The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

I think, if this conversation is to continue, it might be useful to distinguish between 'nationalism' - which is an assertion of the superiority of your nation compared to others - and 'patriotism' - which is an expression of love for your native land - which can, of course, celebrate its diversity, tolerance, poetry and weather in may. ..

This is the crux - the perception that nationalism is "X" or "Y".

Nationalsim, to you WTW, is how you describe it above, to others, it's discrimination for your nationals against others; to a third party, it's non acceptance of people who are not of (allegedly) some sort of "pure blood" c.f. Ariyans etc. To many, it's just "this is where I am, this is where I was born, these are our collective ideals (not that we necessarily agree with all of 'em) and this is my country - which you put as patriotism (not arguing - just saying people have different perceptions). Others (myself included) would describe it as nationalism - I think the largest problem is in the different interpretations of the word.

I see myself as a Nationalist, but not in some sense that has a colour bar or a race bar. I support immigration on a sustainable level (which I don't think we're far from over the last 20-30 years - other than "illegals"). But to me the concept that "this is how things work in the UK" is important as part of our national identity.

[William the White]

I think, if this conversation is to continue, it might be useful to distinguish between 'nationalism' - which is an assertion of the superiority of your nation compared to others - and 'patriotism' - which is an expression of love for your native land - which can, of course, celebrate its diversity, tolerance, poetry and weather in may. ..

This is the crux - the perception that nationalism is "X" or "Y".

Nationalsim, to you WTW, is how you describe it above, to others, it's discrimination for your nationals against others; to a third party, it's non acceptance of people who are not of (allegedly) some sort of "pure blood" c.f. Ariyans etc. To many, it's just "this is where I am, this is where I was born, these are our collective ideals (not that we necessarily agree with all of 'em) and this is my country - which you put as patriotism (not arguing - just saying people have different perceptions). Others (myself included) would describe it as nationalism - I think the largest problem is in the different interpretations of the word.

I see myself as a Nationalist, but not in some sense that has a colour bar or a race bar. I support immigration on a sustainable level (which I don't think we're far from over the last 20-30 years - other than "illegals"). But to me the concept that "this is how things work in the UK" is important as part of our national identity.

Yep - i recognise the problem. that's why i tried to propose a working definition that might enable the discussion to happen in a way that we weren't all misunderstanding one another.

I suspect - with my definition - if you'll allow me to say so - that you and, for instance, Bruce R - are 'patriots' rather than nationalists. You are proud of your country, think it has a great many positive things that others could learn from, are critical and angry about other things, but don't think that anyone is automatically inferior because they are born elsewhere. .

i wouldn't want to describe myself as a nationalist with the British National Party campaigning hard in the NW. not to mention the history of the 20th century only just left behind.

As for me - i love the UK for its countryside, its beer, its football, its history of free speech and voting for governments.

If I was told i could never leave it to visit elsewhere, i could cope, easily. But if I had to feel this mysterious umbilical affection for the motherland, i'd be totally mystified where to start. And if i was asked to believe 'my country, right or wrong' i'd laugh out loud at the ludicrous nature of that demand. like - i'm in favour of right, and opposed to wrong - whoever does it.

[TANGODANCER]

I think, if this conversation is to continue, it might be useful to distinguish between 'nationalism' - which is an assertion of the superiority of your nation compared to others - and 'patriotism' - which is an expression of love for your native land - which can, of course, celebrate its diversity, tolerance, poetry and weather in may. ..

This is the crux - the perception that nationalism is "X" or "Y".

Nationalsim, to you WTW, is how you describe it above, to others, it's discrimination for your nationals against others; to a third party, it's non acceptance of people who are not of (allegedly) some sort of "pure blood" c.f. Ariyans etc. To many, it's just "this is where I am, this is where I was born, these are our collective ideals (not that we necessarily agree with all of 'em) and this is my country - which you put as patriotism (not arguing - just saying people have different perceptions). Others (myself included) would describe it as nationalism - I think the largest problem is in the different interpretations of the word.
I see myself as a Nationalist, but not in some sense that has a colour bar or a race bar. I support immigration on a sustainable level (which I don't think we're far from over the last 20-30 years - other than "illegals"). But to me the concept that "this is how things work in the UK" is important as part of our national identity.

Pretty much exact Worthy.

[Prufrock]

I think, if this conversation is to continue, it might be useful to distinguish between 'nationalism' - which is an assertion of the superiority of your nation compared to others - and 'patriotism' - which is an expression of love for your native land - which can, of course, celebrate its diversity, tolerance, poetry and weather in may. ..

This is the crux - the perception that nationalism is "X" or "Y".

Nationalsim, to you WTW, is how you describe it above, to others, it's discrimination for your nationals against others; to a third party, it's non acceptance of people who are not of (allegedly) some sort of "pure blood" c.f. Ariyans etc. To many, it's just "this is where I am, this is where I was born, these are our collective ideals (not that we necessarily agree with all of 'em) and this is my country - which you put as patriotism (not arguing - just saying people have different perceptions). Others (myself included) would describe it as nationalism - I think the largest problem is in the different interpretations of the word.
I see myself as a Nationalist, but not in some sense that has a colour bar or a race bar. I support immigration on a sustainable level (which I don't think we're far from over the last 20-30 years - other than "illegals"). But to me the concept that "this is how things work in the UK" is important as part of our national identity.

Pretty much exact Worthy.

Nationalism, and patriotism, mean pretty much the same. Literally. The media play them to mean different things to what they do. Essentially, if you mean them as they are (ie without BNP, Daily Mail-to use the easy stereotypes-sentiments) there's nothing wrong with either. I come from a globalised generation, having fought no war, and as such perhaps it is easier to see the world more 'simplistically'. A lot of talk on this topic however has been vague snorty notions, with huge sweeping comments.

TD you suggest you are more cynical than I, and it's a notion that I have a problem with. It's not a bambi-esque, non thought out naive point of view. You may differ, but please don't suggest its a neccessarily naive view. I do not lack in cynicism. I think most people are selfish bastards, it's human nature, but collectively, as civilisation, we are better than that. We certainly aren't more or less bastard-y than anyone else based on the nation of birth. This country has done great things, it has done terrible things (I had an odd moment the other day when I met a guy from Dresden, and without thinking, just said, 'Sorry'). The great things in this country's history, are liberty, equality, the legal system, and Parliament, plus many others.

No one is stopping anyone celebrating xmas, or flying the St. George, or doing anything 'English'. I think Insane disagreed with a similar notion earlier, but on a purely moral level, why does anyone born in 'England' have any more right to the benefits of this country than someone not? It's a quirk of fate. Obviously opening all borders wouldn't work economically, but theres no moral reason against it, not that I can see, anyway.

[Worthy4England]

No one is stopping anyone celebrating xmas, or flying the St. George, or doing anything 'English'. I think Insane disagreed with a similar notion earlier, but on a purely moral level, why does anyone born in 'England' have any more right to the benefits of this country than someone not? It's a quirk of fate. Obviously opening all borders wouldn't work economically, but theres no moral reason against it, not that I can see, anyway.

1. It's Christmas. Xmas is something that card makers have made up in case the Christ connotation offends.

2. The reason someone "born" in England has more "moral" right to access say the NHS, our educational system, pensions, state benefits etc., is because typically their ancestors funded the building of it etc. Should the Egyptians have a bigger say in what happens to the pyramids than me? Damned right they should. There is nothing preventing any other country "building" their own NHS, but developing poorer countries with little infrastructure and bad educational systems is not easy (otherwise they'd have probably already done it). Part of why our country is what it is, is because it's been conquered, because it's had civil wars, because it's been an "Empire", because it's been involved in global conflicts and many of our ancestors fought for it and some lost their lives doing so. Rather than move people to services, surely helping them have the means to create their own is a better way forward?

[TANGODANCER]

TD you suggest you are more cynical than I, and it's a notion that I have a problem with. It's not a bambi-esque, non thought out naive point of view. You may differ, but please don't suggest its a neccessarily naive view. I do not lack in cynicism. I think most people are selfish bastards, it's human nature, but collectively, as civilisation, we are better than that. We certainly aren't more or less bastard-y than anyone else based on the nation of birth. This country has done great things, it has done terrible things (I had an odd moment the other day when I met a guy from Dresden, and without thinking, just said, 'Sorry'). The great things in this country's history, are liberty, equality, the legal system, and Parliament, plus many others.

No one is stopping anyone celebrating xmas, or flying the St. George, or doing anything 'English'. I think Insane disagreed with a similar notion earlier, but on a purely moral level, why does anyone born in 'England' have any more right to the benefits of this country than someone not? It's a quirk of fate. Obviously opening all borders wouldn't work economically, but theres no moral reason against it, not that I can see, anyway.

I think I made repecting your intelligence quite clear Pru. To save a lot of type space, "would you walk outside to go shopping today and leave your house door unlocked, or the same with your car? Are you quite happy to let the guy behind you see your pin number at a cash point? This is the reality of modern times. These are the mundane things that actually exist daily in our world, not the moral high ground of idealism. Why should you appologise to a guy from Dresden when you weren't even born then? That makes no more sense than me appologising for the crusades in Jerusalem. People long before
my time did things to other people long before anyone's time. How on earth is that relevant to today except to keep appoprtioning blame instead of putting it behind and going forward with lessons learned?

As to the bold bit, I can only shake my head in disbelief. No offence meant buddy, but that really is nieve.

[TANGODANCER]

Well, I guess that's the English Democrats out of the equation then.

[Worthy4England]

TD you suggest you are more cynical than I, and it's a notion that I have a problem with. It's not a bambi-esque, non thought out naive point of view. You may differ, but please don't suggest its a neccessarily naive view. I do not lack in cynicism. I think most people are selfish bastards, it's human nature, but collectively, as civilisation, we are better than that. We certainly aren't more or less bastard-y than anyone else based on the nation of birth. This country has done great things, it has done terrible things (I had an odd moment the other day when I met a guy from Dresden, and without thinking, just said, 'Sorry'). The great things in this country's history, are liberty, equality, the legal system, and Parliament, plus many others.

No one is stopping anyone celebrating xmas, or flying the St. George, or doing anything 'English'. I think Insane disagreed with a similar notion earlier, but on a purely moral level, why does anyone born in 'England' have any more right to the benefits of this country than someone not? It's a quirk of fate. Obviously opening all borders wouldn't work economically, but theres no moral reason against it, not that I can see, anyway.

Why should you appologise to a guy from Dresden when you weren't even born then?

And maybe a chat with someone stranded at Dunkirk or someone in the first wave on D-Day might add a bit of perspective. I'm sorry anyone dies in any conflict, but FFS we wouldn't have been anywhere near Dresden if some tit hadn't started a world war.

[Lord Kangana]

Started a war on others behalf. Just before this descends into a slanging match, I read the letters of a young (21 yr old) Paratrooper written to his mum just before he flew into Arnhem. In it he says that, as much as he loves England, he's not exactly sure whether its worth fighting or killing for, and certainly not worth dying for, and certainly knows that the reasons we go to war are nothing to do with him. He lies in Oosterbeek Cemetery.

[TANGODANCER]

Started a war on others behalf. Just before this descends into a slanging match, I read the letters of a young (21 yr old) Paratrooper written to his mum just before he flew into Arnhem. In it he says that, as much as he loves England, he's not exactly sure whether its worth fighting or killing for, and certainly not worth dying for, and certainly knows that the reasons we go to war are nothing to do with him. He lies in Oosterbeek Cemetery.

You may not have noticed LK, but with the present member class we're able to debate and argue points without that happening.

Ref your young paratrooper, none of the soldiers in any war were there from choice. We were at war and the country, wives and familes, all had to have their futures defended. The concept of war is fruitless but defence is the first priority of any country, particularly in today's unstable world. As I said earlier, the rules of the game are subject to the mentality of the players not just the morality of onlookers.

[Worthy4England]

Started a war on others behalf. Just before this descends into a slanging match, I read the letters of a young (21 yr old) Paratrooper written to his mum just before he flew into Arnhem. In it he says that, as much as he loves England, he's not exactly sure whether its worth fighting or killing for, and certainly not worth dying for, and certainly knows that the reasons we go to war are nothing to do with him. He lies in Oosterbeek Cemetery.

I'm fairly sure no one is trying to make the case that war is a good idea LK.

Given that we were never occupied, it's difficult to judge which would have been the lesser of the two evils - personally I'd rather fight than risk being deported to a concentration camp.

[Lord Kangana]

I'm making the point that the trump card for nationalism is always "but think of our brave boys". I find it rather vulgar, as many soldiers have as many varying political views as anyone else, and when you throw conscription into the equation, fighting for ones country is no proof of patriotism at all.

[Worthy4England]

I'm making the point that the trump card for nationalism is always "but think of our brave boys". I find it rather vulgar, as many soldiers have as many varying political views as anyone else, and when you throw conscription into the equation, fighting for ones country is no proof of patriotism at all.

Sorry I must have missed it.

Surely most people, given a choice would choose not to be shot at. I don't find that unreasonable and don't recall anyone suggesting it is/was proof of patriotism. On the other side of the equation, there are also many stories of people from occupied territories who took a similar view and collaborated. I have little time for them or their fate, although I can see it may have been a difficult decision to make.

War is a bad thing and I don't doubt that most people involved in them don't want to be there and could probably find something better to do.

When the alternatives are Eugenics, Anti-Semitism, Gas Chambers and a gestapo controlled state, then I think on balance, I'd rather fight.

[TANGODANCER]

I'm making the point that the trump card for nationalism is always "but think of our brave boys". I find it rather vulgar, as many soldiers have as many varying political views as anyone else, and when you throw conscription into the equation, fighting for ones country is no proof of patriotism at all.

Keeping in mind that we have children,grand-children and their descendants to consider, no one in their right mind would ever want another world war. The last two proved the scope of man's inhumanity to his fellow man and took many years to recover from. Millions never got that chance in giving it to us.

I was born in the same month World War II started and was six years old when it ended. As a young kid I saw blackouts and spent time in air-raid shelters. What little money there was was further deflated by ration-books. I experienced the ten years it took the country to recover from its consequences. I saw the mob-mentality it caused in people in the burning of Hitler effigies at street parties while the kids cheered, and the dreadful images of the holocaust on news and film. We went to school with darned socks and patched clothes and obesity wasn't an option. My parents, an ex-soldier labourer and a mill-worker never knew prosperity in their life times. Through it all, the Union Jack was a symbol of hope and eventually, victory over tyranny and the threat of the things Worthy listed. It was England, I was English and that's the reason for both my cynicism and disagrrement that nationality ( call it patriotism if you will) doesn't matter. It does to me, and always will. The brave-new-world is a wonderful concept, except that it involves people who are not all so-brave or even so new. Make of that what you will.

Amen.

[Zulus Thousand of em]

This country has done great things, it has done terrible things (I had an odd moment the other day when I met a guy from Dresden, and without thinking, just said, 'Sorry').

Did he say anything about Coventry?

[superjohnmcginlay]

This country has done great things, it has done terrible things (I had an odd moment the other day when I met a guy from Dresden, and without thinking, just said, 'Sorry').

Did he say anything about Coventry?

Yeah. He said "Look we levelled the fooking place once to give you a fresh start and look what youve gone and fooking done again!"

[Lord Kangana]

If anyone hadn't noticed, the war ended 64 years ago, giving way to the longest stretch of sustained peace in Western Europe for generations. Indeed we co-operate more than we ever had. The idea that you give to get something back is a mite childish (IMHO etc etc) . Pru said what he said, a tad naive, maybe, but for crying out loud "did you mention Coventry"? Hopefully he punched him, told him he started it all by invading Poland and then Goose-Stepped out of the room aswell. Truth and reconcilliation and all that, not vengence and retribution.

And if anyone wants to discuss Dresden, then yes it was despicable and unnecessary, and partly a show of power to the advancing Russians, partly to fulfill Bomber Harriss's absurd neat idea of how a war should be conducted, and partly to show the Russians we were putting the effort in. If we were no better than the Germans, then what moral justification do we have left other than conquest?

[Worthy4England]

If anyone hadn't noticed, the war ended 64 years ago, giving way to the longest stretch of sustained peace in Western Europe for generations. Indeed we co-operate more than we ever had. The idea that you give to get something back is a mite childish (IMHO etc etc) . Pru said what he said, a tad naive, maybe, but for crying out loud "did you mention Coventry"? Hopefully he punched him, told him he started it all by invading Poland and then Goose-Stepped out of the room aswell. Truth and reconcilliation and all that, not vengence and retribution.

And if anyone wants to discuss Dresden, then yes it was despicable and unnecessary, and partly a show of power to the advancing Russians, partly to fulfill Bomber Harriss's absurd neat idea of how a war should be conducted, and partly to show the Russians we were putting the effort in. If we were no better than the Germans, then what moral justification do we have left other than conquest?

Yes I'd noticed it finished a while ago - what's your point?

I'm more than happy for anyone actively involved at the time to apologise for what happened at Dresden. I'm less in favour of someone who wasn't around at the time who didn't get their ass shot at and only has accounts from books written from a particular authors perspective, apologising for something they know bugger all about, as if somehow on an intellectual level that makes everything "alright".

War is never an easy option, but should we stand-by idly and allow genocide (for example) to occur because war is wrong? All it takes for evil to walk the earth is for good men to do nothing.

[Prufrock]

So let me get this straight? British citizens DO have more rights to the spoils of Britain, because their gradfathers and ancestors worked long and hard for it, fought wars for it? This purely biological link is enough to ensure they have access to better healthcare, housing, education, a democracy?

The Dresden comment has been misinterpreted. T'was tongue in cheek, said with a smile and a laugh,and he did jokingly apologise back for Coventry. Whole point is of course I shouldn't actually be apologising, I wasn't there, I didn't do it. What I don't get is the same people saying I shouldn't be apologising for the bad things this country has done, are saying I should have greater access to the profits of all the good (and bad) things this country has done? I didn't have anything to do with them either. Seems a convenient argument to me, that surprisingly only ever comes from those on the right side of it.

Also, on Dresden, there is no excuse. 'They started it', or 'they did worse' doesn't quite cut it.

[TANGODANCER]

I have little doubt right now that our very own Luis Figo in a white wig (think about that one) is having a quick glimpse at the posts here and chomping his way though a whole selection of Staedtler's finest products as he debates his decision to abstain from political discussion in favour of his studies.

The intent in the thread, on my part at least, was never to refight wars here, but to look at options to governments with a less than impressive history of running our country, and maybe consider the other party's available as a voting prospect. We seem to have drifted a little off-track (admitting my own part in that), but the fact remains that maybe we should give the minnows a chance. The BNP are hardly a threat, but maybe a party with England's interests at heart is no bad place to start. That was the crux of my initial post on the topic and the reason I may consider voting this next time.