Nationalism and patriotism

I grew up with no defined sense of culture or history and I am no worse for it.

As for how culture and history factor in to a person's upbringing, exactly what do things like culture and history mean to a child? They're likely beyond his or her comprehension. Certainly an understanding of culture and history broadens the mind and instills an appreciation for the world as does equivalent understanding of the world's religions, but that is another thing entirely to what we are discussing. We're talking about the particular history and particular culture of a particular country. And so I ask again, what is it about your particular nation that is intrinsic to it that is so special as to warrant a separation?

Why should one's identity be as belonging to any one national group at all?

That is the important question. Are matters of culture and history sufficient grounds to justify defining people as being separate?

And you again with this separation bullshit. Learn to read please

I read you. It seems you're the one with a problem understanding me. Yes, separation. That's exactly what recognizing a difference between nations and their citizens is and means. In the very act of saying "my nation should be protected" you imply there's something that is intrinsic to your nation that no other nation has. Otherwise there is no reason for you to say such a thing and your defense of it makes no sense.

"If there is nothing special about it, if there is nothing about it worth protecting that sets it apart, why do I think it ought to be protected? I shouldn't, because there is no reason."

Do you understand?

You don't get it. For me, all the patriotic stuff - national art, history, culture etc. has an emotional, sentimental value. It's not that it's better than the other ones, it's that it has a special place in my life because it's a part of my life from when I was born. The places, the people, the language - they might not be superior to anything, they are just special for me. Many patriots feel this way.

Maybe I don’t get it. I was raised differently after all, but nonetheless I think I have a point. If you have at any point think I have sounded hostile or confrontational please rest assured I did not intend it and write as I do only to make my point. That being said…

Yeah. And? So what? Sponge Bob was a part of my life. Does that mean I treat it as if it has any sort of special value? Of course not!

The more we see and learn of the world the less sense it makes to place our individual or group/tribe’s interests above anybody else’s.

It is an absurd idea to think that any part of your country’s history or cultural heritage makes you somehow special simply by your loose association with it just as it would be absurd to think that this particular patch of ground I am standing on is special simply for the fact that I happen to be standing on it at this very moment.

I understand that you have things about your country that you value. I’m just asking why. Is there any good reason for you to have that connection? Did you have anything to do with that aside from being born in that country? Do the accomplishments of people who happened to live in that country in the past reflect on you in any way? Do those events somehow mean you are something more? I’m willing to bet the answer you’ll give to all of the above is no. And rightly so.

So is it just a feeling then? Are you admitting that it has no rational basis at all? If so, then why do you feel so compelled to defend it.

edited 1st Jul '11 9:37:04 AM by Gault

First of all, rid yourself of an assumption that patriotism (especially the one I am proposing) means considering some people superior to others. It doesn't. It has nothing to do with it.

Second thing, asking why do I defend 'a feeling' is pretty absurd, you could as well ask me why do I feel.

You are misinterpretting the whole thing as either hatred or isolating yourself from the other cultures. That's not the same. You can peacefully interact with other cultures while still preserving your own culture just like you can peacefully interact with other people without adapting to their worldview and lifestyle. Of course, life could have been easier if everyone had the same nationality but it also would be easier if everyone had the same religion. Or political opinion. Or moral outlook. Or philosophy. Or personality. Think about it.

Let's get an example: imagine a hypothetical introverted English atheist. Would he be a better or worse person if he magically became an introverted Spanish atheist? Probably not. The thing is, I'd have the same opinion if he magically became an extraverted English Protestant. Sure, those things don't decide if someone is good or bad but they have some impact on who we are and world would be pretty boring without them.

@Gault: Sorry for not being able to reply earlier - I was AFK.

I'm not talking about protecting the nation from outside influences because of it being superior in any way. First, I'm against globalism and a singular culture because in the end, the dominant culture which assimilates others is always the one of a large, militaristic, expansionist nation which invades others in order to further its own goals (you all know which one I am talking about). Those cultures almost universally end in decadence - Rome wasn't destroyed from the outside, but from the inside, and diversity is something that should be upheld. Our universe is based on contrast, and singularity is something to be avoided.

Second, the Serbian nationalism you are talking about is something completely unrelated to my views. Those people are nothing but bored, violent chavs only looking for a chance to beat someone and steal something. I hold utmost respect for other nations, and don't consider any nationality inferior or superior. It is only my firm belief that smaller nations should show their teeth to large, imperialistic powers that I mentioned above. Those powers are only commited to their own interests, and the fulfillment of their goals is breaking on the backs of smaller countries. There would be no need for nationalism if every country just kept to itself, but the truth is much different.

Third, why am I a nationalist? To put it bluntly, my country is a complete failure. I am in no way proud of it, because it is filled with problems of all kinds. But everything that I care for and what I love is here - my family, my friends, my house, beautiful Serbian girls, delicious Serbian food, the forest I like hiking through, the huge field next to my home, the pheasants living there, and many other seemingly trivial things. Those are the reasons why I love my country. I don't feel any loyalty to the state, to the government, to the politicians, to the flag. These small things which make life worth living are what I am loyal to. That is the reason why I will always support my country when it defends against some who want to take those things away from me and other citizens of Serbia, no matter their nationality or faith; and also the reason why I will always condemn my country when it wants to take the same things away from others. No hatred there whatsoever.

Replace 'Serbian' with 'Polish' and you kind of have my opinion on this.

And if people only believed that way, it would be fine, but there's a definite history of such sentiments becoming twisted.

"An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it"

Also, the fact that some people twist the idea doesn't mean that all the people do it

Even though I sworn to leave this forum, I'll put my few words to the debate. I don't believe we're all the same people: races, ethnicities exist and we must accept it. What's wrong with that? Hate and differences aren't mutually inclusive. Diversity around the globe is a wonderful thing, and saying "we're all the same because we're human" is a bad, globalist cop-out. I believe my Polish people don't exist just as a culture, but it's in the bloodline. Even when I settle down in the UK for a while, I'll never be British. Felt good to get this off my chest. Flame and hate towards me welcome.

Actually, ideas might well be of that nature, depending on your thoughts on memes. We certainly don't know that science well enough to be sure. However that's another conversation.

But you really need to stop reading things into my words I didn't say. I just pointed out that it's not always and solely about loving the good things, sometimes it becomes worse, much worse. Am I wrong? No, because it is true, and that is sad. Don't you think so?

If you want to discuss the perils of love and whether or not ideas actually do have an inherent nature though, I would suggest that be a topic for another thread.

I think you're mistaking the point of saying that everybody is human, which is not to eliminate the differences and produce some sort of monolithic ur-identity*

edited 1st Jul '11 10:20:24 AM by blueharp

Ok, I'm just paranoid and stupid. My kind isn't welcome here.

You're right here. I might have misunderstood your post because it sounds very much like the common tactic used by critics of patriotism ITT

edited 1st Jul '11 10:21:23 AM by nzm1536

I have to admit, Maciek, I have a very hard time understanding someone who still thinks that nationality is something you can pass down a bloodline. What exactly do you mean by that?

EDIT: But yeah, there's nothing wrong with nations per se. They're just organisational structures formed to protect the inhabitants (or in cases of bad, exploitative states, certain inhabitants.)

edited 1st Jul '11 10:23:58 AM by GameChainsaw

So, this Maciek would put people into separate groups based on a category more meaningless than race? Good idea!

@Milos, but if it isn't better or special, then why is it worth protecting? Just because it is somehow, in some way, arbitrarily yours? That's like saying the spot of ground where I am is special just for the fact that I happen to be standing here at this very moment. Something's value is measured extrinsically to oneself. You might as well just say "because I like it" and it would make just as much sense. It's only yours in any way because some time ago a group of people decided to fence off a plot of land and call it theirs. Say it was somehow different.

You might not think of yourself or your nation as being superior to others, but what I'm saying is that thinking you are separate from others is more than enough.

@nzm, You ought to rid yourself of the notion that I think everybody ought to be the same like my ideal society is the fucking Borg. It is precisely through recognizing that we're all the same that we can use our differences, our specializations, in concert to solve problems.

edited 4th Jul '11 6:47:05 AM by Gault

If we're the same, there are no differences we can use because... we're the same.

Nationalism: Being a dick in the name of whatever group or groups you identify with and putting that/those group(s) ahead of any others and their well-being, regardless of the consequences (like the bastards who started World War One).

Patriotism: Having the sense to be proud of what your nation and country has accomplished together, and being humble enough to acknowledge that in spite of those accomplishments, it has also done less-than-perfect things, which in the future it can take experience from so it never does it again.

edited 4th Jul '11 3:19:57 PM by USAF713

I was born here to immigrant parents? Does that make me less of a patriot? I do hope not. I feel the same way that Milos does about Serbia, as I do to Britain. I do not respect the government, nor the monarchy, nor the flag - no matter how kick-ass it is. I respect, and hold in high-esteem, the history, the culture, the contributions of my nation. Sure, it's a little screwed up. Sure, we screwed up people's lives. I accept that as part of history. I will support my nation's rights and freedoms enshrined to me - even probably die so that my descendants can enjoy those rights and freedoms - however, I will not die for my nation if I believe it is wrong. I only may salute the flag because it represents Britain, but not the government I abhor, or the monarchy of which I have no interest.

The same goes for my feelings about being part of the EU/Europe.

I consider myself a "liberal nationalist" and I don't agree with that view really.

Ethno-cultural heritage should be a factor in deciding a person's legitimacy to be a citizen of a particular country. Excessive "diversity" and multiculturalism breeds conflict. Nations are more than a legal construct. They embody the sum of the cultural and social history, the identity of a particular group of people. They represent a shared bond. The concept of the "nation" can enrich and empower groups, the idea of one extended national community can be beneficial to work ethic, self-esteem, and belonging.

Conversely, a weakened national identity and multiculturalism are detrimental to a nation and its citizens. When people of different cultural values, traditions, religions, languages, and races are mixed together, they usually gravitate towards those who are more similar to them. Culture, language, and etiquette, are the summation of shared behaviour and norms which are learnt throughout a person's life. They are hard to change once they become set in a person's memory. This is not to say that different cultures are incompatible; rather, cross-cultural compatibility varies based on their similarity.

Yes, I do believe that there is a racial element as well. Racial differences are not just about physical appearance. There are physiological, and often psychological variations too. I don't think it's fair to look down on or abuse someone because of race. However, those of European racial heritage should have the right to a European homeland. This is a tricky issue I know, and I expect cries of "nazi" and "bigot" to fly at me immediately, but I believe that Europe belongs to the races who have been there for the past few hundred years, whose cultures matured and grew there. Africa belongs to those races which lived there originally.

The Americas + Australia are a more slippery case, since Europeans have settled and mixed their blood with the original indigenous people or taken their lands outright, and Africans were taken from their homeland and enslaved in the new world. We cannot reverse that, but I think more autonomous territory should be given to the remaining American + Australian natives, now that the colonial nations have populations that Europe cannot sustain.

I don't think it's so much a matter of repatriating all races to their original homelands as ensuring that every race can have a homeland where they are accepted without the threat of being outbred or displaced by other races. Minorities should never become majorities or even pluralities, nor should they be able to assert their own culture over that of the indigenous people. It is an issue of cultural and ethnic preservation which seems common sense to every other race but Whites.

edited 4th Jul '11 5:14:50 PM by Shichibukai

While I understand the sentiment for every race and culture having a safe haven for itself, I find it very unrealistic because of how the civilization has developped. You know, not only because of whites taking over America and Australia, mostly because of migrating nations in late antiquity/early medieval. We have travelled, we have mixed and it's impossible to go back to the primary state

And I'd have to disagree with that claim.

What you're advocating boils down to "I don't want them here because they're different". It's that kind of ignorance and intolerence that breeds conflict, not the presence of people who don't happen to behave like you.

Generally, I don't differentiate between nationalism and patriotism, since I don't see a noteworthy difference there. And I think it's mostly bullshit. A national identity is probably necessary and not bad per se, but it gets too much very quickly. National pride may be good for... other people, but for me it holds no value.

I'm not saying that we should go back to the primary state. Instead, we should preserve what we can and reverse the damage which has been done to Western culture in particular by free-for-all mass immigration, multiculturalism, and cultural marxism.

No, to the contrary. Multiculturalism doesn't work because of human nature; shared culture is necessary to social cohesion. A mass of cultures with conflicting values is one of the factors causing cultural schizophrenia, an illness which destroys the national culture, breaks down social and national identity, and causes chronic instability within a nation.

On the other side, I am in favour of LGBT rights, personal liberty, and a strong welfare system. That is what I mean by liberal nationalist, as opposed to social and political repression of those people who belong in a particular nation.

edited 5th Jul '11 5:59:34 AM by Shichibukai

How far back, I wonder? Do you want to remove Yorkshiremen becuase they're descended from Vikings?

Mind you, I can't think of any major nation that is stable right now...