Society/Culture So what is so wrong with 'Nationalism'?

[cartwright]

Seems you didn't read my post, again, I disagree with the 'popular belief' of the term 'nationalism'.

Look up the term 'national' and then 'ism'

I did. Its ridiculous. Nationalism has a definition, and its not what you're trying to put forth.

 

[Seeds]

In the last two decades there's been 'noise' around this apparent evil called 'nationalism'.

In other threads I've skimmed over there seems to be some sort of fear of having pride in the nation you and your descendants were born in.

Why is that? What is this evil in having pride in your nation?

I'm fascinated by those who passionately oppose national pride and would like to know why these types are so averse to national pride, what is this poison to society that is caused by nationalism? Why is it so dangerous?

There are plenty on these boards that have immense pride (that I can gauge by some of the posts) in opposing nationalism.

I think it is more noise than an actual problem, but for those who are vehemently in opposition to having pride in your nation? What is the actual threat of nationalism?

This should make for an interesting debate, and will show us who has pride and who has a problem with it.

See what russia is doing in the name of nationalism.

nationalism dehumanises everyone that does not belong to your nation. it leads to trade restrictions that economically makes everyone worse off, it leads to failure in responding to global problems likes nuclear disarmament, climate change and pandemic responses, it leads to removal of human rights as leaders view the well being of the nation as being more important to the well being of its citizens and it leads to wars.


thats why its wrong.

 

[Carringbush2010]

See what russia is doing in the name of nationalism.

nationalism dehumanises everyone that does not belong to your nation. it leads to trade restrictions that economically makes everyone worse off, it leads to failure in responding to global problems likes nuclear disarmament, climate change and pandemic responses, it leads to removal of human rights as leaders view the well being of the nation as being more important to the well being of its citizens and it leads to wars.


thats why its wrong.

What Vlad is doing is not in the spirit of 'nationalism' imo.

Dehumanizing is certainly not in the spirit, trade sanctions are not in the spirit, removal of human rights are not in the spirit, failures in response to global problems are not in the spirit.

It shouldn't be a green light to be an ahole to other nations, not in the spirit, I've said this previously.

Again, I disagree with the definition as it is somehow 'wrong'. Look up 'national' and the 'ism' - I've said this previously itt also.

 

[Cap]

What Vlad is doing is not in the spirit of 'nationalism' imo.

Dehumanizing is certainly not in the spirit, trade sanctions are not in the spirit, removal of human rights are not in the spirit, failures in response to global problems are not in the spirit.

It shouldn't be a green light to be an ahole to other nations, not in the spirit, I've said this previously.

Again, I disagree with the definition as it is somehow 'wrong'. Look up 'national' and the 'ism' - I've said this previously itt also.

The spirit of nationalism, are you actually serious.

I think you've confused Patriotism (which is being hijacked by the Right Wing as well) and Nationalism

Putin is very much a nationalist your attempt to defend that with a dictionary meaning is a bit of a strange one.

 

[Seeds]

What Vlad is doing is not in the spirit of 'nationalism' imo.

Dehumanizing is certainly not in the spirit, trade sanctions are not in the spirit, removal of human rights are not in the spirit, failures in response to global problems are not in the spirit.

It shouldn't be a green light to be an ahole to other nations, not in the spirit, I've said this previously.

Again, I disagree with the definition as it is somehow 'wrong'. Look up 'national' and the 'ism' - I've said this previously itt also.

Google definition of nationalism

"identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

look at the second line of the definition. At the detriment of other nations. if you care for something its means you relatively dont care about something else. If you care about the nation you dont care about other nations.

And i would go further and say nationalism is at the detriment of ones own interests. Communists were nationalists and they believed individuals within their own nation should give up ones on own interests for the interests of the nation. The nation itself becomes its own mythical being under nationalism. nation states wage wars and have no problem killing their own citizens in pursuit of nationalism. Nationalists have no problem dying for the nagion either. Without nationalism we become globalists and care for everyone On the planet Equally. Wars will end. Human rights will prosper.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

What Vlad is doing is not in the spirit of 'nationalism' imo.

Dehumanizing is certainly not in the spirit, trade sanctions are not in the spirit, removal of human rights are not in the spirit, failures in response to global problems are not in the spirit.

It shouldn't be a green light to be an ahole to other nations, not in the spirit, I've said this previously.

Again, I disagree with the definition as it is somehow 'wrong'. Look up 'national' and the 'ism' - I've said this previously itt also.

It sounds like you have hijacked the term incorrectly.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The spirit of nationalism, are you actually serious.

I think you've confused Patriotism (which is being hijacked by the Right Wing as well) and Nationalism

Putin is very much a nationalist your attempt to defend that with a dictionary meaning is a bit of a strange one.

The dictionary meaning agrees with you.

As I've allude in the op, I disagree with the dictionary definition.

Look up 'national' and then 'ism', not 'nationalism'

 

[Carringbush2010]

It sounds like you have hijacked the term incorrectly.

Or maybe the dictionary has.

Sure, I'm against the odds here.

Look up 'national' then 'ism' - putting 'ism' on the end of national suggests 'national' is 'bad'


Since when has 'nation' been 'bad'?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Google definition of nationalism

"identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

look at the second line of the definition. At the detriment of other nations. if you care for something its means you relatively dont care about something else. If you care about the nation you dont care about other nations.

And i would go further and say nationalism is at the detriment of ones own interests. Communists were nationalists and they believed individuals within their own nation should give up ones on own interests for the interests of the nation. The nation itself becomes its own mythical being under nationalism. nation states wage wars and have no problem killing their own citizens in pursuit of nationalism. Nationalists have no problem dying for the nagion either. Without nationalism we become globalists and care for everyone On the planet Equally. Wars will end. Human rights will prosper.

Maybe take the 'ism' out.

Who was the weirdo that decided to put 'ism' on the end of 'national'?, it's misleading IMO.

I will correct what Cap replied to.

What Vlad is doing is not in the spirit of 'National'

 

[Cap]

The dictionary meaning agrees with you.

As I've allude in the op, I disagree with the dictionary definition.

Look up 'national' and then 'ism', not 'nationalism'

Why would I do that?

If I look up flour and then yeast I don't get the definition of bread.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Maybe take the 'ism' out.

Who was the weirdo that decided to put 'ism' on the end of 'national'?, it's misleading IMO.

I will correct what Cap replied to.

What Vlad is doing is not in the spirit of 'National'

Didn’t you make the thread title?

 

[Cap]

Maybe take the 'ism' out.

Who was the weirdo that decided to put 'ism' on the end of 'national'?, it's misleading IMO.

I will correct what Cap replied to.

What Vlad is doing is not in the spirit of 'National'

I completely get it. A word you identify with has been hijacked and the current use definition no longer sits comfortably with how you want to use.

I mean I can only imagine a carefree, cheerful bloke in the 50s no being able to describe as gay without people thinking he was attracted the men, would have also been a bit annoyed. It really was a good word for that.

But that fights over, the term Nationalism is now very much a word that has negative connotations and is think will have that for our lifetime

 

[Gethelred]

I completely get it. A word you identify with has been hijacked and the current use definition no longer sits comfortably with how you want to use.

Or - rather - the word was never used as he uses it, and objecting to to how everyone else has always used the word is really, really silly.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Seems we've reached a dead end.

I get it, the term nationalism represents bad.

I believe national or patriot shouldn't be viewed that way.

We all know where I stand on it, nothing needs explaining either way.

I'm gonna move on. See ya's.

 

[faible]

Seems we've reached a dead end.

I get it, the term nationalism represents bad.

I believe national or patriot shouldn't be viewed that way.

We all know where I stand on it, nothing needs explaining either way.

I'm gonna move on. See ya's.

National and Nationalism are two different words, meaning two different things. Why this surprises and upsets you I don't know.

 

[Carringbush2010]

National and Nationalism are two different words, meaning two different things. Why this surprises and upsets you I don't know.

It doesn't 'surprise' or 'upset', I'm merely challenging that 'national' in that word should be viewed in a negative sense.

I'll leave it there, you can keep discussing it if you like.

 

[faible]

It doesn't 'surprise' or 'upset', I'm merely challenging that 'national' in that word should be viewed in a negative sense.

I'll leave it there, you can keep discussing it if you like.

But National in Nationalism doesn't mean just national, the addition of an 'ism' to the word means it's a reference to a distinct doctrine, system or theory.

The world National isn't a negative word. We talk about National things all the time.

 

[faible]

Because I don't consider them my people.

Why don't you consider other people as people though?

They're just people.

 

[Carringbush2010]

But National in Nationalism doesn't mean just national, the addition of an 'ism' to the word means it's a reference to a distinct doctrine, system or theory.

The world National isn't a negative word. We talk about National things all the time.

To you and I maybe, but others will incorrectly conflate both as a negative, either in bad faith or lack of intelligence.

You and others have probably assumed that is my position, so in my view, we've reached an end point in this thread.

I'm gonna leave it there, you can discuss it with others if you wish.

 

[faible]

To you and I maybe, but others will incorrectly conflate both as a negative, either in bad faith or lack of intelligence.

You and others have probably assumed that is my position, so in my view, we've reached an end point in this thread.

I'm gonna leave it there, you can discuss it with others if you wish.

No, it's about context.

The word National and the world Nationalism are different.

You seem to want Nationalism to be something it's not, and think that by breaking a word in to two partial definitions you can redefine it.

 

[Carringbush2010]

No, it's about context.

The word National and the world Nationalism are different.

You seem to want Nationalism to be something it's not, and think that by breaking a word in to two partial definitions you can redefine it.

Let it go mate.

 

[Seeds]

Maybe take the 'ism' out.

Who was the weirdo that decided to put 'ism' on the end of 'national'?, it's misleading IMO.

I will correct what Cap replied to.

What Vlad is doing is not in the spirit of 'National'

but the thread is about nationalism. Not national. You cant just take the ism out as people think nationalism is wrong not national. No one has any view on the word national. Its just a label for a person who belongs to a nation. national is not a doctrine that impacts peoples lives unlike nationalism.

 

[Carringbush2010]

but the thread is about nationalism. Not national. You cant just take the ism out as people think nationalism is wrong not national. No one has any view on the word national. Its just a label for a person who belongs to a nation. national is not a doctrine that impacts peoples lives unlike nationalism.

Read post 270

 

[Seeds]

Read post 270

Thats the closest ive ever seen anyone admit that they were wrong on this board in a long time. For that you get my respect. Its a sign of intelligence.

 

[ShanDog]

Seems you didn't read my post, again, I disagree with the 'popular belief' of the term 'nationalism'.

Look up the term 'national' and then 'ism'

It's not so much that there is a popular belief that nationalism = bad thing, but perhaps more that people only tend to discuss it in negative terms in response to something. There's no doubt nationalism can have positive aspects to it, but since when do people go around talking about how great the status quo is or see breaking news headlines that say "BREAKING - EVERYTHING GOING PRETTY WELL ACTUALLY".

Everyone's happy to get behind nationalistic ideals and policies when they are positive, and there are plenty of them. We encourage people to buy Aussie goods, we celebrate great achievements like our healthcare system and superannuation etc - they are nationalistic policies in some ways. But we just don't talk about them too much in that sense.

I dunno, it's a bit of a fuzzy topic.