Nationalism

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

I am Welsh, and speek Welsh. I am very proud of my heritage and despise the way the English have tried to kill us off. So I suppose that makes me a nationalist, but I also see the need for international bodies (like the U.N). and i am a communist, so what would this make me?

[Connolly]

A republican socialist.

The Irish equivilent is the IRSP (military wing - INLA - Irish National Liberation Army), Irish Republican Socialist Party following in the tradition of the famous Marxist James Connolly who believed the struggle for socialism could manifest itself with nationalism ie., just what your talking about there, defending your language and culture from capitalist imperialism.

See Irish Republican Socialist Party (http://www.IRSM.ORG) and their message forum is at IRSM board (http://rsmforum.proboards107.com/)

Also, The Workers party of Ireland (military wing - OIRA - Official Irish Republican Army) are a Marxist party who are also Republican Socialist.

I cant seem to find the website for the WPoI at the moment.

Also, find links for Republican socialism, including the scottish equivilent, in the links section of the IRSM board.

[Enragé]

as long as you realise that simply replacing english bosses with welsh ones doesnt change anything and that you consider the english working man just as much a comrade as the welsh one

then its ok.

[Leo]

I am very proud of my heritage

Why?

[Cryotank Screams]

I am very proud of my heritage

Do you just enjoy reading about your people's history, or are you seriously proud of being welsh, just because your welsh?

[Whitten]

There's no reason to be proud of your luck of birth.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 03:57 pm
the English have tried to kill us
But the simple fact is, they didn't

The "English" didn't try to kill you, the English ruling class tried to remove the isolated welsh rulers for various complex reasons, not worth exploring now. The fact is that whoever won, we the proletariat loose. War is simply rich people, making poor people kill other poor people to make rich people richer. If you support welsh nationalism, you support opression of the working class, because you advocate a power structure that dominates the workers, a native power structure as opposed to a foreign one.

But the simple fact is that a welsh power structure would still be a power structure, it would still be a ruling class that oppresses the workers, and should be abolished. You have more in common with the English working class than you do with your Welsh bosses, and should struggle with the proletariat of all lands against oppression, weather it is native or foreign.

You talk about despising the english attacks against your native oppressors, which I interpret as nothing more than solidarity with the native boss class. You don't speak of the attacks by the Welsh ruling class against your class prior to English occupation.

[KC]

Nations don't exist.

[Leo]

Nations don't exist.

Quoted for truth.

[Ander]

Extreme nationalism is not ok, in fact, it's probably one of the worst beliefs on this planet. Examples of nationalism's destructive forces should be fairly obvious...Hitler for one?

I am a Basque nationalist however, I believe that the Basque people should have their own sovereign nation. Do I think that I am better than others for being Basque? No, not at all.

[manic expression]

Some may disagree, but I don't think that there's an inherent contradiction between communism/leftism and embracing one's heritage and identity. The Irish Independence movement had a significant socialist and leftist presence, the Spanish anarchists fought for a Catalonian identity (IIRC, the communists did, as well).

Some have asked: why be proud of something you didn't choose? This is a valid objection, and I partially agree. The difference is that, IMO, you can embrace the culture of your parents while seeing other cultures as wholly equal. I like the English language, which I didn't choose as my native tongue, but that doesn't mean I think the English language superior in any way, and it doesn't mean that I don't thoroughly enjoy other languages as well. I hope I'm getting my point across. Anyway, I've always thought that you can have a classless society while still maintaining cultural distinctions in a respectful and beneficial manner.

I was reading about the Battle of Cable Street a few days ago, and I think this illustrates what I'm trying to say. On the barricades on that day, Orthodox Jews (or another Jewish sect) fought alongside Irish dock workers against fascism. People from many different groups, cultures, heritages and otherwise united themselves in diversity. That, IMO, is beautiful.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 06:34 pm
I am a Basque nationalist however, I believe that the Basque people should have their own sovereign nation. Do I think that I am better than others for being Basque? No, not at all.
Nationalism is just a destructive myth, because nations do not exist, the whole concept of borders, is quite idiotic in my opinion, and really nationalism just divides the people, and the working class.

"I am a citizen of the world"-Diogenes of Sinope.

I support Internationalism all the way.

[MiniOswald]

I find nationalism an unusual idea, after all, why should I feel more proud of the achievements of an englishmen in the past than a man in china just because the first lived close to where I live now.

What I find the strangest aspect, and one which is annoying prevailant in modern British society is nationalists who complain about immigrants, and the culture these people bring with them, proclaiming 'its our country, abide by our rules'. Now I was born in the maternity ward of a local hospital, but that does not give me the right to go into that ward and proclaim it as my maternity ward and demand all who enter abide by my rules because I was born in that ward.

If you want to be proud of human achievements be proud of them all, not just the ones done by people in the place where you were born, I could have been born anywhere, doesnt make me any different. No single race is better than another, we're just divided by historically created lines, but we're all still people, I feel as much allegiance to anyone from any other nation as I do an englishmen.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 10:34 pm
Extreme nationalism is not ok, in fact, it's probably one of the worst beliefs on this planet. Examples of nationalism's destructive forces should be fairly obvious...Hitler for one?

I am a Basque nationalist however, I believe that the Basque people should have their own sovereign nation. Do I think that I am better than others for being Basque? No, not at all.
What do you think of ETA? Are they popular in the Basque region now?

[Ol' Dirty]

There is no reason to even consider a rival ethno-cultural group as your enemy when the real enemy is the opposing class.

[anarchista feminista]

not sure if this is correct but i have always seen nationalism and extreme patriarchy which causes individuals and groups to become obsessive over their nation and be against anything outside it. that's probably not entirely correct though.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 10:34 pm
I am a Basque nationalist however,
Yea because being opressed by a Basque state is so much better. Nationalists of all forms are inherantly non-revolutionary.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

No one has said about the language......do u think its waste of time? I read that bi-lingual people are get better marks at school

[The Grey Blur]

I'm a fluent Irish speaker.

You can still be a Marxist and have interest in your culture or whatever - like Trotdog said for all the cries that the Bolshies "destroyed culture" they made million of poor peasants literate, giving each a chance to express themselves.

Wtf am I talking about and what has that got to do with anything I have no idea I apologise for this post. But aye, being able to speak Welsh is hardly your raison d'ere is it? Just enjoy speaking it and shit but don't let it confuse your Socialist ideals. Aye...

Swish

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 05:17 pm
No one has said about the language......do u think its waste of time? I read that bi-lingual people are get better marks at school
Welsh is an insignificant language. No one outside of wales speaks it, and no one needs to, English is the dominant language (not the most widely spoken) English, Spainish, and Mandarin seem to be the more useful languages to have. Mandarin not so much now, but as china becomes a superpower, I imagine it will be increasinly useful to speak their language. In the same way that speaking Russian would have been useful in the cold war .

I wouldn't waste my time learning welsh because it's moribund. It might as well not exist, as it has no utility. But I suppose if you have picked it up, it can only come in handy one day.

Im interested on hearing your thoughts on what has been said in responce to your original post.

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

Its one thing to be interested and proud of where one came from, since it has a huge effect on who you are. It is quite another to blindly follow the decisions of that nation.

[Conghaileach]

There's no reason why you can't be a nationalist and an internationalist.

[Leo]

There's no reason why you can't be a nationalist and an internationalist.

Actually there is a pretty big one, it's called the proletariat.

[Connolly]

National Liberation

The struggle for national liberation cannot be separated from the class struggle. Any attempt to isolate one from the other will result in failure. It is meaningless to speak of a free nation, if the overwhelming majority remain oppressed, and national sovereignty is lost through multinational corporate control of the economy just as much as by partition. At the same time, someone who refuses to challenge British imperialism in Ireland cannot claim to be fighting for socialism and the continuation of partition props up the divisions in the working class of Ireland that hold us back from our own liberation. We have no choice in whether or not we wish to consider the interconnection of the national and class questions, reality forces us to do so.

We define the national liberation struggle as that struggle which seeks to force a British military withdrawal from the occupied six counties. The destruction of the pro-British loyalist armed forces. The withdrawal of British political influence from all parts of Ireland. The ending the partition of the island of Ireland and the overturning of both the partionist governments presently administering political affairs of Ireland. The gaining of collective economic control of the nation's resources by the nation as a whole and the eradication of any control or influence exercised by foreign capitalists over any aspect of the Irish economy. The recognition of a separate Irish cultural identity and the establishment of revolutionary 32- county socialist republic.

We aim to build a strong alliance in Irish society of our class in towns and cities, agricultural workers in the country-side, unemployed workers, working class refugees, linked as a movement internationally with other like-minded liberation struggles.

We firmly stand-by the struggle for a republic. On that we are inflexible, but our struggle for the republic is a means to an end. For us, the national liberation struggle is but an aspect of the struggle for socialism.

Loyalism & Nationalism

We distinguish between loyalism and Protestantism. We recognise the right of everyone to their own religious beliefs, provided they do not use these beliefs to oppress others. We have no quarrel with Protestant workers and welcome them to join us in struggle. However, we stand totally opposed to the political ideology of loyalism. Loyalism is a reactionary, sectarian and proimperialist ideology, with which we can make no compromise. We recognise that nationalism in the context of the Irish struggle is progressive, but we also recognise that nationalism can play a reactionary role. The national chauvinism of the Tories, National Front, etc. is counterrevolutionary and anathema to socialists. The nationalism of an oppressed country is vastly different from such reactionary jingoism. We support all struggles against imperialism throughout the world.

Class mobilisation Only by mobilising our class north and south - Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter - can the goal of national liberation and socialism be achieved. Workers have distinct interests as a class, ultimately opposed to any other class, we must join together as a class to win control of society.

IRSM (http://irsm.org/irsp/tirs.html)

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Love Underground+December 06, 2006 11:42 am--> (Love Underground @ December 06, 2006 11:42 am)
[email protected] 05, 2006 10:34 pm
I am a Basque nationalist however,
Yea because being opressed by a Basque state is so much better. Nationalists of all forms are inherantly non-revolutionary. [/b]
did he say that?

no

i assume he wants a basque people's republic or something along those lines.

[More Fire for the People]

Depends on what kind of 'nationalism' we are speaking of. Ethnic nationalism [social chauvanism] is reactionary while the national liberation of the oppressed is progressive. Progressive 'nationalists' include groups like the IFC, IRSM, etc.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 06, 2006 07:38 pm
National Liberation

The struggle for national liberation cannot be separated from the class struggle. Any attempt to isolate one from the other will result in failure. It is meaningless to speak of a free nation, if the overwhelming majority remain oppressed, and national sovereignty is lost through multinational corporate control of the economy just as much as by partition. At the same time, someone who refuses to challenge British imperialism in Ireland cannot claim to be fighting for socialism and the continuation of partition props up the divisions in the working class of Ireland that hold us back from our own liberation. We have no choice in whether or not we wish to consider the interconnection of the national and class questions, reality forces us to do so.

We define the national liberation struggle as that struggle which seeks to force a British military withdrawal from the occupied six counties. The destruction of the pro-British loyalist armed forces. The withdrawal of British political influence from all parts of Ireland. The ending the partition of the island of Ireland and the overturning of both the partionist governments presently administering political affairs of Ireland. The gaining of collective economic control of the nation's resources by the nation as a whole and the eradication of any control or influence exercised by foreign capitalists over any aspect of the Irish economy. The recognition of a separate Irish cultural identity and the establishment of revolutionary 32- county socialist republic.

We aim to build a strong alliance in Irish society of our class in towns and cities, agricultural workers in the country-side, unemployed workers, working class refugees, linked as a movement internationally with other like-minded liberation struggles.

We firmly stand-by the struggle for a republic. On that we are inflexible, but our struggle for the republic is a means to an end. For us, the national liberation struggle is but an aspect of the struggle for socialism.

Loyalism & Nationalism

We distinguish between loyalism and Protestantism. We recognise the right of everyone to their own religious beliefs, provided they do not use these beliefs to oppress others. We have no quarrel with Protestant workers and welcome them to join us in struggle. However, we stand totally opposed to the political ideology of loyalism. Loyalism is a reactionary, sectarian and proimperialist ideology, with which we can make no compromise. We recognise that nationalism in the context of the Irish struggle is progressive, but we also recognise that nationalism can play a reactionary role. The national chauvinism of the Tories, National Front, etc. is counterrevolutionary and anathema to socialists. The nationalism of an oppressed country is vastly different from such reactionary jingoism. We support all struggles against imperialism throughout the world.

Class mobilisation Only by mobilising our class north and south - Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter - can the goal of national liberation and socialism be achieved. Workers have distinct interests as a class, ultimately opposed to any other class, we must join together as a class to win control of society.

IRSM (http://irsm.org/irsp/tirs.html)
Groups like the IRSM only serve to divide the working-class in Northern Ireland.

[Janus]

I don't think it's a matter of "is it ok" but when is it ok and when should it be tolerated. Obviously, as communists, we should be transnationalists but sometimes in certain global struggles that option simply isn't available or present.

[Ander]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+--> (LeftyHenry)What do you think of ETA? Are they popular in the Basque region now? [/b]

I believe ETA started out with good intentions and completed some successful operations but recently they have become terrorists rather than freedom fighters. As for their popularity, it's not very high among most Basque people.


Love Underground
Yea because being opressed by a Basque state is so much better. Nationalists of all forms are inherantly non-revolutionary

...Yeah, because I ever said that. Notice how this is a leftist forum? I'd like to see a socialist state set up in the Basque Country. Like NKOS said, a people's republic.

I have grown up hearing stories of repression against my relatives from the Spaniards. My father used to get beaten for speaking Basque in school and who knows what else my grandparents had to deal with.

And it didn't end with Franco, it continues to this day. The Spanish state still bans political groups and censorship is not uncommon. Do you want to start talking about the hundreds of Basque political prisoners currently being held in Spanish jails?

This is why I am a Basque nationalist, this is why I want an independent Basque Country.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 02:03 am
...Yeah, because I ever said that. Notice how this is a leftist forum? I'd like to see a socialist state set up in the Basque Country.
"refuse to participate in national liberation fronts; they participate in class fronts which may or may not be involved in national liberation struggles. The struggle must spread to establish economic, political and social structures in the liberated territories, based on federalist and libertarian organisations." - M Bonnano

I don't like to elevate the idea of national liberation into a mindless leap of faith, like a lot of other Leninists have done with Hezbollah for example, supporting the oppressed nations without first asking yourself what the outcome would be given a victory. What sort of society would this nationalist liberation achieve?


I have grown up hearing stories of repression against my relatives from the Spaniards.

Yes but the "Spaniards" you are referring to, oppresses the majority of the spaniards too. You are putting an artificial divide between the working class of your non-existent nation, and those of the equally non-existent Spanish nation.

You are not fighting for your class, but your cultural identity. Not against barriers between workers, but striving to make more.

I can see why so many people support national liberation, I really can. It's so simple, and conforms to those bourgeoisie instincts imbedded in your upbringing, the idea that nations are anything other than an artifical construct. If you can reduce the idea of "class" to nationhood, then your struggle is against the foreign invaders, not the native bosses.

Sound familiar?

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

But would a more local goverment serve the people of Wales better than one in a different country? Would it not serve the local economy better then if it were miles away trying to Cater for ever country in the Uk's needs? And i, like Jello, would wish Wales to be a socialst state, without the "Welsh oppressors" Love Underground speakes of. i read that the conservative party, when elected to rule the UK for 3/4 of the last century, have never won the majority in Wales. So the UK goverment did not represent the people of Wales.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 03:56 pm
But would a more local goverment serve the people of Wales better than one in a different country? Would it not serve the local economy better then if it were miles away trying to Cater for ever country in the Uk's needs? And i, like Jello, would wish Wales to be a socialst state, without the "Welsh oppressors" Love Underground speakes of.
In that case I wouldn't really call you a nationalist. Because Socialism serves the interests of the proletariat, not the Nation.

You are in fact fighting for community control, which is undeniably a good thing. But not an inherent part of nationalism, by calling your self a nationalist you suggest that as long as wales is independent, it doesn't matter what political/economic system it uses. Last time I was in wales I saw a banner dropped off a barn near the motorway saying "English, Fuck off" while I understand the sentiment, it is reactionary. Im English, and have in no way oppressed the Welsh nation, the person that wrote that, is in fact oppressed by the same state as me, and consiquently we must work together.


So the UK goverment did not represent the people of Wales.

It dosn't represent the people of England either, It represents the ruling class.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I like were I live and where I come from, I like the people, but i have no love for the government.

[Ander]

...Yeah, because I ever said that. Notice how this is a leftist forum? I'd like to see a socialist state set up in the Basque Country.
"refuse to participate in national liberation fronts; they participate in class fronts which may or may not be involved in national liberation struggles. The struggle must spread to establish economic, political and social structures in the liberated territories, based on federalist and libertarian organisations." - M Bonnano

I don't like to elevate the idea of national liberation into a mindless leap of faith, like a lot of other Leninists have done with Hezbollah for example, supporting the oppressed nations without first asking yourself what the outcome would be given a victory. What sort of society would this nationalist liberation achieve?

Quoting anarchists is really pointless if you're going to argue with someone who isn't an anarchist.

There's no mindless leap of faith here at all, I support socialism and independence for the Basque Country. The outcome I see is a territory implementing a socialist system which could spread from there. Revolution seems too far away for the Spanish state, but in a smaller, more contained area, the possibility is increased.


[QUOTE]I have grown up hearing stories of repression against my relatives from the Spaniards.

Yes but the "Spaniards" you are referring to, oppresses the majority of the spaniards too. You are putting an artificial divide between the working class of your non-existent nation, and those of the equally non-existent Spanish nation.


But you fail to see that a huge factor is because we are NOT Spanish. The same goes for the Catalonians who face a similar struggle for autonomy. They oppress us because we are different and I never suggested dividing the working class of either countries. Do you not think that the Spanish left would benefit with a socialist nation directly north of them?

[QUOTE=Love Underground]You are not fighting for your class, but your cultural identity. Not against barriers between workers, but striving to make more.

I can see why so many people support national liberation, I really can. It's so simple, and conforms to those bourgeoisie instincts imbedded in your upbringing, the idea that nations are anything other than an artifical construct. If you can reduce the idea of "class" to nationhood, then your struggle is against the foreign invaders, not the native bosses.

Sound familiar?


Your argument is flawed in the fact that nations DO currently exist. Whether you, me, or anyone else on this board thinks so or not, borders and boundaries are a part of the world. And although yes, I do sympathize with the Spanish workers, the conditions are not right in Spain for any kind of true socialist revolution. One factor is this problem of disunity between all the groups living in one country. If the Basques broke off, they could build socialism in their own nation, the Catalonians could do the same, and the Spanish could follow afterwards.

If the Kurds in Iraq suddenly declared independence and established a worker's state, what would you say?

As far as I see, the Basques are a people who could probably form a socialist society, but the Spanish state is a massive burden by not allowing them to govern themselves.

Ok...I don't see what I did wrong with the quotes :huh:

[[email protected]@ns]

I have Welsh heritage and I would like to see Wales opperate autonomously from britian. That is why I am anarchist. I think every local ethnic group should be in charge of thier own destiny. So I am against nationalism and for culturalism and multi-culturalism. A nation isn't nessesary to have cultural pride.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 06, 2006 07:23 pm
I wouldn't waste my time learning welsh because it's moribund. It might as well not exist, as it has no utility. But I suppose if you have picked it up, it can only come in handy one day.
I'd personally prefer a far more culturally diverse planet than a wasteland of Anglo-American monopolistic cultural imperialism.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by NKOS+December 06, 2006 08:48 pm--> (NKOS @ December 06, 2006 08:48 pm)
Originally posted by Love [email protected] 06, 2006 11:42 am

[email protected] 05, 2006 10:34 pm
I am a Basque nationalist however,
Yea because being opressed by a Basque state is so much better. Nationalists of all forms are inherantly non-revolutionary.
did he say that?

no

i assume he wants a basque people's republic or something along those lines.[/b]
The problem is that many anarchists have a straw man notion of nationalism that it must fundamentally believe in uniting with native capitalists against the workers of other countries. This is generally not analogous to progressive nationalism, where the fundamental objective is freedom from colonial/imperial occupation and exploitation, as you would have in the Basque Country or Palestine or Ireland. This is not to say that there is never a reactionary nationalism in these countries, as you would find in England or Germany or the US.

Progessive nationalists may not necessarily support class alliances, but there are examples in which this has been the case. In many countries the (petty-)bourgeoisie has seen its interests lay in the removal of imperialism, which thus allows itself to develop without the outside interference of imperialist countries trying to protect their own markets, however there are also workers of a class conscious nature who realise that freedom from imperialism, politcal freedom, is only one part of the struggle - and that economic and social freedom must still be won. It is these latter freedoms that the native bourgeoisie will oppose, at which point their progressive role will have come to an end.

This was a sore lesson of the Tan War in Ireland, and of a number of other events in Irish history. Undoubtedly the struggling peoples of other nations have seen this kind of situation where the bourgeoisie will only be progressive to the extent that it does not threaten their class interests. So, the question becomes do the (petty-)bourgeoisie still have a progressive role to play? That's a question for the nationalists of each country to work out for themselves.

One of the main determining factors in this will be the strength of the workers as class in the colonised country, and the extent to which the coloniser has allowed them to develop. This is not to say that achieving a national (bourgeois) democracy is not fundamentally progressive, it's just that in this day and age it is not enough. Why fight for freedom for foreign bosses when native bosses will be just as bad? Workers who fight for national liberation must also realise that the fight will continue for economic and social liberation as well.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 06, 2006 09:14 am
Nations don't exist.
Races do not exist, nations do.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Hiero+December 10, 2006 05:03 am--> (Hiero @ December 10, 2006 05:03 am)
Zampanò@December 06, 2006 09:14 am
Nations don't exist.
Races do not exist, nations do. [/b]
Not physically, we create them through artificial documents, legislations and social norms.

Cultures exist. Nations do not.

[Conghaileach]

A nation is essentially a group of people with a shared language, history and culture.

[KC]

Races do not exist, nations do.


Define 'nation'. Please note that a nation is not a body of land, a state, or a government.



Not physically, we create them through artificial documents, legislations and social norms.


No, we create different instruments for the state.


A nation is essentially a group of people with a shared language, history and culture.


That's incorrect. There's many nations in the world that have people that speak many different languages and have completely different languages and cultures.

[Ander]

While talking to my father the other day I realized something:

While "country" is a political term involving borders and boundaries, a nation is not. Palestine is a nation within a country (Israel), same goes for the Basque nation, Kurd nation, and I suppose Quebec as well. Especially with the recent nationhood bill or whatever it was.

[Phalanx]

Nations do not exist. Cultures do.

Culturally, someone from northern Minnesota or northern Wisconsin has more in common with a person from northwest Ontario than, say, Texas. Even those differences are so miniscule it doesn't really warrant discussion.

There is the Irish culture, the American, the Chinese, the Arab culture, but (with the exception of Ireland) they don't have defined boundaries. Even within those cultures there's differences.

A Nation State is the product of capitalism, a culture is not.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 10, 2006 11:24 pm

A nation is essentially a group of people with a shared language, history and culture.


That's incorrect. There's many nations in the world that have people that speak many different languages and have completely different languages and cultures.
You may be thinking of countries (but if you have an example to clarify what you're saying, it would be nice.)

Consider the various Native American nations, each with its own language and traditions (now whittled down to just a few, but that's the joy of colonalism for you). In essence I could be talking about tribes here, but on a much larger scale.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 01:10 am
Consider the various Native American nations, each with its own language and traditions (now whittled down to just a few, but that's the joy of colonalism for you). In essence I could be talking about tribes here, but on a much larger scale.
Many Native American tribes formed loose unions with each other, but I fail to see how that proves anything. Many were merely military alliances formed to fight a common enemy (mostly Europeans or Americans), not an actual nation state.

[Hiero]

People are confusing countries and Nations states with Nations. A country can be a group of nations in an allaince, or where one nations dominates another. Examples include Turkey and Kurdistan.

Conghaileach and Jello have explained what a nation is. Stalin's arictle is a good explanation of what a nations is. Summarised a nation is such, a common "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm

The first chapter explains what the nation is. As explained by Stalin and others, a nation can exist without a state, such as the Kurds in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

[Joby]

I am proud of were my folks came from. I'm not saying I'm better than anyone, but I am proud of my German/Irish heritage. I feel my family went through a lot of turmoil, and were fortunate to come to America and, unlike millions of their fellow immigrants, do reasonably well.

But do I think we must kick out all the mexicans to keep the US from falling apart, or that Germany stop muslim emigration? No, not at all. I'm proud of mine, and they have every right to be proud of theirs. We're all equal. The only differences between the worth of people are in our minds.

And props to the guy who speaks welsh. I really do admire your refusal against the forced assimilation into not only their language, but consumerist thought processes. I feel the same towards Palestinians especially, since its illegal to show your flag. It takes guts to stand up.

[Hiero]

I always found it weird to be proud of something that is rather passive. Either nationality, sexuality, class etc. We should be proud of activity.

[Leo]

I am proud of were my folks came from.

Why?

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 05:14 am
People are confusing countries and Nations states with Nations. A country can be a group of nations in an allaince, or where one nations dominates another. Examples include Turkey and Kurdistan.

Conghaileach and Jello have explained what a nation is. Stalin's arictle is a good explanation of what a nations is. Summarised a nation is such, a common "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm

The first chapter explains what the nation is. As explained by Stalin and others, a nation can exist without a state, such as the Kurds in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
This refers more to culture. For example, the French culture has lasted long before the advent of capitalism. When it was a collection of feudal states, it didn't exist as a nation, but as a patchwork of vassal states.

[LouWrite]

The definitions of nationalism here confuse me. I thought nationalism had two basic (and combinable) forms:

1. Desire for autonomy and dislike of outside interference.

2. A policy of putting the economic, political, and security interests of one's own nation above the legitimate interests of other nations, along with repression of internal dissent that threatens or is perceived to threaten these interests.

[Fawkes]

Multi-culturalism is a thing that we should embrace which is why I think the Welsh language should be preserved, not detroyed as Love Unerground suggested.

Also, I also don't believe there is anything wrong with being proud of your cultural heritage. Okay, let's assume your parents both died when you were only a few months old, meaning that you had no influence on their actions whatsoever. Your parents died while attacking an IDF outpost (let's say you're Palestinian). Is there anything wrong with saying that you are proud to be able to say that your parents died fighting for their people even though you had no influence on their actions? I see it as being the same as being proud of your culture. Even if it is by chance that you are born into a certain culture, there's nothing wrong with saying that you're proud of what "your people" (that may sound sectarian but believe me, it is not meant to be interpreted that way) have accomplished in the past.