Is nationalism a bad thing or not?
- Thread starter HighStickHarry
- Start date
What a bunch of horse shit answers. I want some ****ing paragraphs.
When I was in college I wrote a small 3-5 page piece on this very question as an assignment. To this day, if I could go back and redo one paper from all my time in college, this would be the one. Hands down, no question at all.
In the paper I wrote that I more or less took the opinion stated above by syskatine, "not really, until it is" while also stating my opinion of the good that can arise from nationalism. I believe the error in my thought process at the time arose from a misunderstanding and conflation of nationalism and patriotism. I believed that the existence of one was dependent upon the existence of the other. Namely, that patriotism was born from the existence of nationalism. I had assumed that for an individual to be a patriot one must have a love of their government as it either currently exists or had been established.
Since that time I have defined what I believe is the definition of each. Patriotism is defined by one having a natural love of the geographic region in which he lives, the culture he is a part of, and the people that compose the society in which he belongs. It is required for a society to maintain it's freedom, prosper as a society, and improve as a species.
Nationalism is defined as an unhealthy love of one's government which becomes destructive. This love of one's government is almost always accompanied by a thirst for expanding said government to those not fortunate enough to dwell beneath it. The attempt to spread this wonderful creation inevitably results in the loss of innocent lives on both sides, destruction of cultures, cities, resources, and the eventual fall of the nation state itself. Campaigns of propaganda are utilized to gain support for the empire building that ensues. The nationalism is falsely presented as patriotism, moral arguments for aggression are made, and the "enemy" is dehumanized. The government evolves into the final authority on morality replacing entire belief systems, society begins to deteriorate, and an avenue for others to impose their will on others through use of force is championed as "progress." With the latter being morally reprehensible on its own.
Is that the kind of thing that suits your fancy sir?
I disagree with the first part of your statement. As far as the second part of your statement; imperialism is a result of nationalism because nationalism leads to spreading your government and influence through military force and power.
Regardless of what the definition is per you or others, I agree,unhealthy love of government is bad. Love of your culture/geography is good.
Unhealthy love of government leads to more power for the ruling class. There's a reason the ruling class doesn't have to live like the rest of us. We stopped making them.
There is a reason the ruling class advocates for nationalism so religiously.
So just a bit of a twist - the preoccupation with and desire to hold on to at any costs a borderline mythological version of your country - that is nationalism to me. The whole debate over the Confederate flag was mostly about some idealized, revisionist, version of the old south. That had the stink of regionalism if not nationalism. Government may or may not be part of that mythology.
Trump is playing the nationalism card - Making America Great Again - an appeal to some idealized past America. We all feel nostalgic at times, easy to play that card when you aren't pressed for any real details.
Trump is playing the nationalism card - Making America Great Again - an appeal to some idealized past America. We all feel nostalgic at times, easy to play that card when you aren't pressed for any real details.
Are you saying that the primary victim of nationalism is external to the nation state over come with the same? Not trolling, just curious on who you see as the initial target of the nationalist state (understanding you are at least implying that the ultimate victim is the citizenry of that same nationalist state).
I think the primarily targeted victims can vary between external and internal. That said, when it comes to internal it's usually a subgroup of the entire population not the population as a whole itself. Does that answer your question?
Disagree on the CSA. They had trouble getting the states to agree on anything at their federal level because they were very radically into states' rights.
That was reality, my point is more the perception today of "the grand old south" among a small subset of Americans.
Nationalism carried to an unhealthy extreme, which is likely without being moored to objective truth and law, is dangerous. However, I believe nationalism, in the plainest sense of the word, is synonymous with patriotism.
What we usually think of as "bad" nationalism are more extreme examples, although today's world of safe spaces and micro-aggressions, what we often see described as nationalism run amok, especially in the precious ivy covered walls of the academy, is good old-fashioned patriotism and love of country.
What we usually think of as "bad" nationalism are more extreme examples, although today's world of safe spaces and micro-aggressions, what we often see described as nationalism run amok, especially in the precious ivy covered walls of the academy, is good old-fashioned patriotism and love of country.
Last edited:
Or, as he has alluded to many times, he could be referring to his intent to attempt to restore a level of economic security the middle class feels is on shaky ground, for obvious reasons.
To me, that's hardly "nationalism."
More like, doing one of many jobs the president is there to do.
Rebel is to revolutionary as is
Nationalist to a patriot.
Depends on who wins.
Nazis = nationalists
Americans = patriots.
1776 = revolution
1863 = rebellion
Nationalist to a patriot.
Depends on who wins.
Nazis = nationalists
Americans = patriots.
1776 = revolution
1863 = rebellion
Peel that onion one layer deep... how is Trump going to "restore a level of economic security [sic] the middle class"? Good jobs? Great negotiation of trade agreements? Can you give me one specific policy to go with these broad brush goals.
You're on the Internet right now, look.
And specifics aren't as important as implication in addressing your assertion that, within your definition of nationalism in this thread, that Trump is playing a "nationalism" card harkening back to a "nostalgic" period of greatness.
Why is the intent to pull policy levers that aim at restoring a firmer economic footing an exercise in nostalgic thinking?
Even if the policy levers aren't granularly defined, the intent (that which is being communicated) is sufficient to blunt what appears to be, by you, an assertion of some "calling to the sheep" by Trump trumpeting a nationalistic battle cry.
That could be interpretted as patronizing dude. Are you diminishing people's attraction to Trump by simplistic labeling?
