NationStates Jolt Archive

In Sociology, we meet with senior citizens to discuss this and that. Last week's topic was World War II and Patriotism. They were talking about how people today aren't as patriotic. It got me thinking: Is patriotism and nationalism relevant today? We're moving into a globalized world and it doesn't matter as much where you live anymore. Cultures are mixing and becoming homogenized. Within a few centuries, English will be the primary language of virtually everyone and we will all unite as one planet. So, is nationalism a relic of the 19th and 20th Centuries? If so, what is the standard of loyalty now?

I doubt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLILrC7Y5L4) it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RssIN3ustUw)

But overall, depending on the culture, apathy may be taking over.

In Sociology, we meet with senior citizens to discuss this and that. Last week's topic was World War II and Patriotism. They were talking about how people today aren't as patriotic. It got me thinking: Is patriotism and nationalism relevant today? We're moving into a globalized world and it doesn't matter as much where you live anymore. Cultures are mixing and becoming homogenized. Within a few centuries, English will be the primary language of virtually everyone and we will all unite as one planet. So, is nationalism a relic of the 19th and 20th Centuries? If so, what is the standard of loyalty now?

I think not, but even if it is, it'll just be replaced with something else such as religion. But, for example, say we do unite, and colonize mars, then earthers will be patriotic to earth and martians to mars. It's just the way things are.

Patriotism and nationalism are very much alive, much to my chagrin.

In Sociology, we meet with senior citizens to discuss this and that. Last week's topic was World War II and Patriotism. They were talking about how people today aren't as patriotic. It got me thinking: Is patriotism and nationalism relevant today? We're moving into a globalized world and it doesn't matter as much where you live anymore. Cultures are mixing and becoming homogenized. Within a few centuries, English will be the primary language of virtually everyone and we will all unite as one planet. So, is nationalism a relic of the 19th and 20th Centuries? If so, what is the standard of loyalty now?
Nationalism has been replaced by allegience to one's social class. The proletariats are loyal to the proletariats, the bourgeoisie to the bourgeoisie. Eventually, these loyalties will lead to the overthrow of the latter by the former, followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat. Eventually, this will be replaced by a truly classless society.

Just kidding. I'd say popular music is the binding force nowadays. It won't be long before we start to see fights between Outkasters and Winehousians over control of the country.

Just look at the number of international wanking contests on THIS FORUM ALONE.
The 'THE US ECONOMY IS NO LONGER THE BIGGEST LOL' thread is a great example. European 'nationalists' (of a sort) against US nationalists.

Things like nationalism are dying out due to the overwhelming amounts of apathy and liberalism/Marxist socialism in the world. These people like to convince you that nationalism is a thing of the past, but anyone who can make sense of the world's current course can realize that the thing we need is not more Marxism, it's more nationalism.

Things like nationalism are dying out due to the overwhelming amounts of apathy and liberalism/Marxist socialism in the world. These people like to convince you that nationalism is a thing of the past, but anyone who can make sense of the world's current course can realize that the thing we need is not more Marxism, it's more nationalism.

What an idiotic statement. Nationalism has been the cause of so many wars, and you want more of it?

Nationalism has been replaced by allegience to one's social class. The proletariats are loyal to the proletariats, the bourgeoisie to the bourgeoisie. Eventually, these loyalties will lead to the overthrow of the latter by the former, followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat. Eventually, this will be replaced by a truly classless society.

Just kidding. I'd say popular music is the binding force nowadays. It won't be long before we start to see fights between Outkasters and Winehousians over control of the country.

Well we almost had a Marx Disciple. Totally disagree. It varies from nation to nation. If you ahve the right leader and political machine then nationalism will always be a force as long as their are still nation states. Their will always be conservatives battling against a united world. Mainly in the bigger powers because they don't want to share power.

Then when the world is united a couple races of aliens will show up and the leaders of the united world will use nationalism to gain support for a war with the aliens. It is all part of the Masonic conspiracy.

Just kidding...Or am I?

What an idiotic statement. Nationalism has been the cause of so many wars, and you want more of it?
... And Marxism has been the subverter of the entire world.

America's current war on terror is that of liberal ideals and the service of foreign interests rather than national ones.

Those working in the idiot's interest of global government serve liberal globalism.

All of the modern racial tensions created are due to inequalities set in place by liberal policies.

Communism, which has killed hundreds of millions worldwide in a relatively short time, is the complete opposite of Nationalism.

Liberalism is the destroyer of Empires. When America's liberal empire falls, one way or another, it will cause nothing but chaos, death, and destruction, globally.

The Nationalists you make sound like warmongers are the ones who would end the War on Terror, stop needless foreign aid, and help secure our own country, our own people, our own economy.

In Sociology, we meet with senior citizens to discuss this and that. Last week's topic was World War II and Patriotism. They were talking about how people today aren't as patriotic. It got me thinking: Is patriotism and nationalism relevant today? We're moving into a globalized world and it doesn't matter as much where you live anymore. Cultures are mixing and becoming homogenized. Within a few centuries, English will be the primary language of virtually everyone and we will all unite as one planet. So, is nationalism a relic of the 19th and 20th Centuries? If so, what is the standard of loyalty now?


Maybe this is so in some families but in my family we have made it a point to teach our children about patriotism and the importance of it. I was taught, my parents were taught, and yes my parents and grandparents felt it was and is very important. My family is also represented in every war this country has ever been in, with three generations being career military. So yes it is very important to us.

I realize that for whatever reason many people today do not feel it is important but in our family we do. Interestingly my extended family and closest friends also take it seriously. And frankly we think those who don't....well I won't say what we think of those. :(

... And Marxism has been the subverter of the entire world.

America's current war on terror is that of liberal ideals and the service of foreign interests rather than national ones.

Those working in the interest of global government serve liberal globalism.

All of the racial tensions created are due to inequalities set in place by liberal policies.

Communism, which has killed hundreds of millions worldwide in a relatively short time, is the complete opposite of Nationalism.

Liberalism is the destroyer of Empires. When America's liberal empire falls, one way or another, it will cause nothing but chaos, death, and destruction, globally.

The Nationalists you make sound like warmongers are the ones who would end the War on Terror, stop needless foreign aid, and help secure our own country, our own people, our own economy.



Really, I could address how almost everything you said is BS in detail, but Im tired and drunk, so Im off.

All Im going to say is Nationalism is the root of the two World Wars. If you want more of those...

Things like nationalism are dying out due to the overwhelming amounts of apathy and liberalism/Marxist socialism in the world. These people like to convince you that nationalism is a thing of the past, but anyone who can make sense of the world's current course can realize that the thing we need is not more Marxism, it's more nationalism.

What the heck does Marxism have to do with this?
Where is there prevalent Marxism being practiced in the world today?

well I won't say what we think of those. :(

Probably exactly how we feel about you!;)

What the heck does Marxism have to do with this?
Where is there prevelant Marxism being practiced in the world today?
America, Europe, take your pick. They don't dominate the economies, but the policies and government.

What the heck does Marxism have to do with this?
Where is there prevalent Marxism being practiced in the world today?

I don't think so either. The world seems like more of a lightly leftist leaning mix to me.

All Im going to say is Nationalism is the root of the two World Wars. If you want more of those...

World War was caused by entangling alliances. That is, Europe was trying to internationalize itself and caused only destruction.

World War Two was started, perhaps, by Nationalists, but it was also to be ended by Nationalists - until the Internationalists refused to treaty and continued the war, destroying Germany and its allies. Germany and most of the conservative world still suffer today for that.

... And Marxism has been the subverter of the entire world.

America's current war on terror is that of liberal ideals and the service of foreign interests rather than national ones.

Those working in the idiot's interest of global government serve liberal globalism.

All of the modern racial tensions created are due to inequalities set in place by liberal policies.

Communism, which has killed hundreds of millions worldwide in a relatively short time, is the complete opposite of Nationalism.

Liberalism is the destroyer of Empires. When America's liberal empire falls, one way or another, it will cause nothing but chaos, death, and destruction, globally.

The Nationalists you make sound like warmongers are the ones who would end the War on Terror, stop needless foreign aid, and help secure our own country, our own people, our own economy.

The USA is on the same path as Rome. I would say that in the next century one charismatic person will due what Ceaser did. Gain the support of everyone and become a dictator. Then America will become a true empire for a while until everyone thinks that it is time to end the power of the USA. Then the biggest war in history to that point will break out. If the USA wins then it will dominate the world for a long long time. If it loses it will become a demilitarized small governemtn democracy like ti was in 1800. Everyone will keep close tabs on it to insure that it never agian rises to power.

Just a simple student of history's opinon.

America, Europe, take your pick. They don't dominate the economies, but the policies and government.

Uh.. I pick America.
Now can you demonstrate(assuming what you say is true), that these policies are negatively affecting something and that nationalism is somehow the counterbalance to it. As far as I know, nationalism is more of an ideology, way of life/reacting to stimuli, than a set of guidelines.

World War was caused by entangling alliances. That is, Europe was trying to internationalize itself and caused only destruction.

World War Two was started, perhaps, by Nationalists, but it was also to be ended by Nationalists - until the Internationalists refused to treaty and continued the war, destroying Germany and its allies. Germany and most of the conservative world still suffer today for that.


Totally disagree about World War II. It wasn't internationalists that decided to bomb the crap out of Germany and bring total defeat on Germany. It was the smart nationalists like Stalin and Churchill that realized if Hitler remained in power, war would be the ultimate result once agian. Extreme nationalism and a few men's ambitions started World War II. You must always remember that it isn't always political forces that cause war. Sometimes it is one or two men.

In Sociology, we meet with senior citizens to discuss this and that.

bread cost too much these days *riots*

So, is nationalism a relic of the 19th and 20th Centuries? If so, what is the standard of loyalty now?

1) yes
2) er...I'd say friends but thats more modern family so I will go out on one and say democracy or something

I doubt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLILrC7Y5L4) it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RssIN3ustUw)

and I counter with: *shudders* (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKoS5X4SMrY)

The 'THE US ECONOMY IS NO LONGER THE BIGGEST LOL' thread is a great example. European 'nationalists' (of a sort) against US nationalists.

yeah but we are talking society at large here :p

Those working in the idiot's interest of global government serve liberal globalism.

woot!

one planet under shagging

Nobody riots over the price of bread anymore. It will be gasoline. Then OPEC will see what happens when they mess with us oiless nations... Angry governments with lots of big military toys to play with

Uh.. I pick America.
Now can you demonstrate(assuming what you say is true), that these policies are negatively affecting something and that nationalism is somehow the counterbalance to it. As far as I know, nationalism is more of an ideology, way of life/reacting to stimuli, than a set of guidelines.
Liberal policies that create racial inequalities when claiming to end "racial struggle" and "class struggle", which only harm both the minority and the majority. This includes things like the "Affirmative Action" farce and the support of Illegal Immigration.

High taxes due to these aforementioned systems, and others, and burgeoning federal bureaucracy.

Foreign wars for foreign interests, in the name of internationalism. This furthers the national debt.

The excess printing of money, causing inflation, and weakening the dollar and thus the economy on every level. This furthers the national debt, as well.

etc.

A Nationalist leader would put America's interest first and foremost, benefiting the people equally, not unequally. Workers would not be displaced by non-citizens or foreign workers, thus lowering unemployment, thus lowering poverty, thus benefiting income, thus benefiting the economy.

A Nationalist leader would fight wars only that effected national interests. There would be no "War on Terror". Countries like Israel, one of the richest nations in the world, would not receive more foreign aid then all of Africa, Central, and South America combined for no reason. This money not spent would return to the American people.

etc.

... And Marxism has been the subverter of the entire world.

Marxism and the communism to which you refer aren't exactly the same. Nor does Marxism in any way exclude nationalism (see Soviet Russia).

America's current war on terror is that of liberal ideals and the service of foreign interests rather than national ones.

Liberal ideals? Really? That's a laughable statement and I'd ask you to back it up. Everyone behind the war has been on the 'patriotic' side in the US so far. Other places, it's just about scoring points with the US or taking advantage of being able to get rid of a despot (because, let's face it, Denmark isn't going to be able to get rid of any despot anywhere in the world, but the argument does work that when given the chance, they could take it... not that the argument works, because it doesn't, but still. Yes, I am being purposefully unclear and whited out this text to avoid looking like an idiot to everyone).

Those working in the idiot's interest of global government serve liberal globalism.

All of the modern racial tensions created are due to inequalities set in place by liberal policies.

Ehm, see imperialism and traditionalism. I'd hardly call slavery liberal. Racial tensions caused by laws that discriminate based on race aren't exactly liberal either. If you think they are, I want some of what you're smoking.

Communism, which has killed hundreds of millions worldwide in a relatively short time, is the complete opposite of Nationalism.

No. Communism made heavy use of Nationalism. If you'd like proof, see Cuba, see Soviet Russia and see modern day China.

That's also nationalism.

Liberalism is the destroyer of Empires. When America's liberal empire falls, one way or another, it will cause nothing but chaos, death, and destruction, globally.

You can't have it both ways. Either Liberalism creates or destroys empires. It doesn't create them and last I checked, imperialism caused more harm than good.

The Nationalists you make sound like warmongers are the ones who would end the War on Terror, stop needless foreign aid, and help secure our own country, our own people, our own economy.

The Nationalists caused WWI. They also caused WWII. The Cold War. The aggressive wars that France fought after the French Revolution could not have been possible without nationalism (although at least it did the good of protecting France for a while).

More importantly, the war on terror is a war of nationalistic ideals being waged by the US and its allies. When you try to impose your viewpoint on others, that's certainly not liberalism, quite the opposite really.

I doubt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLILrC7Y5L4) it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RssIN3ustUw)

But overall, depending on the culture, apathy may be taking over.
The first is after 9/11. The second is too old. NEXT!

Nationalism has been replaced by allegience to one's social class. The proletariats are loyal to the proletariats, the bourgeoisie to the bourgeoisie...
For a minute, I thought you were Andaras.

... And Marxism has been the subverter of the entire world.
WTF?

America's current war on terror is that of liberal ideals and the service of foreign interests rather than national ones.
Proof of the end of nationalism?

Those working in the idiot's interest of global government serve liberal globalism.
WTF?

All of the modern racial tensions created are due to inequalities set in place by liberal policies.
WTF? Most tensions existed before so-called "liberal policies".

Communism, which has killed hundreds of millions worldwide in a relatively short time, is the complete opposite of Nationalism.
BULL. FUCKING. SHIT. There is no hundreds of millions and it wasn't caused by Communism. Every death under a communist regime is attributable to communism, but every death under any other regime is just a death.

Liberalism is the destroyer of Empires. When America's liberal empire falls, one way or another, it will cause nothing but chaos, death, and destruction, globally.
WTF? Did you just contradict yourself?

The Nationalists you make sound like warmongers are the ones who would end the War on Terror, stop needless foreign aid, and help secure our own country, our own people, our own economy.
Uh...no.

And frankly we think those who don't....well I won't say what we think of those. :(
I'm sure we feel the same about you. ;)

All Im going to say is Nationalism is the root of the two World Wars. If you want more of those...
Aye, it's one of the MAIN causes.

America, Europe, take your pick. They don't dominate the economies, but the policies and government.
Really? America and Europe are CLEARLY Marxist...

World War was caused by entangling alliances. That is, Europe was trying to internationalize itself and caused only destruction.

World War Two was started, perhaps, by Nationalists, but it was also to be ended by Nationalists - until the Internationalists refused to treaty and continued the war, destroying Germany and its allies. Germany and most of the conservative world still suffer today for that.
You need to re-read your history notes, sir. Nationalism is one of the MAIN causes of the WW1 as well as 2. Hitler and the Nazis were motivated by Nationalism and feeling superior to all others.

Marxism and the communism to which you refer aren't exactly the same. Nor does Marxism in any way exclude nationalism (see Soviet Russia).
Marxism breeds Communism.

Liberal ideals? Really? That's a laughable statement and I'd ask you to back it up. Everyone behind the war has been on the 'patriotic' side in the US so far.[/color]
Those you call "patriots" are more accurately defined as neoconservatives, or faux-Republican liberals.

[quote]Ehm, see imperialism and traditionalism. I'd hardly call slavery liberal. Racial tensions caused by laws that discriminate based on race aren't exactly liberal either. If you think they are, I want some of what you're smoking.
Affirmative Action, among others, is a liberal policy that is racial discrimination.

Imperialism is not nationalism.

No. Communism made heavy use of Nationalism. If you'd like proof, see Cuba, see Soviet Russia and see modern day China.

That's also nationalism.
No, it's Communism.

You can't have it both ways. Either Liberalism creates or destroys empires. It doesn't create them and last I checked, imperialism caused more harm than good.
Liberalism creates the Empire, then destroys it. It's not that hard to understand.



The Nationalists caused WWI. They also caused WWII. The Cold War.
The Cold War? Commies started that.

More importantly, the war on terror is a war of nationalistic ideals being waged by the US and its allies. When you try to impose your viewpoint on others, that's certainly not liberalism, quite the opposite really.
No, it's internationalist ideals. If they were nationalist ideas, YOU would be supporting them.

A bunch of you are saying that nationalism is a conservative thing.

Just look at its roots and you'll realize you are at least partly wrong. It came about origianlly from the French revolution. Now if you say that is a conservative event then you need to move to some communist "paradise"

The first is after 9/11. The second is too old. NEXT!

What if I told you I was singing both of those right now?

Marxism breeds Communism.

Still not the same. You'd do better if you actually knew the difference between them. I suggest reading up on both.

Those you call "patriots" are more accurately defined as neoconservatives, or faux-Republican liberals.

To call them liberals would require them to actually be in favor of liberty.

They're not.

Affirmative Action, among others, is a liberal policy that is racial discrimination.

among others?

Imperialism is not nationalism.

Imperialism wouldn't have lasted two seconds without nationalism.

With no feeling of superiority, you'd have one hard time building an empire.

No, it's Communism.

No, to have the opinion that "My country is greater than all others" as China and Soviet Russia most certainly have/had IS nationalist.

Communism has nothing to do with the love of your nation.

Liberalism creates the Empire, then destroys it. It's not that hard to understand.

Liberalism does not create empires. Why would it?

The Cold War? Commies started that.

I'd say both sides are equally to blame.

No, it's internationalist ideals. If they were nationalist ideas, YOU would be supporting them.

I don't support nationalist ideals. I don't support the War on Terror. Also, wtf? Why would I suppor them if they were nationalist ideals?

A bunch of you are saying that nationalism is a conservative thing.

I'm saying it's traditionalist bullshit. That conservatives happen to have taken it up just says more about conservatives than us.

And it is, seeing as how it's two hundred freaking years old and stems from the idea that because your nation is more powerful/rich/enlightened, then everyone from said nation is also automatically superior to everyone from nation X.

woo WWII has already been mentioned

The British empire is on the same path as Rome.

look I just sent you back to 1904!

Nobody riots over the price of bread anymore. It will be gasoline. Then OPEC will see what happens when they mess with us oiless nations... Angry governments with lots of big military toys to play with

...what on Earth are you talking about beyond me impersonating senile old men?

Ok, Oaky here is clearly an everything troll that rants about everything rantable.

http://static.flickr.com/121/294846856_6400efc3ec.jpg

How should I know what I am talking about. I am from 1904 remember. I have no idea what you are talking aobut. I am randomly talking aobut things I see on this thing you call Fox News

Things like nationalism are dying out due to the overwhelming amounts of apathy and liberalism/Marxist socialism
....
the thing we need is not more Marxism, it's more nationalism

Actually, ya know what we need? Fewer false dichotomies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). I know it's hard, memorizing all those other colors, but intellectual laziness is no excuse for describing a stop sign as "not white."

Just don't use wikipedia.org ofr a source. It is kinda unreliable which you should know unless you have lived under a rock for the past 5 years

Just don't use wikipedia.org ofr a source. It is kinda unreliable which you should know unless you have lived under a rock for the past 5 years

It has been proven to be more reliable than most other encyclopedias out there in the market today.

So here's the challenge to you. Why do you think it can't accurately be used as a source in scientific studies or journalism? It cannot, btw...

Just don't use wikipedia.org ofr a source. It is kinda unreliable which you should know unless you have lived under a rock for the past 5 years

Are you retarded? How many times does wikipedia have to be shown to be reliable before you guys get it? You expect the world from everything.

image SNiP

its been burnt

How should I know what I am talking about. I am from 1904 remember.

invest in that zeppelin fellow!

I am randomly talking aobut things I see on this thing you call Fox News

and Fox News doesn't talk about the price of bread these days?!

Nationalism and Patriotism are very much alive in all nations

its just that the PC brigade quickly ignores anyone who has pride in their one nation, and only pays attention those who love all nations to be heard

Nationalism and Patriotism are very much alive in all nations

do tell what British nationalism is supposed to be then?

its just that the PC brigade quickly ignores anyone who has pride in their one nation

no society at large does because they are crazies/have never actually bothered to visit overseas

So here's the challenge to you. Why do you think it can't accurately be used as a source in scientific studies or journalism? It cannot, btw...


Just to go offtopic.

Because the consistancy and continued presence of aspects of it is unreliable. The information can be good, bad, or whatever, but the fact is wiki changes too much to be used for academic purposes because if you cite it one day, a week later it could have been changed to reflect something new, or to reword something, or some vandalisim.

Just to go offtopic.

Because the consistancy and continued presence of aspects of it is unreliable. The information can be good, bad, or whatever, but the fact is wiki changes too much to be used for academic purposes because if you cite it one day, a week later it could have been changed to reflect something new, or to reword something, or some vandalisim.

That's actually a very valid reason I hadn't thought of.

My reason, however, comes from what my teachers have told me, which is that it's a second-hand source.

If a riot occurs, you don't ask friends of the rioters who were somewhere else at the time to tell you what happened, because all they'd know would be better known by their friend who actually participated in the riot, for example.

But yes, I do rather like the reason you gave. It explains why in cases where encyclopedias are allowed to be used, Wiki still cannot.

Because the consistancy and continued presence of aspects of it is unreliable. The information can be good, bad, or whatever, but the fact is wiki changes too much to be used for academic purposes because if you cite it one day, a week later it could have been changed to reflect something new, or to reword something, or some vandalisim.

you could just use the reference articles at the bottom of the wiki if your feeling anal...

you could just use the reference articles at the bottom of the wiki if your feeling anal...

That's usually also how students at my Uni are encouraged to use Wikipedia, if we must. Better to use the first-hand sources that make up the article.

That's actually a very valid reason I hadn't thought of.

My reason, however, comes from what my teachers have told me, which is that it's a second-hand source.

If a riot occurs, you don't ask friends of the rioters who were somewhere else at the time to tell you what happened, because all they'd know would be better known by their friend who actually participated in the riot, for example.

But yes, I do rather like the reason you gave. It explains why in cases where encyclopedias are allowed to be used, Wiki still cannot.

If you have teachers telling you that you can't use secondary sources for anything other then intended original research papers, you have shitty teachers. I've been in university four years, and most of my profs pass on secondary source information to us, and most of the stuff in the university libraries are secondary sources, it's how the academic world works. Three primary source materials will be published, thirty secondary source materials will be published discussing the three primary sources.

you could just use the reference articles at the bottom of the wiki if your feeling anal...

That I've done. My profs like to say Wiki is a good starting point to get an idea of where you want to look, but damned be you if you cite it as an actual source. It's kinda like looking up a library database, you don't cite that, you cite the books it directs you to.

As stated in the opening post, a one-world government is inevitable-people are too frightened of what lies beyond not to eventually unify. The question then is what framework should this one-world government take? As a descendant of Eastern European immigrants, I have to say that the limited government promised (but rarely delivered) by the United States' Constitution provides the proper movement forward, just as the Magna Carta provided the phasing out of monarchies in it's own degree. Patriotism will always have a place, as we will always require people to defend the cultures from which we all benefit. Nationalism is a different matter, but my US experiences have revealed some heavily Statist individuals who believe their state has achieved perfection and are a model for the others, and just as many who disagree. However, this attitude is not largely paid attention to, an has not truly caused a war in the US for over a century.
When you are dealing with ideas instead of people, you will find ideas do not die-the neoNazi movement proves this-but they can be relegated to a back seat in favor of other concerns. Both ideas will continue to exist, but need a proper forum in which to be addressed and given their proper status. Nationalism is a personal idiosyncracy, but Patriotism is a necessity. To quote on of the Founding Fathers, "The Tree of Liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants"-the difference lies in who complains about the cost.

What an idiotic statement. Nationalism has been the cause of so many wars, and you want more of it?

Almost everything has been a cause of conflict. Hence, surely we want less of everything?

If you have teachers telling you that you can't use secondary sources for anything other then intended original research papers, you have shitty teachers. I've been in university four years, and most of my profs pass on secondary source information to us, and most of the stuff in the university libraries are secondary sources, it's how the academic world works. Three primary source materials will be published, thirty secondary source materials will be published discussing the three primary sources.

Well, the only time it was relevant that we only use primary sources was when we were doing a research project on AFM. Other than that, references haven't been terribly important (though we put them in so that the teachers know where we got our data from).

The project couldn't use second-hand, because there was so much first-hand material available that it would be downright stupid not to use only that and thus keep the quality of our information at its highest. Also the fact that we were supposed to lead a discussion on it, so it would be no good to just cite other discussions on it.

Meh, haven't really thought it through or asked my teachers in detail. If ever in doubt, I just ask them if I can use it as a source or not. I've very rarely gotten a no.

edit: I like where this threadjack is going.

That's usually also how students at my Uni are encouraged to use Wikipedia, if we must. Better to use the first-hand sources that make up the article.

That I've done. My profs like to say Wiki is a good starting point to get an idea of where you want to look, but damned be you if you cite it as an actual source. It's kinda like looking up a library database, you don't cite that, you cite the books it directs you to.

you may have both forgotten though that I am actually not your slave on weekdays :p

To quote on of the Founding Fathers, "The Tree of Liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants"-the difference lies in who complains about the cost.

Flags are bits of coloured cloth that governments use to first, shrink wrap people's brains and then as ceremonial shrouds to bury the dead. - Arundhati Roy

and get this one: she is still alive and not some kind of neo-Jesus figure!

Almost everything has been a cause of conflict. Hence, surely we want less of everything?

has cattle ever gone to war? exactly, what we need is a government by bovine :)

you may have both forgotten though that I am actually not your slave on weekdays :p

Huh?

Now where did I leave that whip. Can't have the cows running wild now, can we?

you may have both forgotten though that I am actually not your slave on weekdays :p



Flags are bits of coloured cloth that governments use to first, shrink wrap people's brains and then as ceremonial shrouds to bury the dead. - Arundhati Roy

and get this one: she is still alive and not some kind of neo-Jesus figure!



has cattle ever gone to war? exactly, what we need is a government by bovine :)

Government by sheep would actually be a decent analogy for contemporary British politics.:D

Oh, and Arundhati Roy is an arse of the first order.

Now where did I leave that whip. Can't have the cows running wild now, can we?

do you have all the right tools? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=d3_3Ri3QaiU&feature=related)

Government by sheep would actually be a decent analogy for contemporary British politics.:D

government by pigeons more like, spending all day crapping on innocent victims and losing important information that is supposed to be delivered somewhere

Oh, and Arundhati Roy is an arse of the first order.

well yes but she shushes the "founding fathers" so her role is an important one in the ecosystem

Government by sheep would actually be a decent analogy for contemporary British politics.:D

Oh, and Arundhati Roy is an arse of the first order.

Here here! The blessed Chris is right again! Bow down and praise him.

do you have all the right tools? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=d3_3Ri3QaiU&feature=related)

No. Fortunately

I retain my "Huh?" comment however.

do you have all the right tools? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=d3_3Ri3QaiU&feature=related)



government by pigeons more like, spending all day crapping on innocent victims and losing important information that is supposed to be delivered somewhere



well yes but she shushes the "founding fathers" so her role is an important one in the ecosystem

I reasoned that British politicians are sheep; forever directed by the sheepdog of popular opinion, unthinkingly following its orders and barks. I do quite like the pigeon analogy though.

And I'm not continuing with the Arundhati Roy discussion. The image could lead to places I have no wich to go to.

Here here! The blessed Chris is right again! Bow down and praise him.

I hear his policy's tend to be rather woolly :D

I retain my "Huh?" comment however.

I'm pointing out that I personally won't put too much effort into actually dragging around and interpreting wiki links at half 3 in the morning

In Sociology, we meet with senior citizens to discuss this and that. Last week's topic was World War II and Patriotism. They were talking about how people today aren't as patriotic. It got me thinking: Is patriotism and nationalism relevant today? We're moving into a globalized world and it doesn't matter as much where you live anymore. Cultures are mixing and becoming homogenized. Within a few centuries, English will be the primary language of virtually everyone and we will all unite as one planet. So, is nationalism a relic of the 19th and 20th Centuries? If so, what is the standard of loyalty now?

Not even close. They're not looking at the right places. There's plenty of patriotism alive, and since it's certain basic instincts that allow patriotism to flourish in the first place--specifically the instincts that cause us to form groups of people and then look down on anyone not part of that group--it's not going to go away anytime soon.

Just to go offtopic.

Because the consistancy and continued presence of aspects of it is unreliable. The information can be good, bad, or whatever, but the fact is wiki changes too much to be used for academic purposes because if you cite it one day, a week later it could have been changed to reflect something new, or to reword something, or some vandalisim.
1. Clearly, we're academics and intellectuals who can only use the highest sources possible. Come on!
2. You note the date and time of the revision you looked at. Then, if it changes, you click history and select the one you looked at.
3. Featured Articles are saved and can, for the most part, be accept as on par with other encyclopedias.

That I've done. My profs like to say Wiki is a good starting point to get an idea of where you want to look, but damned be you if you cite it as an actual source. It's kinda like looking up a library database, you don't cite that, you cite the books it directs you to.
Exactly. It can and should be in your Works Consulted, but rarely in Works Cited. As I said, FAs are (or should be) citable.

Ah, but the Iraqis now possess a democracy. After all, this is a panacea for all possible woes; especially the trivial concerns in the OP.

Yay for democracy.
That's sarcasm right...?

1. Clearly, we're academics and intellectuals who can only use the highest sources possible. Come on!
2. You note the date and time of the revision you looked at. Then, if it changes, you click history and select the one you looked at.
3. Featured Articles are saved and can, for the most part, be accept as on par with other encyclopedias.


Exactly. It can and should be in your Works Consulted, but rarely in Works Cited. As I said, FAs are (or should be) citable.


That's sarcasm right...?


Of course. Sorry, I forgot the rolly eyes smiley.

In Sociology, we meet with senior citizens to discuss this and that. Last week's topic was World War II and Patriotism. They were talking about how people today aren't as patriotic. It got me thinking: Is patriotism and nationalism relevant today? We're moving into a globalized world and it doesn't matter as much where you live anymore. Cultures are mixing and becoming homogenized. Within a few centuries, English will be the primary language of virtually everyone and we will all unite as one planet. So, is nationalism a relic of the 19th and 20th Centuries? If so, what is the standard of loyalty now?

All hail the United Earth Directorate!

http://members.aol.com/lokian1/UED.gif

Not even close. They're not looking at the right places. There's plenty of patriotism alive, and since it's certain basic instincts that allow patriotism to flourish in the first place--specifically the instincts that cause us to form groups of people and then look down on anyone not part of that group--it's not going to go away anytime soon.
Bah, I meant among the youth. Congrats on joining the Navy. I'd like to, but have personal issues with enlisting (nothing to do with Iraq).

Of course. Sorry, I forgot the rolly eyes smiley.
Oh good, I was about to rip it to shreds.

Bah, I meant among the youth. Congrats on joining the Navy. I'd like to, but have personal issues with enlisting (nothing to do with Iraq).


Even there, I'd say it's not as far gone as some would think. It's definitely disappearing somewhat, that's true, but you'd be surprised at how prevelant it still is. (And thank you.)

I love comming in to point out why Wiki is not accecpted in scholarly works so you can all return you your debate, and get attacked by several people as if I had run through here naked on fire screaming "WIKIPEDIA IS EVIL AND THE DEVILS WORK BURN IT!!!!".

Not only am I not the one who suggested never using wiki here, I don't think I've ever refered to NSG as a work of scholarly learning or academic publishing.

Resume your silly nationalisim=communisim debate, it's funny.

In Sociology, we meet with senior citizens to discuss this and that. Last week's topic was World War II and Patriotism. They were talking about how people today aren't as patriotic. It got me thinking: Is patriotism and nationalism relevant today? We're moving into a globalized world and it doesn't matter as much where you live anymore. Cultures are mixing and becoming homogenized. Within a few centuries, English will be the primary language of virtually everyone and we will all unite as one planet. So, is nationalism a relic of the 19th and 20th Centuries? If so, what is the standard of loyalty now?

All hail the United Earth Directorate!

http://members.aol.com/lokian1/UED.gif

Resume your silly nationalisim=communisim debate, it's funny.
It's comedy night on NSG...oh wait, that's every night.


All hail the United Earth Directorate!

http://members.aol.com/lokian1/UED.gif
Spiffy?

It's comedy night on NSG...oh wait, that's every night.

There's a reason I wasn't too upset when I got rid of cable. I remembered I had an account here and what fun reading NSG could be, if only for the funnies.

No, you couldn't be more wrong.

Nationalism and patriotism are both meaningless if there are no significant differences between nations. there must be a measurable difference, or a lot of rhetoric to make it appear that there is a difference, for either nationalism or patriotism to exist.

Nationalism: mindless adherence to the policies of the nation of which you are a citizen. Your leaders can do no wrong, and criticism is treason. Bad.

Patriotism: adherence to an ideal embodied in your nation's founding and history. National leaders are capable of violating your principles and are to be chastised for acting outside the boundaries of their legitimate authority. Requires reasoning ability and a strong foundational worldview. Usually good, provided that your patriotism is based on an ideal of liberty and personal responsibility.

patriotism and nationalism are the same things they have always been: a way of conning the pleebs. the corporatocracy which has usurped all nations could really give a fine bit of excrament about any of them, nor about us nor anything but the attraction of little green pieces of paper for other little green pieces of paper.

the mecnanism is mindless. and being mindless is incapable of recognizing even its own dependence upon warm bodies.

=^^=
.../\...

America, Europe, take your pick. They don't dominate the economies, but the policies and government.

Bwhahahhahahha!

Man I'm having a great laugh these past two days.

What gets me is my politics are certianly liberal/socialist with slight anachist leanings, and I can tell you here in the Uk we may be getting a little more liberal, but Marxist, not a fuckin' chance mate.

Maybe this is so in some families but in my family we have made it a point to teach our children about patriotism and the importance of it. I was taught, my parents were taught, and yes my parents and grandparents felt it was and is very important. My family is also represented in every war this country has ever been in, with three generations being career military. So yes it is very important to us.

I realize that for whatever reason many people today do not feel it is important but in our family we do. Interestingly my extended family and closest friends also take it seriously. And frankly we think those who don't....well I won't say what we think of those. :(

All of which serves nicely to highlight what is wrong with this sort of patriotism. You harbour ill feeling towards even your fellow country men that do not share your patriotism? Tell me don't you see anything wrong in that?

Do you know for certian that your stance is the correct one, know beyond doubt, have you stopped questioning and are prepered to follow sheep like instead?

And you see nothing wrong with this?

No, it isn't.

I've never understand why people make a distinction between patriotism and nationalism. It's the same bloody thing, with the exception that patriotism can apply to other things besides a nation. When applied to a nation, patriotism is nationalism by its very definition! Learn to read a dictionary people <.< And learn to see that the people who are patriotic are also the ones who happen to be nationalistic. Coincidence? I think not.

Honestly, I'm getting the feeling that some people just don't want to be labeled nationalist, so they try to create a distinction between nationalism and patriotism that does not exist. Nationalism is the love of your country. Patriotism is the love of your country. There's no distinction!

Whether or not they're bad depends entirely on the person using/having them.

I've never understand why people make a distinction between patriotism and nationalism. It's the same bloody thing, with the exception that patriotism can apply to other things besides a nation. When applied to a nation, patriotism is nationalism by its very definition! Learn to read a dictionary people <.< And learn to see that the people who are patriotic are also the ones who happen to be nationalistic. Coincidence? I think not.

Honestly, I'm getting the feeling that some people just don't want to be labeled nationalist, so they try to create a distinction between nationalism and patriotism that does not exist. Nationalism is the love of your country. Patriotism is the love of your country. There's no distinction!
You can be nationalistic without being particularly patriotic.

The early Zionists in Russia wanted their own nation, and a powerful nation at that. They weren't at all patriotic, quite the opposite, because they had no state to be particularly proud of at that point.

The Indian Nationalists who fought against the British were also non-patriotic nationalists. They wanted an end to the British occupation of India, which was not at all patriotic to the British Empire, and they wanted their own, strong, Indian nation, making them nationalists.

All of which serves nicely to highlight what is wrong with this sort of patriotism. You harbour ill feeling towards even your fellow country men that do not share your patriotism? Tell me don't you see anything wrong in that?

Do you know for certian that your stance is the correct one, know beyond doubt, have you stopped questioning and are prepered to follow sheep like instead?

And you see nothing wrong with this?

No, you assume it is ill feelings. It isn't, it is more sadness than anything. It makes me sad that there are people who are not proud of our nation, who cannot seem to find and focus on the upside of things. It is sad that some assume that our patiotism is without thought or dissent. Being a patriot doesn't mean that we never question, nor that we abstain from dissent. We vote, we voice our dissent at the polls as expected and as is our responsibility.

What we don't do is sit around apologizing for our nation's history and achievements. We do have pride in our accomplisments and our advances. We don't ignore that mistakes have been and will be made, we are human first and foremost. But the assumption that no thought enters a patriots mind is a misnomer at best.

I have read most of this thread and I see lots of anger and misconception. It seems to me people are much faster to bastardize what being a patriot or celebrating nationalism means simply because there have been poor examples in history. There have been poor examples of any ideology. I think it is wrong to only focus on that. Being a patriot is not indicative of a lack of intelligence as some would assume.

No, you assume it is ill feelings. It isn't, it is more sadness than anything. It makes me sad that there are people who are not proud of our nation, who cannot seem to find and focus on the upside of things. It is sad that some assume that our patiotism is without thought or dissent. Being a patriot doesn't mean that we never question, nor that we abstain from dissent. We vote, we voice our dissent at the polls as expected and as is our responsibility.

What we don't do is sit around apologizing for our nation's history and achievements. We do have pride in our accomplisments and our advances. We don't ignore that mistakes have been and will be made, we are human first and foremost. But the assumption that no thought enters a patriots mind is a misnomer at best.

I have read most of this thread and I see lots of anger and misconception. It seems to me people are much faster to bastardize what being a patriot or celebrating nationalism means simply because there have been poor examples in history. There have been poor examples of any ideology. I think it is wrong to only focus on that. Being a patriot is not indicative of a lack of intelligence as some would assume.

Nope I assumed nowt, I asked questions to clarify, thank you for your clarifycation.

I still think that patriotism is inherently a bad thing, it fosters the belife of differance, of superiority, and is divisive. All wars are because of this.

You can be nationalistic without being particularly patriotic.

The early Zionists in Russia wanted their own nation, and a powerful nation at that. They weren't at all patriotic, quite the opposite, because they had no state to be particularly proud of at that point.

The Indian Nationalists who fought against the British were also non-patriotic nationalists. They wanted an end to the British occupation of India, which was not at all patriotic to the British Empire, and they wanted their own, strong, Indian nation, making them nationalists.

And my guess is that the Zionists already held a love for the notion of their own fatherland. So they were patriotic.

I am also betting that the Indian Nationalists had a love for India. So they were patriotic.

No, you assume it is ill feelings. It isn't, it is more sadness than anything. It makes me sad that there are people who are not proud of our nation, who cannot seem to find and focus on the upside of things. It is sad that some assume that our patiotism is without thought or dissent. Being a patriot doesn't mean that we never question, nor that we abstain from dissent. We vote, we voice our dissent at the polls as expected and as is our responsibility.

What we don't do is sit around apologizing for our nation's history and achievements. We do have pride in our accomplisments and our advances. We don't ignore that mistakes have been and will be made, we are human first and foremost. But the assumption that no thought enters a patriots mind is a misnomer at best.

I have read most of this thread and I see lots of anger and misconception. It seems to me people are much faster to bastardize what being a patriot or celebrating nationalism means simply because there have been poor examples in history. There have been poor examples of any ideology. I think it is wrong to only focus on that. Being a patriot is not indicative of a lack of intelligence as some would assume.

No nationalist/patriot in existence has ever done me in any good, quite the opposite really. I'd have a lot more freedom and possibilities if the notion of nations didn't exist.

However, some politician somewhere always has to screw it over for everyone else except himself. In my case, those politicians are most frequently nationalists, who have a tendency to have irrational hatred of everything that isn't their nation (and everything that they don't perceive as part of their nation, no matter how much it is).

And my guess is that the Zionists already held a love for the notion of their own fatherland. So they were patriotic.
It was a notion and nothing more. They could no more be patriotic for a Jewish Israel than I could be for Narnia, to be quite honest.
I am also betting that the Indian Nationalists had a love for India. So they were patriotic.
Aye, but India was not the power which controlled them, that was the British Empire. Patriotism is really loving those who control you, not just 'which ever country you're in'. There were patriotic Americans in the Vietnam War. Doesn't mean that they loved South Vietnam overmuch.

No nationalist/patriot in existence has ever done me in any good, quite the opposite really. I'd have a lot more freedom and possibilities if the notion of nations didn't exist.

However, some politician somewhere always has to screw it over for everyone else except himself. In my case, those politicians are most frequently nationalists, who have a tendency to have irrational hatred of everything that isn't their nation (and everything that they don't perceive as part of their nation, no matter how much it is).
What country do you live in?

Nope I assumed nowt, I asked questions to clarify, thank you for your clarifycation.

I still think that patriotism is inherently a bad thing, it fosters the belife of differance, of superiority, and is divisive. All wars are because of this.

Why do you think that? I have no belief that I am superior to anyone anywhere. I do believe we are all different, we are all inherently different and those things are to be celebrated. I do have a belief that my country is great. I also believe that my family is great, my friends are, my life is, etc. Is that what you find wrong? The pride involved?

I am really trying to understand the negative view of patriotism, I honestly don't see what you describe in people. I genuinely wonder what created this view you (and others here) have.

Are you saying all agressors in war are patriots and that is why they are agressors? What of the offensive to stop the aggressors? Is that patriotism? Is that a bad thing too?

Why do you think that?

To feel pride for your country because of the accident of the location of your birth does not seem consitant with the logical process to me. What exactly are you proud about? would you also feel such pride if you where born elsewhere?


I have no belief that I am superior to anyone anywhere. I do believe we are all different, we are all inherently different and those things are to be celebrated. I do have a belief that my country is great. I also believe that my family is great, my friends are, my life is, etc. Is that what you find wrong? The pride involved?

Not at all, it's not a pride thing. You should feel proud about things that deserve it. You say that you do not feel superior to anybody, yet if I was to ask you what is the best country to live in what would your answer be? Would your answer be differant if you lived in a differant country?


I am really trying to understand the negative view of patriotism, I honestly don't see what you describe in people. I genuinely wonder what created this view you (and others here) have.

Imagine a world where there were no borders, no countries to speak of, where everybody was free to move when and where they liked. What would be the reason for one group of people to go to war against another?


Are you saying all agressors in war are patriots and that is why they are agressors? What of the offensive to stop the aggressors? Is that patriotism? Is that a bad thing too?

No the simple act of patriotism means that there will always be an 'Us and them' mentality, where in reality there is only us.

Why do you think that? I have no belief that I am superior to anyone anywhere. I do believe we are all different, we are all inherently different and those things are to be celebrated. I do have a belief that my country is great. I also believe that my family is great, my friends are, my life is, etc. Is that what you find wrong? The pride involved?

I am really trying to understand the negative view of patriotism, I honestly don't see what you describe in people. I genuinely wonder what created this view you (and others here) have.

Are you saying all agressors in war are patriots and that is why they are agressors? What of the offensive to stop the aggressors? Is that patriotism? Is that a bad thing too?

See, what I don't get is the unmitigated pride.
Sure, you're born in one country. And if all your family lives there, it's kind of natural to feel some form of connection with that country. But why pride?
And why only pride?
No nation on this planet was always the good guy, always did everything right, never messed up, never killed people for no good reason, never endangered the environment, never exploited others... they all did.
So, do you equally feel shame for your country? Or is it only pride? And if so, why? :confused:

It was a notion and nothing more. They could no more be patriotic for a Jewish Israel than I could be for Narnia, to be quite honest.

All hail Gnarnia! ;)

Aye, but India was not the power which controlled them, that was the British Empire. Patriotism is really loving those who control you, not just 'which ever country you're in'. There were patriotic Americans in the Vietnam War. Doesn't mean that they loved South Vietnam overmuch.

If you want to nitpick about it, then patriotism is loving your fatherland, considering the etymology of the word. I hope I used the right word there. Anyway, seeing as how India was their fatherland and not the British Empire, if any distinction is to be made then they were patriotic and nationalist towards India. By the same notion, it would never be possible to be patriotic towards a country that your parents didn't come from. That clearly doesn't work.

And ehm, by calling them patriotic Americans, you've already declared that America is the country to which they were patriotic. Of course they didn't love South Vietnam much - they were too busy being overly enamored by the US.

What country do you live in?

Denmark or Belgium, take your pick. Either country has nationalist parties making up between 10 to 25% of the population at any given time. These nationalist parties tend to be only ones that promote the idea that you should love the country you were born in and that everyone else should gtfo. Everyone else who wants to live their country doesn't need to be encouraged to do so by a bunch of mindless drone who drivel on about the same inane bs after the other.

Either side has made attempts to curtail my freedoms. These would include the freedom of movement and association. For example, if I keep my Danish citizenship, I will essentially have to move out of Denmark if I want to marry/live with anyone who isn't Danish, simply because I haven't lived my whole life in Denmark (or they have to go through hellish procedures just to get a temporary residence permit here, even if they are from the EU).

At least in Belgium the nationalist parties have been largely ignored and even, at one time, banned (although that's only been because they were stupid enough to perform blatantly illegal acts of discrimination and racism). Although I'm not in favor of banning politics, if a political party primarily uses violence and lawbreaking to get their way, I don't really see any other recourse.

I see very little good that they have done that the other parties couldn't and haven't done far better than they have. You might mention freedom of speech, but then I'd point out that they don't really seem to care all that much about that. They just want freedom of speech for themselves, but everyone else should shut up apparently.

Forgive my hostility, but we are talking about politicians here. (edit: By that I mean that I do not hold the same hostility towards, for example, Pelecanus)

In Sociology, we meet with senior citizens to discuss this and that. Last week's topic was World War II and Patriotism. They were talking about how people today aren't as patriotic. It got me thinking: Is patriotism and nationalism relevant today? We're moving into a globalized world and it doesn't matter as much where you live anymore. Cultures are mixing and becoming homogenized. Within a few centuries, English will be the primary language of virtually everyone and we will all unite as one planet. So, is nationalism a relic of the 19th and 20th Centuries? If so, what is the standard of loyalty now?

Patriotism and nationalism are very different things. Patriotism exists but not nationalism due to shifting of priorities in modern world. This can easily be proven that ppl will defend their country if it was invaded which shows patriotism's aliveness.

What the heck does Marxism have to do with this?
Where is there prevalent Marxism being practiced in the world today?

Marxism argues to disband national identity so that the working class can be unified. Despite the supposed-Marxist's failure, its idea of being a global community exists within the current world. E.g The South African Communist party built foundation for the the ruling party ANC to accomodate also white members during apartheid.

Still not the same. You'd do better if you actually knew the difference between them. I suggest reading up on both.



To call them liberals would require them to actually be in favor of liberty.

They're not.



among others?



Imperialism wouldn't have lasted two seconds without nationalism.

With no feeling of superiority, you'd have one hard time building an empire.



No, to have the opinion that "My country is greater than all others" as China and Soviet Russia most certainly have/had IS nationalist.

Communism has nothing to do with the love of your nation.



Liberalism does not create empires. Why would it?



I'd say both sides are equally to blame.



I don't support nationalist ideals. I don't support the War on Terror. Also, wtf? Why would I suppor them if they were nationalist ideals?

No, according Keynes' Consquence of Peace, Imperialism is triggered by mismanagement of the government in economics by laissez-faire. Imperialism can develop nationhood's superiority but nationhood doesn't start Imperialism unless you dealing with facism. As economic develop out of proportion due to laissez-faire, resources became scarce thus either the country's economic can collapse but it stagnating growth or find resources else where. Imperialism steps in to help extract resources at the mininum cost in war. Such is why European colonials forces were never keen to annex China for its resouces as it would cost them too much to reach their goals. Instead, they put China in a weak position to trade deals in their favour. Same things can't be said to the Japanese Facism and Militantism in WW2. Despite losing large in wealth and power to conquer China, Japan persisted because it believed it was its nation's destiny. Therefore imperialist war and nationalist's are very different in magnitude and aim.


I've never understand why people make a distinction between patriotism and nationalism. It's the same bloody thing, with the exception that patriotism can apply to other things besides a nation. When applied to a nation, patriotism is nationalism by its very definition! Learn to read a dictionary people <.< And learn to see that the people who are patriotic are also the ones who happen to be nationalistic. Coincidence? I think not.

Honestly, I'm getting the feeling that some people just don't want to be labeled nationalist, so they try to create a distinction between nationalism and patriotism that does not exist. Nationalism is the love of your country. Patriotism is the love of your country. There's no distinction!

Whether or not they're bad depends entirely on the person using/having them.

No, it's because of our modern world with multicultural existence, nationalism and patriotism are very different. For instance in South African Apartheid, the Afrikaner defended their Afrikaner's nationhood's interest in sacrifice of the other nations within the country. Apartheid can't be classified as a result of Afrikaner's patriotism but their nationalism. Patriotism is a love of one's country and Nationalism is a love of one's nation. Also nationalism can easily lead to facism but patriotism won't. Examples like Rommel is a good one. General Rommel was a patriot not a facist/nationalist despite working under one. He challenged Hilter because later WW2's phase would destroy germany, the country, but the Nazis refused to surrender because it will harm their nationhood's, as aryans, image. It's evident that nationalism and patriotism is very different.

To feel pride for your country because of the accident of the location of your birth does not seem consitant with the logical process to me. What exactly are you proud about? would you also feel such pride if you where born elsewhere?

Hmmm, I am not thinking logical process when applying the word pride. It is an emotion. I am proud that I live in a country that offers me the freedoms and opportunities that it does. I realize I am fortunate, but it isn't simply by birth. I could have easily been born in a nation that sees women as second class citizens, a nation that thinks female circumcision is acceptable, a nation that doesn't allow me to be educated, etc. (Those are important things to me...other freedoms would be important to other people as they applied of course.)

The interesting part of that is that if I were born into such a nation, it is very possible that I would have the same sense of pride. It is doubtful that I would be afforded the opportunity to even question such things, so I would simply know no difference. Quite possibly I would be just as proud of my nation and it's customs/laws/cutlures.


Not at all, it's not a pride thing. You should feel proud about things that deserve it. You say that you do not feel superior to anybody, yet if I was to ask you what is the best country to live in what would your answer be? Would your answer be differant if you lived in a differant country?

It is only natural that I would think my country is the best. If I didn't think it was, I would feel the deep seated need to leave it and find one that was the best for me. In my case it is for me the best, at least at this time. But that does not eliminate that other countries are not equally as desirable for various other reasons. Do I want to live elsewhere...not really. Is there a place that I could be as happy as here (and take as much pride in)...sure. Why wouldn't there be? It is different even in this country to live in say Wisconsin and in Georgia, Kansas or Kentucky...even in one country you are not going to find anything or people the exact same. No matter where we live, there is always an adaptation issue.

The only way that I can see that my answer would be different if I lived in a different country would be if I lived in a country that did not have the best interest of it's people at it's center. Now while that is not to say that every single thing will feel like it is and can only be in my best interest, in general it should be in the best interest of the populous. My country is not just about me and my best interest, no country will be...I have parents for that job. ;) The general mission of my country should be 'for the people'. If I lived in a country that blantantly did not serve such premise, then I would have little pride and would be striving to get to a country that did. That of course is only providing I am educated enough to know the difference. Otherwise as we all know I would stay put and feel probably no less pride in reality.


Imagine a world where there were no borders, no countries to speak of, where everybody was free to move when and where they liked. What would be the reason for one group of people to go to war against another?

I don't believe that one world with no borders will eliminate war in the least. War is waged over a multitude of things. Envy, jealousy, king-of-the-mountain mindedness, survival of the fittest, offensive and defensive, etc. Borders have less to do with war than the innate will of men to conquer, to rule, and to make things better. Because no matter who it is, war has always been waged in the eyes of monger as an effort to make things better. The difference is that what is one man's 'better' is not necessarily another's. That is the conflict...not borders. Eliminating national pride in people isn't going to change that.


No the simple act of patriotism means that there will always be an 'Us and them' mentality, where in reality there is only us.

I don't agree. There is an 'us' only as in we are all human beings. That is the one trait we all share. But my beliefs are very different from yours as our conversation shows. To me you are a 'them', to you I am a 'them'. :p What does pride in a nation or patriotism have to do with that? Do you believe we share all other things, ideologies, emotions etc exactly the same?

Patriotism and nationalism are very different things. Patriotism exists but not nationalism due to shifting of priorities in modern world. This can easily be proven that ppl will defend their country if it was invaded which shows patriotism's aliveness.

People defending their country is nationalist as much as it is patriotic. You wouldn't defend your country if it didn't exist, would you?

No, according Keynes' Consquence of Peace, Imperialism is triggered by mismanagement of the government in economics by laissez-faire. Imperialism can develop nationhood's superiority but nationhood doesn't start Imperialism unless you dealing with facism. As economic develop out of proportion due to laissez-faire, resources became scarce thus either the country's economic can collapse but it stagnating growth or find resources else where. Imperialism steps in to help extract resources at the mininum cost in war. Such is why European colonials forces were never keen to annex China for its resouces as it would cost them too much to reach their goals. Instead, they put China in a weak position to trade deals in their favour. Same things can't be said to the Japanese Facism and Militantism in WW2. Despite losing large in wealth and power to conquer China, Japan persisted because it believed it was its nation's destiny. Therefore imperialist war and nationalist's are very different in magnitude and aim.

My claim was that imperialism would not be possible without nationalism. Whilst you have shown that imperialism and nationalism are different and I certainly agree, I still stand by original assessment that without nationalism, there is no foundation upon which to build an empire.

No, it's because of our modern world with multicultural existence, nationalism and patriotism are very different. For instance in South African Apartheid, the Afrikaner defended their Afrikaner's nationhood's interest in sacrifice of the other nations within the country. Apartheid can't be classified as a result of Afrikaner's patriotism but their nationalism. Patriotism is a love of one's country and Nationalism is a love of one's nation. Also nationalism can easily lead to facism but patriotism won't. Examples like Rommel is a good one. General Rommel was a patriot not a facist/nationalist despite working under one. He challenged Hilter because later WW2's phase would destroy germany, the country, but the Nazis refused to surrender because it will harm their nationhood's, as aryans, image. It's evident that nationalism and patriotism is very different.

A country is merely the territory that a nation happens to occupy. In modern terms, country and nation are largely interchangeable, with few exceptions.

Patriotism can easily lead to fascism too, so it still isn't that different from nationalism. Hitler believed the war would be good for the nation/country, Rommel didn't. That's just typical disagreement and doesn't necessarily mean they had opposing views on patriotism/nationalism.

A country is merely the territory that a nation happens to occupy. In modern terms, country and nation are largely interchangeable, with few exceptions.

.

Just like the Soviet Union - you had millions all loving their Motherland - even though it was like a dozen major nations all as one

"I love the Soviet Union" = love for Russia, Ukraine, Siberia, Primorsk, Transural Republic, Kazakstan, Georgia, Armenia, Uzbekistan, etc

but then again, so many amercians loved their nation even before all the current states were official

See, what I don't get is the unmitigated pride.
Sure, you're born in one country. And if all your family lives there, it's kind of natural to feel some form of connection with that country. But why pride?
And why only pride?
No nation on this planet was always the good guy, always did everything right, never messed up, never killed people for no good reason, never endangered the environment, never exploited others... they all did.
So, do you equally feel shame for your country? Or is it only pride? And if so, why? :confused:

As you point out no nation is perfect. Exactly right.

Do I feel shame for my country. No, not in the sense that I think you mean it.

I have sorrow at the way things have played out at times in our history...of course. In the bigger picture though we have generally learned from the mistakes and we do grow from them. But to me shame is a wasted emotion and serves little purpose. Recognition of mistakes does not require shame to insure they don't happen again.

That applies to my person as well, I am someone who has no regrets regarding anything I have ever done. Yet I have certainly done things I am not proud of, but I am not ashamed of them. I learned from them, so those things are not completely valueless.

The mistakes my country has made are not completely valueless. If we did not make mistakes we would not have the occassion to grow. To even realize they were mistakes. I do feel my country has grown, sometimes kicking and screaming in the process, but still has grown as a result. It isn't called growing 'pains' because it is easy or painless.

Just like the Soviet Union - you had millions all loving their Motherland - even though it was like a dozen major nations all as one

"I love the Soviet Union" = love for Russia, Ukraine, Siberia, Primorsk, Transural Republic, Kazakstan, Georgia, Armenia, Uzbekistan, etc

but then again, so many amercians loved their nation even before all the current states were official

Other way around. It was a dozen major countries all under one nation. It's also one of the few exceptions and an example of communist imperialism.

Hmmm, I am not thinking logical process when applying the word pride. It is an emotion. I am proud that I live in a country that offers me the freedoms and opportunities that it does. I realize I am fortunate, but it isn't simply by birth. I could have easily been born in a nation that sees women as second class citizens, a nation that thinks female circumcision is acceptable, a nation that doesn't allow me to be educated, etc. (Those are important things to me...other freedoms would be important to other people as they applied of course.)

The interesting part of that is that if I were born into such a nation, it is very possible that I would have the same sense of pride. It is doubtful that I would be afforded the opportunity to even question such things, so I would simply know no difference. Quite possibly I would be just as proud of my nation and it's customs/laws/cutlures.

And having said all of this you are still having problems with what is wrong with patriotism? The way you have discribed your very own patriotism can be said to be 'blind'.

You have admited that it isn't logical, but emotional. Hate is also an emotion, hate for those with a differant coloured skin, I'm sure you can see is a bad thing. So where does the differance lie in both of these 'blind' emotions? Why is one good and one bad, if both can lead down the same path?

It is only natural that I would think my country is the best.

Is it? Can you prove that or does your emotion tell you this is the case? If I do not feel that way about my own country, than am I somehow unatural?

I don't believe that one world with no borders will eliminate war in the least. War is waged over a multitude of things. Envy, jealousy, king-of-the-mountain mindedness, survival of the fittest, offensive and defensive, etc. Borders have less to do with war than the innate will of men to conquer, to rule, and to make things better. Because no matter who it is, war has always been waged in the eyes of monger as an effort to make things better.

Heh I'm not so naive to think such a thing either. It would make war very hard though, and we would have to find other reasons.



The difference is that what is one man's 'better' is not necessarily another's. That is the conflict...not borders. Eliminating national pride in people isn't going to change that.

Ohhh you almost have it sooo right there. Yes one mans better is often differant from anothers, yet by your own admission, your 'better' has no logic behind it only emotion, and yet you see no problems with that?



I don't agree. There is an 'us' only as in we are all human beings. That is the one trait we all share. But my beliefs are very different from yours as our conversation shows. To me you are a 'them', to you I am a 'them'. :p What does pride in a nation or patriotism have to do with that? Do you believe we share all other things, ideologies, emotions
etc exactly the same?

Yes true, but such a inherently evil ideal as (blind)patriotism IS, and has been and will continue to be a major cause of conflict for the world.

In Sociology, we meet with senior citizens to discuss this and that. Last week's topic was World War II and Patriotism. They were talking about how people today aren't as patriotic. It got me thinking: Is patriotism and nationalism relevant today? We're moving into a globalized world and it doesn't matter as much where you live anymore. Cultures are mixing and becoming homogenized. Within a few centuries, English will be the primary language of virtually everyone and we will all unite as one planet. So, is nationalism a relic of the 19th and 20th Centuries? If so, what is the standard of loyalty now?

Well, nationalism is pretty popular here. We have at least two pretty large nationalistic parties here in Flanders (they're Flemish nationalists, not Belgian-nationalists).
I think it's becoming more and more popular tbh. It's often very easy for politicians to abuse nationalistic feelings when the world gets more and more globalized.

And having said all of this you are still having problems with what is wrong with patriotism? The way you have discribed your very own patriotism can be said to be 'blind'.

You have admited that it isn't logical, but emotional. Hate is also an emotion, hate for those with a differant coloured skin, I'm sure you can see is a bad thing. So where does the differance lie in both of these 'blind' emotions? Why is one good and one bad, if both can lead down the same path?

No I said pride is an emotion. I didn't say it wasn't logical. There are reasons that any emotion is evoked. Whether they are logical to you or not is subjective at best. You nor I get to determine whether someone's logic is logical. Do you see what I am saying?

I love my children and I take enormous pride in all their achievements and who they are. I love my country and I take enormous pride in all it has achieved. In neither case does it exclude that I have been at times disappointed in things that have occurred...in both. There is nothing "blind" about that.

It is interesting that you equate "hate" and "pride", when I equate "love" and "pride". All of which are emotions, all of which have reasons that I feel them. Well not hate, I honestly cannot think of a reason to hate anyone. I hate certain actions, but I don't hate people.

Is it? Can you prove that or does your emotion tell you this is the case? If I do not feel that way about my own country, than am I somehow unatural?

If I didn't think my country was best, why would I stay here? Of course it is natural to think mine is best. I am an adult, if I didn't think it was the best I would leave. :p

Why would it be unnatural to not feel pride in your country? I think I said if I didn't find pride in my country it would be because it was not fulfilling the mission/premise I expect it to follow. There is nothing unnatural about that.

I feel sorrow for people who live somewhere they do not have pride in, I would think it would be very disappointing and frustrating. But then I am a half-full glass person, an optimist. I tend to look for the good things and focus on those. I realize there is no perfection, but I am all about weighing the good and the bad and making my decisions based on the scale tip. For my part, my country, the good far, far outweighs the bad. ;)


Heh I'm not so naive to think such a thing either. It would make war very hard though, and we would have to find other reasons.

I think it would actually make war much easier in many respects. No more sovreign waters vs international waters, no more 'no fly' zones, no more heads of state to confer with, just simple blast, blast, splat wherever, whenever someone wanted to do such. At least there is some authority to deal with that keeps it from being a complete free for all. (At least by those who recognize governing authorities.)



Ohhh you almost have it sooo right there. Yes one mans better is often differant from anothers, yet by your own admission, your 'better' has no logic behind it only emotion, and yet you see no problems with that?

See above. As I said it isn't emotion without reason/cause....there is no such thing.



Yes true, but such a inherently evil ideal as (blind)patriotism IS, and has been and will continue to be a major cause of conflict for the world.

I don't believe there is such a thing as "blind" patriotism. I do believe there is brainwashing, and also ignorance. Perhaps that is how I excuse some things though.

I think in today's educated world we have all seen what desperate people will do. Hitler taught us that much about the art of manipulating desperate people and their beliefs. I think we can look around and see societies that are not allowed to be educated, or they do not have the means to be educated and the world deals with the brunt of that ignorance and manipulation.

But for the most part, people in my nation have every opportunity to be educated to make their decisions and to move on if they are unhappy. It's a choice we make is it not?

People defending their country is nationalist as much as it is patriotic. You wouldn't defend your country if it didn't exist, would you?

Excuse for my vague example. Yes, nationalism can also be identified with defence of one's country but nationalism, unlike patriotism, can also encourage foreign invasion. Such as the famous Anschluss, Austrian German were swept away by German Nationalism so that they can forgo Austria's existence.

[/QUOTE]
My claim was that imperialism would not be possible without nationalism. Whilst you have shown that imperialism and nationalism are different and I certainly agree, I still stand by original assessment that without nationalism, there is no foundation upon which to build an empire.[/QUOTE]

In the early days before French Revolution, how were empire's formed? Empires like Rome, they all searched for wealth. Wealth can be an easy replacement for reason of war with nationalism. For example, British empire tried to maintain it hold on colonies in America by sending in hussars. The reason why colonial forces needed Africa was that they need resources. The colonial troops in Africa knew they would have a better life in the new colonies when they fought for Africa's subversion. They didn't need nationalism to motivate them when there's clear wealth in their prospect. The hussar were mercenaries, they had no national fervor to work for Britain but wealth. It won't be a surprise to see use of mercenaries in modern warfare for example Iraq with the BlackWater group hired by the US.

[/QUOTE]
A country is merely the territory that a nation happens to occupy. In modern terms, country and nation are largely interchangeable, with few exceptions. [/QUOTE]

Yes, if you live in clear undisputed territories and no ethnic conflict otherwise the two aren't interchangable. This issue is common in modern society compared to the past due to decolonisation and rise of nationalism. Decolonisation have made nations to be aware of the arbitary borders that they are forced into. Rwanda Genocide is a good example. The Tutsi and the Hutus couldn't be considered as one nation despite they are in one country. They never had an effective independent history contact but a forced contact due to colonial administration.

There aren't just a few exceptions but many in Africa, Eastern Europe, South America and Asia. Look at the balkan current issue in Kosovo. Kosovo serbs and Kosovo albanians are clearly not under in terms of one nation and they live in one country. It clear that patriotism and nationalism is different. A patriot would not care about the ethnic difference while a nationalist will!

[/QUOTE]
Patriotism can easily lead to fascism too, so it still isn't that different from nationalism. Hitler believed the war would be good for the nation/country, Rommel didn't. That's just typical disagreement and doesn't necessarily mean they had opposing views on patriotism/nationalism.[/QUOTE]

No, Hitler believed the war was good for the Aryan race that means comprising Austria, Germany and other country's identities as one. Hitler didn't care what happened to Germany if the aryan disllusion ideal was in danger, he even wanted to nuke Germany because it gave up without his permission. Nationhood destroy the priority of a country to setup an unification of a nation within many country, which are located in many countries. Rommel saw the downside of comprimising german livilhood in Germany for the nationhood. Rommel prioritised Germany's denizens' well-being over the Aryan (Norway, Denmark, Germany, Austria etc) race's glory which Hitler supported. That clearly show their disagreement in their dedication to their ppl.

Excuse for my vague example. Yes, nationalism can also be identified with defence of one's country but nationalism, unlike patriotism, can also encourage foreign invasion. Such as the famous Anschluss, Austrian German were swept away by German Nationalism so that they can forgo Austria's existence.

These same Austrian Germans were presumably more patriotic towards Germany than Austria and thusly wanted Austria to be Germany.

In the early days before French Revolution, how were empire's formed? Empires like Rome, they all searched for wealth. Wealth can be an easy replacement for reason of war with nationalism.

Good point. However, the romans still had a feeling of superiority over everyone else. Granted, it was not nationalism, considering the term had yet to be coined.

For example, British empire tried to maintain it hold on colonies in America by sending in hussars. The reason why colonial forces needed Africa was that they need resources. The colonial troops in Africa knew they would have a better life in the new colonies when they fought for Africa's subversion. They didn't need nationalism to motivate them when there's clear wealth in their prospect.

Perhaps not, but then quite a few of them honestly did believe that they were carrying 'The white man's burden' and had to bring their countries' nation with them to Africa and the Americas, just to teach those natives how to live.

The hussar were mercenaries, they had no national fervor to work for Britain but wealth. It won't be a surprise to see use of mercenaries in modern warfare for example Iraq with the BlackWater group hired by the US.

Okay, so the mercenaries do the fighting for the nationalists. Granted, the mercenaries aren't necessarily nationalist, but they wouldn't exactly be there were it not for the imperialist and nationalist elements paying for them, would they? (Note, I mention both imperialist And nationalist, now that you have shown that imperialism doesn't necessarily require nationalism... although it might have held the roman empire together longer than it did).

Yes, if you live in clear undisputed territories and no ethnic conflict otherwise the two aren't interchangable. This issue is common in modern society compared to the past due to decolonisation and rise of nationalism. Decolonisation have made nations to be aware of the arbitary borders that they are forced into. Rwanda Genocide is a good example. The Tutsi and the Hutus couldn't be considered as one nation despite they are in one country. They never had an effective independent history contact but a forced contact due to colonial administration.

And if borders didn't exist, they wouldn't be fighting over the same piece of land as much, because they wouldn't be forced to share exactly that piece of land. You've just shown that when two nations are patriotic about the same country, conflict occurs. Not surprising, exactly, but not exactly in defence of patriotism either.

There aren't just a few exceptions but many in Africa, Eastern Europe, South America and Asia. Look at the balkan current issue in Kosovo. Kosovo serbs and Kosovo albanians are clearly not under in terms of one nation and they live in one country. It clear that patriotism and nationalism is different. A patriot would not care about the ethnic difference while a nationalist will!

Except both the Albanians and Serbs are patriotic about Kosovo. For this reason, they DO care that there is another person with differing ideas that is patriotic about it too. HENCE there is an ethnic conflict because they are both patriots and nationalists. If they were just nationalists, they could go anywhere in the world. If they were just patriots, they would, as you said, not care.

However, I've yet to see patriotism and nationalism not walking hand in hand.

No, Hitler believed the war was good for the Aryan race that means comprising Austria, Germany and other country's identities as one. Hitler didn't care what happened to Germany if the aryan disllusion ideal was in danger, he even wanted to nuke Germany because it gave up without his permission. Nationhood destroy the priority of a country to setup an unification of a nation within many country, which are located in many countries. Rommel saw the downside of comprimising german livilhood in Germany for the nationhood. Rommel prioritised Germany's denizens' well-being over the Aryan (Norway, Denmark, Germany, Austria etc) race's glory which Hitler supported. That clearly show their disagreement in their dedication to their ppl.

So person A believes group X is more important than group Y and group B believes group Y is more important than group X. Big whooping difference there, isn't it? I mean, other than the groups involved of course.

Rommel would just as soon have given up everyone that wasn't German if it served in his best interest. He was no better than Hitler in that regard, if you portray him accurately.

Aye, it's one of the MAIN causes.

Another MAINer. I remember N was nationalism, and A was for alliances. What were M and I again?

Obviously it's still around. Particularly in the non-western parts of the world.

But the future of mankind depends on it being eventually eliminated by globalisation.

Another MAINer. I remember N was nationalism, and A was for alliances. What were M and I again?

Money and Ideology? Or maybe I'm thinking of MICE.

Meh, I think they´re both good and bad. It´s good to feel proud of being so and so. But I think it´s bad because, for example, Nationalism´s tearing Spain apart.:( And, although I´m proud of being Asturian, firstly, I also know that this sentiment tends to bring problems. An example of this is Galicia. People from La Coruña and people from Vigo hate each other with a passion. Silly, right, because they´re all from Galicia. But that´s how it is.:(

Nationalism, along with religion, belong to humanities first feeble try at civilization and knowledge, a time when each tribe had a totem pole, wrote their own symbol on it, and went off the kill other tribes for it, nationalism these days is just the same primitive self-identifying stuff in more subtle ways. Flying a flag is just the same as being naked, putting skin paint on, and running around butchering the other tribe while yelling things.

In Sociology, we meet with senior citizens to discuss this and that. Last week's topic was World War II and Patriotism. They were talking about how people today aren't as patriotic. It got me thinking: Is patriotism and nationalism relevant today? We're moving into a globalized world and it doesn't matter as much where you live anymore. Cultures are mixing and becoming homogenized. Within a few centuries, English will be the primary language of virtually everyone and we will all unite as one planet. So, is nationalism a relic of the 19th and 20th Centuries? If so, what is the standard of loyalty now?

I think they are still relevant today, although they have changed form from supporting your own country and it's people, pride now lies in what clothes you wear, the teams you support and what goods you buy.
So in a sense patriotism has changed to personal pride, and has been watered down in the globilised countries particularly the Western ones, but it has not gone completely.
Where there used to be strong passion of hatred against English in Scotland, it's become more a little joke to rally behind than any real cause or relevance, there's not so much focus on large countries but a more individual approach now to how people themselves act. Take for example the amount of headlines you see in the news of a certain popstar or famous person doing something, rarely do you see headlines of "Britain is the best country in the world because we have beer", it would seem odd if this did occur. A more likely headline is "British violinist becomes a millionaire".
There is a far stronger approach to people, and more emphasis on what you do and buy to determine your identity.
Where the old monatheistic religions used to dominate whole societies running and very much a part of education and care, now they are far less controlling of society.
Typically pseudo religions have emerged to take the old ones places, strongest in sports and olympic events, and market-goods. In a sense Science has become the new God of society, for example, you might see a headline of "new scientific research shows yawning is linked to depression" and many people might believe this and tell their friends this and it would become a part of naturalistic opinion an accepted belief that science is correct.

So in short National patriotism and nationalism has all but disintigrated to isolated corners of Western society, but a new personal pride in appearence, goods and Science has emerged as a mechanism to live your life, people are no longer judged wholly on their religion and more on their appearence and pass-times. With this change it's likely society will divide and split even more, wars will be reduced but smaller conflicts across the globe would increase.
If you will, a shift in attitudes relates to a shift in types of conflicts of interest and personal belief.

I've never understand why people make a distinction between patriotism and nationalism. It's the same bloody thing,
Patriotism is pride. Nationalism is support, often blind.

Other way around. It was a dozen major countries all under one nation. It's also one of the few exceptions and an example of communist imperialism.
Incorrect. Each "country" had a revolution and joined the Soviet UNION. The countries didn't even exist for awhile.

Another MAINer. I remember N was nationalism, and A was for alliances. What were M and I again?
Militarization
Imperialism

Patriotism is pride. Nationalism is support, often blind.
However, pride in something one had no choice to influence is nonsensical. It's like being proud that the moon revolves around the earth - for pride to make any sense there has to be an achievement, some action, that can make the connection between something you approve of and yourself as a person.

I love my children and I take enormous pride in all their achievements and who they are. I love my country and I take enormous pride in all it has achieved. In neither case does it exclude that I have been at times disappointed in things that have occurred...in both. There is nothing "blind" about that.

And would you still have pride in your children if they grew up to me mass murderes?



It is interesting that you equate "hate" and "pride", when I equate "love" and "pride".

You have that wrong you know. I don't associate pride with hate, i have already said there is nowt wrong with it, for things deserving of it. Pride in ones nation soley for being born there, can and does lead to ill feeling for those of differant nations or those that don't share your pride.




Why would it be unnatural to not feel pride in your country? I think I said if I didn't find pride in my country it would be because it was not fulfilling the mission/premise I expect it to follow. There is nothing unnatural about that."

You said that it is natural to feel pride in one's country, which must mean that you see it as unnatural not to feel such pride, unless I'm missing something here?



I feel sorrow for people who live somewhere they do not have pride in, I would think it would be very disappointing and frustrating. But then I am a half-full glass person, an optimist. I tend to look for the good things and focus on those. I realize there is no perfection, but I am all about weighing the good and the bad and making my decisions based on the scale tip. For my part, my country, the good far, far outweighs the bad. ;)."

Hardly disapointing nor frustrating. I live in the UK, I have not an ounce of nationlism, nor pride for my country in me. Do I hate where I live, not not all all, I have a reasonbly good life, do I hate my country? No not at all, I just fail to see why I should automaticlay feel pride just beacuse I was born here.

I guess you'll never see my point, which is sad as it keeps you locked into the same thought patterns which inveriably you'll pass down to your children.

As you point out no nation is perfect. Exactly right.

Do I feel shame for my country. No, not in the sense that I think you mean it.

I have sorrow at the way things have played out at times in our history...of course. In the bigger picture though we have generally learned from the mistakes and we do grow from them. But to me shame is a wasted emotion and serves little purpose. Recognition of mistakes does not require shame to insure they don't happen again.

That applies to my person as well, I am someone who has no regrets regarding anything I have ever done. Yet I have certainly done things I am not proud of, but I am not ashamed of them. I learned from them, so those things are not completely valueless.

The mistakes my country has made are not completely valueless. If we did not make mistakes we would not have the occassion to grow. To even realize they were mistakes. I do feel my country has grown, sometimes kicking and screaming in the process, but still has grown as a result. It isn't called growing 'pains' because it is easy or painless.

If shame is a wasted emotion, why isn't pride?
And what good is one without the other to balance it of?

Nationalism, along with religion, belong to humanities first feeble try at civilization and knowledge, a time when each tribe had a totem pole, wrote their own symbol on it, and went off the kill other tribes for it, nationalism these days is just the same primitive self-identifying stuff in more subtle ways. Flying a flag is just the same as being naked, putting skin paint on, and running around butchering the other tribe while yelling things.

I must ask, without intentions of offending you or arguing, is everything bad and a thing of the past to you? Do you find anything, besides Communism, interesting? I just want to know...:confused:

Well, what is funny with Andaras is that he seems to forget that the " ancient times of the primal communist tribes, when we where all proletarians " is a maxim of the communist historians...

I must ask, without intentions of offending you or arguing, is everything bad and a thing of the past to you? Do you find anything, besides Communism, interesting? I just want to know...:confused:

I can answer that for AP, No he doesn't. Of course, you also have to take into account the fact that AP thinks Stalin was the ideal national leader...

I can answer that for AP, No he doesn't. Of course, you also have to take into account the fact that AP thinks Stalin was the ideal national leader...

This is what I think:
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/richedit/smileys/commies/Smiley_Stalin.gif
But thanks for explaining it to me, Dyakovo.;)

This is what I think:
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/richedit/smileys/commies/Smiley_Stalin.gif
But thanks for explaining it to me, Dyakovo.;)

No problem, there are a number of intelligent, reasonable marxists on NSG, AP isn't one of them though...

No problem, there are a number of intelligent, reasonable marxists on NSG, AP isn't one of them though...

ROFL!:D

Well, what is funny with Andaras is that he seems to forget that the " ancient times of the primal communist tribes, when we where all proletarians " is a maxim of the communist historians...

What are you talking about? The proletariat has only existed as long as industrialization has, not more than two hundred years, Marxist historiographic periodization puts tribalism before anquity as a mode of production as follows: (slavery - feudalism - capitalism - socialism - communism). Of course those social structures all have phases, capitalism has had welfare capitalism, fascism, mercantilism, protectionism, laizare-fare liberalism and now neoliberalism.

Your trolling attitude (and those of many others on this thread) really shows your baseless spiteful and ideologically bitter attitudes, seriously I think I can feel your anti-communist rage through my monitor.

Of course, you also have to take into account the fact that AP thinks Stalin was the ideal national leader...
Stalin was a little nutty, but was a good leader overall.

I have never, nor will I ever, idolize Stalin the person, I simply recognize that as a leader he did alot to industrialize tens of millions of poverty stricken peasants into the modern world with electricity etc.

However, pride in something one had no choice to influence is nonsensical. It's like being proud that the moon revolves around the earth - for pride to make any sense there has to be an achievement, some action, that can make the connection between something you approve of and yourself as a person.

Maybe, but I think it's closer to the pride one might feel if a friend got a promotion at work, or won a Nobel Prize. Even though you had squat to do with their achievement, you are proud for them anyway. Patriotism is different, of course, because you feel pride for not just a friend but milions of people you don't know. That's not really bad, even if it doesn't exactly make sense.
I' also assuming people feel patriotic because of the good things their country has done, and not just because they have a cool flag. (Although I suppose a well-crafted flag deserves some praise.)

I have never, nor will I ever, idolize Stalin the person, I simply recognize that as a leader he did alot to industrialize tens of millions of poverty stricken peasants into the modern world with electricity etc.

At too high a cost, much too high.

At too high a cost, much too high.
Given the time, and that much of the Soviet Union was in ruins, given unreliability and the debilitated state of infrastructure, lack of adequate housing and food, compounded by the kulak uprising in the Ukraine after the kulaks stole many thousands of tonnes of grain and sold it abroad, as well as the civil war in which they slaughtered cattle in revenge for collectivization, I think the 'cost' was moderate, seeing as it was only paid by those kulaks who mostly starved or died of malnutrition and epidemics because they burnt down houses, burnt grain, so it was mostly their families who suffered. Many peasants also died in the civil war against the kulaks. But what you doing is saying that Stalin was an omnipotent God who knew everything that was going on, when in fact Stalin was struggling to even direct the rather ad hoc collectivization initiated by the peasants' Soviets, which resulting in alot of damage due to duplication of effort, waste etc. The idea that Stalin had totalitarian control is refuted by mere fact that the communications were appalling after Stalin came to power.

Given the time, and that much of the Soviet Union was in ruins, given unreliability and the debilitated state of infrastructure, lack of adequate housing and food, compounded by the kulak uprising in the Ukraine after the kulaks stole many thousands of tonnes of grain and sold it abroad, as well as the civil war in which they slaughtered cattle in revenge for collectivization, I think the 'cost' was moderate, seeing as it was only paid by those kulaks who mostly starved or died of malnutrition and epidemics because they burnt down houses, burnt grain, so it was mostly their families who suffered. Many peasants also died in the civil war against the kulaks. But what you doing is saying that Stalin was an omnipotent God who knew everything that was going on, when in fact Stalin was struggling to even direct the rather ad hoc collectivization initiated by the peasants' Soviets, which resulting in alot of damage due to duplication of effort, waste etc. The idea that Stalin had totalitarian control is refuted by mere fact that the communications were appalling after Stalin came to power.


Stalin was an extremely competent leader, even a good one in some ways. But he was, for lack of a better term, EVIL. I don't deny he did spring forward that backwards country by decades, but at the cost of over a hundred million? Thats not even mentioning the purges and general nastiness of his rule.

If you want to look in terms of non-human factors, he was great. But in human factors, simply horrible.

Stalin was an extremely competent leader, even a good one in some ways. But he was, for lack of a better term, EVIL. I don't deny he did spring forward that backwards country by decades, but at the cost of over a hundred million? Thats not even mentioning the purges and general nastiness of his rule.

If you want to look in terms of non-human factors, he was great. But in human factors, simply horrible.

Again, the judgment your making is out of context to the time and the position the soviet union was in.

Again, the judgment your making is out of context to the time and the position the soviet union was in.

Good for you!

Just to go offtopic.

Because the consistancy and continued presence of aspects of it is unreliable. The information can be good, bad, or whatever, but the fact is wiki changes too much to be used for academic purposes because if you cite it one day, a week later it could have been changed to reflect something new, or to reword something, or some vandalisim.

If you have teachers telling you that you can't use secondary sources for anything other then intended original research papers, you have shitty teachers. I've been in university four years, and most of my profs pass on secondary source information to us, and most of the stuff in the university libraries are secondary sources, it's how the academic world works. Three primary source materials will be published, thirty secondary source materials will be published discussing the three primary sources.



That I've done. My profs like to say Wiki is a good starting point to get an idea of where you want to look, but damned be you if you cite it as an actual source. It's kinda like looking up a library database, you don't cite that, you cite the books it directs you to.

Isn't that the point of encyclopedias in general? Not to become an expert on the subject, but rather to get a general overview of the topic in question?

'Sides, I don't think Encyclopedias should be cited in Research papers. They always struck me as pretty tertiary, y'know?

Heh I'm not so naive to think such a thing either. It would make war very hard though, and we would have to find other reasons.

Not particularly. If we were to do away with nations, I'd give humanity roughly ten minutes or so before someone managed to find an excuse to start a war. If there's one thing humanity is good at, it's covering the three bases. If you take food away, humans will find more. If you take sex away... well, we'll figure something else out. And if you take away our excuse to go to war, we'll find another one.

Not particularly. If we were to do away with nations, I'd give humanity roughly ten minutes or so before someone managed to find an excuse to start a war. If there's one thing humanity is good at, it's covering the three bases. If you take food away, humans will find more. If you take sex away... well, we'll figure something else out. And if you take away our excuse to go to war, we'll find another one.

Nu-uh, you're just wrong, you are!

Stalin was an extremely competent leader, even a good one in some ways. But he was, for lack of a better term, EVIL. I don't deny he did spring forward that backwards country by decades, but at the cost of over a hundred million? Thats not even mentioning the purges and general nastiness of his rule.

If you want to look in terms of non-human factors, he was great. But in human factors, simply horrible.
A Hundred Million?!? Where the bloody fuck did you pull that from? At most, Stalin is responsible for 1 million deaths. Physically personally responsible: under 50. You propagandists need to stop attributing war deaths and famine deaths to him. Famines happen and in a backwards country, they can kill. Not to mention, as Andaras said, kulaks destroyed enormous amounts of food. THEY are responsible for the deaths, if anyone is.

These multi-million figures are cited and recited so often, people think they're fact, when in fact it's just wikiality.

Isn't that the point of encyclopedias in general? Not to become an expert on the subject, but rather to get a general overview of the topic in question?

'Sides, I don't think Encyclopedias should be cited in Research papers. They always struck me as pretty tertiary, y'know?
Good points.

Not particularly. If we were to do away with nations, I'd give humanity roughly ten minutes or so before someone managed to find an excuse to start a war. If there's one thing humanity is good at, it's covering the three bases. If you take food away, humans will find more. If you take sex away... well, we'll figure something else out. And if you take away our excuse to go to war, we'll find another one.
Eh... I think we'd have some peace for awhile, if not forever. The only way to unify is if our cultures are homogenized enough. A single language (English) is also key.

Hell no!

America, FUCK YEAH!