[ / / / / / / / / ] [ b / news+ / boards ] [ operate / meta ] [ ]

/polpol/ - Politically Incorrect Discussion

Politics, news, culture, society - no shills allowed

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types: jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 1 per post.

File: 1428253550006.png (4.7 MB, 1198x1817, 1198:1817, imagined_communities1.png)

a0b429 No.7834

So many discussion about nationalism. Have /polpol/ read about nationalism outside of European/white nationalism?

What's /polpol/ thought on imagined communities?

>"In an anthropological spirit, then, I propose the following definition of the nation: it is an imagined political community - - and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign."

>"The nation is imagined as limited because even the largest of them encompassing perhaps a billion living human beings, has finite, if elastic boundaries, beyond which lie other nations. No nation imagines itself coterminous with mankind. The most messianic nationalists do not dream of a day when all the members of the human race will join their nation in the way that it was possible, in certain epochs, for, say, Christians to dream of a wholly Christian planet.
>"It is imagined as sovereign because the concept was born in an age in which Enlightenment and Revolution were destorying the legitamacy of the divinely-ordained, hierarchical dynastic realm. Coming to maturity at a stage of human history when even the most devout adherents of any universal religion were inescapably confronted with the living pluralism of such religions, and the allomorphism between each faith's ontological claims and territorial stretch, nations dream of being free, and, if under God, directly so. The gage and emblem of this freedom is the sovereign state.
>"Finally, it is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to die for such limited imaginings.

So many lefties despised nationalism, calling it "made up" or indifference to reality.

Now there's one academia explaining it's emergence and loving it's phenomenon.

023a4a No.7852

I had to read that for college

it's jewish bullshit

Nationalism is based on blood, and blood is not imagined in any sense.

6e60d8 No.7862

File: 1428255873959.jpg (576.98 KB, 1920x1200, 8:5, 318371.jpg)

>>7834
>>7852
I disagree. Basing nationality simply on blood is a retarded perfect way of killing your own people and their culture, because you have to face the fact that above what blood goes through your veins, slaves or orphans raised in a certain community since their young age will indeed grow very fond of their own people and see the world like they were one of them. While there might be some inherent differences between niggers and white races, if you apply the same to a british orphan being raised in the USA, saying that they cannot truly feel their "nation" being the USA and fighting for it only because of their british blood is bullocks.

Also, I disagree with the author. "Nations" cannot be forged under only that, there's a need, I believe, for a uniting strength that takes the same hierarchical structure as the family, with a common history, achievements and others, and therefore there needs to be a culture with core values and principles embraced by its people, around which they unite. Additional typical traits, such as culture, language, or history can also help, and will most likely be needed in order to create a nationality of any kind (imho), but as a thought experiment (and only as such) it MIGHT be possible to create a nation without that, but you will have to expect it to be extremely unstable.

tl;dr, both posts I don't really agree with, what do you have to say against it?

3b5362 No.7864

>>7834
But the same people who write these things think the Zionist state should exist, they don't have a problem with Japan being 99% Japanese, or Congo being 99% African.

They only want white countries and ALL white countries to be 'multicultural' and 'diverse'.

023a4a No.7871

>>7862
>nationalism is not based on blood

better let all these somalians in my country, then! They'll acculturate, right?

a0b429 No.7883

>>7864
The author is leftist but I've never read his own works promoting immigration in western countries.

In fact, his works present a criticism to marxist and left who view nationalism as a plague.

>>7852
>>7871
Then how you explain Indian nationalism, a multicultural nation?

Ernest Renan also reject that nation is based on blood. But using this perspectives we could see that European nations imagined themselves related by blood, this means immigration could wreck national cohesion.

3aad56 No.7887

>>7883
>Then how you explain Indian nationalism, a multicultural nation?

Because there isn't any. Dravidians and Aryans are wary of each other at best.

2d24f2 No.7892

>>7852
how edgy.

>>7834
in 1945 those javans united wit the rest of what was then the dutch east indies, siezed the power vacuum caused by the japanese surrender and declared indonesian independence in 1945. the onl the 17th of august 1945. the whole of indonesia united despite ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic diferences. this is probably the only country where multiculturalism has worked, although to be fair it is natural multiculturalism, the cultures have been in close proximity to share and tolerate each other for a long time, not the synthetic shit being pulled on sweden

794d4a No.11227

>>7834
>imagined communities?
It can be beneficial to use thought experiments.


Delete Post [ ]
[]
[Return][Go to top][Catalog]
[ / / / / / / / / ] [ b / news+ / boards ] [ operate / meta ] [ ]