Absurdity of Nationalism

Post Reply New Topic

You know what frustrates me about heritage is when heck are we going to be able to say "My heritage is American"?

I am a "native" American, but not a "Native American".

My family goes back to the Colonial days. I really don't care where they came from before that. There's been like a dozen generations since then. Yet when it comes time to put my heritage somewhere, there's no option for Caucasian American. There's the differentiation between European countries and then Native American.

In fact, I had an assignment in 3rd grade or so to ask my parents what my heritage was. My dad's answer was "Heinz 57."

We have such a huge thing with American patriotism, yet we have to continue to differentiate between where our families originally came from. Well my family is American and has been for a long time.

Okay, let me be clear. I considered myself to be a Nationalist. I believe that my country should remain independent and free from outside rule. I believe that my country should concentrate on internal issues. I believe that all people, regardless of race, disability,etc, should be treated as equals, but that my country should concentrate on it's own citizens, because they are most able to understand the problems they face and how to solve them. I am against warfare, except in self-defense, and I am against expansionist policies, as that would be imperialism. I tolerate other peoples views, but I am against them forcing their ideas on me, especially if that leads to harm.

And, also, all ideologies can lead to a form of extremism. Nationalism is no exception, but that does not mean that you should consider all Nationalists to be extremists.

Fascism and Nationalism are not the same. You should not assume that all nationlists are fascist, the same way you should not assume that all liberals are communists.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Okay, now that you've clarified, you must keep in mind nationalism has an implied reputation of nastiness.

You seem to have your own definition of it that you apply to yourself and others who think like you do. Keep in mind that not everyone has the same definition of nationalism. And yes, many nationalists are actually fascists under another name.

I know all that, I just wanted to make sure that you did.

To quote "Father Ted": "I'm not a fascist. Fascists dress in black and go around telling people what to do, whereas priests ... more drink!"
(Sorry, slightly off-topic joke.)

Does it have a great meaning how people classify your point of view?
And about your off-topic joke: that's exactly what I'm talking about, it's all just labels. And people often give names judging by appearance and behaviour, but not having read any scientific book.

Advice for ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo: read a book on political regimes. There you'll find concrete definitions for them

Why read a "scientific book" when there's history that tells you?

I'm feeling pouncy today

When it comes to politics, yes. These political labels are useful as a kind of shorthand so that people can discuss politics easily. Of course peoples opinions are a lot more complicated than that. It is impotant to properly define these labels though. I dislike having my opinions compared to, say, Mussolini's when it isn't true.

All history is written by winners I think it's not a crime to read everything you can get, even if it comes opposite your own opinion. I just try to learn all historical sources I can get.

Last edited by Chaotica on 15 Aug 2008, 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sometimes history is written based on the evidence at hand. And if you have read any science books you know scientific theory is based on evidence.

The truth is on the surface. Digging too deep can bury the truth. I prefer to read documentary literature and agree/disagree with the author then. I have formed my own point of view - and I think it's good. Evidence is what you can see yourself, but not what had happened a hundred years ago.

That sounds like a good form of nationalism and if only countries like the US and Russia actually did only act within their own borders.

But unfortunately this is generally not the case as highly nationalistic people seem to think that their love of their country seems to force them to impose their ideals on other countries whether they like it or not. Democracy cannot be forced on people.

As for me, democracy is too close to anarchy, but more intelligent

I favour anarchy actually. I don't see the need for nations any more, we are all citizens of earth after all.

Yes, it gets a lot more complicated when people can't decide on where or what their country actually is. And extremists are always willing to exploit that.

those other nations didn't claim they were beacons of democracy and liberty while doing that, the US has a unique position of doing that. Jefferson talking about liberty when owning black slaves; and the hipocrisy blatant until the 1960s and even after then..