Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

^you're conflating nations, countries, and peoples.

No. There are two definitions of nation. The first one means a people. The second one means a country. The different parts of the post is about different definitions.

The thing about unspoken implications is, since they're unspoken, you need to meet a high threshold before saying someone must be acting on them. If it's unspoken, by definition you probably don't have any clear examples that the person thinks that! You can't just say "there is an unstated opinion" and play Pin the Tail Undesirable Motivation on the Donkey.

TDLR: don't pin "unspoken opinions" on people.

I have high doubts martinuzz would like to be under the boot of laws very much unlike his own nation's. I definitely doubt he believes his one-nation utopia would follow Saudi-Arab, Chinese or even American laws and customs. There is an inherent cultural-objectivist subtext in the "one world, one people" line of thinking that assumes that one nation's ways are superior and better than everybody else's and that everyone else needs to be "enlightened". It is far more likely to be ones own culture one thinks is objectively right than a culture that's foreign to oneself.

If there were no more nations as in countries: All peoples except one would be ruled by the laws of another people. There is an unstated opinion in this way of thinking where you assume that your laws should govern all other peoples. It is imperialistic and likely more than a little dutchman's-burden-y.

If there was no more nations as in peoples: You've just admitted you long for mass genocide of the peoples of the earth, a world where different cultures doesn't exist and all humanity is the same. Once again this comes with the unspoken implication that all humanity should belong to your nation and follow your culture. This is imperialistic and genocidal.

Except nation-states don't necessarily have any correlation with cultural peoples.  Nation-states can contain many wildly different cultures, and their boundaries can divide people of the same culture.

I'm all for the end of nation-states, but also all for the existence of many cultures.

The very concept of a nation-state is that all the members of a nation (a people) should be united in one state. If a nation-state does do this then it is not a nation-state, or just an attempted nation-state.

Other nations often finds themselves in the attempted nation-states of other nations because nations often share territory or has territorial claims on each others territory (see for example France and the French inhabiting less then half of the country, or Spain and Catalonia and Basqueland, or Sweden and the Sami).

[Naturegirl1999]

People dividing into groups and fighting each other does not benefit humanity as a whole. How long do you think ant colonies would last if the soldiers fought each other? Not very long.

[McTraveller]

^you're conflating nations, countries, and peoples.

Nations, countries, and peoples are inherently conflated.

The categories that can't be conflated are geography, control, allegiance, and culture.

(I got ninja'd a bit on this...)

[Naturegirl1999]

^you're conflating nations, countries, and peoples.

Nations, countries, and peoples are inherently conflated.

The categories that can't be conflated are geography, control, allegiance, and culture.

(I got ninja'd a bit on this...)

don’t feel bad about the ninja, your post was more human related. I tend to use analogies a lot, so maybe some people understood/liked your version of things, and some understood/liked my version...the same message conveyed different ways, well similar messages

[ChairmanPoo]

^you're conflating nations, countries, and peoples.

No. There are two definitions of nation. The first one means a people. The second one means a country. The different parts of the post is about different definitions.

The thing about unspoken implications is, since they're unspoken, you need to meet a high threshold before saying someone must be acting on them. If it's unspoken, by definition you probably don't have any clear examples that the person thinks that! You can't just say "there is an unstated opinion" and play Pin the Tail Undesirable Motivation on the Donkey.

TDLR: don't pin "unspoken opinions" on people.

I have high doubts martinuzz would like to be under the boot of laws very much unlike his own nation's. I definitely doubt he believes his one-nation utopia would follow Saudi-Arab, Chinese or even American laws and customs. There is an inherent cultural-objectivist subtext in the "one world, one people" line of thinking that assumes that one nation's ways are superior and better than everybody else's and that everyone else needs to be "enlightened". It is far more likely to be ones own culture one thinks is objectively right than a culture that's foreign to oneself.

If there were no more nations as in countries: All peoples except one would be ruled by the laws of another people. There is an unstated opinion in this way of thinking where you assume that your laws should govern all other peoples. It is imperialistic and likely more than a little dutchman's-burden-y.

If there was no more nations as in peoples: You've just admitted you long for mass genocide of the peoples of the earth, a world where different cultures doesn't exist and all humanity is the same. Once again this comes with the unspoken implication that all humanity should belong to your nation and follow your culture. This is imperialistic and genocidal.

Except nation-states don't necessarily have any correlation with cultural peoples.  Nation-states can contain many wildly different cultures, and their boundaries can divide people of the same culture.

I'm all for the end of nation-states, but also all for the existence of many cultures.

The very concept of a nation-state is that all the members of a nation (a people) should be united in one state. If a nation-state does do this then it is not a nation-state, or just an attempted nation-state.

Other nations often finds themselves in the attempted nation-states of other nations because nations often share territory or has territorial claims on each others territory (see for example France and the French inhabiting less then half of the country, or Spain and Catalonia and Basqueland, or Sweden and the Sami).

Worth noting that the concept gets murky... for instance the Spanish constitution recognites the existence of several nations within the Spanish state.

Tbh the only ones denying this are diehard Castilian nationalists (who are largely in denial and call themselves "Spanish nationalists" instead)

[Eschar]

Spanationalists

[SalmonGod]

The very concept of a nation-state is that all the members of a nation (a people) should be united in one state. If a nation-state does do this then it is not a nation-state, or just an attempted nation-state.

Other nations often finds themselves in the attempted nation-states of other nations because nations often share territory or has territorial claims on each others territory (see for example France and the French inhabiting less then half of the country, or Spain and Catalonia and Basqueland, or Sweden and the Sami).

Colonialism kinda did a long-term fucking with your concept of things, I think.

[ChairmanPoo]

Tbh regardless of positions in issues like Catalonia, Euskal Herria, or whatnot, most people would at least implicitly agree that Spain is plurinational. There are very strong regional identities in many parts of the country. Not only Catalonia and the Basque Country.... Galicia for instance  has its own regional language, and a strong sense of Identity. Asturias and Cantabria feel more  culturally akin to each other than Castile down south. Andalusians have their own cultural quirks too. And the Canary Islands have been doing their own thing since the conquest in the 15th century.

[scriver]

Yeah the Spanish state was a mistake example on my part, in theory it is supposed to be a multinational union of the nations on the peninsula. I was projecting the nation-state attotude and dreams of the Castilian majority into the country.

The very concept of a nation-state is that all the members of a nation (a people) should be united in one state. If a nation-state does do this then it is not a nation-state, or just an attempted nation-state.

Other nations often finds themselves in the attempted nation-states of other nations because nations often share territory or has territorial claims on each others territory (see for example France and the French inhabiting less then half of the country, or Spain and Catalonia and Basqueland, or Sweden and the Sami).

Colonialism kinda did a long-term fucking with your concept of things, I think.

I'm not sure what you mean, so please explain.

However I much doubt that of the two of us my concepts are the most shaped by colonialism.

[kaijyuu]

People are largely the same anywhere, aside from some cultural differences and whatnot, so I don't see any criteria that could reasonably categorize them on the current scale of nation states. Aside from, ya know, current geographical and political boundaries that have arbitrarily been set up. Such are only "united" by bureaucracy and nationalism, the latter of which is a scourge.

[McTraveller]

Colonialism is merely control over remote geography.

The colonizers prefer the people in those colonized areas to have allegiance to the "home" country, but this is never guaranteed.

There are interactions between the culture of the colonists and indigenous people (if any) to be sure, but that's a secondary interaction which influences control and allegiance.  It doesn't change geography at all

"Nations" or "countries" are merely different ways to describe how how a people group (of any number of cultures) arrange their allegiance and control structures in a given geography.

@kaijyuu - I don't think it's wise to minimize "some cultural differences and whatnot" between populations. Those cultural differences are a huge part of why there are conflicts between tribes.

[SalmonGod]

Because colonialism also involved re-drawing of national boundaries in ways that didn't respect cultural peoples, fomenting internal conflicts among previously united people to weaken their resistance to external rule, etc.  And many places in the world are still effected by those things.

And then you have the disconnects that can be found pretty much all over the world between the identities of the indigenous peoples of an area vs that areas national identities.  For example, I'm sure an Inuit would have some things to say about the arbitrary national boundaries between Alaska and Canada imposed on them by people who have no relation to their cultural identity.

There are countless cases of peoples all over the world who geographically are lumped into a nation that they don't share a cultural identity with, and divided by national boundaries from those that they do share a cultural identity with.  And they are in those situations precisely because of the concept of nation-states and their boundaries.

Not going to get into a war of citations because I'm too busy today for that.

[ChairmanPoo]

People are largely the same anywhere, aside from some cultural differences and whatnot, so I don't see any criteria that could reasonably categorize them on the current scale of nation states. Aside from, ya know, current geographical and political boundaries that have arbitrarily been set up. Such are only "united" by bureaucracy and nationalism, the latter of which is a scourge.

I kind of disagree. In my experiences there is a middle term between "largely the same" and othering. I've found significant differences from place to place. Not necessarily better or worse, many things even out, but people are different.

[scriver]

People are largely the same anywhere, aside from some cultural differences and whatnot,

I too think people are largely the same apart from the ways they are different

so I don't see any criteria that could reasonably categorize them on the current scale of nation states. Aside from, ya know, current geographical and political boundaries that have arbitrarily been set up.

Categorisation based on nation-states may be a folly. Categorisation based on nation is not. Most geographical and political boundaries of the world have not been arbitrarily set up but are the results of the history of people, peoples, and the world.

Such are only "united" by bureaucracy and nationalism, the latter of which is a scourge.

A lot of really bad things have been done in the name of nationalism, but a lot of really good things have too. The most successful socialist states, the Scandinavian ones, were successful to a large extent because of the national fraternity of the populaces. The recognition of genocide as a war crime is a nationalist idea and relies on nationalist rationale. The decolonisation of Africa and Asia was spearheaded by the nationalist notion that people ought to govern themselves. Similarly, the existence of Indian territory in the US and Canada is a concession to native American/Indian/First Nation nationalism.

Because colonialism also involved re-drawing of national boundaries in ways that didn't respect cultural peoples, fomenting internal conflicts among previously united people to weaken their resistance to external rule, etc.  And many places in the world are still effected by those things.

And then you have the disconnects that can be found pretty much all over the world between the identities of the indigenous peoples of an area vs that areas national identities.  For example, I'm sure an Inuit would have some things to say about the arbitrary national boundaries between Alaska and Canada imposed on them by people who have no relation to their cultural identity.

There are countless cases of peoples all over the world who geographically are lumped into a nation that they don't share a cultural identity with, and divided by national boundaries from those that they do share a cultural identity with.  And they are in those situations precisely because of the concept of nation-states and their boundaries.

Not going to get into a war of citations because I'm too busy today for that.

You clearly have no idea what a nation-state means. The post-colonial arbitrarily drawn territories are not nation-states. They are the opposite of nation-states. If they were nation-states they would have been drawn according to the territories of the nations who lived there.

[SalmonGod]

Similarly, the existence of Indian territory in the US and Canada is a concession to native American/Indian/First Nation nationalism.

The what now? 

Are those a thing we still believe actually exist in any meaningful respect?

You clearly have no idea what a nation-state means. The post-colonial arbitrarily drawn territories are not nation-states. They are the opposite of nation-states. If they were nation-states they would have been drawn according to the territories of the nations who lived there.

Ok, so you're using the word nation to differentiate between a state as a formal entity and a nation as a cultural group.  I didn't recognize that.

I'm....... not opposed to the existence of cultural groups.  That's kinda silly.  The crux of my argument is that the corrolation between states as formal entities and the independence/self-governance of cultural groups is pretty fucked up and I don't see much argument for it.

I'm opposed to the existence of states as formal entities and the existence of a single global government both.

IMO, it's communities that should govern themselves, communities being based on groupings of people that actually interact or whose behaviors have material consequences for each other.  And it should be recognized that communities are fluid things, and no one person belongs exclusively to a single one.  And people should be able to move/associate freely with one another.

But I'm an anarchist.