Has Nationalism become a bad word?

^ the word nationalism is not derived from place, it is derived from the word nation.

For those who long for the steely embrace of nationalism, there is always North Korea, all for one and one for all. Individual rights be damned.
Protesting the Vietnam war and bringing it to a close was a good example of individually self determined people rising up against nationalism.

Edited by Easy Money - April 13 2021 at 16:12

I think what Crane is trying to say that there is something inherently intrinsic to identify with your own country, your own culture, your own language, and dare I say it, your own people. Lazland brought up an interesting point about nations and thier longivity or a lack of it. I contend that the former is true for reasons of nationlism. When the Rus people settled in Russia they started a dynasty that lasted centuries. After 600 years in the space of two centuries, the Mongols invaded and ruled that Russia and Belorus area until they were eventually overthrown and cast out by the Rus decendents. Why? Nationlism. The protection of all the things I stated above. A common culture, customs, beliefs and a common peoples nothing like the Asiatic Mongols. These countries endured because of these shared commonalities and pride in them. Or they might have disappeared forever.

Edited by SteveG - April 13 2021 at 15:59

Crane wrote: I think globalism is really something for a real aesthete to fear. Globalism is the force that comes to your country and convinces your kids that their attention is best spent on American sitcoms and idiotic Top 20 music. Nationalism seems like the force that opposes by saying, excuse me, we already had our own music here, thanks, and it was better!

Once again, being suspicious of nationalism does not have to make you open to globalism, its not an either or situation. Personally I remain suspicious of nationalism and globalism, long live the free self determining individual.

It’s interesting that everyone automatically makes the jump from nationalism to all these other notions. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the basic idea of love for one’s own nation. It is your nation, it’s where you were born. You weren’t born in any other. Just like one’s own mother is his mother. You love your nation like you love your mother. Some people also hate their nation the way they hate their mother, with a burning contrarianism, and no interest for what should replace them.


Edited by Crane - April 13 2021 at 14:34

tszirmay wrote: There are actually possible solutions but ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT is just for Star Trek fans and an Orwellian danger. History has given us an early civilization (ooo such a big word) that worked : Ancient Greece was a union of city-states (over 1000 to be precise) that had individual independence but unified in repelling any foreign threat (we know who they were) , where fundamental thinking and mathematical planning created a social phenomenon that still burns brightly in many of our current norms, as well as the notion of direct democracy . In fact, it was so successful that the Renaissance (arguably the greatest human leap forward in all facets of life) was based exactly on that principle of thriving city-states. It is possible to be small and big, to be free and still have responsibilities . Maybe we should read up a bit .....Utopia was a good rock band but not much of a practical social concept.

There are actually possible solutions but ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT is just for Star Trek fans and an Orwellian danger. History has given us an early civilization (ooo such a big word) that worked : Ancient Greece was a union of city-states (over 1000 to be precise) that had individual independence but unified in repelling any foreign threat (we know who they were) , where fundamental thinking and mathematical planning created a social phenomenon that still burns brightly in many of our current norms, as well as the notion of direct democracy . In fact, it was so successful that the Renaissance (arguably the greatest human leap forward in all facets of life) was based exactly on that principle of thriving city-states. It is possible to be small and big, to be free and still have responsibilities . Maybe we should read up a bit .....Utopia was a good rock band but not much of a practical social concept. 

lazland wrote: SteveG wrote: Yes, I'm aware of that, having come from a mixture of European backgrounds but I was referring to the bulwark countries that have endured for ages such as Russia, China, Japan, India, Singapore, etc. These countries have had more rulers and governments that few poeple really know about including various colonial powers. And guess what? They endured for millennias. Okay, sorry to disagree yet again, but here we go. Singapore was created in the 19th century, so has not endured for ages. The country we now know as India was created after WWII, and had as its creation a huge amount of ethnic and nationalist strife. There was no national India prior to British rule. Russia, as we know it now, is also relatively modern, its borders stretching from Europe to Eastern Asia only manifesting themselves during the late Imperial era. Japan - now there is a country and imperial system which has stood the test of time, although with many internal divisions and wars. One of the reasons why the country has survived is owing to much of its history being literally disengaged from the wider world. Indeed, it is still a feature of Japanese nationalism that it was a mistake to open up its ports to America, and to abandon centuries of extremely strict racial purity and isolation. China is as old as a geographical entity, but there have been many changes over the millennia, with seismic contractions in how its peoples are ruled, but your point about its general borders is true. Two out of three, then, and five out of five which support my point regarding civilisations and empires falling.

Laz my dear friend, when India was ruled by Moguls, was it called Mogulia? And when Egypt was ruled a dozen different empires was it called anything other than Egypt? These ancient countries have had borders contracting and expanding for ages. And if memory serves, wasn't Russia named after the Scandinavian Viking peoples called the Rus after they set up shop in area from modern day Moscow and extending out to the Steppes?

Edited by SteveG - April 13 2021 at 14:30

Easy Money wrote: dr wu23 wrote: Easy Money wrote: Re the aforementioned term limits: We already have term limits in the US, they are called elections. Alas, those 'term limits' keep electing the same crooks over and over and ...well you get the drift. Maybe we need term limits on the people then..?   But if those limits are good enough for the highest office why aren't they good enough for Congress ? Maybe the founding fathers made a few mistakes...? Or maybe they get re-elected because they are doing a good job. I still think letting the voting public decide is the best route. I know a lot of people who hold local and state office, and my ex-wife, as a very active activist works with many state politicians, and fortunately, we do not know any crooks amongst the whole lot.