old salt wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2019 1:07 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2019 12:21 pm
Great movie; but interestingly, certainly no argument for 'nationalism', and quite anti-war.
There's another, non-shakespeare re-telling of the story now on amazon.
The
history of 'nationalism', is that the second part of the definition I posted (twice) some pages back, the notion of superiority at the expense of other nations, has proven to be incredibly problematic.
And in an age of true, world existential threat from major nation state warfare, we found an alternative path that focused on building international institutions and interdependencies that provided a contract that inherently favors peace over destruction and subjugation.
And for 70 years it has worked remarkably well, lifting billions out of poverty and avoiding existential conflicts.
Work in progress, nevertheless.
You continue to dismiss the main part of both definitions & refuse to acknowledge that nationalism can yield positive results.
You are engaging in all or nothing reductionism, attempting to make "nationalism" a pejorative.
Of course there are negative aspects of unchecked nationalism, just as there are overreaches by transnational organizations.
We are currently witnessing a struggle in western democracies to find a balanced, happy medium.
Brexit & Trumpism are manifestations of that struggle.
To demean or dismiss either side, or to question their legitimacy by blaming foreign actors or malign intent, is to avoid reality.
Interesting that you reference that definition. Note what I have bolded.
Pan-Anglo Nationalism is an ideology which supports the view that English-speaking nations are the most politically advanced in the world, that the culture and values of English-speaking nations are superior to others and, where possible, should be imposed on others. Pan-Anglo nationalism is a legacy of the British Empire and, like the "Unwritten Constitution" of the U.K., it is defined more by specific cases than by compacts or documented agreements. Prime cases include the close cooperation in World Wars I and II and in making the post-war treaties and political and economic arrangements. Today, the prime example is the close cooperation of the U.S., U.K. and Australia in the invasion of Iraq. The full spectrum of Pan-Anglo nations need not be included to validate every case. The "special relationship" between the U.K. and the U.S. (which trumps the U.K.'s committment to its European Union partners) is another prime case - given vivid illumination by President Bush's placing of a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office.
As with other nationalisms, support for Pan-Anglo nationalism is not a constant but waxes and wanes. It is most easy to identify when in conflict - as evidenced by its resurgence in the face of the current threat from Islamic extremists - but usually exists at a lower level of expression promoting and extending its values and influence.
Because the English-speaking nations consider themselves to be the most advanced nations politically and culturally, they have undertaken to be the policeman of the world, generally supporting their most powerful member, the U.S., in fulfilling this role.
The military and economic power of the English-speaking nations is unrivalled and provides enormous leverage in setting world trade and economic policy. It also ensures that Pan-Anglo culture and values are dominant to the extent that they are considered the norm. Hence, these values are rarely identified as stemming from one national source but rather termed universal. It is one of the great political challenges today to get Pan-Anglo nationalists to admit (a) that their values and culture are actually their values and culture and (b) that the rest of the planet should be allowed and encouraged to contribute to the search for universal values.
No, Salty, the great evil done in the name of 'nationalism' is why this ideology is, at its core, inherently illegitimate.
It is not simply a matter of "unchecked"; it is that it inherently assumes a superiority and, thus, a right to enforce it upon others.
There are no historical cases in which 'nationalism' has not resulted in the slaughter and subjugation of others.
I quite agree that Brexit and Trumpism are, at least in part, manifestations of this ideology (or at least the pull of 'national identity'), though both are less about 'nationalism' than actual 'white nationalism'. They are extremely anti-immigrant, both have their core base in fear of demographic change. Brexit is a bit more complicated due to the European Union and the sense of sacrifice of 'control', but the ethnic issues are really dominant. Trumpism is full on about demographics.
It is actually more akin to the hard right white nationalist ideologies of Eastern Europe and the strains found throughout Europe.
That's the ugly underbelly of Trumpism; it should be rejected.
Be a patriot, Salty, not a nationalist.
Defend the values of a free society, human rights, and the rule of law.
Be proud of America's role in that cause.
But attract others to these values through the strength of their appeal, rather than the enforcement upon others, unless in protection of those defenseless from persecution.