Nationalism..........

[pcongre]

Martin,
'you would be surprised to know how many people in Europe know about the Catalan question'

Why are the tourists wearing mexican hats and saying ole and arrivederci all the time then

'many of the children who were born from those Castilian inmigrants speak Catalan and behave like 'pure' Catalans'

agreed. el problema és q eren altes hores de la nit i em vaig deixar portar..(sorry, its just that i aint able to translate everything)

'Incidentally, Columbus a Catalan sailor? Hmmm... very difficult to believe, I am afraid. What kind of source documents ahve been consulted in order to arrive at this conclusion?'
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forums/Forum1/HTML/000268.html

'I hope I have not sounded like a loud-mouthed bigot'

uh?

[This message has been edited by pcongre (edited 01-09-2000).]

 

[unmerged(234)]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you feel proud of being whatever nationaly you are?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you want to sacrifice your life for your country?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. I could stand the idea of sacrifice it to keep it democraticly and free from opression but that is nothing I really want.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you be ready to experience a new WW2 just so your country can live on?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No but to avoid dictature.



[This message has been edited by Janbalk (edited 02-09-2000).]

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by King Christian IV:
And different cultures will be more and more assimilated into western culture and morality, cos, we all know, it our culture which is spreading, not the native rainforests indians culture

While non-Western countries are undergoing processes of industrialization and 'modernization', the 'Westernization' of their cultures is far more limited. Not to mention that the culture of the West seems to be eroding as Western power decreases, a process that would only be accelerated in a world government, especially one operating on any sort of one man-one vote principle.

As for your original question, while I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice my life for a country in isolation, I would be willing to sacrifice my life on behalf of any number of different countries if the cause was good.

Btw, 'apropos' is an English word (taken from the French, naturally.)

 

[unmerged(45)]

First of All I will say how delighted I am that this has not degenerated into a 'my country is best' war that I think we have all seen before..

This is my first post in a while, And after reading this entire topic I have to say one or two things

It is incredibly easy to feel patriotic (this is the first mention of this word in this topic..just an interesting thing to note)...these feelings are present in most of us, I must admit that when I first walked down Whitehall, even now I felt proud inside, very proud - but what do we have to be proud about? a lot, and what do we have to be ashamed about? a lot. I feel bad inside at what we did to the Indians throughout the 19th Century and half of the 20th, and the way that for years the British economy relied heavily on opium, and a while before that the slave trade, our massacring of countless African and Indian armies...but despite this I cannot lose sight of Britians sheer bloody-mindedness and our impertenance at being a world power when we had no right to be, This points out that although merely knowing the good parts of history is dangerous, a knowlege of the 'less popular' bits of history puts it in perspective and makes for a more balanced nationalism (although this is still based on believing that you should be proud for what poeple did 200 years ago, it is only human ans all-too-natural)

Every country has a 'nemisis' and a 'joke figure' of other countries - Britians nemisis used to be France, for a while it was Germany and now that honour returning to France again - her joke figure is Ireland, the US has Russia and Poland (why are polish jokes funny, I don't find them funny because they only sound like ripped-off Irish ones, and Irish jokes aren't really funny anyway - you just laugh because you've been brought-up laughing at them)

Now think about a 'United States of Europe' At the moment we are divided, suspicious, and in some places militant (bask seperatists, Irish republicans and loyalists etc...) There is a spreading theory that Globalisation of Media will break down the barriers between states and put at an end all this 'bickering' - however without a common enemy the 'USE' or the 'United States of Earth' would fall-apart. with no driving force behiend it...the administration would fall apart and a great war would occur. Globalised society can never truly become a reality - there will always be differences, and rather than these differences getting smaller the gulf between societies will widen through mutual consent, maybe in the future world it will be intellectual rather than territorial, but some form of gap will always exist between people - this is the way people operate and the way people like to operate, It makes them feel secure.

As a closing note, I am not a pessimist and I do believe in a single currency for Europe and hope that Britain ties closer links with Europe, but I cannot forget my nations history, and I would not want to. And I would bearly be able to stop myself from fighting to stop Britain from joining a USE - I don't know why, its a gut feeling that its not right (I feel the same way as the first poster C4 about 'punching a German')...and its people who cannot... nay, do not want to resist the urge to fight for nationalism that make the USE an uphill fight, and although I know is benificial for me and my country, I would have a hard time not being caught-up in patriotic stupidity (for thats what it is)

phew...I got caught up there and produced something that is completely 'UK' orientated and I wish to cause no offence to anyone by what I have said or what I have implied - I am, as I think most people are in this day and age a confused and semi-disillusioned Patriot and above are my ravings.

'Whitey'

[This message has been edited by Whitey (edited 02-09-2000).]

 

[unmerged(201)]

This a touchy subject, and so far people here have been able to not wage a verbal war against there 'natural heridary' ennemy... Something bother tough in the use of the world 'nationalism'. Because I can't believe that so many people are so proudly nationalist.
I start from the idea that we all learned from history to be careful of any word finishing with -ism that pretend to bring an absolut truth. For the rest of the development I beg pardon in advance for this maybe a bit too centred on a French view, but they are just exemple.
I'd like to react to a couple of points Iread that puzzled me about the vision of Europe...

NATION AGAINST NATIONALISM. You have to separate the concept of « Nation » from the ideology « Nationalism ». There are not the same and they both new in their modern definition (circa 250 years). For exemple, in France, the idea of nation was a decisive factor in the French revolutionnary troops’ moral when fighting the first coalition trying to bring the king back to power. The idea of nation was also a decisive unifying factor as in most countries, it helped to build a united society, to keep inner dissent down and make possible to have a global project for the country. Nation established against inner minorities (crushing minority cultures) and the birth of nation’s pride that soon became a disease : nationalism.

NATION IS NOT AN OBJECTIVE NOTION. It is build up but helps people to there is a Truth out there. « Our » people? « Our » customs? « Our » history? All that is not objective at all. Just have a look at the « official » history (e.g. the one you learn in school). A lot of beliefs like the Bible but no proofs, a lot of interpretation and no questions allowed on the shadowy parts... French will talk about the greatness of the resistance to the nazis and forget a bit that Vichy was not an accident. Swedes will remember the heroic Wallenberg and forget how happy many were that norwegian were crushed by nazi Germany and to make money by selling them iron... But we end up with national myth : the resistance spirit in France, the we-nice-and-peacefull-nation in Sweden, the a-the-holocaust-it-is-a-German-problem and so on. A nation is all about myth and belief, if possible easy to understand ones.
What you held « true » about your country is totally build-up. I let you imagine what I think about the validity of an ideology that is build on such weak basis... None.

NATIONALISM. Love your country is OK, that what we can call being « patriot ». Being « nationalist » is something far worse. Nationalism is a sick idea using nation as establishing the definition between « them » and « us », where « them » are a potential threat to « us ». It led to a couple of millions deads in Europe, so it’s time to be carefull now, no ?

EUROPEAN UNION. The actual building of an European unity is against nationalism, but not against the idea of nation (main difference with United States that obviously has the problem to mix different migrant populations into a nation, whereas Europe is made of different nationalities in rougly old separated territories).
Nation is a question of identity (where am I from,? Who am I ?). Union is a question of unifying our strenght despite our differences (there are a lot, even if not conflictual, if I refer to my experience of travelling and living through western Europe). Union won’t work if its not a question of using those differences as a strenght (I always thought that the motto for Europe should be « Our differences make us stronger »).
I disagree with Doomdark when he says that Union means bureaucracy as shows the United States or the European Union (if you think 20.000 civil servants is much, just think its not even the size of the Paris city administration...) : it means finding the commoness that make us going forward together and help each other if in need.
I think that Union can work on the condition that they are voluntary, democratic and caring about the people (far away fro the Soviet model). Otherwise it’s a disaster.

EURO QUESTION. An independant monetary policy with a national currency is a myth. Most of central bank are either independant (that is they don’t obey to politics but to economic problematics) or are dependant on a foreign currency... If a country wants to keeps its national pride by having its national money, fine... if they want to keep paying extra interest rate for this luxury... Good luck for the « ja » in hte next Danish referendum.

 

[unmerged(202)]

Originally posted by Falp:
EUROPEAN UNION. The actual building of an European unity is against nationalism, but not against the idea of nation

Is europeanism much better than nationalism? For example, if the EU lowered the customs towards the third world, they would fare a lot better. Instead, we Europeans have to pay more for our food and the poor countries outside the EU get less.

Originally posted by Falp:
(main difference with United States that obviously has the problem to mix different migrant populations into a nation, whereas Europe is made of different nationalities in rougly old separated territories).
Nation is a question of identity (where am I from,? Who am I ?). Union is a question of unifying our strenght despite our differences (there are a lot, even if not conflictual, if I refer to my experience of travelling and living through western Europe). Union won’t work if its not a question of using those differences as a strenght (I always thought that the motto for Europe should be « Our differences make us stronger »).

Actually, I think the reason why the US does so well is because they do have an integrated culture and common language. Most great unions and empires have been divided into different regions/cultures/languages and that's why they failed. I realize there are differences within the US also, but they're not enough to stop people from moving between NY and LA when they get a job there. Would a Spaniard move to Helsinki if he got a job there?
That's the problem with the EU, there are so great culture and language barriers that separate the nations, so that the union will undoubtedly fail. At least that's my opinion.

Originally posted by Falp:
EURO QUESTION. An independant monetary policy with a national currency is a myth. Most of central bank are either independant (that is they don’t obey to politics but to economic problematics) or are dependant on a foreign currency... If a country wants to keeps its national pride by having its national money, fine... if they want to keep paying extra interest rate for this luxury... Good luck for the « ja » in hte next Danish referendum.

Actually, the Swedish interest rate is lower than the European. Don't know about the Danish, though.
And when you don't have an own currency, you lose the seignorage (pardon my spelling) profits.

/Martin

P.S. Go Denmark, go!

 

[King Christian IV]

As long that Denmark won't be hit by valuta speculants again, like in '98. Or Sweden in '92! Denmark has got the ERM II deal with the European Central Bank, which will make sure that kronen stays close up to the Euro, although it won't help us against speculants!

I'm glad so many in here support the idea of a common currency.

C4

P.S Sapura and Pole, I hope that Poland will be a member of the EU within long

 

[unmerged(212)]

I'm not going to touch on the issue of nationalism, but now that the topic of the common currency has come up, I'd suggest fans of the Euro ponder one issue.

Why has the value of the Euro fallen 23.9% against the US$ since inception?

I don't think anyone in this forum can definatively answer it, as there isn't even a consensus for the reason for this decline among world-class economists. All of the non-EU Europeans who are clamoring for their Nations to join the Union may want to step back and mull this over before they take the plunge.

BTW - The outspoken Danish lad may want to take note that the proper term is 'speculators.'

 

[unmerged(90)]

Or is it the USD that rose 24% against the Euro?
It is not exactly the same thing after all.
- US economy is stronger than ever and EU's economic growth is not so good (remember that Germany is the heavy weight of the Union (and the DM was the cornerstone of the Euro) and its growth is not really impressive), but the Yen gained also against the Euro whereas their economic situation is not very bright...
- Interest rates in the US are higher than in Europe (nearly 2 points if I am not mistaken)
- Inflation does not seem to be a problem here
- Euro is still virtual and people seem to have difficulty with this, and THAT cannot be assessed easily.

However, a strong dollar means easier exports from Europe, and on the other hand more expensive imports (quoted in dollars). This is beginning to become worrying as imported inflation is rising sharply now although the EU imports less than 10% of its global GDP (no surprise with oil at 35$ and 1$=7.50 FF)...

The dollar in the last twenty years ranged from 3.50 to 10 FF, so 7.50 now is a bit high but still acceptable.

 

[King Christian IV]

Originally posted by Jiminov:
BTW - The outspoken Danish lad may want to take note that the proper term is 'speculators.'

Thanx for correcting me, I didn't knew the English word, so I just made the Danish word look a little English


------------------
*says like a chicken*

 

[King Christian IV]

Originally posted by yndenwal:
Or is it the USD that rose 24% against the Euro?
It is not exactly the same thing after all.

Well, that's just what I had in mind to say


------------------
*says like a chicken*

 

[unmerged(212)]

General Yann,
First of all - let me congratulate you on your new lofty rank... good show and now the rank of Field Marshall is only 99 posts away!

Secondly, technically speaking... I think the dollar would have risen 31% against the Euro, as the denominator in the equation is different.

Third, I chose the reference to the dollar as the de facto world currency. One of the major beliefs about the Euro was that it would be competing against the dollar as the most commonly quoted currency, but this still hasn't happened. Most of the currency reserves held on a global basis are dollars rather than other currencies. Global commodities like oil and gold are quoted exclusively in dollars.

Fourth, There may be a further erosion of value in Euro: the JP Morgan acquisition rumor, potentially higher oil prices, the potential need for a EU rate cut are all contributing factors. However, it is a fact that since its inception, the Euro has fallen against all major currencies (Sterling, Yen, etc.). The economic issues in Germany and the other core nations are clearly a major part of it, but the coordination isn't there and the currency markets (i.e. speculators) are figuring out that the co-ordination of this monetary instrument is going to be very difficult.

So, what can we conclude from all this? Economic theory debates can get tedious in a hurry. However, the bottom line for me is that I hope to get to Paris soon in order to buy another Hermes scarf at Printemps for my darling wife while its still a relative value. The converse to this is that when you next visit the US, your purchases of collectables (I don't know what a Frenchman would find interesting here) will be unfortunately a lot more expensive.

 

[unmerged(90)]

General Yann,
First of all - let me congratulate you on your new lofty rank...

Thank you General (this forum is really getting each day closer to a Mexican army)

Secondly, technically speaking... I think the dollar would have risen 31% against the Euro, as the denominator in the equation is different.

I could not agree more. After all you're the banker, I'm the consultant...

Third, I chose the reference to the dollar as the de facto world currency. One of the major beliefs about the Euro was that it would be competing against the dollar as the most commonly quoted currency, but this still hasn't happened. Most of the currency reserves held on a global basis are dollars rather than other currencies. Global commodities like oil and gold are quoted exclusively in dollars.

Perfectly true also. The belief of the Euro as a second World currency is perhaps the biggest mistake. Their was perhaps a political will in that direction but this kind of thing cannot be forced. Even relacing all DM, FRF... in reserves by Euros (which is technically the case) would not make it the first reserve currency. With time, and when Euro is really in daily use, then perhaps this can change slowly. As for global commodities, as long as sellers do not see the interest of having Euros rather than dollars, they won't sell in anything else than dollars.

The economic issues in Germany and the other core nations are clearly a major part of it, but the coordination isn't there and the currency markets (i.e. speculators) are figuring out that the co-ordination of this monetary instrument is going to be very difficult.

Clearly it is harder to co-ordinate one monetary policy with (one day) 15 economic policies. This is all the debates about who should do what (European Central Bank, EU...) and about the role of speculation and speculators on a given market.


(quote]Economic theory debates can get tedious in a hurry.[/quote]
Yep. I liked that when I was a student, but I'm getting rusted...

However, the bottom line for me is that I hope to get to Paris soon in order to buy another Hermes scarf at Printemps for my darling wife while its still a relative value.

Welcome to France !

The converse to this is that when you next visit the US, your purchases of collectables (I don't know what a Frenchman would find interesting here) will be unfortunately a lot more expensive.

Anything technological and American can be found sometimes at half the price (like telescopes...) BUT if you go for business, then you have such a price advantage against American competitors right now...

 

[unmerged(212)]

Senior Jeffe General Yann -

LOL - Mexican Army!

I've been thinking about some additional Euro related issues. Going back to your original point about a pure comparision to other dollars is a good point, because why it has fallen most dramatically against the dollar, it hasn't fallen that much against other currencies. So that asks the question of, how would the collective currencies of the EU fared without the Union? Its clearly a purely theoretical issue, since the currencies were effectively locked in place prior to the actual implementation.

The other bright point of the Euro is that it has improved the efficiency of the capital markets. The Bond business in general and the high-yield (i.e. 'junk') market in particular have seen huge improvements in volume. I think its safe to say that the improved allocation of capital will eventually result in enhanced economic activity. In the long-run this should help bolster the value of the Euro as a global currency and possibly enhance the EU sense of a National identity (see we can get back on-topic eventually).

In the meantime, I've seen some suggestions here that the Euro could plunge further, and the 'bottom' might be about 0.83 to the dollar. Not too long ago the big question was - would the Euro break dollar parity (meaning 1:1).

 

[unmerged(90)]

In the long-run this should help bolster the value of the Euro as a global currency and possibly enhance the EU sense of a National identity (see we can get back on-topic eventually).

One of the discussions concerning the Euro -and the symbol it represents- concerns the banknotes.
They have already been designed and are being produced right now (remember we'll have to completely change notes and coins within six months from Januaru the 1st 2002) and their design is very critical and is not going toward the building of any kind of European identity.
There could be no good agreement on what the notes should represent, so it was decided they would have drawings of bridges, windows and other architectural themes not really linked to any country (one side, the other should be a little nationalized).
I really don't understand this and I see this failure as the proof of a still non existent European identity. Why shouldn't we have great Europeans or great monuments on our banknotes? I understand Napoleon, Bismarck and some others could disturb some people but why shouldn't we have musicians, painters, scientists and great politicians.
Mozart, Bach, Vivaldi, Ravel, Van Gogh, Velasques, Michel Angelo, Descartes, Sartre, Kant, Spinoza, Hobbes, Platon, Hölderlin, Hugo, Goethe, Shakespeare, Adenauer, Monnet, Churchill, Garibaldi, the EIffel tower, Buckingham, Schönbrunn, the Reichtag, Venice... They are all part of our European heritage and I cannot see any good reason not to honour them.
Moreover, each time I go to a foreign country, I like looking at what/whom the banknotes represent. Bridges and windows won't be very cultural I fear...

------
Viva Zapatta

 

[unmerged(212)]

Generalissimo Yann,

I've only been in Europe twice since the Euro was implemented, and both these visits were to Germany (achtung!) but it seems to me that its pretty easy to disregard the Euro, unless you're looking for it. In Frankfurt, there are plenty of places that list the price in both DM and Euro (my computer doesn't have the 'E=' symbol). However, in smaller towns (Muenster, Fussen, Wurtzburg) I ususally only saw price in DM.

As an banker, I spend most of my time thinking about the economic drivers of the Euro's weakness. However, since you'll have to be using it day to day, your concern about what its actually going to look like is appropriate. I think that the fact that they can't even agree on what the currency is going to look like goes a long way to proving that the Euro has a long way to go before it helps to bind the people together.

 

[King Christian IV]

ehhhh.... they have agreed about how the Euro's is going to look?

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Falp:
EURO QUESTION. An independant monetary policy with a national currency is a myth. Most of central bank are either independant (that is they don’t obey to politics but to economic problematics) or are dependant on a foreign currency... If a country wants to keeps its national pride by having its national money, fine... if they want to keep paying extra interest rate for this luxury... Good luck for the « ja » in hte next Danish referendum.

It's true that central banks are (mostly) independant of political considerations and make policy decisions based purely on economic data. However, a country with its own currency will have a central bank that responds to the economic needs of that country and only that country. In the Euro zone, monetary policy will be set according to what is most beneficial for the Euro countries as a whole, but this policy will be more appropriate for some countries than others. This means that joining the Euro is a much tougher decision for any country that has significantly different economic cycles from the Euro zone average. Of course, this negative effect has to be weighed against the positive benefits of joining, but the choice is hardly clear-cut.

 

[King Christian IV]

DK

That's not right, at least not in the case of Denmark, since we have made an agreement with EU (THe ERM II treaty) which make sure that we follow the Euro's course no matter what. So therefor nothing really is going to change there. But in the Swedish case, it's a bad one! But all Swedes, remember when we had a common currency? Those were the days..... to bad that Scandinavia didn't become one country. Not alone are we all Scandinavian brothers, but we would also have been one mighty nation!!

------------------
*says like a chicken*

 

[unmerged(212)]

DK is right on about the economic incentives of most central banks, they try to manage for what they see to be the greater good.

What the greater good is actually is of course itself is a bone of contention, and as we say in the US, it can pit 'Main Street' against 'Wall Street' or more plainly stated the workers against big businesses. The central bankers want to see the see sustainable growth which ideally leads to a combination of modest inflation and modest unemployment. The theory goes that an excessively exuberant economy will lead to inflation, which in the long run will harm the country. So when the economy is strong, interest rates go up to curtail capital investment and projects so that there is less need for new workers anciallary spending and ultimately less demand which cuts back the inflationary pressures on the economy.

Most businesses and workers historically dislike the central banks for the fact that they have to play this unpopular role of cutting back on the good times. However, as the citizens of developed countries become more attuned to economic theory, a rate increase is sometimes seen as a good thing, since it helps preserve the overall strength of the economy for the long run - despite the short term pain.

This arrangement is difficult enough for the US Federal Reserve (our central bank) which has a system of 13 governors from different regions of the country that meet and decide what to do about rates based upon their own research on their respective regions conditions. However, these governors don't have much of a cultural or ethnic affiliation with their representative region. I think most of them are academics or financial specialists that have actually lived in many different parts of the country.

Now contrast this with the EU situation. You've got a whole bunch of people who are trying to breath some life into the Euro, while maintaining a decent home economy. Skeptics have always thought that this was the Euro's achilles heel, and based on the record of the Euro, it looks like they were correct so far. Things could change for the better, but who knows - like I said before, world-class economists can't even agree on what needs to be done to improve the situation.