Good Nationalism-- Oh yes, it's real

[ScreamingEagle]

Well I never. And to think, I repped you and everything.

That wasn't a compliment? :halo:

 

[Said1]

That wasn't a compliment? :halo:

Maybe a little. My nation would be proud - well at least in the Ontario/Quebec Liberal strongholds.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Just like PE and Arabian or Napolean in Egypt. The end result has been consistent over time. Nationalism is a natural cultural process, which can be seen implemented in more or less the same way in all societies - I mean "nations". It's starts off good, but almost always ends the same. Perhps things can be done differently in North America, I'd like to be wrong.

No it's not like PE or arabian. The sets of values they seek to implement are bad. One secular humanism. The other intolerant, totalitarian islam. Our multicultural, tolerant (even of christians), individual rights oriented values are a quantum leap in the positive direction. Calling all nationalism bad is the way to avoid actually comparing cultural values and their effects. We're already doing things differently. Your indoctriation is still blinding you.

 

[Said1]

No it's not like PE or arabian. The sets of values they seek to implement are bad. One secular humanism. The other intolerant, totalitarian islam. Our multicultural, tolerant (even of christians), individual rights oriented values are a quantum leap in the positive direction. Calling all nationalism bad is the way to avoid actually comparing cultural values and their effects. We're already doing things differently. Your indoctriation is still blinding you.

I didn't say all nationalism was bad, I said it's a natural cultural process, inevitabley required when a nation is threatened. I also said it usually starts off good, but more or less has the same results. Nationalism eventually removes the acceptance of others, because it's not about other cultures. You are not a nationalist, I know them well, I see the effects their cultural values have on their society on a daily basis.

If you want to re-define nationalism, be my guest, I don't care to argue semantics. But you have no idea how nationalism will work in your country, because it's in it's infancy.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I didn't say all nationalism was bad, I said it's a natural cultural process, inevitabley required when a nation is threatened. I also said it usually starts off good, but more or less has the same results. Nationalism eventually removes the acceptance of others, because it's not about other cultures. You are not a nationalist, I know them well, I see the effects their cultural values have on their society on a daily basis.

If you want to re-define nationalism, be my guest, I don't care to argue semantics. But you have no idea how nationalism will work in your country, because it's in it's infancy.

Our culture is a multiculture. I think it's the best thing going. I think it's best for others. I'm definitely an american nationalist. You're the one redefining nationalism.

But at least you agree not all nationalism is bad.

 

[Said1]

Our culture is a multiculture. I think it's the best thing going. I think it's best for others. I'm definitely an american nationalist. You're the one redefining nationalism.

But at least you agree not all nationalism is bad.

No, I'm not redefining it. You are not a nationalist, unless you support total assimilation and a ban on hyphens. Like I said, theory and it's application are not always intune with one another. The dictionary may have the right "defintion" but history says something else. I also said I would like to be wrong about the end results. North America consists of new countries, we have the chance to change the past.

Also, promoting nationalism is not bad when a country needs to ban together in a time of crisis. What happens to one, happens to all - and that sort of thing, Canada is not united in that way, we're very regional and of course there's the french.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No, I'm not redefining it. You are not a nationalist, unless you support total assimilation and a ban on hyphens. Like I said, theory and it's application are not always intune with one another. The dictionary may have the right "defintion" but history says something else. I also said I would like to be wrong about the end results. North America consists of new countries, we have the chance to change the past.

Also, promoting nationalism is bad when a country needs to ban together in a time of crisis. What happens to one, happens to all - and that sort of thing, Canada is not united in that way, we're very regional and of course there's the french.

Yes. I am a nationalist. The culture of my nation accepts people who wish to hang on to their hyphens. I seek to export the culture of my nation, including it's protections individual rights, and democratic governance and religious tolerance. Promoting nationalism is good when the values underlying the rallying cries are good.

Are we bringing christianity to iraq? We're bringing democracy. That's nationalism. Good nationalism.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'd say the whole neocon movement is AMerican Nationalism. And I'm sure many libs would agree. I just don't think that's bad.

 

[Said1]

Yes. I am a nationalist. The culture of my nation accepts people who wish to hang on to their hyphens. I seek to export the culture of my nation, including it's protections individual rights, and democratic governance and religious tolerance. Promoting nationalism is good when the values underlying the rallying cries are good.

Are we bringing christianity to iraq? We're bringing democracy. That's nationalism. Good nationalism.

You're helping to implement features of your government in Iraq, not unlike your founding fathers when they adapted large peices of Locke's writing (who was and englishman) into your own constitution. That's not nationalsim, that's more like being helpful. Iraqis are nationalistic and tribal enough on their own without your "good nationlism", don't you think?

In any case, a true nationalist would not find someone calling themselves African/American acceptable - you either are or you aren't. Like I said, if you want to re-define the word go ahead, but all nationalist had the best intentions, even in the very beginning - and probably argued semantics too.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You're helping to implement features of your government in Iraq, not unlike your founding fathers when they adapted large peices of Locke's writing (who was and englishman) into your own constitution. That's not nationalsim, that's more like being helpful. Iraqis are nationalistic and tribal enough on their own without your "good nationlism", don't you think?

In any case, a true nationalist would not find someone calling themselves African/American acceptable - you either are or you aren't. Like I said, if you want to re-define the word go ahead, but all nationalist had the best intentions, even in the very beginning - and probably argued semantics too.

Yes. It's nationalism, and yes, it can be helpful. I am a nationalist. You're not the official decider of who's a nationalist. You're redefining the word. I'm not arguing semanics. You are. You're the one saying "implementing certain features of our government" is not nationalism. I believe it is.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Racism is not nationalism. Ethnic intolerance is not nationalism. Nationalism around a tolerant nation is, in fact, the opposite of these things.

 

[Said1]

Yes. It's nationalism, and yes, it can be helpful. I am a nationalist. You're not the official decider of who's a nationalist. You're redefining the word. I'm not arguing semanics.

Ok, I will admit you just copied the slogan "good-nationalism" from someone else, who redefined the "term" and you just found it snappy - not that you're the official decider of anything either.

You're the one saying "implementing certain features of our government" is not nationalism. I believe it is.

What are you doing in Iraq exactly, if what I said is not a large part of it?

 

[Said1]

Racism is not nationalism. Ethnic intolerance is not nationalism. Nationalism around a tolerant nation is, in fact, the opposite of these things.

Like I said, all nationalist started out with the best intentions, it just got out of control. We have a chance to do things differently.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Ok, I will admit you just copied the slogan "good-nationalism" from someone else, who redefined the "term" and you just found it snappy - not that you're the official decider of anything either.



What are you doing in Iraq exactly, if what I said is not a large part of it?

I found numerous articles referencing good nationalism. QUit tripping. I'm not arguing about what we're doing. I'm arguing about what to call it. It IS nationalism, though you choose to call it "implementing certain features of our government", which I agree that it is, instead of calling it something ELSE it also is, which is nationalism. Stubborn is as stubborn does.

You're using rarefied definitions of the world, clearly at odds with many thinkers of the day.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Like I said, all nationalist started out with the best intentions, it just got out of control. We have a chance to do things differently.

Yes, Un-Nationalism is the New World Order.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Like I said, all nationalist started out with the best intentions, it just got out of control. We have a chance to do things differently.

Our nationalism is tolerant, and multiethnic from the get go. Our starting point has already solved the problems of the previous bad nationalisms. We're ALREADY doing things differently.

 

[Said1]

I found numerous articles referencing good nationalism. QUit tripping. I'm not arguing about what we're doing. I'm arguing about what to call it. It IS nationalism, though you choose to call it "implementing certain features of our government", which I agree that it is, instead of calling it something ELSE it also is, which is nationalism. Stubborn is as stubborn does.

You're using rarefied definitions of the world, clearly at odds with many thinkers of the day.

Honestly I don't really care what you call it or yourself, the end results have always been more or less the same....beginning good......end not so good - which is basically what I've been saying all along. For the most part, you're the one prattling on about good and bad nationalism, I'm a nationalist wouldn't you like to be a nationalist too "mantra" ....... not moi. Tomato-tomahto.

And btw, what you are doing in Iraq is not nationalism, Iraqis nationalists would never allow that.

 

[Said1]

Yes, Un-Nationalism is the New World Order.

What?

 

[Said1]

Our nationalism is tolerant, and multiethnic from the get go. Our starting point has already solved the problems of the previous bad nationalisms. We're ALREADY doing things differently.

I thought you were against multi-culturalism anyway? Was that all for show?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Honestly I don't really care what you call it or yourself, the end results have always been more or less the same....beginning good......end not so good - which is basically what I've been saying all along. For the most part, you're the one prattling on about good and bad nationalism, I'm a nationalist wouldn't you like to be a nationalist too "mantra" ....... not moi. Tomato-tomahto.

And btw, what you are doing in Iraq is not nationalism, Iraqis nationalists would never allow that.

But we've identified the not so good ending, and have come up with the concept of individual rights to combat it. Hence, going forward, our nationalism contains these improvements.

I believe nations should pursue their interests individually. --This is another definitions of nationalism. The smart ones will see the long term benefits of cooperative trade and tolerance.