Nationalism?

[LuisDantas]

Nationalism isn't a bad thing for the USA, we are more identified by our little tribes that our country. The idea might not play in other countries, but we're pretty middle-of-the-road if you add it all up, and just to compare -- such as Reagan era America vs now is so completely different.

Boy... I can't decide whether I simply disagree or else I want to know how on Earth you saw fit to say such things.

 

[LuisDantas]

Our nationalism is much less than others, thanks to the globalist masters. I mean, people actually think Hillary is a good presidential candidate. American's are largely self-centered, short-sighted, and not even having a single concern of preserving their way or culture.

Ditto. (I mean, how on Earth can you say such things?)

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm thinking in more a united global government that functions more-or-less like it does on Star Trek, with respect to cultural differences while working together towards the goals of improving themselves and society as a whole. Of course we are far away from that being a hope, but the day when we realize we are all human beings, no matter our color or where we come from, and that it is most beneficial to work together and mutually cooperate, we will advance further and faster than we ever have before.

Ah... so kind of a global federation?

But that's the thing. We all may be human beings, but it's easy for us Americans to reduce ourselves to just our species, given that the majority of us belong to diasporic populations, removed from our various Homelands either via immigrating ancestors, slave trades, or displacements. Plus we're the heirs of a culture already long removed from it's Homeland.

This vision of yours cannot be forced onto others in order for it to work. They have to come to it wholly on their own, with no coercion from us.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ah... so kind of a global federation?

But that's the thing. We all may be human beings, but it's easy for us Americans to reduce ourselves to just our species, given that the majority of us belong to diasporic populations, removed from our various Homelands either via immigrating ancestors, slave trades, or displacements. Plus we're the heirs of a culture already long removed from it's Homeland.

This vision of yours cannot be forced onto others in order for it to work. They have to come to it wholly on their own, with no coercion from us.

Unless you're living in Africa where our species came to be, none of us are living in our "homelands". That's such an arbitrary concept.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This vision of yours cannot be forced onto others in order for it to work. They have to come to it wholly on their own, with no coercion from us.

That is the ideal goal. Things get too nasty when you try to force people like that.

 

[gsa]

Unless you're living in Africa where our species came to be, none of us are living in our "homelands". That's such an arbitrary concept.

Arbitrary, yes. Powerful as well.

Powerful enough to organize Jews to reclaim a "homeland" after a couple thousand years in "exile." And there are plenty of European descended people today who can recall relatives from the "Old World." A myth? Yes, all of it is a myth. But humans live by myths. And when myth aligns with skin pigment and language and familial history, and there's a nation right there to align oneself with, well...that's powerful. As powerful as jihadists rushing to establish the caliphate.

Nationalism is vile. But however vile it may be, it is also a sleeping giant.

 

[Mindmaster]

Unless you're living in Africa where our species came to be, none of us are living in our "homelands". That's such an arbitrary concept.

If home is defined in a racial context is is nearly irrelevant, if it is defined in the conventional way though it is where you have citizenship.

 

[Riverwolf]

Unless you're living in Africa where our species came to be, none of us are living in our "homelands". That's such an arbitrary concept.

Depends on how far you wanna go back.

And again, it depends on reducing our identities to merely the species level, which is easy for us diasporia to do, who can never truly know what it means to live for countless generations in the same rough geographic region, among mostly the same people, all deeply invested in everyone else's well-being.

That is the ideal goal. Things get too nasty when you try to force people like that.

And that's the problem. Ideals are some of the easiest things to corrupt.

 

[Riverwolf]

Arbitrary, yes. Powerful as well.

Powerful enough to organize Jews to reclaim a "homeland" after a couple thousand years in "exile." And there are plenty of European descended people today who can recall relatives from the "Old World." A myth? Yes, all of it is a myth. But humans live by myths. And when myth aligns with skin pigment and language and familial history, and there's a nation right there to align oneself with, well...that's powerful. As powerful as jihadists rushing to establish the caliphate.

Nationalism is vile. But however vile it may be, it is also a sleeping giant.

And since humans live by myths, it's appropriate that you use a mythic metaphor to express that one.

This giant has, as well, saved endangered cultures and languages from near extinction, and liberated conquered nations from oppressive Empires. Or do you think Tibet should just up and submit to Chinese rule?

None of this nostalgia for the "old world" is new for us, BTW. You can even see it in Beowulf. I, personally, don't have much intention of going to any of my Homelands, because the situations in all of them don't look much better than here, and I'd still be an outsider in any case.

 

[LuisDantas]

You know, this threads reinforces my feelings that people project into "nationalism" what I would rather call a social contract.

A major challenge is that the expectations and hopes are all too easily raised and transferred, but they rarely if ever translate into actual, sustainable commitment. There are prices to be paid, but those are almost never acknowledged except as the reason to be xenophobic and hateful.

I have yet to meet anything that justifies itself by nationalism that is at all healthy.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

This is mostly to satisfy a curiosity of mine, but what do folks around here think about nationalism or patriotism? I've seen some views about this that rather perplex me, and I'd like to give them a space to express themselves. Also, putting this in a debate area because I don't mind if you all start going at it with each other. I don't have strong feelings about the idea one way or another - being an American simply isn't part of how I think of my identity, but nor would I balk at someone who considers themselves a patriot. What about you?

Depends how one defines 'nationalism'. Some people call themselves 'nationalists' and that just ends up wanting a nation that always acts in its own interests, with more protectionist trade policies and a more self-interested foreign policy with no nation-building and spreading democracy, and less mass immigration.

And others call themselves 'nationalists' and are just downright racists who want white supremacy.

It's a funny word.

 

[Quintessence]

Not a fan. By treating such utterly artificial concepts as something of worth, we do a lot of harm to ourselves and others.

You know, this threads reinforces my feelings that people project into "nationalism" what I would rather call a social contract.

A major challenge is that the expectations and hopes are all too easily raised and transferred, but they rarely if ever translate into actual, sustainable commitment. There are prices to be paid, but those are almost never acknowledged except as the reason to be xenophobic and hateful.

I have yet to meet anything that justifies itself by nationalism that is at all healthy.

It's certainly true that nationalism is something of a social construct. A question I have for you, then, is what about the many other aspects of human cultures that are social constructs (which is probably all of them, when I think about it)? What is it about nationalism that is particularly bothersome for you? What other social constructs do you regard in a similar fashion, and are there any patterns to find there?

To maybe expand this a little bit, when I think about nationalism, I also think about tribalism in general. Would you also describe humans identifying any sort of "their people" or "their peers" as bad and unjustified? I don't see that sort of innate human tribalism as being significantly different from something like nationalism or patriotism, but maybe there's something I'm missing there?

I'm thinking in more a united global government that functions more-or-less like it does on Star Trek, with respect to cultural differences while working together towards the goals of improving themselves and society as a whole. Of course we are far away from that being a hope, but the day when we realize we are all human beings, no matter our color or where we come from, and that it is most beneficial to work together and mutually cooperate, we will advance further and faster than we ever have before.

I don't see nationalism as opposed to this ideal. Taking pride in who and what one is, when combined with valuing pluralism, becomes a celebration of diversity. It's good to remember that a general rule of nature is that diversity allows for more possibility and creativity. The challenge is to listen to and appreciate those different perspectives - to welcome them to the table.

I might have some more thoughts on this thread later. Need some more time to unpack them.

 

[Father Heathen]

Not a fan. By treating such utterly artificial concepts as something of worth, we do a lot of harm to ourselves and others.

Culture and society aren't artificial, and they are something we we are a part of, and are influenced by. If someone said "Brazilians are an unintelligent and unhygienic people." would you take offense? If so, then these "artificial concepts" are a part of your identity.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I am American and I consider myself to be patriotic, because I believe in the ideals that are represented in our country toward freedom, justice, diversity, etc.

At the same time, I am a realist, and realize that citizenship in my case is an accident of birth, and that the current ideals of the nation are recent and extinguishable, and are very different than what is reflected in the history of this nation--in short, there is much to be disappointed in, even ashamed of, in what this country has done and even continues to do in the present. Upshot, in my opinion, there is still much room for improvement.

So, "patriotic" statements such as "My country, right or wrong," are extremist to me: a true patriot will question authorities and be involved in all aspects of the policy process, and be vocally opposed to what they see as wrong, as well as vocally expressing what they see as right...and be willing to discuss it with others in a civil manner.

 

[4consideration]

I am American and I consider myself to be patriotic, because I believe in the ideals that are represented in our country toward freedom, justice, diversity, etc.

At the same time, I am a realist, and realize that citizenship in my case is an accident of birth, and that the current ideals of the nation are recent and extinguishable, and are very different than what is reflected in the history of this nation--in short, there is much to be disappointed in, even ashamed of, in what this country has done and even continues to do in the present. Upshot, in my opinion, there is still much room for improvement.

So, "patriotic" statements such as "My country, right or wrong," are extremist to me: a true patriot will question authorities and be involved in all aspects of the policy process, and be vocally opposed to what they see as wrong, as well as vocally expressing what they see as right...and be willing to discuss it with others in a civil manner.

This.

Thanks, beenherebeforeagain, for saying what I wanted to say, without me having to go through the effort of saying it.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

This.

Thanks, beenherebeforeagain, for saying what I wanted to say, without me having to go through the effort of saying it.

You're welcome!

 

[LuisDantas]

It's certainly true that nationalism is something of a social construct. A question I have for you, then, is what about the many other aspects of human cultures that are social constructs (which is probably all of them, when I think about it)?

What is it about nationalism that is particularly bothersome for you? What other social constructs do you regard in a similar fashion, and are there any patterns to find there?

There may be exceptions, although none occurs to me right now, but it seems to me that most of them are either also detrimental with no good justification or else fair game for discussion and reconsideration among the community.

That is of paramount importance, because it dissolves the dangerous trap that allegiance to "the nation" (or, for that matter, to "God") creates in most situations: the superficial appearance of some degree of agreement becomes a justification for what would otherwise be acknowledged as the actual disagreements or even all-out destructive behavior that they truly are.

Both concepts work as placeholders, dummy boxes that mask real disagreements and concerns and attempt to decree that those should be ignored or overruled for an extremely vague concept, into which people project all sorts of mismatched expectations. Some of those will be destructive, but the label masks that destructiveness and stops people from dealing with the issues in due time.

The two beliefs are actually very closely related, come to think of it. It is probably no coincidence that the idea of a "nation of God" or of a "chosen people" is so recurrent.

Still, I can only see both as social diseases. Anything that needs appeals to theism or to nationalism to be justified is automatically suspect far as I am concerned.

And because we all waste so much time and effort dealing with those and even projecting many of our dearest hopes into them, we fall short of dealing with the real issues such as education, social integration, diplomatic challenges and responsibility of birth. We are too bush creating paper tigers and fighting them passionately.

To maybe expand this a little bit, when I think about nationalism, I also think about tribalism in general.

So do I. Nationalism, far as I can see, is nothing more than tribalism with delusions of grandeur. It has all the downsides of tribalism and imposes a few more upon itself.

Would you also describe humans identifying any sort of "their people" or "their peers" as bad and unjustified?

Not automatically.

But it is certainly bad to value such labels to the point of empowering ourselves to summarily decree that "outsiders" have less rights, let alone to the point of purposefully sabotaging those with unfair discrimination or even lethal war.

There is also a matter of degree of emphasis involved. Social groups are, unavoidably and gloriously, very fluid and unstable by nature. Tribalism is somewhat justified in that we need to accept that some people we know and have access to and are therefore simply easier to deal with. But that is a concession to reality, not a value reference. Failure to acknowledge the worth of "foreigners" even when given the proper access to their understanding is a very pathetic and disgusting flaw.

I don't see that sort of innate human tribalism as being significantly different from something like nationalism or patriotism, but maybe there's something I'm missing there?

At its birth, tribalism was all about the people you actually know. You learned from it, and there was a sort of bult-in reciprocity. It could not very well be contaminated by lies and pretense, because you knew all of those people and made your own choices and judgements about them eventually.

Nationalism and patriotism lose that crucial, necessary safeguard and often enough attempt to pride themselves of it, to boot.

To make it worse, they are also functionally encompassing and recurrent lies. Whenever someone states that something is done in the name of "the nation", the actual meaning is that those who disagree or are disadvantaged should be disregarded. That is no small reason for our continued, growing mistrust of all politicians, and a quagmire that can only be resolved destructively. Traditionally, by war.

Culture and society aren't artificial,

I take it that you mean that they arise somewhat spontaneously?

Because otherwise I don't understand how you can mean it. We are talking about deliberate constructs that people spend a lot of time and effort to shape and form.

and they are something we we are a part of, and are influenced by.

True.

If someone said "Brazilians are an unintelligent and unhygienic people." would you take offense?

I might well point out that we are more troubled by a lack of ethical concerns than by hygiene ones, so I guess not.

I don't understand why you ask, though.

If so, then these "artificial concepts" are a part of your identity.

I spend considerable effort dissolving that delusion, and if I may be so bold as to say it, I met considerable success.

It is essentially impossible to convince me to do anything out of nationalism alone. It actually irks me that one might consider doing so. I expect people to think better of me. And of themselves.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

There may be exceptions, although none occurs to me right now, but it seems to me that most of them are either also detrimental with no good justification or else fair game for discussion and reconsideration among the community.

That is of paramount importance, because it dissolves the dangerous trap that allegiance to "the nation" (or, for that matter, to "God") creates in most situations: the superficial appearance of some degree of agreement becomes a justification for what would otherwise be acknowledged as the actual disagreements or even all-out destructive behavior that they truly are.

Both concepts work as placeholders, dummy boxes that mask real disagreements and concerns and attempt to decree that those should be ignored or overruled for an extremely vague concept, into which people project all sorts of mismatched expectations. Some of those will be destructive, but the label masks that destructiveness and stops people from dealing with the issues in due time.

The two beliefs are actually very closely related, come to think of it. It is probably no coincidence that the idea of a "nation of God" or of a "chosen people" is so recurrent.

Still, I can only see both as social diseases. Anything that needs appeals to theism or to nationalism to be justified is automatically suspect far as I am concerned.

And because we all waste so much time and effort dealing with those and even projecting many of our dearest hopes into them, we fall short of dealing with the real issues such as education, social integration, diplomatic challenges and responsibility of birth. We are too bush creating paper tigers and fighting them passionately.


So do I. Nationalism, far as I can see, is nothing more than tribalism with delusions of grandeur. It has all the downsides of tribalism and imposes a few more upon itself.


Not automatically.

But it is certainly bad to value such labels to the point of empowering ourselves to summarily decree that "outsiders" have less rights, let alone to the point of purposefully sabotaging those with unfair discrimination or even lethal war.

There is also a matter of degree of emphasis involved. Social groups are, unavoidably and gloriously, very fluid and unstable by nature. Tribalism is somewhat justified in that we need to accept that some people we know and have access to and are therefore simply easier to deal with. But that is a concession to reality, not a value reference. Failure to acknowledge the worth of "foreigners" even when given the proper access to their understanding is a very pathetic and disgusting flaw.



At its birth, tribalism was all about the people you actually know. You learned from it, and there was a sort of bult-in reciprocity. It could not very well be contaminated by lies and pretense, because you knew all of those people and made your own choices and judgements about them eventually.

Nationalism and patriotism lose that crucial, necessary safeguard and often enough attempt to pride themselves of it, to boot.

To make it worse, they are also functionally encompassing and recurrent lies. Whenever someone states that something is done in the name of "the nation", the actual meaning is that those who disagree or are disadvantaged should be disregarded. That is no small reason for our continued, growing mistrust of all politicians, and a quagmire that can only be resolved destructively. Traditionally, by war.



I take it that you mean that they arise somewhat spontaneously?

Because otherwise I don't understand how you can mean it. We are talking about deliberate constructs that people spend a lot of time and effort to shape and form.


True.

I might well point out that we are more troubled by a lack of ethical concerns than by hygiene ones, so I guess not.

I don't understand why you ask, though.


I spend considerable effort dissolving that delusion, and if I may be so bold as to say it, I met considerable success.

It is essentially impossible to convince me to do anything out of nationalism alone. It actually irks me that one might consider doing so. I expect people to think better of me. And of themselves.

Hello, Luis, your post started a thought train in my brain...

With the Olympics coming up, the current soccer competitions, and with sports in general, I am reminded that people swell up with "national" (as well as team/regional) pride...with an expectation that everyone, and that the nation/city/etc itself somehow wins or loses based on how a sports team performs. And yet, most of the fans don't actually have much interest in or any direct connection to the actual team they root for (and that goes for professional, amateur and Olympic/national/international competitions).

Nationalism seems to hinge on pride...but...

...okay, lost my train of thought here, sorry about that...
Maybe it will come back later...

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks for the reply, @beenherebeforeagain

Rooting for sports teams are an interesting thing to consider. I don't know if it is any different elsewhere, but here in Brazil people often take a side in traditional team rivalries for what is usually no reason at all.

Sport teams hardly have any causes or ideologies beyond the thrill of earning a victory. But that is apparently plenty enough. The players are not even all that tied to specific teams or places, but that hardly matters. It is in fact easier to meet someone who switched political allegiance than one who decides to change sports allegiances.

Maybe it is just me, but I sure find that a bit weird. The point seems to be to feel the thrill, not to have a rational reason sustaining it.

But there is a valuable resource to be had that way. People bond and create emotional connections over such allegiances, and that has lots of pratical use, if not necessarily value.


On a separate note, I want to point out that it is proper and good to feel pride of one's land brothers. It is even more proper to feel grateful to the circunstances of one's birth and raising, of course.

But patriotic pride is IMO something else entlrely, and very difficult to make sense of.

 

[Sonofason]

Yeah, there is no unifying American culture. It's a patchwork of different regional and local cultures. I'm from San Francisco. Moving to Ohio was like moving to a different country. Hardly anything "united" about the so-called United States.

Yeah, very likely that American cultural diversity will be the undoing of America. Assimilation is the only path to peace.