Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: We shouldn't--and we won't--start a war with Russia over Ukraine. But.... [View all]stevenleser
(32,886 posts)43. They are behaving like negative nationalists as described by Orwell.
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
By nationalism I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled good or bad(1). But secondly and this is much more important I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests.
.
.
.
It is also worth emphasising once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations.
.
.
.
(Examples of) Negative Nationalism
(i) Anglophobia. Within the intelligentsia, a derisive and mildly hostile attitude towards Britain is more or less compulsory, but it is an unfaked emotion in many cases. During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell ore when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, enlightened opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.
By nationalism I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled good or bad(1). But secondly and this is much more important I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests.
.
.
.
It is also worth emphasising once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations.
.
.
.
(Examples of) Negative Nationalism
(i) Anglophobia. Within the intelligentsia, a derisive and mildly hostile attitude towards Britain is more or less compulsory, but it is an unfaked emotion in many cases. During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell ore when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, enlightened opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
84 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
We shouldn't--and we won't--start a war with Russia over Ukraine. But.... [View all]
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2014
OP
What if this was setup by the CIA to cause war in order to justify more Pentagon $$$
JaneyVee
Mar 2014
#21
Let's see the U.S. invaded Iraq. They said it was because of WMDs, but the real reason was oil. The
lostincalifornia
Mar 2014
#27
Actually, the people of the Crimea are quite happy with Putin tonight. I have no problem with that.
reformist2
Mar 2014
#6
There are always reasons to justify unprovoked wars of aggression. Just ask George W. Bush. nt
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#25
What amazes me are the number of DUers who suddenly become fans of such wars...
ConservativeDemocrat
Mar 2014
#41
It's ironic how the most accessible online library about Orwell...
ConservativeDemocrat
Mar 2014
#53
I agree. If Orwell were writing this now, he would replace Britain with the US in that essay.
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#54
Putin needs to have much worse happen then condemnation. If the Ukraine doesn't ignite a war
okaawhatever
Mar 2014
#11
I don't get that sense. This doesn't seem like a victory for him, it seems more
TwilightGardener
Mar 2014
#17
Simple fact is that he couldn't influence at least half of the country to
TwilightGardener
Mar 2014
#65
Since Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for the US/UK/Russia gaurentee of
kelly1mm
Mar 2014
#13
There's nothing wrong with Putin that a couple of our drones wouldn't cure nt
LiberalEsto
Mar 2014
#14
Oh yeah. that wouldn't at all create an insanely ultranationalistic environment in Russian politics.
JVS
Mar 2014
#56
I think the situation is far more complicated than what would warrant obvious condemnation
alcibiades_mystery
Mar 2014
#18
Do you understand that at least half the population of Ukraine is ethnic russian?
Warren Stupidity
Mar 2014
#24
There isnt going to be any aggression. Crimea will vote to separate from Ukraine. Eastern Ukraine
Warren Stupidity
Mar 2014
#28
The unprovoked war of aggression has already started. Russia admitted its troops are operating in
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#29
Good point. That treaty and agreement, WHICH RUSSIA SIGNED, prohibits them doing what they are doing
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#39
Russian history comprises repeating cycles of collapse followed by re-conglomeration.
Maedhros
Mar 2014
#58