Nationalism

[NATI BENGALS]

I am a nationalist because my country stands for everything that is just and right in this world. We respect all people. We are a melting pot. It doesnt matter what you are or where you came from you have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And we do those things better than any other country.

And we will beat your ass if you disagree.

[Dill]

(11-02-2018, 10:34 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I am a nationalist because my country stands for everything that is just and right in this world. We respect all people. We are a melting pot. It doesnt matter what you are or where you came from you have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And we do those things better than any other country.

And we will beat your ass if you disagree.

You could be a patriot.

[fredtoast]

(11-02-2018, 08:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fred, please don't make the first attack and then play the victim.  I have again underlined the section you included, that was not part of my OP, that brought the discussion to this point.  

That section had nothing to do with the question I asked.  All I used was YOUR OWN definition and your own admission that you were a nationalist.

So lets try again. Since you are a nationalist who supports "placing primary emphasis on promotion of our culture"  how do you define that culture?  This is the point where a lot of people have trouble with the term "Nationalist" because many people think our culture in the United States is white Judeo Christian and should not include Mexicans or Muslims.

In order for me to know if I agree with your position as a nationalist I need to know how you define the culture you want to preserve.  Since Trump has been known to assert negative lies about Mexican immigrants ("They are not sending YOU.  They are sending the worst") and Muslims ("I watched in Jersey city when thousands and thousands of people were cheering when the towers fell.") many people see him as the type of "nationalist" who believes in only a white JudeoChristian culture here in the United States.

[Dill]

The cultural question addresses an intensifying factor in nationalism.

But I would like to expand the scope of the discussion as well. What do people think of the growing nationalism in other countries? E.g. Brazil, the Philippines, Hungary, Russia, Japan, Turkey, France, Greece and Germany for example--what might be the consequences for international order?

Are these folks just pleased with their own nation, as Mike and Nati seem to be? Or is something else going on? Seems to me the nationalist governments and parties in the above-named countries trend authoritarian.

Could the rise of nationalism be a response to global stessors like refugees and migration? Those plus lower wages and shrinking safety nets?

[Belsnickel]

(11-05-2018, 06:42 PM)Dill Wrote: The cultural question addresses an intensifying factor in nationalism.

But I would like to expand the scope of the discussion as well. What do people think of the growing nationalism in other countries? E.g. Brazil, the Philippines, Hungary, Russia, Japan, Turkey, France, Greece and Germany for example--what might be the consequences for international order?

Are these folks just pleased with their own nation, as Mike and Nati seem to be? Or is something else going on? Seems to me the nationalist governments and parties in the above-named countries trend authoritarian.

Could the rise of nationalism be a response to global stessors like refugees and migration? Those plus lower wages and shrinking safety nets?

Dill, it seems to be that you might be suggesting that the rise in nationalism we see today may be of a similar nature to a rise in nationalism that was seen almost a century ago.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-05-2018, 06:42 PM)Dill Wrote: The cultural question addresses an intensifying factor in nationalism.

But I would like to expand the scope of the discussion as well. What do people think of the growing nationalism in other countries? E.g. Brazil, the Philippines, Hungary, Russia, Japan, Turkey, France, Greece and Germany for example--what might be the consequences for international order?

Are these folks just pleased with their own nation, as Mike and Nati seem to be? Or is something else going on? Seems to me the nationalist governments and parties in the above-named countries trend authoritarian.

Could the rise of nationalism be a response to global stessors like refugees and migration? Those plus lower wages and shrinking safety nets?

What the hell are they all prideful about?  We could kick all their asses. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-05-2018, 12:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That section had nothing to do with the question I asked.  All I used was YOUR OWN definition and your own admission that you were a nationalist.

So lets try again. Since you are a nationalist who supports "placing primary emphasis on promotion of our culture"  how do you define that culture?  This is the point where a lot of people have trouble with the term "Nationalist" because many people think our culture in the United States is white Judeo Christian and should not include Mexicans or Muslims.

In order for me to know if I agree with your position as a nationalist I need to know how you define the culture you want to preserve.  Since Trump has been known to assert negative lies about Mexican immigrants ("They are not sending YOU.  They are sending the worst") and Muslims ("I watched in Jersey city when thousands and thousands of people were cheering when the towers fell.") many people see him as the type of "nationalist" who believes in only a white JudeoChristian culture here in the United States.

I see you dropped the "belief in a common ancestry" after I called you out for trying to surreptitiously make it seem like that was a point I was making.  Given your rather childish attempt to frame my statements as something other than given I won't be entertaining your thoughts or questions on this matter.  Pro tip, if you want to have an adult conversation don't deliberately misstate the views of others or add provocative language to their statements.  Much appreciated.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-02-2018, 09:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Since we mostly agreed beyond this one, I am just going to focus here. You seem to be misunderstanding my point. When I refer to the zero-sum approach it isn't saying that promoting our own interests first is a bad idea. What the zero-sum approach is about is that you approach the situation with a desire to win at the expense of others and making them losers. It comes from the idea that there is a finite amount of something and your goal is to have it all. The zero-sum approach is something that anyone with any experience in foreign policy will tell you is harmful to our relationships with other nations. So much of diplomacy is trying to find a win-win scenario. Sure, that isn't always possible and sometimes things are lopsided even when they are, but when you enter the negotiations with the zero-sum approach you aren't even trying to reach that point.

I said as much in the statement you responded to.  Even so, the US government should always be looking for maximum benefit for the US.  As I said, we get a 1,000 and you get 1 is not a desirable outcome.   

Quote:I think there is concern over the use of that word because of its historical connotations as well as the groups in modern times that use the word in the US primarily. Nationalism has often been a tool of autocrats in history, and when you look at some of Trump's tendencies, that can cause some people to be concerned. We are talking about someone who said recently that he believes he can unilaterally overturn a constitutional amendment, after all. In modern usage, nationalism is something that isn't embraced much in the US except by certain fringe groups, like white nationalists. These happen to be a major part of Trump's base.

So Trump referring to himself as a nationalist could cause people to be concerned because of either the historical usage or because they see it as a signal of support to the white nationalists that he has referred to as having "good people" among them, already.

Seeing as how Trump gets compared to Hitler on a near daily basis I don't know how much credence we should put into the concerns of people like that.  Words have a meaning, they are clearly defined.  While I agree that Nationalism is a step up from patriotism it is in no way comparable, as defined, to racial superiority or fascism.

[Benton]

(11-05-2018, 11:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I said as much in the statement you responded to.  Even so, the US government should always be looking for maximum benefit for the US.  As I said, we get a 1,000 and you get 1 is not a desirable outcome.   



Seeing as how Trump gets compared to Hitler on a near daily basis I don't know how much credence we should put into the concerns of people like that.  Words have a meaning, they are clearly defined.  While I agree that Nationalism is a step up from patriotism it is in no way comparable, as defined, to racial superiority or fascism.

In regard to trump, he wasn't a fan of executive authority and then bam, he thinks he can Chuck out parts of the Constitution. He's not Hitler, but he's definitely an authoritarian. And, historically, they don't care much about your rights. 

[Dill]

(11-05-2018, 06:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Dill, it seems to be that you might be suggesting that the rise in nationalism we see today may be of a similar nature to a rise in nationalism that was seen almost a century ago.

Well, somewhat similar. History never repeats itself. Or if it does, then, as Marx said, the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce.

I am concerned about the breakdown of the liberal international order. Not that it was ever fully in place or without problems, but it did take universal human rights as a premise for international law. It did, at times, punish rogue behavior, and perhaps prevented some as well. It enabled an expanding cosmopolitan culture which I have much appreciated. I know you'll remind me that order has also enabled a global, neoliberal redistribution of wealth between as well as within countries, of which neither of us is fond.  But there have been no wars between "great powers" for 70+ years now, no world wars. And that was not by accident--NATO, the UN, IMF, the EU--all these organizations have had a stabilizing effect on a chaotic world, collectively addressing problems like nuclear proliferation, climate change, and (spottily) genocide and terrorism. The majority of people/nations wanted that peace and stability.

Now I see that liberal order challenged by an emerging one premised, not on universal human rights, but on defending majoritarian power and ethnically defined "civilization(s)." So I am concerned that, as in the '30s, an increasing number of countries turns autocratic, while others who might curb their excesses tend to isolationism (a return to isolationism in the U.S. case).  I don't see how that can end well, given the current economic interdependence of nations, and given the logic of illiberal governance, which pushes autocratic nations into conflict and violent resolution. Add nuclear proliferation to that anxiety.

NB: In this global context then, "nationalism" would be one of those forces breaking up the old order--at work in the U.S. as well other countries. Some dictatorships have put other countries first in the sense the dictator may sell national assets to foreigners at the expense of his own people. But I doubt that the leaders of any liberal democracy have ever put the interests of any other nation above their own. So in the case of liberal democracies, when we see people putting "Britain first" or "taking their country back," at stake is a certain (usually illiberal) definition of the country/nation. When there is enough "buy in" from the populace, that is scary.

[fredtoast]

(11-05-2018, 11:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I see you dropped the "belief in a common ancestry" after I called you out for trying to surreptitiously make it seem like that was a point I was making.

I never dropped anything.  I even posted direct quotes so that everyone can see that I am not twisting your words in any way.

Here is your definition of Nationalism

(11-02-2018, 01:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Definition of nationalism
1 : loyalty and devotion to a nation
especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.

Here is the question I asked

(11-02-2018, 01:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Since you are a nationalist who supports "placing primary emphasis on promotion of our culture" how do you define that culture?  Is it a welcoming "melting pot" or is it "white Christian"?

You can not blame your refusal to answer on my twisting or adding to your words because I have provided direct quotes to show that I have not done anything like that.  My question was 100% based on the definition that you yourself posted.

BTW thanks for the tips on how to have an adult conversation.  I believe an adult would answer a question based on his own definition, don't you?

[GMDino]

Again I'll ask:  Does anyone really believe Trump was sticking to the dictionary definition?  Or that he know the dictionary definition?  Or he's ever used a dictionary?

[Belsnickel]

(11-05-2018, 11:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Seeing as how Trump gets compared to Hitler on a near daily basis I don't know how much credence we should put into the concerns of people like that.  Words have a meaning, they are clearly defined.  While I agree that Nationalism is a step up from patriotism it is in no way comparable, as defined, to racial superiority or fascism.

Actually, it is, specifically with regards to racial superiority. Nationalism is national superiority. If it were an SAT question you would see Racism : Race :: Nationalism : Nationality. It is the belief that one nation is superior and others inferior, which is the same as racism just with race in the place of nation.

[Dill]

(11-06-2018, 04:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, it is, specifically with regards to racial superiority. Nationalism is national superiority. If it were an SAT question you would see Racism : Race :: Nationalism : Nationality. It is the belief that one nation is superior and others inferior, which is the same as racism just with race in the place of nation.

That's also why nationalism (not simply patriotism or love of one's own country) tends towards the illiberal, contesting or outright rejecting the premise of universal human rights. 

Offhand I cannot think of an historical exception to this tendency. Guess it depends on how you gloss "superiority." 

I'm open to correction if someone can supply counter-examples.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-02-2018, 01:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared, social characteristics, such as culture and language, religion and politics, and a belief in a common ancestry." 

Despite Fred protesting his ignorance, the underlined is what he added that he now claims he has no idea what was added.  Not part of my original statement, not my point of view, nothing to do with what I said.  typical Fred adding things no one but he said to try and paint his opponents as something they are not.

(11-06-2018, 01:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I never dropped anything.

Lie

Quote:  I even posted direct quotes so that everyone can see that I am not twisting your words in any way.

Here is your definition of Nationalism


Here is the question I asked


You can not blame your refusal to answer on my twisting or adding to your words because I have provided direct quotes to show that I have not done anything like that.  My question was 100% based on the definition that you yourself posted.

BTW thanks for the tips on how to have an adult conversation.  I believe an adult would answer a question based on his own definition, don't you?

I showed above exactly why you're considering the biggest word twister and spreader of blatant falsehoods.  You're dishonest even for a lawyer.  It boggles the mind that anyone actually defends this type of behavior from you.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-06-2018, 04:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, it is, specifically with regards to racial superiority. Nationalism is national superiority. If it were an SAT question you would see Racism : Race :: Nationalism : Nationality. It is the belief that one nation is superior and others inferior, which is the same as racism just with race in the place of nation.

Is it a direct comparison, because the definition quoted in the OP does not lend itself to your analogy?  Again, I'm getting a distinct vibe of redefining a word because we want to not because the word is actually defined that way.

[Belsnickel]

(11-06-2018, 07:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Is it a direct comparison, because the definition quoted in the OP does not lend itself to your analogy?  Again, I'm getting a distinct vibe of redefining a word because we want to not because the word is actually defined that way.

It is a direct comparison. The site from where you obtained the definition discusses this attitude of superiority. In the definition you copied it even discusses the exalting of the nation, which also falls into that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-06-2018, 08:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It is a direct comparison. The site from where you obtained the definition discusses this attitude of superiority. In the definition you copied it even discusses the exalting of the nation, which also falls into that.

Except racism also clearly carries with it a dislike or hatred of those outside your race.  While nationalism certainly carries the idea of one's nation to be superior to others it does not include a hatred, or even dislike, of other nations.  As hatred towards others is so paramount to the idea of racism, as it's the very first definition of the word, it is absolutely a poor comparison.  For it to be a direct comparison there must be continuity of belief, there is no such continuity in your comparison.  One can believe one's culture superior without believing all others are garbage or that they must be denigrated or disliked.

I'll make a direct comparison, you can loathe the nation of Saudi Arabia and not loathe the people that comprise it.

[Belsnickel]

(11-06-2018, 08:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except racism also clearly carries with it a dislike or hatred of those outside your race.  While nationalism certainly carries the idea of one's nation to be superior to others it does not include a hatred, or even dislike, of other nations.  As hatred towards others is so paramount to the idea of racism, as it's the very first definition of the word, it is absolutely a poor comparison.  For it to be a direct comparison there must be continuity of belief, there is no such continuity in your comparison.  One can believe one's culture superior without believing all others are garbage or that they must be denigrated or disliked.

I'll make a direct comparison, you can loathe the nation of Saudi Arabia and not loathe the people that comprise it.

Is it really that paramount? That isn't a part of the definition at all from Webster's, which is where you retrieved the definition of nationalism. I'm still holding that min eis a direct comparison as hatred/dislike is not necessary for racism. The key component of racism is the belief of superiority.

Addition: It's also not a part of any definition I've ever seen of racism from a reputable source. Speaking from the social sciences, racism absolutely does not require dislike or hatred.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-06-2018, 08:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Is it really that paramount? That isn't a part of the definition at all from Webster's, which is where you retrieved the definition of nationalism. I'm still holding that min eis a direct comparison as hatred/dislike is not necessary for racism. The key component of racism is the belief of superiority.

Touche on the Webster's definition, I have to concede that.  I suppose we are now in the murky waters of semantics.