Nationalism and patriotism

When it's not devastated by Earthquakes and Tsunamis, Japan is extraordinarily stable and there are historically low street crime rates because of a combination of ethno-cultural unity and high standards of living. It is recovering at a rate that would not be possible in highly multicultural Europe or America.

And no, those with Viking blood are perfectly ethnically and culturally compatible with those of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon blood, and there is no problem with the migration of Whites between European nations.

edited 5th Jul '11 7:34:00 AM by Shichibukai

Would you say Vikings were "compatible" when they were invading? Or for that matter, would you say that of the Romans, Normans, Angles, Saxons or Jutes?

You do realise that all human beings came out of Africa, and there has been no conclusive evidence of any psychological distinctions between human ethnicities, right?

Because I hate to say it, but, well, what you're advocating sounds like it goes beyond nationalism. It sounds rather horrific.

edited 5th Jul '11 7:35:20 AM by BobbyG

Do you mind if I continue poking holes in your idea?

Now, to the Black Viking problem? After all, there were likely to have been Black Africans at Hadrian's Wall (an early European Union?), some of which settled in country, Black women in 4th Century York...

But then again, I guess those are in small enough numbers to be overlooked?

Ahem, Black Vikings, Phoenetian Traders*

edited 5th Jul '11 7:39:12 AM by Greenmantle

I would take nationalism to be a deep emotional connection to the nation or culture someone comes from, expressed as support for the values of that culture and so on. For example, learning to speak Irish and being interested in traditional Irish culture as an expression of Irish nationalism. Patriotism I'd imagine is a more active expression of those feelings that involves doing something out of the ordinary, such as joining armed forces, for the benefit of your country at the cost of your personal interests.

edited 5th Jul '11 7:55:32 AM by delloro

Um, why was this at me? I'm not really sure what it has to do with my post, sorry.

I was sort of backing you up there, Bobby...

Oh, right, my bad. I missed your point, I guess. Sorry.

edited 5th Jul '11 8:02:01 AM by BobbyG

No Problem*

Shichi, in place of replying to all the racist shit I missed out on, let me just ask you something.

Why is your culture/nation/race worth preserving, Shichi? Why is anyone's?

As a response to your previous post:

It is worth preserving because of the same reason that you dismissed as trivial - because I like it. Because I was born here, because I spent my whole life here and becuase everything I care for is here. I understand that it would remain the same in case of a world state, but I refuse to view the problem through that lens because the concept of a world state has tons of practical problems that I won't mention now becuase that is not the point of this topic. Shortly, it wouldn't work.

edited 5th Jul '11 8:35:27 AM by MilosStefanovic

I think Shichi's culture, which is broadly speaking the same as my culture, is worth preserving inasmuch as there are many positive aspects of it which I'd like to hang onto. There's also a lot I'd happily lose.

Shichis point about multiculturalism stands (in that cultures CAN rub each other the wrong way at times) but I'd argue this is cause for more exposure (albeit in a controlled way at times if suddenly throwing two cultures together is likely cause for fireworks) as interaction, once you get past the "OMG they're so different!" phase, tends to lead to understanding and ultimately, integration.

...though that seems to be something of a recent thing. Judging by the constant pogroms against the Jews, the crusades, and other bastardry towards different minorities living in different parts, the ability for vastly different cultures to come to an understanding does seem to be something of a recent development for humanity.

As for the rest of the vaguely racist stuff about the imperetive nature of people of different ethnic backgrounds never mixing; bullshit. Half the problems of humanity in regards to each other is because of such artificial distinctions.

I've spoken to people from China, all across Europe, North America and even Somalia, and none of them have ever come across as anything other than ordinary human beings. Obviously I've been very lucky in avoiding the whackjobs. And funnily enough, the few real bastards I've ever met have all been white, Scottish males. This doesn't make me a Boomerang Bigot; most of the people I interact with are white, Scottish males so statistics, but the point I'm making is that people are the same wherever you go at the basic level; if there are ethnic differences they're so averaged out and diversified within each group that it comes down to complete irrelevance at the individual level. Even if there was some difference in average physical traits, the fact you get brilliant people from all backgrounds renders it irrelevant; you treat people as the individuals they are, not by the label stuck on them which happens to average out at different stats.

Not that there's any evidence of such differences anyway.

edited 5th Jul '11 10:17:35 AM by GameChainsaw

Milos, that is not a very good reason. At all.

The distinction of a place being "here" as opposed to "there" is only worth holding as such because it is actually in a different position in three-dimensional space. And maybe because of some geographical feature that marks it as significantly different in a very real tangible sense. No such concretions exist when comparing nations to one-another. Look at the regularity with which borders shift. They are nothing more than lines on a map, drawn and redrawn countless times by violent men to accommodate whatever arbitrary notion of glory or supremacy or whatever else. is there anything you can say that really sets your country apart from others and, more importantly, are they of such significance that it is worth recognizing and sustaining that differentiation?

Multiculturalism and diversity only breeds conflict precisely because there is this focus on nationalism- no, let’s call it what it is- tribalism. You are absolutely right about artificial distinctions, nation is just another one of them. Great part about race.

edited 5th Jul '11 10:23:29 AM by Gault

It's not that complicated, and I mentioned the reason too many times to count - I consider Serbia important because I spent my whole life here and am sentimentally attached to it, the same way as I would feel towards any other country if I was born and lived there. This reason might not be as high-minded as you may expect, but it makes perfect sense to me, and that's what I consider important. It is based on a simple, primal emotion which is often away from the grasp of reason and logic, and it is called love. The same love that you feel if you spend a lot of time with a person, you feel kinship towards them, and you can say that you care. That is exactly the same reason why I feel a bond with Serbia - sentimental attachment. I grew familiar with the places, the people, the culture, the history, architecture, et cetera, and now associate it with different parts of my life. A purely emotional reason, nothing else. It cannot be rationally explained.

When one group of peoples invades another, there will always be resentment by those who have suffered loss of life, dignity, and property. However, the settled vikings were able to assimilate very well a few generations following the pillage and rape of chunks of Britannia. The same goes for the Romans. In its wake, the Roman Empire made many positive technological, archaeological, and linguistic contributions which shaped the early development of Britain as we know it today.

I agree, it is highly likely that humans evolved in Africa. And then after dispersing across the world for so long with significant geographical boundaries, and particularly during an ice age tens of thousands of years ago, pre-historic homo sapiens developed distinct racial features. It is considered taboo to even suggest racial differences, so there is little chance of a study which contradicts politically correct science being legitimised by peer reviews. There is a widespread unscientific practice of blindly rejecting studies on racial differences. Look at what happened to Dr. James Watson, a nobel prize winner, after his study suggested racial differences in intelligence. There cannot be an honest discussion of such until scientists are able to research freely without fear of being slapped down for coming to the wrong conclusions.

A small population of Black Africans, even if they bred with locals, would have very little effect on the overall population of Britain. Yes, their numbers would be small enough to be overlooked. Races can tolerate some inter-breeding.

Culture is a part of peoples' social identity and heritage, to shun and demolish it is possibly the greatest crime against humanity anyone can commit. I believe that distinct racial differences are beautiful, and the unique contributions by each race is strongly tied with their culture. It is just as criminal to deny the links between race, culture, and nationality.

I do not believe that any one race is superior than the other, instead their distinct characteristics should be recognised and preserved whilst bearing in mind that these differences can cause tensions within a nation.

edited 5th Jul '11 1:59:43 PM by Shichibukai

You're talking as though races are neat categories. They are not. It's more like, there are various traits which can be passed down genetically, and due to geography, typically, certain traits are more common within cultures. Humans are not divided into distinct subspecies, and culture is not intrinsically tied to ethnicity.

Honestly, what you are advocating sounds more like racism (in the literal sense of the word) than nationalism. If by saying all this I'm committing some kind of gross crime against humanity, I doubt we shall ever see eye to eye on this matter.

I note you have yet to address my point about it all averaging out to insignificance anyway.

Races can interbreed, humans remain one species with compatible reproductive systems. However there are variations which though relatively slight, are significant in the physical, and in some cases psychological tendencies of different races. Race, Evolution, and Behaviour provides an interesting insight into racial variations. It shows differences which are more than skin-deep, and which extend to behavioural traits. Not to say that genes determine behaviour, they are expressed more as tendencies:

Accuse me of what you will, but please do not make snap judgements about my attitudes towards race. I am not driven by racial hatred here, nor have I been suggesting anything that should prove inflammatory.

Sorry, I apologise for not replying before.

By no means am I saying that there is such a thing as a "master race", nor that people of the same race all get along naturally; it is possible for people of different races to get along, in certain circumstances. At university, certainly. These differences need not ruin friendships. No, it is more that these differences come out most significantly, and tend to cause social problems, on a larger group scale. In that sense, culture partly reflects racial psychology.

edited 5th Jul '11 6:36:26 PM by Shichibukai

I didn't accuse you of racial hatred. I mean, literally, this is not nationalism, it's racism. Discrimination by race. That's what it is, hateful or not.

I admit I have not read Rushton's book so I may be mistaken, but I suspect you may be making far too big a deal of what are probably slight statistical trends, trends which may themselves have cultural origins, even.

And I'm very sorry, but I think your words would be considered highly inflammatory in most circles that I have ever been acquainted with, regardless of your intent.

edited 5th Jul '11 6:53:53 PM by BobbyG

Nobody, least of all you, could possibly make the case that things like a peoples' customary foods or types of music or styles of dress is worth segregating people into these hallucinatory groups.

I have nothing against them. I certainly don't mind them keeping them- I'm sure I have some things that fall under the same category myself. But it is to be recognized that these things bear no special significance that justifies this separation. It's really not at all defensible.

edited 7th Jul '11 11:59:17 AM by Gault

Erhm... It's not impossible that there'd be at least one black Viking in history. Can't say for sure, but it wouldn't be far-fetched. Vikings travelled far and wide... They captured thralls, and they often freed them (freedmen who owe you loyalty are worth more than slaves). The sons'o'those were as Viking as the average Icelander.

And the whole who belongs where is sickening. A black man who was born in Norway and grew up there is a Norwegian. He belongs there: Where else would he go, anyway?. Sure, he obviously has ancestors from elsewhere. So does everyone else. People move and settle: It's a fact of life. Your ancestors didn't pop there from the ground, straight at your homeland, and lived there without disturbance forever and ever.

Your ancestors migrated, fought, settled... Y'know the drill, same as everybody. They were there for longer? Yeah, sure. So what? At some point, they were new, and nobody suggests they didn't belong there. People belong on wherever they get to stay and want to.

edited 7th Jul '11 5:17:09 PM by SavageHeathen

@Scihi: While the Vikings (Danish ones) did assimilate well in the long run a lot were massacared before the Norman conquest. But, yes, Celtic and Germanic groups are fairly similar. The distinction tends to be North, South, and East.

And there is no way we should give Native Americans any more land back. History happens, alright? If you use that logic then the Turks shoudl leave Thrace and Anatolia.

Da truth.

edited 7th Jul '11 6:02:43 PM by Erock

@Gault I guess it's been two year since the last update. Still, I'm willing to give my two cents if you will on this VERY contentious topic.

I can understand where you're coming from in a way. But your stance brings up a certain point: that human beings are rooted in the context of their environment, community and society. True, an individual may be the same at the basic level, but that's the catch: humans aren't merely at that basic level. Individuals have diverse views and perspectives of the world, which contributes to how they build up societies, organizations, states, what have you. Your perspective, which could be described as a rather hardline globalist view is but one shared by a particular group of people grounded in the context of certain experiences and academic ideas.

The "nationalism" you seem to be riling against is really more of the hardline ultra-extreme variants with perhaps a dash of Godwin's Law in saying how the idea of nations somehow leads to Serbian death squads or Nazis; that's kinda like saying that the existence of religions does nothing but lead to fundamentalists. Whether or not you subscribe to the idea of nations or cultures being modern constructs (.i.e the nation-state), they DO mean something to people and have a tangible impact on their respective communities. If anything, your ideas are reminiscent of Peter Singer's reductionist, absolute globalism.

Speaking of nationalism, it's perhaps better to describe it as nationalisms: there's no one definition of the term even among academics and it manifests itself in various ways in different parts of the world that finding any absolute common ground is frankly a futile gesture.

What people at large call "patriotism" is more often aligned with either "civic nationalism," which usually entails a friendly love of country and mutual respected for other cultures and what some like Appiah would call "rooted cosmopolitanism" or "cosmopolitan patriotism" which is perhaps a much better way to resolve the nationalist conundrum: humans beings are citizens of the world in our universal humanity, but at the same time, we are grounded and rooted in the diversity of our environments/cultures/communities/nations/etc. There's enough commonality to establish some ethical common ground but it's manifested in different context. This in turn allows for conversation and mutual coexistence. In this case, it a balance between mankind's universality and mankind's similarly valid particularity. The more we learn about the world and respect one another, the more we appreciate our national/cultural heritage, which also works the other way around. In other words, "we are one, but we're not the same."

As Appiah puts it, based on his experiences in his native homeland in Africa, to preach a world without borders while simultaneously denying the cultural/social/etc. worth of any particular person/group/society's views and beliefs is no better than a world filled with racists and fundamentalists. To sweep away differences as if they're nothing is in this context an insult to this diversity. With no disrespect, what you're suggesting is what he would also call "liberalism on safari."

Two years too late (and sorry for switching gears in this post in terms of the current topic of discussion), but here's my two pennies on this:

To me, patriotism is having a sincere pride in your country/countries (if your country is part of a union, ala the United Kingdom) and its' achievements. It can be identified by realising that yes, your nation might have done some bad things (either now or in the past), but equally noting that your nation has done good as well and being unapologetic for that. It is benign and does not generate conflict. People of other nationalities are probably less likely to feel threatened by patriotism.

Nationalism, however, is often a more insidious, aggressive form of patriotism where you are blind to the faults of your country or actively suppress evidence to the contrary. Xenophobia and racism can be an element of nationalism, but not always. Sometimes nationalism is attached to a desire to create a seperate nation for a certain people, and this variant is not always as virulent as the other forms*

It is interesting to note that though nationalists often describe themselves as "patriots", it is incredibly unusual to see/hear any news items referring to "attacks by patriots" in situations where the nationalists are violent.

These are by no means catch-all definitions, and I will willingly admit that these are coloured to a greater or lesser extent by my own experiences. Since a personal definition was asked for however, that is what I provided.

Right now, I'm just thread hopping. I'll backtrack a few pages later on.

For now, here's a clip from Dough Stanhope on nationalism. While I'm not a tremendous fan of Stanhope, this is a pretty hard-hitting (and hilarious) explanation of the problem with nationalism.