I'm with Putin on the revolutionary war, probably for slightly different reasons. Canada is a free and independent state and didn't have to murderously rebel against the ruling authorities to get indepedence.
Whether or not British rule would have been more "effective" is an interesting question - what do you mean by "effective"? - but ethically speaking, yes, the British government likely would have been much more fair to indigenous peoples.

Putin, would you care to flesh out that argument a bit more? I'm curious to hear your reasoning.

"This thread, by intent of erist, will devolve into a Putin-esque "Amerika Sucks and All Evil in the Universe is Their Fault". Don't bother..." -Krellin

"You think the US would be more effectively and ethically governed from London than from Washington? :S" -redhouse

"Nowadays? Who knows. In the year 1775? Yes." -Putin

LOL

London didn't really intervene in the affairs of the colonial assemblies. The colonies rebelled because they were used to London not intervening at all except for external taxes, and they then implemented an internal tax. Other than that it was a policy of benign neglect. I don't know why the telephone matters. The British amassed the world's largest empire before the telephone was invented.

Why do I argue it'd have been more effective in 1775? Well I think the years of political crisis in the immediate aftermath of the war demonstrate that. We replaced largely autonomous colonial assemblies with a political class that couldn't figure out what it wanted its political system to be, and that was internally divided between sympathizers of the French Revolution and opponents. Not to mention regional conflicts like the West vs South vs Northeast. If we had acknowledged Parliamentary Sovereignty this wouldn't have been an issue.

But effectiveness is not really the reason why I said the revolutionary war was not just. The reason I argued that is because the colonies had no real reason to be upset with the most liberal government in the world.

We could go on all night.

As a Canadian "nationalist" I find I must utterly disagree with your premise. I consider globalism to be one of the most negative influences on many countries. If it were up to me any business which didn't contribute to the local economy by stocking at least 50% Canadian products would be seized by the state. That would promate the emergence of businesses that refine our natural resources. So we aren't wastefully selling them for cheap and destroying our environment. I think all nation states should strive to be self sufficient such that global trade becomes a matter of trading for things we want. Not things we need.

The only thing. I really do agree with is that large states are naturally unwieldy. Which is why its important to have a vibrant system of local governance under national governance

Anarchists love circular firing squads? Yeah like kronstadt huh putin

One of my favorite fictional characters Stephen Maturin once said, "But you know as well as I, patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country, right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile."

I find myself in shocked numbness, as I agree with Putin on almost every count in this thread. I am on my cell phone, so I will comment later, but Putin can sometimes say something that I dont want to print and burn

@ Putin: "I don't doubt it's a nation, I just don't get the rationale for it. Were the Danes abusive? What's the point?"

To a certain extent, yes, it was percieved that the Danes were abusive - or at least that some Icelanders were unhappy being ruled from Copenhagen. Iceland became independent from Denmark as a result of a popular movement which did, in fact, gain quite a lot of momentum in the 1850's due to a perception that Denmark was failing or refusing to consult the people of Iceland regarding the passing of various laws which directly affected Iceland. These protests and campaigns led to a form of devolved "home rule" being granted to Iceland in 1874. This proved a success and prompted calls for Icelanders to have ever greater control of their own affairs, culminating in 1918 when Denmark granted Iceland sovereign status and the Kingdom of Iceland was established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Independence_Movement

Here's the thing though. In order to be a 'state' don't you think you're required to have an army? Iceland has no army whatsoever. It has no defense budget. Having an independent state with the population equivalent to the size of a medium sized city in the US makes little sense to me.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-BB625167-150FBFB5/natolive/nato_countries.htm

Putin have you never encountered the concept of a city state before? :-P

I'm personally of the belief that the city state is a much more effective until of organization. It has the right amount of people such that democracy can still have an effect

Damian, the purpose of acquiring the trappings of statehood is to be independent. In order to be independent in any meaningful sense you have to be able to defend yourself if another entity challenges your independence by invasion or some other means. Modern City-states, with the notable exception of Singapore, cannot do this. And even in Singapore's case, it is entirely at the mercy of its immediate neighbors for resources & trade. Its entire water supply comes from Malaysia, who has threatened to shut it down on a number of occasions. It depends on bigger states to keep trade open because its entire economy is dependent on it. City-states cannot possibly be self-sufficient, and an entity that isn't self-sufficient is not, in my view, 'effective' as a form of organization.

"http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-BB625167-150FBFB5/natolive/nato_countries.htm"

Isn't delegating defense of your country to NATO even more detached and unaccountable than having Denmark do it?

Aren't the people of Iceland in the best position of all to answer that?

Many city states were only viable due to the allies they had. Consider the multitude of city states that existed in Italy or Germany. They remained alive due to a web or alliances.

As for being able to secure/maintain a military independence. If that's your definition for a state I think a lot of nation states shouldn't be defined as such. Canada probably couldn't hold its independence if any of the great powers decided it should be annexed. I think your definition is bogus.

And yes it is harder to maintain a self sufficient city state. However a city with surrounding land can support a populace. And aside from a few examples there are almost no nations at this point that are self sufficient with there present population.

Agreed, also, Denmark remains obliged to help Iceland in case of emergencies, only through NATO, and they'd probably have a prominent position when something happens to the island. I call BS on your definition.

+1 FOR DR STEPHEN MATURIN MOTHAFUCKAAAA

Anyway I agree with redhouse's distinction between patriotism and nationalism though i don't think those words are normally associated with those two distinct things, could be wrong though. But under that definition I think patriotism is fine, and even good, but nationalism is shit-all.

And I agree with Utom about why it's claptrap - the implication that one place or people is more important or morally worthy is anti-egalitarian and therefore morally disgusting.

@ Putin: Actually although Iceland has no "standing army" their Coast Guard is actually quite well armed, and a lot of their police are combat trained and have access to armaments. Icelandic troops are serving, or have recently served, in both Iraq and Afghanistan as part of NATO 'peacekeeping' forces.

I would also add that Iceland successfully defended its sovereignty against the UK during the "cod wars" in the 1950s and 1970s including a number of actual confrontations with British warships - although no gunfire was exchanged there were a number of ramming incidents.

I don't have any problem with idea that one people are more important or significant than another. Indeed, I think the concept is fundamentally human and to fight it is to try and stamp out part of humanity, which is morally disturbing. I am quite happy with Yanks seeing Yanks as the most important. I am not remotely annoyed by the French seeing France as the centre of the Universe. I myself dedicate far more energy to making Britain a better place than I do to some foriegn land (for which I am sure forigners are eternally grateful :p).

Yes, in times of trouble we have a duty to lend a helping hand to those of distant lands, but we are all so much better off when we help our neighbours as a priority.

yo jamie can you link me something about these icelandics serving in afghanistan?

never heard of that

Also, come on Octavious. You know you're just baiting me. Don't be an asshole.

I will simply respond by saying that there is no effective difference in me caring a lot about some housewife in Colorado a few thousand miles away, some French girl in primary school in Brittany, or some refugee wasting away in the Horn of Africa.

One of those is in my own nation, and two of them are a part of my cultural "civilization," but when you get beyond the people I immediately know, all of those distinctions are invented.

Also, your argument cannot be justified, because some lands do not need as much betterment as others do.

Lastly, do you not see that the point of this thread is to remind us that thinking like this "I don't have any problem with idea that one people are more important or significant than another." leads to bloodshed?

"Yes, in times of trouble we have a duty to lend a helping hand to those of distant lands, but we are all so much better off when we help our neighbours as a priority."

I would like to isolate this statement of yours for analysis. We will first agree that our proximate neighbors should not be neglected according to their needs and our ability to help them meet them.

Next, however, I challenge you to meaninnfully prove to me that the Global South is not experiencing a decades-long "time of trouble." Compare the lives of those people to the lives of people in your neighborhood and you would be hard pressed to say that they are not in "trouble."

Lastly, do you not see that the point of this thread is to remind us that thinking like this "I don't have any problem with idea that one people are more important or significant than another." leads to bloodshed?

I don't believe it does, no. I lived for some time next to an arrogant arse who was quite convinced he was better than us, and yet at no time was I in fear he'd attack me with his garden rake or attempt to do me harm. Bloodshed is caused by fear or greed or love, not a sense of superiority or local priorities.

I would also say that a homeless refugee in Africa is no worse off than an isolated elderly woman living alone in a Western city. Indeed, given the choice I'd be the refugee every time.

Octavious, you are making too much sense for the purpose of this thread. Please go along with the irrational fears that the left wing has for people who love their country or leave.

@ erist

Your entire premise is bologna. You assume (incorrectly) that nationalism and patriotism invariably lead to war and the resultant industrial-scale death.

What if people are nationalistic and patriotic because they are proud of their country, their fellow citizens, and the values that the country and the citizens represent and fight for?

America!

Just, wow... as an Icelander I am both shocked and awed by the immense ignorance laced with arrogance that Putin has shown here towards my country. Jamiet and redhouse seem to have done their homework better although I would add that the United States has a military obligation, defined in a treaty from 1952 (as well as the NATO pact) to defend Iceland should anything ever happen... which it won't.

Also, while Iceland has no formal army we have had peacekeepers performing civilian roles such as logistics and air traffic control in Afghanistan, and by all accounts performed admirably.

It's always quite interesting when Putin33 discusses a country, or a situation, and then someone pops up who actually lived in that country or situation and sets him straight. The last time I remember that happening was when Putin was applauding communism in eastern Europe and Zmaj popped up to tell him how rotten the whole system was. Zmaj then appeared to be from - I think - former Yugoslavia and Putin interestingly concluded that Zmaj never lived under a communist regime.