Has Nationalism become a bad word?

tszirmay wrote: Nationalism has taken on a bad reputation recently mostly fuelled by the utopist/anarchist crowd, who look to alter/erase history (not a good thing) to suit some agenda of absolute equality and purity.  In fact, there are 2 kinds of Nationalism . First, you have offensive militaristic warrior societies who want to expand their power (such as Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Soviet Russia), all have been historically condemned and rightly so.  Then you have the defensive nationalism whereby protecting your home /homeland from outside aggression is a duty (if an intruder tried to enter your home and threaten your family , would you fight back or just hope that they are "terrestrial"?) . Would you protect your home only and not your homeland ? This second group of nationalists are made famous by names such as Gandhi, Mandela, Ho Chi Minh, Levesque, Garibaldi, Bismarck, or even Tito and Castro (2 authoritarian dictators though). Making it simple when its all quite complex is a slippery slope.  I am reminded of the motto of a Swiss school I attended in the 70s: "Be proud of hour heritage but respect those of others ". That is simple....

Yes, it's impossible to say that Gandhi and Mandela are not nationists, at least it your definition of the term.

My personal dilemma is that a lack of nationalism in the US has led to the Willy Chinese becoming the next global super power. A government that still can make citizens disappear over night without a trace.

ExittheLemming wrote: Spaciousmind wrote: Best to avoid words ending with "ism" in general as most are negative to living species beyond that small circle the particular word supports. Rally the troops.   Optimism might get a pass though

SteveG wrote: octopus-4 wrote: SteveG wrote: Vompatti wrote: SteveG wrote: octopus-4 wrote: SteveG wrote: octopus-4 wrote: It has always been a bad thing for me.  Think: proud for your nation (against each other)           proud for your region (against the rest of your nation)           proud for your city (against the rest of your region) ... and so on. Does it really makes sense? Proud for your tribe, your club, your relatives, your bedroom... I am a terrestrial. This the only label that I can accept. I understand your view. However, when a football fan is for his team and against the other, is that not the same thing, as geographical regions are what's being represented by the competing teams. I'm neither a football fan, effectively. That's commendable Luca, but it doesn't answer my question. Is it not the same thing? Yes, it's the same thing. The left is not for competitive sports. I know many lefties who are Ranger's fans and love it when Canadian teams get beaten. Perhaps that's just a North American thing. Let's put it in this way: there's a certain difference between a football supporter and a hooligan, so there's a difference between one proud of his nation and a fascist. Anyway, I like discussing politics in a different kind of social, so I'll just tell you why I'm (no longer) a football fan: Many years ago, the Italian football federation, after realizing that all the Serie A teams have bribed about the naturalization of foreign players, decided to change the rules on the fly, otherwise the whole championship would have been relegated. Later, a colleague told me who were the designed winners of Championship, cup and Cupwinners cup. And it happened. Finally, another guy gave me the full results of the last championship day imcluding the sequence of the goals match by match. Having realized that soccer is as credible as wrestling, I have decided to follow other sports, like i.e. Alpine Ski (as mentioned in my last review currently on the home page). About politics, I'm proudly anarchist and Mikhail Bakunin is my favorite phylosopher. Try reading some of his books.  No races, no nations. Ok, I'll give Bakunin a try but he might be too extreme for a brain washed Anerican like me.

octopus-4 wrote: SteveG wrote: tszirmay wrote: Nationalism has taken on a bad reputation recently mostly fuelled by the utopist/anarchist crowd, who look to alter/erase history (not a good thing) to suit some agenda of absolute equality and purity.  In fact, there are 2 kinds of Nationalism . First, you have offensive militaristic warrior societies who want to expand their power (such as Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Soviet Russia), all have been historically condemned and rightly so.  Then you have the defensive nationalism whereby protecting your home /homeland from outside aggression is a duty (if an intruder tried to enter your home and threaten your family , would you fight back or just hope that they are "terrestrial"?) . Would you protect your home only and not your homeland ? This second group of nationalists are made famous by names such as Gandhi, Mandela, Ho Chi Minh, Levesque, Garibaldi, Bismarck, or even Tito and Castro (2 authoritarian dictators though). Making it simple when its all quite complex is a slippery slope.  I am reminded of the motto of a Swiss school I attended in the 70s: "Be proud of hour heritage but respect those of others ". That is simple.... Yes, it's impossible to say that Gandhi and Mandela are not nationists, at least it your definition of the term. I disagree about Garibaldi. His right-hand man Bixio experimented the killing of civilians decades before the nazis.

Yes, that's why I only mentioned Gandhi and Mandela in my response. The others I purposely left out.

Shadowyzard wrote: I actually don't care very much... I even have racist friends. But they are harmless, they only dislike black people. One of them likes African blacks only... The other is "allergic" (literally) to most black people, but she likes Shaquille O'Neal, and she also liked some of her black co-workers.

They would do beautifully in America.

JD wrote: Just a quick note to Shadowyzard re: his comment "it is not my duty to make the world a better place" Fair enough you feel that way, but rather than a duty don't you feel that we should all have a responsibility to try and make the world a better place?

The rest of my line means that, I believe. At least, I wanted to mean that. In politics, I'm an anarchist but I also vote and state my concerns for attaining "a better country". I'm a wizard (lol) but my only political power is my vote, and my only influence can be stating my concerns. I think this way...

SteveG wrote: Icarium wrote: It depends on what you mean but i general the term nationalist is not something you entitle yoursself; it would no look good in a jobb resume, but where on drives the line between patriotisme, nationalisme and national soisialisme/nazisme is emotionaly difficult to do. It is all about where the emphesize is; if its culturally motivate then it's ok (accordikg to Walter Benjamin) if it's used politicly motivated; than it becomes a negative (accoording to Walter Benjamin) A very good answer. I suppose many people align it into the old socialist/Nazi meaning when it's meant as an expression of patriotism. And I need to check out Walter Benjamin.

my bacground is a semi-bachelor in history and some attempts at aesthetic theory which includes some sociology about art and politics (vary neat actualy).

Based on how I understand the rize of both good and bad effects of 100 years ( between 1814 - 1900) of rize of norwegian indipendence from 450 years of union either to Denmark or Sweden) a nurturing and fertile led by idelology and renewable thoughts art, drama, litterature, music and language was hot topics locally which resulted in people like Munch, Ibsen, and Grieg. Mostly motivited by cultural growth and finding a voice and a collective story, collecting of fairytales.

Parallel to that the fear of politicized nationalisme and missuse of art as a way to sway political opinion or sway the population was being expressed in both accademic circuits im france and germany. Walter Benjamin became sort of the tragic hero to many of hes fellow Frankfurter school collegues - he wrote most of hes fears in a final essay which did not get released until after hes suicicide. Hes fear of being cought nad the distress became much worse then the fear of living life in distress and in unknowing.

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

"That in the age of mechanical reproduction and the absence of traditional and ritualistic value, the production of art would be inherently based upon the praxis of politics. Written during the Nazi regime (1933–1945) in Germany, Benjamin’s essay presents a theory of art that is “useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art” in a mass-culture society.[2]"

is a describtion of thw fear he felt was real if art and peoples expression gets misused in the power of repruduction; as a text it stil have some questioks which have relevnce today, even though also is a text out of its time.