/ref/ - Refugee Camp


Mode: Reply

Max message length: 8192


Max file size: 80.00 MB

Max files: 5


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

What's your opinion on patriotism? Anonymous Refugee 07/10/2020 (Fri) 02:10:50 No. 4067
Is it stupid? Is it Bourgeoisie? Is it ok? Let's hear it!
it's some stupid shit
same shit as religion, its stupid, but it seems like many people need it It can also be very useful
>>4073 It's pretty useful if you want a good laugh.
As a concept it's dumb as fuck. Sometimes it can be used to attack capitalism but it can also co-opt your movement.
Patriotism is a bourgeois concept to keep the masses in check with the idea that the nations that they create at whim to secure their own capital and suppress revolution was done to mark their clay and maintain prosperity. Religion, ethnicity, language, creed, all can be used to divide and conquer a land and then subsequently placing in the minds of the conquered that it is their duty to support "their" land. Thus is the case for Pakistani and Indian patriotism, both nations created spontaneously after attempts at revolution by Indian workers (1946) had made the British and national bourgeois worried. Those who have created these nations - the national bourgeois and their colonial lords - were the same ones who had before scoffed at the idea of partition. >Such was his passion for Partition that in August 1946 he vowed: “We shall have India divided or we shall have India destroyed”. Jinnah made a complete u-turn, however: at an “oyster dinner” held in 1933 by Cambridge student Rahmat Ali at London’s rather non-Islamic Waldorf Hotel to propose a country called Pakistan for Muslims, he laughed at the idea. This idea was later described by Muslim leaders, including Jinnah, to the Joint Select Committee of the British parliament as “only a student’s scheme chimerical and impractical”. Before 1940, Muslim hardliners were still dismissing the idea of a separate nation for the Muslims as absurd. (Lal Khan) >But when I met Gandhiji again, I had the greatest shock of my life to find that he had changed. He was still not openly in favour of Partition but he no longer spoke so vehemently against it. What surprised and shocked me even more was that he began to repeat the arguments which Sardar Patel had already used. For over two hours I pleaded with him, but could make no impression on him. (Abul Kalam Azad) >I was surprised when Patel said whether we liked it or not, there were two nations in India. He was now convinced that Muslims and Hindus could not be united into one nation. It was better to have one clean fight and then separate than have bickering everyday. I was surprised that Patel was now an even greater supporter of the two-nation theory than Jinnah. Jinnah may have raised the flag of Partition but now the real flag bearer was Patel. (Abul Kalam Azad) >Jawaharlal was not first ready for the idea and reacted violently against the idea of Partition. Lord Mountbatten persisted till Jawaharlal’s opposition was worn down step by step. Within a month of Mountbatten’s arrival in India, Jawaharlal, the firm opponent of Partition had become, if not a supporter at least acquiescent to the idea. (Abul Kalam Azad) A truly united world is a world unexploited. Capitalism and subsequently neoliberalism doesn't wish for a united world for a united world would make the exploitation done to the ""third-world"" (the characterization of it as a separate 'world' also displays the inbuilt divisions made by neoliberal globalization) ever so transparent. Divide, anglicize and conquer was the real mantra of the British, for the anglicization of the bourgeois allowed for easy exploitation of the new nations. Look at Pakistan and India today, both nations have most of their laws derived from the previous British system. The punishments for homosexuality and adultery in Pakistan were purely derived from the Victorian system put in place long ago!
Stupid. We are a GLOBAL community. imaginary lines are arbitrary shit that sometimes don't even demarcate cultural differences.
even more dumb than communism
>>4099 we even have a proverb: 'patriotism is the last refuge of a scumbag'
Spooky and >>4076
Something to pay lip service to so you ensure popular support but to not actually build upon.
>>4097 President Xi and Khan Putin approve this post. Don't defend the interest of the group you are in, it's only based over imaginary lines on a map anyway. Natural selection does not only happen to individuals, but also on the social scale. If your society or culture is not able to compete with the aggressive or expansionist ones, then this one culture will, in time, be annexed by Not every company, in capitalism, want to be total scumbags, to do planned obsolescence, to milk the workers as hard as they can, to have deceitful, borderline lying commercials, to cripple concurrency and to overcharge the customers. The ones who do get the market and either buy the good company or take their customers. Not every religion is universalist, but the ones who aren't receive missionaries and religious wars while they don't expend themselves. Not every country was expansionist. The ones who were not became a province in an empire. Not every country was industrialist. The ones who didn't had rifles to fight the invading armies of tanks and planes. Patriotic countries, universalist religions and aggressive cultures don't not exist because some philosopher made good argument for them, but because the ones who are less competitive are engulfed by another country/religion/culture. And to answer OP question, on the global scale, yes it is and should not exist. On our scale? Well, other countries, like China or Russia are nationalist and are trying to fuck us in the ass. Yes, there is a us now, not because we want an us to exist but because we need an us to exist.
(431.89 KB 1304x1818 India.png)
>>4076 Nations existed in this part of the world long before the Dutch East India Company was even created. The conflation between Indus and Muslims was raging long before the first trading posts of Portugal, Spain, France and England. If anything, the British colonists forced at gunpoint people to keep their religious and ethnic divisions under the rug. >A truly united world is a world unexploited. Then explain why capitalists want a global market with no border. Every action of the IMF (the IMF even exist) is made to force countries to be more open to the global market. There have been wars, like the Vietnam war just so the market could reach more people. Every political figure that want some trade control, like Trump or every movement that goes against the unification of markets in one big blob like the Brexit get bombed by all the medias, said medias being in the hands of the capitalists.
>>4307 >Nations existed in this part of the world long before the Dutch East India Company was even created. The conflation between Indus and Muslims was raging long before the first trading posts of Portugal, Spain, France and England. <All the civil wars, invasions, revolutions, conquests, famines, strangely complex, rapid, and destructive as the successive action in Hindostan may appear, did not go deeper than its surface. England has broken down the entire framework of Indian society, without any symptoms of reconstitution yet appearing. This loss of his old world, with no gain of a new one, imparts a particular kind of melancholy to the present misery of the Hindoo, and separates Hindostan, ruled by Britain, from all its ancient traditions, and from the whole of its past history. <There have been in Asia, generally, from immemorial times, but three departments of Government; that of Finance, or the plunder of the interior; that of War, or the plunder of the exterior; and, finally, the department of Public Works. Climate and territorial conditions, especially the vast tracts of desert, extending from the Sahara, through Arabia, Persia, India, and Tartary, to the most elevated Asiatic highlands, constituted artificial irrigation by canals and water-works the basis of Oriental agriculture. As in Egypt and India, inundations are used for fertilizing the soil in Mesopotamia, Persia, &c.; advantage is taken of a high level for feeding irrigative canals. This prime necessity of an economical and common use of water, which, in the Occident, drove private enterprise to voluntary association, as in Flanders and Italy, necessitated, in the Orient where civilization was too low and the territorial extent too vast to call into life voluntary association, the interference of the centralizing power of Government. Hence an economical function devolved upon all Asiatic Governments, the function of providing public works. This artificial fertilization of the soil, dependent on a Central Government, and immediately decaying with the neglect of irrigation and drainage, explains the otherwise strange fact that we now find whole territories barren and desert that were once brilliantly cultivated, as Palmyra, Petra, the ruins in Yemen, and large provinces of Egypt, Persia, and Hindostan; it also explains how a single war of devastation has been able to depopulate a country for centuries, and to strip it of all its civilization. <Now, the British in East India accepted from their predecessors the department of finance and of war, but they have neglected entirely that of public works. Hence the deterioration of an agriculture which is not capable of being conducted on the British principle of free competition, of laissez-faire and laissez-aller. But in Asiatic empires we are quite accustomed to see agriculture deteriorating under one government and reviving again under some other government. There the harvests correspond to good or bad government, as they change in Europe with good or bad seasons. Thus the oppression and neglect of agriculture, bad as it is, could not be looked upon as the final blow dealt to Indian society by the British intruder, had it not been attended by a circumstance of quite different importance, a novelty in the annals of the whole Asiatic world. However changing the political aspect of India’s past must appear, its social condition has remained unaltered since its remotest antiquity, until the first decennium of the 19th century. The hand-loom and the spinning-wheel, producing their regular myriads of spinners and weavers, were the pivots of the structure of that society. From immemorial times, Europe received the admirable textures of Indian labor, sending in return for them her precious metals, and furnishing thereby his material to the goldsmith, that indispensable member of Indian society, whose love of finery is so great that even the lowest class, those who go about nearly naked, have commonly a pair of golden ear-rings and a gold ornament of some kind hung round their necks. Rings on the fingers and toes have also been common. Women as well as children frequently wore massive bracelets and anklets of gold or silver, and statuettes of divinities in gold and silver were met with in the households. It was the British intruder who broke up the Indian hand-loom and destroyed the spinning-wheel. England began with driving the Indian cottons from the European market; it then introduced twist into Hindostan, and in the end inundated the very mother country of cotton with cottons. From 1818 to 1836 the export of twist from Great Britain to India rose in the proportion of 1 to 5,200. In 1824 the export of British muslins to India hardly amounted to 1,000,000 yards, while in 1837 it surpassed 64,000,000 of yards. But at the same time the population of Dacca decreased from 150,000 inhabitants to 20,000. This decline of Indian towns celebrated for their fabrics was by no means the worst consequence. British steam and science uprooted, over the whole surface of Hindostan, the union between agriculture and manufacturing industry. >Then explain why capitalists want a global market with no border. Every action of the IMF (the IMF even exist) is made to force countries to be more open to the global market. There have been wars, like the Vietnam war just so the market could reach more people. Do you not get the meaning of the word "truly"?
If you can successfully use it to unite the people to focus on class instead of letting them run rampant with xenophobia, it can be useful. If not, it increases xenophobia and classism and is harmful.
(909.71 KB 2100x1410 bunker_ad.png)
Whats the difference between patriotism and nationalism?
(41.64 KB 600x393 patriotism.jpg)
>>4340 Patriotism is an euphemism for nationalism.
>>4067 Personally I could be called "patriotic" in the sense that I think my country isn't doing enough considering how well it's doing... as in, I wish the education system was improved, that we were more willing to accept immigrants as Finnish, that we didn't blindly follow other countries, etc... but that's not what "patriotism" usually refers to, so dunno. If we're talking about the less idealistic kind, fuck that shit forever. It's a slippery slope into fascism and is a burden on society. >>4211 Yeah, and if it is built upon it'll more likely turn into nationalism and regression, at least if it's rhetoric like "we will make our country great again" since that implies it was better in the past. >>4338 Can patriotism really be used to combat xenophobia or classism, though? I mean, if people already are xenophobic, won't patriotism only make it worse? Not as bad as rhetoric about "muh blood and soil" or whatever, but still, it creates an "us vs them" mentality even if it's not based on ethnicity or language or religion or class or whatever... or are you thinking of like a scenario where "we are a great country,we must do better" is used to sway the people's opinion so that they'd see it as their duty to help refugees and poor people or whatever? Because in that case I'd agree and I wish more countries did that kind of a thing, but it's a slippery slope into nationalism so it shouldn't be done without thinking it through first imho. >>4340 >>4343 Pretty sure the difference (at least in theory) is that in nationalism the focus is on the people while in patriotism the focus is on the country. In ethnically homogenous countries (and countries where minorities have no voice) there wouldn't be any difference in practice, but in countries with vocal/influential/whatever minorities it can be useful to make the distinction. Using Finland as an example since that's where I'm from, they're conceptualised differently. There exist: >Finnish nationalism (ethnic nationalism) >Sami nationalism (ethnolinguistic nationalism) >Swedish nationalism (linguistic nationalism) There are smaller ethnic groups who also have their own nationalisms, but those are the major ones. The way I see it, Finnish nationalists tend to be "muh blood and soil", Sami nationalists tend to be "muh blood and soil, also do not learn our languages unless you're ethnic Sami" and Swedish nationalists tend to be "you must learn our language or suffer the consequences". Those are obviously simplifications and not everyone of those three ethnicities who consider themselves a nationalist is like that, but those are the "defaults" in my experience. Patriotism, on the other hand, is "non-racist" in that we have eg. Somalis who are "patriotic" for Finland. So, in theory patriotism can serve as an umbrella under which different nationalisms can get along to defend the country from (real or perceived) threats. In practice, I'd bet that if there was a war with Russia now or whatever, most Finnish nationalists would rather start killing non-white Finnish patriots than fight alongside them... but for now, my impression is that they see them as useful idiots. In some cases that's true, and in some cases (like when religion is involved) patriotism can truly transcend racism and nationalism especially when it's against a "common enemy", as with Christian patriots allying against Muslims and atheists. Although non-ethnic nationalism can exist and falls between ethnic nationalism and patriotism, it's rare at least in Finland. It'd be something like seeing people, regardless of their ethnicity, language or religion, as the people belonging to your nation. Most people who think this way put the country as an abstract thing before the people, though, so they become patriots rather than just civic nationalists. TL;DR if I understand correctly, it's a spectrum. I could be thinking about it totally wrong, though.
Also I should add, at least in my experience most Sami and Swedes in Finland are nowhere near as nationalistic as Finns for some reason. They might be just as nationalistic at the theoretical level but in practice their nationalism is all talk, while Finnish nationalists literally kill people sometimes.
>>4344 > I wish the education system was improved Isn't the Finnish education system widely accepted as the best in the world?
>>4346 it's the same thing as calling Scandinavian social-democracy "socialist"
>>4346 It was among the best until a while back, but there have been cuts on top of cuts and now we literally have kids who can't read or write. I'm not sure how they don't learn it at school, but... well, apparently they don't. Obviously that's a small percentage and most of them probably have like ADD, ADHD, autism or other conditions (or just smartphone addiction), but kids like that used to get special education. Physical education has been cut from, too, to me personally that's not that big a deal since I was always a weak shit who majorly sucked at all sports, but I understand sports are important for a lot of people and for kids it's more important to get exercise than for adults... thankfully I've heard school food has gotten significantly healthier, that's the one improvement I've heard about. Also, I'm not sure how history education has changed, if at all, but when I was in school we were taught nationalistic propaganda that could at times be argued to have been literal historical revisionism. I doubt it's gotten any better with time. There's more I could say, but generally speaking, it's just gotten so much worse in a fairly short period of time that some would call it a crisis. I think the current (progressive and left-leaning) government is genuinely trying to improve it again, but they're not really doing a good job AFAIK... and of course, thanks to corona, right-wingers will blame leftists for fucking up a whole year. They're already saying the government didn't do enough to stop corona, but when they did increase restrictions right-wingers were complaining about "authoritarianism". Corona is a lose-lose situation for leftists, and kids might pay the biggest price in the coming years if this year's shortcomings aren't compensated somehow. >>4347 Dunno about Scandinavia, but Finland could be considered actually socialistic in some ways, at least when it comes to our legal system and that kind of stuff. I mean, universal healthcare, social services are free, there are all kinds of "safety nets" for everything, the government owns or at least controls a lot of businesses, etc. It's just that because we don't have a socialist government, the government keeps going "we'll open up X for competition, free markets are the solution to all problems" and the supreme court is like "wait, that's illegal" but the government keeps trying to push it anyway. On the other hand, though, you could argue we have state-sponsored capitalism because the state wants to leave sectors to the markets as soon as they stop being profitable for them and invest in sectors expected to be profitable... I'd say it's not black and white, since I know for a fact there are people in the government who do actually care about things like poverty and other issues and want to make things better and are openly leftists. That said, the Social Democratic Party is more popular than the Left Alliance and the Left Alliance isn't full-blown communist or anarchist or anything. I personally think that's good, I mean communism and anarchism might work in theory and maybe in the future if we can overcome things like nationalism they might work in practice, but a gradual progression is more likely to succeed. We just have to find a way to prevent fascists from coming to power in the middle of it, but unfortunately our current president isn't doing much to decrease fascists' appeal to the masses... he's just like "I am an enlightened centrist and therefore condemn both sides as irrational, by the way the status quo is still a literal utopia so changing it can only make things worse" while smooching his pet dog. Of course fascists take that to mean "he's on our side!" and get motivated to amp up their fascism while everyone left of centre is like "HE'S ON THE SIDE OF FASCISTS" and triggers everyone right of centre like "look at how paranoid leftists are" and pushing them farther to the right. The guy literally just wants to smooch his pet dog and should have retired in 2018 so that Haavisto could have become president, then in 2030 we'd get Arhinmäki, and so on. Oh, and for those who'd say "but anon, Niinistö is complicit in the rise of the far-right due to his inaction and socially conservative views", that's true but he hasn't even tried to really do anything notable (good or bad) as president. He's at least said he'd limit the president's legal powers even more because, being le enlightened centrist, he thinks those who follow him should be even more powerless to do anything than he found himself to be. The guy's popular because he sits so firmly on the fence that if Hitler and Stalin came back from the dead to play tug of war with a rope tied to his balls, he wouldn't budge, and Finns love that shit... and maybe we needed it in 2012, but from 2018 on we clearly would've needed Haavisto... not that he's perfect, I don't agree with him on several issues, but at least he would never enable fascists. Now we'll never see him become president, anyway, considering he got "cancelled" thanks to his plan to let the Finnish children whose parents joined ISIS to return to Finland... Apologies for the rambling about completely unrelated issues to what you even mentioned.
I do not love my country. I am not a patriot.
(82.22 KB 597x699 7871xc3cjym31.jpg)
I'm only patriotic when talking about the civil war


no cookies?