Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Sinn Fein

Nationalism - a discussion

Recommended Posts

I am genuinely interested in a conversation about the virtues of Nationalism.  What are the relative positives and negatives about Nationalism?

 

I think I would split off "White Nationalism" as a distinct, but not completely separate, branch of Nationalism.  I know there is some overlap, but generally that position ("White Nationalism") is untenable in a modern society, so I'd rather not even entertain the notion that its a viable policy.

What I am referring to is more of the "America First" rhetoric coming from Trump.  And, while I believe there are some shades of racism contained within Trump's positions, I am more interested in understanding how or why "America First" works on any level.

My own views continue to evolve on this issue - but right now I am struggling with the notion that we place any value on nationality.  My current views are wrapped around this idea that the human race is interconnected on a relatively small planet.  Trying to draw distinctions based on some arbitrary lines in the dirt seems counterintuitive to making it all work.  People are people.  There are good people and bad people all over the planet.  Where someone had the fortune (or misfortune) to be born, should not dictate how we think about them - and yet it does.

So, when I see/hear Trump talking about "America First", I ask myself, why is that so important?  I know that there are a lot of people who subscribe to that point of view - and in the abstract, I kind of get it - "Yeah, us!  Boo, them!"  But, shouldn't we be figuring out how to make the world a better place?  Not, in some altruistic kind of way, but even in a self-enhancement kind of way, where a better world means a better life for me.  So, why is it good to pursue agendas where we prioritize our own gains, over everyone else?  It strikes me as counter-intuitive, and very short-sighted.

I look at Trump's policies, and he seems to be pulling the US away from the world community.  In Europe he tells our allies that we might not be there to protect them, so they need to stand on their own.  In Asia, he says we don't want any trade agreements, unless they favor the US.  In North America, he says, we don't want your type here, and we want trade agreements that favor the US.

I would like to hear from some of the Nationalism supporters here on why this policy makes sense in the short-term, or in the long-term.  For me, I see Nationalism as a huge negative, in an ever-connected global environment.  By pulling back, and talking tough, I think we are setting ourselves up for failure, as the world moves on without the US.  (I recognize that the US is a huge economy, but I also recognize that the world economy is growing, and as we force countries to live with out our influence, I fear that they will see that they can move on nicely without the US).  I think our focus on "America First" is a huge turnoff internationally, and has had an effect on our ability to influence world policies.

So, what are the positive impacts of Nationalism?  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I from Sykesville, Carroll County, Maryland, USA...these are all legitimized distinctions when it comes to citizenship but for some reasons we, people of the world, can't make the final leap to announce ourselves proudly and distinctly as citizens of earth as well.  It is a tiny blue marble we live on and it is only getting smaller by the day.  The US is taking a step back in failing to acknowledge this fact at the moment but my hope is there is a leap forward coming in 2020.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nationalism has a particularly amorphous and hard to pin down definition.  And I think much of the disconnect between those who it appeals to, and those who it worries can be attributed to each group using its own definition.

I view nationalism, in the political sense, as probably the most toxic ideology, but let me be clear about what I'm not arguing against.  I'm not arguing against patriotism or pride in the United States.  And I'm not arguing against the notion that the policy of the United States should broadly promote the interests of the United States. 

What I object to, is the notion that the self-interest of the United States is only protected if we view all global issues zero-sum issues where the United States must prevail as against anyone else's interests.  Because I don't believe that type of thinking actually promotes the United States' interests.  For example, I'm not naive enough to believe that the United States started the Marshall Plan purely out of the goodness of our hearts.  We did it because helping those countries rebuild after the war and pursue their interests was in our interest.  Similarly, I believe that being a good international citizen and respecting international institutions even when they aren't promoting our interest is an action that nevertheless serves our interests in the long run.  This is because even the wealthiest, most militarily potent nation on earth is much more limited in what it can achieve in hard power than what it can achieve through soft power.  And the United States's prestige was built on soft power derived in part by being considered, more often than not, to be an honest broker.  

So even beyond Nationalism's tendency to drive people to be willing to accept terrible acts against political "others." I think Nationalism is harmful because it is inefficient.  We could protect private property by having every property owner build better fences and buy better guns to protect their property.  It's more efficient to all agree to abide by a legal regime that affirms property rights.  Similarly, it is more efficient to abide by an international scheme that broadly conforms to our values than it is for us to try to secure our interests by force.  

 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll say that nation-states are sort of like sex roles. You don't want to abide by them, you might think they're merely cultural and transient, but in the end, they're there and they're intractable, so you do the best you can with them and go from there in order to keep the working order of the world harmonious. When you start to alter borders, you start to press up against the ingrainedly sociopolitical/cultural or even the essential, and however arbitrary national boundaries and nation-states may seem, redrawing or re-contextualizing the world to where we're simply word citizens often doesn't work well. 

See: communism satellites, colonialism, etc.  

As far as nationalism goes, the very term is loaded towards what one might view as a proto-fascist worldview. It's a different thing from patriotism or mere pride in country, as RHE pointed out above. It's an adjective that's fallen out of favor for the most part, and its modern lexical use is different than small "p" patriotism or pride. In other words, when was the last time you heard sovereignty interests referred to as "nationalism" without having ugly overtones? Sometimes usage is definition, and it would seem that "nationalism" as a term is or has always been loaded at best. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patriotism is pride for one's country, nationalism is the belief in the superiority of your country compared to others. Patriotism is a reason to cheer for Michael Phelps and honor our war veterans. Nationalism is a reason to invade  countries and discriminate against foreign born people. 

At least that's how I would see it in the modern context. 

I don't see any issue with "America first" but welcoming immigrants, making fair deals and alliances is often in the country's best interest. I think we have always been "America first" and the current platform is really "America only." Even then it's just a marketing tool more than any kind of real philosophical core. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to me, when you see homeless people, when you read the poverty rates, when you see how inner cities look, when you realize 100 million people are on some type of welfare, when you realize only 60% or so of those working age actually work ...... there are a lot of problems in this country, agreed?

and yet, we pour money out of our 20 trillion in debt Fed Govt to other countries, we set up rules and regulations that are not beneficial to American's or American businesses. Justify them all you want to, but to me? If you cannot take care of your own, how in the hell can you justify trying to take care of everyone else too ?

that to me is a core problem

also, nationalism is a sense of national pride as well, citizenship ........ and all the millions of illegals here destroys that. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does "pride in being American" originate?  I struggle with the concept of being "proud" of being American, when I literally did nothing to become American.  

To me, its kind of like being proud that the earth rotates around the sun.  Yeah Earth!

I get the olympics - its really no different than choosing a sporting team, and rooting for that team to win in a given competition.  Or, picking fantasy teams, and rooting for those players to perform better than others.

I also get that nations exist in the hierarchy of civilizations, growing from families, to small communities, to cities, to states, to nations.  All part of an evolving citizenship.  And in a world that was ever-expansive, joining together to protect against unknown outward foes makes a lot of sense.  It makes sense to create a set of common rules to ensure the security of those under the nation's umbrella.

But, I think, we live in a world that is shrinking every day.  The world becomes smaller as we continue to expand global communication, data-sharing, and travel.  The age of conquest is largely over - its not completely gone, but we are unlikely to ever see an antagonistic take over of land like the US pursued in its westward expansion.  Yes, there is still some global jockeying going on today - Russia and China in particular, but I think those are more like aftershocks, than actual earth shattering moves. 

To be certain - there is no universal blueprint for rules and laws.  And there are competing factions on how best to govern in the modern world - from democracies to dictatorships.  I don't think anyone has gotten it completely right, yet.  So, we still have global adversity when it comes to how the world should be governed - and those disputes generally fall along national lines.

And, maybe we need different rules for different people - I am not really sure why that is necessary, but can accept that not everyone is in the same place in their citizen evolution.  An iron fist may be more effective in some places, while a socialist point of view may be more effective elsewhere.  But, it seems to me that we (as a global collective of humans) should be trying to figure out how we all fit into the puzzle.  Because, at the end of the day, this is not really about whether Americans are better than Mexicans, or even whether Americans are somehow different that Mexicans, this is about how do humans best live together in an ever-shrinking world.

Trade deals should not be about "how do we make America better", they should be about, "how do we make the world better?"  Because, as RHE said above, a lot of the times, making the world better is in our own selfish best interests.  If you believe in the "American way of life", however you define that, then I think you have to be concerned with how Trump is engaging the world.  He talks tough, and I have no doubt that he actually thinks he is acting in America's best interest.  I think he looks at various international deals - whether it free trade deals, NATO, the UN, Iran Nuclear deal, North Korea - and says, we can make a deal that is better for the United States.  And, that may, or may not, be true in a myopic short-term sense.  But, setting aside whether or not those deals can be improved from an American perspective, the real damage is that Trump has very quickly ceded a leadership position on virtually all international issues.  So, that if you believe in "American Ideals", Trump has now made it much more difficult to spread those ideals across the globe.  In fact, "American Ideals" are being crystalized as "American Greed"  rightly or wrongly.

I apologize for the rambling post.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inherently nationalism is linked no more to fascism than socialism is.  They are all different and can exist without each other.  Nationalism is counter to internationalism which in many people's views allow international bodies to dictate national laws.  Americans pride themselves on independence and freedom and many people hate the concept of  internationalism 

Plus the US tends to be bad negotiators on international treaties usually because our politicians want deals and the other countries know this and milk it for all it's worth.  When people see factories close down here because of cheaper labor and benefits, lower taxes, and less environmental regulations it has really bad optics to the average person.  On top of that, we see American provide aid and support to other countries and in many cases the other countries seem ungrateful, it is hard to realize the intangible benefits it may be providing.   It is probably a distorted view, but politics on both sides never present an honest clear picture of the truth.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

to me, when you see homeless people, when you read the poverty rates, when you see how inner cities look, when you realize 100 million people are on some type of welfare, when you realize only 60% or so of those working age actually work ...... there are a lot of problems in this country, agreed?

and yet, we pour money out of our 20 trillion in debt Fed Govt to other countries, we set up rules and regulations that are not beneficial to American's or American businesses. Justify them all you want to, but to me? If you cannot take care of your own, how in the hell can you justify trying to take care of everyone else too ?

that to me is a core problem

also, nationalism is a sense of national pride as well, citizenship ........ and all the millions of illegals here destroys that. 

You sound like a socialist- and I don't mean that as an insult. It just seems like the natural political philosophy that fits your issues with the country. As Mega said, socialism and nationalism/patriotism are compatible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2018 at 1:27 PM, dutch said:

I from Sykesville, Carroll County, Maryland, USA...these are all legitimized distinctions when it comes to citizenship but for some reasons we, people of the world, can't make the final leap to announce ourselves proudly and distinctly as citizens of earth as well.  It is a tiny blue marble we live on and it is only getting smaller by the day.  The US is taking a step back in failing to acknowledge this fact at the moment but my hope is there is a leap forward coming in 2020.

As someone who knows Sykesville, Carroll County, MD, I bet your position is in the minority there... :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

You sound like a socialist- and I don't mean that as an insult. It just seems like the natural political philosophy that fits your issues with the country. As Mega said, socialism and nationalism/patriotism are compatible. 

except I believe each person has their own responsibility to earn their ways in life, nothing is free, nothing is given

sitting back and waiting for the system, the Govt, and other people to make your life comfortable is unacceptable to me, its the backbone of socialism. Sure, might not be the intent, but that IS how it goes

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

except I believe each person has their own responsibility to earn their ways in life, nothing is free, nothing is given

sitting back and waiting for the system, the Govt, and other people to make your life comfortable is unacceptable to me, its the backbone of socialism. Sure, might not be the intent, but that IS how it goes

 

 

Then can't we also say that unemployment, welfare and those numbers you cited are a result of the laziness of some people? It's not the job of the US government to ensure people have jobs or are living above poverty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Then can't we also say that unemployment, welfare and those numbers you cited are a result of the laziness of some people? It's not the job of the US government to ensure people have jobs or are living above poverty?

depends on the person

there are a LOT of people who want to sit home and get a check - yes, that's laziness. I know someone, mother of 2, that refuses a pay raise because it will remove her from getting state child care. I have a relative who faked a back injury - very successfully - and now does more manual labor than I do on the side. These are not isolated, I've seen all forms of cheating all my life. 

The US Govt doesn't have that job, no. It can help in certain ways to ensure and help business sure ..... but no, the responsibility of job, work and contributing to society falls on each person

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

Where does "pride in being American" originate?  I struggle with the concept of being "proud" of being American, when I literally did nothing to become American.  

 

I don't get that at all. 

Would you fight and die for a province in China? for the country of Peru ? Do you get any spark when you hear Australia's national anthem or see young men from Italy come home from fighting ISIS ?

 

pride in country should run very deep in all of us - in fact its one reason I don't like 15 millions illegals here, their allegiance lies to their home country, not the US or anything that has to do with this country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

depends on the person

there are a LOT of people who want to sit home and get a check - yes, that's laziness. I know someone, mother of 2, that refuses a pay raise because it will remove her from getting state child care. I have a relative who faked a back injury - very successfully - and now does more manual labor than I do on the side. These are not isolated, I've seen all forms of cheating all my life. 

The US Govt doesn't have that job, no. It can help in certain ways to ensure and help business sure ..... but no, the responsibility of job, work and contributing to society falls on each person

Isn't that position somewhat incongruent with the idea that our government is wasting money in other places when we have unemployed people living in poverty here? Is the government supposed to "take care of its own" or does all that fall on each person? 

Not easy questions and I'm sure we both agree that it's kind of both. Helping to grow the world economy has been a major goal of the US over the last few decades. On one hand we can view it at the expense of our own citizens but a growing world economy strongly benefits us. At what point do we say we can't stimulate economic growth of neighbors because people in our own home are struggling? At what point do we say our own are struggling because they aren't putting in their share of work and we can't let that hold back our efforts to expand the global economy? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I don't get that at all. 

Would you fight and die for a province in China? for the country of Peru ? Do you get any spark when you hear Australia's national anthem or see young men from Italy come home from fighting ISIS ?

In some cases, people do. Some Americans went to Spain to fight on the loyalist side. I felt a lot feelings watching Dunkirk. The French anthem scene in Casablanca moves me. The Syrian soccer team came very close to qualifying for their 1st ever WC- that would have been incredibly powerful and stirring to me.

Quote

 

pride in country should run very deep in all of us - in fact its one reason I don't like 15 millions illegals here, their allegiance lies to their home country, not the US or anything that has to do with this country

They were so loyal to their home countries that they risked everything to flee from there? I think that's a broad assumption that's going to be wrong in many cases.  Many people have dual citizenships and are loyal to 2 countries. I can be loyal to multiple things: family, country, religion, city, State, college. There are US born citizens that are still loyal to their Irish, Italian or Polish heritage while remaining loyal Americans as well. 

Edited by Ilov80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Isn't that position somewhat incongruent with the idea that our government is wasting money in other places when we have unemployed people living in poverty here? Is the government supposed to "take care of its own" or does all that fall on each person? 

Not so much. The Federal Govt shouldn't take literally billions of American's tax dollars and send to other countries peoples when we have troubles of our own here. 

I've always said there should be a social net of some kind .... for the small percentage of people who do need it. Social care is massively abused but there is a need, and that money wasted by our Govt is the money that can and should solve those areas.

So I guess in part yes, Socialism for the small % of people who really do need help. But for the 97% of American's or whatever the % might be, no you have a personal responsibility for your own life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

they were so loyal to their home countries that they risked everything to flee from there? I think that's a broad assumption that's going to be wrong in many cases.  Many people have dual citizenships and are loyal to 2 countries. I can be loyal to multiple things: family, country, religion, city, State, college. There are US born citizens that are still loyal to their Irish, Italian or Polish heritage while remaining loyal Americans as well.

that loyalty is still there - its why they fly their home countries' flags, celebrate their home countries' holidays, its why they don't want to become American's citizens ........ they use our system absolutely, but they't not American's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

that loyalty is still there - its why they fly their home countries' flags, celebrate their home countries' holidays, its why they don't want to become American's citizens ........ they use our system absolutely, but they't not American's

I see lots of Irish and Italian and Polish and Iraqi and Lebanese flags where I live. I have friends that live and die by Italian soccer. They fly back to Italy every other year to see family. Should people not be celebrating Cinco De Mayo in America? I just don't get the idea that celebrating holidays or retaining cultural loyalties is somehow degrading America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

that loyalty is still there - its why they fly their home countries' flags, celebrate their home countries' holidays, its why they don't want to become American's citizens ........ they use our system absolutely, but they't not American's

They are people.  And people deserve to be respected.  They have certain unalienable rights...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It needs to be pointed out that the United States was the first country on Earth created as a rebuke and escape from nationalism- though that word wasn’t in use then. But we are the first country made up almost entirely of people from somewhere else. To be “American” is not to be any specific culture, ethnicity, or race- it’s to be here and accept certain ideas.

I believe that to be nationalist is to be anti-American. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also we aren't giving away the money for nothing. We aren't giving Pakistan millions of dollars by accident. We have been engaged in a massive war in Afghanistan and so we have military bases in Pakistan.  We are basically renting their airfields, air space, etc. Not to mention we have had thousands of drone strikes in Pakistan- many of which killed civilians so it's also a bit of blood money. The US isn't doing charity there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2018 at 8:26 AM, Stealthycat said:

 

also, nationalism is a sense of national pride as well, citizenship ........ and all the millions of illegals here destroys that. 

Again, this represents a misconception of our history. 

The 15 million or so undocumented people here should give you vast amounts of pride, because their desire to come here, and in fact risk breaking the law in order to do so, is in the great American tradition of immigration- its actually our greatest tradition. The only shame is that we try not to accept them, that we won’t give them papers, that we attempt to keep them out. That is, unfortunately, also an American tradition, one that goes back to the anti-Irish movement of the 1840s, and it’s an ugly one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Again, this represents a misconception of our history. 

The 15 million or so undocumented people here should give you vast amounts of pride, because their desire to come here, and in fact risk breaking the law in order to do so, is in the great American tradition of immigration- its actually our greatest tradition. The only shame is that we try not to accept them, that we won’t give them papers, that we attempt to keep them out. That is, unfortunately, also an American tradition, one that goes back to the anti-Irish movement of the 1840s, and it’s an ugly one. 

Even worse, it goes back the native people that were already here. It took a hell of a legal battle to get natives recognized as citizens even though we  built the country on top of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Even worse, it goes back the native people that were already here. It took a hell of a legal battle to get natives recognized as citizens even though we  built the country on top of them. 

I once heard a Native American from a Pueblo in New Mexico say that he was in favor of getting rid of all of the illegal immigrants. Then he added that he was including anyone whose ancestors arrived here after 1492. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

I once heard a Native American from a Pueblo in New Mexico say that he was in favor of getting rid of all of the illegal immigrants. Then he added that he was including anyone whose ancestors arrived here after 1492. 

Yeah there is a lot of hatred towards America from the Native community and rightfully so. I'm also surprised there isn't more venom from the American citizens in our territories that we treat as 2nd class citizens. The hurricane and response to it might just stir up a new generation of Puerto Ricans that take much more significant steps towards demanding fair treatment and Statehood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Yeah there is a lot of hatred towards America from the Native community and rightfully so. I'm also surprised there isn't more venom from the American citizens in our territories that we treat as 2nd class citizens. The hurricane and response to it might just stir up a new generation of Puerto Ricans that take much more significant steps towards demanding fair treatment and Statehood.

We may see that as early as this year in Florida. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

I just don't get the idea that celebrating holidays or retaining cultural loyalties is somehow degrading America.

 citizenship, its love of nation. without it, what are we as citizens? Our military backbone is set in love of country. 9-11 saw a love of country. When we have hurricanes and earthquakes and disasters, citizens respond in part because of our love of country.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

I once heard a Native American from a Pueblo in New Mexico say that he was in favor of getting rid of all of the illegal immigrants. Then he added that he was including anyone whose ancestors arrived here after 1492. 

maybe he can move the time line to 1100 when very likely his ancestors warred with whomever had the lands before them? war and conflict etc is what how nations are born is it not ? all countries have their borders and lands through taking them from the previous people who lived there right? just how it is, right wrong or other

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 citizenship, its love of nation. without it, what are we as citizens? Our military backbone is set in love of country. 9-11 saw a love of country. When we have hurricanes and earthquakes and disasters, citizens respond in part because of our love of country.

 

You can't love or be loyal to 2 things at once? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

They are people.  And people deserve to be respected.  They have certain unalienable rights...

who said different ?

I am not a citizen of Peru. I really don't care what happens there do you ? Its not my country, my home, my countrymen ........ and if I moved there, my heart would still be American, not Peruvian although I'd probably learn to care for the country and people as I lived there. Still, without moving my allegiance to Peru, I would still be American through and through. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

You can't love or be loyal to 2 things at once? 

2 countries would be very hard. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stealthycat said:

 

I am not a citizen of Peru. I really don't care what happens there do you ? 

Yes I do. 

I’ve never been to Peru, but if there was a natural disaster there I would send money to the Red Cross. If a dictator started murdering people there I would want our government to intervene if we could. 

Yes I care about Peru and everywhere else and I find people with your attitude to be unfathomable. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stealthycat said:

2 countries would be very hard. 

 

Well that's just you, I think our lengthy history of immigrants shows it's not all that difficult. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 

I am not a citizen of Peru. I really don't care what happens there 

This statement is the essence of nationalism, IMO, and honestly I regard it as evil and immoral. We need to create a future in which this sort of thinking will be as reviled as most types of bigotry are today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2018 at 9:34 AM, Ilov80s said:

Patriotism is pride for one's country, nationalism is the belief in the superiority of your country compared to others. Patriotism is a reason to cheer for Michael Phelps and honor our war veterans. Nationalism is a reason to invade  countries and discriminate against foreign born people. 

At least that's how I would see it in the modern context. 

I don't see any issue with "America first" but welcoming immigrants, making fair deals and alliances is often in the country's best interest. I think we have always been "America first" and the current platform is really "America only." Even then it's just a marketing tool more than any kind of real philosophical core. 

I have the same way of thinking.

Orwell's Notes on Nationalism is a great read on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I would 

20 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

who said different ?

I am not a citizen of Peru. I really don't care what happens there do you ? Its not my country, my home, my countrymen ........ and if I moved there, my heart would still be American, not Peruvian although I'd probably learn to care for the country and people as I lived there. Still, without moving my allegiance to Peru, I would still be American through and through. 

But what would be bad about that for Peru? Why would Peru be hurt by having an American immigrant who cares about the country and people of Peru?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 citizenship, its love of nation. without it, what are we as citizens? Our military backbone is set in love of country. 9-11 saw a love of country. When we have hurricanes and earthquakes and disasters, citizens respond in part because of our love of country.

To quote a great Jedi Master: "Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patriotism is like self-respect.  It's healthy to be proud of what you've achieved or to not let someone walk all over you. 

Nationalism is like self-obsession or malignant narcissism.  You become unmoored from reality--it almost always ends in disaster.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2018 at 10:59 AM, Sinn Fein said:

I am genuinely interested in a conversation about the virtues of Nationalism.  What are the relative positives and negatives about Nationalism?

 

I think I would split off "White Nationalism" as a distinct, but not completely separate, branch of Nationalism.  I know there is some overlap, but generally that position ("White Nationalism") is untenable in a modern society, so I'd rather not even entertain the notion that its a viable policy.

What I am referring to is more of the "America First" rhetoric coming from Trump.  And, while I believe there are some shades of racism contained within Trump's positions, I am more interested in understanding how or why "America First" works on any level.

My own views continue to evolve on this issue - but right now I am struggling with the notion that we place any value on nationality.  My current views are wrapped around this idea that the human race is interconnected on a relatively small planet.  Trying to draw distinctions based on some arbitrary lines in the dirt seems counterintuitive to making it all work.  People are people.  There are good people and bad people all over the planet.  Where someone had the fortune (or misfortune) to be born, should not dictate how we think about them - and yet it does.

So, when I see/hear Trump talking about "America First", I ask myself, why is that so important?  I know that there are a lot of people who subscribe to that point of view - and in the abstract, I kind of get it - "Yeah, us!  Boo, them!"  But, shouldn't we be figuring out how to make the world a better place?  Not, in some altruistic kind of way, but even in a self-enhancement kind of way, where a better world means a better life for me.  So, why is it good to pursue agendas where we prioritize our own gains, over everyone else?  It strikes me as counter-intuitive, and very short-sighted.

I look at Trump's policies, and he seems to be pulling the US away from the world community.  In Europe he tells our allies that we might not be there to protect them, so they need to stand on their own.  In Asia, he says we don't want any trade agreements, unless they favor the US.  In North America, he says, we don't want your type here, and we want trade agreements that favor the US.

I would like to hear from some of the Nationalism supporters here on why this policy makes sense in the short-term, or in the long-term.  For me, I see Nationalism as a huge negative, in an ever-connected global environment.  By pulling back, and talking tough, I think we are setting ourselves up for failure, as the world moves on without the US.  (I recognize that the US is a huge economy, but I also recognize that the world economy is growing, and as we force countries to live with out our influence, I fear that they will see that they can move on nicely without the US).  I think our focus on "America First" is a huge turnoff internationally, and has had an effect on our ability to influence world policies.

So, what are the positive impacts of Nationalism?  

It should never be "America First".  It should be "America Will Lead The Way".  That's the nationalistic ideals that all Americans should subscribe to.....a World leader in all things good/great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

except I believe each person has their own responsibility to earn their ways in life, nothing is free, nothing is given

sitting back and waiting for the system, the Govt, and other people to make your life comfortable is unacceptable to me, its the backbone of socialism. Sure, might not be the intent, but that IS how it goes

 

 

So much of the success of the 20th Century was build on an idea that the Government was striving to make your life comfortable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

 citizenship, its love of nation. without it, what are we as citizens? Our military backbone is set in love of country. 9-11 saw a love of country. When we have hurricanes and earthquakes and disasters, citizens respond in part because of our love of country.

 

It also saw an outpouring of global humanity:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_11_attacks

 Argentina: Argentine President Fernando De La Rua expressed his "most absolute repudiation" against the terrorist attacks, and offered assistance to the United States which materialized in the form of medical and humanitarian assistance in support of the US-led intervention in Afghanistan. Humberto Roggero, then head of the opposition Justicialist Party also condemned the attacks, as did other members of the government and society. [10][11]

 Australia: Australian Prime Minister John Howard was in Washington D.C on the morning of the attacks and invoked the ANZUS Treaty, saying it demonstrated "Australia's steadfast commitment to work with the United States."[12][13]

 Austria: Church bells tolled in unison.[14]

 Belgium: Hundreds of people held hands to form a human chain showing solidarity in front of the Brussels World Trade Center.[15]

 Brazil: Rio de Janeiro put up billboards that showed the city’s famous Christ the Redeemer statue embracing the New York City Skyline.[16]

 Bulgaria: People gathered in town squares to light candles and pray.[15]

 Canada: Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien said of the attacks, "It is impossible to fully comprehend the evil that would have conjured up such a cowardly and depraved assault upon thousands of innocent people."[17] Transport Canada and Nav Canadaactivated emergency protocols and commenced Operation Yellow Ribbon in response to the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, allowing all commercial flights entering the U.S. to land at Canadian airports and remain there. Many of those flights were directed to Gander International Airport, where extra RCMP personnel was deployed. The foreign travelers were housed and fed in Gander following the attacks.

 Burma (Myanmar): Burmese government issued a letter to the United Nations on 30 November 2002 outlining its commitment to all counter terrorism efforts. The Burmese government stated its opposition to terrorism and declared government officials would not allow the country to be used as a safehaven or a location for the planning and execution of terrorist acts.[13]

 China: President Jiang Zemin said he was "shocked" and sent his condolences to President Bush, while the Foreign Ministry said China "opposed all manner" of terrorism.[13][18] In Beijing, tens of thousands of people visited the U.S. Embassy, leaving flowers, cards, funeral wreaths and hand-written notes of condolence on the sidewalk out front.

 Croatia: Many school children in Dubrovnik took time to observe a moment of silence, and declared a National Day of Mourning.[15]

 Cuba: Its government expressed its pain and solidarity with its longtime adversary and offered air and medical facilities to help.[18]

 Czech Republic: National Days of Mourning was declared.[15]

 Ethiopia: Ethiopians offered their prayers.[citation needed]

 Estonia: Estonian President Lennart Meri sent a letter of condolences to George W. Bush: Estonia has stood with the United States in the past and we stand with our American friends in this hour of tragedy, Meri wrote and added that "terrorism in all forms must be fought with every means possible, and that Estonia will support the United States in bringing those responsible for the attack to justice."[19]

 Finland: Buses and other public transportation came to a stop to pay tribute to the victims of the attacks.[15]

 France: The French newspaper of record, Le Monde, ran a front-page headline reading "Nous sommes tous Américains" ("We are all Americans"). Following the attacks, then-French president Jacques Chirac released a statement: "It is with great emotion that France has learned of these monstrous attacks—there is no other word—that have recently hit the United States of America. And in these appalling circumstances, the whole French people—I want to say here—is beside the American people. France expresses its friendship and solidarity in this tragedy. Of course, I assure President George Bush of my total support. France, you know, has always condemned and unreservedly condemns terrorism, and considers that we must fight against terrorism by all means."

 Germany: Chancellor Gerhard Schröder described the attacks as "a declaration of war against the entire civilized world." Authorities urged Frankfurt, the country's financial capital, to close all its major skyscrapers. The new Jewish museum in Berlin canceled its public opening.[18] In Berlin 200,000 Germans marched to show their solidarity with America. Three days after the attacks, the crew of the German destroyer Lütjens manned the rails as they approached the American destroyer USS Winston S. Churchill, displaying an American flag and a banner reading "We Stand By You".[20]

 Greece: Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis expressed his dismay of the attacks on the United States. quoting "Greece condemns, most categorically, these horrific acts. We hope that the culprits be located and brought to justice immediately." Many Greek citizens called the U.S. embassy to offer their support and express their outrage over the attacks. Security was also ramped up at American and other European embassies in Athens. Opposition candidate Kostas Karamanlis was in the United States at the time, attending the opening of a Greek Studies Department at Tufts University in Boston. Karamanlis also condemned the attacks.[21]

 Greenland: People gathered in Nuuk, and other town squares to light candles and offer prayers.[15]

 Hungary: Firefighters tied black ribbons to their trucks in honor of the victims.[15]

 India: India declared high alert across most of its major cities and conveyed "deepest sympathies" to the U.S. and condemned the attacks.[22] Children in the country taped up signs that read, "This is an attack on all of us".[15]

 Ireland: A National Day of Mourning was held on September 14 and a remembrance mass held on September 12, 2001; Ireland was one of the few countries to hold a service day. Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and President Mary McAleese were both in attendance.[citation needed]

 Israel: The day after the 9/11 attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon condemned the attacks and urged the world to fight terrorism and declared a national day of mourning in solidarity with the United States.[18] To commemorate and honor the victims of terror attacks, the 9/11 Living Memorial Plaza, a Cenotaph designed by Eliezer Weishoff, was built in Ramot, Jerusalem.

 Italy: race car drivers preparing for the Italian Grand Prix silenced their engines out of respect for the victims of the attacks.[15]

 Japan: Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said, "This outrageous and vicious act of violence against the United States is unforgivable." Special security precautions were ordered at all United States military installations.[18]

 Kenya: The Maasai people in a Kenyan village gave 14 cows to help and support the United States after the attacks.[23]

 Laos: The government of Laos has stated it condemns all forms of terrorism and supports the global war on terrorism. Its national bank, the Bank of Laos has issued orders to freeze terrorist assets and instructed banks to locate and seize such assets thought the country are still slow to ratify international conventions against terrorism.[13]

 Latvia: The President of Latvia Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga sent condolences to George W. Bush while the Latvian Prime Minister Andris Bērziņš said "I hope there is not a threat, but we must be ready for anything."[24]

 Lithuania: Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus during a visit to George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., expressed his sympathy with victims and deepest condolences to Bush and the American people. In a letter to President Bush, "The sympathies and solidarity of the Lithuanian people are with victims and their families. Lithuania strongly condemns international terrorism and hopes that the organizers of these attacks will be found and brought to justice. Mr. President, I want to assure you that Lithuania will continue to support the United States in fighting terrorists".[24][25]

 Mexico: The Mexican government increased its security, causing enormous traffic jams at the United States border and officials said they were considering closing the entire border. President Vicente Fox expressed "solidarity and our most profound condolences".[18]

 Mongolia: Permanent Representative of Mongolia Amb. J. Enkhsaikhan condemned the attacks, calling them "Barbaric" and "Heinous", and claimed: "The world community not only strongly condemned these barbaric acts and reiterated its determination to fight all manifestations of terrorism".[26]

 New Zealand: New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark stated "It's the sort of thing the worst movie scenario wouldn't dream up,"[27]and a New Zealand Herald DigiPoll revealed that after the attacks that two thirds of New Zealanders supported a NZ pledge of troops to Afghanistan.[13][28]

In 2003, New Zealand began administering a "Pacific Security Fund" to vulnerable nations in the Pacific region aiming at securing and preventing terrorism from entering the region, there is an annual fund of NZD$3 million that is paid by the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) and is used to provide support to Pacific Island countries.[29]

 North Korea: A spokesperson for the North Korean Foreign Ministry in Pyongyang was quoted by the state-run news agency KCNAas saying: "The very regretful and tragic incident reminds it once again of the gravity of terrorism. As a UN member, the DPRK is opposed to all forms of terrorism and whatever support to it... and this stance will remain unchanged."[30]

 Norway: Trams and buses also halted in Norway out of respect.[15]

 Philippines: Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo sent a letter to President Bush assuring the safety of U.S. facilities in the Philippines. She said that "nothing can describe the shock and horror of all humanity in the face of the unimaginable acts of terror inflicted on the United States." She added that the Filipino people extends condolences to all victims of the attacks. Arroyo also ordered the Philippine consulate in New York to search and confirm Filipino casualties of the attacks.[31] The Philippines has since offering medical assistance for coalition forces, blanket overflight clearance, and landing rights for US aircraft involved in Operation Enduring Freedom as well the Philippine Congress began passing the Anti-Money-laundering Act of 2001 on 29 September.[13]

 Poland: Firefighters and other professional rescue workers sounded their vehicle sirens, letting loose a collective wail one warm afternoon. Many Poles also expressed their sympathy by lighting hundreds of candles in front of the U.S. embassy in Warsaw.[15][32]

 Russia: Russian troops were put on alert in response to the attacks. President Vladimir Putin held an emergency meeting of security officials and said he supported a tough response to these "barbaric acts".[18] He also informed Condoleezza Rice by telephone that any and all pre-existing hostility between the two countries would be put aside while America dealt with the tragedy. In Moscow, women who spoke no English and had never been to America were captured on film sobbing in front of a makeshift tribute on a sidewalk. In addition, television and radio stations went silent to commemorate the dead.[15]

 Singapore: Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong condemned the attacks and pledge support to US-led anti terrorism operations.[33]Following the attacks, Singaporean government began to investigate a possible terrorist cell within its borders.[13]

 South Africa: South African president halted all broadcasts and was left in solitude for the rest of the day after offering financial support to the U.S.

 South Korea: Immediately after the attacks, South Korean President Kim Dae-jung instructed all available ministries to assess the situation, and to ensure the safety of all South Korean citizens living in the affected regions.[34] He later offered his condolences, stating that he "would like to convey our most sincere condolences and sympathies to the people of America for their tremendous loss and the pain and the suffering that they suffer due to the terrorist attack." He also voiced his support for President Bush and the United States, and offered his full support and assistance.[35] South Korea also has strengthened its domestic legislation and institutions to combat financial support for terrorism, including the creation of a financial intelligence unit.[13]

 Sweden: Trams and buses in Sweden came to a halt out of respect for the victims.[15]

 Republic of China (Taiwan): The President of the Republic of China Chen Shui-bian said the ROC would "fully support the spirit and determination of the anti-terrorist campaign, as well as any effective, substantive measures that may be adopted" and announced that it would fully abide by the 12 United Nations counter terrorism conventions, even though it is a former member of the United Nations. The country strengthened laws on money laundering and criminal-case-procedure law shortly after the attacks. It also stated that Bush’s proclamation that the U.S. would do “whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself.”[13][36]

 Thailand: Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra condemned the attacks and said his country would stand by the United States in the international coalition to combat terrorism. Thai government leaders also condemned the attacks and pledged cooperation on counter terrorism efforts between Thai and US agencies, committed to signing all the United Nations counter terrorism conventions.[37]

 Turkey: Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer and Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit condemned the attacks. The Turkish government then ordered all of its flags at half-mast for one day of mourning.

 Ukraine: Immediately declared solidarity with the United States, and offered moral, technical and military support to the extent of their infrastructure. The Ukrainian parliament passed three resolutions all in favor of assisting the United States following the attacks. Congressman Bob Schaffer expressed gratitude towards Ukraine and its stance on terrorism, saying "Ukraine's condemnation of international terrorism, its much-appreciated support in the war on terrorism, its tough newly enacted laws to combat terrorism, and its commitment to fight at the side of the United States and its allies for civil society and democracy demonstrates the role Ukraine and her people intend to play in the emerging democracy".[38]

 United Kingdom: British security forces in the country and across the world were placed on maximum alert. Prime Minister Tony Blair pledged that Britain would stand "full square alongside the U.S." in the battle against terrorism. Queen Elizabeth expressed "growing disbelief and total shock."[18] In London, Her Majesty the Queen personally authorised the U.S. national anthem to be played at the Changing of the Guard ceremony at Buckingham Palace and traffic on The Mall came to a halt during the tribute.[39] A Service of Remembrance was held at St. Paul's Cathedral attended by Her Majesty the Queen, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, Prime Minister Tony Blair, senior government officials, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom William Farish, military representatives from both the United States and British armed forces and a congregation of thousands inside and outside the cathedral.[40]

  Vatican City: Pope John Paul II dedicated his weekly address to pilgrims gathered in St. Peter’s Square to discussing the events. Referring to the attacks as "an appalling offence against peace" and "a terrible assault against human dignity", he said, "I ask God to grant the American people the strength and courage they need at this time of sorrow and trial."[41] John Paul II also fell to his knees in prayer at a service in the Vatican.

 Vietnam: Vietnam's leaders sympathized with the United States and condemning terrorism in the days following the attacks but also condemned any US "overreaction retaliation" such as the US airstrikes on Kabul, Afghanistan while supporting a resolution to the Afghanistan situation under the auspices of the United Nations. The country together with its neighbors of Laos as well Burma has signing an agreement on combating international terrorism.[42]

 Yugoslavia: Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica and Montenegrin President Milo Djukanovic denounced the attacks as Kostunica "could find no words of condemnation strong enough." A Day of Remembrance was declared on September 14, 2001 in Montenegro.[43][44]

Edited by lakerstan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Yes I care about Peru and everywhere else and I find people with your attitude to be unfathomable. 

you care about the country and people of Peru to the depth that you do your own country and countrymen? bizzare

there are 7 billion people on this planet - I assume you send your entire paycheck all over the planet to those people in need right? or do you take care of your family first? 

see, that's love of family - love of family and putting them before everyone else. Same with your country - you're suppose to love it, cherish it, support it above all others. Why? Because its YOUR country, not someone elses but yours and your families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

Well that's just you, I think our lengthy history of immigrants shows it's not all that difficult. 

disagree

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

This statement is the essence of nationalism, IMO, and honestly I regard it as evil and immoral. We need to create a future in which this sort of thinking will be as reviled as most types of bigotry are today. 

again - do you sit around and worry about the other 7 billion people on this planet and the other 194 countries on this planet ? do you donate your money to all those in need? do you plan to donate your time and go help them? fight with them for injustices?

why? isn't it evil and immoral and vile and bigoted? 

be honest - you've not thought of the country Peru any until I mentioned it have you? you've not considered the people in Eritrea in months or years even. Why? Why are they not on the fronts of your mind? 

you don't think of them because you don't care to - lets be honest. You could be highly envolved in so many outreach programs that you'd never have a dime to spend on your own family. You could travel to those places and literally spend 365 days a year helping all those people. why don't you ?

 

nationalism - a love for ones country, ones people, so much so that you'd die for it if called to do. Its your home, is where you want to die.

I would never expect anyone nit a citizen of the United States to put the United States above their home country. EVER. Would you ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Thunderlips said:

So much of the success of the 20th Century was build on an idea that the Government was striving to make your life comfortable.  

explain please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, lakerstan said:

It also saw an outpouring of global humanity:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_11_attacks

that's not nationalism, its compassion. Good gawd the US leads the global way when it comes to supporting other countries when disasters strike etc, when wars need fought etc. if that's what we're gauging

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stealthycat said:

explain please

Improving Southern infrastructure during the Depression, the G.I.Bill, G.I. mortgages, the Higher Education Act and The Interstate Highway System to start.  All of these things were Federal Government reaches that raised the quality of life and helped nurture prosperity in the 20th Century.  We've all lived in that bubble of prosperity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you could truly go back to the Bill of Rights, Union winning the civil ware, the United States killing most of the natives and saying all that was done to ensure us all prosperity ?

but its not socialism in the sense that we all work for the common good equally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

that's not nationalism, its compassion. Good gawd the US leads the global way when it comes to supporting other countries when disasters strike etc, when wars need fought etc. if that's what we're gauging

 

2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

 citizenship, its love of nation. without it, what are we as citizens? Our military backbone is set in love of country. 9-11 saw a love of country. When we have hurricanes and earthquakes and disasters, citizens respond in part because of our love of country.

 

Help me understand the difference?  On one hand you cite that activity as love of country, but now its compassion.  I happen to agree that its compassion that drives people to act - help me see how its "nationalism" that drives people to act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.