What would the right wing look like if it had not embraced nationalism.

I think we have pounded on MB enough here..

Mea culpa, might have been a tad unnecessary harsh.

A better discussion would be to consider the differences and misinterpretations of political and cultural terms for today. To my mind racism is a form of tribalism, such as we see in the American political and cultural wars ongoing today.
Racism is a form of tribalism, but there is a pretty big difference in holding to racist ideology and acting racist. Everybody sometimes do the later, even if they are not ideologically racist.
 
If I recall correctly, that methoid of slavery was a exploitation of the declaration by the Spanish Crown that classified the natives as legal minors, no? There was a podcast I listened to a few months ago about the settlement of California and that was how it explained how missons obliged the natives to work their cattle lands.

Interesting information but I'm not sure that this was universally applicable to all Spanish colonies in the Americas. It seems that in many areas they pretty much left the existing tribal structures with their leadership (casiques) having a legal status close to the Spanish nobility with addressing as "don" and "dona" and a lot of privileges (IIRC, title Inca in Peru had been abolished only after uprising of Tupac Amaru II in 1781). In Mexico special privileges of the casiques had been abolished only after the revolution of 1821 and in Peru after gaining independence in 1825.

Probably situation was noticeably different in the wilder places like Spanish California.
 
6. The left wing also embraced nationalism in the 18th-19th centuries. In fact, nationalism was originally a liberal ideology formed in opposition to the conservatism of the Congress of Vienna and the associated institutions.

Even today, there are many nationalistic movements that are left-leaning (Québec, Scotland, Catalonia, Ireland...)
 
Interesting information but I'm not sure that this was universally applicable to all Spanish colonies in the Americas. It seems that in many areas they pretty much left the existing tribal structures with their leadership (casiques) having a legal status close to the Spanish nobility with addressing as "don" and "dona" and a lot of privileges (IIRC, title Inca in Peru had been abolished only after uprising of Tupac Amaru II in 1781). In Mexico special privileges of the casiques had been abolished only after the revolution of 1821 and in Peru after gaining independence in 1825.

Probably situation was noticeably different in the wilder places like Spanish California.
Yes, but the native nobility, where recognized, was still subordinate to Spanish overlords. As far as I can tell, this differed according to times and places in Spanish America, but it was generally a thing especially in Mexico and Peru, where the older Native imperial structures were more or less taken over by the Spanish. However, a Native noble lineage usually did not have the same same status of a Spanish one.
To my understanding, in general Native commoners were still treated more or less like serfs in most cases (even where their masters had Native ancestry).
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Even today, there are many nationalistic movements that are left-leaning (Québec, Scotland, Catalonia, Ireland...)

Agreed, but the term left-leaning needs further clarification. Some lean authoritarian on some issues and libertarian on others. Some hold to socialist tendencies, others are more open.
 
Yes, but the native nobility, where recognized, was still subordinate to Spanish overlords.

Of course, with the territory owned by Spain they were subordinated to the Spanish administration. How else could it work?


As far as I can tell, this differed according to times and places in Spanish America, but it was generally a thing especially in Mexico and Peru, where the older Native imperial structures were more or less taken over by the Spanish. However, a Native noble lineage usually did not have the same same status of a Spanish one.

It was quite close and if you had "don" before your name, you were a noble. Of course, there were various degrees of nobility but this applied to Europe as well.

To my understanding, in general Native commoners were still treated more or less like serfs in most cases (even where their masters had Native ancestry).

During the times you are talking about (all the way to the late XVIII) the serfdom had been a commonplace in many European countries so this was considered a normal thing.
 
This should come with a proclamation that this is referring to the west. In the Arab world, nationalism is markedly left wing; whilst the conservative tradition is far less nationalist and focused heavily upon Islam or interpretations of such. Compare say Egypt and Iran to Saudi Arabia.
 
Last edited:

SwampTiger

Banned
This should come with a proclamation that this I referring to the west. In the Arab world, nationalism is markedly left wing; whilst the conservative tradition is far less nationalist and focused heavily upon Islam or interpretations of such. Compare say Egypt and Iran to Saudi Arabia.

Yes, most of these posts are from a decidedly western perspective. We have yet to hear from any East or Southeast Asian perspective. I would suspect the Arab nationalist movements were often tied to anti-colonialist movements. Although some, such as Turkey, were both looking forward to a stronger/rejuvenated nation, and backward to a treasured past. I am not sure where Iran is going, to an Iranian nationality or a Shia theocracy or some alternate future. Any insight would be appreciated.
 
Yes, most of these posts are from a decidedly western perspective. We have yet to hear from any East or Southeast Asian perspective. I would suspect the Arab nationalist movements were often tied to anti-colonialist movements. Although some, such as Turkey, were both looking forward to a stronger/rejuvenated nation, and backward to a treasured past. I am not sure where Iran is going, to an Iranian nationality or a Shia theocracy or some alternate future. Any insight would be appreciated.

Do you wish to have my opinion on the political developments in the Middle East since the Ottoman Empire, with eye toward left-right distinctions? Or simply the experience of Iran?
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Any or all of the above. My view from outside has been of a confused struggle between modernizing autocracy against regressive monarchy and theocracy with a large dollop of colonialism, which is far too simple, and reflects a western bias.
 

Gian

Banned
If I may, I should add that there's a rather stark difference between the nationalism in the U.S. (which is more akin to patriotism) and Europe. You'd have to nip American patriotism in the bud if you wanted to get rid of the right-wing nationalism (at least in the U.S.) as per the OP.

Knowledge actually has a video which explains this:
 
Even today, there are many nationalistic movements that are left-leaning (Québec, Scotland, Catalonia, Ireland...)

OK, one can hardly be too much to the left from Marx and Engels and Engels was clearly a German nationalist writing quite a few things about the German nation (including German-speakers in Austria) being inherently good in warfare. Dr. Goebbels had similar opinion on the subject so you had all extremes of political specter covered. ;)
 
Top