How nationalist are you?

[Moonlight Graham]

Answer the poll above.

Discussion below.

Edited December 31, 2024 by Moonlight Graham

[DUI_Offender]

I love the poll.

After thinking it through, I chose "moderate nationalist."

[eyeball]

Please get your silly countries off my planet.

Thanks.

[User]

You are conflating nationalism, culture, and immigration. 

 

[I am Groot]

We talk a lot about cultures, about respecting other people's cultures, and about how people are products of the culture and environment in which they were raised. They can, to a certain degree, adapt, but that doesn't mean they wholly abandon the moral, ethical, and behavioural guidelines they were raised to adhere to. That's true of us as much as anyone else.

The culture in which I was raised is Canada's culture in the 1960s and 1970s. Anyone who knows much about history can pretty much guess what cultural queues I have. 

Everyone else abided by the same values and beliefs. I never had an immigrant classmate until college. I don't recall when I first noted non-white people starting to appear on buses, on streets, in stores, and such. Sometime in my teens, I suppose. The idea they were different was pretty obvious in that they spoke with accents and often dressed and acted differently.

So in my younger years there were things I just never even considered. Like races, religions, and nationalities. Whoever might have an Italian or German or Ukrainian name, well, that didn't matter. I didn't know what that meant back then. They acted and spoke like I did. If anyone was a Jew I didn't notice it. One time a friend of mine pointed a church as we walked by and said that was his church. He then said they were Anglicans. I had no idea what that meant so he said prostitant. I shrugged. Not something I cared about. It didn't matter.

Girls were strange and mysterious, and irritating until sometime in my teens. Wait, strike that, they continued to be irritating, just in different ways. That there were two genders was never anything any of us paused to consider. We used the word 'f*g' from time to time, but didn't know what it meant. The idea that men would want to kiss each other, much less have sex with each other would have astonished us at least into our early teens, where we only barely understood what sex was.

It was a very homogenous world. But that meant we really didn't develop much in the way of bigotry or racism. The first time I saw Asians I was interested but not the slightest bit resentful. Possibly because they were girls and cute ones.

It's bizarre to me that fifty years later we've broken out into every possible ethnicity, race, religion and gender (including a lot of made-up ones) and are to be judged on the basis of our membership in these various identity groups, and that these groups are all set against one another by the government - on purpose. We are being guided to resent and dislike each other as much as possible by unethical politicians and pseudointellectual academics spouting gibberish theories that to my astonishment have been taken deadly seriously by the so-called elites.

It wasn't bad enough that they flooded the country with immigrants from places with values backed up by rock-solid religious beliefs which were entirely inimical to our own, and then insisted we had to be tolerant of them. No, they designed special programs and policies to give preference to these people and fed money to groups that constantly harangued us for our oppression, bigotry, and a history that apparently would have made Hitler and Ghengis Khan blush.

And so as to not offend these newcomers they tore away at the social fabric and culture and values that were already in place, washing away our previous beliefs in things we had been taught were necessities, and then proudly told us Canada had no core identity, wasn't a real nation, and that they'd keep pouring in more people without the slightest interest in who they were or what their values were.

And if we objected we were various horrible things that compared us to Hitler again.

And then people wonder why we'd like to not only stop immigration but reverse it.

 

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, User said:

You are conflating nationalism, culture, and immigration. 

 

Immigration stokes nationalism.

[Dougie93]

somewhat counter intuitively ;

"Cultural Supremacist" in the Canadian context is fundamentally anti nationalist by nature

as nationalism is an anathema to a monarchy

25% of the world having been conquered by the British Empire at its zenith

born upon the Plains of Abraham at Quebec on 13 September 1759

thus nationalism in Canada is the Parti Quebecois & FLQ

the Fenians ever at the gates seeking to overthrow the British Crown in North America

the British Crown being the bulwark against nationalism

as British is not a race, British is not a place

rather British is simply a system of governance called Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy

founded by William III, Prince of Orange, 

on the bloody banks of the Boyne River in Ulster,  1 July 1690

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, User said:

You are conflating nationalism, culture, and immigration. 

 

Yeah... Some of the questions seem to contradict some of the other ones. 

And a nationalist is a different thing depending on which Nation right? 

Canada? 

France? 

Vatican city? 

Israel?

I would say The Nation, as a framework for organizing regional peoples, was Frozen in time after World war II.  They wanted to have a monopoly on allowing those things to be created, so they could organize them under a global framework to stop war , and encourage global capitalism and cooperation. 

So if you're a nationalist, you're primarily buying into that idea... That countries are a good way to organize the world. 

And you believe in your country, and their part in that puzzle.  

The nationalism that we know about is about a kind of tribal pride that's wedged into whatever the borders are that you believe in.  

Is Canada a post-national state?  An American branch plant?  A multicultural Paradise? 

 

A place where pedantic id!ots like me belabor such questions and talk about them to the point that everyone gravitates away from me, and joins other clumps of people talking at the party? 

 

Yes to all of these.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Please get your silly countries off my planet.

Thanks.

National atheist.

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Canada?

a Scots German monarchy to find a Northwest Passage

Nouvelle France taken as a war prize by the House of Hanover

at the birth of the British Empire in the Seven Years War

Victoria Regina Imperatrix ; Nec Aspera Terrent

[Moonlight Graham]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

a Scots German monarchy to find a Northwest Passage

Nouvelle France taken as a war prize by the House of Hanover

at the birth of the British Empire in the Seven Years War

Victoria Regina Imperatrix ; Nec Aspera Terrent

Schizo American Monarchist YouTube addict.

[Dougie93]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Is Canada a post-national state?

in writing, by the terms of the Constitution Act,  founded in the Treaty of Paris 1763

technically a pre-national state

defended by the United Empire Loyalists,  prior to the rise of nationalism itself

[Moonlight Graham]

39 minutes ago, User said:

You are conflating nationalism, culture, and immigration. 

 

What's the difference between Britain and France and Germany?  Between Japan and South Korea?  It isn't race.  They're all nation-states formed based on distinct cultures.

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Schizo American Monarchist YouTube addict.

 United Empire Loyalists are Americans

Ontario was settled from Pennsylvania in the wake of the War of Independence

yet now only America defends so called "Canada"

by way of the United Kingdom United States Agreement ( UKUSA )

come to our aid once again, in the face of a Chinese Communist takeover

facilitated by the treasonous Liberal Party of Canada at the behest of their overlords in Beijing

stand to, Anglo American Empire of Liberty

[Dougie93]

10 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

What's the difference between Britain and France and Germany?

France & Germany were overthrown by revolution to become nationalist republics

while Britain remained an anti nationalist institution under the rule of hereditary monarchy

[Moonlight Graham]

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I would say The Nation, as a framework for organizing regional peoples, was Frozen in time after World war II.  They wanted to have a monopoly on allowing those things to be created, so they could organize them under a global framework to stop war , and encourage global capitalism and cooperation. 

So if you're a nationalist, you're primarily buying into that idea... That countries are a good way to organize the world.

Organizing people by nation leads to the least internal conflict and instability, including politically.  Countless examples through history of that, including in Canada.

Besides empires, which are often unsustainable and short-lived, this is the way large society's have almost always organized themselves.

America has had some mixed success at a country made up of  different ethnicities, but the success has hinged on creating a new nation (Anglo-speaking American) which immigrants from all backgrounds have assimilated into.

Canada is running a multicultural post-national experiment with a high risk of failure, Quebec vs Anglos vs Indigenous being examples.

[Moonlight Graham]

19 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

 United Empire Loyalists are Americans

Ontario was settled from Pennsylvania in the wake of the War of Independence

yet now only America defends so called "Canada"

by way of the United Kingdom United States Agreement ( UKUSA )

come to our aid once again, in the face of a Chinese Communist takeover

facilitated by the treasonous Liberal Party of Canada at the behest of their overlords in Beijing

stand to, Anglo American Empire of Liberty

Americans are republicans, while loyalists are monarchist, such is why they fled America back to the British Empire.

You are nationally schizo.  Cognitive dissonance sucks eh?

Edited December 30, 2024 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

21 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

France & Germany were overthrown by revolution to become nationalist republics

while Britain remained an anti nationalist institution under the rule of hereditary monarchy

The monarchy has no policy making power in Britain.  The King is the head of state, not the head of government.  The UK are ruled by the people through Parliament.  Magna Carta, Glorious Revolution etc.  They keep the monarchy around for traditions sake.  The Leviathan is now the nation.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Moonlight Graham

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Americans are republicans, while loyalists are monarchist, such is why they fled America back to the British Empire.

You are nationally schizo.  Cognitive dissonance sucks eh?

Canada is subordinate to America by the terms of the United Kingdom United States Agreement

the British Empire is no more

there is only the American Hegenomy now

I am not nationally anything

as neither the British Crown nor the American republic binds anyone to be a nationalist

quite the opposite in fact, both Britain & America being fundamentally anti-nationalist institutions

those whom invoke some sort of Canadian Nationalism which doesn't actually exist ; are the schizos

 

3 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 The Leviathan is now the nation.

I never swore an oath to defend nor uphold that

so good luck with your fake country, which nobody ever pledged allegiance to / shrugs

[Michael Hardner]

41 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. Organizing people by nation leads to the least internal conflict and instability, including politically.  Countless examples through history of that, including in Canada.

2. Besides empires, which are often unsustainable and short-lived, this is the way large society's have almost always organized themselves.

3. America has had some mixed success at a country made up of  different ethnicities, but the success has hinged on creating a new nation (Anglo-speaking American) which immigrants from all backgrounds have assimilated into.

4. Canada is running a multicultural post-national experiment with a high risk of failure, Quebec vs Anglos vs Indigenous being examples.

1. Ah, well.... Maybe 🤔.  I'm not going to say that you're outright WRONG but I am pretty sure it would be a long and interesting debate.  Also hard to prove because it happened as a result of other civilizing forces.  I don't think most experts would assert that point as confidently as you do...

2. From what I've read they're considered to have started with modern maps, The collapse of feudalism, maybe Napoleon or the peace of Westphalia?  Again... You are so very confident... Even saying "almost always".

3. And the confederation of states to resolve their issues.  That was an additional difference with the USA. And the states fought with each other, even militarily, even other than the great civil war. 

4. So being a nationalist in Canada means being pro-english, pro-immigrant, pro-French.  157 years of high-risk failure, during which Germany fell several times, as did France.... 

I think we're okay 

But really, I don't think you've thought about what nation means enough, as user intimated...

[Michael Hardner]

Good for @Moonlight Graham for starting a substantial thread where we can have an edifying discussion, sincerely. 💕

[Moonlight Graham]

54 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada is subordinate to America by the terms of the United Kingdom United States Agreement

the British Empire is no more

there is only the American Hegenomy now

I am not nationally anything

as neither the British Crown nor the American republic binds anyone to be a nationalist

quite the opposite in fact, both Britain & America being fundamentally anti-nationalist institutions

those whom invoke some sort of Canadian Nationalism which doesn't actually exist ; are the schizos

 

I never swore an oath to defend nor uphold that

so good luck with your fake country, which nobody ever pledged allegiance to / shrugs

You never swore an oath to any British Crown in your entire life.  You're a traitor to the Canadian Crown which you pledged allegiance.

You're a Russian bot here to sow division.  Go screw yourself loser.

[Moonlight Graham]

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ah, well.... Maybe 🤔.  I'm not going to say that you're outright WRONG but I am pretty sure it would be a long and interesting debate.  Also hard to prove because it happened as a result of other civilizing forces.  I don't think most experts would assert that point as confidently as you do...

2. From what I've read they're considered to have started with modern maps, The collapse of feudalism, maybe Napoleon or the peace of Westphalia?  Again... You are so very confident... Even saying "almost always".

3. And the confederation of states to resolve their issues.  That was an additional difference with the USA. And the states fought with each other, even militarily, even other than the great civil war. 

4. So being a nationalist in Canada means being pro-english, pro-immigrant, pro-French.  157 years of high-risk failure, during which Germany fell several times, as did France.... 

I think we're okay 

5. But really, I don't think you've thought about what nation means enough, as user intimated...

1.  There's countless examples in the world happening right now.  How long have Jews, Arabs, Christians, and others been fighting over the same areas?  Kurds, Shia, and Sunni etc?  Why did Pakistan and Bangladesh separate from India after independence?  Why are Punjabi's trying to create a Khalistan?  Sub-saharan Africa has been filled with civil wars since they became independent countries largely because their borders were drawn by European empires without any regard to local groups, and so they fight for political supremacy within the same governments.  People want self-determination and don't want to be dominated.  Just ask Quebec.  I've studied these issues at the post-secondary level and know what "experts" think on the subject so I'm not ignorant on this.

2.  Consider why the people in France speak a different language than Germany, Spain, and Portugal etc.  Same with Korea vs China vs Vietnam etc.  This is far older than Westphalian sovereignty or the UN.

3.  Yes.  States are good, and so are provinces.  People want self-determination.  Quebec and Alberta and the indigenous don't want centralized control over their lives.  Children eventually move out of their parents' house for the same reasons.

4.  Canada has 3 founding nations, probably more given indigenous people aren't homogenous.  They have political differences obviously, and Quebec almost seperated in the 80's and 90's after the Quiet Revolution came to a head.  Trudeau Sr tried to unite the country and failed.  Francophone K-12 schools in Quebec don't fly the Canadian flag and students don't sing the national anthem, even around Montreal.  High risk indeed.  Feel free to confirm: 

The Irish and Germans assimilated. After that, the Italians and others have done ok assimilating but some remain in ethnic enclaves.  Those groups don't have many natural differences from each other, besides the Germans and Japanese during WWII.  Punjabis and Indians, Muslims and Jews, Tamils vs Sinhalese etc are a different story.  We'll see how it goes.  What do we all unify around?  Americans have it right.  20th century Liberal Party had a similar answer (Canadian flag, national anthem) but didn't teach much history.  Trudeau Jr's Liberals not so much (shame, guilt, post-national state, erasing history).

5.  "Nation" has a specific definition, not difficult to understand.  Quebec is a "nation within a nation" and they dislike outsiders.

[Mathieub]

I am a strong nationalist. But not a total one. I mean, there is office around the country, TV talk about our nation, there is company that are owned by the GOV, our flags around and often, national fête. And more.

Also, here in Québec, I say that we are not nationalist enough. More nationalist stuff need to be.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

National atheist.

It was considerate of you to put that option in the list, thanks.

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1.  There's countless examples in the world happening right now.  How long have Jews, Arabs, Christians, and others been fighting over the same areas?  Kurds, Shia, and Sunni etc?  Why did Pakistan and Bangladesh separate from India after independence?  Why are Punjabi's trying to create a Khalistan?  Sub-saharan Africa has been filled with civil wars since they became independent countries largely because their borders were drawn by European empires without any regard to local groups, and so they fight for political supremacy within the same governments.  People want self-determination and don't want to be dominated.  Just ask Quebec.  I've studied these issues at the post-secondary level and know what "experts" think on the subject so I'm not ignorant on this.

2.  Consider why the people in France speak a different language than Germany, Spain, and Portugal etc.  Same with Korea vs China vs Vietnam etc.  This is far older than Westphalian sovereignty or the UN.

3.  Yes.  States are good, and so are provinces.  People want self-determination.  Quebec and Alberta and the indigenous don't want centralized control over their lives.  Children eventually move out of their parents' house for the same reasons.

4.  Canada has 3 founding nations, probably more given indigenous people aren't homogenous.  They have political differences obviously, and Quebec almost seperated in the 80's and 90's after the Quiet Revolution came to a head.  Trudeau Sr tried to unite the country and failed.  Francophone K-12 schools in Quebec don't fly the Canadian flag and students don't sing the national anthem, even around Montreal.  High risk indeed.  Feel free to confirm: 

The Irish and Germans assimilated. After that, the Italians and others have done ok assimilating but some remain in ethnic enclaves.  Those groups don't have many natural differences from each other, besides the Germans and Japanese during WWII.  Punjabis and Indians, Muslims and Jews, Tamils vs Sinhalese etc are a different story.  We'll see how it goes.  What do we all unify around?  Americans have it right.  20th century Liberal Party had a similar answer (Canadian flag, national anthem) but didn't teach much history.  Trudeau Jr's Liberals not so much (shame, guilt, post-national state, erasing history).

5.  "Nation" has a specific definition, not difficult to understand.  Quebec is a "nation within a nation" and they dislike outsiders.

1. Ok, but you spoke past my point.  Peace between nations works if you have agreed-upon borders, hopefully those that align with cultural boundries, and a framework for negotiating and guaranteeing piece.  Maybe I also missed something that you referred to "nation" and not "nation state".  So, yes, nations are easier to stabilize than nation-states.

But then we're back to what User said about things being conflated.  Is Canada a "nation" or was in based on 3 separate cultures/nations ?  If so, what does it mean to be a Canadian "nationalist" ?  I'm genuinely confused as to how you could be a Canadian nationalist in this case and not a multiculturalist.

2. Right, but before the Westphalian you had regions in between that flipped back and forth, and before that it was more feudal than national.  And the languages themselves had to be standardized as there were regional differences that were greater than today.

3. We're back to the contradiction and confusion User referred to.  People don't want a central authority to control their lives but that's exactly what a nation-state like France does.  The kings usurped the regional powers of the feudal lords and took power away from the regions, standardized language and made a "France".  They they fought over borders for a few centures until WW2.  

You're not wrong, but if you state absolutes like "states are good" you're missing the fact that every form of social organization has plusses and minuses.  Central control of regions, is like the power of the "union".  Overall strength is there but some areas are favoured and individuality is reduced.  Same thing is happening Globally as cultures are melting into each other etc.

4.  So the Irish and Germans had to give up their culture to a central culture but indeed it happened naturally.  Multiculturalism as a policy tries to preserve the character of cultures within Canada but is there really much of a difference between Toronto and, say, Chicago with individual enclaves etc. ?   Sure, the government throws a few million to fund ethnic festivals here and there.  It seems to me the purpose is to convince top 20% that Canada is nicer than the US and create more tolerance for immigration.

The other thing you're missing is that authorities will tap into your emotional/moral sense to manipulate you to execute their agenda.  Nationalism, good/bad guy tropes, etc. etc.  will be put forward to get you in line with what they're trying to do.  Not to say they don't think they're right but that's the way of the world.

Using "good/bad" in our arguments (and I do it too) is a sign that we're under the spell of such tricks.

5. Right, so you defacto CAN'T be a "Nationalistic Canadian"