FatelBlade wrote:
Blind nationalism and faith is where too much of a good thing comes into play and really ****s things up.
I guess you could have a nationalism based off of logic but that leads me to...
2- The dose makes the poison. If we're seriously talking about if nationalism is good or bad we must talk how much of it is good and how much is bad, and whether or not most nationalist countries have hit that treshold. Personally I've never seen a single case of nationalism based off of logic, and here in Argentina nationalism isn't too strong outside of football (the land of imperial units likes to call it soccer), so I'm waiting for a logical baseline before saying that nationalism does any good whatsoever.
Quoted:
I was just stating a fact, I was not implying anything of the sort. How you percieved it, after me explaining my original post twice already, is not my problem.
I, too, was simply stating facts, and how either of us perceives the other's statements shouldn't really be a problem to either of us, or so I'd think.
Ekki wrote:
1- Nationalism is always blind. It's always about faith that you should for some reason focus on the issues within a bunch of lines drawn on the ground (because that's what countries are, arbitrary lines on the ground and sometimes water).
First of all, in most cases, these borders are not, in fact, arbitrary at all. Most borders are based on natural barriers, which separated groups of people to begin with. Now this may be a trivial statement, but it's fairly important; countries are in essence groups of people, which we, decided that a smaller group should make most decisions for. Mostly, this is a form of survival, and it also makes sense from an organizational point of view: Split up the major group (i.e. all of mankind) into smaller ones, as they become much easier to manage.
Keeping this in mind, then nationalism is in essence an expression of trust in those who lead our group, our country. Those who lead countries are, nowadays, governments, but not just them; it's also about the people, for governments are nowhere without them.
Nationalism is merely an extension of caring more for those in your direct environment than for others. I mean, I'd assume you'd care more for your own family than you do for say, Jimmy from South Carolina (if you are, or are related to a Jimmy from South Carolina, then please disregard that). Nationalism goes beyond that, and tells us basically to care more for those in our group, than for those outside that. Why? Survival, really.
Considering all that, yeah, you could still call it blind, but I find that to imply that it is either senseless; without thought, rhyme, or reason; or meaningless, and I do not think it's any of those things. Not necessarily, anyways. I think that, not only from those standpoints, nationalism has purpose, but it also, as stated, gives people a reason to actually stick with their group (i.e. their countries) and attempt to improve them, rather than keep moving about and around, until eventually everything sucks. It inspires and promotes collaboration, and that's pretty good.
Now, obviously, you could argue that we can apply this to all of mankind, and see mankind as the one and only group. The problem with that is, can we feasibly do that, logistically? Is it even possible to care for all individuals equally, even those who are so far away from you that they will never see or hear from you, let alone speak to you? I don't think the human mind is designed to ever accomplish that, but I could be wrong on that.
With all that said, yes, I do think nationalism can be a problem; people can be so proud of their own group that they fail to see its internal flaws, and therefore stop improving it at all. Although, I am pretty sure I've mentioned that.
FatelBlade wrote:
No, had I grown up in Palestine, similar to many of my family members, I would be a different person. It is naive to state that who I am is because of who I am. The area you grow up in and the culture and the identity play a role in developing you as a human being. The American identity that I have adopted is a major part of who I am, and I could easily see myself being an entirely different person had I grown up in Palestine.
And GMD, I agree. Blind nationalism and faith is where too much of a good thing comes into play and really ****s things up.
And GMD, I agree. Blind nationalism and faith is where too much of a good thing comes into play and really ****s things up.
Of course culture shapes your identity. I still struggle so see a single good argument in the thread why national pride is preferable to no national pride, since I don't think national pride is a necessity for the desire to improve your living conditions.
Nations are a division of people of arbitrary size and arbitrary shape.
Size: You can argue that it could be an useful division, but the fact that there is a point where that division is "way too big" means some (if not most) countries are just too big to give any meaningful importance to most people within that same country, while others may be way too small and actually need to rely on other countries to function.
Shape: Geography is a contingency. It's the last logical step in a series of arbitrary decisions. And sometimes it isn't that logical either (just check any video on weird borders on youtube, the Canada/US border in particular is place of a lot of weird divisions). Two countries that happen to overlap in their arbitrary borders will most probably pick a geographical landmark for convenience's sake, but that doesn't mean the choice of that landmark or the previous/next one follows any coherent logic in caring for the wellness of the people of each nation. That's why I say it's arbitrary.
Nationalism doesn't mean trust in those who govern the country, nor the people in it. You have "pride" for an abstract concept of your nation (quite mystical, i.e. illogical), and use that to define people as "a true X-er" or "an anti-X" (X=your country), even the government. Maybe especially the government. It's just an abstract concept you must believe in or you're against your country and thus are an awful person. I'm not sure if it's pride either, but I guess it is the closest feeling to it, it's called national pride for a reason after all :P
It's not the same as caring for your close relatives, nor caring for the people you know. You won't know someone more or have closer ties to that person just because it was born in the same nation. The division is not thought as that, and thus you can live literally next to people of a different country but nationalism states that you have to care more for people thousands of kilometers away if your coutnry is big. Plus it's not like the arbitrary size of countries will lead to any consistent interrelation between inhabitants of any one given country.
You can want it to have some romantical meaning to it, but it's not going to make it something good. It's IMO just an exploit of that inherent feeling of comradery for close acquaintances, which isn't good just for being a natural reaction either. I agree it can be useful, and I've gone back and forth on my opinions on this topic a couple of times, but its lack of logic leading to people backing up all sorts of ****ty decisions makes me think it's not a good thing at all and the gains are not worth the risks.
Also, point 1 was not the important one. I believe addressing the level at which you think nationalism is good/bad is what's most important. You can't say if it's good or bad without a frame of reference. I just think every nation has encouraged the blind nationalism for so long that I don't think there's a logical version out there right now, all of it seems blind an excessive. More blind than excessive in countries with less nationalism.
Size: You can argue that it could be an useful division, but the fact that there is a point where that division is "way too big" means some (if not most) countries are just too big to give any meaningful importance to most people within that same country, while others may be way too small and actually need to rely on other countries to function.
Shape: Geography is a contingency. It's the last logical step in a series of arbitrary decisions. And sometimes it isn't that logical either (just check any video on weird borders on youtube, the Canada/US border in particular is place of a lot of weird divisions). Two countries that happen to overlap in their arbitrary borders will most probably pick a geographical landmark for convenience's sake, but that doesn't mean the choice of that landmark or the previous/next one follows any coherent logic in caring for the wellness of the people of each nation. That's why I say it's arbitrary.
Nationalism doesn't mean trust in those who govern the country, nor the people in it. You have "pride" for an abstract concept of your nation (quite mystical, i.e. illogical), and use that to define people as "a true X-er" or "an anti-X" (X=your country), even the government. Maybe especially the government. It's just an abstract concept you must believe in or you're against your country and thus are an awful person. I'm not sure if it's pride either, but I guess it is the closest feeling to it, it's called national pride for a reason after all :P
It's not the same as caring for your close relatives, nor caring for the people you know. You won't know someone more or have closer ties to that person just because it was born in the same nation. The division is not thought as that, and thus you can live literally next to people of a different country but nationalism states that you have to care more for people thousands of kilometers away if your coutnry is big. Plus it's not like the arbitrary size of countries will lead to any consistent interrelation between inhabitants of any one given country.
You can want it to have some romantical meaning to it, but it's not going to make it something good. It's IMO just an exploit of that inherent feeling of comradery for close acquaintances, which isn't good just for being a natural reaction either. I agree it can be useful, and I've gone back and forth on my opinions on this topic a couple of times, but its lack of logic leading to people backing up all sorts of ****ty decisions makes me think it's not a good thing at all and the gains are not worth the risks.
Also, point 1 was not the important one. I believe addressing the level at which you think nationalism is good/bad is what's most important. You can't say if it's good or bad without a frame of reference. I just think every nation has encouraged the blind nationalism for so long that I don't think there's a logical version out there right now, all of it seems blind an excessive. More blind than excessive in countries with less nationalism.
Looks like Fatel finally got one of those threads up and going.
**** homini lupus est, one of a social government's main purposes is to make the people inside stop doing horrible things to each-other. Nationalism is a tool in accomplishing this, not the other way around. It's not people loving a country, it's a country telling its people to love it. Just stuff children's heads full of a concept and they'll blindly believe it for the rest of their lives if you're a bit lucky. Let's not turn the concept around.
There are other tools to accomplish this, like good laws, good law enforcement and a notion of individual respect to stuff in children's heads. I think it's a lot less destructive than nationalism. Nationalism can easily be used to manipulate people. There are real live experiments going on researching just that, I hear the total amount of subjects is big enough to fill like a continent, and it's still expanding! :^)
That said, I think Americans are pretty poor nationalists. They're already struggling to define who is part of their country, and even if it's sure someone is, the chance of that person being ostracized is still enormous if I can believe the stories I hear.
But it's amazing, really. You will love it. It's true.
GrandmasterD wrote:
Is it even possible to care for all individuals equally, even those who are so far away from you that they will never see or hear from you, let alone speak to you? I don't think the human mind is designed to ever accomplish that, but I could be wrong on that.
There are other tools to accomplish this, like good laws, good law enforcement and a notion of individual respect to stuff in children's heads. I think it's a lot less destructive than nationalism. Nationalism can easily be used to manipulate people. There are real live experiments going on researching just that, I hear the total amount of subjects is big enough to fill like a continent, and it's still expanding! :^)
That said, I think Americans are pretty poor nationalists. They're already struggling to define who is part of their country, and even if it's sure someone is, the chance of that person being ostracized is still enormous if I can believe the stories I hear.
But it's amazing, really. You will love it. It's true.
********'s a pretty good fertilizer
I'd argue that there's no other side of the coin "a large group of people aren't accepted by a large group of people" other than "a large group of people aren't accepted by a large group of people", but I have never even set foot on the continent so I cannot say what is and isn't the case. The last two paragraphs were more of a comical remark than a statement.
********'s a pretty good fertilizer
Latest Legend wrote:
Looks like Fatel finally got one of those threads up and going.
**** homini lupus est, one of a social government's main purposes is to make the people inside stop doing horrible things to each-other. Nationalism is a tool in accomplishing this, not the other way around. It's not people loving a country, it's a country telling its people to love it. Just stuff children's heads full of a concept and they'll blindly believe it for the rest of their lives if you're a bit lucky. Let's not turn the concept around.
There are other tools to accomplish this, like good laws, good law enforcement and a notion of individual respect to stuff in children's heads. I think it's a lot less destructive than nationalism. Nationalism can easily be used to manipulate people. There are real live experiments going on researching just that, I hear the total amount of subjects is big enough to fill like a continent, and it's still expanding! :^)
**** homini lupus est, one of a social government's main purposes is to make the people inside stop doing horrible things to each-other. Nationalism is a tool in accomplishing this, not the other way around. It's not people loving a country, it's a country telling its people to love it. Just stuff children's heads full of a concept and they'll blindly believe it for the rest of their lives if you're a bit lucky. Let's not turn the concept around.
There are other tools to accomplish this, like good laws, good law enforcement and a notion of individual respect to stuff in children's heads. I think it's a lot less destructive than nationalism. Nationalism can easily be used to manipulate people. There are real live experiments going on researching just that, I hear the total amount of subjects is big enough to fill like a continent, and it's still expanding! :^)
I agree, but that doesn't mean nationalism can't have its usefulness; I wouldn't write it off completely.
FatelBlade wrote:
People always ****ting on Americans and what not based on these negative stories, without considering both sides of the coin. I have experienced the most diverse case of people that are all accepted.
That highlighted part is exactly what we're talking about; you are attempting to use nationalism/patriotism here to your advantage, by implying that people here are addressing all Americans, rather than just talking about specific situations or individuals who may be American; there's a difference.
There's various groups in the United States who believe so strongly that their country is the best there ever was that they fail to see the obvious flaws in it, even go so far as to state that anything that contradicts their world-view is simply non-existent (see: “You are fake news!”). We are not talking about all Americans; there's a bunch who believe Fox News is there to spread lies, and there's a group who watches Fox News every day, taking every word for granted, that should be a clear indication that there's sub-groups within the major group that encompasses all Americans.
You need to log in before commenting.
<Admin>