Venting thread

[alice]

I'm beginning to doubt nationalism is anything but an excuse to look down on people born improperly. Is there truly such a thing as good nationalism? Closest i can muster is preserving oppressed cultures from erasure/ violence.

I wonder what you would make of Scottish nationalism.

[Starbeam]

I'm beginning to doubt nationalism is anything but an excuse to look down on people born improperly. Is there truly such a thing as good nationalism? Closest i can muster is preserving oppressed cultures from erasure/ violence.

I wonder what you would make of Scottish nationalism.

I'm not a fan of (country)states, tho I support independence movements like that.

[Vijay]

I'm beginning to doubt nationalism is anything but an excuse to look down on people born improperly. Is there truly such a thing as good nationalism? Closest i can muster is preserving oppressed cultures from erasure/ violence.

I wonder what you would make of Scottish nationalism.

I'm not a fan of (country)states, tho I support independence movements like that.

"Nationalism" seems to have a similar connotation in India, referring to the independence movement (India's right to exist as a nation rather than as a colonial lackey) rather than to racism, anti-immigration, etc. (maybe Modi and his fan base/non-fans-who-are-actually-fans have started to get these mixed up idk).

[Starbeam]

I'm indifferent to whether or not a country exists and in many ways abhor the idea. However, anything that puts out English colonialism is fine by me. I definitely would rather yet another state existing than imperialism be unchallenged.

[Vijay]

India was not a country before the British showed up. Instead, South Asia was made up of a large number of (often very small) kingdoms. As a result, the monarchs in control of these kingdoms frequently went to war with one another, and some at least had no qualms about allying themselves with a colonial power in the process. If British foreign policy was to divide and conquer, then half the work was already done for them in South Asia. Once they did the other half by conquering it, they named it "India" and split it a few times according to their own whims despite widespread popular resistance. For the first time in South Asian history, ordinary people throughout the region united in the interest of throwing off the British yoke, and it worked. The lesson to us was that if we don't stay united as a country, we can't put an end to a foreign colonial regime, let alone prevent one from controlling us in the first place.

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that countries shouldn't exist at all, but I know from this how crucial strong alliances are, and many things need to change for borders to be dismantled entirely.

[masako]

This is very frustrating.

[Starbeam]

The lesson to us was that if we don't stay united as a country, we can't put an end to a foreign colonial regime, let alone prevent one from controlling us in the first place.

There's such a thing as unity without a central state. I don't value vertical authority, because then you're operating off an honor system for people with unfathomable levels of power. I just have no reason to trust authorities given socially approved control over that much people will consistently not abuse it, or that no option is better.

As for protexion, bear in mind this is less about uniting and more about not having a state. There's this notion that countries and central organization are some guarding and stabilizing force, but I find this ridiculous. Militias and organization can form without them being detached from the average person in the area or being considered the ultimate authority. And I get not everyone is cut out to be part of the militia or each single organization; again, I am simply opposed to those groups being a specialized class of people and given uncheckable power.

On another note, I doubt there was such a concept as India-national unity or South Asia-unity before it needed to be invented, but I'm not here to be the ethnicity police.

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that countries shouldn't exist at all.. many things need to change for borders to be dismantled entirely.

Borders should be dismantled entirely, even if nothing changes. Countable numbers of passersby and tourists can cause harm, but it's nothing compared to an army or navy and certainly not worth the drawbacks of having borders in the first place.

EDIT: Also, I know how i'm coming off, but I don't mean for this to be a heated discussion on my end. I know you're being nice to me.

[Vijay]

There's such a thing as unity without a central state.

Right, which I think would be ideal. But fending off foreign powers was something that took us hundreds of years to achieve, so I really think it's important to be able to do that right from the get-go, or else for invasion to be somehow made altogether impossible.

Borders should be dismantled entirely, even if nothing changes.

The problem is that if nothing changes, anyone could take over India all over again, and then we'd be back to square one. The entire independence effort where we tried every damn thing we could think of, even making bombs in London using a Russian bomb manual translated into English and purchased in France and then smuggling said bombs in, would come to nothing. At best, we'd have to reinvent that effort several times over from scratch.

EDIT: Also, I know how i'm coming off

Nah, you're not.

I know you're being nice to me.

Don't worry. I know you are, too. Being nice doesn't have to mean agreeing on every single thing.

[Starbeam]

Right, which I think would be ideal. But fending off foreign powers was something that took us hundreds of years to achieve, so I really think it's important to be able to do that right from the get-go, or else for invasion to be somehow made altogether impossible.

There isn't as much stopping a single, formal head-of-state from being a bootlicker; as opposed to a fluid, revolving door of unofficial organizers and whatnot. Again, one can still unite and not be under a vertical authority. The things I would theoretically want removed are any unchecked controls of violence.

The problem is that if nothing changes, anyone could take over India all over again, and then we'd be back to square one.

Militaries don't play by the rules of borders and are absolutely going to ignore it or overcome it should they decide to do anything. The border patrols of every single country that has them only really work foolproof against individuals, maybe small groups. Moreover, armies don't exactly hide among tourists, emigrants, and other passersby. The only violent group I can possibly see doing something like that are spies, which are still not the multitude needed to tear a county down.

Also, relief to know I was coming off well.

[Travis B.]

I am personally ambivalent to nationalism for the reasons mentioned above - on one hand, I tend to see overarching nation-states as oppressing local cultures, but on the other hand they may be necessary to prevent even greater oppressors from oppressing local cultures. Yet at the same time, there is the opposite, which can be summed up as "better perfidious Albion than perfidious Delhi", where local oppressors may actually be worse in ways than far-off ones.

[Starbeam]

I am personally ambivalent to nationalism for the reasons mentioned above - on one hand, I tend to see overarching nation-states as oppressing local cultures, but on the other hand they may be necessary to prevent even greater oppressors from oppressing local cultures. Yet at the same time, there is the opposite, which can be summed up as "better perfidious Albion than perfidious Delhi", where local oppressors may actually be worse in ways than far-off ones.

What gives Albion the right to call itself not as bad? Nobody in their authorities had any reason to care about the average Indian, and it showed because there were multiple famines and massacres that killed millions of people. Even if they had somehow been "better", let me put it like this: I'd rather somebody make their own mistakes than for me to be their parent. The decisions of other people that don't affect you or anyone outside of them will never be yours to make. And frankly, I'm arguing about the ideal not an impossible-to-guess comparison of malicious colonialism with less malicious government abuses.

Yeah, India's government is by no means acceptable, but I would never even halfway suggest a foreign power puppet it. At least locals can live and care about the person there more easily, even if not garanteed.

[Travis B.]

I am personally ambivalent to nationalism for the reasons mentioned above - on one hand, I tend to see overarching nation-states as oppressing local cultures, but on the other hand they may be necessary to prevent even greater oppressors from oppressing local cultures. Yet at the same time, there is the opposite, which can be summed up as "better perfidious Albion than perfidious Delhi", where local oppressors may actually be worse in ways than far-off ones.

What gives Albion the right to call itself not as bad? Nobody in their authorities had any reason to care about the average Indian, and it showed because there were multiple famines and massacres that killed millions of people. Even if they had somehow been "better", let me put it like this: I'd rather somebody make their own mistakes than for me to be their parent. The decisions of other people that don't affect you or anyone outside of them will never be yours to make. And frankly, I'm arguing about the ideal not an impossible-to-guess comparison of malicious colonialism with less malicious government abuses.

Yeah, India's government is by no means acceptable, but I would never even halfway suggest a foreign power puppet it. At least locals can live and care about the person there more easily, even if not garanteed.

The context in which I heard the phrase is with regard to language policy in India, i.e. why many favor English as a lingua franca over Hindi, despite the fact that far more Indians speak Hindi than English. It was not meant as a justification of the British misrule of India.

[Starbeam]

Fair enough, but please state such next time.

[Vijay]

Militaries don't play by the rules of borders and are absolutely going to ignore it or overcome it should they decide to do anything.

Right. But in the case of India, the fact that India is most of South Asia makes it one of the biggest countries in the world, which is intimidating enough for foreign powers that no one has invaded it since independence. If India was still as split today as it was before the colonial period, I think the US would surely bomb everything but Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Mizoram, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, and maybe Manipur, and only because they're in the Himalayas and don't have anything the US is interested in exploiting yet.

[Starbeam]

What's with the deliberation on the mountainous areas? That's kind of a digression and having nothing to actually steal hasn't stopped the US before.

Again, I do not believe you need a country to protect anything. A lack of a government is not necessarily the same as a split. The change is how power is structured not who is aligned with what.

[Vijay]

What's with the deliberation on the mountainous areas? That's kind of a digression and having nothing to actually steal hasn't stopped the US before.

True. I was thinking of the fact that the US has never seemed particularly interested in Nepal, let alone Bhutan, but then it hasn't been in Sri Lanka, Maldives, or Bangladesh, either, just Pakistan, I guess. And China and Taiwan have both technically claimed Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur. EDIT: India also seems pretty interested in Nepal and Bhutan.

[Raphael]

On a lighter note, I am apparently unable to carry a bowl of hot soup from one part of my apartment to another part of my apartment without spilling hot soup everywhere, including on my hands.

[Starbeam]

I'll get to Travis B.'s comment in a bit but i need to vent something unrelated first:

Why the fuck is it important or at least approvable to viciously hate people for being born improperly? Who gives a shit if somebody is English or German, nothing fucking happens to you if you see them as full fucking humans not objects of scorn. People need to belong to a culture, or at least not be hated for being born icky.

[malloc]

Horrible news. I accidentally drank something nonvegan. Just lost my five year kale chip. Goddamn it all. The one thing I could legitimately call successful about myself and now that's gone.

[Ares Land]

That was accidental You're not in any way responsible. That's, like, what 'accidental' means.


(I'm not vegan -- in fact, more likely to be horrified when I accidentally eat kale, but I do know animal products can be found in very unexpected places )