Keith Russell

Gurdur, I'm curious.

Was there a particular aspect of Dune that turned you off?

(The sequels, perhaps? LOL...)

Keith.

Gurdur

*sigh*
Not only did you give every evidence of not reading my responses any where near fully, you also did not specify "dying to the last man to defend territory"; your only real specification was that they were only useful for suppressing civilians, and would run away from real solidiers.
Plus you ignored my point about the examples I mentioned being real soldiers rather than mercenaries.
I do, but I doubt your sincerity, Clutch.
This is no less than the second thread where you simply haven't replied directly to me, and I'll be damned if I waste time on someone who just isn't interested in the real argument, but more interested in scoring "personal points".
How about you give some evidence that you've read all that I've written in this thread, and actually reply to that, then I'll go away and dig up all the available evidence ?

Again, you go for some irrelevent rhetorical point.
Your assertions were simply wrong for WW 1; and as for WW 2, almost everyone felt at great personal threat, a much higher motivation than pure patriotism.
___________

Edited only for aberrant spelling.

Gurdur

Everything; the unrealism, the teenager mentality, the cardboardy teenager characterization, the artificial melodrama, the poor writing, oh, and the sequels.

Bill Snedden

/killall flamewar

Oh, that probably won't work here. Guess I'll have to do it the old-fashioned way.

There will be no flamewars in the Philosophy forum.

I would like to politely request that all posters refrain from imputing motives to actions, or finding malice or guile where mistake or ignorance may suffice.

Thank you,

Bill

seanie

I think within Europe you are seeing a weakening of the Nation state. To varying degrees people have always had a hierarchy or multiplicity of identities. Alleigances to your neighbouhood, city, region etc. But for the last few centuries the Nation has been supreme. And often other identities have been supressed in order to promote the interests of the 'Nation'. In the 19th Century there was an effort to rebrand the Scots as North British. It didn't take hold.

Now the weakening of the Nation state is not really driven by a desire for homogeneity. In part it's driven by a desire for diversity. That's what you see in the resurrection of regional identities. Its a reclaimation of identities that have been smothered by the nation state. And such movements are chipping away at the nation state from beneath.

At the same time there' a recognition of the limitations of the Nation state (as well as some of the dangers). Given some relatively unhappy experiences in the 20th Century Europeans' have some awareness of the dangers of intra-national competition and rivalry. Since WWII there's been a concious effort towards cooperation. And this inevitably involves ceeding sovereignty up the way to a European level.

So the nation state is being weakened in two directions.

Gurdur

More on this huge area from various angles:

An argument that in fact corporations are nowhere near actually as powerful as they're painted to be

A report mentioning the various militias in Sierra Leone

A report in the (UK) Guardian, February 14 1999
"Army to privatise key units
By Antony Barnett and Mark Honigsbaum
Private sector 'mercenaries' could be hired by British military forces for deadly work on the front line of war zones. ...."

The British Foreign Office argues for allowing licencing of mercenaries

(The above two play a direct role as good examples of the current redrawing of philosophy of law, government and war)

Correspondance in the Guardian on the diamond trade, mercenaries and private armies

USA privatised warfare in Peru

This is such a huge area that I'ld suggest people come up with their own examples and the philosophical angles thereof, and we can take it from there.

Gurdur

I'ld say only in some, and for different reasons; the main one being that certain nation-states are being weakened by minorities that want their own nation-state -- the idea itself is hardly weakened at all, but in fact strengthened.
From above, you'll see why I disagree with this.
And that is very true, though certainly not of all of Europe.
The Common Market leading into greater political fusion, etc. etc., your point, Seanie, is very valid.
Still, it's very much all a balancing act; in certain places such as the UK and Denmark, there has actually benn steps away from fusion back to greater sovereignity.

Hugo Holbling

I'll try to make a relatively profound point by way of an anecdote.

Back in my student days i studied in the Netherlands for a time, as some already know. This opportunity was part of the Erasmus program in which we were able to gain an appreciation or understanding of other cultures while studying; the implicit aim appeared to be to expose students to different European nations in order to help the European project in general (although the US was still a popular place to study).

There's no doubt that this program was and still is successful. I grew to love the Netherlands after a short time and began to question my own country and the way "it" did things. I contrasted the Dutch approach to problems to the UK's, and especially the differing methods of dealing with social issues. Soon enough i learned that no one culture was better than any other and that i had been foolish to value my own so highly when knowing little or nothing about others (just my opinion...). I decided that being born on one side of a line on a map was not my fault and was of no consequence; there is good and bad in all nations and much to be learned from any way of doing things. This attitude was widespread amongst students, both foreign and Dutch, and we considered nationality of little import.

Content with my burgeoning cultural conscience, i ventured into the town centre on a Saturday when the Netherlands were playing football. The streets were deserted, with giant Orange flags hanging in every window. I rushed home, remembering about the game, and sat down to watch it with windows open. Gradually i found myself on the edge of my seat, without realizing that i had moved there. The world outside faded away and i watched Kluivert score in what seemed like slow-motion...

The Netherlands erupted into noise. In my neighbourhood it was deafening, as though everyone was screaming. It was probably the most amazing aural phenomenon i have ever experienced.

My point is pretty obvious, but i'll state it anyway: let's suppose the nation is dying, to be replaced by companies. Where will the sports teams go?

(Like i said, i think this is deeper than it seems at first glance...)

AnthonyAdams45

See American football, which only pretends to regional, let alone national ties.

And I agree, your question is a deep one, and my answer serves to echo what several other respondents have already noted: I believe Babbitt to be describing a uniquely American view of things which does not capture the rest of the world at all. Since the '60s the United States has be come increasingly consumer oriented (something the 19th century world wouldn't have believed possible.) At some point someone had to suggest that the nation is a corporation, but law is not a product nor is citizenship like employment. Americans don't see that till you point it out to them (see 11Sep02). I rant for a week, but I think you get the point. Babbitt's view lacks breadth.

seanie

The UK is actually an interesting example.

In the excerpt from the OP there was a comment that nations do not create states, states create nations. Well that's true in Britain's case. We're a state comprising seperate nations that were joined in a marriage of convenience, a union that was instigated by the respective states. It wasn't a joyous coming together of kindred spirits.

However now that we've been together nearly 300 years there is an overarching 'British' culture, given our shared history. However you'd be hard pressed to define what it was. In fact rather than a single shared culture I think it's better thought of as multiple ovelapping cultures.

And within that, allegiance to the original nation hasn't been lost (at least in Scotland's case, England's situation is more confused). I'm pretty sure the majority of Scots would describe themselves as Scottish before British. Over recent years the pro-independence Scottish Nationalist Party has gained in support and is now the second party in Scotland (Thatcher managed to wipe out the Conservatives as a political force). But the curious thing is that wheras English natioanlism (to the extent that it exists) tends to be fiercly anti-Europe, Scottish Nationalism is largely pro-Europe.

I'm not sure this is helping me explain myself. Bear with me.

Scotland is a nation. It is because that's what the people in Scotland believe it to be. However it's not a state. It's entwined within the British state, which was formed for econimic and political convenience. The Nationalist are seeking a rearrangement wherby Scotland the nation disentangles itself from the British State and, for political and economic convenience, embeds itself within a European state.

I think there lies a possible distinction between a nation and a nation-state. I think a nation is a cultural, emotional construct, wheras a nation-state is political construct. Now when you see emergent nationalism be it Scottish, Catalan, Welsh or Cornish, there seeking to express themselves as a nation of sorts and to wrest sovereignty that's been ceded to their respective nation-states. However they're not seeking the trappings of the traditional state, nor are they seeking autonomy. It more a redistribution of power.

Now I don't think this necessarily means the end of the nation-state, and certainly not the end of nations. For purely practical reasons you need to sub-divide geographical areas for administrative purpose. That will continue along the lines of the existing divisions (reinforced by language barriers and cultural ties). But I think the nation-state is being weakened as the political structure of Europe develops.