Nationalism

[Ekaitz Do Dragão]

What are your opinions on ethnic nationalism? Do you all think that all peoples around the world have the right to govern themselves?

[#FF0000]

Nope. Ethnicity and nationalism are unnecessary/irrelevant and divisive.

[Weezer]

Do you all think that all peoples around the world have the right to govern themselves?

Yes.


What are your opinions on ethnic nationalism?

Reactionary and disgusting.

[anticap]

Do you all think that all peoples around the world have the right to govern themselves?

Inherent rights are mythology. Rights are a human convention arising out of social life. They are granted and revoked as conditions dictate.

The question is whether any group of people has granted anyone else the right to deny them the autonomy to govern themselves, and the answer is no.

People don't have the right to govern themselves because they don't need that right. Rather, those who would deny them their autonomy would need to petition them for the right to do so, and it is incomprehensible that such a right would be granted.

In a roundabout way I'm saying yes, but I'm a stickler for nonsensical rights-talk.


What are your opinions on ethnic nationalism?

Nationalism, to paraphrase Goldman, assumes that the world is divided up into plots surrounded by gates. More nonsense.

All peoples around the world should come together to handle their collective human affairs.

[Nolan]

What are your opinions on ethnic nationalism? Do you all think that all peoples around the world have the right to govern themselves?

Nationalism outside of anti-imperialism is not about self governance. Nationalism is about dividing humanity into subjective little categories and pretending we don't all have the same interests.

[Revolution starts with U]

Nationalism is hate week.

[AK]

Read NecroCommie's blog post on the subject (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1160), I found it to be quite useful.

[cska]

But it must be pointed out that the West often complains about anti-imperialism by calling it nationalism.

[RGacky3]

But it must be pointed out that the West often complains about anti-imperialism by calling it nationalism.

Thats true, theres a difference between saying "leave us alone" and actual nationalism.

[DaComm]

Nationalism is basically saying your group is superior to another, or in other words, there exists inferiors, or those who cannot match our ethnic standards. Total abstraction; simply a method used to divide the working class and promote hostility, something cannot co-exist with world-socialism or worker internationalism.

[Revolution starts with U]

Have you ever seen the video composite of Hannity where he's like "america is the best, greatest, freest, most benevolent, rose scented flautlenciest country on earth?"
That's nationalism. "Leave us Argentinians alone" is just a misguided placement of a term that didn't need to be there (argentinians).

[Hiero]

Nope. Ethnicity and nationalism are unnecessary/irrelevant and divisive.

Care to explain how ethnicity is irrelevant?

In what context is ethnicity irrelevant?

[#FF0000]

Care to explain how ethnicity is irrelevant?

In what context is ethnicity irrelevant?

Well obviously ethnicity is relevant in today's society because it dictates how one can expect to be treated, how laws apply to them...etc.

I think what I meant when I posted that was something along the lines of ethnicity shouldn't be relevant?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

A bit of semantics.

The things leftis calls progressive nationalism is more of something called 'regionalism', the idea of that people living in a particular area should be the once who to decide how they will live and organize it. Culture, ethnicity and so has no matter here.

Nationalism (in its true sence) is an idea of that some people belong to a particular area, wich they tend to mystify saying that the soil, air and water are much better here (blut und boden) and because of that we must deffend it frome "all others", real nationalism tends always to become racism.

[Ekaitz Do Dragão]

Thanks for the responses!

As many of can tell by looking at title, I am a nationalist. I love my country and I love my culutre. I believe that all people around the world has the right to govern themselves without foreign interference.

However, most people here equate nationalism with supremacy. Yes, ultra-nationalism has triggered wars throughout history, resulting in many atrocities and whatnot. Although, this is a very narrow view of nationalism. Some groups of people simply want to be left alone.

Internationalism, in my opinion, is just another form of imperialism because at one point or another, someone else around the world will make a decision that negatively affects you and/or me.

Keep in mind that I'm not against international cooperation or trade. I believe that keeping peoples seperate can lead to a more peaceful world.

[#FF0000]

I believe that keeping peoples seperate can lead to a more peaceful world.

I really don't understand why people think this. I can't think of a single example of when exclusion is a good thing for someone's development, or anything.

[Revolution starts with U]

If nationalism, why not regionalism, why not communitism, why not individualism. I mean, if seperating people has value, why don't you live in a cave? Why do you stop at the imaginary nation.

[Hiero]

Internationalism, in my opinion, is just another form of imperialism because at one point or another, someone else around the world will make a decision that negatively affects you and/or me.



Well that is what happens with nationalism anyway. Nationalism is a horizontal comradeship that looks over the inequalities between people within the perceived nation. That is between classes and even people who use nationalism to declare themselves as a different nation to the nation they feel oppressed by. Under nationalism someone else is still going to be making decisions that can negatively affect you.

Pakistani nationalism calls for the unity of "Pakistanis", but is challenged by Balochistan nationalism.

Socialist internationalism should be a proccesses of cooperation between people of varying cultures based on class collaboration of working people and collaboration of all oppressed working classes.

Sometimes the reality is is that some "nations" are already very mixxed and working together. The concept of nationalism can seek to change these relationships to adhere to an imagined community (a community that is imagined against the fragmented historical and material reality). Leaving people alone includes allowing people to interact freely as they have done before, not forcing imaginary boundaries between people.

Look at the partion of India and Pakistan. This proccess only strengthened class collaboration between opposing classes under the process of nation building, and disrupted the lives of Punjabi people that was completly unneccassary. In whose mind did this Pakistan and Indian nation exist? Clearly not in the Punjubi people's everyday relationships.

[AK]

Thanks for the responses!

As many of can tell by looking at title, I am a nationalist. I love my country and I love my culutre. I believe that all people around the world has the right to govern themselves without foreign interference.
I don't think anti-nationalists and internationalists exactly support "foreign interference" either. I very much doubt that when community A in Poland makes a decision, community B in Japan will somehow suffer because of it. The only "foreign interference" that exists today is capitalist imperialist meddling, not some inborn tendency of certain nations to interfere with others.


However, most people here equate nationalism with supremacy. Yes, ultra-nationalism has triggered wars throughout history, resulting in many atrocities and whatnot.
All wars have been waged for purely economic reasons. Nationalism simply allowed the ruling classes to drum up support for imperialist war. Nationalism - however dangerous I perceive it to be - has never been the cause of a war; it has only ever acted as a catalyst.


Although, this is a very narrow view of nationalism. Some groups of people simply want to be left alone.
It's the only view of nationalism. It is a divide-and-conquer strategy that has been used primarily by the capitalist class.


Internationalism, in my opinion, is just another form of imperialism because at one point or another, someone else around the world will make a decision that negatively affects you and/or me.
Internationalism means solidarity regardless of ethnicity. Imperialism is the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination. Maybe I could make a decision that adversely affects you, but I'm certainly not building an empire.


Keep in mind that I'm not against international cooperation or trade. I believe that keeping peoples seperate can lead to a more peaceful world.
Presumably you will then have to deport all the foreigners and stop immigrants from seeking asylum, which is far from a peaceful measure.

---------------

Also, I have requested that you be restricted: http://www.revleft.com/vb/restrict-ekaitz-do-t142235/index.html?p=1875031#post1875031

[L.A.P.]

It depends, most forms of Nationalism are of course racist and right-wing which in itself opposes everything I believe in. However, the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense were Black Nationalists but just wanted rights for African-Americans not necessarily supremacy of Black people. Also, the 26th of July Movement was kind of Cuban Nationalist and they just wanted there country to be free from dictatorship and the United States' government and mafia to stop fucking with them.

[DragonQuestWes]

I believe that all people around the world has the right to govern themselves without foreign interference.

If that's the case, do you consider China, Russia, Vietnam, Cuba and Laos to be nationalist?


However, most people here equate nationalism with supremacy. Yes, ultra-nationalism has triggered wars throughout history, resulting in many atrocities and whatnot. Although, this is a very narrow view of nationalism. Some groups of people simply want to be left alone.

Nationalism often DOES lead to supremacy because pride can easily go too far. Wanting to be left alone is one thing but having "pride" is another.


Internationalism, in my opinion, is just another form of imperialism because at one point or another, someone else around the world will make a decision that negatively affects you and/or me.

I fail to see the similarities between Internationalism and Imperialism. You see, the difference is that Internationalism is just interaction with other nations. Imperialism is having ownership of a region or nation.


Keep in mind that I'm not against international cooperation or trade. I believe that keeping peoples seperate can lead to a more peaceful world.

Sorry to break it to you but the reality is, trying to separate other groups will not prevent you from even seeing them or interacting with them, nor would it make the world more peaceful. Not even Japan's general attitude towards foreigners could stop them from living there.

[EvilRedGuy]

Nationalism and Ethnicity divides peoples.
Internationalism unites the working class peoples.
Imperialism is NOT Internationalism. "Nationalism is an infantile sickness" - Einstein.:thumbup1:

[cb9's_unity]

A distinction has to be made between nationalism as an ideology and nationalism as a historical force. On one hand nationalism is purported to be the defining characteristic of certain people, and a bridge that connects people otherwise divided by class. As an ideology nationalism should never be supported in any form by the left. On the other hand nationalism has been used to drive out and damage foreign imperialists.

In all honesty, I still have a lot of thinking left to do on this issue. National Liberation movements do at least clarify and place new stress on class lines within a country once they are successful. Foreign oppression can no longer be used as an excuse for the chaos and injustice of capitalism and the working class can focus their antagonisms on just one group of local bourgeoisie. But this seems like a heavy price to pay for simply putting a new group of capitalists into power. And time may be better spent trying to build ties between working classes of two nations instead of further separating them.

Nationalism is such a tricky issue because at times it can be a legitimate force against imperialism. There is something alluring about the idea of one national bourgeoisie turning against, and defeating, imperialist bourgeoisie. Whats less alluring about these wars is that that where the local bourgeois pay in capital, the proletariat pays in lives.

[Ekaitz Do Dragão]

Nationalism and Ethnicity divides peoples.
Internationalism unites the working class peoples.
Imperialism is NOT Internationalism. "Nationalism is an infantile sickness" - Einstein.:thumbup1:

Nice avatar.

[Ekaitz Do Dragão]

I'll respond to the other posts later.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Nationalism in all forms is divisive, reactionary and it distracts from the working class struggle against thw bourgeoisie.

Why should you be proud or your culture, nation of birth, ethnicity, race, etc., when you did nothing and did not choose it?

What we have in common is class. That is most important to recognize. We need solidarity world wide in the fight against capitalism.

Workers of the world unite. Not Jewish workers unite, not Mexican workers unite, not American workers unite.

[AK]

I'll respond to the other posts later.
...

Nice avatar.
That was a response?

[anticap]

Why should you be proud or your culture, nation of birth, ethnicity, race, etc., when you did nothing and did not choose it?

I don't understand pride in general. It seems to me that pride and shame (and therefore praise and blame) imply free will, which I find to be nonsense. People ought to say that they're pleased or displeased to be X, or that Y happened, since that's what they really mean.


If, when a man writes a poem or commits a murder, the bodily movements involved in his act result solely from physical causes, it would seem absurd to put up a statue to him in the one case and to hang him in the other.

[Ekaitz Do Dragão]

Nationalism in all forms is divisive, reactionary and it distracts from the working class struggle against thw bourgeoisie.


What if an oppressed people wants liberation from a foreign occupier? If willing, do they deserve independence from the empire? Or do the ideas of liberation, independence, and anti-imperialism sound too "bourgeoisie" for you?

[Ekaitz Do Dragão]

Why should you be proud or your culture, nation of birth, ethnicity, race, etc., when you did nothing and did not choose it?


I don't understand pride in general. It seems to me that pride and shame (and therefore praise and blame) imply free will, which I find to be nonsense. People ought to say that they're pleased or displeased to be X, or that Y happened, since that's what they really mean.

Why shouldn't anyone be proud of their roots and identity? They should embrace it. If no one had a sense of identity, then this world would be bland and would be devoid of uniqueness.

[Ekaitz Do Dragão]

I really don't understand why people think this. I can't think of a single example of when exclusion is a good thing for someone's development, or anything.

I can.


Sorry to break it to you but the reality is, trying to separate other groups will not prevent you from even seeing them or interacting with them, nor would it make the world more peaceful. Not even Japan's general attitude towards foreigners could stop them from living there.

When I wrote that people should be separated, I wasn't referring to isolationism. I think that the immigration policies of certain countries, specifically mine, should be tightened.

[anticap]

Why shouldn't anyone be proud of their roots and identity? They should embrace it. If no one had a sense of identity, then this world would be bland and would be devoid of uniqueness.

I already explained why. It's not so much about the identity as it is about pride in general. I can't make logical sense of it. I do recognize the usefulness of the concept as a motivator, however.

[ComradeMan]

This thread seems to have missed the class analysis of the problem.

"Nationalism" needs to be defined. De Gaulle defined patriotism as loving one's own country/people and nationalism as hating another. But what is nationalism?

We have majority nationalism in countries where one particular group feels that it has the right to lord it over other groups, usually these are the majority groups who act in the name of "national" interest and these are the groups who you can usually find on Stormfront.

We have anti-colonial nationalism. Here it gets a bit more sticky, usually the anti-colonial groups who allied themselves to the left had a strong nationalist streak running through them- to unite the people and throw off the colonial oppressors (who were de facto "foreign"). Nationalism of a sort expressed itself in most anti-colonial struggles, Cuba, South Africa, Indonesia even in India in a sense. The ongoing debate about Tibet could also fall into this category.

Minority nationalism. This is another grey area. Where a minority and or majority group has been forced into a position of being underdog by another group within the same geographical territory or from nearby. Very often this is causes the minority to become "working class" or proletariat whereas the dominant class are bourgeois. This could be the case for the so-called Celtic Fringe, Ireland, Scotland, Wales etc and other "ethnic struggles" around Europe- but also consider the case of the Zapatistas in Mexico and the Maya indigenous peoples.

This is a crude analysis and some of the ongoing struggles around the world, or the historical examples could also combine these factors above, so three to the power of three possibilities.

The left in general has been reluctant to support nationalist causes in and around Europe but often has supported nationalist causes outside of Europe- such as the Palestinian case. This has also led European nationalist groups, not all but some, to tend to go to the right of the political spectrum and thus further alienate the left. The Celtic case is one point in hand, some Breton Nationalists having collaborated with the Nazis during the occupation of France. I suppose an uneasy relationship was bound to exist ever since Engels described Bretons, Gaels and Slavs as human refuse to be thrown on the dump of history- what a pleasant man was he old Engels!:)

Generally speaking I have no problem with patriotism, i.e. valuing the positive contributions of a culture to human progress and seeking to preserve languages in danger of extinction. I also think that people in geographic areas linked by language are more likely to be able to administer themselves than someone far away who doesn't speak their language- see the Zapatistas and Subcomandante Marcos for a discourse on this kind of alienation- but that's where it must stop and all too often nationalist movements don't! They include an implicit hatred and antagonism towards other groups and divide people along arbitrary lines. So there is a fine line beween "cultural patriotism" and "nationalism".

It also depends which viewpoint you take, state socialists are okay with the idea of a given group forming a workers state whereas non-statists can support nationalist causes with great difficulty as they implicitly necessitate the formation of a state.

[Fabrizio]

In some cases I see the point, when a people doesn't have rule over their homeland, like the Kurds or the Basques, or doesn't have one like the Roma gypsies. I'm against seperatist bullshit by a minority within a state though when those ethnic groups already have states elsewhere. Like groups demanding to Islamify Europe when there are already so many Islamic countries they can go to and see how great it is.

So yes I think every group has the right to its own land and to rule itself, the west should not be invading anyone. And I think Afghans and Iraqis have every right to resist invasion, and third world o****ries have the right to kick out monopolic western interests.

At the same time though it cuts both ways, western populations also have the right to their own countries: if you are going to move there, respect that.

[ComradeMan]

In some cases I see the point, when a people doesn't have rule over their homeland, like the Kurds or the Basques, or doesn't have one like the Roma gypsies. I'm against seperatist bullshit by a minority within a state though when those ethnic groups already have states elsewhere. Like groups demanding to Islamify Europe when there are already so many Islamic countries they can go to and see how great it is.

So yes I think every group has the right to its own land and to rule itself, the west should not be invading anyone. And I think Afghans and Iraqis have every right to resist invasion, and third world o****ries have the right to kick out monopolic western interests.

At the same time though it cuts both ways, western populations also have the right to their own countries: if you are going to move there, respect that.

Although I understand where your sentiments come from I think you are on dangerous ground here.

I'm against seperatist bullshit by a minority within a state though when those ethnic groups already have states elsewhere.

Could you perhaps give an example?

Like groups demanding to Islamify Europe when there are already so many Islamic countries they can go to and see how great it is.

Groups demanding to Islamify Europe are reactionary however it is risky to mix religion, ethnicity and nationalism. Islam is not an ethnic group and so how do arrive at Islamic nationalism within Europe? I think this an ideological conflict more than an ethnic one- don't forget, there are "European" Muslims too- Bosnians and Albanians come to mind.

western populations also have the right to their own countries: if you are going to move there, respect that

Which Western populations do you mean, the Basques, Bretons, Catalans, Cornish, Frisians... etc etc-? These are all Western peoples that do not "govern" themselves.

The idea of "own" country is what bothers me the most in your statement. Although I do believe, and have advocated in the past, that societies are tied together by linguistic, cultural and geographic origins should have the right to govern their own affairs I do tend to wince at the term "my country" and de facto "not yours".

Could you elucidate please?

[Fabrizio]

All I am saying is that while I oppose western imperialism, both military and economic, the other side of the coin is that ethnic minority groups should be respectful of the way of life in western countries they are in.

Let me make something clear, I live in Britain but I wasn't born here, my family came from South America, my first langauge is Spanish. But it amazes me to see how in some parts of London you would not guess you're in Britain at all, and some communites make no attempt to integrate, even going as far as trying to spread their religion in some cases, or make radical or even violent groups in others.

There are parts of London where a white person isn't safe walking the sreets after dark anymore. But my point is that there are whole continents run by Muslims, run by Africans, etc., so in that case if these "yout" hate white culture so much, why not go there instead? So in those cases, ethnic "nationalism" or "pride" or whatever you wish to call it, is just pure hypocrisy.

[Red Poplar]

What if an oppressed people wants liberation from a foreign occupier? If willing, do they deserve independence from the empire? Or do the ideas of liberation, independence, and anti-imperialism sound too "bourgeoisie" for you?

Exactly!

But people who've never been in such a situation can hardly understand it. Let me mention my example - I'm a proud Croat, I can't help it and, more importantly, I don't want to change it. Since my nation fought a liberation war from 1991-95, with many war crimes and violations of human rights performed against us, I just can't be a Euro-federalist or a proponent of any other union of that kind. I'm not a nationalist, far from that, I respect all nations, races and cultures, but I chose to "love" my own, and I don't see what's so "bourgeoisie" in independence and freedom. I think people who denounce those values as "bourgeoisie" spend to much time reading theoretical books, while too little time in the real life. No offense.

I have a question for proponents of a large federal state instead of nation-states: How would such a merger of different cultures and languages coexist? What would be the official language? How would economy and education be managed? What about official documents, boards etc., which language would they be written in? Personally I think that such a state would in fact lead to more international/racial tension, even though it's supposed to reduce it. If anyone has a solid theory, I'm willing to discuss it.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Everbody in the world has the right to govern THEMSELVES and no one else. We are all individuals meaning that we all have a right to govern ourselves and to have pride in ourselves. Pride should be reserved for other individuals and yourself not leaders, nations, or other groups. Also just b/c you have a similar ethnic backround doesn't mean you have similar economic interests or other beliefs. There are only individuals no groups and when people are rounded into groups politically then you end up with the holocaust, apartheid, slavery, etc.

[Palingenisis]

Both nationalists and anti-nationalists creep me out.

[ComradeMan]

Both nationalists and anti-nationalists creep me out.

So whose side are you on? :D LOL!!! ;)

[Palingenisis]

But people who've never been in such a situation can hardly understand it. Let me mention my example - I'm a proud Croat, I can't help it and, more importantly, I don't want to change it. Since my nation fought a liberation war from 1991-95, with many war crimes and violations of human rights performed against us, I just can't be a Euro-federalist or a proponent of any other union of that kind.

You are a "Croat"???

You seriously want to present the ripping apart of Yugoslavia in a nasty Political Roman Catholic (National-Socialist just underneath the surface if that) bid to butcher your fellow citizens because they came from an Orthodox background (bank rolled across by western Imperialism;)) as some glorious national liberation struggle?

Seriously fuck off....Ustache and chetnik scum like yourself who have caused so much misery shouldnt even be allowed on here.

[ComradeMan]

You are a "Croat"???

You seriously want to present the ripping apart of Yugoslavia in a nasty Political Roman Catholic (National-Socialist just underneath the surface if that) bid to butcher your fellow citizens because they came from an Orthodox background (bank rolled across by western Imperialism;)) as some glorious national liberation struggle?

Seriously fuck off....Ustache and chetnik scum like yourself who have caused so much misery shouldnt even be allowed on here.

Ouch!

This is why nationalism is such a fine line.

What was so bad about Jugoslavia anyway?

[Palingenisis]

Ouch!

This is why nationalism is such a fine line.

What was so bad about Jugoslavia anyway?

Well "market-socialism" was bad about Yugoslavia aswell as other stuff....Its just the ripping apart of it by sectarian lunatics along religious lines was worse than anything about it. It put the working class in that region back centuries.

[ComradeMan]

Well "market-socialism" was bad about Yugoslavia aswell as other stuff....Its just the ripping apart of it by sectarian lunatics along religious lines was worse than anything about it. It put the working class in that region back centuries.

But it was worse before wasn't it? I think people forget that. Tito also didn't let himself get pushed around by Moscow either.

The biggest absurdity is fundamentally the Bosnians, Serbs and Croats are the same people divided by religion and not much else- you can't even say the languages are really different other than dialectal and yet that was enough to spark the bloodbath.

[Palingenisis]

But it was worse before wasn't it? I think people forget that. Tito also didn't let himself get pushed around by Moscow either.

The biggest absurdity is fundamentally the Bosnians, Serbs and Croats are the same people divided by religion and not much else- you can't even say the languages are really different other than dialectal and yet that was enough to spark the bloodbath.

Tito came down pretty heavy on Marxist-Leninists in the early 50s. While he didnt let himself get pushed around he was pretty unprincipled also.

I dont know enough about the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" before World War II but there were extremely vicious fascist sectarian gangs during it whether the Ustache (Roman Catholic) and the Chetniks (Orthodox) during it who fought against the partisans. The Ustache who used to specialize it cutting the heads off babies and than putting their de-capitated bodies onto a raft before floating it into an "enemy" village are considered heroes in Croatia today. Fascists from all over the world went to fight with the Croatian forces in the 1990s. They had majior funding from the Vatitican aswell.

Of course a lot of the Croatian nationalist violence in the early 90s was directed towards progressive or socialist "Croats". Which is forgotten.

[ComradeMan]

Tito came down pretty heavy on Marxist-Leninists in the early 50s. While he didnt let himself get pushed around he was pretty unprincipled also.

I dont know enough about the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" before World War II but there were extremely vicious fascist sectarian gangs during it whether the Ustache (Roman Catholic) and the Chetniks (Orthodox) during it who fought against the partisans. The Ustache who used to specialize it cutting the heads off babies and than putting their de-capitated bodies onto a raft before floating it into an "enemy" village are considered heroes in Croatia today. Fascists from all over the world went to fight with the Croatian forces in the 1990s. They had majior funding from the Vatitican aswell.

Of course a lot of the Croatian nationalist violence in the early 90s was directed towards progressive or socialist "Croats". Which is forgotten.

I spoke to a WWII vet who was in Yugoslavia at the end of the war and he said that it was pretty damn appalling from top to bottom and left to right, one as, if not more, vicious than the other. There is also the issue of the mini-genocide against the Italian population too that doesn't get talked about a lot. As usual the same people suffer in the end, the weak, the unarmed, the oppressed and usually the people who were not responsible in the first place.

[Red Poplar]

You are a "Croat"???

You seriously want to present the ripping apart of Yugoslavia in a nasty Political Roman Catholic (National-Socialist just underneath the surface if that) bid to butcher your fellow citizens because they came from an Orthodox background (bank rolled across by western Imperialism;)) as some glorious national liberation struggle?

Seriously fuck off....Ustache and chetnik scum like yourself who have caused so much misery shouldnt even be allowed on here.


:cursing:

You don't even understand what you're talking about, so shut up about topics which you have no idea about! You're the one who shouldn't be allowed here. :thumbdown:

Croatia didn't rip apart Yugoslavia. I don't know what kind of Chetnik propaganda you're being fed with, but it was ripped apart by fascist Milošević who wanted to turn Yugoslavia into a greater Serbia, abolish the federal system and socialism. So you, as some sorta wannabe socialist, should know that Yugoslav socialism fell in 1990, and nobody stood up for it anymore, especially not the war criminal you're defending.

Who butchered his fellow citizens? Croats certainly didn't - we fought fairly and according to all rules of warfare, so no civilians or innocents were jeopardized. Not a single bullet fell onto the Serbian territory. The Chetniks, however, did this:

JfX4GJBSI0g


You ever heard of Srebrenica massacre? I doubt it, so have a look at this as well, and make sure you read the description:

Id4wtBJHMdU


And finally, I'm not an Ustasha, I even provide you a link to your ignorant ass so that you can learn who were the people you support - a war criminal Milošević and his Chetniks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_war_crimes


I don't care if I'll get an infraction for raging at you here, but you're the one who is demonstrating nationalist behaviour by openly supporting Chetniks, and you should be issued an infraction, preferrably banned.

[Red Poplar]

Ouch!

This is why nationalism is such a fine line.

What was so bad about Jugoslavia anyway?


There was nothing bad about Yugoslavia, it's just that the imperialistic megalomaniac known as Milošević wanted the Greater Serbia (under disguise of preserving Yugoslavia, Palingenisis bought that trick obviously), so he turned Serbs against the other nations, and while the national identities were somewhat supressed during SFRY, it caused a major turmoil. Croats, having felt endangered by Milošević's threat, chose a then-time nationalist party (HDZ) on the first democratic elections, which additionally provoked the Serbs, and at that point war became inevitable.

Slovenia and Croatia at first proposed a confederal Yugoslavia, but Milošević didn't want to listen at all. He wanted a unitary Yugoslavia - which suited him because the capital city and the army were stationed in Serbia. Vojvodina and Kosovo started rebelling because he abolished their status as autonomous regions, then Slovenia and Croatia, having been denied all claims for decentralization, finally declared independence, realizing that Milošević couldn't be negotiated with. It didn't take long until Bosnia and Macedonia joined them. And that's how SFRY fell apart. Its wannabe successor, FRY (Serbia+Montenegro led by aggressors) was never recognized as a successor of SFRY.


More material for ignorants who still think Croatia is to blame:

"The Serbian media during Milošević's era was known to espouse Serb nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serb_nationalism) while promoting xenophobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia) toward the other ethnicities in Yugoslavia. Ethnic Albanians were commonly characterised in the media as anti-Yugoslav counter-revolutionaries, rapists, and a threat to the Serb nation. When war erupted in Croatia, Politika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politika) promoted Serb nationalism, hostility towards Croatia, and violence. On June 5, 1991, Politika ekspresJovan Marjanovic (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jovan_Marjanovic&action=edit&redlink=1) of the Serbian Renewal Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Renewal_Movement), who said "The [Yugoslav] Army must come into Croatia and occupy the line Benkovac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benkovac)-Karlovac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlovac)-Pakrac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakrac)-Baranja (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baranya_%28region%29)" which would essentially have occupied all the territories in Croatia that were claimed by nationalist promoters of a Greater Serbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Serbia). To promote fear and anger amongst Serbs towards Croatia, on June 25, 1991, ran a piece titled "Serbs must get weapons". On June 25, 1991 and July 3, 1991, Politika began to openly promote partitioning Croatia, saing "We can't accept Croatia keeping these borders", "Krajina in the same state with Serbia, Montenegro, and Bosnia-Herzegovina", and prominently quoted Politika reminded Serbs about the atrocities by the Croatian fascist Ustase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustase) against Serbs during World War II by saying "Jasenovac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac) [an Ustase concentration camp in World War II] mustn't be forgotten"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia_in_the_Yugoslav_Wars

[Comrade Gwydion]

Why shouldn't anyone be proud of their roots and identity? They should embrace it. If no one had a sense of identity, then this world would be bland and would be devoid of uniqueness.

If national 'roots' determine identity, there would be only 193 different identities for people to fall under. Most of the people I know would fall under one of three different 'identities'. Sounds like a boring and bland world.

Also I want to thank ComradeMan for his analysis of nationalism, though I do not nessecarily (most likely not) agree with his conclusion.

[ComradeMan]

If national 'roots' determine identity, there would be only 193 different identities for people to fall under. Most of the people I know would fall under one of three different 'identities'. Sounds like a boring and bland world.

Also I want to thank ComradeMan for his analysis of nationalism, though I do not nessecarily (most likely not) agree with his conclusion.

Thanks for the thanks- what didn't you like/agree with?

[Tifosi]

I can.

Well please tell us:glare:


When I wrote that people should be separated, I wasn't referring to isolationism. I think that the immigration policies of certain countries, specifically mine, should be tightened.

If people didn't move around through out human history your 'identity' would have never come into being. Also, why should only certain countries, specifically 'your one' have their border's tightened? Are you to good to mix with everyone else or something?

[Comrade Gwydion]

Thanks for the thanks- what didn't you like/agree with?

I am pondering the importance of linguistic area's in the question of self-government. First of, the area's with a common language are more often than not much larger than 'local autonomy', wich kind of defeats the idea of patriotism as decentralisation.

Secondly, language evolves, and often quicker than we suspect. Wich is the same for nationalism. If you asked someone from the Elzas a few centuries ago wether he felt German or French, and he'd probably wouldn't know what you were talking about. Neither would you understand him, as the strange dialect he spoke would be a 'terrible' mish-mash of what we today call French and German.

Third, trying to use my 'own experiences' as a metafor, I easily fall to cheap regionalism, from wich I can only gather that class is a far more deciding factor. I was at first going to answer you that 'we' Limburgians, who speak, apart from dutch, a dutch dialect slightly infuenced by French and German, have historically and economically had much more the same interest as French-speaking Wallonia (heavy industry and mining) than 'them' Dutch speaking Holland and Flanders (Commerce and trade). However, while pondering this path of thoughts it kind of leads nowhere, as I keep making circles.


So mostly, trying to cut my own thoughts short:
Languages and 'cultures' are at least as fluid as current nationstates, and deserve not to be hailed as 'natural' units of division. Plus, they are usually thus big that they lead to centralisation in opposition to decentralisation. (Think of Spain or France right before and during the Revolution: nationalism as a means against regionalism.)

[Red Poplar]

I dont know enough about the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" before World War II


You know nothing about this topic whatsoever.



The Ustache who used to specialize it cutting the heads off babies and than putting their de-capitated bodies onto a raft before floating it into an "enemy" village are considered heroes in Croatia today.

No, they aren't. They're considered heroes by a minority of uneducated wankers in the rural areas, or alienated youth. I don't know why you bring up the topic about Ustashas, since the Republic of Croatia, according to its own Constitution, has no affiliation to the fascist puppet Croatia from the WWII. Don't tell me that your nation doesn't have right-wing extremists?


Fascists from all over the world went to fight with the Croatian forces in the 1990s. They had majior funding from the Vatitican aswell.

Bullshit. Why do you call them fascists? Do you have any proof? No, you don't. So shut up, you're insulting my nation. And learn to spell.

[ComradeMan]

I am pondering the importance of linguistic area's in the question of self-government. First of, the area's with a common language are more often than not much larger than 'local autonomy', wich kind of defeats the idea of patriotism as decentralisation.

Secondly, language evolves, and often quicker than we suspect. Wich is the same for nationalism. If you asked someone from the Elzas a few centuries ago wether he felt German or French, and he'd probably wouldn't know what you were talking about. Neither would you understand him, as the strange dialect he spoke would be a 'terrible' mish-mash of what we today call French and German.

Third, trying to use my 'own experiences' as a metafor, I easily fall to cheap regionalism, from wich I can only gather that class is a far more deciding factor. I was at first going to answer you that 'we' Limburgians, who speak, apart from dutch, a dutch dialect slightly infuenced by French and German, have historically and economically had much more the same interest as French-speaking Wallonia (heavy industry and mining) than 'them' Dutch speaking Holland and Flanders (Commerce and trade). However, while pondering this path of thoughts it kind of leads nowhere, as I keep making circles.


So mostly, trying to cut my own thoughts short:
Languages and 'cultures' are at least as fluid as current nationstates, and deserve not to be hailed as 'natural' units of division. Plus, they are usually thus big that they lead to centralisation in opposition to decentralisation. (Think of Spain or France right before and during the Revolution: nationalism as a means against regionalism.)


Thanks- those are fair point and I do agree with you. I think that a common language for all kinds of reasons, practical the most part, can play a role but I don't think that's the only role, also geographic proximity and common needs etc.

You also raise an interesting issue. Which languages? If we start to look at dialects we could end up bringing things down to village level- in Italy you could at least.

This is the problem with nationalism.... ! :crying:


Lenin said that national feeling was the "strongest, mightiest and deepest".

[∞]

Everbody in the world has the right to govern THEMSELVES and no one else. We are all individuals meaning that we all have a right to govern ourselves and to have pride in ourselves. Pride should be reserved for other individuals and yourself not leaders, nations, or other groups. Also just b/c you have a similar ethnic backround doesn't mean you have similar economic interests or other beliefs. There are only individuals no groups and when people are rounded into groups politically then you end up with the holocaust, apartheid, slavery, etc.

You're posts are so... pointless and boring.

Blabababababababa ego....balalalalalala....freedom.

Do you ever provide any substance or do you continue to post like a pathetic sack of shit?

You don't understand what some forms of nationalism have done against globalization do you?

[ComradeMan]

You're posts are so... pointless and boring.

Blabababababababa ego....balalalalalala....freedom.

Do you ever provide any substance or do you continue to post like a pathetic sack of shit?

You don't understand what some forms of nationalism have done against globalization do you?

Why not answer then with a point instead of insulting and answering with a loaded question?

I think a lot of people struggle with issues of national identity and socialism as far too often it can turn into national-socialism. However there are different kinds of nationalism and it is certainly easy for someone in a country not occupied by a foreign power, or not part of an ethnic-group that has been oppressed, or perhaps part of an ethno-class/proletariat, to preach theory it's perhaps different for people in those situations.

[Red Poplar]

Irrational nationalism often leads to this type of wacky imaginary maps:

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/f/f1/Serbia_future2.PNG

[Martin Blank]

You are a "Croat"???

You seriously want to present the ripping apart of Yugoslavia in a nasty Political Roman Catholic (National-Socialist just underneath the surface if that) bid to butcher your fellow citizens because they came from an Orthodox background (bank rolled across by western Imperialism;)) as some glorious national liberation struggle?

Seriously fuck off....Ustache and chetnik scum like yourself who have caused so much misery shouldnt even be allowed on here.

Palingenesis, this is a formal warning for flaming and trolling in this thread. You may not like Red Poplar or his views, but that does not give you license to post what you have posted here. Do not do this again, or else stronger action will be immediately taken.

[Thirsty Crow]

But it was worse before wasn't it? I think people forget that. Tito also didn't let himself get pushed around by Moscow either.

The biggest absurdity is fundamentally the Bosnians, Serbs and Croats are the same people divided by religion and not much else- you can't even say the languages are really different other than dialectal and yet that was enough to spark the bloodbath.

Palingenesis, and you apparently, are making a mistake, a serious one in fact.
The war was not a consequence of ripping Yugoslavia apart along religious lines. In fact, religion played a role of a sign of ethnic origin, or in other words: it wasn't about religion but about ethnicity.
Now, historically speaking (something which the two of you haven't really been doing), ethnic tensions in this region are at least as old as the "first" Yugoslavia - the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. I wouldn't go into detail, but I should mention that there were good reasons for a vehement opposition towards the Serbian ruling dynasty (something with which both Serbian, Slovene and Croatian Communists were familiar), however, there was the fact of the ethnic foundation of a certain portion of policies (basically: Serbian ruling class outdoing the Croatian ruling class), which in turn engendered an ethnic resentment culminating in the despicable Ustashe and Chetnik movements respectively.
Note that religion was always secondary to the issue of ethnicity.

And as far as Croatian nationalism is concerned, it is hilarious and dangerous at the same time, not to mention that it is inherently reactionary (within this historical period, as well as that preceeding it- nominally socialist Yugoslavia). Although it may again be wise to note that it arises from a specific historical, social and economic situation - basically, Croatia is a part of the periphery of "civilized, free-market Europe" (and keeping that in mind, I personally would "succumb" to quasi-nationalist sentiment if these "civilized Europeans" would try to tutor me in the joys of the "free world" - basically, self-defense "nationalism", in the sense that I would reject their essentializing approach to my identity).



Bullshit. Why do you call them fascists? Do you have any proof? No, you don't. So shut up, you're insulting my nation. And learn to spell.

No, he's not fuckin' insulting your nation. I'm not insulted, not a bit.
And try to cope with the fact that there were considerable neo-fascist elements involved in the war.


More bullshit. My father is a progressive, socialist Croat, and nobody did anything wrong to him during the early 90s. If you actually were here, you'd know, but I'm still surprised by the immense amount of disgusting lies you spit out about a topic completely unknown to you.
I dunno about your personal experience, but mine shows a different picture.
It shows a picture of former members of the CP, who didn't renounce their beliefs, and were not granted the job they were qualified to take up, since there were a lot of expatriates returning, beating their chest and proclaiming "God and Croats"-like slogans, with a party card from the CDU (Croatian Democratic Union) and getting the job.
I'm speaking about the northern part of the country, Zagreb area to be more precise.
Not to speak of disgusting harassment of ethnic Serbs, of course.
So more bullshit FROM YOU.

[hatzel]

Then why not just throw out the idea of nations in the modern sense, and go back to the idea of nations in the old sense? Then we don't need to have borders drawn on the maps any more, we just let people of each nation (that is to say linguistic / cultural / religious / whatever) group kind of live to their own thing, in their autonomous village or whatever, and just bandy together voluntarily with the other autonomous villages of their nation when it's advantageous to be bigger (defence, printing up school textbooks in the national language, stuff like that). That way, one can be nationalist and anti-nationalist at the same time! Yaaaaay!

:laugh:

[Bandito]

basically: Serbian ruling class outdoing the Croatian ruling class
Bang on target.

And try to cope with the fact that there were considerable neo-fascist elements involved in the war
Bang on target.

Also, while I agree that Slobodan Milosevic's Great-Serb nationalism, backed by Serbian Orthodox Church are the main responsible characters for this bloody mayhem, also note that I would like that I had the honor to see Tudjman hanging on the thread, that nationalist scum.
Keep in mind that nationalism didn't start the war, interests did. And now look back and see how important is nationalism as a tool to divide the Yugoslav working class.

[Palingenisis]

Palingenesis, and you apparently, are making a mistake, a serious one in fact.
The war was not a consequence of ripping Yugoslavia apart along religious lines. In fact, religion played a role of a sign of ethnic origin, or in other words: it wasn't about religion but about ethnicity.
.

Given that in terms of language and temperment Croats and Serbs have more or as much in common with each other as English people north and south of the Watford gap do how much of it does come down to actual ethnic differences? How different in reality are the people that made up Yugoslavia?

I realize that I went somewhat over the top but where I live the people who go on and on about Croatia are all clerical fascists who see the war in the 90s as a heroic struggle against the barbaric east.

[Red Poplar]

No, he's not fuckin' insulting your nation. I'm not insulted, not a bit.
And try to cope with the fact that there were considerable neo-fascist elements involved in the war.

Well, I am. The fact that we're both Croats doesn't mean that we need to have the same views. Neo-fascist elements, I agree, but it doesn't mean the entire war was neo-fascist, like Palingenesis claimed. Independence from Yugoslavia was our constitutional right, we defended ourselves from a ruthless aggressor in a fair way, and I don't see anything disputable in it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, I am. The fact that we're both Croats doesn't mean that we need to have the same views. Neo-fascist elements, I agree, but it doesn't mean the entire war was neo-fascist, like Palingenesis claimed. Independence from Yugoslavia was our constitutional right, we defended ourselves from a ruthless aggressor in a fair way, and I don't see anything disputable in it.
I wouldn't dare to proclaim that Tudjman's rule in its entirety was neo-fascists (one country, one ethnicity, one strong leader)...however, I do think that some characteristics of that phenomena were pretty much manifest.



What the hell is wrong with all of with you? Can't anybody talk in a civil and polite way?:rolleyes:
I love it when a person who does not discuss in a polite way accuses someone else of the same thing. Notice your "bullshits", lad.



I'm very well aware that those expats and HDZ/CDU-ists were privileged during the Tuđman era, but I was referring to "nationalist violence" as it was stated. I don't remember enough such situations to call it a policy. Besides, my father was in the CP, he never joined HDZ and he never had problems at his job. Although some HDZ-ists were being promoted more quickly and easily, it's not "violence".Well, in my book taking away someone's chance of making a livelihood, consequently forcing him/her to suffer in attempting to do so, counts as violence, indirect violence - but still violence. There wasn't a national policy, but there was an actual, real practice, differing from one area to another. Your father was a lucky man.





That's true, although Milošević was the biggest war criminal in ex-Yugoslavia, his and Tuđman's characters weren't very different, they were both opportunist demagogues who did nothing good for their countries, just brought corruption, nationalism, and backwardness.
Yet you are "proud to be Croat".
Why is that? What exactly are you proud of?

[Red Poplar]

Given that in terms of language and temperment Croats and Serbs have more or as much in common with each other as English people north and south of the Watford gap do how much of it does come down to actual ethnic differences? How different in reality are the people that made up Yugoslavia?

I realize that I went somewhat over the top but where I live the people who go on and on about Croatia are all clerical fascists who see the war in the 90s as a heroic struggle against the barbaric east.


We are different, whatever some may say. Our languages are similar because they're both Slavic, and because they influenced each other during the periods when we formed the same country. Our cultures are also different - we write in Latin script and are generally Catholic, the Serbs write in Cyrillic script and are generally Orthodox. Customs are also different - briefly, we're two separate nations.

Croatian expats are, generally speaking, other cup of tea than Croats living in Croatia. We don't like them very much, because they financially support and vote for HDZ (nationalist demagogues), while not knowing much about the affairs going on over here. Majority of them belong to the far right, they support the Ustasha regime (NDH) from the 1940s, they worship Poglavnik (Ante Pavelić) who sold Croatia out, yet they preach about patriotism to us who live here and who've been through the war, while they were cooling their balls in Pittsburgh. That was the general situation, honor to the exceptions.

The bottom line, you can't judge Croats by those expats. To do so, you'd need to live here for a while to understand the situation.

[Red Poplar]

I wouldn't dare to proclaim that Tudjman's rule in its entirety was neo-fascists (one country, one ethnicity, one strong leader)...however, I do think that some characteristics of that phenomena were pretty much manifest.

We agree on that.



:rolleyes:
I love it when a person who does not discuss in a polite way accuses someone else of the same thing. Notice your "bullshits", lad.

My "bullshits" were a result of being sent to fuck off for stating my views. I never said such a thing to you, so you had no reason to use that word against me.



Well, in my book taking away someone's chance of making a livelihood, consequently forcing him/her to suffer in attempting to do so, counts as violence, indirect violence - but still violence. There wasn't a national policy, but there was an actual, real practice, differing from one area to another. Your father was a lucky man.

OK, let's call it indirect violence. Still, the regime is to blame for that, not the people/nation.



Yet you are "proud to be Croat".
Why is that? What exactly are you proud of?

You bolded "nationalism", well it doesn't have anything to do with my national pride. I respect all cultures, especially, for instance, Irish, Russian, German etc., I think cultural diversity is a positive and interesting thing. What am I proud of? I'm proud of our 14 centuries long cultural tradition, our language, the historical moments, personas, inventors... I have a sense of being a part of all that, most concisly written. You're not?

[Palingenisis]

We are different, whatever some may say. Our languages are similar because they're both Slavic, and because they influenced each other during the periods when we formed the same country. Our cultures are also different - we write in Latin script and are generally Catholic, the Serbs write in Cyrillic script and are generally Orthodox. Customs are also different - briefly, we're two separate nations.


Uh part of my family are southern protestants and part of my family are northern Roman Catholics...Different religions, different customs...But same nationality. I have visted both Croatia and Serbia (though briefly) and the wisest people I met in both places were pretty clear that they made up one Yugoslav nation and it was only bigots who thought otherwise. Some knowing "Serbian" can understand "Croat", but can they understand Polish, Russian or Bulgarian?

[ComradeMan]

Nationality and religion are social constructs so it always gets sticky with stuff like this.

Italians can understand Spanish with little difficulty and vice-versa, does that mean that to say someone is Italian or Spanish has no validity? Of course we can break it down further and futher with dialects and minority languages and so on.

Look a lot of Croatians have probably been fascist shitbags, but then some Irish Republicans were also fascist shitbags and the De Valera government sent Hitler a birthday card and so and so forth, does that mean that Irish people are de facto Nazis? No it doesn't!

You shouldn't blanket attack a population group because of the actions of some. To attack a Croatian as an out-and-out "ustase" is like automatically assuming a German is a Nazi- afterall there is a high probability that that said German's grandparents were in the Wehrmacht or whatever- but it is a form of racism/prejudice because you are attacking the individual on the basis of the actions of some within the group and also blanketting the whole group with the actions of some individuals- especially in cases where you drag up the past to throw in the face of the present person.

Some Roma people are involved in petty crime, child trafficking and all sorts of social evils- so why don't we just tar them all with the same brush and deport them? Ring any bells.... ?

You've got to deal with people as individuals.

I think what RedPoplar is trying to express, in a language not his own, is CULTURAL patriotism, he is proud of the positive contributions of the Croatian people to humanity just like a Cuban may be proud of the Cuban musical heritage, a Russian may be proud of Yuri Gagarin and Soviet Space Endeavour, a Chinese person may be proud of China's vast cultural legacy and so on. We are not talking about everyone standing together and sobbing at the national anthem with our hands on our chests and saying "All right <insert my country> Fuck you <anyone else>!!!!".

Like I said before, there is a difference between valuing one's own culture and hating or expressing contempt for another. People who attack other groups usually fall into the latter category.

From what I know of the Yugoslav context, the absolute horror of the ethnic conflict was atrocious. But when the chetniks come round and attack you because you, in their eyes at least, are a Croation- what do you do? Do you say "Ah, well, nationality and ethnicity are social constructs so really your wasting your time here...."- I doubt whether you would have time to finish the sentence... Those same chetniks would probably not give a shit about your politics either. A certain degree of national identity also comes down to a group defense mechanism in the face of oppression or terror.

[Red Poplar]

Uh part of my family are southern protestants and part of my family are northern Roman Catholics...Different religions, different customs...But same nationality. I have visted both Croatia and Serbia (though briefly) and the wisest people I met in both places were pretty clear that they made up one Yugoslav nation and it was only bigots who thought otherwise. Some knowing "Serbian" can understand "Croat", but can they understand Polish, Russian or Bulgarian?


I suppose those people just felt nostalgic for the Yugoslavian period, because that was the time when the majority of people lived well, in harmony and in the third most powerful country in Europe, while nowadays we're six small countries being constantly blackmailed by EU.

The concept of "Yugoslav nation" was invented in the 19th century, for southern Slavs to unite against the Austrian, Hungarian and Italian oppressors of that time. The concept of the Croatian nation was first mentioned in the 7th century, the Serbian in the 8th, I think. So it would be logical to conclude that we're different nations, since we lived in different countries and cultural spheres until 1918, so we interbred with the Western world, while the Serbs interbred with the Eastern. Those differences were reduced again in the last century when we co-existed in the same country, and there were a lot of Serbo-Croatian marriages as well. We are related with each other more than Poles and Russians for example, but I claim that our differences are big enough for us to be considered separate nations.



I think what RedPoplar is trying to express, in a language not his own, is CULTURAL patriotism, he is proud of the positive contributions of the Croatian people to humanity just like a Cuban may be proud of the Cuban musical heritage, a Russian may be proud of Yuri Gagarin and Soviet Space Endeavour, a Chinese person may be proud of China's vast cultural legacy and so on. Like I said before, there is a difference between valuing one's own culture and hating another. People who attack other groups usually fall into the latter category.

You're right, thanks for helping me clarify my views. :)

[Thirsty Crow]

We are different, whatever some may say. Our languages are similar because they're both Slavic, and because they influenced each other during the periods when we formed the same country. Our cultures are also different - we write in Latin script and are generally Catholic, the Serbs write in Cyrillic script and are generally Orthodox. Customs are also different - briefly, we're two separate nations.

Way to go, you just confirmed Palingenesis' incomplete viewpoint (and I don't mean that as an insult or criticism; you probably couldn't have gotten a more detailed, nuanced and complete picture since what is needed for that is serious study - if you don't live here, and you don't).
I'll try:

1) language: in its structure, it is one and the same language. Linguistically, there is no basis whatsoever for distinguishing Serbian and Croatian as two separate languages. However, as the discipline of sociolinguistics claim, languages are autonomous: social phenomena (as opposed to linguistic phenomena) determine the development of separate languages - in this case, the "late" Renaissance (somewhere around the middle of the 19th ct.) in which standard varieties of autonomous, separate languages are formed, highly influenced by political concerns.
As far as influence is concerned, Serbian and Croatian differ: C. - Latin via Italian, Italian, German, to a smaller extent Turkish and yet smaller Hungarian (and Old Slavic). S. - Turkish, a great influence (as well as Church Slavic, or Old Slavic), and Russian.

There are primary differences in vocabulary, but if we observe the structure of the two languages, we are forced to conclude that it is a single language.

2)culture:

Croatia - influence from Italy (the Renaissance, Baroque etc.), Germany (Baroque, Neoclassicism etc.), to a lesser extent - Turkish influence
Serbia - primarily Turkish and Russian influence (historically, the Turkish influence preceded the Russian one)

Significant difference: religion - Catholicism and Orthodoxy ("Slavia Romana" - c.; "Slavia Orthodoxa" - s.), consequently differences in writing (cyrilic and latin alphabet).

3) history:

Ottoman conquest represents a difference: while almost all of Serbian territory has been conquered, significant "pieces" of land in Croatia have been under other rule: under Vienna and Venice (with the curious exception of Dubrovnik whose relative autonomy lasted for a while).
It is important to note that, historically, Serbian and Croatian kingdoms and other political formations have developed independent of each other.

@Palingenesis: This is a very, very brief summary. In my opinion, there are strong evidence in support of the view that Serbs and Croats are two different nations.
But when it comes to ethnicity... things get a bit complicated.

[ComradeMan]

From what I know, the whole idea of Yugoslavia- i.e. a pan-ethnic and diverse nation started with a Croatian, Vladko Macek who also lead the Croat Peasant's Party that later split into the Communist Partisan movement and the remainder the rightwing Ustase. Macek also refused to collaborate with the Nazi puppet state during WWII and remained under house-arrest.

The history of Croatia and Yugoslavia is rather checkered, there were many groups and many factions too- you can't brand ALL Croatians as ustase however.

[Thirsty Crow]

The history of Croatia and Yugoslavia is rather checkered, there were many groups and many factions too- you can't brand ALL Croatians as ustase however.
If someone would, I'd punch them (since, technically, I'm a Croat).

[Fabrizio]

If nationalism, why not regionalism, why not communitism, why not individualism. I mean, if seperating people has value, why don't you live in a cave? Why do you stop at the imaginary nation.

So why seperate people by class then?

[ComradeMan]

So why seperate people by class then?

Good question. Class distinctions are based on socio-economics, at times they can also be based on race/ethnicity however class distinctions tend to be horizontal and ultimately seek to unite people whereas nationalistic separations are vertical and keep people divided and against each other. The class distinction is important as it is internationalist and does not seek to divide people and does not exclude nationalities per se, it is inclusive. Someone can be proletariat and Croat, Italian, Spanish, French or whatever else. Nationalist distinctions pay no heed to class as such and divide people, you can't be Croat and Serb etc. Okay, this is a crude analysis I admit- but it's the way I see it. We also have to deal with the reality of the world we live in too- we don't all speak the same language or come from the same geographical area and people since time immemorial have formed cultural groups/tribes/ethnicities and have reformed them too. You have to take that into account- it's not like you have a blank slate to work with.

[Revolution starts with U]

I, personally, would not seperate by classes. "We (labor) didn't start the fire." The prole/bourg divide disappears as soon as capitalists stop bringing war against the people. They created the classes, Marx just recognized them.

[ComradeMan]

I, personally, would not seperate by classes. "We (labor) didn't start the fire." The prole/bourg divide disappears as soon as capitalists stop bringing war against the people. They created the classes, Marx just recognized them.

Very good point. Recognising the existence of something is one thing creating it is another.

[∞]

I think a lot of people struggle with issues of national identity and socialism as far too often it can turn into national-socialism.National "Socialism" has nothing to do with socialism. The concept is strictly third-positionist.


However there are different kinds of nationalism and it is certainly easy for someone in a country not occupied by a foreign power, or not part of an ethnic-group that has been oppressed, or perhaps part of an ethno-class/proletariat, to preach theory it's perhaps different for people in those situations.I approve of nationalism in means to provide equal rights to a race exploited by another (Malcolm X's view during the civil right's movement.) I believe in the type of nationalism that practices autonomy of a racial being exploited by western (even eastern) imperialism. (The initial Cuban revolution, Sandinistas, some actions of the Hezbollah, and The Zapitistas Army of National Liberation).

[ComradeMan]

[QUOTE=Blackened Marxist;1903374]National "Socialism" has nothing to do with socialism. The concept is strictly third-positionist.QUOTE]

It was a play on words to illustrate the point- too often national liberation movement turn into to rightwing nationalistic movements. Most modern rightwingers will try and justify themselves with some appeal to the proletariat of their chosen "nation" and very often attack the left on this basis too...

But I thought anarchists de facto did not support any nationalist movements?

http://libcom.org/library/no-national-solutions

http://libcom.org/library/why-anti-national

[∞]

But I thought anarchists de facto did not support any nationalist movements?

Depends on the kind of nationalism...

[Reznov]

What about Black Power Nationalists?

[ComradeMan]

Depends on the kind of nationalism...

Could you go on.... because it's an interesting point.

[∞]

Could you go on.... because it's an interesting point.

I already have stated the kind of nationalism I support.

[ComradeMan]

I already have stated the kind of nationalism I support.


Workers don't have nations. They may have cultures and that is to be celebrated but I still adhere to the idea of the proletariat should not be divided by nation states.

[Crimson Commissar]

National "Socialism" has nothing to do with socialism. The concept is strictly third-positionist.

I approve of nationalism in means to provide equal rights to a race exploited by another (Malcolm X's view during the civil right's movement.) I believe in the type of nationalism that practices autonomy of a racial being exploited by western (even eastern) imperialism. (The initial Cuban revolution, Sandinistas, some actions of the Hezbollah, and The Zapitistas Army of National Liberation).
The best way for us to ensure that oppressed peoples are freed from imperialism is to abolish the idea that we are divided by nationalities at all. Humanity must unite as one people. Borders, governments, cultures and religions only further divide us as a species. There is no real difference between someone born in America and someone born on the other side of the world in China. We are all human beings, we are not British, American, French, German, Russian or anything else.

[∞]

The best way for us to ensure that oppressed peoples are freed from imperialism is to abolish the idea that we are divided by nationalities at all. Humanity must unite as one people. Borders, governments, cultures and religions only further divide us as a species. There is no real difference between someone born in America and someone born on the other side of the world in China. We are all human beings, we are not British, American, French, German, Russian or anything else.

If blacks are being oppressed by whites, it is natural for them to exhibit nationalism to gain equal rights. Thats all I support.Nothing more....

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSyjRyH58WoOfxtFREeA-0Kgt68qFbyRHRCrpg_Dssj_50SadQ&t=1&usg=__1TkOSeT4QlMPjr0LLE5nIj76of4=


http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdfHhL7iVKbURhCFYabXvouwnU2hJcv 3JswNSEZ8nJE1ZO-H4&t=1&usg=__zsAmDW4y7FkN7SBQpEz-TjjvNeg=

[Crimson Commissar]

If blacks are being oppressed by whites, it is natural for them to exhibit nationalism to gain equal rights. Thats all I support.Nothing more....
Yeah, it's natural, and I understand the reasoning behind it. The nationalism expressed by oppressed people is more collectivist and socialistic, whereas the nationalism of oppressors is based on pride and imperialism. However, it is essential that nationalism in all it's forms is wiped out eventually. Of course, if an oppressed group gains independence from it's imperialist oppressors, then that's a good thing. But the best way for us to eliminate racism and imperialism is for all humanity to co-operate and unite as one nation.

[WendigoGuerilla]

If that's the case, do you consider China, Russia, Vietnam, Cuba and Laos to be nationalist?



Nationalism often DOES lead to supremacy because pride can easily go too far. Wanting to be left alone is one thing but having "pride" is another.



I fail to see the similarities between Internationalism and Imperialism. You see, the difference is that Internationalism is just interaction with other nations. Imperialism is having ownership of a region or nation.



Sorry to break it to you but the reality is, trying to separate other groups will not prevent you from even seeing them or interacting with them, nor would it make the world more peaceful. Not even Japan's general attitude towards foreigners could stop them from living there.




I fail to see the similarities between Internationalism and Imperialism. You see, the difference is that Internationalism is just interaction with other nations. Imperialism is having ownership of a region or nation.


Internationalist policies can be seen to be a deceptive manipulation under forms of globalism like the world bank and united nations for instance as example.

Both of those institutions can then be seen as a newer kind of imperialism in which the power of the few collectively seek to dominate the world over and subjugate nations under their own articulated global policies.

I don't think people here have thought out the many ways in which internationalism can be misused.



hailtothethief

Why should you be proud or your culture, nation of birth, ethnicity, race, etc., when you did nothing and did not choose it?



Why not? Is there somthing in the universe that says one can't?

Culture often enough is all about history and legacy whether you choose to acknowledge it or not in that just because you and I might refuse to acknowledge it doesn't necessarily mean everybody else will follow the same suit.



Blackened Marxist said:

If blacks are being oppressed by whites, it is natural for them to exhibit nationalism to gain equal rights. Thats all I support.Nothing more....




Interesting....... So in order for a group to exhibit a accepted form of nationalism all they have to do is suppose themselves to be oppressed some way.

What's interesting is that a group often enough will decry themselves as being oppressed where other groups will try to deny their oppression by denying that they are even oppressed at all.

[Reznov]

Yeah, it's natural, and I understand the reasoning behind it. The nationalism expressed by oppressed people is more collectivist and socialistic, whereas the nationalism of oppressors is based on pride and imperialism. However, it is essential that nationalism in all it's forms is wiped out eventually. Of course, if an oppressed group gains independence from it's imperialist oppressors, then that's a good thing. But the best way for us to eliminate racism and imperialism is for all humanity to co-operate and unite as one nation.

Also, the thing that I always wonder is what if the "oppressed" people do overthrow the oppressors.

Will they become just as oppressive to their use to be oppressors out of vengeance?

If they do gain power like that and are able to from a state as such, wouldn't it almost turn into a fascist state because it needs an enemy to help keep the ruling party in power? (Just as Hitler overcame the "Jewish Oppressors" who had "taken control" of Germany.)

Will the nationalist feeling just leave all of its members that binded them together? Or will they keep it afterwards?

I cant see the history and I am no where near as optimistic as those who claim to be fighting for "equal rights" when I see that when they use such nationalistic rhetoric, it will backfire if they do overcome the oppressors, since they will become the oppressors themselves since they turned to Nationalism in the first place.


This is why I believe the only way Human Beings can achieve any real change is working together as such, workers and proletarian. The proletarian does not need any Nationalist Minority groups to aid us in the Revolution.

We only need the Workers, of all kinds of races, religions and ethnicities for Revolution. (Which will get rid of Capitalism and the symptoms, such as racism/discrimination.)

[ComradeMan]

Just as Hitler overcame the "Jewish Oppressors" who had "taken control" of Germany.

Do you believe that? :confused: I hope you are paraphrasing the way I think you are and I also hope you don't buy into that anti-Semitic rhetoric that the Jews were bleeding the Germans dry etc etc.

As for the rest, well I agree. Nationalist movements run the risk of becoming oppressors when they are finally liberated inasmuch as any other movement can be an oppressor- an abused child grows up to be an abuser?

[Dimentio]

When would the Finns realise that they simply are Swedes who cannot speak properly!

:lol:

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

When would the Finns realise that they simply are Swedes who cannot speak properly!

:lol:

They won't. Because they are a seperate ethnic/linguistic/social group?

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=ComradeMan;1911716]Do you believe that? :confused: I hope you are paraphrasing the way I think you are and I also hope you don't buy into that anti-Semitic rhetoric that the Jews were bleeding the Germans dry etc etc.

It doesn't matter. The argument isn't being evaluated as to its factual accuracy, just that it is the same argument.


As for the rest, well I agree. Nationalist movements run the risk of becoming oppressors when they are finally liberated inasmuch as any other movement can be an oppressor- an abused child grows up to be an abuser?[/QUOTE]

The problem then remains in how to mobilize the local workers-- "Workers of the world unite" is pure utopianism and has no substantive basis.

[#FF0000]

The problem then remains in how to mobilize the local workers-- "Workers of the world unite" is pure utopianism and has no substantive basis.

What do you mean?

[#FF0000]

It doesn't matter. The argument isn't being evaluated as to its factual accuracy, just that it is the same argument.

No it isn't because the Germans were not being "Oppressed" by the Jews.

[NKVD]

If blacks are being oppressed by whites, it is natural for them to exhibit nationalism to gain equal rights. Thats all I support.Nothing more....

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSyjRyH58WoOfxtFREeA-0Kgt68qFbyRHRCrpg_Dssj_50SadQ&t=1&usg=__1TkOSeT4QlMPjr0LLE5nIj76of4=


http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdfHhL7iVKbURhCFYabXvouwnU2hJcv 3JswNSEZ8nJE1ZO-H4&t=1&usg=__zsAmDW4y7FkN7SBQpEz-TjjvNeg=

I don't believe it. This from the guy who calls me a fascist for complaining about white culture.

[∞]

Idk maybe because you called me a "Race traitor" and a "white liberal".

[Kayser_Soso]

Nationalism in a nutshell = Being oppressed by "foreigners" is somehow worse than being screwed by people who allegedly have some mystical connection to me.

The problem with nationalism is that the nation as we know it, as well as many other modern "national" identities, is only transitory, and largely a product of capitalist development. Take a look at Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians for example. These are three Slavic nations which evolved out of one particular Grand Prince's conversion of various Slavic tribes. The idea of "the Russians" as a nation was largely meaningless until much later, supposedly at the battle of Kulikovo field. The identification "Ukrainian" came about after 1654.

Look into the history of any nation and you will find an evolution involving various tribes, then maybe city-states, confederations, etc. Try figuring tracing the history of the Ottoman Turks, or the "Mongol"-Tatars sometimes. It is almost impossible to define exactly who the Turks of modern Turkey, or the Volga Tatars are today.

[balaclava]

African-Americans.

African American – what a stupid label? The South African apartheid regime labelled people according to race which was universally agreed as wrong. For reasons I do not understand black Americans want to subscribe to the same set of racist labels? Notwithstanding that many black people in America are not from Africa have never been to Africa and wouldn’t go there if you paid them they want to be labelled as African. What do the white people born in Africa call themselves; are they allowed to call themselves African or is that denied them because they are white?

[#FF0000]

African American – what a stupid label? The South African apartheid regime labelled people according to race which was universally agreed as wrong. For reasons I do not understand black Americans want to subscribe to the same set of racist labels?

Are you suggesting that if we simply ignore the social construct of race, the consequences of hundreds of years of racism will go away?

I'm not being snarky or anything. I'm not sure what you're on about here.


Notwithstanding that many black people in America are not from Africa have never been to Africa and wouldn’t go there if you paid them they want to be labelled as African. What do the white people born in Africa call themselves; are they allowed to call themselves African or is that denied them because they are white?

The [adjective]-American thing is about ethnicity. I've never been to Ireland but I am Irish-American, which means I'm an American of Irish ethnicity.

African-American is just a more "official" way to say "Black". It's a flawed term. Not all black people came here from Africa, and not all Africans are black, I guess.

[ComradeMan]

Are you suggesting that if we simply ignore the social construct of race, the consequences of hundreds of years of racism will go away?

:blushing:I'm not being snarky or anything. I'm not sure what you're on about here.

The [adjective]-American thing is about ethnicity. I've never been to Ireland but I am Irish-American, which means I'm an American of Irish ethnicity.

African-American is just a more "official" way to say "Black". It's a flawed term. Not all black people came here from Africa, and not all Africans are black, I guess.

I notice a lot of Americans have a prefix, worse than anarchists.:lol:

I think it reflects a racist mentality. Why is it important to define ethnicity in a melting pot like the US? I could understand after one or two generations but here we are talking about many generations. On personal experience a lot of Italian-Americans come to Italy and embrace the whole Italian thing and then a lot of them actually suffer from culture shock because they actually don't relate to the culture and country of their g-g-g-grandparents as it is now. It's all very complex.

I also personally think that African-American is a bad term. For a start there is no "African" ethnicity and secondly it implies something other than just being an "American", which is what I thought the whole civil rights movement was about. If black Americans want to call themselves African-Americans however, then that's okay- it's up to them. But does anyone see my point?

Kayser_Soo also makes a good point.

Let's take the idea of Italian ethnicity? Everyone knows where Italy is? But is there really an Italian ethnicity? I would say "slightly"- but only a 150 years' worth and there are still many who flatly deny this. :confused: Other than with football and perhaps when abroad Italians are generally more patriotic to their cities and regions than to the "patria"- especially the old city states, and of course--- the Eternal City!!!!

This leads me to the point that Crimson Commissar makes


Yeah, it's natural, and I understand the reasoning behind it. The nationalism expressed by oppressed people is more collectivist and socialistic, whereas the nationalism of oppressors is based on pride and imperialism. However, it is essential that nationalism in all it's forms is wiped out eventually. Of course, if an oppressed group gains independence from it's imperialist oppressors, then that's a good thing. But the best way for us to eliminate racism and imperialism is for all humanity to co-operate and unite as one nation.

However I would say that as these things are constantly in flux, changing and developing there is no point holding on to them too much either. This does not mean we destroy languages and cultures, but rather we don't try to preserve them behind glass cases as if they were museum pieces either.

[balaclava]

African-American is just a more "official" way to say "Black". It's a flawed term. Not all black people came here from Africa, and not all Africans are black, I guess.

Clearly a lot of Americans, for a variety of reasons, want to know which branch of the tree they came from. And, I could understand that if a black American (like Kunta Kinte) did the same thing he might then want to call a Gambian American but the African American label is not the same. I don’t know when or why it started but it’s as though when they were going through the words that can’t be used to describe black Americans they thought African American sounded better than black American (notwithstanding that all black Americans did not come from Africa or that all black Americans are black). The problem is that seems to be some sort of suggestion that there is something with being black! Then there’s crazy situation where every American with curly hair is an African American notwithstanding that they look more European than African. The title African American is making a statement but I’m not sure what the statement is and I suspect that those black Americans calling themselves African Americans don’t realise that a whole chunk of the world think they’re doing it because they’ve got some sort of hang-up about being black!

[ComradeMan]

Clearly a lot of Americans, for a variety of reasons, want to know which branch of the tree they came from. And, I could understand that if a black American (like Kunta Kinte) did the same thing he might then want to call a Gambian American but the African American label is not the same. I don’t know when or why it started but it’s as though when they were going through the words that can’t be used to describe black Americans they thought African American sounded better than black American (notwithstanding that all black Americans did not come from Africa or that all black Americans are black). The problem is that seems to be some sort of suggestion that there is something with being black! Then there’s crazy situation where every American with curly hair is an African American notwithstanding that they look more European than African. The title African American is making a statement but I’m not sure what the statement is and I suspect that those black Americans calling themselves African Americans don’t realise that a whole chunk of the world think they’re doing it because they’ve got some sort of hang-up about being black!

Balaclava, although I see where you are coming from with this argument, I think you are forgetting the different situations that lead to this.

In the US, correct me if I am wrong, there was the "one-drop" rule, yeah- one drop of black blood meant you weren't white. You were excluded from white society. Not even apartheid South Africa was as rigorous with its racial definitions of this.

The fact that a person without 100% European/white blood is considered non-white/black in the US is also due in part to the legacy of an extremely racist society that was run by white people.

I dislike the term African-American because white, WASP, Americans seem to just call themselves "Americans", I think black people are unwittingly doing themselves and their ancestors a great disservice by adopting a prefix like this. Black Americans have been part of the history of America since the days of the founding fathers and have just as much right to call themselves Americans (without prefixes) as any "old" New England colonist.

Until people see nothing more in skin-colour than they do in eye-colour or hairstyles, colour-racism will always exist.

[Revolution starts with U]

I disdain the use of the words African-american, because they're just americans like the rest of us. And Black History Month, because every month is black history month. It's not like Ramses only ruled Egypt in February.
But putting it in context of american culture, its ok with me. I more hate that we have to use, than that we use it in general.

[#FF0000]

Clearly a lot of Americans, for a variety of reasons, want to know which branch of the tree they came from. And, I could understand that if a black American (like Kunta Kinte) did the same thing he might then want to call a Gambian American but the African American label is not the same. I don’t know when or why it started but it’s as though when they were going through the words that can’t be used to describe black Americans they thought African American sounded better than black American (notwithstanding that all black Americans did not come from Africa or that all black Americans are black).

I don't know how the term "African American" came about, but most black people in America can't be more specific than "Africa" when it comes to figuring out where, exactly, their ancestors come from.


The problem is that seems to be some sort of suggestion that there is something with being black! Then there’s crazy situation where every American with curly hair is an African American notwithstanding that they look more European than African.

Uh, yeah that's because people who aren't 100% "white"... aren't counted as white. That has nothing to do with people wanting to be black or whatever.


The title African American is making a statement but I’m not sure what the statement is and I suspect that those black Americans calling themselves African Americans don’t realise that a whole chunk of the world think they’re doing it because they’ve got some sort of hang-up about being black!

I guess people call themselves Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans or Chinese-Americans because they all have hang ups too?

You're looking way too far into this. People aren't militant about the term "African-American". You see the term on forms and hear it on PSAs and that's pretty much it. People aren't shy about saying "black" and no one gets offended by it. There is literally no controversy over this.

[ComradeMan]

To be fair to Balaclava, he is probably interpreting things from a British point of view. They never had things like "one-drop" rules and the segregation that was institutionalised in the US, in the UK- or at least not since the abolition of slavery. So perhaps he finds it weird. I find it a bit strange that some very un-black looking Americans describe themselves as African-Americans too- but given the background I understand why.

But, why is it important to underline ethnicity in the US, for any group?

[#FF0000]

To be fair to Balaclava, he is probably interpreting things from a British point of view. They never had things like "one-drop" rules and the segragation that was institutionalised in the US, in the UK- or at least not since the abolition of slavery. So perhaps he finds it weird. I find it a bit strange that some very un-black looking Americans describe themselves as African-Americans too- but given the background I understand why.

I don't really know if it has anything to do with the one-drop rule. I don't think it does and I don't think a lot of people actually even know what the one-drop rule was. I've got a friend who's hispanic but people think he's black, and he has no black relatives at all. I know Italians who are the same way, with people thinking they're hispanic.

One of my close friends is Irish and Colombian with two very fair skinned parents, and I thought he was black for the first two or three years I knew him.


But, why is it important to underline ethnicity in the US, for any group?

Probably has something to do with literally everyone here being an immigrant and the huge amount of diversity, I think. I don't think people would say it's "important" but it's something that comes up because people are curious, I guess. You have people asking "oh hey, what are you?" a lot just out of curiosity.

The only people who really care about their ethnicity in my area are some of the fresh-off-the-boat immigrants. Some don't really care about their background and some put up the flag of their country of origin and everything.

Depends though. It's whatever and nobody really cares.

[#FF0000]

Oh and by the way, nobody ever calls themselves "something-American.

If they're Irish-American, they call themselves Irish.

[ComradeMan]

Oh and by the way, nobody ever calls themselves "something-American.

If they're Irish-American, they call themselves Irish.

That's a bit stupid to be honest, but still... it's up to people what they call themselves.

[#FF0000]

That's a bit stupid to be honest, but still... it's up to people what they call themselves.

:lol: My dad hated it. Wasn't a fan of the 'hyphenated American" thing either. He tried to teach me to say "American of Irish descent".

[ComradeMan]

:lol: My dad hated it. Wasn't a fan of the 'hyphenated American" thing either. He tried to teach me to say "American of Irish descent".

Bravo! I think your dad was right!

[Kayser_Soso]

Go outside of America and nobody cares that your great-great grandfather was Irish, German, or whatever. It's not that non-Americans don't acknowledge that there is ethnic diversity in the United States, but for all practical purposes, Americans are seen simply as Americans and nothing more. Despite all the cultural diversity in the US, native born Americans share more in common culturally and practically than they do with any foreign group they may be distantly related to.

Anyone who is actually Irish or one who has been to Ireland can probably attest to how angry people get there when an American runs around saying I'M IRISH!!! LET'S EAT CORNED BEEF AND CABBAGE!(little do they know, it's an Irish-American dish)

[#FF0000]

Anyone who is actually Irish or one who has been to Ireland can probably attest to how angry people get there when an American runs around saying I'M IRISH!!! LET'S EAT CORNED BEEF AND CABBAGE!

In my experience, Irish-Americans think they are the "most Irish" people on the planet. I can only imagine how obnoxious they would seem in Ireland.

[Kayser_Soso]

In my experience, Irish-Americans think they are the "most Irish" people on the planet. I can only imagine how obnoxious they would seem in Ireland.

Even I have Irish roots(moreso than most of these Plastic Paddies as at least my Grandfather was an immigrant), but I never went around wearing it on my sleeve all the time. Imagine my rage when I would run into these "Paddy McLeprechaun's" who talk my ear off about "the old country"(they never visited) and yet don't know who Michael Collins, James Connolly, Padraig Pearse, or Eamon Devalera were.

[ComradeMan]

In my experience, Irish-Americans think they are the "most Irish" people on the planet. I can only imagine how obnoxious they would seem in Ireland.


Ditto many Italian-Americans I have encountered- they come to Italy thinking they have stepped off the set of the Sopranos or something and then act like they know everything after the nostalgia of being in the old country wears off they start complaining about the coffee being too strong, the traffic, the shops closed in the afternoon and the pizzas being too thin. :(

Not all of course, but I have encountered this.

[RGacky3]

There is no hard and fast rule on ethnicity, its essencially how society looks at it, and the society in that particular area and that particular time, its something that canges with time and place, people that try and latch on to something as if its meaningful are fooling themselves.

[Kayser_Soso]

Ditto many Italian-Americans I have encountered- they come to Italy thinking they have stepped off the set of the Sopranos or something and then act like they know everything after the nostalgia of being in the old country wears off they start complaining about the coffee being too strong, the traffic, the shops closed in the afternoon and the pizzas being too thin. :(

Not all of course, but I have encountered this.

They forget that most "ethnic" cuisine that has been in America for any significant period of time is often radically different than the original food it's based on. Chinese food is the best example.

[Bud Struggle]

They forget that most "ethnic" cuisine that has been in America for any significant period of time is often radically different than the original food it's based on. Chinese food is the best example.

And for that matter the Irish and Polish potato and the Italian tomato were imports from America.

[Tomhet]

Nationalism is a very powerful and legitamite force for those living under foreign occupation and imperialism..

[ComradeMan]

Nationalism is a very powerful and legitamite force for those living under foreign occupation and imperialism..

It's not always constructive, and the other problem is that it doesn't stop there. But there is a difference between "patriotism" and "nationalism", nationalism nearly always involved hating.

[Revolution starts with U]

An uncle of mine spent a tour in the mediteranean, staying mainly in Italy, for about a year.. maybe two, idk how long that stuff lasts.
He cannot/will not eat american "pizza" or "pasta."