Nationalism Is ALWAYS Dangerous

Status
Not open for further replies.
rtwngAvngr said:
Kathianne, you've accepted the pc associations that nationalism = bad. It's only bad if the values of the nation are evil. Our greatness is because of individual freedoms. This is what we spread when we spread.
Hardly. I've thought nationalism extremely negative since reading about WWI. Not good and European nations are more prone than most countries to this phenonema-well except China and Japan. Mix xenophobia with hyperpatriotism with hubris and national delusion to get nationalism. While the US is very patriotic by and large, nationalism just isn't something such a diverse country falls into.
 
Nationalism does not require xenophobia, hyperpatroitism nor national delusion. The population of a country can certainly be very proud of it without hating or attacking every other country. A dose of nationalism might go a long way in mending the rifts in our country and educate a few ingrates along the way.
 
dilloduck said:
Nationalism does not require xenophobia, hyperpatroitism nor national delusion. The population of a country can certainly be very proud of it without hating or attacking every other country. A dose of nationalism might go a long way in mending the rifts in our country and educate a few ingrates along the way.

Then our definitions of nationalism are different.
 
here's your definition Kat.

Mix xenophobia with hyperpatriotism with hubris and national delusion to get nationalism.

Here's the actual definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nationalism
Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

What's the alternative? Internationalism?

Satan seeks to destroy the nations.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
here's your definition Kat.



Here's the actual definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nationalism
Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

What's the alternative? Internationalism?

Satan seeks to destroy the nations.

Again, we disagree. That wasn't MY definition, but one definition from an online dictionary. With something as serious as this, I tend more towards this:

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20011002

patriotism/nationalism

Michelle Davis wrote:

I have tried to find a difference between nationalism and patriotism in the dictionary and can see only a subtle difference between the two. It seems that nationalism is more centered in thought, and patriotism is more centered in feeling, and that nationalism is more about comparing your country to others, whereas patriotism is just plain love for your country without the competition context. Is there truly a difference between the two?

Patriotism can be defined simply as 'love and loyal support of one's country'. Yes, it's centered in feeling–and, as we've seen in past weeks, the emotion is deep and intense.

But when people take patriotism to a fanatic extreme, this is usually called nationalism. (The terms jingoism and chauvinism are near synonyms.) Nationalism is more centered in thought than in feeling; it's actually a political and social philosophy. The Columbia Encyclopedia defines it as "a collective state of mind or consciousness in which people believe their primary duty and loyalty is to the nation-state. Often nationalism implies national superiority and glorifies various national virtues. Thus love of nation may be overemphasized; concern with national self-interest to the exclusion of the rights of other nations may lead to international conflict." So, because nationalism is the belief that national interests and security are more important than international considerations, it often goes hand in hand with a militaristic foreign policy. It also tends to encourage cultural conformity and intolerance.

On the positive side, nationalism has been a means of creating a national identity based a common cultural history. It has also been a means of fostering unity and of preserving political and social institutions. Historically it has manifested itself as a desire for national independence–it's the philosophy behind political movements aimed at national unification, self-determination, and freedom from foreign domination. The American Revolution is only one example.

Lately, newspapers and magazines have been full of quotations about the difference between patriotism and nationalism. The English novelist George Orwell wrote: "By patriotism, I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people." Sydney Harris, a British-born U.S. journalist, wrote: "Patriotism is being proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries...The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does." And finally, Charles de Gaulle, former president of France, said: "Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."

Carol

Again, it's not so much a definition per se, as trying to capture the essence of meaning and end product. Here's something on the causes of WWI, nationalism being one:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...i.html+nationalism+WWI&hl=en&client=firefox-a
Nationalism: "The changes that took place in the map of Europe between 1859 and 1878 increased the opportunities for friction between the major powers and inflamed the resentments of minor ones. This process had been accelerated by the intense economic rivalry of the post-free trade era and the bitter competition for overseas colonies, which caused frequent crises from the 1880s onward, and by the growth of a new kind of nationalism, made possible by the spread of popular education and the birth of the yellow press–a nationalism that became increasingly ideological in nature and encouraged suspicion rather than understanding of other nations" (Gordon Craig). In other words, imperialist rivalries aroused nationalist passions in an age of mass politics. Political élites–particularly in Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia–hoped to consolidate their authority at home with an aggressive foreign policy.

Serbia, having wrested its independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1878, was a relatively new state with large ambitions. Its leaders intended that Serbia should play the same role in the Balkans that Piedmont had played in Italy: unifying the peninsula at the expense of Austria. Serbia fought two wars in the Balkans in 1912-13, but these were not yet directed against Austria. The first war, which pushed the Ottomans out of one of their last footholds in the peninsula, was followed by one in which Serbia fought its neighbor Bulgaria for control of the territories the Ottomans had evacuated. The result was to double the size of Serbia, to the dismay of the Austrians. But the Austrians succeeded in denying Serbia access to the sea by insisting on the creation of Albania at a peace conference sponsored by the British. So Serbian nationalism was frustrated again by Austrian imperialism.
 
Kathianne said:
Again, we disagree. That wasn't MY definition, but one definition from an online dictionary. With something as serious as this, I tend more towards this:

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20011002



Again, it's not so much a definition per se, as trying to capture the essence of meaning and end product. Here's something on the causes of WWI, nationalism being one:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...i.html+nationalism+WWI&hl=en&client=firefox-a

I don't see anything in any definition that remotely refers to nationalism being ALWAYS bad so I guess that's just your personal feelings about nationalism.
 
dilloduck said:
I don't see anything in any definition that remotely refers to nationalism being ALWAYS bad so I guess that's just your personal feelings about nationalism.

Reasonable assumption. I would say that I've come to that conclusion. :laugh: I guess it's the 'nuance', feeling Kerry like. OMG! :duh3:
 
This was your original statement regarding what you thought it was.
Mix xenophobia with hyperpatriotism with hubris and national delusion to get nationalism.

That long essay making some distinction about emotion versus rationality is pure postulation.

And anyway: I rationally think a tolerant multicutultural society such as ours is better than intolerant muslim theocracies. In this context is my nationalism "bad"?
 
rtwngAvngr said:
This was your original statement regarding what you thought it was.


That long essay making some distinction about emotion versus rationality is pure postulation.

And anyway: I rationally think a tolerant multicutultural society such as ours is better than intolerant muslim theocracies. In this context is my nationalism "bad"?

No we agree on why our 'tolerant multicultural society', works, even though for most of us there is way too much 'tolerance' of perversions, evil acts, etc. We are still better off for it.

I think Dillo is correct, Nationalism, to my way of thinking is ALWAYS wrong-but I am not always right. How's that?
 
Kathianne said:
No we agree on why our 'tolerant multicultural society', works, even though for most of us there is way too much 'tolerance' of perversions, evil acts, etc. We are still better off for it.

I think Dillo is correct, Nationalism, to my way of thinking is ALWAYS wrong-but I am not always right. How's that?

So don't you rationally think it's better? OR is "works" not to be construed as "better"?

Do you always stick to politically correct villifications of words in your own thinking even when the word has been shown to not really be such a bad thing?
 
rtwngAvngr said:
So don't you rationally think it's better? OR is "works" not to be construed as "better"?

Do you always stick to politically correct villifications of words in your own thinking even when the word has been shown to not really be such a bad thing?

Jason, I will return to this. Let's just say that what I consider nationalism is a bad thing. Our country is NOT nationalistic, in my use of the word. Yes, our country works very well, wouldn't trade it for any.
 
Kathianne said:
Jason, I will return to this. Let's just say that what I consider nationalism is a bad thing. Our country is NOT nationalistic, in my use of the word. Yes, our country works very well, wouldn't trade it for any.

Your notion of it is just part of Political Correctness. That "grasping at straws" essay you found is gibberish.


Our country works in a clearly superior fashion! :salute:

Happy New Year!
 
Just an observation, but I found nationalist tend to be stuck in the past, not unlike Muslims and Frenchmen, no?

Partrotism tends to focus on past, present and future greatness. I don't think I;m way off with that. Anyone?
 
Said1 said:
Just an observation, but I found nationalist tend to be stuck in the past, not unlike Muslims and Frenchmen, no?

Partrotism tends to focus on past, present and future greatness. I don't think I;m way off with that. Anyone?

I just think nationalism is used when someone wants to make it seem bad. And the values of the country very well may be bad, and the people who feel nationalistic about that particular society may be evil. The word is neutral though. IMHO (In My Hubristic Opinion)
 
Said1 said:
Just an observation, but I found nationalist tend to be stuck in the past, not unlike Muslims and Frenchmen, no?

Partrotism tends to focus on past, present and future greatness. I don't think I;m way off with that. Anyone?

Exactly when did you find this nationalist trend ? :poke:
 
Said1 said:
Just an observation, but I found nationalist tend to be stuck in the past, not unlike Muslims and Frenchmen, no?

Partrotism tends to focus on past, present and future greatness. I don't think I;m way off with that. Anyone?

We're not alone:

http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/champion/65/glorious_past.htm

Restoring the Glorious Past: Juch’e in Korean Historiography

by Leonid A.Petrov

Presented at the Third Biennial KSAA Conference "Korea: Language, Knowledge and Society",
30 June - 1 July 2003, The Australian National University, Canberra.

In 1968 the new approach to national history research, in which certain elements of Marxist dialectics and historical materialism were intricately interwoven with the nationalistic principle of Juch’e (self-reliance), was devised and promulgated in North Korea. The crucial role in its creation was played by a Moscow-trained philosopher and historian, Hwang Chang-yŏp. Assuming that both the primitive and communist modes of production were based on classless societies, Hwang started critically revising the orthodox Marxist tenet of class struggle as the cornerstone of the historical process. His assumption was that history must be viewed not from the viewpoint of “class” but from the viewpoint of “people – the subject of history”.

It took a decade for North Korean historians to recover from the historiographical crisis of 1967-1968, and finally The Complete History of Korea or Chosŏn Chŏnsa (1979-1982) was produced as the model for the Juch’e approach to national history in the DPRK. Eighteen of its 33 volumes were dedicated to Kim Il-sŏng, his family, and his anti-Japanese and socialist state-construction activities. The other fifteen volumes, which treated Korean history from the Neolithic age to the fall of the Korean Empire, tended to glorify every fragment of national history. But by restoring Korea’s “glorious past”, historians in the North came to conclusions that now have become extremely fashionable in contemporary South Korea. This paper examines the pedigree of this ultra-nationalistic approach to history, which is likely to become instrumental in the process of Korean unification.

Historical research and ultra-nationalism...
 
rtwngAvngr said:
The word is neutral though. IMHO (In My Hubristic Opinion)

No it isn't. The French are a good example of nationalists. They want to re-create the glory of their past. What glory, they were beat by the British. Suck it!
 
Said1 said:
No it isn't. The French are a good example of nationalists. They want to re-create the glory of their past. What glory, they were beat by the British. Suck it!

They want to recreate it in the present. SO those are still their values. And they would probably just say they're patriotic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top