Nationalism is an interesting concept, and one we tend to think about as having been in existence for much longer than is the case. Yet it has only been in existence since the 1700s, roughly speaking. Before then, the world was structured largely according to kingdoms and realms. Subjects fell under the jurisdiction of a common ruler, but shared few of the unifying cultural markers such as dress and language which nationalism offers society. In that sense, as Benedict Anderson labels it, nationalism is an 'imagined community' borne from the mind and expressed through print-capitalism (institutions). Cultural identities and ties then flow from the creation of a homogeneous community and the institutions which are set up within a particular state.

Yet I believe that nationalism, although a human construct, is a natural expression, and in that sense an innate quality. Since the dawn of time, animals have marked out their territory and reacted to those that violate the boundaries laid out. We are not so different, as some would like to think. Animals naturally bond with those of the same species, and as humans we are naturally inclined to identify with those of our own racial heritage. Being a nationalist is not racist or xenophobic, it's just a modern-day expression of an age old instinct. It is not the politics of division, or at least does not have to be in the destructive sense. To evoke Khrushchev, it can and should be more about 'peaceful coexistence'.

The other thing I would like to add is that despite the ramblings of certain numpties on the extreme left, people across the world are not all the same. British people, collectively speaking, are different from the French, the French are different to the Americans, and so on and so forth. The irony is that differences between us today are the net result of nationalism. National boundaries mark different styles of institutions, and these institutions in turn mould our character. Humans have the capacity to transcend these differences, but it is neither desirable or easy to do so. That is why such a construct exists in the first place. Thus, the present bourgeois drive to create a European superstate is being pushed through with reckless speed and with no consideration of the practicalities of such a project. It is unnatural, and largely unwanted, because of our collective desire to identify ourselves with the familiar.

As for the question 'Is Britain racist?', it barely deserves qualifying with an answer. In any case, unless one were to undertake an in-depth statistical analysis of the levels of racism in each and every country, and then perform a comparative analysis, it is impossible to answer.

Edited by SwalecliffeEagle (05 Jun 2015 5.32pm)

Persia and Rome were Empires, not nations, and Henry V's Britain was a Kingdom. History shows that identifying primarily with your nation didn't really occur until the American and French Revolutions, ie. when popular movements formed around national autonomy arose. Up until then, people were far more likely to identify with their region, religion or town.

It may sound like I'm just being massively pedantic but it's actually incredibly significant. National identity is a product of technological progression. If you're a peasant in 16th century England, you probably will never leave your town in your lifetime, you will hear little to no information about other parts of the country, and the only time any unified national authority over you would be taxation and war. When railways, printing press etc. begin to crop up, information becomes more widespread and easier to transport, thus the emergence of national identity.

And that's why the idea that nationhood is an innate quality is a load of bollocks.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Many of these people are from African countries other than Lybia. Most of these countries, including Lybia, are chaotic shambles - as are most African countries, South Africa is catching them up fast.

Another topic! Immigration has been a central theme in this thread.

We are not responsible for the deaths. The traffickers are and the corrupt, hopeless governments they are fleeing from.

This country has been drifting to the lib-left for many years. Yes we have a Conservative government, but it is so similar to say Blair's Labour or the Liberal twerps. Pro-EU (albeit giving us a referendum, although that is probably unwinnable), same-sex marriage (hardly a right wing measure), open door immigration, no reform of the NHS etc.

I'm sure you think anyone who doesn't agree that Socialism is the great answer to all our woes is "incredibly dangerous" for our society (you would wouldn't you?) More dangerous than the 'negligible' terrorist threat I suppose.

Edited by derben (05 Jun 2015 6.09pm)

The two main nationalities of people in the Med are Syrian (who we've been bombing) and Eritrean (who have been bombed by Ethiopian arms which we sold). I know it won't mean anything because you regard me as some sociopathic Marxist but I find your lack of empathy for these people staggering considering the plight they find themselves in and the impact our foreign policy has had on them. Of course we are responsible for their deaths because our national policy actively prevented these people being saved. Washing our hands of it is criminal, these are normal people who have been killed by our bombs, tyrannised by governments we've supported then left to die by our boats.

You are rapidly replacing Matt as my favourite far-righter on HOL Derben, respect. Anyone who regards this Tory government as a bit left wing really is staggeringly to the right. But my favourite thing about you is how you are painting your own image of me in your mind, just like Himself does. I actually don't really like terrorists, and while I of course disagree with people who don't hold my political beliefs, I'm comfortable enough in the minority view knowing that, realistically, fully-automated luxury Communism is not going to come about any time soon. I'll stick to telling Tories like yourself why you're wrong

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

New left, what passes as left wing these days - no longer representing or helping ordinary British working people, instead concentrating on various minorities, and usually holding ordinary British working people in contempt. That's why a lot of them voted UKIP.

The new lib/left isn't really socialist, everyone has realised that it just doesn't work in practice. Ok, the Tories are not left as such, but they share the contempt of ordinary British working people with New Labour and the Liberals. The current Tories also share the new left bias towards minorities with same-sex marriage and pandering to various minority pressure groups and playing softly softly with the likes of the 2011 riots. The hardcore new left of course just support anything that is anti-British and anti-American (just like the old hardcore left did - I know, I associated with them). It's a sort of reverse patriotism, see how fervent they are about say Palestine.

Edited by derben (05 Jun 2015 7.33pm)