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

CD Xbow

Premiership Player
Oct 1, 2014
4,447
9,332
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Let me guess a YZ80?

Again, goes to prove my point, a YZ80 is a purpose built race machine, mum should've done her due diligence to check the 'mini bike' first. It's not the fault of the bike it's the fault of the operator.

It's not the fault of pride in ones nation, it's the fault of w***** who uses it for ill will.
No older than that, the very first generation of off road minbikes in the late 70's. Pretty gutless but a lot of fun.
 
Jun 6, 2016
19,309
12,031
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
No older than that, the very first generation of off road minbikes in the late 70's. Pretty gutless but a lot of fun.

Not a YZ80 then, which even a 1980 model has more power to weight ratio than just about any production car you can buy now.

Point is still the same 'nationalism' is not the problem here, as always people are. 'Nationalism' has a bad unwarranted name.
 

medusala

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts
Aug 14, 2004
37,209
8,423
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Do you want ultra-nationalist Europe squabbling amongst itself, or an integrated and open Europe working together?

Dear oh dear. Such ignorance. You want the Austro Hungary empire bought back again? Ditto the Warsaw Pact? Reinstate Prussia and Yugoslavia?

Those bloody Swiss and Norwegians and Danes and Swedes and Finns. Just running around invading everything that moves.
 

medusala

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts
Aug 14, 2004
37,209
8,423
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Nationalism is defined as 'identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations'. It also infers a collectivist approach (ie mandated by the governing polity) in opposition to liberalism and liberty.

Unhinged nonsense. Switzerland being isolated and neutral isnt to the detriment of others.

Nor does it infer a collectivist approach. Absurd.

Dresden back on fire again.
 

RobbieK

Cancelled
Aug 20, 2009
5,731
10,803
AFL Club
Sydney
Despite the great diversity amongst humanity, we are fundamentally all the same and all worthy of the same rights and respect.

Nationalism is an arbitrary and misguided denial of our common humanity. It divides us, and in doing so has caused a great deal of suffering.

We would all be better off abandoning it, and any other ideologies that divide rather than unite, such as religion.

file_19c434aa89_400w.jpg
 

The Passenger

The passenger, I am...
Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts Sensible Type WCE Wings Guernsey
Mar 25, 2003
35,681
28,332
Feels like the op is more concerned about the definition of nationalism than the actual action of what happens when patriotism is taken too far.

National pride is a bit of a funny thing when you think about it. I would have more in common with the average city dweller in Amsterdam, New York or Vancouver then I would with the average farmer from Northern Queensland. Or if the Australian colonies had decided to form several different countries a century or so ago, suburbanites from Adelaide would have no reason to feel any sense of national pride for the Sydney Olympics or Cathy Freeman's gold medal.

Not saying it's a bad thing - with only a handful of exceptions for a nation to thrive it needs more than just city dwellers alone, whilst I can't think of any country in the modern world that holds any sort of influence without a busy urban metropolis at it's core.
 
May 1, 2016
28,403
55,360
AFL Club
Carlton
So going by that people are the problem not pride in ones nation.

It's like the kid with the mini bike that stacks and breaks his arm and mum says 'mini bikes are bad' when in fact it is a completely inanimate object unless controlled by the kid.

The kid is the problem and cause of the accident not the mini bike.
So what you're saying is, it's not guns that kill people, it's people who kill people...
 
May 1, 2016
28,403
55,360
AFL Club
Carlton
Again, what is 'nationalism'? According to a google search it is:

View attachment 987089

I question that, A/ Seeing how patriotism is similar, how is patriotism ok? B/ When and who decided that patriotism nationalism is exclusive and detrimental?

Pride in ones nation is a choice yet nationalism which means exactly the same thing is poisonous and frowned upon.

There is certainly inconsistencies here, that cannot be disputed.
Because patriotism does not necessitate exclusion. Nationalism requires exclusion, and the harder it gets the stronger the exclusion.
 
Jun 6, 2016
19,309
12,031
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Despite the great diversity amongst humanity, we are fundamentally all the same and all worthy of the same rights and respect.

Nationalism is an arbitrary and misguided denial of our common humanity. It divides us, and in doing so has caused a great deal of suffering.

We would all be better off abandoning it, and any other ideologies that divide rather than unite, such as religion.

file_19c434aa89_400w.jpg

I am curious,

Are you suggesting that humankind abandon identities they're tied to because of the few that hijack the definition of national pride for ill purposes?

Should we abandon our footy teams? Don't want to have the opportunity of bad blood between clubs and supporters right? Best off we do away with the footy competition, just to be safe.

How about we just stamp out competition altogether just to ensure no one gets hurt, let's be safe.

Ok all of that is sarcastic, but it is so for good reason. Maybe rethink what nationalism really is instead of what should be an incorrect definition according to a google search.
 
Jun 6, 2016
19,309
12,031
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Because patriotism does not necessitate exclusion. Nationalism requires exclusion, and the harder it gets the stronger the exclusion.

In the very post you replied to, according to google, the only difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the latter uses exclusivity for detrimental purposes.

Who and when decided that nationalism holds intent for ill will?

Having pride in your nation or nationalism patriotism should not have the tag of ill will toward others.
 
Jun 6, 2016
19,309
12,031
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Feels like the op is more concerned about the definition of nationalism than the actual action of what happens when patriotism is taken too far.

Someone gets it, kind of.

Taking patriotism nationalism too far is then no longer patriotism nationalism, that's my point, the definition of both is very questionable.
 
May 1, 2016
28,403
55,360
AFL Club
Carlton
In the very post you replied to, according to google, the only difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the latter uses exclusivity for detrimental purposes.

Who and when decided that nationalism holds intent for ill will?

Having pride in your nation or nationalism patriotism should not have the tag of ill will toward others.
Okay. Having pride in oneself does not necessitate deriding others, but it helps.

There is a deep, deep irony to you having brought up parochialism on a football website, but under its political auspices. Supporting your team does not entail thinking your team is 'the best', but it helps. It isn't enough to support Collingwood; no, you need to hate Carlton, and despise everything they stand for.

Extrapolate that to countries and the very real consequences of parochialism when armies are involved. Wouldn't want those Carlton supporters coming to Collingwood, would we?

Consider it a spectrum, with extremely mild pride on ones country at one end to full blown nationalist fascism at the other end. As a spectrum, one must be wary of sliding further along.

That gun doesn't kill anyone unless a person uses it for it's designated purpose, a mini bike does not break a kids arm if the kid uses it for its designated purpose.
Nope.

Your logic was the precise same as the NRA when defusing a shooting spree. Own it, or dispense with the logic.
 
Last edited:
Jun 6, 2016
19,309
12,031
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Okay. Having pride in oneself does not necessitate deriding others, but it helps.

There is a deep, deep irony to you having brought up parochialism on a football website, but under its political auspices. Supporting your team does not entail thinking your team is 'the best', but it helps. It isn't enough to support Collingwood; no, you need to hate Carlton, and despise everything they stand for.

Extrapolate that to countries and the very real consequences of parochialism when armies are involved. Wouldn't want those Carlton supporters coming to Collingwood, would we?

Consider it a spectrum, with extremely mild pride on ones country at one end to full blown nationalist fascism at the other end. As a spectrum, one must be wary of sliding further along.


Nope.

Your logic was the precise same as the NRA when defusing a shooting spree. Own it, or dispense with the logic.

Your very first sentence pretty much answers it. Pride itself does not cause people to do ill will. Yet having pride in your nation is somehow a bad thing, go figure.

You can boil it down and dissect it all you want but at the end of the day, inanimate objects are inanimate unless controlled by people.
 
May 1, 2016
28,403
55,360
AFL Club
Carlton
Why would I agree with the glorification of soldiers? What is it that poses this question to you?
Because nationalism is frequently accompanied by the lionisation of individuals, the supposed examples of the perfect citizen. In practical terms, all countries do this; we all have role models which we are told to emulate. But where - here - those role models might be sportsmen, in nationalistic contexts these people are very frequently soldiers, 'heroes'.
Your very first sentence pretty much answers it. Pride itself does not cause people to do ill will. Yet having pride in your nation is somehow a bad thing, go figure.

You can boil it down and dissect it all you want but at the end of the day, inanimate objects are inanimate unless controlled by people.
You're conveniently leaving off the rest of that sentence, and that changes the meaning significantly.

And you've chosen to double down on the 'guns don't kill, people kill' rhetoric. Good for you.
 
Jun 6, 2016
19,309
12,031
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Because nationalism is frequently accompanied by the lionisation of individuals, the supposed examples of the perfect citizen. In practical terms, all countries do this; we all have role models which we are told to emulate. But where - here - those role models might be sportsmen, in nationalistic contexts these people are very frequently soldiers, 'heroes'.

You're conveniently leaving off the rest of that sentence, and that changes the meaning significantly.

And you've chosen to double down on the 'guns don't kill, people kill' rhetoric. Good for you.

Your first paragraph I'm assuming you're labeling 'soldier' as 'glorified' because they do bad things like harm and kill others in war. Yes, you'd be correct but it's also naive to believe that wars and conflict can be avoided. So a necessity if you will, it was necessary to engage in conflict in WW2 to avoid living under nazi rule. So yeah those soldiers saved us from such rule - heroes.

When I talk about pride in nation, the better example would be the sportsman you refer to. Yet even this is frowned upon by some.

To be clear I am certainly not a gun advocate, but equally I cannot buy the argument that inanimate objects have a capacity to be animate by their own doing.
 
May 1, 2016
28,403
55,360
AFL Club
Carlton
Your first paragraph I'm assuming you're labeling 'soldier' as 'glorified' because they do bad things like harm and kill others in war. Yes, you'd be correct but it's also naive to believe that wars and conflict can be avoided. So a necessity if you will, it was necessary to engage in conflict in WW2 to avoid living under nazi rule. So yeah those soldiers saved us from such rule - heroes.
This is a complex area.

Our soldiers didn't 'save' us from Nazi rule; if anything, they saved a small portion of northern Australia and a significant proportion of SE Asia from Japanese imperial control, but Japan was overextended and doomed to fight a war without the manpower necessary to pacify and nationalise the regions captured. So, 'saved' is probably not the right word, either.

But that shouldn't understate or undervalue the sacrifice made by the people who chose to become soldiers. It is their choice which enables our protection, the abnegation of the self in order to save others. But that - in my opinion - is why they shouldn't be lionised; these were everyday people, men and women, sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers and sisters, all of whom made the choice to protect those who stand behind them. That choice is not a nationalistic or a patriotic one, but is inherently a noble thing. People looking in this area lose the trees for the forest; 'Gallipoli' as our national beginning is a perversion of the fact that 8141 people died there in a losing conflict, people who chose to honour the treaties we made to others.

Exceptionalism, I suppose, is the problem.

When I talk about pride in nation, the better example would be the sportsman you refer to. Yet even this is frowned upon by some.

To be clear I am certainly not a gun advocate, but equally I cannot buy the argument that inanimate objects have a capacity to be animate by their own doing.
The reason I made that comment is because your logic is exactly the same. Either you need to be comfortable with that logic and to embrace it - despite its irrationality - or you need to change metaphors.

I don't like nationalism, or excessive patriotism. I don't like it, because it's very frequently performative; it's not about the person professing their 'love' for their country, because if they actually loved their country they'd love the people in it.

I don't want to turn this thread into even more of a left/right shitfight than it's going to be, so I'll leave it there. Suffice to say, though, that I think that if one loves their country or their nationality, they should probably work towards ending poverty, wealth in equality and racial wealth disparity before they told us how much they 'love' their nation.

Words cannot speak louder than actions.
 
Jun 6, 2016
19,309
12,031
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
This is a complex area.

Our soldiers didn't 'save' us from Nazi rule; if anything, they saved a small portion of northern Australia and a significant proportion of SE Asia from Japanese imperial control, but Japan was overextended and doomed to fight a war without the manpower necessary to pacify and nationalise the regions captured. So, 'saved' is probably not the right word, either.

But that shouldn't understate or undervalue the sacrifice made by the people who chose to become soldiers. It is their choice which enables our protection, the abnegation of the self in order to save others. But that - in my opinion - is why they shouldn't be lionised; these were everyday people, men and women, sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers and sisters, all of whom made the choice to protect those who stand behind them. That choice is not a nationalistic or a patriotic one, but is inherently a noble thing. People looking in this area lose the trees for the forest; 'Gallipoli' as our national beginning is a perversion of the fact that 8141 people died there in a losing conflict, people who chose to honour the treaties we made to others.

Exceptionalism, I suppose, is the problem.


The reason I made that comment is because your logic is exactly the same. Either you need to be comfortable with that logic and to embrace it - despite its irrationality - or you need to change metaphors.

I don't like nationalism, or excessive patriotism. I don't like it, because it's very frequently performative; it's not about the person professing their 'love' for their country, because if they actually loved their country they'd love the people in it.

I don't want to turn this thread into even more of a left/right shitfight than it's going to be, so I'll leave it there. Suffice to say, though, that I think that if one loves their country or their nationality, they should probably work towards ending poverty, wealth in equality and racial wealth disparity before they told us how much they 'love' their nation.

Words cannot speak louder than actions.

In your first paragraph, going into finer details about 'soldiers' and how they come to be soldiers doesn't change the principle. It remains the same.

As for your second reply, you mention irrationality , 100% correct - that really ends the debate on inanimate objects. Feels should not be applied to arguments about 'guns/people kill people'. If it's irrational it's irrational.

You don't like nationalism / patriotism because it's performative. 'Performative' suggests competing, competing is a human trait. That doesn't mean the patriot does not love the people in the country. Quite the opposite, the patriot is in love with the people and goes into bat for them. Seems you have a problem with 'competing' or 'sticking up' for your countrymen because there is an opposition.

That sort of sentiment is not practical because opposition and competing are a part of life. It's akin to utopian thinking of everyone holding hands around the campfire. That ain't happenin.

Your last paragraph comes across as 'shh you can't espouse your love for country unless you fix global societal issues first'. That's not realistic and you know it.
 

RobbieK

Cancelled
Aug 20, 2009
5,731
10,803
AFL Club
Sydney
I am curious,

Are you suggesting that humankind abandon identities they're tied to because of the few that hijack the definition of national pride for ill purposes?

Should we abandon our footy teams? Don't want to have the opportunity of bad blood between clubs and supporters right? Best off we do away with the footy competition, just to be safe.

How about we just stamp out competition altogether just to ensure no one gets hurt, let's be safe.

Ok all of that is sarcastic, but it is so for good reason. Maybe rethink what nationalism really is instead of what should be an incorrect definition according to a google search.

Just because you don't like how a word is defined doesn't mean the definition is incorrect. The definition is a reflection on how we use the word, so definitions are fluid and context dependent. Dictionaries don't set the meaning of a word, they just reflrct its current usage.

At one stage in human history nationalism wasn't seen as a pejorative word. On the contrary, it was used by liberal groups in the process of creating nation states governed by democratic principles as a means of abandoning monarchical rule.

Since then, though, we have witnessed the consequences of nationalism as the concept was taken over by authoritarian forces who used it to justify exclusionary and discriminatory politics, war and genocide.

To say that our usage of the word that reflects this history of the concept is incorrect belies your misunderstanding of how language functions or your lack of understanding of history. Or both.

I'm not surprised that your response to me contained no actual substance. On this topic clearly you haven't got any to offer.
 
Last edited:
Jun 6, 2016
19,309
12,031
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Just because you don't like how a word is defined doesn't mean the definition is incorrect. The definition is a reflection on how we use the word, so definitions are fluid and context dependent.

At one stage in human history nationalism wasn't seen as a pejorative word. On the contrary, it was used by liberal groups in the process of creating nation states governed by democratic principles as a means of abandoning monarchical rule.

Since then, though, we have witnessed the consequences of nationalism as the concept was taken over by authoritarian forces who used it to justify exclusionary and discriminatory politics, war and genocide.

To say that our usage of the word that reflects this history of the concept is incorrect belies your misunderstanding of how language functions or your lack of understanding of history. Or both.

I'm not surprised that your response to me contained no actual substance. On this topic clearly you haven't got any to offer.

Well then I guess we agree, nationalism was once not seen as a negative and it has been humankind since that has labeled it something different to it's original definition. And human kind that has used it for ill gain.

The definition and use of - now - is one of negativity, when it never used to be. It has changed.

So If was to rephrase the question, what is so wrong with nationalism pride and love for nation (in it's original definition)?
 
May 1, 2016
28,403
55,360
AFL Club
Carlton
In your first paragraph, going into finer details about 'soldiers' and how they come to be soldiers doesn't change the principle. It remains the same.
Um, yes it certainly does change the principle. The emphasis is completely different; the essence of the sacrifice made by service people is not for country, but for other people. That's a pretty distinct difference.

But then, this could be a difference between the way I see things and the way everyone else sees them.
As for your second reply, you mention irrationality , 100% correct - that really ends the debate on inanimate objects. Feels should not be applied to arguments about 'guns/people kill people'. If it's irrational it's irrational.
... because your argument - that nationalism doesn't kill people/cause racism/cause exceptionalism, people kill people/are racist/believe themselves and their nation is exceptional - is irrational.

Feels aren't applied, and aren't necessary to make the argument I'm making here. It's duplicitous reasoning, because it's overly simplistic and overlooks the fact that while the people holding the gun are certainly killing the person on the other end, the gun in and of itself makes the killing far easier than it would otherwise be. So too, nationalism and exceptionalism can and has made race and religious wars entirely too easy to justify, and entirely too easy to segment their own populations based on ethnic and national ideals.

You don't like nationalism / patriotism because it's performative. 'Performative' suggests competing, competing is a human trait. That doesn't mean the patriot does not love the people in the country. Quite the opposite, the patriot is in love with the people and goes into bat for them. Seems you have a problem with 'competing' or 'sticking up' for your countrymen because there is an opposition.

That sort of sentiment is not practical because opposition and competing are a part of life. It's akin to utopian thinking of everyone holding hands around the campfire. That ain't happenin.
And people on the right wonder why they're often labelled ideologically stagnant.

Competing is but a single aspect of life/reality. There's nothing utopian about the concept of co-operation, and there's almost nothing in the post you quoted that has denoted any of the stuff you've delved into here. One thinks you're engaging in some next level reading between the lines.

Your last paragraph comes across as 'shh you can't espouse your love for country unless you fix global societal issues first'. That's not realistic and you know it.
My last paragraph is not wanting to divert your thread from its central premise.

I think there's a profound irony in the fact that people who would profess their love for their country on one hand would deny (to confine this down to a single area, in order to avoid excess generalisation) Aboriginal land rights, indigenous culture its intellectual underpinning, and even aboriginality itself.

I think that 'my nation is special' is deliberately and frequently a cover for 'I and mine are special', and the actions of nationalists tend to follow the latter rather than the former.
 

RobbieK

Cancelled
Aug 20, 2009
5,731
10,803
AFL Club
Sydney
Well then I guess we agree, nationalism was once not seen as a negative and it has been humankind since that has labeled it something different to it's original definition. And human kind that has used it for ill gain.

The definition and use of - now - is one of negativity, when it never used to be. It has changed.

So If was to rephrase the question, what is so wrong with nationalism pride and love for nation (in it's original definition)?
The understanding and definition of the concept changed with good reason. You can continue to ignore that all you like, but that is just denial on your part. The definitional shift happened a century ago. It is a strange and futile exercise to expect people to engage with you when you are using words out of context and time. You seem to think that how the word was once used is the correct way and how it changed is wrong, but again, that is not how words and language work.

In the twenty first century you can't say that nationalism is merely pride and love for one's nation and expect people not to question you on why you are ignoring the experience of the last 100 years and how that has shaped our understanding of the concept.
 
Back