anus.com/tribes/au/entry/17/Nationalism

"Reasons for exclusion need not be rooted in hatred, nor does nationalism in any way necessitate the view that one's own culture is more righteous than another. I do not see universal validity in any one culture (the culture of fashions implicitly yearned for by promoters of multiculturalism included). I recognise that people are not the same around the world - there is diversity, and this should be preserved both for its own sake and as a means of avoiding a pervasive anti-culture where the acquisition of money is seen as the good. I think our differences are real, to be celebrated, and should be protected. To say otherwise is to be a sadomasochistic bigot regarding race and culture."

"Communities should not be forced into sparse residence of suburbia, within which attempting to live as they would like while being absorbed into a new way of life. Multicultural societies do not allow for cultural diversity in the long run, for there must be significant compromise. Our new residents must adhere to the overriding dogma of liberal democracy that let them in, which effectively homogenises societies into tacky individualists following a culture that, unlike the low culture of the past, lacks continuity, ingenuity, and bases status on consumption rather than creation. After a few generations whatever culture is left will be commodified remnants; the 'richness' of multicultural societies has a lifespan."

"...those advocating multiculturalism are merely supporting small-scale, incomplete nationalism... They are fond of ethnic communities being able to preserve their culture, attend their own schools and churches, learn their language and their people's heritage, hold community events, et cetera. Yet they so vehemently oppose nationalism, which strives for the same goals, but recognises that to accomplish and preserve these communities need their own territory and leaders who represent a particular way of life."

I'll give them credit for the accuracy of their acronym.

You associate your anus with coherent outlook? Strange kid.

I'll slow it down for the 'simpler' minds (is that politically correct enough?)

If someone doesn't agree with the article I would appreciate some reasons (a basic critique). Anything else & you're drowning out the people who may be searching for solutions to this modern mess. Here's a summary of the ideas.

It’s taboo to mention nationalism without including irrelevant terms like ‘racism, bigotry, xenophobia’. Liberal regimes have conditioned populations to make these links, because if people think a desire to have culture & identity is evil, chances are they’ll replace it with a constant stream of shiny plastic & brand names (in a desperate attempt to have culture & identity) – it keeps the tokens moving.

It’s interesting to note that many avid anti-nationalists are keen on ‘multiculturalism’, which is essentially nationalism. Granted, it’s a doomed attempt (as communities eventually conform to the consumerist society & lack adequate influence and leadership). Nonetheless these folk like the idea of diversity while knee-jerk reactions prevent them from trying to preserve it. Moron bigots claiming to be nationalists don’t help the situation.

The main point is simply this: "Reasons for exclusion need not be rooted in hatred, nor does nationalism in any way necessitate the view that one's own culture is more righteous than another”. Real nationalists do not hate other tribes or think that other tribes are in any way inferior. Rather, they acknowledge the right of all peoples to preserve their culture, be represented in accordance with their values, and exercise autonomy. Liberal societies do not preserve nations unless it’s profitable, & even in this case it is the image without the meaning.

Immature replies are boring.

It’s interesting to note that many avid anti-nationalists are keen on ‘multiculturalism’, which is essentially nationalism.
More repel all borders.

If you're pro-nationalism and anti-multiculturalism how can it be anything but racial? What are the 'non-racist' benefits of protecting the national gene pool, Einstein?

So why is nationalism bad and multi-culturalism good? I think they are both misguided, but I recognize that laws inhibiting them would be wrong. Nationalism means you are proud of your nation, but shouldn't we recognize both the good things and the flaws? The Nation can exist regardless of wether it's citizens are treated fairly, wouldn't it be better to be proud of that system of laws, the constitution? Multiculturalism is a necessary aspect of a country like the US, which was settled by peoples of all nations. There is no requirement to conform to popular culture, except where some basic laws are concerned that the population has agreed to. Popular culture or consumerism is itself a kind of culture, not the absense of culture.

I'll give them credit for the accuracy of their acronym.
pffff....too funny

I think some level of nationalism must exist in order for a society to be the most successful. It's just like having pride in your Universities sports team. People from India, China, Iran, etc... can come to the University of Michigan for example, hold on to their culture, and still be supportive of their University team.

Make sense?

You associate your anus with coherent outlook?
You're grade school attempt at sophisticated humor aside; no, I associate their verbose froo froo crap with their acronym.

The fact that you think we need your cliff notes version to help us to zero in on their point only further proves my estimation of its real world relevance.

You're grade school attempt at sophisticated humor aside; no, I associate their verbose froo froo crap with their acronym.

OMG you... like... totally started it!

The fact that you think we need your cliff notes version to help us to zero in on their point only further proves my estimation of its real world relevance.

What have you contributed to this thread? I try to get some discussion going on a forum. You don't like the topic. Instead of rebutting or ignoring it, you get offended because its not liberal mediated-socialising or something. But let's not get side-tracked. Nation is the topic.

Yeah, Mr. G loves liberal-mediated socializing!!! :)

There's nothing wrong with nationalism the way he describes it. "We like our way so we'll stay over here and live that way. You like your way so you stay over there and live that way. We'll take vacations in each other's countries and exchange products and cultural artifacts."

It's just that so much of what passes for nationalism is really tribalism. "Our way is right and your way is wrong because the imaginary supernatural being we worship tells us so. We'll continue trying to convince you that you're wrong, but eventually we'll lose patience, or we'll be offended by one of your products or cultural artifacts. Then we'll send troops in there to help you learn to live the right way, and also to get rid of your annoying culture which is seducing some of our more impressionable people."

What have you contributed to this thread?
That to which you are responding? Just a guess.
I try to get some discussion going on a forum. You don't like the topic.
You need to buy a vowel. The topic is what it is. The topic's quoted content was crap.

It's not about your choice of topic. It's about your choice of topical content.

IOW, it's less about you than about your ability to choose.
Instead of rebutting or ignoring it, you get offended because its not liberal mediated-socialising or something. But let's not get side-tracked. Nation is the topic.
Actually, it's really about notion.

I'm offended by liberal mediation of socializing as much as I'm offended by conservative mediation of socializing.

I'll socialize with whomever I want because I freely choose to do so.

You really are incoherrant.

Yeah, Mr. G loves liberal-mediated socializing!!! :)
I allow it less offense than it deserves.

And we appreciate that at least half as little we're allowed.

And we appreciate that at least half as little we're allowed.
You presume more than you are due.

The topic's quoted content was crap.

In what way? So far you've given no reason. You're being a bigot.

You really are incoherrant.

I'm pretty sure it's spelt incoherent.

You really are Mr. G! (Do I win?)

In what way?
In the "it's crap" way.
So far you've given no reason.
You may think it was a crap reason. Not my problem.
You're being a bigot.
Now your being crap.
I'm pretty sure it's spelt incoherent.
I'm pretty sure I said what I meant.
You really are Mr. G!
Your endorsement--such as it is--isn't required by the fact.
(Do I win?)
If you have to ask...

In the "it's crap" way... You may think it was a crap reason.

I do not think 'it' was a crap reason, because 'it' doesn't exist. Objectively you have not given any reasons, crap or not.