NationStates Jolt Archive

I think this animation pretty much embodies nationalism, so I thought I'd share and start a discussion on nationalism. Personally I consider it a mental disorder which creates a subjective perception of the world, ie a sectarian bias towards the country you were born in just for that reason, even if materially your country is inferior to others.
Watch:
http://www.animationarcade.com/animation/war.html

Reminds me of a quote by Voltaire: "It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."

There's no reason for you to be proud of something over which you had no control.

That said, you may well love you country above all others, and that love might well be justified.

There's no reason for you to be proud of something over which you had no control.
Unless you live in a country like North Korea, there's not that much stopping you from leaving your country to one that you like once you're old enough and are willing to face the costs.

Nationalism is like a pie fight with foreign objects in the pies. You join in when an errant pie smacks you and you're having a blast throwing pies until a banana cream brick pie smashes your head open. :(

Nationalism is like a pie fight with foreign objects in the pies. You join in when an errant pie smacks you and you're having a blast throwing pies until a banana cream brick pie smashes your head open. :(

I think you've rebounded off the other edge of insanity and have started teetering on the other, other edge of insanity. :p

A two option poll? Simplistic and lame.

I don't think a little patriotism or love of your country is bad, but you start going into the realm of racism if you start claiming your people, country, way of life, etc., is better than others and should dominate everyone else.

A two option poll? Simplistic and lame.

Actually I did that on purpose so you can't hide by sitting on the fence.

Actually I did that on purpose so you can't hide by sitting on the fence.

Even my all-American, flag-waving, apple-pie-baking, white picket fence?

No. There is no justification for it.

No justification for an all-American, flag-waving, apple-pie-baking, white picket fence?

Nationalism is good.
But Religionst Fanaticism is better.

Actually I did that on purpose so you can't hide by sitting on the fence.

A more complex answer is equal to sitting on a fence?

I think this animation pretty much embodies nationalism, so I thought I'd share and start a discussion on nationalism. Personally I consider it a mental disorder which creates a subjective perception of the world, ie a sectarian bias towards the country you were born in just for that reason, even if materially your country is inferior to others.
Watch:
http://www.animationarcade.com/animation/war.html

It depends on the type of nationalism and what it makes people do. I have an ambigious outlook on it. Though to call it a mental disorder is ridiculous-- it is part of human nature, bad or good, with or without reason.

Nationalism is like a pie fight with foreign objects in the pies. You join in when an errant pie smacks you and you're having a blast throwing pies until a banana cream brick pie smashes your head open. :(

LG, please check telegrams.

The music is very catchy. :)

I am rather amused that the color of the bar representing those who believe nationalism is good, is red. In contrast, those against nationalism are represented by blue.
Hrm.

Watch:
http://www.animationarcade.com/animation/war.html

It was a fine movie, until the last frame before the credits.

I'm going to go ahead and stand out, and say that nationalism is good, unless taken to extremes.

Just because you don't choose your country of birth doesn't mean that you have to pretend there's nothing about it to be proud of, or that you shouldn't be glad to be born *there* instead of in some 3rd-world hellhole. Regardless of how you got to be part of your country, you ARE part of it. IMO if your country sucks so much you can't find anything about it to be proud of, you should move to one you think is better.

to call it a mental disorder is ridiculous-- it is part of human nature, bad or good, with or without reason.QFT

Actually I did that on purpose so you can't hide by sitting on the fence.

I'm glad we're also stripped of the potential to have a complex opinion.

I understand you're objection to fence-riding, but you're oversimplification also orbs non-fence riders of complex opinions.

Do you have any justification for that opinion?

Or, like Nationalism, is that also without apparent justification?

Let me see if I understand this.

Soheran: There's no justification for nationalism.

You: Do you have any justification for that?

You: There's no justification for nationalism.

wut?

No. There is no justification for it.

Do you have any justification for that opinion?

Or, like Nationalism, is that also without apparent justification?

Meh, if one were to look along my post history,... I'm not a supremacist but I'm still a proud nationalist. Not that it'd matter to you guys anyways :p

Sometimes throwing pies (especially over the ownership of certain songs,... hahaha) at one another is good way of keeping sane in this crazy world, just ask LG.

I think you've rebounded off the other edge of insanity and have started teetering on the other, other edge of insanity. :p

Bouncing is fun. :)

Certain conditions must be present for nationalism to be considered a virtuous mindset. Most importantly, one's country must be a beacon of freedom and democracy, illuminating the most dark and nebulous regions of the world where abhorrent authoritarianism and vile communism still reign supreme. The US is the quintessential example of such a nation, as it espouses glorious ideals with potency, never shirking from its noble duty. On the other hand, nationalistic thought may be construed as pathetic if one resides in a pitiable, backward country such as Myanmar, Zimbabwe, or France.

No.

You know, last semester I took a class that seemed to be for the most part about nationalism. To an extent, it's great. Without it, we wouldn't have art like Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, and nationalism is the heart of all (to my knowledge) of Wagner's works (though he was kind of a creepy racist).

But it's when we take it to extremes (oh my God we're better than you and you should DIE for it), it's not so hot.

So long as we're talking about nationalism in music, I'm all for it. (Unless you're going to make me actually listen to Wagner. :/ )

Go Nationalism! Without nationalism we would still be city states or worse... closed communities without any national identity and still has old value ethnic divide paranoia.

It is also the greatest tech you could research in Civilization during the middle game.

Nationalism is one of many appeals to the fear and envy of the general population that the state makes, for its own aggrandizement at the expense of those who prefer security over liberty. Belligerent identitarianism based on ethnicity is no more or less ridiculous than that based on class or religion, as all are a push towards decivilization.

I'm glad we're also stripped of the potential to have a complex opinion.

I understand you're objection to fence-riding, but you're oversimplification also orbs non-fence riders of complex opinions.
'Complex' is just another way for people not to take a stand, and just say 'I am moderate', if your want to be 'complex' don't vote in it.

Nationalism is one of many appeals to the fear and envy of the general population that the state makes, for its own aggrandizement at the expense of those who prefer security over liberty. Belligerent identitarianism based on ethnicity is no more or less ridiculous than that based on class or religion, as all are a push towards decivilization.

I have heard this copypasta 'argument' from you before, and it always come to the 'conclusion' that the 'identitarianist' ideologies are fascism and socialism, and that they place 'the people', 'the public good' or 'the collective' as an abstract and undefinable quality. The difference between religion, ethnicity and class is that class is based in reality, in the material conditions of reality, while ethnicity and religion are abstract metapsychical/ideological creations.

Of course, by itself, psychological make-up or, as it is otherwise called, "national character," is something intangible for the observer, but in so far as it manifests itself in a distinctive culture common to the nation it is something tangible and cannot be ignored. So it becomes material, and thus becomes a part of the class relation.

In actual Marx criticized the abstract 'people' concepts in his critique of German or 'True' socialism, the intellectual forerunner to fascism.

The French Socialist and Communist literature was thus completely emasculated. And, since it ceased in the hands of the German to express the struggle of one class with the other, he felt conscious of having overcome “French one-sidedness” and of representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of Truth; not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of Human Nature, of Man in general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy.

It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty Philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model man, it gave a hidden, higher, Socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the “brutally destructive” tendency of Communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called Socialist and Communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature.

So please Vendee, stop with your infantile rants trying to compare fascism, which exists as a stage of impotent capitalism, to socialism, which itself is a different relation of production.

So please Vendee, stop with your infantile rants trying to compare fascism, which exists as a stage of impotent capitalism, to socialism, which itself is a different relation of production.

I lol'd.

Actually I did that on purpose so you can't hide by sitting on the fence.

What if my opinion is more complicated than a knee-jerk one word answer?

There's nothing wrong with nationalism. There is something wrong with using nationalism to stir up emotional and irrational responses in a populace. Having pride in one's country has never caused problems by itself.

What if my opinion is more complicated than a knee-jerk one word answer?
If you can't answer the question given, do not.

If you can't answer the question given, do not.

I could if your poll wasn't so crappy.

I could if your poll wasn't so crappy.

Or a fence sitter? Somehow I doubt I could fit everyone on NSG's position with 10 options.

I think this animation pretty much embodies nationalism, so I thought I'd share and start a discussion on nationalism. Personally I consider it a mental disorder which creates a subjective perception of the world, ie a sectarian bias towards the country you were born in just for that reason, even if materially your country is inferior to others.
Watch:
http://www.animationarcade.com/animation/war.html

not that you're biased or anything.

Or a fence sitter? Somehow I doubt I could fit everyone on NSG's position with 10 options.

Seeing the world in more than stark black and white does not make one a "fence-sitter."

Well, truth be told, socialism is not the only philosophy that is opposed to nationalism anymore. Libertarianism, so long is it isn't emodied in the type of vulgar paleoconservatism of Ron Paul, is anti-nationalist.

Well, truth be told, socialism is not the only philosophy that is opposed to nationalism anymore. Libertarianism, so long is it isn't emodied in the type of vulgar paleoconservatism of Ron Paul, is anti-nationalist.

I would disagree somewhat, I know plenty of self-styled 'socialist' groups who are nothing but nationalists.

I would disagree somewhat, I know plenty of self-styled 'socialist' groups who are nothing but nationalists.

Well, they should be internationalists.

Unless you live in a country like North Korea, there's not that much stopping you from leaving your country to one that you like once you're old enough and are willing to face the costs.

It's not just costs, it's Costs (maybe even all caps). As a shame-faced American, I have considered many times moving to Canada, but there are many obstacles. Besides leaving behind everyone and everything I know, I would have to return to school to get a valid Canadian teaching credential (I JUST finished getting my California credential) and the wait for a work permit can stretch in excess of 2 years. Without any saving, that's pretty hard to do.

Besides that, while I may want to strangle my government sometimes (okay, a lot of the time), I am proud to be a Northern Californian, and I would miss my home very much. I identify as a Californian much more strongly than I do as an American, and many people I know agree. If we could just quietly secede and start our own little republic (Oregon and Washington could come too, but not Idaho, they're fuckers) I'd be perfectly happy.

Personally I consider it a mental disorder which creates a subjective perception of the world...

...as opposed to what? There's no such thing as an objective perception of the world. Your argument against Nationalism could just as easily apply to any self-identified group. Religious? Biased. Fan of a team? Biased. Male? Biased. Female? Biased. Who we are physically, nationally, socially, politically etc etc makes up our perception of the world... of COURSE it's subjective.

If by Nationalism, you mean a blind, unquestioning belief in the inherent superiority of your own nation, then nationalism is bad.

When defined as loyalty tempered by reason, nationalism is no bad thing. My loyalty is to the Constitution, not Bush, or Congress, or any other person. Neither is it to the policies of any administration.

The greatest disloyalty possible is refusal to question government. I am a citizen of one of the several united States of America. I will not accept any earthly authority above the Constitution of the United States. I pledge to never trust any official, especially if he says he is acting for my own good. I pledge to oppose any enemy, foreign or domestic, who seeks to seize my liberties. I stand opposed to the majority of the actions of "my" government over the past 16 years. If this be the nationalism you fear, then I am a nationalist.

Can't remember who I am quoting but I think they hit the nail on the head - "Nationalism is the belief that a country is somehow superior to all the other countries simply because you were born in it".

I have heard this copypasta 'argument' from you before...

Wow, AP criticizing someone else for copypasta arguments, that's funny.

Wow, AP criticizing someone else for copypasta arguments, that's funny.
So's him condemning nationalism. Apparently, Nationalism and Oppression of the Worker Class are evils, unless perpetrated by Communists.

So's him condemning nationalism. Apparently, Nationalism and Oppression of the Worker Class are evils, unless perpetrated by Communists.
Oh great, more undefined and vague sniping and personal attacks I honestly can't be bothered addressing you people, your literally brainwashed beyond repair.

Oh great, more undefined and vague sniping and personal attacks I honestly can't be bothered addressing you people, your literally brainwashed beyond repair.Nationalism is a common appearance in Communist societies, most notably the Soviet Union and the PRC. I'm amazed you did not know that.

Nationalism is a common appearance in Communist societies, most notably the Soviet Union and the PRC. I'm amazed you did not know that.

No not really, it was Brezhnev who really brought the good old Russian militarism and nationalism out of the box, at least Khrushchev had socialist rhetoric (but not substance). In actual fact Stalin fought hard for a multi-ethnic socialist state against anti-social elements, against the Islamic fanatics in the autonomous republics as well as the Christian Cossacks in Russia itself.

And interesting but not well known fact is the role of Stalin in American socialist politics and him telling the US communists of their hypocrisy in being 'revolutionaries' and yet treating Negroes badly.

And interesting but not well known fact is the role of Stalin in American socialist politics and him telling the US communists of their hypocrisy in being 'revolutionaries' and yet treating Negroes badly.

The Comintern did actually have a fairly good record when it came to anti-racism... the CPUSA's efforts in that respect were meaningful, highly productive, and too often forgotten.

The Left today could learn a lot from reviewing that lesson. People respond when they are given the opportunity to organize in campaigns that can concretely effect their lives... you can build mass support and an effective machinery for broader change that way.

Too bad the CPUSA was forced by the Comintern to jump through ideological hoops in the meantime... and was ultimately too wedded to Stalinism to form an effective, mass-based radical left force that could last.

Too bad the CPUSA was forced by the Comintern to jump through ideological hoops in the meantime... and was ultimately too wedded to Stalinism to form an effective, mass-based radical left force that could last.
I agree with one point there, the CPUSA did infact become too slavish to Moscow, but this wasn't limited to Stalin, what did them in was following the revisionist lines of Khrushchev and Brezhnev which split the party. Today the CPUSA is a complete joke, their primary aim is getting Democrats elected.

Nationalism, like almost every -ism, can have both positive and negative effects.

I agree with one point there, the CPUSA did infact become too slavish to Moscow, but this wasn't limited to Stalin, what did them in was following the revisionist lines of Khrushchev and Brezhnev which split the party.

Well, Khrushchev and Hungary didn't much help them... but it's not like the PLP break-off has done any better.

In any case, they were in serious trouble when they lost their influence within the labor movement, and left-wing social movements as a whole, due to the Cold War. Whatever one thinks of Stalin or the Soviet Union in general, it was still a crucial political mistake to adhere so closely to directives from foreign authorities... it's a losing stance in any country, especially one as nationalist as the US, and even more so during a period of international tensions with the very country in question.

No not really, it was Brezhnev who really brought the good old Russian militarism and nationalism out of the box, at least Khrushchev had socialist rhetoric (but not substance). In actual fact Stalin fought hard for a multi-ethnic socialist state against anti-social elements, against the Islamic fanatics in the autonomous republics as well as the Christian Cossacks in Russia itself.

And interesting but not well known fact is the role of Stalin in American socialist politics and him telling the US communists of their hypocrisy in being 'revolutionaries' and yet treating Negroes badly.Stalin actually started it off with the "Great Patriotic War" get-go. Somehow, I can't see how fighting to suppress ethnicities and cultures such as the cossacks or the islamic "autonomous" republics could be considered "multi-ethnic". If anything, it's a form of assimilization and Gleichschaltung, rather opposite to multi-ethnicity.

I'm glad we're also stripped of the potential to have a complex opinion.

I understand you're objection to fence-riding, but you're oversimplification also orbs non-fence riders of complex opinions.

Well I don't know, it seems like a yes or no answer. I guess that is all the OP wanted?

Myself I can see nothing of merit in being proud of your country just because you are a citersen of it.

Nationalism to an extent where you place priority over your country and your people over other countries is always a bad thing, naturally. Yet if by nationalism you mean merely caring about your own country and people, then this can be very good. If people didn't care about their own country, would they bother to fight tyrannical autocrats? Would they bother trying to make their country a better place to live? That's one thing to think about.

I don't nationalism would reall do one's country any good, unless your country was directly competing with another country in some way.

Nationalism to an extent where you place priority over your country and your people over other countries is always a bad thing, naturally. Yet if by nationalism you mean merely caring about your own country and people, then this can be very good. If people didn't care about their own country, would they bother to fight tyrannical autocrats? Would they bother trying to make their country a better place to live? That's one thing to think about.

I wholeheartedly agree. After all, nationalism caused more downfalls than war.

Its OK to be proud of your culture or your government. But I think the problem with nationalism is when people see each other as fundamentally different just because they live somewhere else.

I saw some of you guys quoting Voltaire so I will do the same:

It does not require great art, or magnificently trained eloquence, to prove that Christians should tolerate each other. I, however, am going further: I say that we should regard all men as our brothers. What? The Turk my brother? The Chinaman my brother? The Jew? The Siam? Yes, without doubt; are we not all children of the same father and creatures of the same God?

I'm not religious, but Voltaire has a point.

I have heard this copypasta 'argument' from you before, and it always come to the 'conclusion' that the 'identitarianist' ideologies are fascism and socialism, and that they place 'the people', 'the public good' or 'the collective' as an abstract and undefinable quality. The difference between religion, ethnicity and class is that class is based in reality, in the material conditions of reality, while ethnicity and religion are abstract metapsychical/ideological creations.

Leaving aside the wonderful irony of you accusing me of a copypaste argument, I will say in response that class is more or less just the same a classification as religion and ethnicity. Ethnicity is very much a real concept, as there are distinct and undeniable differences in genetics, along with the system of custom and reciprocity that allow for the establishment of trust and cooperation. Chauvinism and conformity to a specific culture poses a threat as it results in calcification and thus prevents an expansion of trust and prosperity, and the same as with chauvinism and conformity to class. However, while the system of trust that culture inspires allows for a better life, so-called class warfare only results in a meaningless resentment to those outside of one's specific group, acting as a deadweight, and those who can manipulate this degenerative hatred become more powerful at the expense of all others who would have benefitted from peace. This makes the identitarianism of class the most poisonous of all.

Of course, by itself, psychological make-up or, as it is otherwise called, "national character," is something intangible for the observer, but in so far as it manifests itself in a distinctive culture common to the nation it is something tangible and cannot be ignored. So it becomes material, and thus becomes a part of the class relation.

Nice non-sequitur. An American's preference for beef and an Englishman's preference for tea has absolutely nothing to do with economic class but rather the system of more-or-less socially acceptable action. Just because it is material does not mean it has anything to do with your 'class-relation' fantasies.

In actual Marx criticized the abstract 'people' concepts in his critique of German or 'True' socialism, the intellectual forerunner to fascism.

Immaterial. In order to assemble political legitimacy the tyrant must always fall upon a concept of an abstract collective, first to define a psychological 'other' (the Jews, the capitalists) to hate, and second to enforce conformity to the State through conflating the State with the power of the people ('the proletariat is the state', and thus making the masses into the agent of the suppression of dissonance. Whether or not Marx, a philosopher instead of a politician, denounced this or not, the nature of politics ensures the embedding of the abstract collective in the maintaining of legitimacy.

So please Vendee, stop with your infantile rants trying to compare fascism, which exists as a stage of impotent capitalism, to socialism, which itself is a different relation of production.

I think it would be much better if you stopped with your infantile personal attacks against 'reactionaries' and your justification of what is essentially a glorified argumentum ad populum, appeal to novelty, non-sensical attempt to place all history into an ahistorical linear progression despite all the various paths, cul de sacs and ebbs and flows of human action, etc. etc. etc., which is as brain-dead as it is deadly (especially with your uniquely psychotic interpretation.)

There is something wrong with using nationalism to stir up emotional and irrational responses in a populace. it is always used like this. Someone -usually the Gov- sooner or later will use it like this. in every Country.

Can't remember who I am quoting but I think they hit the nail on the head - "Nationalism is the belief that a country is somehow superior to all the other countries simply because you were born in it".true.

also:
"Nationalism is the belief that your Country is almost always -in the right- and that all opposing Countries are always -in the wrong- " (whenever there is conflict or possibility of conflict)

Nationalism is strongest amongst those who have a less than full passport right.

Nationalism is strongest amongst those who have a less than full passport right.

If by that you mean "those who are the most nationalistic are those that have never been to other countries" then I would agree with you.

No, I meant those of slightly immigrant descent

Depends whether it is civic or ethnic nationalism. Civic nationalism, emphasing rights of citizens, common values and history etc can be used to effectively integrate a diverse society so that people in a country can easily live together. Ethnic nationalism is a bit dodgy, however, slipping ever-so-easily into racism

No, I meant those of slightly immigrant descent

DBS, learn to use the quote button...

It is way cooler to be anti-nationalist. Or nationalistic against other countries, without any nationalism towards your own country.

Nationalism is patriotism to the point of excess: arrogance. Nothing wrong with patriotism. That's just liking the good things about your nation while realizing it has its flaws. Nationalism is just the over inflation of this pride.

*throws his two cents in and quietly leaves unnoticed*

Nationalism is patriotism to the point of excess: arrogance. Nothing wrong with patriotism. That's just liking the good things about your nation while realizing it has its flaws. Nationalism is just the over inflation of this pride.

*throws his two cents in and quietly leaves unnoticed*

I think that nationalism is taking your nation out of context, it subjectifies the nation of your birth. In essence it puts your nation at the center of the universe just because you happened to be born in it, (like you had a choice). If you can objectively look at your own nation materially and compare it to other nations without favor, then your not nationalist, it's a hard thing to do and I won't brag that I can do it despite my attempts not to. I still get a tingly feeling when an Australian politician makes a nationalistic speech, and I admit as an early socialist was criticisms of capitalism were nationalist (as in economic nationalism rather class analysis).

I would encourage anyone here to use some self-criticism, and some nation-criticism, and liberate yourself from the ignorant and unconscionable mob mentality of nationalism.

I think that nationalism is taking your nation out of context, it subjectifies the nation of your birth. In essence it puts your nation at the center of the universe just because you happened to be born in it, (like you had a choice). If you can objectively look at your own nation materially and compare it to other nations without favor, then your not nationalist, it's a hard thing to do and I won't brag that I can do it despite my attempts not to. I still get a tingly feeling when an Australian politician makes a nationalistic speech, and I admit as an early socialist was criticisms of capitalism were nationalist (as in economic nationalism rather class analysis).

I would encourage anyone here to use some self-criticism, and some nation-criticism, and liberate yourself from the ignorant and unconscionable mob mentality of nationalism.

Pfft.

Mobs are fun.