Being a nationalist is not wrong, or racist for the fact.
Nowadays I see that whenever the term nationalist is used, the terms racist and bigot are also thrown around in the same cesspool.
definition of a "nationalist": (of google)
a person who advocates political independence for a country.
Why does it make someone racist to show more support to their own country than any other country? Actually, I'll use myself and Britain as an example:
Why is it racist for me to show more respect and support towards my own country? It gives me all the basic standards I need, and education, and health care, so why would I be racist if I support my country?
And yes, it means that I would care less about any other country in the world. Which is true, but it still does not make me racist, and I don't see how. Those other countries didn't give me health care, nor did they give me education. The only things we get from other countries are imports, but we payed for them.
If you think being a nationalist is racist, go ahead, say it, but give me a good explanation.
I'll just post this without the use of anon. If me being a nationalist means there's going to be hatred towards me, go ahead. I don't care.
definition of a "nationalist": (of google)
a person who advocates political independence for a country.
Why does it make someone racist to show more support to their own country than any other country? Actually, I'll use myself and Britain as an example:
Why is it racist for me to show more respect and support towards my own country? It gives me all the basic standards I need, and education, and health care, so why would I be racist if I support my country?
And yes, it means that I would care less about any other country in the world. Which is true, but it still does not make me racist, and I don't see how. Those other countries didn't give me health care, nor did they give me education. The only things we get from other countries are imports, but we payed for them.
If you think being a nationalist is racist, go ahead, say it, but give me a good explanation.
I'll just post this without the use of anon. If me being a nationalist means there's going to be hatred towards me, go ahead. I don't care.
I think for most people that see 'nationalist' as pejorative, the problem tends to come with the latter part of the second aspect of the definition, which you curiously omitted; viz., 'a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others' (also taken from Google, but the OED provides a similar list of definitions if anyone cares to look).
The thing with the latter part of that is that there is a tendency (but not a necessary link, I hasten to add) for this assumed superiority to manifest as prejudice (on different scales), which is obviously not an attractive trait to a great many people.
So yeah, I agree that it's not necessarily a negative thing, but there are instances where it certainly is. As for why the association of the word is now generally negative, I'm not quite sure.
The thing with the latter part of that is that there is a tendency (but not a necessary link, I hasten to add) for this assumed superiority to manifest as prejudice (on different scales), which is obviously not an attractive trait to a great many people.
So yeah, I agree that it's not necessarily a negative thing, but there are instances where it certainly is. As for why the association of the word is now generally negative, I'm not quite sure.
nationalism as a concept is a good thing.
In fact its absolutely necessary for the survival of a country. You can widen that to any group structure.. a group will only survive against opposition from opposing groups if the members of the group are willing to place the groups interest above that of other groups.
But here's the problem: Nationalism only works with clear defined countries, boarders and national identities. It works exceptionally well to strengthen and bring together a country in times of crisis, especially when there is a clear adversary or opposition (out group).
It doesn't however work well with our modern society because we are pushing and pushing to remove the importance of, and distinctions between, nations. Mass immigration, re-defining what nationality means to the masses, more cooperation then ever before, international business pushing for all countries to function the same to generate bigger universal market places.. heck everything is coming together. Fashion sense, architecture, art, music, all are becoming globalised, rather then distinctly nationalised.
I live in a highly nationalistic country (China) - people here love their country, view it with pride.. they would die for their country. Trust me, if WW3 ever broke out, China will be fine. They have a populous who believe in their society and a government who will happily and willingly prioritise its citizens and way of life above all else. Compare that to the Uk. How many citizens would die for the UK? How many value its culture and heritage so strongly that they would fight willingly for the love of it? Given the amount of young/middle age people who can't even identify what their own culture is, I would be willing to bet the number is small.
That's the problem with nationalisation though - its useful im times of conflict and struggle.. but in peace time its almost irrelevant in the modern world. It pushes against the entire direction that our society and the world is moving in, and it draws a very very blurry line between pride and racism/discrimination. After all you cant prioritise one group, without also disadvantaging another proportionally.
In the end nationalism will die completely. Is that a good thing? well - yes if you like peace and a lack of conflict. But be aware that the price you will pay for it will be national identities. We are a long way into a natural evolution away from unique nations and towards unified and uniform states, and its not going to stop now. You will gain peace, harmony, and equality.. but you will loose diversity of culture, custom, tradition, and eventually (a long way down the line) language.
In fact its absolutely necessary for the survival of a country. You can widen that to any group structure.. a group will only survive against opposition from opposing groups if the members of the group are willing to place the groups interest above that of other groups.
But here's the problem: Nationalism only works with clear defined countries, boarders and national identities. It works exceptionally well to strengthen and bring together a country in times of crisis, especially when there is a clear adversary or opposition (out group).
It doesn't however work well with our modern society because we are pushing and pushing to remove the importance of, and distinctions between, nations. Mass immigration, re-defining what nationality means to the masses, more cooperation then ever before, international business pushing for all countries to function the same to generate bigger universal market places.. heck everything is coming together. Fashion sense, architecture, art, music, all are becoming globalised, rather then distinctly nationalised.
I live in a highly nationalistic country (China) - people here love their country, view it with pride.. they would die for their country. Trust me, if WW3 ever broke out, China will be fine. They have a populous who believe in their society and a government who will happily and willingly prioritise its citizens and way of life above all else. Compare that to the Uk. How many citizens would die for the UK? How many value its culture and heritage so strongly that they would fight willingly for the love of it? Given the amount of young/middle age people who can't even identify what their own culture is, I would be willing to bet the number is small.
That's the problem with nationalisation though - its useful im times of conflict and struggle.. but in peace time its almost irrelevant in the modern world. It pushes against the entire direction that our society and the world is moving in, and it draws a very very blurry line between pride and racism/discrimination. After all you cant prioritise one group, without also disadvantaging another proportionally.
In the end nationalism will die completely. Is that a good thing? well - yes if you like peace and a lack of conflict. But be aware that the price you will pay for it will be national identities. We are a long way into a natural evolution away from unique nations and towards unified and uniform states, and its not going to stop now. You will gain peace, harmony, and equality.. but you will loose diversity of culture, custom, tradition, and eventually (a long way down the line) language.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??
- could someone mark this politics edexcel alevel essay please?
- Political Quiz: Are you a fascist?
- Medical Universities in Poland
- House contract - advice
- OMG is this for real? TV in the 70s was sooo racist
- UCL vs KCL racism
- Michelle O’Neil becomes the first nationalist First Minister in Northern Ireland
- Hi
- how horrible can a policeman be?
- I've found St Andrews to be a racist university
- Kamala Harris is the Democrat VP pick
- Was I being rude or was the person being racist?
- Michaela School: Muslim student loses prayer ban challenge
- Racism
- BBC: Tory donor accused of racist remarks about Diane Abbott
- Any primary sources that show nationalism was the main cause of the First World War?
- superpower relations question
- The north of England should separate from the south
- Gcse english speaking
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UKTrending
Last reply 4 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UK
