Is man obliged to serve his country?

[Kaze Araki]

Religion and territory are the primal differences.
But they are culturally far more differentiated then for example Ireland and Britain.
We wheren't one big happy family to start with. If you know what i mean. lol

Well. The state i live in is one thing it brought. I guess.
And i don't agree with the you on saying that Balkan is more prominent.
It isn't our fault we are on a perfect crossroad. Just remember the Turkish empire.

On a fundamental level, what differ a man from his fellow men?
How much blood and sacrifices needed to create a State*?
Are all the death justified?
*An entity that itself cannot live without violence.

The state represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the state is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

No, States existed since ancient times. But State and Nation are two completely different things. The Roman empire was a State, but it lacked a Nation. Furthermore, you can have a State without a Nation (look at medieval Europe, all States, no Nations.) but you cant have a Nation without a State.

A Nation exclusively refers to the people within a country and their cultural identity. You basically get a nation when people start to refer to themselves as Americans, French, Germans instead of New Yorkers, Parisians or Frankfurters. If the people within a country controlled by a state do not recognize themselves as being part of this 'nation', this greater group of people, then you cant speak of a nation.

This idea of a nation and people referring to themselves as being part of such a nation wasnt around till the end of the 18th century. Before that, people identified themselves more with their local surroundings and people they knew then with countless faceless people living all across the country.

I thought I already told you to read Maccabees 1 and 2?
Add another homework for you; study the Wars of Scottish Independence.

I don't confuse the differences between States and Nations. To the contrary, it is you who are confusing modern form of nationalism with nationalism in general. Please don't tell me that this is the result of you reading Wikipedia.

Yeah, but nationalism was not a cause. It may have been used as a tool to get people to join the army, but you cant blame nationalism as the cause for the invasion of Iraq. Unlike for example the first and second world war, where Nationalism clearly did play a role in the start of the war.

And even in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, nationalism plays only a minor role. It lacks so much of the aggression that usually comes with nationalistic wars, where the soldiers of each side believe the other side deserves to be exterminated completely because they are of an inferior race/country/ethnic group. You dont see American soldiers wiping out entire villages because they feel that Iraqi's or Afghans are inferior people that deserve to be killed.

I don't argue with fantasy. With all the flag waving and "Patriot Act" during that era, I don't think I even need to prove anything to you.

 

[Arachna]

On a fundamental level, what differ a man from his fellow men?
How much blood and sacrifices needed to create a State*?
Are all the death justified?
*An entity that itself cannot live without violence.

The state represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the state is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

On a fundamental level there is no difference between two fellow men.

How much blood and sacrifice was needed through whole history?
It is in the nature of men to fight for something they believe in. As you once said. We are still animals. No matter how much we evolve.

I don't think i could justify any death. It isn't on me to judge people for fighting for what they believe is right.
The only time i could do it. Is when people do something that disgusts me on a personal level.

Who deserves to live or to die? I never liked that question. <.< I can't answer it.

An entity that itself cannot live without violence.

And yes.My opinion is that Humans really still are and will be.

:badass:

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[-lexus-]

I thought I already told you to read Maccabees 1 and 2?
Add another homework for you; study the Wars of Scottish Independence.

I don't confuse the differences between States and Nations. To the contrary, it is you who are confusing modern form of nationalism with nationalism in general. Please don't tell me that this is the result of you reading Wikipedia.

No, not Wikipedia, but Ernest Gellner. He argues that Nationalism can only exist in a modern industrial society and that it is essentially inventing historical myths to create a national identity. Of course, they make use of actual historical figures and events, but they get placed out of context, 'facts' get added to the story, etc. A good example of this is Herman the German, a nickname for Arminius who revolted against the Romans, beat them once, and in the 19th century got a statue saying that he was the father of the German nation. Bullshit any historian will say, the German nation as we know it today was created by Bismarck, before that it was just a divided bunch of small kingdoms who barely had anything in common. Thats nationalism.

The war of Scottish independence has been used as such. At that time, there was not Scottish Nation. Only a sort of Scottish State. If you read about the war, youll see that the whole thing is led by nobles and that its essentially a war between English and Scottish nobles, completely unlike actual nationalistic wars which involve far wider support. But of course, a war of Scottish independence just sounds great, so Scottish Nationalists use this to say that it was the 'birth of the Scottish Nation' while any academic historian will tell you thats just a myth.

As for Maccebees, its interesting, but its also from the bible, which I wouldnt call the most accurate historical source, and well, it sounds more like a sectarian conflict, between two camps within the Jewish community. Not really a nationalist conflict. And I follow Gellner in this, as I dont believe that nationalism can exist outside a sufficiently advanced society. It requires a certain infrastructure thats simply not present at that time.

I don't argue with fantasy. With all the flag waving and "Patriot Act" during that era, I don't think I even need to prove anything to you.

So Iraq was the direct result of the American nation saying 'Those Iraqis arent worth to exist on this planet besides our great and awesome nation, so let us start a war and burn them out!'

And the flag waving is called 'propaganda'. And they call it the Patriot Act to hide the fact that it was actually a blatant breach on the constitutional rights of the American citizens. Not nationalism.

 

[shard2323]

Yeah, but it also brought about social reform (see the German Mathematical economical school) social cohesion, the creation of the nation, and all the positive works associated with that, not to mention the art needed to create some sort of cultural cohesion.

Cultural cohesion need not be created by nationalism, in fact in psychometrics there is a test to measure both merely because of this fact. A social unit, or a cultural unit can be cohesive merely because of a psychological in-grouping via historical ties, not necessarily because they have a national tie. Ergo why I view nationalism for social and/or cultural cohesion more of a byproduct of nationalism. But this is merely be correcting an error on your part. What you meant to say was that nationalism causes cohesion among the people in the nation--not necessarily among the cultures in it. And I somewhat agree with this, however like Kaze I view the negative ramifications and potential abuses of nationalism to outweigh the benefits.

Id say those are pretty positive things as well. So I wouldnt say that Nationalism only brings about war.

So, you are justifying the millions of deaths brought about in part by nationalism via war by saying that it....brings social cohesion?

No, not Wikipedia, but Ernest Gellner. He argues that Nationalism can only exist in a modern industrial society and that it is essentially inventing historical myths to create a national identity. Of course, they make use of actual historical figures and events, but they get placed out of context, 'facts' get added to the story, etc. A good example of this is Herman the German, a nickname for Arminius who revolted against the Romans, beat them once, and in the 19th century got a statue saying that he was the father of the German nation. Bullshit any historian will say, the German nation as we know it today was created by Bismarck, before that it was just a divided bunch of small kingdoms who barely had anything in common. Thats nationalism.

So not only does nationalism cause war, it causes the distortion of historical facts. Given of course your definition of nationalism, which as pointed out, is slightly off center. the fact that you confuse nationalism as it is now known with general nationalism is obvious, but I could care less about that. Debating on those grounds will get us no where, so instead I kindly ask for your definition of nationalism; if possible, backed up by sources.

As for the issue of states and nations, I believe looking up some articles on sovereign sates, city states, and nations will clear that up. Either way, once your give your definition I can continue. Thankies Lexy~

 

[-lexus-]

Cultural cohesion need not be created by nationalism, in fact in psychometrics there is a test to measure both merely because of this fact. A social unit, or a cultural unit can be cohesive merely because of a psychological in-grouping via historical ties, not necessarily because they have a national tie. Ergo why I view nationalism for social and/or cultural cohesion more of a byproduct of nationalism. But this is merely be correcting an error on your part. What you meant to say was that nationalism causes cohesion among the people in the nation--not necessarily among the cultures in it. And I somewhat agree with this, however like Kaze I view the negative ramifications and potential abuses of nationalism to outweigh the benefits.

Yeah but thats the point. Historical ties between say, someone from Paris and someone from Marseille doesnt exist. Other then that both Marseille and Paris have been considered as part of the same kingdom by its king, for the people of both cities, they were total strangers to each other. Yet, today, both groups will claim to be part of the same larger social group, namely the nation of France, together with millions of other French people who live hundreds of kilometers apart. Nationalism created the national tie by claiming there where historical ties. They said, look, France is a nation because for the longest time we speak very similar dialects, and we have all been part of this greater civilization, etc. But when you look at France during the middle ages, there was no nation, people were divided and often died in the same village they were born in. There was very little cultural cohesion, and often the king wasnt even the real ruler in France. Nobles and knights were because they represented the king due to the lack of a effective state bureaucracy. And the only reason people knew of the king was because those knights and nobles collected money in his name.

No, the Nation tie was invented by using historical myths. Thats what nationalism does.

So, you are justifying the millions of deaths brought about in part by nationalism via war by saying that it....brings social cohesion?

No, Im simply stating that nationalism does way more the bring about war and that the amounts of war nationalism actually caused isnt even that much. I am saying that the negatives of nationalism do not outweigh the positive aspects of it. Nationalism created nations where before there were only states. It gave countries a cultural identity. So in that sense, it created far more order then it caused chaos.

So not only does nationalism cause war, it causes the distortion of historical facts. Given of course your definition of nationalism, which as pointed out, is slightly off center. the fact that you confuse nationalism as it is now known with general nationalism is obvious, but I could care less about that. Debating on those grounds will get us no where, so instead I kindly ask for your definition of nationalism; if possible, backed up by sources.

There is no such thing as general nationalism and modern nationalism. Also, define for me ´general nationalism´ when there are several distinct kinds of nationalism, ranging from the outright xenophobic kind to a very liberal kind and various forms in between. All they have in common is stressing the importance of having a nation to supplement a state, instead of having just a state.

Ill have to go look for sources later, as I left all my books on the subject at my other place.

As for the issue of states and nations, I believe looking up some articles on sovereign sates, city states, and nations will clear that up. Either way, once your give your definition I can continue. Thankies Lexy~

Yes, I suggest you look at Opello and Rosow who wrote a very nice definition of both State, Nation (and to that extend also Nation-State) in their introduction of the book The Nation-State and Global Order: A Historical Introduction to Contemporary Politics (2nd edition I think, will have to check, dont have it at hand here either).

 

[Kaze Araki]

Given of course your definition of nationalism, which as pointed out, is slightly off center. the fact that you confuse nationalism as it is now known with general nationalism is obvious, but I could care less about that. Debating on those grounds will get us no where, so instead I kindly ask for your definition of nationalism; if possible, backed up by sources.

Geller's argument about Nationalism is not mainstream, and I - in line with other detractors reject his oversimplification. SEP offer a more historically accurate definition of nationalism in general (i.e. general nationalism) as follow;

The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity, and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. (1) raises questions about the concept of a nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual's membership in a nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary. (2) raises questions about whether self-determination must be understood as involving having full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less is required. It is traditional, therefore, to distinguish nations from states — whereas a nation often consists of an ethnic or cultural community, a state is a political entity with a high degree of sovereignty. While many states are nations in some sense, there are many nations which are not fully sovereign states. As an example, the Native American Iroquois constitute a nation but not a state, since they do not possess the requisite political authority over their internal or external affairs. If the members of the Iroquois nation were to strive to form a sovereign state in the effort to preserve their identity as a people, they would be exhibiting a state-focused nationalism.

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/

 

[-lexus-]

Geller's argument about Nationalism is not mainstream, and I - in line with other detractors reject his oversimplification. SEP offer a more historically accurate definition of nationalism in general (i.e. general nationalism) as follow;

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/

It is mainstream and over simplification is not what he is criticized for. Yeah, he failed to account for a few things, but his main critic is Smith and he generally argues along the lines that it doesnt explain pre modern nationalism. And yes, I had to read the debate between the two for Uni.

Anyways, what Gellner says isnt excluded by your defintion of general nationalism, he just says that its tied to a modern state, and not before that.

 

[shard2323]

[MENTION=159]-lexus-[/MENTION]

First off, apologies for the late reply.

The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity, and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. (1) raises questions about the concept of a nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual's membership in a nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary. (2) raises questions about whether self-determination must be understood as involving having full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less is required. It is traditional, therefore, to distinguish nations from states — whereas a nation often consists of an ethnic or cultural community, a state is a political entity with a high degree of sovereignty. While many states are nations in some sense, there are many nations which are not fully sovereign states. As an example, the Native American Iroquois constitute a nation but not a state, since they do not possess the requisite political authority over their internal or external affairs. If the members of the Iroquois nation were to strive to form a sovereign state in the effort to preserve their identity as a people, they would be exhibiting a state-focused nationalism.

Since you failed to give me a definition, I will accept the one give by Kaze, as it is backed by a source. The main point is that I am trying to avoid a debate of definitions, as those normally fail to be friendly or get anywhere. So if you disagree--which you seem not to have--now is the time to say such. Though good reasoning is expected as to why you reject it if that is the case.

Yeah but thats the point. Historical ties between say, someone from Paris and someone from Marseille doesnt exist. Other then that both Marseille and Paris have been considered as part of the same kingdom by its king, for the people of both cities, they were total strangers to each other. Yet, today, both groups will claim to be part of the same larger social group, namely the nation of France, together with millions of other French people who live hundreds of kilometers apart.

There are cultural groups who adhere to a national identity (E.g. the French, as in your example), however those where not of my point. I said that cultural cohesion can exist without nationalism, and I am right. Examples of such cultures are evident in any country, be it via the grouping of racial minorities who have their own cultural/ethnic background or something more ideological. So, while I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the above quoted statement, I am merely saying that if it where true, that is but one example.

Nationalism created the national tie by claiming there where historical ties. They said, look, France is a nation because for the longest time we speak very similar dialects, and we have all been part of this greater civilization, etc. But when you look at France during the middle ages, there was no nation, people were divided and often died in the same village they were born in. There was very little cultural cohesion, and often the king wasnt even the real ruler in France. Nobles and knights were because they represented the king due to the lack of a effective state bureaucracy. And the only reason people knew of the king was because those knights and nobles collected money in his name.

Well, people created those ties, not nationalism--though that is of course what you meant. And while a nations identity is always very much rooted in its history, but as is the identity of any social or cultural unit (As aforementioned).

No, the Nation tie was invented by using historical myths. Thats what nationalism does.

You know, it would elate me to bliss to be able to understand where this statement stands in the grand scheme of things. since I can't however, I will merely say "Okay".

No, Im simply stating that nationalism does way more the bring about war and that the amounts of war nationalism actually caused isnt even that much. I am saying that the negatives of nationalism do not outweigh the positive aspects of it. Nationalism created nations where before there were only states. It gave countries a cultural identity. So in that sense, it created far more order then it caused chaos.

Yes, it does more than make more, even I agreed with that in my last post. Nevertheless, my main criticism was that your views on nationalism causing cultural cohesion where over simplified. Anyway, France was France before it had "nationalism" by your example (You mention a king and the statement about bureaucracy is alluding to a government of some sorts). Moreover, a nation must exist before nationalism steps in--no nation, no nationalism. This is not to say that the people could not still feel united without a nation, they could, but it would not be on the grounds of nationalism . In the given definition above, there are two phenomena which nationalism describes:

(1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity, and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination.

Both of these require a nation to exist beforehand, thus the issues with the statement that "Nationalism created nations...". Nationalism can unite, cause wars, even cause rebellion, but this all requires the existence of a nation beforehand.

There is no such thing as general nationalism and modern nationalism. Also, define for me ´general nationalism´ when there are several distinct kinds of nationalism, ranging from the outright xenophobic kind to a very liberal kind and various forms in between. All they have in common is stressing the importance of having a nation to supplement a state, instead of having just a state.

I will try to say this in a concise way: I asked for your definition because it is easier to disprove your assertions on the basis of your own definition; if that makes any sense. I asked because I could care less about multiple kinds of nationalism (And to be honest, prior to this debate, I only saw one kind of nationalism, like you I saw no distinction between general and modern nationalism); I wanted your definition. For when I got it I was going go about disproving it via reductio ad absurdum. Sadly any chances of that have all but fallen flat on its arse and I am left doing this the long winded way T.T Much apologies to you Lexicon.

Getting back on topic, there is a distinction between the two, though for this debate it does little good to point them out. Being new to giving a f#@!$*# about nationalism, I think it is Kaze's place to tell you that. For I can continue without it.

Ill have to go look for sources later, as I left all my books on the subject at my other place.

No problem my friend ^-^

Yes, I suggest you look at Opello and Rosow who wrote a very nice definition of both State, Nation (and to that extend also Nation-State) in their introduction of the book The Nation-State and Global Order: A Historical Introduction to Contemporary Politics (2nd edition I think, will have to check, dont have it at hand here either).

I'll try to find it on PDF form, meanwhile I look forward to your reply.

 

[Kaze Araki]

It is mainstream and over simplification is not what he is criticized for. Yeah, he failed to account for a few things, but his main critic is Smith and he generally argues along the lines that it doesnt explain pre modern nationalism. And yes, I had to read the debate between the two for Uni.

Anyways, what Gellner says isnt excluded by your defintion of general nationalism, he just says that its tied to a modern state, and not before that.

And that is exactly what I've been trying to points out all these time! Anyone with basic knowledge in History will know the claim that;

This idea of a nation and people referring to themselves as being part of such a nation wasnt around till the end of the 18th century. Before that, people identified themselves more with their local surroundings and people they knew then with countless faceless people living all across the country.

Is just pure garbage. The Maccabean Revolt (of which you have no idea what you're talking about) is the simplest and clearest example that Nationalism predate the 18th century by hundred of years - if not thousands. The Masoretic Text of which is the official version of the Tanakh, was already in circulation circa 7-10 Centuries CE (ignoring its even more ancient origin). Anyone who read the Old Testament can easily pointed out verses where the Israelite nation are emphasized repeatedly and in a way that fits the definition of Nationalism (even Fascism) perfectly.

As for your claim about America, they are of equal fantasy as well, but I will just ignore it for now.

 

[-lexus-]

[MENTION=159]-lexus-[/MENTION]

First off, apologies for the late reply.

No problem. Anyways, one thing, Im not sure if you notice it, or if its even you thats causing it, but everytime I quote you, I get a whole lot of extra font and size code and it makes it rather annoying to quote. Just so you know.

There are cultural groups who adhere to a national identity (E.g. the French, as in your example), however those where not of my point. I said that cultural cohesion can exist without nationalism, and I am right. Examples of such cultures are evident in any country, be it via the grouping of racial minorities who have their own cultural/ethnic background or something more ideological. So, while I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the above quoted statement, I am merely saying that if it where true, that is but one example.

Yes, those groups exist, but they were never the basis on which a nation could be build. Within a country, there might have been dozens of these little cultural groups, yet the Nation united them all. "On the contrary, we follow recent scholars view nations not as natural and primordial but as historically constructed; that is, imagined, and created. We view the nation as more or less consciously invented in order to create the cultural, sociological, and psychological conditions necessary to increase the politico-military power of the sovereign territorial state. The development of a full-blown national identity that overrides regional, class, and religious loyalties requires the systematic effort of the state. Creating a sense of nationhood requires the break down of the individual's attunements to local languages and cultures in order to create a common national culture (languages, values, norms of behavior) that includes the state's subject population a common national frame of references across space (i.e., territory) and time (i.e., a single national history). Therefore, initially, the creation of a nation was closely connected to the needs of the territorial state. (Opello and Rosow, 2004 The Nation-state and Global order A Historical introduction to contemporary politics)

Well, people created those ties, not nationalism--though that is of course what you meant. And while a nations identity is always very much rooted in its history, but as is the identity of any social or cultural unit (As aforementioned).

Of course it were people who created the ties. But they used Nationalism to do so. Nationalism is nothing more then a tool that can be used to create a common identity when there wasnt one before.

You know, it would elate me to bliss to be able to understand where this statement stands in the grand scheme of things. since I can't however, I will merely say "Okay".

Well think about it. In the quote I used it clearly says that a single national history needs to be created. Such a history leaves very little room for the actual history, instead it is used to supposedly demonstrate that the nation exists for far longer then actually was the case. Refer to Herman the German, who according to 19th century German nationalist was already fighting to defend the German nation from the Romans, while the German nation is nothing more then a 19th century invention.

Yes, it does more than make more, even I agreed with that in my last post. Nevertheless, my main criticism was that your views on nationalism causing cultural cohesion where over simplified. Anyway, France was France before it had "nationalism" by your example (You mention a king and the statement about bureaucracy is alluding to a government of some sorts). Moreover, a nation must exist before nationalism steps in--no nation, no nationalism. This is not to say that the people could not still feel united without a nation, they could, but it would not be on the grounds of nationalism . In the given definition above, there are two phenomena which nationalism describes:

Both of these require a nation to exist beforehand, thus the issues with the statement that "Nationalism created nations...". Nationalism can unite, cause wars, even cause rebellion, but this all requires the existence of a nation beforehand.

Yes, states did exist. France has been a state for more then a thousand years. But being a state doesnt mean you also have a nation. A state refers exclusively to a government bound to a certain territory.

Anyways, this comes down to Gellners argument which states that it was Nationalism that made nations, or gave nations their identity, by using historical myths, art, etc to create the sense of a common national culture. However, this can only be done during and after the industrial revolution because of the sheer scale it needed to be done. That required a certain level specialization, which in turn needs a certain level of education of all the citizens within a country. This is also why there is no nation before the industrial revolution. The lack of infrastructure to educate and spread a standardized form of national history, language, values and norms of behavior. Countries were way to fractured, and the communication infrastructure simply did not allow for a fast spread of ideas.

I will try to say this in a concise way: I asked for your definition because it is easier to disprove your assertions on the basis of your own definition; if that makes any sense. I asked because I could care less about multiple kinds of nationalism (And to be honest, prior to this debate, I only saw one kind of nationalism, like you I saw no distinction between general and modern nationalism); I wanted your definition. For when I got it I was going go about disproving it via reductio ad absurdum. Sadly any chances of that have all but fallen flat on its arse and I am left doing this the long winded way T.T Much apologies to you Lexicon.

Well, Kaze's definition is mostly correct, however, it deals with nationalism after the creation of a nation, while there is a strong argument to be made that Nationalism is also the tool used to create a nation.

[No problem my friend ^-^

"If nationalism is collective action designed to render the boundaries of the nation congruent with those of its governance unit, then a simple analytic typology of nationalism flows directly out of this definition. Further, this typology helps account for the normative differences between types of nationalism." (Micheal Hechter, 2000 Containing Nationalism)
I believe this to be a much better definition of nationalism, as it also includes Kaze's definition. Except this one also shows that Nationalism is used for nation building.

And that is exactly what I've been trying to points out all these time! Anyone with basic knowledge in History will know the claim that;

This idea of a nation and people referring to themselves as being part of such a nation wasnt around till the end of the 18th century. Before that, people identified themselves more with their local surroundings and people they knew then with countless faceless people living all across the country.

Is just pure garbage.

Funny since there are quite a few historians who claim the same. In fact, it is currently the most accepted theory on nationalism and nations (Opello and Rosow, 2004, The Nationalism Project, retrieved on 29-06-2011).

The Maccabean Revolt (of which you have no idea what you're talking about) is the simplest and clearest example that Nationalism predate the 18th century by hundred of years - if not thousands. The Masoretic Text of which is the official version of the Tanakh, was already in circulation circa 7-10 Centuries CE (ignoring its even more ancient origin). Anyone who read the Old Testament can easily pointed out verses where the Israelite nation are emphasized repeatedly and in a way that fits the definition of Nationalism (even Fascism) perfectly.

Its not Nationalism, pure and simple. It was a religious revolt against one group of Jews who liked the Greeks a bit to much against another group of Jews, who didnt like change that much. That is not Nationalism.

As for your claim about America, they are of equal fantasy as well, but I will just ignore it for now.

"Although patriotism - the desire to raise the prestige and power of one's own nation state relative to rivals in the international system - is often considered to be nationalistic, the present definition rules this usage out. Patriotism is no form of nationalism at all, for here the boundaries of the nation and governance unit are already congruent." (Micheal Hechter, 2000 Containing Nationalism)

Whoops, seems like it isnt just fantasy after all.

 

[Kaze Araki]

Let us review your pile of nonsenses.

First, you assert;
Well, Kaze's definition is mostly correct, however, it deals with nationalism after the creation of a nation, while there is a strong argument to be made that Nationalism is also the tool used to create a nation.

Well, OK. Let us see how you define Nationalism;
"If nationalism is collective action designed to render the boundaries of the nation congruent with those of its governance unit, then a simple analytic typology of nationalism flows directly out of this definition. Further, this typology helps account for the normative differences between types of nationalism." (Micheal Hechter, 2000 Containing Nationalism)
I believe this to be a much better definition of nationalism, as it also includes Kaze's definition. Except this one also shows that Nationalism is used for nation building.

But it is clearly defined here that nation is already in existence, and that collective action to carve its boundary (self-determination and statehood) is then called Nationalism. In other words, Nationalism here fits with SEP second definition. Now, either you are having problem reading it or that Noex is right all along (that it is truly pointless debating you), Hecther's definition is more specific and only fits with modern days form of Nationalism. Therefore it is literally mind-blowing to me how you turns reality upside down by claiming that a narrow-minded definition includes a more complete definition. If anything, Hechther's definition fit within SEP and not vice versa.

Funny since there are quite a few historians who claim the same. In fact, it is currently the most accepted theory on nationalism and nations (Opello and Rosow, 2004, The Nationalism Project, retrieved on 29-06-2011).
Link me the sources or cite me specific pages that support your nonsenses.

Its not Nationalism, pure and simple. It was a religious revolt against one group of Jews who liked the Greeks a bit to much against another group of Jews, who didnt like change that much. That is not Nationalism.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Judaism is both religious and also cultural, as it is based upon ethnic identity (see again SEP definition). The Maccabean Revolt is a revolt to preserve Jewish identity against the Seleucid empire (through its puppet client State controlled by Hellenized Jews). All the major battles are fought not against fellow Jews, but against the Seleucid empire itself.

IQM, the War scroll from Qumran: its structure and history
by Philip R. Davies
Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=LESJZea6m38C&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=maccabean+revolt+nationalism&source=bl&ots=Acj8aXub_7&sig=RDWZKzAEaFrymfRVbwEK7qDskjE&hl=en&ei=qhULTpSnAcXwrQeX3YXJDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=maccabean%20revolt%20nationalism&f=false
Page 64 (Under the heading: Nationalism).

"Although patriotism - the desire to raise the prestige and power of one's own nation state relative to rivals in the international system - is often considered to be nationalistic, the present definition rules this usage out. Patriotism is no form of nationalism at all, for here the boundaries of the nation and governance unit are already congruent." (Micheal Hechter, 2000 Containing Nationalism)

Whoops, seems like it isnt just fantasy after all.
Again, enough with quoting the Sociologist. Using Hechter's definition then it is obvious that Patriotism does not equal Nationalism (carving statehood boundaries). However, Hechther himself is careful in pointing out that his definition only fits with modern day situation, therefore does not address pre-18th century nationalism. To fully throw your fantastical nonsenses into the rubbish bin once and for all, justify once again the following garbage;

This idea of a nation and people referring to themselves as being part of such a nation wasnt around till the end of the 18th century. Before that, people identified themselves more with their local surroundings and people they knew then with countless faceless people living all across the country.

Proof to me that Davies (a real Historian, not a Sociologist) is wrong in asserting Maccabean Nationalism. But before you spout your nonsenses, define me first what is a "nation" according to your delusion.

 

[-lexus-]

Let us review your pile of nonsenses.

Oh oh oh, what a language. Didnt they teach you any debating manners?

First, you assert;
Well, Kaze's definition is mostly correct, however, it deals with nationalism after the creation of a nation, while there is a strong argument to be made that Nationalism is also the tool used to create a nation.

Well, OK. Let us see how you define Nationalism;
"If nationalism is collective action designed to render the boundaries of the nation congruent with those of its governance unit, then a simple analytic typology of nationalism flows directly out of this definition. Further, this typology helps account for the normative differences between types of nationalism." (Micheal Hechter, 2000 Containing Nationalism)
I believe this to be a much better definition of nationalism, as it also includes Kaze's definition. Except this one also shows that Nationalism is used for nation building.

But it is clearly defined here that nation is already in existence, and that collective action to carve its boundary (self-determination and statehood) is then called Nationalism. In other words, Nationalism here fits with SEP second definition. Now, either you are having problem reading it or that Noex is right all along (that it is truly pointless debating you), Hecther's definition is more specific and only fits with modern days form of Nationalism. Therefore it is literally mind-blowing to me how you turns reality upside down by claiming that a narrow-minded definition includes a more complete definition. If anything, Hechther's definition fit within SEP and not vice versa.

Ahem, didnt I state that I am a strong follower of Gellner, and that I do not believe there is such a thing as pre modern nationalism?

Yes, the notion of the nation needs to exist in the heads of the elite. They can then get the whole process started to make sure the rest of the people within the future nation get the same idea in their heads. I dont think you can say that 'the nation exists' if only a small minority within a country believe it exists. But I suggest we dont go into debating when a nation is a nation after how much of the population of a state believe in that nation.

Funny since there are quite a few historians who claim the same. In fact, it is currently the most accepted theory on nationalism and nations (Opello and Rosow, 2004, The Nationalism Project, retrieved on 29-06-2011).
Link me the sources or cite me specific pages that support your nonsenses.

Such a tone doesnt fit a civilized debate.

Anyways, its on page 192 of the Opello and Rosow book. And its on the mainpage of the nationalism project.

Its not Nationalism, pure and simple. It was a religious revolt against one group of Jews who liked the Greeks a bit to much against another group of Jews, who didnt like change that much. That is not Nationalism.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Judaism is both religious and also cultural, as it is based upon ethnic identity (see again SEP definition). The Maccabean Revolt is a revolt to preserve Jewish identity against the Seleucid empire (through its puppet client State controlled by Hellenized Jews). All the major battles are fought not against fellow Jews, but against the Seleucid empire itself.

I do, and if I were to accept such a premise Id have to accept that the empire Charles the Great build was also a nation because everyone was Christian and being Christian automatically brings with it a Christian culture and what not. No, just because everyone believes in the same God doesnt make it a nation or a nationalist revolt or something.

"Although patriotism - the desire to raise the prestige and power of one's own nation state relative to rivals in the international system - is often considered to be nationalistic, the present definition rules this usage out. Patriotism is no form of nationalism at all, for here the boundaries of the nation and governance unit are already congruent." (Micheal Hechter, 2000 Containing Nationalism)

Whoops, seems like it isnt just fantasy after all.
Again, enough with quoting the Sociologist. Using Hechter's definition then it is obvious that Patriotism does not equal Nationalism (carving statehood boundaries). However, Hechther himself is careful in pointing out that his definition only fits with modern day situation, therefore does not address pre-18th century nationalism. To fully throw your fantastical nonsenses into the rubbish bin once and for all, justify once again the following garbage;

This idea of a nation and people referring to themselves as being part of such a nation wasnt around till the end of the 18th century. Before that, people identified themselves more with their local surroundings and people they knew then with countless faceless people living all across the country.

Proof to me that Davies (a real Historian, not a Sociologist) is wrong in asserting Maccabean Nationalism. But before you spout your nonsenses, define me first what is a "nation" according to your delusion.

My my, what is this? You dont like sociologists? Oh well, because you like historians so much, here:

"Medieval Europeans were concious of belonging to their native village or town, and to a group possessing a local language whose members could communication without recourse to Latin or Greek. They were aware of belonging to a body of men and women who acknowledged the same feudal lord; to a social estate, which shared the same privilige; above all, to the great corporation of Christendom." (Norman Davies 1996, Europe: a History p. 382)

Also, definition of Nation: "a uniquely sovereign people readily distinguishable from other other uniquely defined sovereign peoples who are bound together by a sense of solidarity, common culture, language, religion, and geographical location." (Norman Davies, 1996, Europe: a History p.7-8)

Unless you call every Feudal district a nation, there were no nations before the 18th century.

And yes, hes wrong, read Gellner's Nations and Nationalism, and you know why.

 

[Kaze Araki]

"a uniquely sovereign people readily distinguishable from other other uniquely defined sovereign peoples who are bound together by a sense of solidarity, common culture, language, religion, and geographical location."

Fits the Israelite (and later Jews) perfectly.
Case closed.

 

[-lexus-]

"a uniquely sovereign people readily distinguishable from other other uniquely defined sovereign peoples who are bound together by a sense of solidarity, common culture, language, religion, and geographical location."

Fits the Israelite (and later Jews) perfectly.
Case closed.

Proof please. And something better then something taken out of a bible.

 

[Kaze Araki]

You have no idea what you're talking about at all.
And what's wrong with the Bible?
It's a historical document, provided that one know how to use it.
If we are to apply your fantasy logic, even the ancient Egyptian and Sumerian documents are worthless.
I'm not arguing about the existence of God using the Bible.
I'm pointing out to you (using the Bible) that the idea of nation and nationalism was already prevalent since ancient times.

Furthermore, there's not even a need to invoke the Bible to debunk your nonsenses. By your very own definition, the Iroquois people fits perfectly as a nation (and has been historically called a nation as well)!

 

[kero_69]

This question came to my mind after I saw some examples of overseas education sponsorship programmes which required the person to work in a government organization for a set number of years afterwards. It's not fully relevant, but the question just popped up.

General Arguments

Man is obliged to serve his country
The country has provided him with housing, education, rights, etc. so he is morally bound to help the country

Man is not obliged to serve his country
He has the right to choose which country he wants to serve


What are your opinions on the matter?

We have scholarships/programs here that allow students who wish to go to university should they be a part of the army for a number of years. It depends on the person applying, but generally speaking I think that the applicants could (depending):

1. Wish to serve their country and study to get a degree so in the case that they no longer wish to be in the army, they would have the credentials to look for work in a different place (can apply to both)

2. Want to go to university so much that they are willing to be a part of the army (they don't feel obliged to serve their country and just want what they think is an easy way into university)

3. Getting a university degree and serving their country supporting the degree will give them a leg up in the army as they will continue to be in there till retirement/death (feel obliged to serve their country)

I think as far as it goes, man is not obliged to serve his country because not only we are able to change citizenship should we want to, we also have the right to free speech in the case that another country does not grant a person citizenship and can simply reject the current government of the country they wish to leave and possibly play a different role to aid the country/government of their choosing.

In the case of South Korea, if I am not mistaken, they have compulsory years of being a part of the army for males of a certain age (not sure if they've changed the law to make females be a part of it also). For that matter, the law is making the citizens fulfill their perceived obligation to the country for a period of time.

Humans perceive the duration of obligation different for one another. Some may feel that they have to fulfill it for their entire lives, others may feel that even a few days or scant seconds is enough to "serve their country".

Mostly those who have a disposition to "pay back what is owed" would feel they have to serve the country of their birth/citizenship for a period of time they feel is enough before they move onto another place to serve of their choosing should they wish to.

 

[-lexus-]

You have no idea what you're talking about at all.
And what's wrong with the Bible?
It's a historical document, provided that one know how to use it.
If we are to apply your fantasy logic, even the ancient Egyptian and Sumerian documents are worthless.
I'm not arguing about the existence of God using the Bible.
I'm pointing out to you (using the Bible) that the idea of nation and nationalism was already prevalent since ancient times.

Furthermore, there's not even a need to invoke the Bible to debunk your nonsenses. By your very own definition, the Iroquois people fits perfectly as a nation (and has been historically called a nation as well)!

Whats wrong with the bible?! Well, perhaps the fact that its a document that has been known to be tampered with...a lot. Even for historical purposes its a notoriously untrustworthy document. Not saying that the maccabean revolt never happened, but trustworthier sources need to be used before you assert anything as a historical fact.


And actually, no, the Iriquios do not fit the definition of a nation. They were a sort of confederacy of separate tribes who worked together on some issues. Just because we call it a nation doesnt make it a nation. Nation is a word that easily gets misused, and mixed up with State or country in general.

 

[Kaze Araki]

Whats wrong with the bible?! Well, perhaps the fact that its a document that has been known to be tampered with...a lot. Even for historical purposes its a notoriously untrustworthy document. Not saying that the maccabean revolt never happened, but trustworthier sources need to be used before you assert anything as a historical fact.

O God, this is the very reason why I am extremely reluctant in replying any of your post. You missed the point completely. I already pointed out to you that the Masoretic Text was written circa 7-10 Centuries CE, this is directly imply that the idea of Nation and Nationalism per your very own definition pre-dates the 18th century.

And actually, no, the Iriquios do not fit the definition of a nation. They were a sort of confederacy of separate tribes who worked together on some issues. Just because we call it a nation doesnt make it a nation. Nation is a word that easily gets misused, and mixed up with State or country in general.

That's enough, it's really pointless debating you at all.

"a uniquely sovereign people readily distinguishable from other other uniquely defined sovereign peoples who are bound together by a sense of solidarity, common culture, language, religion, and geographical location."

I spoon-feed your brain for the last time:
1. Is the Iroquois confederation composed of sovereign people? Yes.
2. Are they uniquely distinguishable from other sovereign people? Yes.
3. Are they bound together by
__A. A sense of solidarity? Yes (The Confederacy)
__B. Common culture? Yes (Iroquoian Culture - People of the Longhouse)
__C. Common language? Yes (Iroquoian Language)
__D. Religion? Yes (Longhouse Religion)
__E. Geographical Location? Yes (Around the Area of present day North-Eastern U.S.A.)

 

[Chimer]

ok i'll just give my opinion on this :

I think all man have to fight for something, it's in the human way of life. It's a great decision to take, with "i'm ok" and no"i can't" points but i still thinking that emotions ( like fear... ) playing huge part in this choice.

I thanks my country for giving me lots of possibilitys to live my life but i'm angry at it too for not helping me or anyone else whose need it... and i'm not sure i can say i will fight for my country.

But one thing sure, if i was in age to fight against nazism ( for exemple 39-45 ) i would joined the french resistance for sure, but not the national army.

That's a part af my answer for this question, sadly i don't have all the words to explain it well so... just taking a lil part in this debat.

 

[-lexus-]

O God, this is the very reason why I am extremely reluctant in replying any of your post. You missed the point completely. I already pointed out to you that the Masoretic Text was written circa 7-10 Centuries CE, this is directly imply that the idea of Nation and Nationalism per your very own definition pre-dates the 18th century.


That's enough, it's really pointless debating you at all.

"a uniquely sovereign people readily distinguishable from other other uniquely defined sovereign peoples who are bound together by a sense of solidarity, common culture, language, religion, and geographical location."

I spoon-feed your brain for the last time:
1. Is the Iroquois confederation composed of sovereign people? Yes.
2. Are they uniquely distinguishable from other sovereign people? Yes.
3. Are they bound together by
__A. A sense of solidarity? Yes (The Confederacy)
__B. Common culture? Yes (Iroquoian Culture - People of the Longhouse)
__C. Common language? Yes (Iroquoian Language)
__D. Religion? Yes (Longhouse Religion)
__E. Geographical Location? Yes (Around the Area of present day North-Eastern U.S.A.)

Hmm, okay. You out-discussed me I suppose, you win.