Has Nationalism become a bad word?

rogerthat wrote: [QUOTE=SteveG]India wasn't a NATION before British occupation helped, perversely, to unite it.  India as a CIVILIZATION existed for millennia but that's not the same thing.  Yes, a body of land somewhat resembling modern India (obviously, Pakistan and Bangladesh are no longer a part of India) existed and was addressed as Hind by the Persians. But I think they too regarded Hind as a land rather than a nation.

quite sofistic, isn'it?
There has been a moment in history when killing gladiators was normal, as well as sacrifying children to some deity.
Killing whoever lands on your island is normal for that tribe. Is contaminating their culture right?

You are a US citizen. Maybe in your DNA there are parts coming from various parts of Europe, mixed with natives and even tracks of neanderthals. Being born on a specific side of the ocean is a coincidence. All the rest, culture, nationality, religion, comes later. It's just conventions. Identifying ourselves into a tribe is what makes us similar to the other monkeys. And the anthropologucal reasons behind are the same. Kubrick has shown it very well in the first part of his Soace Odyssey

octopus-4 wrote: Cannibals: https://www.insider.com/sentinelese-tribe-what-we-know-killed-american-missionary-2018-11

Easy Money wrote: lazland wrote: Crane wrote: ”Imagine no religion” etc. is a sentiment that most of the world’s people would never accept. Not just the fat American Evangelicals we all love to hate, but also the uncontacted tribes of the Amazon and those other completely marginal nations of the world. It’s an elitist notion. I really dislike this song. In defence of evangelicals, I must say that I have come across many who are neither excessive pie munchers or, indeed, American. I also dare say that there will be some porky American Evangelicals who it is possible to like. A lot of my relatives and even immediate family are evangelicals. The media likes to exaggerate the more boorish ones. The media does love its easy targets. Evangelicals can be a lot more diverse and complicated than the media would have you believe. I'm sure you would not be surprised.

Easy Money wrote: SteveG wrote: Easy Money wrote: ^ The Vietnam protest was diverse ranging from those who saw clearly the evil and futility of the war, to selfish bums only looking out for their own ass. I certainly wouldn't glorify hippies. When I was a kid they were the biggest jerks in the world and pretty much a bunch of idiot bullies. What I was referring to was the fact that many saw through the old nationalistic rallying cries that got many to enlist in WWII, instead they stood up to a war that was far different from WWII. They knowingly challenged the rhetoric of serving without question. They questioned the nationalism that was not as much questioned in previous wars. We are going to have to disagree and move on. Move on if you want to, but for many, the response to the Vietnam war was a repudiation of the old knee jerk response to unquestioned service to country. Does anyone else want to weigh in on this?

As this can only result in tangents about nationalistic US wars before and after Vietnam, I will indeed move on as the basis in nationlism is self evident. It's amazing how nationalistic a people can get when attacked by a foriegn power.

SteveG wrote: Easy Money wrote: ^ The Vietnam protest was diverse ranging from those who saw clearly the evil and futility of the war, to selfish bums only looking out for their own ass. I certainly wouldn't glorify hippies. When I was a kid they were the biggest jerks in the world and pretty much a bunch of idiot bullies. What I was referring to was the fact that many saw through the old nationalistic rallying cries that got many to enlist in WWII, instead they stood up to a war that was far different from WWII. They knowingly challenged the rhetoric of serving without question. They questioned the nationalism that was not as much questioned in previous wars. We are going to have to disagree and move on.

Move on if you want to, but for many, the response to the Vietnam war was a repudiation of the old knee jerk response to unquestioned service to country.
Does anyone else want to weigh in on this?

octopus-4 wrote: But let's not forget that cannibalism was a tradition somewhere and sometimes, as well as human sacrifices. Do we really need to preserve all the traditions and the identities?

Crane wrote: ”Imagine no religion” etc. is a sentiment that most of the world’s people would never accept. Not just the fat American Evangelicals we all love to hate, but also the uncontacted tribes of the Amazon and those other completely marginal nations of the world. It’s an elitist notion. I really dislike this song.

Easy Money wrote: ^ The Vietnam protest was diverse ranging from those who saw clearly the evil and futility of the war, to selfish bums only looking out for their own ass. I certainly wouldn't glorify hippies. When I was a kid they were the biggest jerks in the world and pretty much a bunch of idiot bullies. What I was referring to was the fact that many saw through the old nationalistic rallying cries that got many to enlist in WWII, instead they stood up to a war that was far different from WWII. They knowingly challenged the rhetoric of serving without question. They questioned the nationalism that was not as much questioned in previous wars.

We are going to have to disagree and move on.