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

[Carringbush2010]

But then, this could be a difference between the way I see things and the way everyone else sees them.

That's all you needed to say, the principle does not change.

... 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.

Ummm......... you might want to read what you just posted here. A gun in of itself can not do anything, it requires another component to do so. This cannot be argued.

There's nothing utopian about the concept of co-operation

I never stated or suggested that, what I did say was 'not everybody can co operate' in other words it's utopian to think everyone co operates. If everyone co operated there'd be no need for to compete for anything.

And people on the right wonder why they're often labelled ideologically stagnant.

If you're suggesting that I'm right wing then think again, it is not 'stagnant' or 'right wing' to question why pride in nation is viewed as a negative

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.

To profess pride in nation does not exclude one to have concerns on societal issues that you've provided here. They're not exclusive, and you're correlating pride in nation as an automatic dismissal or ignorance to those issue. Sure there'd be a very minuscule number of people who are exactly that, it would not be the majority though. You give the impression that it's a one size fits all, it is not.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The understanding and definition of the concept changed with good reason by individuals with ill will.

EFA.

We can go around in circles on what the definition is or what it should be, I'm not advocating for a change in the dictionary.

So I'll ask the question again, worded differently, so you can answer it.

What is so wrong with having pride in nation?

 

[Caesar]

Another quality thread by Carringbush2010

Nationalism is a political philosophy that (in order to propagate itself and succeed) requires the othering, exclusion and denigration of people outside a nominal national group as a central social feature. A political philosophy of that nature will inevitably foster conflict between the group and those excluded, as the group will inevitably seek to advance its interests at the expense of those that are by definition seen as less worthy.

Given that conflict between nation-states is by every metric detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the human race, most sane modern people eschew nationalism. Nationalist countries are not particularly good at participating in cooperative globalism, which over the course of history has been most effective path to human prosperity.

I can only assume that OP understands this, because rather than actually mount an argument in favour of nationalism he has chosen to pretend that the word doesn't mean what it means.

 

[RobbieK]

EFA.

We can go around in circles on what the definition is or what it should be, I'm not advocating for a change in the dictionary.

So I'll ask the question again, worded differently, so you can answer it.

What is so wrong with having pride in nation?

No, you didn't edit for accuracy. The ill will with regard to the definitional shift of nationalism is not held by those who saw it to be a motivating force behind some of the worst attrocities of human history, but by those who committed those atteocities.

Why you have such denial about this is beyond me.

 

[Gethelred]

Ummm......... you might want to read what you just posted here. A gun in of itself can not do anything, it requires another component to do so. This cannot be argued.

This is pedantism for its own sake, and - again - is exactly the same as the guns debate in America.

Does possession of a gun make killing easier, yes or no?

I never stated or suggested that, what I did say was 'not everybody can co operate' in other words it's utopian to think everyone co operates. If everyone co operated there'd be no need for to compete for anything.

Has anyone ever told you you're a sneaky bugger?

You write using unspoken premises, then when they're exposed, you inform all and sundry that you don't think that, nope, I never said that, no sir.

Conversational chicanery, my friend. Kudos.

If you're suggesting that I'm right wing then think again, it is not 'stagnant' or 'right wing' to question why pride in nation is viewed as a negative

Every single perspective you've put forth on this or any other subject I've observed from you put you on the right side of the spectrum. If you swim around enjoying the rain quacking, don't object to getting called out for being a duck.

To profess pride in nation does not exclude one to have concerns on societal issues that you've provided here. They're not exclusive, and you're correlating pride in nation as an automatic dismissal or ignorance to those issue. Sure there'd be a very minuscule number of people who are exactly that, it would not be the majority though. You give the impression that it's a one size fits all, it is not.

I give the impression, because we as a society do not seem to care about these things. If we did, we could solve a lot of these problems. Could the process of solving these problems unearth other problems? Almost certainly, but not dealing with these issues in fear of ruining the current status quo demonstrates the degree to which all people do not care.

So, if you love your country, perhaps put a bit more time into helping out your countrymen, instead of raising a flag or putting one on your back.

 

[Carringbush2010]

No, you didn't edit for accuracy. The ill will with regard to the definitional shift of nationalism is not held by those who saw it to be a motivating force behind some of the worst attrocities of human history, but by those who committed those atteocities.

Why you have such denial about this is beyond me.

Looks we agree again, those who commit atrocities are the issue, not a definition of what pride in nation is.

Are you going to answer the question?

 

[RobbieK]

Looks we agree again, those who commit atrocities are the issue, not a definition of what pride in nation is.

Are you going to answer the question?

We don't agree. You are totally incoherent. You apparently have no idea how language functions and are in denial about a great swathe of modern history. To what end truly escapes me.

Nationalism is not just pride in a nation. If you want to have a thread discussing national pride you shouldn't have called it "So what is wrong with nationalism?".

As for national pride, I will defer to Schopenhauer:

"The cheapest form of pride however is national pride. For it betrays in the one thus afflicted the lack of individual qualities of which he could be proud, while he would not otherwise reach for what he shares with so many millions. He who possesses significant personal merits will rather recognise the defects of his own nation, as he has them constantly before his eyes, most clearly. But that poor beggar who has nothing in the world of which he can be proud, latches onto the last means of being proud, the nation to which he belongs to. Thus he recovers and is now in gratitude ready to defend with hands and feet all errors and follies which are its own."

If one is to take pride in actions and achievements that are not you own I see no reason why largely arbitrary national boundaries should act as a guiding limitation. Taking pride in humanity's achievements makes more sense.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Does possession of a gun make killing easier, yes or no?
[/QUOTe

Is a gun without another necessary component, an operator to operate it, able to do anything? You're arguing the impossible here.

Has anyone ever told you you're a sneaky bugger?

You write using unspoken premises, then when they're exposed, you inform all and sundry that you don't think that, nope, I never said that, no sir.

Conversational chicanery, my friend. Kudos.

I'll inform you here that you are not a mind reader and you have not read mine. I do not advocate employing a self centred non empathetical attitude and mask it as pride in nation.

Every single perspective you've put forth on this or any other subject I've observed from you put you on the right side of the spectrum. If you swim around enjoying the rain quacking, don't object to getting called out for being a duck.

That is your opinion and you can have it, it does not change the fact that I don't like right or left, they're largely unpractical in ideology. I prefer the sensible centre. And this is not really thread relevant anyway, was not an objection by the way. It was a statement.

if you love your country, perhaps put a bit more time into helping out your countrymen, instead of raising a flag or putting one on your back

How do you equate pride in nation as ignoring / not helping your countrymen? Again the societal issues you raise are not really relevant.

 

[HairyO]

Extreme nationalism leads to hateful discrimination against minorities including immigrants and refugees and a number of religious beliefs that are not part of the wider community.

Patriotic expression is a milder form where you are proud of your heritage and where you’re born but you aren’t bothered by different cultures living amongst your community.

Extreme socialism led to Mao and Stalin.

Any extreme is bad. Its why we label it extreme.

Is a bogan who wears an Australian flag towel on his shoulders on Australia Day automatically bad and in favour of race wars ?

 

[Gethelred]

The problem, Carringbush2010, is that you don't listen or engage with the parts of posts you either can't or don't want to argue with. You're incredibly selective with how you reply and what you reply to; for all intents and purposes, you're stripping my posts to their bones then telling me they're thin.

And your supposed 'centrism' is as much a pose as is this thread. You're not interested in argument, but in affirmation.

 

[Carringbush2010]

We don't agree. You are totally incoherent. You apparently have no idea how language functions and are in denial about a great swathe of modern history. To what end truly escapes me.

Nationalism is not just pride in a nation. If you want to have a thread discussing national pride you shouldn't have called it "So what is wrong with nationalism?".

As for national pride, I will defer to Schopenhauer:

"The cheapest form of pride however is national pride. For it betrays in the one thus afflicted the lack of individual qualities of which he could be proud, while he would not otherwise reach for what he shares with so many millions. He who possesses significant personal merits will rather recognise the defects of his own nation, as he has them constantly before his eyes, most clearly. But that poor beggar who has nothing in the world of which he can be proud, latches onto the last means of being proud, the nation to which he belongs to. Thus he recovers and is now in gratitude ready to defend with hands and feet all errors and follies which are its own."

If one is to take pride in actions and achievements that are not you own I see no reason why largely arbitrary national boundaries should act as a guiding limitation. Taking pride in humanity's achievements makes more sense.

1/ Just because I disagree with the negative definition, does not mean I don't understand how language and context works. That suggestion is preposterous.

2/ Taking pride in humanity's accomplishments does not exclude taking pride in nation. There seems to be a theme among you and Gethelred that they have to be exclusive to each other. They do not. Like patriots are your stereotypical bogan who holds no empathy for others, this not the only 'type' that has pride in nation.

3/ That Schopenhauer description is a little pessimistic and one dimensional, it comes across as 'individual has zero left in the world so begrudgingly and disingenuously pays gratitude in his nation to cover his own short comings' or in other words, if you have pride in nation 'your a failure and don't want to admit it'

 

[RobbieK]

1/ Just because I disagree with the negative definition, does not mean I don't understand how language and context works. That suggestion is preposterous.

That you disagree with the definition of the words is certainly evidence that you don't understand how language works. If you understood then you would realise how foolish you are.

2/ Taking pride in humanity's accomplishments does not exclude taking pride in nation. There seems to be a theme among you and Gethelred that they have to be exclusive to each other. They do not. Like patriots are your stereotypical bogan who holds no empathy for others, this not the only 'type' that has pride in nation.

Why should the arbitrary borders of nation states be a defining limit for anyone's pride?

3/ That Schopenhauer description is a little pessimistic and one dimensional, it comes across as 'individual has zero left in the world so begrudgingly and disingenuously pays gratitude in his nation to cover his own short comings' or in other words, if you have pride in nation 'your a failure and don't want to admit it'

Schopenhauer was not know for his optimism. The point Schopenhauer is making is that it makes sense to have pride in things that you yourself have accomplished, but not for things that you have not. If you are looking for things outside yourself to be proud in it suggests a lack of things inside yourself that are worthy.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The problem, Carringbush2010, is that you don't listen or engage with the parts of posts you either can't or don't want to argue with. You're incredibly selective with how you reply and what you reply to; for all intents and purposes, you're stripping my posts to their bones then telling me they're thin.

And your supposed 'centrism' is as much a pose as is this thread. You're not interested in argument, but in affirmation.

You mean like the gun / inanimate object argument? If this is what you're referring to it's not that I don't want to argue it, it's the fact that it can't be.

An inanimate object is an inanimate object period, it can't be argued. There's your 'thin'

Like I said I'm a very practical person and tend not to delve into debating the non debatable just because there's an emotive intent to the counter.

You may view that as 'selective' or seeking affirmation but that is not my intent.

 

[Shane Heard]

Extreme socialism led to Mao and Stalin.

Any extreme is bad. Its why we label it extreme.

Is a bogan who wears an Australian flag towel on his shoulders on Australia Day automatically bad and in favour of race wars ?

i don’t know ...who gives a s###

 

[Gethelred]

Extreme socialism led to Mao and Stalin.

Any extreme is bad. Its why we label it extreme.

Is a bogan who wears an Australian flag towel on his shoulders on Australia Day automatically bad and in favour of race wars ?

... really? Extreme socialism led to Mao and Stalin? Did it really?

You sure it wasn't vying for power amidst revolutionary rhetoric and a civil war in the geographically largest country in the world operating with pre-industrial age transportation technology coupled with one of the worst famines in Russia's history? You sure it wasn't the power vaccuum that existed in China creating the failed and failing state that Japan invaded, after which Mao spent the war building his own military base and support in an unassailable way, and with extreme localised support in China beat back the propped up Kuomintang back to Taiwan, where they've been ever since?

It is extremely reductive to say that extreme socialism led to either leader taking control or killing people. If you're talking about Russia, perhaps look at the continued repression of the country under late Stalin and early Khrushchev, and to what happened after Mao became an undisputed dictator of the Socialist Republic in the wake of the 100 flowers campaign. Both are examples of dictators with power either deliberately or accidently killing lots of people, and that can and has happened under all kinds of systems of government.

 

[HairyO]

... really? Extreme socialism led to Mao and Stalin? Did it really?

You sure it wasn't vying for power amidst revolutionary rhetoric and a civil war in the geographically largest country in the world operating with pre-industrial age transportation technology coupled with one of the worst famines in Russia's history? You sure it wasn't the power vaccuum that existed in China creating the failed and failing state that Japan invaded, after which Mao spent the war building his own military base and support in an unassailable way, and with extreme localised support in China beat back the propped up Kuomintang back to Taiwan, where they've been ever since?

It is extremely reductive to say that extreme socialism led to either leader taking control or killing people. If you're talking about Russia, perhaps look at the continued repression of the country under late Stalin and early Khrushchev, and to what happened after Mao became an undisputed dictator of the Socialist Republic in the wake of the 100 flowers campaign. Both are examples of dictators with power either deliberately or accidently killing lots of people, and that can and has happened under all kinds of systems of government.

Yep. As I said. Extremes.

Because Communism is a fancy idea that simply has not, nor will ever work.

And Fascism on the other side. Though really the 2 extremes pretty much touch in a hoop rather than a straight line. They just getsold differently in the early phases.

 

[Gethelred]

You mean like the gun / inanimate object argument? If this is what you're referring to it's not that I don't want to argue it, it's the fact that it can't be.

An inanimate object is an inanimate object period, it can't be argued. There's your 'thin'

Tell me, does the word 'reductive' exist in your lexicon?

Like I said I'm a very practical person and tend not to delve into debating the non debatable just because there's an emotive intent to the counter.

You may view that as 'selective' or seeking affirmation but that is not my intent.

You spend an incredible amount of time telling other people they're being emotive in order to disqualify what they're saying. Sometimes it's true, mostly it's not.

You look for reasons to ignore what other people say. That's the very definition of selective.

 

[Gethelred]

Yep. As I said. Extremes.

Because Communism is a fancy idea that simply has not, nor will ever work.

And Fascism on the other side. Though really the 2 extremes pretty much touch in a hoop rather than a straight line. They just getsold differently in the early phases.

Handwaving.

Neither party were really Marx's definition of communism, closer by far to Lenin's. And that bloke was pretty self interested, even if he'd have been a much better statesman than Stalin.

I think the horseshoe theory's reductive, but then I think you get that.

 

[HairyO]

Handwaving.

Neither party were really Marx's definition of communism, closer by far to Lenin's. And that bloke was pretty self interested, even if he'd have been a much better statesman than Stalin.

I think the horseshoe theory's reductive, but then I think you get that.

As I said, Communism is a quaint idea that will never work as originally intended.

Its a great way to end up like USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc.

 

[Carringbush2010]

That you disagree with the definition of the words is certainly evidence that you don't understand how language works. If you understood then you would realise how foolish you are.

This is opinion, just because I don't view patriotism or whatever word you want to use for does not mean I don't understand. This is looking like an intent to insult.

Why should the arbitrary borders of nation states be a defining limit for anyone's pride?

It is not and have not suggested so, maybe broaden your view a bit, it's not just self centred bogans with v8 utes who have pride in nation who feel they must automatically oppose other nations because. Would hope you're not suggesting that pride in humanity and pride in nation have to be in opposition to each other.

Schopenhauer was not know for his optimism. The point Schopenhauer is making is that it makes sense to have pride in things that you yourself have accomplished, but not for things that you have not

I have not achieved what the Australian cricket teams have achieved, so therefore I should not have proud feelings for the team just broke a world record run of victories. That's what that comes across as.

Just because I'm proud of all the gold medals our athletes have won, or break throughs in technology our scientists have achieved or any other thing you can think of that I have had zero involvement with does not only equate to the character that Schopenhauer has used. This example is very narrow minded in that it is only one dimension of character who has pride in nation.

 

[RobbieK]

I have not achieved what the Australian cricket teams have achieved, so therefore I should not have proud feelings for the team just broke a world record run of victories. That's what that comes across as.

Why should you have pride in their achievements when you have played no part in them?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Tell me, does the word 'reductive' exist in your lexicon?

You spend an incredible amount of time telling other people they're being emotive in order to disqualify what they're saying. Sometimes it's true, mostly it's not.

You look for reasons to ignore what other people say. That's the very definition of selective.

Look we can round and round in circles, Ok I'll admit that pride in nation can be bad but it is not the only. But that seems to be the immediate reactionary assessment whenever the word 'nationalism' is mentioned.

I think your reductive comment is drawing a very long bow, like I'm being willfully ignorant of any counter argument by making simple statements then claiming it cannot be argued. Again that is not the intent, and no I don't go around telling people they're emotional. I go around not arguing the impractical just because there's an emotive intent to the counter.

 

[Gethelred]

Pride from association is a thing. This website exists as an avenue for it.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Why should you have pride in their achievements when you have played no part in them?

Why should I follow a football team when I have no direct involvement? Why don't you follow all teams instead of just one? Y'know to be inclusive. Come to the Pies Robbie, we need more members!

If you ask this question then you're asking 100's of millions of people.

You come across as if those achievements do not warrant my pride because I've had no involvement (achievement).

Were you proud of your team when they won the flag? If so you must've had direct involvement right?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Pride from association is a thing. This website exists as an avenue for it.

Are you proud to be associated with the Carlton Football Club?