Hacker News Reader

Comment by janmarsal | Hacker News Reader

Very Orwellian definition of nationalism, I must say. I always considered nationalism as the antithesis of imperialism. A nation should be ruled from their own land and by their own people. Not by foreigners from a far far away land. Almost makes you think Orwell was some kind of an imperialist (a reformist, but still) who tried to vilify nationalism in order to keep the British empire together. Good think that failed. I hope Putin fails as well.

View on HN

Isn't it the same thing, just with a larger geographic area?

Blair supposedly changed his views of the British Empire and started hating imperialism after spending time in Burma and seeing the oppression of the locals. That transpired years before he started writing under the pseudonym George Orwell.

One definition of Fascism is "imperialism coming home" and for whatever weird reason, Fascists generally portray themselves as being patriotic/nationalist often in the sense of not treating other countries and their citizens as equals, so basically imperialism.

> A nation should be ruled from their own land and by their own people

Leftists sometimes consider nationalism 'good' when it is nationalism of a small nation against an imperium (or minority ethnicity against a nation state), but 'bad' when it is a powerful nation trying to conquer its neighbors (or opressing its ethnic minorities). But in facts, both of these nationalisms are based on the same toxic concept of ingroupness based on shared ethnicity, language and culture, in contrast of ingroupness based on shared commitment to universalist ideas like freedom, rule of law and democracy.

OTOH, it is likely that the real reason why countries really work is because of some level of nationalism, as commitment to universalist ideas is primarily a thing for elites, while ethnicity-based tribalism is much more primal concept.

"Universalist" ideas don't bind elites together because they are more high-minded or educated, they bind them together because universalist ideas liberate capital flows and thereby enrich the elite (in material terms) at the expense of everyone else (and not only in material terms.) Capitalism and Schizophrenia is an in-depth discussion of this - "universalism" is simply capital flows destroying all social norms that impede them.

> concept of ingroupness based on shared ethnicity, language and culture, in contrast of ingroupness based on shared commitment to universalist ideas like freedom, rule of law and democracy.

Is the latter not also nationalism, if you believe that those ideals create a group that is worthy of self-determination? Maybe it deserves its own qualifier, such as ideo-nationalism, to distinguish it from ethno-nationalism, but does the motivation fundamentally change what it is?

> OTOH, it is likely that the real reason why countries really work is because of some level of nationalism

I think you're probably right here. The question I have is if you can make that nationalism about something other than ethnic groups?

There was an attempt in the US, with the whole concept of the melting pot. In the interest of maintaining the other cultures though, this has been phased out in favour of the "salad bowl".

Imo, the catch is that by prioritizing ethnic cultures, you then allow them to supersede the national identity. Ethnocentricism is the default thanks to our monkey brains and in the absence of reinforcement, or the presence of discouragement, it'll probably win over other identities.

I reckon you might be right about that last part, unfortunately. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere deep down in the human brain it just defaults to trusting the person who looks most like your parents/siblings/children/etc. Absent some other compelling reason/conditioning of course.

I wonder if the melting pot doesn't deserve a reboot. Everything else seems to be getting one these days.

The problem is defining what "nation" is. Are Bretons a nation, or are they a part of the French nation? Are Catalonians a nation, or are they the part of a Spanish nation? Some answers to those questions lead to contradictions, in a sense that both groups adopt your "nation should be ruled from its own land by its own people" formula, but lay claim to the same land and/or people.

I admit the definition of a nation can be a bit vague sometimes, however, the examples you gave are quite straightforward and I see no problem whatsoever. A Breton nationalist wants Brittany to be ruled by Bretons from Brittany rather than by the French from Paris. A Catalan nationalist wants Catalonia to be ruled by Catalans from Barcelona rather than by Castilians from Madrid.

Who decides what a nation is can be a bit tricky from time to time. Who do NOT decide is much easier to answer. In both of your examples, it is clear without a doubt that the people who inhabit the said geographical regions are the ones to decide. Not the Frenchmen from Paris or the Castiians from Madrid.

If the people of Brittany decides that they want Brittany to remain as part of France then it simply means that they do not support Breton nationalism. From a nationalist moral point of view, it is up to the people of Brittany to decide. If a French nationalist wants to keep Brittany as part of France against their will then someone must tell that "nationalist" that he is practicing imperialism rather than nationalism. If a Breton "nationalist" wants to annex all of France to bring it under Breton rule then he is an imperialist rather than a nationalist.

Or, you know, identities might be multi-faceted.

What if the people are split 50/50? Or even 60/40, for that matter?

Then it's solved like any political issue. Democratic elections seem to be pretty popular these days. Not a perfect system of course but many consider it better than the other alternatives.

Orwell was very far from that. Read Burma Days.

I have, and as far as I know Orwell wanted to reform the empire rather than to dismantle it. That's what I meant by calling him a "reformist". I'm not an Orwell expert though and if someone knows for certain that Orwell was in favour of dismantling the Empire and supported the independence of the British oversee territories then please correct me.

Sounds like you know more than me and indeed I gave the title of Burmese Days wrong. Here's an interesting article: https://tribunemag.co.uk/2020/07/reading-some-effing-orwell-.... It seems pretty clear, though, that whatever his racial attitudes, Orwell was consciously against imperialism.

Orwell brother was one of the funding members of the UN

Reply on news.ycombinator.com