Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

[Leyla Shen]

It's funny how the only thing the insane can't take literally is reason...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I hope I'm not interrupting anything important :)

Are you suggesting that, at the time, the Italian and German peoples enjoyed the type of conditions concomitant with a successful civil state? Germany had just been crippled both militarily and economically as a result of WWI, for one. So, what in your view, comprised the prevailing, successful civil state for Germans? Whose interests were being served after WWI and before the rise of Hitler?

I'd say the rise of nationalistic fever preceded the overall economical and moral decline that came with the era of the World Wars. Actually Germany as a state arose in the 19th century, more in a response to the French and American revolutionary 'nation-building' and driven partly by the Prussian empire, with memories of the Holy Roman empire (the time before the re-arrangement of Napoleon).

You can see the rise of the nationalist 'fever' clearly in various 19th century writings, including Nietzsche's - he was lamenting against it already, seeing no good coming of it in German and socialist hands.

I think “nationalism,” as you speak of it here without contrast by opposition to the civil state (the legally binding protection of group interests by force—which is the basis for, among other things, the idea “dictatorship by the proletariat”), is actually imperialism by definition; certainly in the case of your consequently hypothetical Germany.

Imperialism is the result of a failing state, which is increasingly forced to militarize or at least increasingly become fascist [blending major industry and media with the government] to keep the strength. The nationalism I speak of is a more complex beast, it can fuel the drive towards founding a nation, on top of any present practical necessity, often combining smaller states or dividing an old empire in the process. What exactly drives such nationalism is what I suspect very akin to religion but in a more non-religious sheep coat.

[brokenhead]

Imperialism is the result of a failing state

My view is that it is more the other way around. Imperialism is the result of a growing state, which craves foreign goods and raw materials as well as increasingly needing an outlet for manufactured goods and other exports. A "failing" state cannot support a navy or build a railroad.

But what happened was that the success stories of Europe, France, Britain, the Netherlands all depended more and more on maintaining colonies overseas. The rise of Germany and its alliance with Austria-Hungary was something that was tilting the balance of power in Europe. The Ottoman Empire was seeking a European ally to help it modernize and to defend it from Russia's relentless push Southward. One of the biggest attractions for the Young Turks was railroads - they needed somebody to build and train their people in maintaining and running a railway system, which the Germans seemed to be the masters of. A railroad system could move war supplies more directly overland than the traditional circuitous naval way. Also, it was estimated that a railroad could move goods ten times faster at one tenth the cost of the traditional overland method in the Ottoman lands, which was the caravan.

So I see the entanglements which imperialism brought as the cause of the decline of the age of European expansion. Obligations and secret treaties that held the British Empire together and that maintained the French colonial territories all resulted in the collapsing of vast territories into two sides when WWI was ignited by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

In other words, the European imperial designs caused the corresponding empires to collapse under their own weight during the post WWI years.

But since the Ottoman Empire was gone, the League of Nations began the mandate system of assigning former Ottoman territories to the victorious Allied side to carve up and supposedly build into nation states. Before WWI, there was no Iraq, Israel, Jordan, or Syria.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Imperialism is the result of a failing state

My view is that it is more the other way around. Imperialism is the result of a growing state, which craves foreign goods and raw materials as well as increasingly needing an outlet for manufactured goods and other exports. A "failing" state cannot support a navy or build a railroad.

Ah, but we might have different views on what constitutes failure. Perhaps I should distinguish between nation and state here and go out on a limb and say that statism is a drain and lethal disease for a nation if not curtailed. Or perhaps like Randolph Bourne wrote: "War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense".

The super-state, meaning a highly centralized government and advanced military to be able to support such state, will need the sentiments of nationalism and patriotism to make the needed sacrifices possible. This is then a slowly increasing process, with war being one of the means not just to project power but in reality mostly to disperse it, misdirect it and because of that in many ways plot against itself.

Please do not derive from this that I reject the state. As a centralization of power it's a logical development to coordinate and organize. But the same movement of centralization carries within itself the seeds of its eventual undoing. Check out the decline of the German state because of its adventures in detail, all way before the first World War. This process can be witnessed in history again and again. As such it's very natural for states to arise and fall while the underlying countries morph in different, slower ways, normally, as they are based less on ideal but on practicalities at ground level.

[Leyla Shen]

I hope I'm not interrupting anything important :)

Ha!

I have had a look over your reply, Diebert, and I think we need some definitions before anything is really going to be understood here. In that spirit:

Nation: a people unified on the basis of self-identification through culture (i.e., language, beliefs, values and customs—thus self-identification which is essentially religious in character).

Nationalism: political and territorial organisation of a nation.

State/country: an economically and otherwise self-governing political entity (note: nationalism is not a necessary characteristic of the State) with internationally recognised borders. Essentially, the federal republic as opposed a republic.

state: any given division/component part of a State; thus “the united states of America” means America herself is the State composed of, by definition, a group of self-governing states which are not in themselves countries. UK is also an example of the State, with England, Scotland, Ireland, etc., comprising her division into self-governing states.

Statism: concentration/super-centralisation and control of planning and economy in the State (little to no “local” or state (lowercase) government/s influence).

Thus I do not see imperialism but nationalism as the result of a failed state and, thus, my contention that nationalism and the nation-state ultimately serves imperialism with religion as the catalyst for war.

What say you now?

[brokenhead]

From Merriam Webster Online:

nationalism noun 1: loyalty and devotion to a nation ; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

imperialism noun the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas ; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

From the Mad Turk:

Nation: a people unified on the basis of self-identification through culture (i.e., language, beliefs, values and customs—thus self-identification which is essentially religious in character).
State/country: an economically and otherwise self-governing political entity

By Leyla's definition, the Jews form a nation much as the Cherokee in America form a nation. Also by this definition, the former Soviet Union would not be a nation since anything religious in nature was suppressed.

Leyla, I notice that you use the word "thus" a lot. Unfortunately, you use it presumptuously. Look at your definition of "nation." "...thus self-identification which is essentially religious in character." The word "thus" is supposed to indicate a logical implication. In this case, there is none. A people can be unified on the basis of self-identification through culture (language, beliefs, values, and customs) and at the same time, not be of one religion, or, in fact, espouse any religion whatsoever.

The US is a nation, for example. Within the US, hundreds of religions function. Religion has little to do with nationalism. The Ottoman Empire consisted of many conquered nations, the unifying factor being Islam. So on the one hand you have one nation, many religions, one the other, many nations, one main religion.

Thus I do not see imperialism but nationalism as the result of a failed state and, thus, my contention that nationalism and the nation-state ultimately serves imperialism with religion as the catalyst for war. (My emphasis.)

Two more instances of your misuse of the word "thus."

That you continue to repeat this "contention" without any argument to back it up does not result in its carrying any more weight.

How has religion been a catalyst for any war in the time period which we are discussing?

[Leyla Shen]

By Leyla's definition, the Jews form a nation much as the Cherokee in America form a nation.

Correct.

Also by this definition, the former Soviet Union would not be a nation since anything religious in nature was suppressed.

Also correct. Hence, the Soviet Union and not the Soviet nation.

Leyla, I notice that you use the word "thus" a lot. Unfortunately, you use it presumptuously. Look at your definition of "nation." "...thus self-identification which is essentially religious in character." The word "thus" is supposed to indicate a logical implication. In this case, there is none.

Yes, there is. You're just logically blind.

A people can be unified on the basis of self-identification through culture (language, beliefs, values, and customs) and at the same time, not be of one religion, or, in fact, espouse any religion whatsoever.

No, they cannot.

The US is a nation, for example.

By definition, the United States is not a nation. You have to change the definition and meaning of “nation” and not tell anybody you’ve done so to pull this piece of sheer illogic off.

Within the US, hundreds of religions function. Religion has little to do with nationalism.

No, religion has little to do with statehood.

The Ottoman Empire consisted of many conquered nations, the unifying factor being Islam.

What, really? In what sense exactly are you suggesting that all the “conquered nations” in the Ottoman Empire were indeed both conquered and unified by the Islamic religion?

So on the one hand you have one nation, many religions, one the other, many nations, one main religion.

Nice platitude.

One main religion? It what sense is it “main”? See above.

Two more instances of your misuse of the word "thus."

That you continue to repeat this "contention" without any argument to back it up does not result in its carrying any more weight.

I expect members of this forum to take logic and reason seriously. I don’t expect, therefore, to have to point out in copious detail what follows as a logical necessity. Step up to the plate, or piss off.

How has religion been a catalyst for any war in the time period which we are discussing?

I assume you are referring to the time period covered thus far in the opening post. Did I make that particular claim, or is that another invention of your own muddled and circular mind?

[brokenhead]

Leyla's definition of nation: a people unified on the basis of self-identification through culture (i.e., language, beliefs, values and customs—thus self-identification which is essentially religious in character).

brokenhead: Leyla, I notice that you use the word "thus" a lot. Unfortunately, you use it presumptuously. Look at your definition of "nation." "...thus self-identification which is essentially religious in character." The word "thus" is supposed to indicate a logical implication. In this case, there is none.

Leyla: Yes, there is. You're just logically blind.

You are just wrong on this. You make an assertion - an incorrect one at that - and you think you have somehow proven it.

brokenhead: The US is a nation, for example.
Leyla: By definition, the United States is not a nation. You have to change the definition and meaning of “nation” and not tell anybody you’ve done so to pull this piece of sheer illogic off.

I am not changing the definition of the word nation, genius. You are. Why don't you just change the definition of any word you feel like changing so you can establish your false propositions?

You cannot prove the US is not a nation because it is one. By definition. It is a fucking member of the United Nations. The word "nation" is in the American Pledge of Allegiance. Ask 100 Americans if the US is a nation and you'll hear "of course" 100 times.

I expect members of this forum to take logic and reason seriously. I don’t expect, therefore, to have to point out in copious detail what follows as a logical necessity. Step up to the plate, or piss off.

You never prove your assertions. Prove them, or piss off yourself. You are a pseudo-intellectual, self-aggrandizing asshole. Or arsehole, since you need things spoon fed to you.

What, really? In what sense exactly are you suggesting that all the “conquered nations” in the Ottoman Empire were indeed both conquered and unified by the Islamic religion?

Stick to Wikipedia - it is for people like you.

What kind of "Turk" are you if you do not know that Islam was spread by the Ottoman Empire? I have said numerous times that Muslims tolerate local customs and even faiths in the lands they have conquered. Yet you cannot deny that Islam was the unifying factor of the Moors and later the Ottomans.

Leyla: ...nationalism and the nation-state ultimately serves imperialism with religion as the catalyst for war.

brokenhead: How has religion been a catalyst for any war in the time period which we are discussing?

Leyla: I assume you are referring to the time period covered thus far in the opening post. Did I make that particular claim, or is that another invention of your own muddled and circular mind?

Yes, you have made that claim at least 4 or 5 times in this thread. Like what I just quoted above.

I am not limiting the time period to that of your posts but to the entire time period indicated by the title of the thread.

You clearly do not know how to carry on a fruitful exchange. You make statements then deny you've made them, you actually change the definitions of things to suit yourself...

This whole thread is turning into a fucking joke.

[Leyla Shen]

[laughs] Wow. It’s amazing what one little word will do when its actual definition flies directly against someone’s beliefs about it.

You are just wrong on this.

No, I’m not. Wait, is that an assertion?

You make an assertion - an incorrect one at that - and you think you have somehow proven it.

There’s nothing incorrect about it. My assertions are based on clear definitions, are not contrary to empirical data and are clear to those whose minds are clear of contradictory and dogmatic clutter.

I am not changing the definition of the word nation, genius. You are. Why don't you just change the definition of any word you feel like changing so you can establish your false propositions?

Hey, dumb-dumb:

L: Nation: a people unified on the basis of self-identification through culture (i.e., language, beliefs, values and customs—thus self-identification which is essentially religious in character).

I note that you did not provide a definition of “nation” because…? Because what I provided IS the definition of nation and I haven’t changed it at all, as you falsely accuse me of doing.

As I have said earlier, if you think that beliefs, values and customs are by definition NOT religious in nature, then YOU need to make THAT argument.

To point out the blatantly fucking obvious (for a thinking mind, that is):

Given the definition of “nation” and the fact that religion can be particularly defined a) through an understanding of the nature of beliefs as sociological and/or psychological components of an individual which then lead to particular sets of values/customs, OR b) as the belief in the sacred or holy from which values, customs and tradition necessarily follow—a nation, unlike a state or State, is indeed ultimately and by definition distinguished by religion.

In the case of (b), religious differences become easily observable, even to the most moronic among us, but especially to the most literalist and fundamentalist religionists.

In the case of (a), however, one needs more actual brain power.

To suggest that values and customs (component, mutually inclusive parts of “culture”) stand alone from beliefs—and thus to suggest that the nation and religion are mutually exclusive—is the height of ignorance and illogic. Who in their right mind would dare to suggest that differences between societies have nothing to do with religion when the very classification requires a distinction based strictly on beliefs? No rhyme or reason, just plain ethnocentric beliefs.

Now, dumbass, the United States is (supposed to be) a Constitutional Federal Republic and, as such, is a political entity, by definition. The definition of nation does not allow for the creation of a political entity specifically because it is ethnocentric. That there exists, or may exist, a strong nationalist influence in the State (i.e., the US—or any other State) is irrelevant to what constitutes a State. That is, a State is still a State by definition and, if it meets the criteria of that definition and carries out its functions accordingly, cannot be at the same time a nation, even if it does contain a majority membership of any particular nation.

You cannot prove the US is not a nation because it is one. By definition. It is a fucking member of the United Nations. The word "nation" is in the American Pledge of Allegiance. Ask 100 Americans if the US is a nation and you'll hear "of course" 100 times.

[l-a-a-a-a-aughs!] You fucking idiot! How typically American!

That’s hysterical. The day I have to ask a bunch of Americans what constitutes proof is the day we have all arrived in hell! Oh, wait…

Hey, moron, you do know that members of the United Nations are listed as Member States and not Member Nations. Any idea why? No, I thought not.

You never prove your assertions. Prove them, or piss off yourself. You are a pseudo-intellectual, self-aggrandizing asshole. Or arsehole, since you need things spoon fed to you.

That's your malady, not mine—I have clear evidence on my side.

Stick to Wikipedia - it is for people like you.

Nice try. Again, evidence on my side. Can I point out the obvious, once again? You're the one linking Wiki. Unlike you, I don't need it. Therefore, it's clearly for people like you.

What kind of "Turk" are you if you do not know that Islam was spread by the Ottoman Empire? I have said numerous times that Muslims tolerate local customs and even faiths in the lands they have conquered. Yet you cannot deny that Islam was the unifying factor of the Moors and later the Ottomans.

The unifying factor of the Moors and the Ottomans, now, instead of the Ottoman Emprie and many conquered nations? You're such a sneaky little yellow-bellied weasel. Too bad for you that I have you by the throat. You said:

The Ottoman Empire consisted of many conquered nations, the unifying factor being Islam.

And now you're trying to weasel out of this error. Your cluttered mind again is responsible for this. It has nothing to do with me or what I have said.

Yes, you have made that claim at least 4 or 5 times in this thread. Like what I just quoted above.

Ah, well. The last time I left out the qualifier "modern." Dangerous when dealing with an unstable mind like yours, I know...

I am not limiting the time period to that of your posts but to the entire time period indicated by the title of the thread.

You clearly do not know how to carry on a fruitful exchange. You make statements then deny you've made them, you actually change the definitions of things to suit yourself...

You're projecting, again.

This whole thread is turning into a fucking joke.

The only joke on this thread is you, brokenhead. I, on the other hand, am having an immensely good time painfully revealing the true nature of the irrational, fundy mind. Not that I think there's any hope for you, in particular.

[brokenhead]

Hey, dumb-dumb:

Quote:

L: Nation: a people unified on the basis of self-identification through culture (i.e., language, beliefs, values and customs—thus self-identification which is essentially religious in character).

I note that you did not provide a definition of “nation” because…? Because what I provided IS the definition of nation and I haven’t changed it at all, as you falsely accuse me of doing.

Because you do not have a clear concept of what constitutes a "nation," I have done your homework for you and linked these online dictionaries' definitions of the word nation:
nation
nation
nation
nation
nation
nation
nation

Where do you see the word "religion" in any of these definitions?

To suggest that values and customs (component, mutually inclusive parts of “culture”) stand alone from beliefs—and thus to suggest that the nation and religion are mutually exclusive—is the height of ignorance and illogic. Who in their right mind would dare to suggest that differences between societies have nothing to do with religion when the very classification requires a distinction based strictly on beliefs? No rhyme or reason, just plain ethnocentric beliefs.

"The differences between societies." Which societies, Leyla? You are not the Mad Turk, you are the Maddening Turk. I never said nation and religion are mutually exclusive. But in many cases, they are. Have you ever heard of the "Separation of Church and State?"

I'm getting a headache trying to explain things to you.

People need water and they need food. These are the things that people go to war over. People crave land and possessions. Religion is the last thing on the list of things that "catalyze" war.

[Leyla Shen]

I'm getting a headache trying to explain things to you.

Yes, you're getting a headache because of your stupid mind getting all tangled up.

Try and understand CULTURE, idiot.

[brokenhead]

I'm getting a headache trying to explain things to you.

Yes, you're getting a headache because of your stupid mind getting all tangled up.

Try and understand CULTURE, idiot.

The headache comes from trying to understand you.

And you do not come across as being particularly cultured. You are a mass of unsubstantiated opinions - or maybe it is just one opinion, it's hard to tell.

You discourse like a peasant woman who has been told she is getting fat.

[Leyla Shen]

Answer the questions or shut the fuck up.

I run rings around you, weakling.

[brokenhead]

Answer the questions or shut the fuck up.

I run rings around you, weakling.

You run rings around me like the mangy little, ill-tempered yapping terrier that you are.

No, I don't think I'll do either thing.

What questions?

[Leyla Shen]

Of course you won't, because your mind—like your body, I'm sure—is impotent and therefore impervious to real stimulus.

[brokenhead]

Of course you won't, because your mind—like your body, I'm sure—is impotent and therefore impervious to real stimulus.

Sit. Now Lie down. Roll over. Good girl! Now play dead....

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Leyla, while I agree with your supplied definition of nation you should understand that not everybody is willing to link the over-charged term 'religion' with self-identification issues. But your way of viewing this, while not found much in popular dictionaries is not uncommon in various anthropological and sociological disciplines and I happen to agree.

But when you define Nationalism as political and territorial organization of a nation, I disagree mostly because it's just one of the less common uses and a very restricting one too. Wikipedia supplies a broader view which is more useful for discussion I think and it mostly focuses on the aspects of nationalism as ideology, sentiment and social movement. It also refers to the various types of nationalism.

The definitions of state you gave are potentially confusing. It's very important to distinguish clearly between state, nation, country and government. I quoted Bourne and he wrote also "The State is the country acting as a political unit, it is the group acting as a repository of force, determiner of law, arbiter of justice".

Any state in that sense is merely a political unit, it has no ground-level existence beyond what it can enforce, unless within some ideology.

Thus I do not see imperialism but nationalism as the result of a failed state and, thus, my contention that nationalism and the nation-state ultimately serves imperialism with religion as the catalyst for war.

War, with imperial goals or not, is almost always the result of one or more failed States, as the State needs to justify its existence by exaggerating the need for a controller of the forces unleashed by war. Nationalism is just one force unleashed during war but only as activated and exaggerated version of the nationalism that fueled the rise of the nation in the first place, the desire to organize and unite, to grow in strength and capacity, the whole sound function of group theory. Sometimes this nationalism unites even differences in ethnicity when diversity is seen as unimportant compared to other shared interests and common needs, but sometimes it's fueled by racism if the diversity is perceived as a danger to unity because of too many conflicting goals and loyalties present - dangers to ones more cherished identity and alliances mostly.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Afterthoughts in the weekend:

Nation: a people unified on the basis of self-identification through culture (i.e., language, beliefs, values and customs—thus self-identification which is essentially religious in character).

This reminds me of Samuel Huntington's view of civilizations, which links the cultural identity to a civilization identity. In such a world view one would see Western (Christendom), Latin-American, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Buddhist and Japanese blocks with various fault lines between them. Are you familiar with such a view and how does this relate to a nation? Can we define potential super-nations?

UK is also an example of the State, with England, Scotland, Ireland, etc., comprising her division into self-governing states.

Not sure how much self-government you're suggesting since you also define state as division/component of a State. Nevertheless Scotland should be referred to as country. It might still have its own legal entity and body of law but politically they are not self-governing to the degree of a state since it was really a merge in the 18th century, not some federation. Scotland is on the road of returning to more state power though and perhaps complete independence in time. Would self-governance not imply independence?

And Ireland has almost nothing to do anymore with the UK since the last hundred years, unless you mean Northern-Ireland.

[vicdan]

What ethnocentric bias?

The one Leyla doesn't see in herself, obviously.

[vicdan]

The problem with Jews is religion is conflated with supposed race and, on top of that, an inseparable and essential part of their identity.

Your obsession with designating jews a race would be funny if it weren't mildly disturbing. You racially obsessed people should all get together for a big orgy or something. Get all that tension out.

I met a guy on another board a while ago who was declaring that racially, semites are negroid. At the same board, another lunatic was declaring that ancient Israelis were actually aryan, and everything good and useful jews ever did is aryan accomplishment (presumably all the evil and nasty shit is semitic).

Religious dogmatism is a symptom of ignorance—and, as Marx so astutely observed, an opiate of the masses—not a cause.

Marx was speaking of religion's palliative and analgesic, not intoxicating, properties.

N]ationalism itself serves as a political divide-and-conquer mechanism for (modern) imperialism and further that, thus, it deftly places religion as the catalyst for war.

i think this is a rather naive conception of imperialism. No, scratch that. naive is the wrong adjective. It's autistic. It doesn't account for how humans actually function.

We are tribal critters. That's simple reality. Apart from however you think humans should function, there are the brute facts of how we do function. nationalism frames and channels this tribal impulse. I personally find it quite telling that not a single major developed nation has arisen without some sort of national ideal -- which usually is nationalism. In USA, it was our civic religion, Constitution and Founding Fathers and related national myths. In most countries, it was nationalism. Nationalism arose both in those countries which were imperialist, and in those lands which were held by empires. Most of the time, nationalist sentiment in fact was turned against the empires, and led to independence.

Nationalism used to separate peoples? Yeah, that's what many russians say about Ukraine. "Come back into the pan-slavic fold, our little ukrainian brothers, where russians rule all and ukrainians are second-class citizens". They too think that nationalism divides peoples -- in this case, it divided the conquered from the conquerors. I think that's a good thing. You, apparently, don't.

You rip and reave history to fashion from its pieces a veil for your threadbare narrative, however flimsy that gossamer veil is.

it is possible that we will transcend nationalism eventually; quite likely in fact. However, any honest observer would conclude that nationalism has, and had, an important historic role to play. For a stark modern example, consider two former soviet republics -- Ukraine and Belarus.

Ukraine has a long and storied history of nationalism. Belarus never did. Once USSR fell apart, Ukraine turned towards democracy -- haltingly and slowly, but it did. Belarus remained basically the same it was under USSR. Nationalist sentiment was the core of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004, the revolution which overthrew the existing thoroughly corrupt regime and threw the doors open to real democracy. Ukraine today is a political basket case; it has had the third government in as many years now. However, it is a free basket case which is moving towards free market, full participatory democracy, and open economic and cultural engagement with the world. Belarus, on the other hand, is a shadow of USSR. I lived there, it ain't pretty.

That is what nationalism buys you: will. It is not always directed towards laudable ends; but it is power. Like any power, it can be abused, but we would still rather have it than not.

[vicdan]

Nation: a people unified on the basis of self-identification through culture (i.e., language, beliefs, values and customs—thus self-identification which is essentially religious in character).

Hence the explicitly atheistic french nationalism for example. Right.

You seem to have some truly weird misconceptions, dear. While nationalism can incorporate religion, it is usually only one of many parts, and comprises nationalism not in its capacity as a belief system or organizational ideology, but cultural institution. You got it backwards. You are acting as if cultural identity is an aspect of religion, but you got it all wrong. Religion is [optionally] an aspect of cultural identity.

I have first-hand familiarity with ukrainian nationalism. it incorporated orthodox xianity, sure, but as a purely cultural artifact. its core, the defining feature of it, is the ideal of a free, self-sufficient farmer/cossack, able to till the land -- his land! -- and then take up arms to defend it.. Yes, it is an outdated ideal, but it is what it is; and it is most definitely not defined by religion.


P.S. Aha, I see you seem to be talking about a ridiculously lax superset of the 'civic religion' concept -- so ridiculously lax as to be essentially useless. You are therefore using the term 'religion' as nothing but invective, with no semantic content, thew way right-wingers use the term 'communism'.

[vicdan]

Where do you see the word "religion" in any of these definitions?

She is playing the typically idiotic QRS game of making up her own definitions to present a superficial appearance of cogency.

[Leyla Shen]

Diebert, from your wiki link:

Some political theorists make the case that any distinction between forms of nationalism is false. In all forms of nationalism, the populations believe that they share some kind of common culture. A main reason why such typology can be considered false is that it attempts to bend the fairly simple concept of nationalism to explain its many manifestations or interpretations. Arguably, all "types" of nationalism merely refer to different ways academics throughout the years have tried to define nationalism. This school of thought accepts that nationalism is simply the desire of a nation to self-determine.

Precisely. The point being that nationalism—fundamentally constituting the will of “a people” to self-determination—becomes fully realised in the establishment of the State. In turn, the State becomes separate from and forms definite relations to the people and vice versa. This distinction, between the State and the people, is the distinction between the State (the people as a repository of force) and civil society (the left over portion of “we the people”). Through this separation, various forms of government appear and reflect either the will of the people or the character of relations between the people (civil society) and the State. Yet, what was holding them together in the first place was the very notion of self-identification—the notion of their “the peopleness.”

It was Hegel who proposed civil society as the battlefield of private (self) interest and posited that the State (public—“the people”—interest), rationally understood, reflected the unity of a nation’s life. Yet, this separation is perpetual.

There is no nation without a State and no State without a nation—and the two are most definitely not the same thing. This psychotic idea of sameness I call group schizophrenia—the projection of individual psychosis into the mysterious entity group-think.

~

Well, hello Victor.

Your obsession with designating jews a race would be funny if it weren't mildly disturbing.

Er, no. I have always said that Judaism is a religion. It ain't my obsession, Victor.

I'll get to the rest of what is sure to be an ever-so enlightening ramble when I have some time.

[vicdan]

Your obsession with designating jews a race would be funny if it weren't mildly disturbing.

Er, no. I have always said that Judaism is a religion. It ain't my obsession, Victor.

Sure it is. You just don't wish to admit it. You are obsessed with claiming that, other than religion, there couldn't possibly be any 'content' to jewishness outside race.

As I pointed out to you numerous times, jews are an ethnicity, and jewish nationalism -- zionism -- exists precisely because jews are a people bound by common culture. Yes, that culture is largely religious for historical reasons, but zionism appropriates religion as a cultural artifact, rather than itself being an expression of religion. Your claim -- that it has largely religious roots -- is a lot like claiming that chemistry is a pseudo-science because it was historically rooted in alchemy.

You seem to be hell-bent on discrediting zionism by claiming that it's just an artifact of judaism, just another religious nuttiness; and if you have to claim, in the process of doing so, that all nationalism is religious in nature -- as you inevitably must, because zionism is just a species of nationalism -- well, so be it. Paris is worth a mass, huh?

Who cares that you are brazenly abusing terminology in the process? It seems that you have broadened the definition of religion to the point of uselessness in order to be able to claim that all nationalism is religious ('religion' in the very lax derivation of 'civic religion' sense), and zionism is therefore religious -- with the consequent pivot to claiming that, well, of course it is! Now you will have proven that zionism is just an artifact of judaism ('religion' in the canonical, theistic sense), right? Those wacky jews, slaughtering innocent palestinians for their god.

Your meretricious argument is grounded on a pathetically transparent equivocation. You, my dear, are a dishonest hack. You have taken QRS's disingenuous but relatively harmless intellectual lunacy, and turned it into a religion of your own; a private savior on your dashboard.

How's your velvet Jesus doing? Oh pardon me, it would be Mohammed, right? A velvet Mohammed. You seem to be enjoying his company.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Leyla's terminology is actually quite common in the fields of sociology, anthropology, comparative religion and such. It's not necessarily related to anything racist or antisemitic. Such accusations are just based in ignorance or perhaps the presence of an overarching agenda or paranoia.

It's not moot to suggest that all nationalism is religious in nature. This just attempts to highlight the commonalities, how people can die for god as well as country, or both. It's about sacrifice, what one is willing to sacrifice to belong to something, be part of something. Or how to be motivated to do so. This is perhaps not the same type of religion as a collection of intense personal, transcendent experiences which are then categorized as being 'such and such'. But really, if religion needs a definition that captures its essence, one needs to look at its specific function, how it works in groups, how it's named and turned into banners.

This process of describing is really useful, like when seeing the religious in what is claimed to be non-religious. Which prepares the way for seeing how behind advanced wording very primitive and barely developed, innate images can hide. Or how any 'advanced' civilization might not be so mature philosophically as it thinks it is - as it's still bowing down for old clay gods wearing new [straight] jackets.