Things everybody knows that are actually wrong

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hardly a good argument given these Roman activities destroyed whatever records we have of these peoples and how they viewed themselves. Also mostly the Romans assimilated peoples, not killing them and this assimilating took along time and did not seem down to the countryside. When the Romans left Britain the country was still overwhelming Celtic, Gaullish was still be spoken in France by the time of Gregory of Tours more than a century over Rome collapsed. Yet there is no real notion of a British or Gaullish-Celtic 'identity' (what British identity there was, would come later with the Anglo-Saxons). Indeed in the whole history of the Roman Empire there is only one major conflict that could be in any way considered nationalistic - the First century BC Social War; a campaign waged by some of the tribes of pennisular Italy against Rome in order that the "Italians" got the same rights as the Romans. Given how much Rome oppressed its own countryside, this is actually quite remarkable.

There was granted a sense of Roman identity by the inhabitants of the city and the Aristocracy. No denying that.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You know, there is no evidence of Calgacus even having existed outside the pages of Tacitus.

Using Roman-Greek historians to find out how the 'natives' felt is a badddd idea...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never use 'brainwashing'. That wouldn't be accurate

For a start, what sociological data is this? Any sociologist worth his salt (ie. not many) would know the difficulties of labelling any concept as 'natural'.

As for the argument that the intelligentsia, the wealthy, etc have the least national feeling - this is, historically, false. Maybe true for 21st Century America but who do you think invented the modern nationalities with their flags, symbols, songs and so forth. It was people who could read and write and in many places the only two groups that could were the intelligentsia and the wealthy (the former usually being a subset of the latter). National identities in many places - especially Eastern Europe - replaced religious one some point in the nineteenth and twentieth century. Read any book on the Greek War of independence for confirmation of this (where peasants and people who commanded them were actually fighting for two separate things).

Thirdly, I'm not a Marxist. Nationalism is only an industrial phenomenon by the fact that nations and notions of community are easier to be formed in areas with large concentrates of population. If anything nationalism was originally an urban phenomenon and in many cases, predates industralism (but not by much, and urban centres were still by 1800 even in England and France where a fraction of the population lived.)

Fourthy, I can't believe you said 'organic'.

Finally, You haven't given any evidence of nationalist sentiment in the pre-modern period - that was not clearly representative of a minority. Nationalism is not new, but is relatively new as a mass phenomenon. Most places in Europe did not see any nationalist conflict before the 19th century - why do think the old pre-1939 map of Europe is so linguistically and ethnically confused? - after that, well....

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Btw, I would add that just because something is a social or cultural construct does not make it in any way 'less real'. Actually the appeal in nationalist symbology is perhaps that they show a reality which in many ways is 'more real' than real. If you catch my drift.

That was certainly true of the Celtic nations. Most of whose concepts of identity were pure nineteenth century fictions (well, Scotland and Ireland anyway, I'm not too sure about Wales, I'll leave Al to talk about that one) and were completely alien to parts of the population - who supported repealers and proto-nationalist movements as usually it was equated to an end to tithe and landlordism. Of course emigration and migration also played a major role... nothing like travel to remind one of home, as the legacy of Irish-Americans supporting the IRA in this day and age shows.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Btw, I would add that just because something is a social or cultural construct does not make it in any way 'less real'. Actually the appeal in nationalist symbology is perhaps that they show a reality which in many ways is 'more real' than real. If you catch my drift.

One of the better books on nationalism has a wonderfully appropriate title - "Imagined Communities".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The "celtic" element was largely an eighteenth century creation - much can be pinned on a cultural forger called Edward Williams (better known as Iolo Morganwg). But there are multiple national identities in Wales and boundaries cross. Overall the "celtic" element matters less - amusing given the fact that Welsh is doing pretty well as a language, all things considered. Contrast with... yeah...

Edit: needless to say, the Welsh community keenest on the "celtic" side of things was (for a long time - like, up to Saunders Lewis and the birth of Plaid...) the London Welsh. Indeed, Cymru Fydd (the first Welsh nationalist organisation, really) was founded in London. This fits the usual pattern.

Edit: Of course it shouldn't be forgot that Lewis was from Cheshire.

[12th Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes I know what you meant... but it happens to be wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay yes, but the persecution of Jews and the persecution of Witches should most certainly be seen as two different things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So then how are we Celtic then?

Don't be an ass.  400 years ago, the Irish spoke a Celtic language, and it is still their native language, even if it has been subsided by English.  It was used for 10 times as long as they have used English, and 20 times as long as English was an excepted norm.

The Irish have strong cultural ties to the Celtics, even if the ties of the Irish were the weakest of the Celtic continuum.  Granted much of that has been "revived" but it was there to begin with, and since it is basically all the Celtic world has left, I wouldn't turn up my nose at it.

The other groups that are more genetically linked to the Celtic peoples are now all more strongly influenced by the Romans and the Germans.  That includes Scotland, and Wales... especially Wales since Welsh culture was absolutely gutted.

As for the point about witches and Jews... they really aren't that different.  They certainly aren't in the eyes of Medieval peoples, but what I really mean is that trials and persecutions against witches and Jews generally have common cause during the early part of the second millennium (Hell, even afterwords), which is that some event that shakes society to its core causes some sort of mass hysteria in the population.

If it is not witches, or Jews who are to blame, well then its both, and it usually was both who were blamed.

I'll answer the rest of your points later.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know, I'm using that book as part of my general thesis.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hahaha.. If you replace "London" with "Dublin" then the same would be the case here. Especially considering that the 'celtic' aspect was strongly associated with a strong sense of romantic ruralism and anti-modernism (though I'm guessing it is same in Wales?). Of course I don't think that ideology ever effected any sort of government policy in Wales or Scotland due to the obvious fact of their non-independence, Ireland on the other hand...

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My Parents only spoke English - one of my Parents was from Roscommon - the deep west of Ireland. My other parent was a protestant whose family originally came from Northern Ireland and eventually Scotland. I have never considered English as anything other than my native tongue. Why should a language, which died out where I live in the early 18th Century, be considered my native tongue?

And what connects to me to that tiny minority of Irish speakers other than the fact that we reside and were born on the same island which happens to be the same political entity? I have more in common with those in London or New York or even Bleedin' Belfast than I do with them (being honest - I have nothing wrong with Irish speakers for the record).

[Rob]

I have never considered English as anything other than my native tongue. Why should a language, which died out where I live in the early 18th Century, be considered my native tongue?

Hear, hear! The best thing the English ever gave the Irish was their language.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Hahaha.. If you replace "London" with "Dublin" then the same would be the case here.

How shocking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct. Quite an exclusivist idea of Welshness as well - see DLG (yes, the that one)'s infamous rant about the "Newport English". And, of course, the exclusive nature of nationalist ideas of Welshness has been one of the major problems that later nationalist parties and organisations have usually failed to deal with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have S4C!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

You know, L'Académie fasciste française should consider asking the Irish government for tips on how to wipe out minority languages.

[12th Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My Parents only spoke English - one of my Parents was from Roscommon - the deep west of Ireland. My other parent was a protestant whose family originally came from Northern Ireland and eventually Scotland. I have never considered English as anything other than my native tongue. Why should a language, which died out where I live in the early 18th Century, be considered my native tongue?

And what connects to me to that tiny minority of Irish speakers other than the fact that we reside and were born on the same island which happens to be the same political entity? I have more in common with those in London or New York or even Bleedin' Belfast than I do with them (being honest - I have nothing wrong with Irish speakers for the record).

I'll just move on to another point... especially since the next point is more to the point...

You can call nationalism an artificial consciousness if you like.  If you think about it, all consciousness is artificial to some extent.  The point is that there seems to be something fundamental in the human consciousness that leads to what could be termed "nationalistic feelings."  People seek out identities, and that is one of the ways they seek them out.  Common history, common experiences, etc lend themselves to this phenomenon regardless of what people try to say about it.

In social sciences, perception is reality.  Our goal is to describe the human condition, and if alot of people seem to think this, then that lends its own air of reality to it, regardless of the protests that others might come up with.

In terms of the Roman historians, first, they are not the only source on this, but even if they were, the Romans were not kind to their enemies, and I think the fact that their historians felt the need to ascribe these particular motives to the people they largely whipped out is significant.

[12th Doctor]

Nationalist identities can exist absolutely independent of, and outside of established states, also, which is something that shouldn't really happen if more Marxist theories on nationalism are actually true, BTW.

[12th Doctor]

Understand that one can hold Marxist theories on nationalism without actually being a full-fledged Marxist.  But, in the view of such ideas, the elites always want to make good with the established order.  If nationalism is a false consciousness stirred up by elites, then how does the stateless nation not only emerge, but continue on in the face of suppression, or often times, in the absence of leadership?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Well, this might not apply to those who live in the more temperate parts of the country, but:

The massive amounts of visible yellow pollen that accumulates on cars, buildings, etc. each spring does not cause allergies.  This is pine and spruce pollen and the particles are much too large to cause any problems for most people.

The trees that cause the most suffering are oaks... whose pollen is almost invisible.  It'll keep you sneezing.

[12th Doctor]

Well, this might not apply to those who live in the more temperate parts of the country, but:

The massive amounts of visible yellow pollen that accumulates on cars, buildings, etc. each spring does not cause allergies.  This is pine and spruce pollen and the particles are much too large to cause any problems for most people.

The trees that cause the most suffering are oaks... whose pollen is almost invisible.  It'll keep you sneezing.

Gully and I are engaging in a debate about the nature of man's relationship with the nation, and you chime in with that?

...and I think to myself
what a wonderful world.

I mean that with all friendliness.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That I started the "the individuals pictured below are FASCISTS!" thing.

It was bandit. I just popularized it.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know.

The even funnier (and slightly odder) thing was that many of the founders of the Gaelic revivalist movements were actually Protestants. Douglas Hyde, our first president and founder of the Gaelic League would be a major example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah ha, yes, that is recognizable. Of course here there was another aspect the nation (after 1922 anyway) was connected with Reactionary Catholicism and an almost obsessive puritanism which makes the focus here of most people here on prudery look rather banal and ridiculous. It was almost bizarre the way at least up to 1936 (and well after in certain situations) the govt tried to eradicate all 'English' (read: stuff we don't like) cultural influences. This was in a country whose economy was still almost entirely dependant on the UK up until the 1950s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ehh.. We have TG4! Now with episodes of the OC!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please, Please don't get me started on this again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is hardly sociological data, but *shrug*. Anyway you are claiming that there is something human dividing themselves into groups... I won't disagree (but it's hardly scientific) and that these groups are inherently based around "Common history, common experience and etc" (imo a strange claim in most countries histories the major conflicts have been between groups that make up the nation not between one nation and another). This is simply wrong, while people may define themselves belonging to a group identity it does not necessarily mean a national one. There is nothing more anarchonistic than attributing 17th-18th Centuries Peasant rebellions as driven by nationalistic sentiment - yet this has played a tradition in European historiography! (So much for common history).

Religion was a more tradition marker of identity than nation anyway - and unlike nations, the religious tradition did not mandate that their group should form a 'state' based around their common religiousness (except in some extreme corners). Even as late as 1860s-70s most people in the Balkans defined themselves by religion (and even later in certain places). The concept of a Bosnian identity, just to give one example, did not exist until Tito invented it. Now there was an awareness of being a Balkan Muslim, but that is a very different thing. And woe betide who tries to define what an Albanian is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Give me another source then?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Again, I'm not a Marxist.

2. Whenever did I say that? Actually often national identities in formed in the opposite case. There is a serious historical argument btw to be made that a root cause of modern nationalism was in part migration; as moving to other parts of the world made one aware of one's differences. Certainly that's true in the Irish case, where the most fervent nationalists were often Americans (unfortunetely for us all)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not claiming that. Nationalism can be formed from below or from above (usually though somewhere in between - Marxists didn't consider nationalism "petty bourgeoise" for nothing). What I am arguing is that nationalistic sentiment is an invention and a product of history (which implies it didn't have to be the case - the map of Europe existed for centuries with no respect to the boundaries of 'peoples' - trying to change the map that it did was a cause of the great conflicts of the 20th Century. So I can't see nationalism as good thing in general, regardless of my personal antipathy towards to reactionary Irish nationalism) and that it was a relatively recent invention which will hopefully disappear one day. What I'm not arguing is that national sentiment was an elite creation by itself - even when it was it's popularity was due to the supposed cultural connections between that elite and the people.

One thing I haven't touched upon is that there can be varieties of nationalism - and conflicts of how being the 'nation' actually is. Ireland is actually an exemplary case of this, and this can lead to civil conflict (and has).

[minionofmidas]

This is not a "thing everyone knows" but rather an addendum to my last point:

Contrary to what everyone today thinks, it was the Protestants who had this strange obsession with codifying, regulating, and normalizing sexual behaviors.

Yes - well it was always there within Medieval Catholicism, but they never particularly successful. Prostitution was legal throughout Europe in the Middle Ages.

[/quote]But regulated.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

This is not a "thing everyone knows" but rather an addendum to my last point:

Contrary to what everyone today thinks, it was the Protestants who had this strange obsession with codifying, regulating, and normalizing sexual behaviors.

Yes - well it was always there within Medieval Catholicism, but they never particularly successful. Prostitution was legal throughout Europe in the Middle Ages.

But regulated.

Errr... Yes, but that's not my point, is it? . One of those medieval town fairs must have been entertaining...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Especially considering that the 'celtic' 'occitan' 'other regional cultures in France' aspect was strongly associated with a strong sense of romantic ruralism and anti-modernism.

Yay!

Pardon, French hacking in the conversation, don't pay attention, continue...

(no, Hash, I don't speak about you... )

[Hash]

Especially considering that the 'celtic' 'occitan' 'other regional cultures in France' aspect was strongly associated with a strong sense of romantic ruralism and anti-modernism.

Yay!

Pardon, French hacking in the conversation, don't pay attention, continue...

(no, Hash, I don't speak about you... )

Not this sh**t again, Benoit. Please.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bump!

[minionofmidas]

Bump!

Few people know that and it isn't strictly true anyways.

[paul718]

That Warren G. Harding invented the word "normalcy" when promising "a return to normalcy" after the Wilson Presidency.  "Normality" was the prevailing term, but "normalcy" had also been listed in dictionaries as far back as the mid-1800s. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That Pong was the first video game.

Pong was the first commercial video game, but they were predecessors that weren't released to market. In 1962 MIT students developed a sort of arcade game called Spacewar, which is probably the first example of an inarguable video game by today's standards. Even before that there were examples which arguably might qualify, one was a crude tennis simulation at a national laboratory designed to simulate how some tools used in nuclear technology worked that was developed in 1958, and electronic methods of playing chess and tic-tac-toe were developed in the early 50s, but were never mass produced.

[dead0man]

That Henry Ford raised the pay of his workers so that they would have enough money to buy his cars.

wrong

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, it was a side benefit to sell a few more cars, but it wasn't why he did it.  And he was a douche about it....but that shouldn't be shocking to anybody that knows anything about Henry Ford.