Why do people have national feelings?

Post Reply New Topic

Every time I approach a forigner with a political question or facts about the political situation in his home country, I'm getting an enemy instead of a friend.

I do not understand why people are so strongly bound to their country.

I do not understand it, because when other people tell me about the problems in my home country (Denmark), I understand it fully and agree with them. For instance, when Amnesty International has critisized Denmark for the use of police brutality, I see nothing wrong in it. And I'd be glad to exchange political and cultural experiences with forigners.

When I have met singaporeans on the internet, one of the first things I do is to address the political situation in Singapore. So, I ask them about governmental censorship, the death penalty and caning.
And then they somewhat freak out and tell me to stick to my own country.

Why?

We are talking about humans. It doesn't matter where humans are being abused, be it Singapore or Denmark or on the moon.

To me, nationality means absolutely nothing.

Denmark... that is just where I live. I consider myself a citizen of Earth, and I consider everybody to be citizens of earth, and not in their respective countries. Nations mean nothing. Citizens mean everything.

i think this topic rules, first of all people always feel the need to belong to something thats better than everyone else. this has been going on probably since weve had brains. second i agree "love for country" while its OK to do that, some people take it to the flipping extreme, especially people that wear usa flag t-shirts.

People covet what they know. The manifestation of nationalism is relatively fluid in comparison to affiliation with, say, ethnicity, family, region, tribe, socio-economic strata, sports team, etc.

just on a side note: gobi - nationalism doesnt have anything to do with feelings towards ones own nation. nationalism is a political point of view that endorses existence of single, independent nations as opposed to large, transnational composites or conglomerates. nationalism is the opposite of imperialism. what you likely mean is national chauvinism - the idea that ones own nation is qualitatively better than other nations.

on topic: i guess its something about that horde instinct in people/nts.

I wouldn't say what they know, like gobi did because it isn't a matter of knowledge necessarily so much as identity. However, he is right that it is similar to family, sports team, region, religion, etc.

Really, it wouldn't surprise me if Singapore is especially nationalistic either as asians have a greater communal mindset than westerners so talking negatively about their nation could be more comparable to insulting their mom who they really love or something. I believe that Chinese people are also very very nationalistic as well.

Most people don't share your strong internationalist belief though and that must be recognized. They break up the world into groups.

That could certainly be an acceptable definition, but common usage (in English) of the term "nationalism" is synonymous with national chauvinism. I don't think the original poster indicates that they're talking about the definition you've provided, so I'm going to guess that they're using the commonly understood meaning.

It's about what they think they know ("My country, right or wrong") and not any kind of objective knowledge. I'm also inclined to think that nationalists know even less about other nations/cultures/tribes, other than "They are different."

"My country, right or wrong" is not a statement of knowledge or lack thereof in any way shape or form. It is a statement of loyalty. It is like saying me saying "I will stand by my son no matter what". That does not claim I don't know my son, but rather that I stand by him no matter the circumstance.

That depends on whether or not you make a fair sampling, patriots are more common in less knowledgeable people but a lot of that is owing to conventionality. To be honest though, intelligent nationalists do exist so to claim that all nationalists must be lacking in knowledge seems false. Nationalism is a philosophical position that simply makes a distinction between those inside the group and those outside based upon common allegiance. I would not be surprised if those holding this philosophical position would be less interested in other cultures than others, and more apt to disbelieve negative things heard about their nation, however, the variable is the nationalism in my mind more so than the knowledge which is more likely the response.

Charles de Gaulle said "Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first." I agree whole heartedly. There is nothing wrong with loving one's county, but it should be based on more then a reactionary identification with the Volk. It should be based upon principles. Indeed, it is possible to love one's country so much to have no choice but to fight against it's sitting government in wartime, and speak against it in exile. But that does not make one not a patriot.

I reject the idea of being a "citizen of the world" because I don't believe it really stands for anything other then rejection of national sovereignty. I am disturbed how many people who claim to be internationalists who stand up for the horribly corrupt, inept and dictator supporting UN on the grounds it somehow is a step in the right direction towards a world government. I have same view of the transformation of the EU from an economic body to a political one.

I guess my meaning isn't coming across. When I'm saying "know," I mean something akin to familiarity, perhaps through proximity or repetition. I don't have any deep understanding of, say, my immediate family or anything about them (interests, aspirations, values) beyond superficialities. But I "know" their superficialities, having seen then frequently for a number of years and likely, outside of the Aspie community, it would be understood that I "know" them. I'm loyal to them when I perceive a threat, just as I'd be bothered by an "outsider" sports team beating my local team. I have a personal loyalty hierarchy based on other things I know: my local area, my professional community, my company and the people that work for it, and my favorite sports team. If I were into organized religion, that would fall in there someplace too. I can't absorb every detail of everything on every subject, so I have to be selective. Of course, with things I'm confronted with every day in my environment, I can gain some level of knowledge/"familiarity" just by seeing it every day. I notice changes and I notice the introduction of things that are unfamiliar (--meaning, I don't "know" them).

The "My country, right or wrong" issue is linked (at least in my mind) because of this last point -- I'm feel a degree of loyalty to my country because it's what I "know." And this isn't in some sort of academic sense, but as a kind of familiarity, understanding of expectations, and comfort level. This feeling can vary a great deal, based on what's going on at a particular time. Likewise, things outside this hierarchy are unfamiliar. I'm not going to learn about them except through concentrated study, and even with that, there's always going to be a disconnect. You can learn a foreign language from a book, but you don't really "know" it until you apply it in conversation with native speakers. This, I think, addresses and mirrors some of the points in your second paragraph. I'm not saying "nationalists lack knowledge." I'm merely saying that we have an affinity for the things close to us -- and when this individual affinity is raised to the national-level, we see "nationalism."

Sorry about the length and/or incoherence.

Well, being who I am; I've got zero loyalty for anyone other than those who've earned it. I look at everyone through suspicious eyes....

I'm a citizen of freaking existence and life.

Last edited by Danielismyname on 25 May 2007, 2:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

people covet what they see, not necassary what they know.
I know this to be true because Hannibal Lecter said so in Silence of the Lambs.

It's just something that bindes the "tribes or bands" together. There are still nations with very strong tribal bonds, but they needed a national front to keep from getting swallowed. The feelings that come along with the nation pride, well that milage varies, a lot.

Pretty much sums up my views, too. My country of origin (particularly my hometown) is home in a way I don't think any other place will ever be, not because it's the greatest place on Earth but because that's where I grew up. That doesn't mean I don't see all the many things that are wrong with the place. I used to be very nationalistic but my country disappointed me.
I can't see how anyone could read about how the UN actually behaved in the Balkans and not despise it.

And I don't think it is merely a matter of familiarity but rather of loyalty to a group. Perhaps if you mean familiarity as being a part of identity I can understand that, however, to be loyal to something you don't have to know it necessarily. I don't see it as a position of knowledge/familiarity so much as perhaps a feeling of obligation or a recognition that a group that one is a part of as good ideas. I tend to not think of it as a familiarity model though.
I don't think it is based upon knowledge necessarily, unless one would argue that soldiers by going to other nations become less patriotic by their nature. Now I think we might be talking past each other in terms of part of it perhaps, I know that I consider nationalism to be a philosophical position even though for many it is derived from an emotion, I would more likely describe the notion to be one of identity though.
Meh, whatever.

Exactly what I'm getting at. It is part of identity -- you don't have to know the details, but you have to know of it, and you have to know that you're a part of it. Whether that's "familiarity" or "knowing" or "self-identity," no one is going to be loyal to something completely disconnected. It might be a chicken/egg problem, but there is a point of entry with any facet of self-identification and I'm going to guess that no one feels loyalty to something they no nothing about.



Talking past each other? On the Internet??? Impossible!



Well, some people are pretty sensitive about lengthy responses. I know you're not one of 'em, but you never can be sure.