Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: Unqualified nationalism - good or bad?

  1. #41
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Is Love it or leave it, a new bumper sticker slogan?

    What if it said:



    Whats it mean? BDSM cult hangout? An ad for nationalised torture?



    The Baron is right, its all in the eyes of the beholder.
    Last edited by S.A.M.; 01-26-10 at 03:30 AM.

  2. #42
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    Anyone is entitled to embrace any ideology, so long as they do not inflict harm on anyone else if they do not share it.
    That was explicitly not what I asked you.

    So I'll reiterate: if the ideology in question is defined by privileging an in-group at the expense of an out-group (which all nationalist ideologies are), then in what sense can one "embrace" such an ideology without inflicting harm on others? Only a vacuous one, I'd suggest.

    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    e.g. its 60 years today that India is a republic and people are singing Vande Mataram with pride. And thats alright even though there are lots of things still wrong with the country.
    Including, apparently, the harm inflicted on those who do not share the ideology of Indian nationalism over those decades (Kashmiris, for one example, Pakistanis for another). This does not square with your earlier assertion.

    Perhaps you wish to amend your qualifier to something like "as long as the benefits to the in-group justify the damage done to the out-group."

    Because that's ultimately what sustains ideologies like nationalism. The canard that some nationalisms are "harmless" is just that: a facile lie to avoid taking responsibility for one's politics.

  3. #43
    Mourning in America madanthonywayne's Avatar
    Posts
    12,406
    Quote Originally Posted by quadraphonics View Post
    So I'll reiterate: if the ideology in question is defined by privileging an in-group at the expense of an out-group (which all nationalist ideologies are), then in what sense can one "embrace" such an ideology without inflicting harm on others? Only a vacuous one, I'd suggest.
    Nationalism is taking pride in and defending the nation of your birth. That nation is most likely the home to everyone you care about and the ideals you hold dear. I'd expect those from other nations to also take pride in and look out for the interests of their own nation as well. It's human nature.

  4. #44
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by madanthonywayne View Post
    Nationalism is taking pride in and defending the nation of your birth.
    More than that, it is about the advancement of your nation - above and beyond other nations, when their respective advancements conflict. That's what "looking out for interests" amounts to.

    And the "birth" part is unnecessary. As any American with a pair of eyes should understand from a rather early age.

    Quote Originally Posted by madanthonywayne View Post
    I'd expect those from other nations to also take pride in and look out for the interests of their own nation as well. It's human nature.
    Never said it wasn't.

    What I said was that nationalism divides people into groups - those who are members of the nation, and those who are not, and privileges the interests of the former over the latter.

    Which I'd imagined to be a fairly uncontroversial observation. But apparently a lot of people are invested in the fairy tale that nationalism is somehow benign. Which is a pretty ridiculous supposition, considering the last century or two of human history.

  5. #45
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by quadraphonics View Post
    That was explicitly not what I asked you.

    So I'll reiterate: if the ideology in question is defined by privileging an in-group at the expense of an out-group (which all nationalist ideologies are), then in what sense can one "embrace" such an ideology without inflicting harm on others? Only a vacuous one, I'd suggest.



    Including, apparently, the harm inflicted on those who do not share the ideology of Indian nationalism over those decades (Kashmiris, for one example, Pakistanis for another). This does not square with your earlier assertion.

    Perhaps you wish to amend your qualifier to something like "as long as the benefits to the in-group justify the damage done to the out-group."

    Because that's ultimately what sustains ideologies like nationalism. The canard that some nationalisms are "harmless" is just that: a facile lie to avoid taking responsibility for one's politics.

    Um I said exactly what I meant. Holding any ideology is okay as long as you don't harm people who don't share it. Do I care if white supremacists take out a rally everyday saying they love white power? No, if they don't lynch anyone who is not white or discriminate against him in jobs or school, I don't care what fricking delusion they have

    In fact, I'd rather they did take out a rally so I knew which ones they were.

  6. #46
    Let us not launch the boat ... Tiassa's Avatar
    Posts
    30,621

    Cool Nationalism is a threat to liberty

    Quote Originally Posted by Madanthonywayne

    Nationalism is taking pride in and defending the nation of your birth.
    A novel definition, much akin to the KKK taking pride in and definding their whiteness.

    Indeed, conceit, arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Let me illustrate. Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.

    The inhabitants of the other spots reason in like manner, of course, with the result that, from early infancy, the mind of the child is poisoned with bloodcurdling stories about the Germans, the French, the Italians, Russians, etc. When the child has reached manhood, he is thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the Lord himself to defend his country against the attack or invasion of any foreigner. It is for that purpose that we are clamoring for a greater army and navy, more battleships and ammunition. It is for that purpose that America has within a short time spent four hundred million dollars. Just think of it--four hundred million dollars taken from the produce of the people. For surely it is not the rich who contribute to patriotism. They are cosmopolitans, perfectly at home in every land. We in America know well the truth of this. Are not our rich Americans Frenchmen in France, Germans in Germany, or Englishmen in England? And do they not squandor with cosmopolitan grace fortunes coined by American factory children and cotton slaves? Yes, theirs is the patriotism that will make it possible to send messages of condolence to a despot like the Russian Tsar, when any mishap befalls him, as President Roosevelt did in the name of his people, when Sergius was punished by the Russian revolutionists.


    (Goldman)

    Someday, perhaps nationalism will achieve the idealistic form you suggest, but at present it is interchangeable with Goldman's patriotism.

    Nationalism is just another religion, as blind and illogical as any other. Some might try to temper their faith with qualifications here and there, but that's something akin to quitting drinking by restricting oneself to a tipple or six on Friday nights, or the gang-banger believing he is Christian because he wears a gold cross around his neck and tattooed the Virgin on his arm to protect him from bullets.

    Unqualified nationalism is nearly a cult unto itself. Of course, like the gang-banger, or the tippling teetotaler, the qualified nationalists like to imagine themselves unbound in their purity.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Goldman, Emma. "Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty". Anarchism and Other Essays. New York and London: Mother Earth Publishing Association, 1911. DWardMac.Pitzer.edu. February 2, 2010. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist...atriotism.html

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. By Scaramouche in forum Human Science
    Last Post: 07-09-13, 08:55 PM
    Replies: 41
  2. By curioucity in forum Biology & Genetics
    Last Post: 12-10-09, 06:24 PM
    Replies: 8
  3. By Michael in forum Biology & Genetics
    Last Post: 09-07-08, 07:11 PM
    Replies: 0
  4. By PsychoticEpisode in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 08-31-08, 06:04 PM
    Replies: 12
  5. By TimeTraveler in forum Earth Science
    Last Post: 12-16-07, 11:41 PM
    Replies: 1

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •