Language nationalism?

Would you consider my views nationalist or not?

I consider ethnicity and race irrelevant, and support mixing of both. I also find territory (as in "historical territories") irrelevant. I define nation according to mutual intelligibility, and support a rewriting of borders according to that criteria. I consider all nations equal, I don't aprove of discrimination, I believe all nations should get along, forming a federation. There just one more detail- I would not allow people that don't undestand the language of the society to migrate in the country of that society.

It seems all nationalists consider me an anti-nationalist, and because of that last detail internationalists consider me nationalist. What do you think?

Well I suppose it sort of depends on how you mean by nation,Myself I consider a nation not a political entity or boundry but a folk group which is by definition a nation.

What do you mean by support of mixing ethnicity and race?.You say you consider race and ethnicity irrelivent and yes not every nation is a ethnically homogenous but some are and may choose to be in the future where do you stand on that?.As for your rewriting of borders there are some justified cases for that especially for Pashtuns,Kurds,Uzbeks and many other folk but for every folk group separated because of existing boundaries there is another folk group homogenous inside existing boundry,but again this come down to what you mean by nation.


Your point about a world wide federation most certainly doesn't make you a nationalist becuse a world wide federation would involve each nation being federaly controlled in any actions outside of its own internal affairs thus not making that nation,country,folk group ect soviergn in its dealing with others.

Well I suppose it sort of depends on how you mean by nation,

A group of people having mutual intelligibility in their first language. Also, I think all nations should have their nation-states.

world wide federation would involve each nation being federaly controlled in any actions outside of its own internal affairs thus not making that nation,country,folk group ect soviergn in its dealing with others.

Precisely. I don't see how can a nation act outside of it's own internal affairs without entering into the internal affairs of another nation, thereby violating it's sovereignty.

Also I think some questions, like pollution and destuction of the eco-sphere, trump national sovereignty and should be managed by the world federation of nations.

With that in mind why did bother to asking if your a nationalist or internationalist?.How does this federally administered planet of yours not violate a nations sovereignty if it can dictate how each nation interacts with each other?.Also how is the federal government accountable to each nation,how are federal decision makers appointed?.

How does this federally administered planet of yours not violate a nations sovereignty if it can dictate how each nation interacts with each other?

The poin of world federation is to "dictate" to each nation to respect each other's sovereignty. Nations should not have the "freedom" to interfere with other nations.

But the federal authority has the right to interfere?.

It should have the right to stop interference.

Even if that's the federal authority's only remit,how is this federal body organised and appointed and how is federal law (in this case no nation shall interfere with another) enforced and by whom?.

Nations, presumably transformed by abolition of oppression and exploitation, will form a new "UN" and make a joint effort to stop any nation that would try to oppress or exploit another nation (or commit destruction of the common eco-sphere).

So it's a Confederacy.

I'm not familiar with the difference between a federation and condeferation/ confederacy, what is it?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070730024658AACZmP5

Well, I guess then- yes, it would be a confederacy.

Well I don't see any conflict with nationalism and being a member of a confederation.

Leveller wrote:Would you consider my views nationalist or not?

I don't see your views to be much different from that of the average leftist who has either not considered nationalism or rejects it. Many "internationalists" who reject left-wing nationalism support a federalist system which would obviously require some kind of distinction between different regions (much like how a centralised system would), but I wouldn't consider that alone to be nationalism. It depends on what your views are on the self-determination of regions or "nations" existent under a federalist system. Others would extend nationalism to include things like national identity, but at that point it becomes a matter of semantics.

I consider ethnicity and race irrelevant, and support mixing of both.

When you say you support the mixing of both it makes it sound as though you encourage it. If this is what you mean, then why is that?

[...] because of that last detail internationalists consider me nationalist.

They consider you to be a nationalist because you think that people shouldn't migrate to areas where they can't speak the language? That is absolutely hilarious.

I don't see your views to be much different from that of the average leftist who has either not considered nationalism or rejects it.

And I do reject it. I think people should be humanists, and if they want to, they can be nationalists [kind of] (love their language, culture, history, etc), but only after that humanism - but my support for nation-states based on language seems not to sit right with leftists.

When you say you support the mixing of both it makes it sound as though you encourage it.

I think people should have the freedom to do pretty much what they want to as long as they don't violate (somewhat Lockean) rights of others. Concerning reproduction, I oppose vehemently telling people with whom they can or can't reproduce, as I see that as trampling on people's liberty.

They consider you to be a nationalist because you think that people shouldn't migrate to areas where they can't speak the language?

Yep. I get that all the time.

Leveller wrote:And I do reject it. I think people should be humanists, and if they want to, they can be nationalists [kind of] (love their language, culture, history, etc), but only after that humanism - but my support for nation-states based on language seems not to sit right with leftists.

This is a common misconception of left-wing nationalism. Nationalism doesn't necessarily have to mean that you only care for your own nation; if that were the case then I think revolution would be doomed before it even happens. I want to see the people of all nations emancipated, but I think people are going to be primarily concerned with changing their own nation before assisting others.

I think people should have the freedom to do pretty much what they want to as long as they don't violate (somewhat Lockean) rights of others. Concerning reproduction, I oppose vehemently telling people with whom they can or can't reproduce, as I see that as trampling on people's liberty.

If this is all that you meant then I agree, but I wouldn't actually say I "support" racial and ethnic mixing. If they happen naturally and consensually without focus on removing a nation's identity then so be it.

Yep. I get that all the time.

RevLeft by any chance?

This is a common misconception of left-wing nationalism. Nationalism doesn't necessarily have to mean that you only care for your own nation; if that were the case then I think revolution would be doomed before it even happens. I want to see the people of all nations emancipated, but I think people are going to be primarily concerned with changing their own nation before assisting others.

If LWN means being a humanist first and nationalist second, I don't get why not just use "(anti-globalist/ anti-cosmopolitan) internationalism".

If they happen naturally and consensually without focus on removing a nation's identity then so be it.

I have to ask. How can ethnic/ racial mixing happed "unnaturally" or be imposed? And how can ethic/ racial mixing remove a nation's identity?

RevLeft by any chance?

I meant IRL, but there, too (for the time until I was banned).

Leveller wrote:If LWN means being a humanist first and nationalist second, I don't get why not just use "(anti-globalist/ anti-cosmopolitan) internationalism".

Well, as explained here, nationalism doesn't necessarily contradict internationalism.

I have to ask. How can ethnic/ racial mixing happed "unnaturally" or be imposed? And how can ethic/ racial mixing remove a nation's identity?

The enslavement and rape of peoples throughout history, but obviously that isn't an issue anymore. As for race and ethnic mixing occurring "unnaturally", it seems as though the overly politically correct cosmopolitan leftists of today almost want to encourage it beyond reason for the sake of being vehemently anti-nationalist. They often seem to think that national identity is invalid for any number of reasons – the "it's a bourgeois construct" reasoning is quite amusing.

I meant IRL, but there, too (for the time until I was banned).

Ah, good ol' RevLeft being itself again.

nationalism doesn't necessarily contradict internationalism.

I get that. But you can be a nationalist first and internationalist second, and you can be an internationalist first and nationalist second.

The enslavement and rape of peoples throughout history, but obviously that isn't an issue anymore.

Fortunetly, we live in age when virtually no one would advocate such a thing.

They often seem to think that national identity is invalid for any number of reasons – the "it's a bourgeois construct" reasoning is quite amusing.

Well, I do think that valuing one's nation over the humanity is wrong, I don't know if it's a bourgeois construct, but if coupled with valuing one's nation over one's class it certainly is, I think we would all agree.