Notice the difference between the 2 last posts from Jay of Melbourme, full of fear, paranoia and brainwashing --- and the last post from Paul1405, full of factual reality.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote;

“Empathy for all sentient beings is admirable. Identification is not. It is sad when empathy for others is misplaced or misdirected towards inanimate objects, including imaginary mental constructs such as "nation".”

Isn't identification was just a part of being human? One might identify as a man or a woman, a gay person, an indigenous person, or a sporting club supporter. Life be a far more bland existence without that trait.

Life is full of imaginary constructs, in its most basic form that might describe a 'family'. A collection of individuals, often with a broad range of differing characteristics and personalities inhabiting the same space and time. As Cossomby has so eloquently illustrated the Australia we are enjoying now is markedly different to the Australia of 100 years ago, even in some respects its size. My earlier post was attempting to make the point that nation is really just an extension of those we are prepared to more deeply care about.

We are usually more forgiving of the sins of our kin, more prepared to come to their defense, to side with them, to see their point of view. We don't subpoena mother's to testify against their son's, not because we think mothers are inherently dishonest but because we understand that the court will get rather selective and biased evidence from them. Society does not condemn mothers for not being impartial why should we condemn others who might defend the county they call their own?

There are obviously some who have slithered past embracing those in their wider community and shot straight to a nationalistic stance. That it has produced a narrow or 'imaginary' construct of what their country really represents, a product of who they deem to be excluded rather than any sense of inclusiveness, is obvious.

As a slight aside I find it interesting that the words 'In God we trust' replaced 'E pluribus unum' or 'One out of many' as the motto of the United States of America only relatively recently, 1956 to be precise.

Dear Shockadelic,

<<Speaking of identification, why should I consider an immigrant (whose psychosocial self developed in an alien context for many years, including the critically important early childhood) "Australian" (a common identity) just because they live here, in the same geographical location?>>

Indeed, I really don't know why, but that's what they printed on my passport - perhaps it is for bureaucratic convenience. My own preference is to be able to travel around the world without a passport.

Dear SteeleRedux,

<<Isn't identification was just a part of being human?>>

Yes, except that we are not human. Becoming human is akin to playing a computer game where we identify with a character on the screen. Then when that character is about to get killed, one feels that they are going to die themselves, which isn't true of course. Have you had the experience of playing a computer game and when your character is attacked and about to lose its life you cannot help but instinctively kicking your feet in the air (as if it's going to make a difference)?

<<One might identify as a man or a woman, a gay person, an indigenous person, or a sporting club supporter.>>

Yes, but it is a weakness, a bad habit that is very hard to beat. While I don't condemn anyone for that, it is not something to be proud of.

<<Life be a far more bland existence without that trait.>>

Yes, that's why people go bungee-jumping despite the risk of retinal detachment.

<<We are usually more forgiving of the sins of our kin, more prepared to come to their defense>>

Yes, humans are hard-wired this way through their genes. Humans are not as hard-wired to prefer a whole nation of people who live 100's or 1000's of kilometres away, most of which they never saw. Until about 200 years ago, one was not even likely to ever meet people who live that far.

Overcoming our identification with our genes is even harder than overcoming psychologically-acquired traits. It takes many years of concentrated effort.

Yuyutsu,
You've answered your own questions.
People need a tribe and identity, it's why the U.N recognises the rights of the person right up to the rights of the nation, hence the name...UNITED Nations.
People like Nhoj and Paul are the ones engaged in online role playing, Paul recognises the strong ethnic bonds in his wife's people, he just pretends not to recognise them in his own. Anti Racism in itself is an identitarian construct, Anti Racists organise into tribes and collectives just like anyone else, it's about belonging, about setting oneself apart from others. You'll notice that Anti Racists always claim to speak for the majority, how they disparage the "racist" minority and are only too willing to form a consensus upon who's in and who's part of the out groups? That's Nationalism my friend.
Sure identity is a construct, but it's a valuable and necessary construct and competition between groups so constructed is healthy, normal human behaviour.
Identity in 2014 is more fluid than it used to be in that it can contain many identitarian components to make a whole but if anything it's become more entrenched because in a globalised, multicultural society people need a centre of gravity, or an anchor so to speak.

We can't forget that to be European is to be a nationalist, nationalism is what kept Europe from destroying itself in the 17th century, it's what ended the wars of religion and kept people like
Napoleon,Hitler and Stalin in check, it's no wonder we're attached to it.
"White" is a concept born in the European diaspora, it's not a concept which has much currency in Europe itself, it's a complex, intricately constructed and fluid identity as I've described above.
The position of White Nationalists on "Who's White?" is perfectly clear, in response to the question, "Who's White?" we answer:
"Non-Jewish people of wholly European descent. No exceptions." And if you tell us you're not, we will believe you.

<<Identity in 2014 is more fluid than it used to be in that it can contain many identitarian components to make a whole but if anything it's become more entrenched because in a globalised, multicultural society people need a centre of gravity, or an anchor so to speak.>>

Jay you seem here to be by default supporting multiculturalism. or at least recognising its existence as a legitimate form of culture. I don't disagree with any of that. You spoke of my partner who is "Maori", she and her people are not the Maori of 200 years ago, or even 50 years ago, although retaining some of the past culture, traditions, customs and language, inevitably they have come under European and other influences as their society progressed from what it was, to what it is today. No matter how much you hanker to retain the past, social change is inevitable and with an influx of migrants and ideas, that change in Australia will be more rapid than in many other parts of the world. Robinson Crusoe lived in a monoculture until Man Friday washed up on the shore, then he was living in a multicultural society.
Whilst the movement of peoples is fluid throughout the world, there is going to be that mixing of cultures, its not new, it has been taking place since the year dot. The ancient Britain's once conquered by the Romans, came under Roman influence and over time adopted many of the Roman customs, not by force but by choice.
If you want to retain "Australianism" as at today's date, can't go backwards, you will have stop all migration, stop all outside influences, drive out recent arrivals, and indeed build 'Fortress Australia', something like the Amish people in the US try to do.

Paul nobody is talking about going backwards, even the fanatical neo Nazis talk about the future, their motto is "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children".
The idea that Nationalism is backwards is complete nonsense, by definition a nation must be concerned with the future, the idea that we're stupid or primitive is simply Anti Racist in group-out group posturing.
Reactionaries in 2014 talk about what could be achieved if the spirit of 1848 could be harnessed to 21st century technology, that's not going backward. Would Garibaldi have accepted Gay marriage, unlimited African migration to Europe and Feminism? No, the idea is ludicrous but it doesn't negate his other ideas and it doesn't render them "primitive" in comparison to the oafishness and barbarity of self styled "progressives" like Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton.