Nationalism Is ALWAYS Dangerous

[Annie]

They want to recreate it in the present. SO those are still their values. And they would probably just say they're patriotic.

The problem comes when what they are calling 'their past' is self-delusional fiction. The Germans have been very good at that too, for a long time.

As I said before, I think we may be addressing different phenonema. To me, patriotism means I love my country, I'm not ashamed of the flag-I wave it proudly. I think our history speaks for itself, while acknowledging the influence of others on those leaders. I know we've made mistakes as a country, but I think that we not only have learned, eventually we often get around to rectifying our mistakes-ala Saddam. What other peoples, save to a much lesser degree, the English, can say such a thing?

Getting back to the historical leaders, I'm speaking of Founders and Framers; they set the tone in being able to take snippets found here and there in philosphy, government, history, economics, and political theory mix it with many original ideas of their own and had the courage to try something original in the history of a government. Over the years of our state, we have mostly fought for the right things and only when necessary-sometimes a wee past the need.

There is no short supply of reasons to love our country, to me that is what patriotism is about. Nationalism goes beyond respecting and loving the country, rather it is seeing none of the worth of others, past or present. It is what opens the doors for genocide and other atrocities, it is using 'love of country' to justify hatred. That to me, is different.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The problem comes when what they are calling 'their past' is self-delusional fiction. The Germans have been very good at that too, for a long time.

As I said before, I think we may be addressing different phenonema. To me, patriotism means I love my country, I'm not ashamed of the flag-I wave it proudly. I think our history speaks for itself, while acknowledging the influence of others on those leaders. I know we've made mistakes as a country, but I think that we not only have learned, eventually we often get around to rectifying our mistakes-ala Saddam. What other peoples, save to a much lesser degree, the English, can say such a thing?

Getting back to the historical leaders, I'm speaking of Founders and Framers; they set the tone in being able to take snippets found here and there in philosphy, government, history, economics, and political theory mix it with many original ideas of their own and had the courage to try something original in the history of a government. Over the years of our state, we have mostly fought for the right things and only when necessary-sometimes a wee past the need.

There is no short supply of reasons to love our country, to me that is what patriotism is about. Nationalism goes beyond respecting and loving the country, rather it is seeing none of the worth of others, past or present. It is what opens the doors for genocide and other atrocities, it is using 'love of country' to justify hatred. That to me, is different.

These are extra-definitional associations.

 

[Annie]

These are extra-definitional associations.

I don't understand that.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't understand that.

Sure you do.

 

[Said1]

They want to recreate it in the present. SO those are still their values. And they would probably just say they're patriotic.

Yes, that would them up. Nationalism tends to be associated with nation-states more than anything. And their past greatness is open for debate, not unlike Theocratic rulers in the Mid East. Those who consider themselves patriotic, tend to acknowledge that their past largely makes them who they are today, but don't want to revisit.

 

[dilloduck]

Nationalism has saved Israels' ass. ( or would you like to define it as Zionism?)

 

[Annie]

RWA, I guess I didn't make clear what I was trying to say by using an example of what I perceive to be differences between nationalism and patriotism.

Tonight I was reading some general stuff online and came across a Mark Steyn piece, posted excerpts already, on the 'end of much of Western Europe.' Here is a link to another piece from the same 'journal':

http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/24/01/after-the-suicide/

To me, this process which both Steyn and the above illustrate would be the inverse of nationalism-also obviously deadly. :scratch: I'm not sure myself how I would tie this together, but I thought it interesting and that you might too.

 

[William Joyce]

America could use a HUGE shot of nationalism right now. The problem is that America is NOT what a large number of Americans call their nation. So much for the great melting pot experiment.

I agree. When everyone piles in demanding that their original culture be "respected" and accommodated, it turns into a huge clusterfuck. We don't have "diversity," we have bumper cars.

Nationalism can certainly have "bad" manifestations, but it's like a Porsche rocketing down the autobahn (sorry, had to do it) with speed, precision and purpose compared to the polyglot glop of America. There may have been some nobility to the idea of America as an "open" country, but it's gotten way, way out of hand of late. The truth is that America is (or was) a great nation not because of "diversity" or multiculturalism but because from 1776 to the mid-1960's, it was forged, occupied and carried forward by an overwhelmingly white, Christian population that drew on the best traditions of the West, from Greek and Roman notions to European traditions. So whether you're appealing to patriotism or nationalism, the "real deal" is the race.

In fact, both words conjure blood: "patriotism" derives from father (as in, your blood father), and "nationalism" derives from birth (as in, your blood mother). The blood in turn runs through the race. That's the real nation.

 

[Annie]

I agree. When everyone piles in demanding that their original culture be "respected" and accommodated, it turns into a huge clusterfuck. We don't have "diversity," we have bumper cars.

Nationalism can certainly have "bad" manifestations, but it's like a Porsche rocketing down the autobahn (sorry, had to do it) with speed, precision and purpose compared to the polyglot glop of America. There may have been some nobility to the idea of America as an "open" country, but it's gotten way, way out of hand of late. The truth is that America is (or was) a great nation not because of "diversity" or multiculturalism but because from 1776 to the mid-1960's, it was forged, occupied and carried forward by an overwhelmingly white, Christian population that drew on the best traditions of the West, from Greek and Roman notions to European traditions. So whether you're appealing to patriotism or nationalism, the "real deal" is the race.

In fact, both words conjure blood: "patriotism" derives from father (as in, your blood father), and "nationalism" derives from birth (as in, your blood mother). The blood in turn runs through the race. That's the real nation.

So move to Germany, if you think that is better.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

RWA, I guess I didn't make clear what I was trying to say by using an example of what I perceive to be differences between nationalism and patriotism.

Tonight I was reading some general stuff online and came across a Mark Steyn piece, posted excerpts already, on the 'end of much of Western Europe.' Here is a link to another piece from the same 'journal':

http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/24/01/after-the-suicide/

To me, this process which both Steyn and the above illustrate would be the inverse of nationalism-also obviously deadly. :scratch: I'm not sure myself how I would tie this together, but I thought it interesting and that you might too.

As far as i see, this backs me one hundred percent. It's not nationalism per se that's bad, but the values of the nation. The blanket statement "nationalism is always dangerous" is part of the politically correct crap foisted upon our society by those who seek to guilt us out of existence.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

An analogy. Libs like to assert simplistic axioms like "selfishness is always wrong". That's way too simple. What's good or evil is the modes and tactics employed to satify one's selfishness.

 

[Annie]

As far as i see, this backs me one hundred percent. It's not nationalism per se that's bad, but the values of the nation. The blanket statement "nationalism is always dangerous" is part of the politically correct crap foisted upon our society by those who seek to guilt us out of existence.

Ok, so you didn't like the title, fair enough.

Other than the US, which state's values are good enough to justify nationalism? UK failed in 1760's, ran into huge debacle's in 18th and especially 19th/20th C.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Ok, so you didn't like the title, fair enough.

Other than the US, which state's values are good enough to justify nationalism? UK failed in 1760's, ran into huge debacle's in 18th and especially 19th/20th C.

I don't have to supply that information to make my case that nationalism isn't always dangerous.

 

[Annie]

I don't have to supply that information to make my case that nationalism isn't always dangerous.

Alright, through out 'always', insert 'other than American nationalism', which I've already said is against our pluralistic nature.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Alright, through out 'always', insert 'other than American nationalism', which I've already said is against our pluralistic nature.

No. Another new country could spring up even more free than ours and seek to take over our country and make it more free. I might feel their nationalism was a good thing. Australia's nationalism may be justified. They seem damn free. Evaluating the good or evil of a country's nationalism has elements of subjective evaluation to it. The concept of Nationalism itself still remains value neutral.

 

[Annie]

No. Another new country could spring up even more free than ours and seek to take over our country and make it more free. I might feel their nationalism was a good thing. Australia's nationalism may be justified. They seem damn free. Evaluating the good or evil of a country's nationalism has elements of subjective evaluation to it. The concept of Nationalism itself still remains value neutral.

I like Australia, but they too are having major problems with Islamic immigrants and are not too keen to assimilate anymore-would rather deport. Not that I have problems understanding that.

On the other hand, do you really think another nation could 'spring up' more free and dominant than ours? How? Where?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I like Australia, but they too are having major problems with Islamic immigrants and are not too keen to assimilate anymore-would rather deport. Not that I have problems understanding that.

On the other hand, do you really think another nation could 'spring up' more free and dominant than ours? How? Where?

I said maybe austrlia. I don't have to come up with concrete examples. The point is: nationalism is not always dangerous. Get over it.

 

[Annie]

I said maybe austrlia. I don't have to come up with concrete examples. The point is: nationalism is not always dangerous. Get over it.

You 'get over it', basically I've more than made my case, you came up with a mythical 'some country' 'someday' 'more free than US'. BTW, here are some links to what's recently been happening in Australia:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20535

http://www.masnet.org/news.asp?id=3012 (got to be 'diverse', liberal that I am. )

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17536279%5E601,00.html

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You 'get over it', basically I've more than made my case, you came up with a mythical 'some country' 'someday' 'more free than US'. BTW, here are some links to what's recently been happening in Australia:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20535

http://www.masnet.org/news.asp?id=3012 (got to be 'diverse', liberal that I am. )

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17536279%5E601,00.html

You've not made your case at all. I said maybe australia. Checkout my selfishness analogy again, it's quit stunning.

An analogy. Libs like to assert simplistic axioms like "selfishness is always wrong". That's way too simple. What's good or evil is the modes and tactics employed to satisfy one's selfishness.

Because no other country exists right now that I on a rational level feel has values which should be spread moreso than ours, doesn't mean it couldn't happen, nor does it automatically make your case that nationalism is always dangerous.

 

[Annie]

You've not made your case at all. I said maybe australia. Checkout my selfishness analogy again, it's quit stunning.



Because no other country exists right now that I on a rational level feel has values which should be spread moreso than ours, doesn't mean it couldn't happen, nor does it automatically make your case that nationalism is always dangerous.

You know Jason, I know that you must have the last word. So you have got it. Selfishness has not a thing to do with nationalism, intrinsically, but never mind. You win! Let's move on.