

Cyber-nationalism: The brave new world of e-hatred  - parker
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11792535

======
mynameishere
I'm actually sort-of impressed by the wide variety of different types of
"extremism" that article identified. Normally, it's just "a few hillbillies
wearing wifebeaters, nothing to see here, move along..."

As usual, however, the point is missed entirely.

There are people out there who genuinely hate human sub-groups because of
membership differences. Such people are rightly marginalized--literal hatred
is an ignoble, dangerous quality. But the vast, vast bulk of what is described
as "hate" is simply ordinary human inclinations that happen to deviate from
the beliefs of international elitists.

Take Tibet. The Tibetan movement (which I _don't_ follow closely, so correct
me if I'm wrong) is essentially a nationalist movement. Do we call it a
"nationalist" movement? Not usually. Liberals are collectively enamored of
Tibet, for some reason. If the good people of South Carolina try to secede
from the union, that's a tremendous sin...and blood will have to flow.
Yet...it's the same impulse. People who are just trying to govern themselves,
rather than _be_ governed. That's the heart of nationalism.

When the Chinese government moves to keep their country in one piece _THAT_ is
called nationalism. Okay, whatever. It's actually imperialism, but...whatever.
Any lie will do, if it works.

~~~
ntoshev
_People who are just trying to govern themselves, rather than be governed.
That's the heart of nationalism._

This is very wrong. Do you think nationalistic parties suddenly seize to be
nationalistic in the moment they get the power to rule their country? Do you
think that no government appeals to nationalism of their own people?

Nationalism is anything that appeals to members of a nation to defend a each
other against a real or perceived threat. Nationalism of a national state gone
big - China, Russia, Japan - becomes "imperialism".

