER channels. SPECIFICS. I don't see a general PRODUCT
doing as well any more. Sears lost out to the Eddie Bauer (is that the
mail-order mags name that did well?).
There are a lot more 'zines and small print mags than ever before (at least
I think so, I am only 19). This correlates to having more tailored
information. When I orig. posted what I read I wasn't saying I was typical.
What I meant was that though I read alt.cyberpunk, phrack, industrial nation,
etc. others may get Runner mag and read alt.religion.christianity while
at college with maybe a publication of the Lutheran church. They may also
get the local Big paper for the area. They might also read the local
suburb specific paper like what is printed for Ankeny my small home-town.
Or they may ignore the local paper because they don't care but they may watch
CNN cause the like international news.
I see a lot more of that maybe than was there before.
As for Nationalism, I was trying to make the point that a major motivator
in National Pride or what have you IS the commonality of media and
school-wise experience. When and if we get 500 channels of cable
we will have lots of choice for a news source. If we get those news
services in the home that occasionaly are discussed, the point will
be to tailor the news to the USER.
Have I rambled far enough? I want the world to fragment, I think this
was one of Gibson's pet ideas (well that the US would frag anyway) because
I have no love for stupid national pride. I realize that there are
other reasons for nationalism, but really look around are you sure
that people didn't feel more connected to each other even a few years
ago? Didn't we used to have big porches to set on and chat with our
neighbors? Do we do that any more? Do you know your neighbors?
(I realize we (useneters, interneters) are a different case but there are
more every day). Or do you know more internet addresses than you know
snail mail addresses?
Have I been any more clear, oh well, carry on.
--
--s...@iastate.edu--
--PGP-Key available...
There are only twenty-three words... PsychicTV
Matt Harmon
> I see a trend. A sorta individualization trend, ignore the nationalism
> issue for now.
Good, because it's becoming harder to separate Economic Nationalism and
Political Nationalism.
> The Crichton article was incomplete (I think) and wrong (I think) in many
> respects, but he was right the media will change. The current media-corps
> may never go away, who reported that soon a HUGE percent of our media
> channels will be owned by a TINY percent of companies, BUT I think they will
> have to change, or they already have.
I haven't read this article you're refering to, and I doubt that I will.
However--A HUGE percentage of media outlets have ALWAYS been owned by a SMALL
percentage of the population and will most likely CONTINUE to be controlled by
the same number of people. The differance is that today's market is much more
closed than when, say, Hearst was running the show. The result of such a
closed media maket is that companies must specialize to increase overall market
share and overall profits. This trend will continue as long as the technology
is up to the task (what you're seeing on those AT&T commercials is only the tip
of the iceburg).
> Let me first look at the music biz. In recent years the 'industry' has
> fragged into many sub-groups with some special interests. Rap, 'alternative',
> pop (specific not vague), rock, heavy metal, jazz, whatever, etc.
> (oh ya country, I forgot). The big-companies have been of late buying
> some smaller 'indie' labels because they now realize the world is
> made of individual markets and can't sell the same record to all.
> They will try though and I think there *will* always be huge stars
> like billy ray and maddona what have you. Still, the point I am
> trying to make is it is more targeted.
And my point is that companies have always wanted to do this so that they
can squeeze more profits out of a volatile market. Small markets tend to be
more dependable, unless they are based on fads.
> This correlates to media news etc. too. We have SPORTS channels, NEWS
> channels, WEATHER channels. SPECIFICS. I don't see a general PRODUCT
> doing as well any more. Sears lost out to the Eddie Bauer (is that the
> mail-order mags name that did well?).
Right, because it allows advertisers to reach their particular markets more
effiecently(sp?) with less cost (why advertise on fifteen channels when you can
get the same results by advertising on one?). Sears lost out all over because
it was too large to find its niche...Smaller companies (that where able to fill
Sears' customers needs better) moved in and targeted specific areas of Sears'
market share--they specialized (through targeting specific markets) and were
able to make a good living.
> There are a lot more 'zines and small print mags than ever before (at least
> I think so, I am only 19). This correlates to having more tailored
> information. When I orig. posted what I read I wasn't saying I was typical.
> What I meant was that though I read alt.cyberpunk, phrack, industrial nation,
> etc. others may get Runner mag and read alt.religion.christianity while
> at college with maybe a publication of the Lutheran church. They may also
> get the local Big paper for the area. They might also read the local
> suburb specific paper like what is printed for Ankeny my small home-town.
> Or they may ignore the local paper because they don't care but they may watch
> CNN cause the like international news.
The trend of specialization is in direct coorlation(sp?) to the use of
technology. Magaines are particularly creatures of the specialized market.
Again, this is because smaller markets, person for person, produce larger
profits. Magazines have always exsisted to cater to specific markets--which
allows advertisers to spend less money to reach thier patrons.
> I see a lot more of that maybe than was there before.
Yes, and you see a hell of a lot more technology than there was before as
well. It's a natural market trend--if I can spend less money and reach a
smaller, more profitable market, I will. Increases the profit margin, good for
business in tough times.
> As for Nationalism, I was trying to make the point that a major motivator
> in National Pride or what have you IS the commonality of media and
> school-wise experience. When and if we get 500 channels of cable
> we will have lots of choice for a news source. If we get those news
> services in the home that occasionaly are discussed, the point will
> be to tailor the news to the USER.
Nationalism has nothing to do with media experience. It has more to do with
political expedience and how much land you want to grab on the other side of
the border than anything else. Choice of news source is determined by the
people with the guns and the political power. However, in this day and age
(with so much technology in the hands of individuals) controlling media and
media access is becoming dam'ned hard.
> Have I rambled far enough? I want the world to fragment, I think this
> was one of Gibson's pet ideas (well that the US would frag anyway) because
> I have no love for stupid national pride. I realize that there are
> other reasons for nationalism, but really look around are you sure
> that people didn't feel more connected to each other even a few years
> ago? Didn't we used to have big porches to set on and chat with our
> neighbors? Do we do that any more? Do you know your neighbors?
> (I realize we (useneters, interneters) are a different case but there are
> more every day). Or do you know more internet addresses than you know
> snail mail addresses?
You say you WANT the world to fragment? Consider what that would mean for a
moment. You're talking about a former Yugoslavia in every nation. The net
result would not be LESS national pride, but MORE. More little nations with
big bombs, more armies, more little men trying to unite the chaos. More wars.
Simply because you read something that Gibson wrote doesn't mean that it's
instantly cool, or that it's the direction the world is taking.
How would you like me to fire a 88mm recoiless cannon in your direction
simply because you don't live in my neighborhood?
Without national pride I might kill you because you live in a different
city--With national pride I won't kill you because you are a fellow American.
> Have I been any more clear, oh well, carry on.
> --
> --s...@iastate.edu--
> --PGP-Key available...
> There are only twenty-three words... PsychicTV
Enjoy.
Matt Harmon at MH1...@conrad.appstate.edu
Robert Mah
> You say you WANT the world to fragment? Consider what that would mean for a
>moment. You're talking about a former Yugoslavia in every nation. The net
>result would not be LESS national pride, but MORE. More little nations with
>big bombs, more armies, more little men trying to unite the chaos. More wars.
Not necessarily. I, personally, think that a world with hundreds, if not
thousands of autonimous states, each with it's own laws and distinct set
of personalities wouldn't be all bad. As long as heavy weapons didn't
exist and one could choose which to live in freely. I know, it's just
wishful thinking, but so what?
> Without national pride I might kill you because you live in a different
>city--With national pride I won't kill you because you are a fellow American.
Tell that to the Korean-American's in LA. Or anyone who lives in large
urban areas. One thing that struck me was, a while back -- a co-worker of
mine, who grew up in Beruit during the civil war, said that he thought
that Philadelphia (where we lived) was more dangerous. I think that's says
something how much American's have come to accept the violence that has
permeated our society.
Later,
Rob
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert S. Mah | Voice: (212) 947-6507 | "Every day an adventure,
One Step Beyond | EMail: rm...@panix.com | every moment a challenge."
Robert Delius Royar
From: IN%"Rober...@Delphi.COM" Robert Royar
Message-id: <1993Sep13.052838.1.Grendel.Lair@Cratylus>
Subject: Nationalism (and making the small big)
Reply-to: IN%"Rober...@Delphi.COM" Robert Royar
Organization: Cratylus Educational Software
A number of posters have mentioned how the media's fragmentation has led to
smaller companies. Two have mentioned giant retailers (i.e. Sears) as
examples of the the large dying from the attacks of the small. I'd like to
modify this argument.
It's important to "follow the money trail" to see whether the changes in
the surface structure mean that the deep structure has changed. I argue that
the one's who control the media are basically the same ones who've
controlled it for decades. However, now they appear to be losing control
because they hide the trail back to their lairs and wage a propoganda war
against "THE BIG."
I'll use Sears and CableVision as my examples.
Sears was able to parlay a loss in a subsidiary into excuses for shutting
down a low-profit arm of their original business (i.e. their catalogue
stores in many distant small towns and their giant-catalogue
mailing/printing arm). But what really happened is not what at first appears
to be the case. Sears credit customers began receiving (almost immediately)
small catalogues by new companies selling housewares, clothes, tools, etc.
These catalogues are designed like the Lands' End, Eddi Bauer, etc. stuff.
They target specific markets. For example, if you purchased a lawn mower
during the year, you get subscribed to the tools catalogue, or if you
purchased a table, you get the furniture version. You don't get the idea
these companies are Sears subsidiaries unless you notice they take Discover
and Sears Charge. So now Sears gets rid of a burden, declares a loss,
justifies laying off workers, reduces pension payments, but retains a
sizeable market share.
Now for the media.
One of the larger Cable companies in CableVision. Few people know that CV
owns some of the main basic cable networks (such as AMC, Bravo, The Sports'
Channels. They own these through a wholy owned subsidiary Rainbow
Enterprises. Rainbow was originally a satelite uplink company which made its
money leasing satelite time/space to businesses and TV networks. Back when
congress ruled a few years ago (or perhaps the FCC) that cable companies
could not own satelites, Rainbow created a few programming networks. This
gives them the right to rent out space and own the satelites outright. The
plot thickens. Two years ago I saw Al Gore on C-Span arguing for the cable
bill. One of his arguments involved what he termed a "small satelite
provider" (it was Rainbow) and its coerced relationship with a large network
(it was NBC). He bemoaned the way the small provider forced the network
(NBC) to buy "useless satelite time" for nothing in return. What he either
neglected to say, or perhaps did not know was that the deal was a rather
complex one which gave NBC's new channel (CNBC) a head start on the
well-established Financial News Network. Through the deal, FNN was forced
off of a number of systems and had some of its prime satelite space
re-assigned when leases ran out. This made CNBC a big player overnight. In
fact most of those multitudes of channels that are being talked up as signs
of the fragmenting of the media control are owned by the three networks,
Time/Warner, Scripps, Gannet, Murdock, Storer, and a handful of other cable
operators. Many of the channels are owned just to get "legitimate" access
space on limited satelite resources. (Slots are sold by the second and
fractions of an inch on those suckers.)
My point is don't let anyone (including this poster) trick you into
believing what they say. We all hide our intentions, mask our connections,
and generally muck araound with your mind. Hey, it's a living.
-- Robert Royar (Rober...@Delphi.com) New York Institute of Technology
"Knowledge is chimera - for beyond it ever lies other knowledge, and
the incompleteness of what is known renders the knowing false."
-Stephen R. Donaldson
Aran C Cox
>In <spin.74...@class1.iastate.edu> sp...@iastate.edu writes:
>> As for Nationalism, I was trying to make the point that a major motivator
>> in National Pride or what have you IS the commonality of media and
>> school-wise experience. When and if we get 500 channels of cable
>> we will have lots of choice for a news source. If we get those news
>> services in the home that occasionaly are discussed, the point will
>> be to tailor the news to the USER.
> Nationalism has nothing to do with media experience. It has more to do with
>political expedience and how much land you want to grab on the other side of
>the border than anything else. Choice of news source is determined by the
>people with the guns and the political power. However, in this day and age
>(with so much technology in the hands of individuals) controlling media and
>media access is becoming dam'ned hard.
I am sorry, that is not what I learned. Nationalism is defined perhaps
by what you have stated above... but it is still *caused* in part by
the media. It is pretty clear I thought but the point was the
reason many people felt so close to each other was due in part to the
fact they had so many similar experiences. If the people with guns
as you say control the media and they choose to put patriotic stories
in them, surely this must affect those reading?
>> Have I rambled far enough? I want the world to fragment, I think this
>> was one of Gibson's pet ideas (well that the US would frag anyway) because
>> I have no love for stupid national pride. I realize that there are
>> other reasons for nationalism, but really look around are you sure
>> that people didn't feel more connected to each other even a few years
>> ago? Didn't we used to have big porches to set on and chat with our
>> neighbors? Do we do that any more? Do you know your neighbors?
>> (I realize we (useneters, interneters) are a different case but there are
>> more every day). Or do you know more internet addresses than you know
>> snail mail addresses?
> You say you WANT the world to fragment? Consider what that would mean for a
>moment. You're talking about a former Yugoslavia in every nation. The net
>result would not be LESS national pride, but MORE. More little nations with
>big bombs, more armies, more little men trying to unite the chaos. More wars.
>Simply because you read something that Gibson wrote doesn't mean that it's
>instantly cool, or that it's the direction the world is taking.
> How would you like me to fire a 88mm recoiless cannon in your direction
>simply because you don't live in my neighborhood?
> Without national pride I might kill you because you live in a different
>city--With national pride I won't kill you because you are a fellow American.
I think you lost it here. Without national pride I might kill you because you
live in a different city??? but with it I might not kill you because you
are a fellow american? Are you saying that the reason Americans aren't
killing each other now is because of my National Pride? I have about 0
national pride most times and I don't want to kill anyone! Isn't it
usually those who 'love Amerika' who are yelling "ya, get those turban-
heads!"? I refuse to beleive that Nationalism is a peaceful force, it
was one of the big 7 (or 8 was it or 5?) causes of the world wars!
auslin michael r
>Sears was able to parlay a loss in a subsidiary into excuses for shutting
>down a low-profit arm of their original business (i.e. their catalogue
>stores in many distant small towns and their giant-catalogue
>mailing/printing arm). But what really happened is not what at first appears
>to be the case. Sears credit customers began receiving (almost immediately)
>small catalogues by new companies selling housewares, clothes, tools, etc.
>These catalogues are designed like the Lands' End, Eddi Bauer, etc. stuff.
>They target specific markets. For example, if you purchased a lawn mower
>during the year, you get subscribed to the tools catalogue, or if you
>purchased a table, you get the furniture version. You don't get the idea
>these companies are Sears subsidiaries unless you notice they take Discover
>and Sears Charge. So now Sears gets rid of a burden, declares a loss,
>justifies laying off workers, reduces pension payments, but retains a
>sizeable market share.
You make a good economic point, and a valid one, but the trend of the
thread was towards looking at the social effects of all these political,
economic, religious trends. It certainly is possible to say that the
demise of Sears catalogue has no social effect, especially when one
considers that former Sears customers do indeed receive replacement
catalogues immediately.
What I was trying to get at, was that the feeling of belonging to a
broader community (partially through buying at Sears, partially through
serving in the military, or through volunteering at a soup kitchen)
is disappearing. The proliferation of specialty mags only furthers
the feeling of isolation and gaining as much as possible that is
different from your neighbors. Of course we all need to buy a
washer-dryer or a shirt, but the feelings engendered by getting
a mag no neighbors do, or in stocking up as much as possible on your
own personal toys, is a feature of consumer capitalism that has
broad effects.
Such attitudes are not in isolation from feelings that 'hey, if the
school district is bad, I'll put my kid into private school;' or
'why should I have to pay taxes to support lazy single mothers who
don't want to get a job?' Consumer capitalism causes breaches
between groups, as it caters to the haves over the have-nots. The
demise of Sears catalogue is just one further instance that the
terms of common reference among Americans is shrinking. Our houses
are becoming our forts, in terms of both material goods and security.
Getting all your specialty mags just exacerbates your feelings of
being different (if not superior) to your neighbor. There's nothing
wrong with feeling different; there is something wrong in feeling
that you two have no common interests (like stable schools, economic
choice, religious freedom). Economic asides, the social effects are
part of a long term trend that may not be as harmless as some think.
Misha Auslin
David A. Smith
sp...@iastate.edu (Aran C Cox) writes:
munch..munch..full course dinner
Yes, you were more clear, but your basic thesis remained the same. I'll
paraphrase. Mass Media and universal education contributed to the rise
of nationalism. Mass Media is now fragmenting. Therefore nationalism
will collapse. This is a good thing.
I'm not trying to be facetious, but to exegerate your argument to show
where the problem is. The first three steps are fine as far as a
logical argument goes. Only problem is that the argument is founded
upon a false assumption. Since, as I argued before, nationalism predates
both mass media and universal education by at least a century, the first
statement is false. Thus the entire argument is unfounded. The problem
you had was that you let something you wanted (a fragmented, non-nation-
alistic world) determine what it was you were finding. Most people do
this when they think about the future. They know what they want to see,
so that when they look they begin seeing it (seen the commercial talking
about the new day in america, the return to family values - an excel-
lent example).
To demonstrate just how much your desires were coloring your thinking,
remember Desert Storm? - As fragmented as the U.S. has become, can you
remember the last time that as much patriotism and nationalism was
demonstrated? The problem is that nationalism has nothing to do with
fellow feeling, shared experience, or even common goals. It is much more
mundane than that. It works at an emotional level and its target is not
as much the "us" as it is the "them" - especially the "them" that is
the enemy, who are hated, who are evil, deserve to die, should die, kill
Kill KILL!
Peace, David
Matt Harmon
> I am sorry, that is not what I learned. Nationalism is defined perhaps
> by what you have stated above... but it is still *caused* in part by
> the media. It is pretty clear I thought but the point was the
> reason many people felt so close to each other was due in part to the
> fact they had so many similar experiences. If the people with guns
> as you say control the media and they choose to put patriotic stories
> in them, surely this must affect those reading?
I'm curious as to how much history you've taken and whether it was world
history or American history...No flame intended--I think that it might explain
our different points of view.
I'm arguing from the point of a historian of the world...I can cite
many examples (Italy and Germany) where nationalism has been simply a political
tool of the state. Our society, (in the United States) contrary to what you
seem to feel (as indicated by your tone) is too open to tolerate such an abuse
by the state (whether it is or isn't is fodder for a second debate). Here, we
tend to have more economic nationalism...Or in the rare case when massive
nationalism occurs, the United States tends to turn inward (isolationism prior
to WWII).
> > You say you WANT the world to fragment? Consider what that would mean for a
> >moment. You're talking about a former Yugoslavia in every nation. The net
> >result would not be LESS national pride, but MORE. More little nations with
> >big bombs, more armies, more little men trying to unite the chaos. More wars.
> >Simply because you read something that Gibson wrote doesn't mean that it's
> >instantly cool, or that it's the direction the world is taking.
> > How would you like me to fire a 88mm recoiless cannon in your direction
> >simply because you don't live in my neighborhood?
> > Without national pride I might kill you because you live in a different
> >city--With national pride I won't kill you because you are a fellow American.
>
> I think you lost it here. Without national pride I might kill you because you
> live in a different city??? but with it I might not kill you because you
> are a fellow american? Are you saying that the reason Americans aren't
> killing each other now is because of my National Pride? I have about 0
> national pride most times and I don't want to kill anyone! Isn't it
> usually those who 'love Amerika' who are yelling "ya, get those turban-
> heads!"? I refuse to beleive that Nationalism is a peaceful force, it
> was one of the big 7 (or 8 was it or 5?) causes of the world wars!
I never made the case that nationalism was the way to peace. From the point
of view of the world historian, however, nationalism serves as a useful force
to unifiy an otherwise fragmented, weak potential nation-state. I can point
out many examples here: Italy, Germany, China, Japan, Russia after the Mongol
invasion, etc., etc.
In the United States, however, I will concede that things are different--but
not too different: Just a little over 130 years ago we finished a civil war in
which I, a southerner, might have been ordered to kill a northerner simply
because he lived in another state.
You're right to say that nationalism tends to cause external wars, but at the
same, I have to say that it prevents civil wars.
I would also like to make the point that people who feel that they have
little to gain in a given system tend to think less about destroying it than
someone who does have something to gain in it. By saying that you have little
national pride, you are telling me that you would tend to be more likely to
particapate in say, an urban riot than someone who has more national pride.
You are also saying that you perhaps feel that there is little for you to gain
in the current status quo.
In passing, I would like to say that this is rapidly becoming less a topic
to be discussed on alt.cyberpunk and more a topic to be discussed on say,
poli.sci.talk or some other, more appropriate newsgroup. I would also like to
add that I find your tone to be somewhat angry, and like to remind that you did
request a friendly debate and not a flamewar. You have good arguments, but
please don't take anything I say as an attack against you personally.
Matt Harmon at MH1...@conrad.appstate.edu
David A. Smith
MH1...@CONRAD.APPSTATE.EDU (Matt Harmon) writes:
apologies for the massive munch, but it helps me to make a specific
point about nationalism.
> You're right to say that nationalism tends to cause external wars, but at the
>same, I have to say that it prevents civil wars.
>
Not really, its just a matter of definition. Nationalism defines for
those involved the in group and out group, us and them, the self and
the other. That identification is subject to change. To wit, yugosla-
vians were fiercely nationalistic vis a vis the soviets as recently
as a few years ago, now look at the nationalism.
Civil wars are only civil in the sense that the nation-state apparatus
is still in place, once it collapses the civil war becomes a regular war
> In passing, I would like to say that this is rapidly becoming less a topic
>to be discussed on alt.cyberpunk and more a topic to be discussed on say,
>poli.sci.talk or some other, more appropriate newsgroup. I would also like to
Cyberpunk isn't political?
David
Ben Parrish
: thousands of autonimous states, each with it's own laws and distinct set
: of personalities wouldn't be all bad. As long as heavy weapons didn't
: exist and one could choose which to live in freely. I know, it's just
: wishful thinking, but so what?
Human nature dictates a need for an identifiable enemy. Actually, it runs
in cycles...for a while, everyone wants to join together, and then once
enough have joined, they want to identify an enemy, and destroy them.
Then, eventually, the original group starts finding enemies within itself,
and it breaks back apart (at which point, folks start joining up again...)
Yugoslavia's a good example of this. A better one would be the USA.
Can't we all just get along? (No.)
--
[ pin...@access.digex.net ]
[ failure to heed this signature will result in a $50 fine ]
Aran C Cox
>In article <spin.74...@class1.iastate.edu>,
>sp...@iastate.edu (Aran C Cox) writes:
>munch..munch..full course dinner
>Yes, you were more clear, but your basic thesis remained the same. I'll
>paraphrase. Mass Media and universal education contributed to the rise
>of nationalism. Mass Media is now fragmenting. Therefore nationalism
>will collapse. This is a good thing.
>To demonstrate just how much your desires were coloring your thinking,
>remember Desert Storm? - As fragmented as the U.S. has become, can you
>remember the last time that as much patriotism and nationalism was
>demonstrated? The problem is that nationalism has nothing to do with
>fellow feeling, shared experience, or even common goals. It is much more
>mundane than that. It works at an emotional level and its target is not
>as much the "us" as it is the "them" - especially the "them" that is
>the enemy, who are hated, who are evil, deserve to die, should die, kill
>Kill KILL!
>Peace, David
I don't think I let my desires color me thinkin that much...
remember how much shoveling had to be done to make this "war" look
so palettable. I am not so sure had we not made *them* look so responsible
that the opposisition (which there was a lot of) would have eventually been
heard very clearly after the *initial* uproar for patriotism died down.
In backwords order I am not sure that just because nationalism predates
the media world order doesn't mean that it hasn't hinged on it since.
What then *caused* the silly nationalism crap anyway?
Aran C Cox
>In <spin.74...@class1.iastate.edu> sp...@iastate.edu writes:
> I'm curious as to how much history you've taken and whether it was world
>history or American history...No flame intended--I think that it might explain
>our different points of view.
AP American History is the only *real* class in history I have taken.
>> I think you lost it here. Without national pride I might kill you because you
>> live in a different city??? but with it I might not kill you because you
>> are a fellow american? Are you saying that the reason Americans aren't
>> killing each other now is because of my National Pride? I have about 0
>> national pride most times and I don't want to kill anyone! Isn't it
>> usually those who 'love Amerika' who are yelling "ya, get those turban-
>> heads!"? I refuse to beleive that Nationalism is a peaceful force, it
>> was one of the big 7 (or 8 was it or 5?) causes of the world wars!
> I never made the case that nationalism was the way to peace. From the point
>of view of the world historian, however, nationalism serves as a useful force
>to unifiy an otherwise fragmented, weak potential nation-state. I can point
>out many examples here: Italy, Germany, China, Japan, Russia after the Mongol
>invasion, etc., etc.
It may unify the nation-state. Does it unify the X number of nation-
states in the world? No. It promotes antagonism between them.
>same, I have to say that it prevents civil wars.
^^^^^
Is it worth it.
> I would also like to make the point that people who feel that they have
>little to gain in a given system tend to think less about destroying it than
>someone who does have something to gain in it. By saying that you have little
>national pride, you are telling me that you would tend to be more likely to
>particapate in say, an urban riot than someone who has more national pride.
>You are also saying that you perhaps feel that there is little for you to gain
>in the current status quo.
> In passing, I would like to say that this is rapidly becoming less a topic
>to be discussed on alt.cyberpunk and more a topic to be discussed on say,
>poli.sci.talk or some other, more appropriate newsgroup. I would also like to
>add that I find your tone to be somewhat angry, and like to remind that you did
>request a friendly debate and not a flamewar. You have good arguments, but
>please don't take anything I say as an attack against you personally.
I know, I just was a debater in HS and I have a tendancy to get REAL
EXCITED. (Actually, that reaction predates debate by many years.)
Stephen White
what's so "casual" about "casualties"?
what's so "new" about "new country"?
-=- sfw
--
Stephen F. White
sfw...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca
"Too bad we can't dance on USENET." - Brian Behlendorf
Matt Harmon
> In <273cdc$s...@lester.appstate.edu> MH1...@CONRAD.APPSTATE.EDU (Matt Harmon)
> writes:
>
> >In <spin.74...@class1.iastate.edu> sp...@iastate.edu writes:
>
> > I'm curious as to how much history you've taken and whether it was world
> >history or American history...No flame intended--I think that it
> > might explain our different points of view.
> AP American History is the only *real* class in history I have taken.
This, then, accounts for the differences in our viewpoints. American
society tends to be far better able to deal with the differences in its
society. Other societies tend to be less able to deal with the differences
between peoples (i.e. if you thought Los Angeles was bad, check out Cyprus,
Palestine, Northern Ireland, or even some places in France and Germany). Here,
nationalism is not as much a tool of unity as it is in other nations...American
nationalism is often used for blantant political expediency (you can, I'm sure,
find far more examples that I could ever hope to find).
> > I never made the case that nationalism was the way to peace. From the point
> >of view of the world historian, however, nationalism serves as a useful force
> >to unifiy an otherwise fragmented, weak potential nation-state. I can point
> >out many examples here: Italy, Germany, China, Japan, Russia after the Mongol
> >invasion, etc., etc.
>
> It may unify the nation-state. Does it unify the X number of nation-
> states in the world? No. It promotes antagonism between them.
This is true...But does not the formation of unified nation-states simplify
the task of unifing them through super-national organizations? I realize that
the potential of the United Nations is considered laughable at best--at the
moment...Still, the potential is there, so that when the time comes, nations
will have a world forum for thier voices.
The first step to establishing peace is making contact with the other side.
> >same, I have to say that it prevents civil wars.
> ^^^^^
> Is it worth it.
This is the (or one of the) primary question(s) of this debate. Ask a
citizen of the C.I.S., Cacusian Georgia, or Azerbajain if he's willing to pay
the price of nationalism for peace at home. The same could be asked of a
Yugoslavian or of a Somali. Or even of a U.S. citizen at the time of our (own)
Civil War.
I'm of the opinion that nationalism is something that we're going have to
live with for a time, until we can work through super-national organizations
(the UN, the EC, NAFTA, SEATO, etc., etc.) to establish lasting
world peace and unity. The trend is already in place...Despite the
disappointing results of EEC's ERM fiasco; regional economic unity will
probably lead to greater regional political unity (Why start a war with a
major trade partner?).
Besides, I'd take a trade war over a shooting war anyday.
> --
> --s...@iastate.edu--
> --PGP-Key available...
> There are only twenty-three words... PsychicTV
I suggest that you apply to your local collegiate level Model United Nations
club, if such a club exists in your area. I think that you'd find it an
enjoyable experience.
Matt Harmon at MH1...@conrad.appstate.edu
David A. Smith
>
>I don't think I let my desires color me thinkin that much...
>remember how much shoveling had to be done to make this "war" look
>so palettable. I am not so sure had we not made *them* look so responsible
>that the opposisition (which there was a lot of) would have eventually been
>heard very clearly after the *initial* uproar for patriotism died down.
>
Your response may be just another case of exactly what I was pointing
out. You are correct that they're was opposition to the war, but not
correct that there was lots of it. Opinion poll after opinion poll found
Bush's popularity climbed right up to about 90% positive (never any
higher since polls started) and well over 80% supported the war - this
was, of course, asked in many ways, but the overall message was clear.
>In backwords order I am not sure that just because nationalism predates
>the media world order doesn't mean that it hasn't hinged on it since.
>What then *caused* the silly nationalism crap anyway?
You may be correct that mass media has helped to support nationalism,
just as it has helped us to "forget" that we invaded the americas and
murdered, raped, and robbed the native inhabitants. But support is not
the same thing as cause. As for where it started, I think I'll let it
drop, because to really cover that is going to require a book length
essay. But I will say this, nationalism is a tool that the powerful use
to there own ends. It is not "natural" in any sense of the word. (If you
are really interested in the origins of nationalism you might want to
take a look at "Imagined Communities" by ....Anderson? Gee, it escapes
me right now, but I'm certain the of the title of the book).
Peace, David
auslin michael r
>essay. But I will say this, nationalism is a tool that the powerful use
>to there own ends. It is not "natural" in any sense of the word. (If you
>are really interested in the origins of nationalism you might want to
>take a look at "Imagined Communities" by ....Anderson? Gee, it escapes
>me right now, but I'm certain the of the title of the book).
If you are really interested in the origins of nationalism, probably
the best place to start is with a simple textbook on European history
after 1789. The Napoleonic wars can rightly be singled out as the
spark that lit the flame of nationalism, but the whole history of the
growth of European nation-states points to the inevitability of
nationalism.
How else could states raise the taxes necessary for defending
their borders or invading other territory? Once the Peace of
Westphalia in 1648 declared that the leaders of each state
could choose their own religion (thus cutting short future
religious wars in Europe), nationalism was the only option left
to the state-building monarchs. Napoleon knew it, built it up
in France, and as a result all the other great European states
used their own nationalism as a reaction. It is the necessary
glue for a modern state, and one that has to have some type of
enemy or challenge to be met to be operative. That's why all
the angst about the end of the Cold War...
Misha Auslin
David A. Smith
MH1...@CONRAD.APPSTATE.EDU (Matt Harmon) writes:
> This is true...But does not the formation of unified nation-states simplify
>the task of unifing them through super-national organizations? I realize that
>the potential of the United Nations is considered laughable at best--at the
>moment...Still, the potential is there, so that when the time comes, nations
>will have a world forum for thier voices.
> The first step to establishing peace is making contact with the other side.
>
>> >same, I have to say that it prevents civil wars.
>> ^^^^^
>> Is it worth it.
>
> This is the (or one of the) primary question(s) of this debate. Ask a
>citizen of the C.I.S., Cacusian Georgia, or Azerbajain if he's willing to pay
>the price of nationalism for peace at home. The same could be asked of a
>Yugoslavian or of a Somali. Or even of a U.S. citizen at the time of our (own)
>Civil War.
> I'm of the opinion that nationalism is something that we're going have to
>live with for a time, until we can work through super-national organizations
>(the UN, the EC, NAFTA, SEATO, etc., etc.) to establish lasting
>world peace and unity. The trend is already in place...Despite the
>disappointing results of EEC's ERM fiasco; regional economic unity will
>probably lead to greater regional political unity (Why start a war with a
>major trade partner?).
> Besides, I'd take a trade war over a shooting war anyday.
>
>> --
Supra-national organizations are the _last_ thing we need. All they will
ever be is the nation-state writ large. If you like all the bureaucratic
bumbling, movements toward authoritarianism and control, manipulation of
the populace, etc., that are a part of the nation-state, well then you
will love the supra-national state. As for me I will spend the rest of Nations
my life fighting against this bleak possibility. Don't believe me? n
Ask yourself who will create the supra-national state? in what image are
they likely to create it?
David
Erik Haines
Dave Smith is right, supranational organizations are not the answer
for preventing wars and deciding international issues. Even if
the member states will give the organization the powers and suppor
t it needs to carry out its mission (ha! that'll be the day!) it is
far too likely to be dominated by one powerful nation or group of
nations, as the USA dominates the UN right now. And even if that
doesn't happen, the organization would probably just turn into
another place for people to argue about the issues and refuse to
concede anything (kinda like alt.cyberpunk... :) ). However, as
we move into the 21st century, with its increasing splintering of
national units into smaller nations, national governments may
become irrelevant (i.e. the USSR could bully anyone it wanted to,
but Armenia can barely intimidate its neighbor states). And with
the globalization of the economy, there will be little reason to
consider the nation an important unit.
The only trouble with Balkanization of this sort is that it might
leave the tiny countries wide open for economic, political, or
even military domination by the _successful_ supernational units.
the megacorps. (I'm sure you've all read HardWired by Williams)
--
\00/
--00--
/00\ Erik Haines
David A. Smith
aus...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (auslin michael r) writes:
>>essay. But I will say this, nationalism is a tool that the powerful use
>>to there own ends. It is not "natural" in any sense of the word. (If you
>>are really interested in the origins of nationalism you might want to
>>take a look at "Imagined Communities" by ....Anderson? Gee, it escapes
>>me right now, but I'm certain the of the title of the book).
>
>If you are really interested in the origins of nationalism, probably
>the best place to start is with a simple textbook on European history
>after 1789. The Napoleonic wars can rightly be singled out as the
>spark that lit the flame of nationalism, but the whole history of the
>growth of European nation-states points to the inevitability of
>nationalism.
>
I wouldn't suggest starting with a simple textbook if you really want
to learn about anything. Such textbooks are awash in over generalization
simplistic assumptions and a blatant acceptance of rationalist inter-
pretations of history. They also look at history from the top down
(i.e., Kings, conquerors and the like are more important than daily
life). Linking Napoleon to the rise of nationalism is just one example.
Not that no connection is there, but that it is far more complicated
than any textbook would examine. The "flame" was already lit well before
Napolean was on the seen, though he did use it to support his cause. Of
course there are also ways that he nearly was the death of nationalism.
And of course nationalism takes on all sorts of different shapes when
you move it out of the crucible of european modernism.
>How else could states raise the taxes necessary for defending
>their borders or invading other territory? Once the Peace of
>Westphalia in 1648 declared that the leaders of each state
>could choose their own religion (thus cutting short future
>religious wars in Europe), nationalism was the only option left
>to the state-building monarchs. Napoleon knew it, built it up
>in France, and as a result all the other great European states
>used their own nationalism as a reaction. It is the necessary
>glue for a modern state, and one that has to have some type of
>enemy or challenge to be met to be operative. That's why all
>the angst about the end of the Cold War...
>
Misha, again I don't disagree with what you are stating, but you are
running the risk of oversimplifying in these remarks. Westphalia did
much more than allow "leaders of each state {to} choose their own
religion." It was also a sign that a whole way of constructing political
reality had come to an end. It did not also mean that only nationalism
was left. For once the Holy Roman Empire had been consigned to the
trash heap of history the Absolutist monarchs worked pretty hard at
controlling their populations. There were countless other possibilities
that could have shaped what followed. But of course, nowlooking back
everything in Europe seems to point the way toward nationalism, just as
you said.
As to whether or not nationalism is still the glue that holds
together the modern state, I suspect not. Oh, its still used to drum up
support for particular efforts (wars, trade conflicts, etc.), but the
real glue now is the bureacratic structure of the state. (Time to go
dig out my Weber).
David