[Demosthenes]

Nationalist vs. Internationalist by The Immortal Goon

1. The more we learn, the more obvious it becomes that everything in the world is connected

A. Strongly Agree
B. Agree
C. Neutral
D. Disagree
E. Strongly Disagree

2. The nation is a living entity that deserves respect and protection

A. Strongly Agree
B. Agree
C. Neutral
D. Disagree
E. Strongly Disagree

3. Industry within a country has a fundamental right to advance, regardless of international concerns (wages abroad, pollution, etc).

A. Strongly Agree
B. Agree
C. Neutral
D. Disagree
E. Strongly Disagree

4. External wars are a case of “Rich man’s war, poor man’s fight.”

A. Strongly Agree
B. Agree
C. Neutral
D. Disagree
E. Strongly Disagree

5. It is crucial to understand that though the development of nations happened independently and in different ways, the development of nations is part of a larger and shared world history

A. Strongly Agree
B. Agree
C. Neutral
D. Disagree
E. Strongly Disagree

6. It is difficult, and perhaps even impossible, for someone from a foreign nation to be expected to become a truly loyal citizen of my country.

A. Strongly Agree
B. Agree
C. Neutral
D. Disagree
E. Strongly Disagree

7. In an ideal system, there should be more important international forums in which to work. Perhaps, ultimately, an international government.

A. Strongly Agree
B. Agree
C. Neutral
D. Disagree
E. Strongly Disagree

8. The concept of a national border should be emphasized as little as possible

A. Strongly Agree
B. Agree
C. Neutral
D. Disagree
E. Strongly Disagree

9. I am a citizen of the world.

A. Strongly Agree
B. Agree
C. Neutral
D. Disagree
E. Strongly Disagree

10. Interaction with the rest of the world is more trouble than it is worth. Each nation should strive to handle their own affairs as easily and efficiently as possible.

A. Strongly Agree
B. Agree
C. Neutral
D. Disagree
E. Strongly Disagree

[Red Star]

May be something gauging opinion on whether national myths should be exposed or accepted as serving a function? This would probably contribute to an understanding of whether a poster is more likely to stick to his nation or see nations as "imagined communities" and not worth supporting.

[The Immortal Goon]

That's an interesting suggestion. You're speaking, I presume, about things like the Columbus myth; where the jingoists in America want him to retain his heroic status despite all rational history.

It would be an interesting question to posit. Do you think that there's a weak question there that should be replaced?

If it helps, this was my rational:

1. While this seems metaphysical and such, the question is phrased as such as a means of establishing a base-line tendency toward internationalism or not. It does not explicitly promote nationalism as a belief in things are connected does not exclude one from nationalism - and this should be rectified by the second question that leans toward a baseline nationalist tendency

2. Again, this has nothing to do with internationalism as one can certainly be an internationalist that sees various forms of nationalism living as equals and working together. My proposed purpose, more than anything with the first two questions, is to separate the zealots out early so more subtle questions can be put forth later on

3. This begins to focus in a little bit more. In addition to the ardent nationalists,you’d still find an Irish Socialist-Republican on the hard left possibly giving an enthusiastic yes on this question, as you might find your Maoists and various others going for it.

4. This, like question three, is more narrow. There are nationalists that would still agree with the assertion, but the bottom line is the idea that class transcends nationalism

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uneven_and ... evelopment

6. This one becomes increasingly obviously nationalist, with less possibility that a segment of the internationalists would find agreement with it

7. This one is increasingly obviously internationalist, with less possibility that a segment of the nationalists would find agreement with it. I had to add the “ideal system” clause because there is the possibility that the radical would object to globalization instead of internationalism. This creates the possibility that a nationalist may interpret “an ideal system” as Germany to be ruling the planet, but this seems like a further stretch than the aforementioned confusion.

8. This is a double edged sword. The protectionist would find fault with such reasoning, but the outstanding jingoist would find greater and more severe issues with this statement. The Canadian border, for instance, could almost disappear for all practical alternatives, but there are the ardent nationalists that like it there for the sake of being there

9. Hopefully, this statement will be taken as a truism for the internationalist and absurd hippy-talk for the nationalist. I’m kind of betting on the visceral reaction a little bit on this one. What do you think?

10. A little something for the isolationists out there

[Red Star]

That's pretty much what I mean, yep. National myths are recognised by all historians as existing, and there seem to be two camps - the functionalists (the minority who recognise the role they play as beneficial and worth defending; a position that most of the lay population would probably agree with though) and the enlighteners (who see myths as something to be recognised and revealed to the population). These could be origin myths like that of Columbus; martyr myths such as that a country "sacrificed" itself so it is owed something (popular in the Balkans vis-a-vis the Ottomans for example); etc. What I think it can reveal is an attitude towards the nation - I believe even nationalists recognise that a nation is a community in the imagination: not all nationalists would subscribe to a purely blood/genetic national idea. However, a desire to destroy these myths would thus seem to aim at the destruction of the nation itself, as nationality is based on myth.

I am not sure which question it could replace though. May be 7 or 10 - as they seem to have common ground? For example, a nationalist might agree with proposition 7's first part: the original idea was that nations would guarantee security after all, as states did (the Vienna Congress system may be?). Also I think putting the "international government" and "international forum" in the same question might lead to someone who really agrees with something such as the UN or Arab League or whatever but not with a world government to waver as to how to answer the question.

Just my thoughts anyway. The "myth" question is not key after all, I think you've done a sterling job on this, TIG!

[The Immortal Goon]

I think seven is better than ten. For some reason, I feel like there should be a subtle nod to the UN and similar organizations if possible. But you're right in that they're both nods to a certain group I was trying to pick up and could be aid to be redundant. I suppose another issue is how to phrase a question such as you brought up.

Perhaps something like:

Nationalist myths provide a nation with an important sense of identity. Whether literally true or not, they express truths that need not be tampered with.

Or

Even if it has a widespread emotional or foundational impact upon a nationality, a nationalist myth is a part of history and should be challenged and reinterpreted as we learn more.

I think you've done a sterling job on this, TIG!

Cheers!

[Red Star]

I think the first one is the wording I would go for, it seems to convey the character of myths in terms of cohesiveness-formation more strongly. If you do want to put it in, that is.

[The Immortal Goon]

I think it's a viable replacement for 10, myself. Let's see if anyone else thinks so. You and I might be blinded by the possible academic implications of bringing up such an issue up.

[Red Star]

Too true, actually. Let's see if anyone notices though!

[Demosthenes]

My thought is to replace #10 with the first suggested revision. One aspect of the test I strongly want to hold on to is one where bias will at the very least appear to be even. I don't expect any of our biases to escape notice, but I think if we try and write some of these from the opposite perspective we can achieve most of that. As I have come to agree with where you two are going, I think replacing #10 first of all keeps the bias more balanced, but also develops TiG's points most completely of the two options given.

If you two, or anyone else is open to it, I can just go ahead and add it in, as is.

[The Immortal Goon]

That sounds great to me!

[Red Star]

I approve!