Nationalism

[Flapjack]

Hey guys! Sorry I have not been online much! I will reply to everyone that quoted me in other threads soon:)


So this thread will be for debating nationalism!

What is your opinion of nationalism?

I think nationalism is veryyy bad! In small doses it can be okayyish? For example the Italian being proud of their glass and cars and maybe the fun banter with foreign friends but nationalism should have no serious place in politics.

It often encourages politicians to pass laws and do things for the pride of the country and not for the good of the people.

It discourages international relations.

Instead of focusing on how to improve ones own country, we should be focused on how to improve humanity as a whole.

Newsflash guys- a country is only land, with made up borders and a goverment chosen by the people to represent them. People are not worth more or less based on where they are born.

[DriveAlive]

What is wrong about being proud of your country and people?

[Flapjack]

What is wrong about being proud of your country and people?
Because that pointless pride causes harm to the country nationalists are proud of, other people in that country and often to people in other countries.

Being proud of where your born is like being proud of your sex or race. Be proud of a drawing, not land you just happen to be born into.

[Cadanance00]

Nationalism is something despots use to rally support among people who can't think any better than to believe 'those' people want to come and take what they have. They usually use it as an excuse to go and take what someone else has.

[Stronk Serb]

Hey guys! Sorry I have not been online much! I will reply to everyone that quoted me in other threads soon:)


So this thread will be for debating nationalism!

What is your opinion of nationalism?

I think nationalism is veryyy bad! In small doses it can be okayyish? For example the Italian being proud of their glass and cars and maybe the fun banter with foreign friends but nationalism should have no serious place in politics.

It often encourages politicians to pass laws and do things for the pride of the country and not for the good of the people.

It discourages international relations.

Instead of focusing on how to improve ones own country, we should be focused on how to improve humanity as a whole.

Newsflash guys- a country is only land, with made up borders and a goverment chosen by the people to represent them. People are not worth more or less based on where they are born.

Newsflash: Italy would still be separate into squabbling states if it wasn't for Italian nationalism. Borders aren't made up in Europe and most if not all of Asia. They loosely divide ethnic communities into mostly homogenous ethnic communities which makes for easier functioning of daily affairs because there is a dominant language, religion and traditions. When you get made-up borders, you get the hornet's nest called the Middle East where people slaughter eachother based on tribal, ethnic and religious differences. Nationalism united the German people which was at one time scattered in hundreds of little states, it united the Serbs, the Romanians, Greeks, Poles, the Czech... if there were no nationalism and wishes for unity of the same peoples, it would all be different. Ireland would still be under British control, Africa would still be raped by colonial powers, not to mention Asia. Without nationalism and national identity, countless cultures would cease to exist, being assimilated into other overlord cultures.

What is wrong about being proud of your country and people?

^This^

[Flapjack]

Ireland would still be under British control, Africa would still be raped by colonial powers, not to mention Asia. Without nationalism and national identity, countless cultures would cease to exist, being assimilated into other overlord cultures.

You don't have to be nationalist to want independance. If you want independance because you want to improve your standards of living that is understandable and good.

You don't need nationalism for a culture buddy.

Overload cultures? Like the nationalists in the west thinking their way is the best and trying to impose it on others.

[dxcxdzv]

Don't mix up patriotism and nationalism bruhs.

Btw I would have liked to quote Albert Einstein about nationalism but... god that's too mainstream.

I'm really not the kind of guy attached to culture, or even a piece of land.
I ain't give a damn about any state, nation, country...

But apparently one needs defined borders and culture to feel safe and happy. Too bad.

[Flapjack]

Don't mix up patriotism and nationalism bruhs.

Btw I would have liked to quote Albert Einstein about nationalism but... god that's too mainstream.

I'm really not the kind of guy attached to culture, or even a piece of land.
I ain't give a damn about any state, nation, country...

But apparently one needs defined borders and culture to feel safe and happy. Too bad.
That's how I feel:')

[Stronk Serb]

You don't have to be nationalist to want independance. If you want independance because you want to improve your standards of living that is understandable and good.

You don't need nationalism for a culture buddy.

Overload cultures? Like the nationalists in the west thinking their way is the best and trying to impose it on others.

There is a difference between nationalism and chauvinism. Chauvinism is about enforcing your nation (as in ethnic group) as dominant. Nationalism is about peaceful coexistence of different cultures and mutual respect of those differences without blending, truly celebrating the diversity. Also nationalism kept many cultures from extinction. Serbia would still be under foreign boots was it not for our nationalism. Had we accepted Islam and Catholicism, the opressor languages like German, Hungarian and Turkish, we would cease to exist as a nation. The same can be said for the Czech, Slovaks, Romanians. The constant strive to show the world that we are what we are and that we refuse to bow down. Independence and national unification was not achieved for better living, it was achieved for desire of self-governance, preservation of ways and unification with cultural brethren which are the tenets of nationalism .

Don't mix up patriotism and nationalism bruhs.

Btw I would have liked to quote Albert Einstein about nationalism but... god that's too mainstream.

I'm really not the kind of guy attached to culture, or even a piece of land.
I ain't give a damn about any state, nation, country...

But apparently one needs defined borders and culture to feel safe and happy. Too bad.

Don't mix up nationalism and chauvinism bruh

Patriotism- derived from Latin noun patria, patriae- homeland, means love for said homeland. The Cincars and the Sephardic Jews even though not Serbs, were extreme patriots and fought and bled for Serbia just like the Serbs. Same can be said for German Jews, out of all minorities in WWI, the Jews contributed the most to the war effort.

Nationalism- derived from the Latin noun natio, nationem- nation (as in people of same ethnic and cultural background) means love for said nation.

Chauvinism on the other hand is about asserting dominance of one nation over others, which is obviously bad.

[Flapjack]

Nationalism is about peaceful coexistence of different cultures and mutual respect of those differences without blending, truly celebrating the diversity.
Nationalism is about celebtating diversity? It could be argued that nationalism may not be against diversity but it certainly does not celebrate diversity!
Also nationalism kept many cultures from extinction. Serbia would still be under foreign boots was it not for our nationalism. Had we accepted Islam and Catholicism, the opressor languages like German, Hungarian and Turkish, we would cease to exist as a nation. The same can be said for the Czech, Slovaks, Romanians. The constant strive to show the world that we are what we are and that we refuse to bow down.

This idea of refusing to bow down can be a deadly and stupid one. If Belgium invaded my country and ruled it, would I care? Nope! If nazi germany invaded then of course I would care. My point is that who rules the land isn't that important. As long as they provide a decent standard of living and leave me to do my own thing, I don't care.

[Stronk Serb]

Nationalism is about celebtating diversity? It could be argued that nationalism may not be against diversity but it certainly does not celebrate diversity!

This idea of refusing to bow down can be a deadly and stupid one. If Belgium invaded my country and ruled it, would I care? Nope! If nazi germany invaded then of course I would care. My point is that who rules the land isn't that important. As long as they provide a decent standard of living and leave me to do my own thing, I don't care.

When you are opressed so much that death is preferable to a life of misery, I would beg to differ. Every people deserves their nationstate and right of self-governance. Nationalism does celebrate diversity by keeping each culture strong in it's own nation-state, not mingling otherwise incompatible cultures and causing friction. For example, the Turks love when foreigners visit, but don't like it so much when people immigrate en masse to Turkey or vice versa, the same could be said for any nation.

[Flapjack]

When you are opressed so much that death is preferable to a life of misery, I would beg to differ. Every people deserves their nationstate and right of self-governance. Nationalism does celebrate diversity by keeping each culture strong in it's own nation-state, not mingling otherwise incompatible cultures and causing friction. For example, the Turks love when foreigners visit, but don't like it so much when people immigrate en masse to Turkey or vice versa, the same could be said for any nation.
If a nation is opressed then of course they should try to become independant buddy! If I was nationalistic about my little town, should me and my fellow townsfolk get to rule it independant from the county we're in?

[Vlerchan]

I was asked recently how I managed to square both the nationalism and internationalism implicit to my thinking, and here is the response I offered in return.

Underpinning this is the argument I established about the relationship between individual and community in the Nihilism thread (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3358206&postcount=12), and adherence to the furthering of progress (which effectively refers to the expansion of global-welfare). But the defence of nationalism is derived from more anthropological observation than philosophical justification.

From the argument for a defence of community I remain open to multiple allegiances (clan-tribe, locality, empire-region, globe) but it is the nation that must necessarily be rendered dominant if the community is to be sustained*.

Familial - tribal - relations are simply untenable in the modern era. The pure-political, security-orientated relations embodied in feudal relations (bondage), fail to muster the perquisite fervour so that its component parts might be maintained**. Liberal-rights in themselves are unable to mobilise people, to sustain popular co-operation, and to otherwise secure the community as a sovereign entity in the long-run***.

It is nationalism that is capable of giving life to the community and otherwise guarding it from becoming a den of jealousies, pettiness and strife, engendering familiarity and enthusiasm amongst its members: fortifying it against threats both internal and external - and thus acting to secure the individual's contributions, and potential contributions, to progress. For that reason, the establishment of the nation-myth is justified, and the construction of the national-man in turn is necessary.

But, ultimately, self-preservation as established through the nation must be harmonised with broader global allegiances.The nation must necessarily be maintained, but occurring only insofar as it is enabling the individual to act towards progress. Thus, reflecting on ones actions (and to quote Mazzini), one must be capable of responding affirmative to the question of, “If what I am now doing were done by all men, would it be beneficial [...] to Humanity?”, regardless of what extent it might further the end of the Nation.

In essence, the nation persist to secure the individual, insofar as she might then be capable of furthering global welfare.

---

* Worth noting that this is the basis I use to render the individuals duties to his community, duties to his nation.

** Here I refer to the localities that submitted to monarchical rule so that they might survive. Self-interested localities would regularly hang each other out to dry.

*** There is no reason this need necessarily hold: but it does as for now.

It often encourages politicians to pass laws and do things for the pride of the country and not for the good of the people.
What need you, being come to sense,
But fumble in a greasy till
And add the halfpence to the pence
And prayer to shivering prayer, until
You have dried the marrow from the bone;
For men were born to pray and save:
Romantic Ireland’s dead and gone,
It’s with O’Leary in the grave.

Yeats, W. B. September 1913

It discourages international relations.
No, it doesn't.

The national in International also presumes a nation, which requires nationalism to maintain (as nationalism creates nations, and not the other way around).

Newsflash guys- a country is only land, with made up borders and a goverment chosen by the people to represent them. People are not worth more or less based on where they are born.
Nationalism celebrates the people that select the government: there commonness and generalisable qualities that allow them a coherent platform. It's a force worth contemplating both granting meaning to the pursuits of the individual - through it's valorisation of common individual life - and it's function as an organ through which the goals of humanity can be advanced.

Be proud of a drawing, not land you just happen to be born into.
My brother is a good drawer (like, actually, really good). Is it OK for me to be proud of his drawing abilities?

Furthermore, do you think you'd be the same person if not for the social setting you brought up in?

Like the nationalists in the west thinking their way is the best and trying to impose it on others.
Or the internationalists (anti-nationalists), with there human rights, liberal-democracy, and Marxism.

If I was nationalistic about my little town, should me and my fellow townsfolk get to rule it independant from the county we're in?
No. Nationalism, and not Localism or Tribalism, is historically persistent because it produces a geopolitically stable regime.

---

Italy would still be separate into squabbling states if it wasn't for Italian nationalism.
Now The regions are still squabbling though. The Italians never managed to create a truly Italian man.

What is wrong about being proud of your country and people?
Nothing necessarily.

Though it seems wise to me to contain it in a broader philosophy emphasising ones duties towards a common humanity.

Historically, it has tended to lead people astray otherwise.

[dxcxdzv]

Don't mix up nationalism and chauvinism bruh

Patriotism- derived from Latin noun patria, patriae- homeland, means love for said homeland. The Cincars and the Sephardic Jews even though not Serbs, were extreme patriots and fought and bled for Serbia just like the Serbs. Same can be said for German Jews, out of all minorities in WWI, the Jews contributed the most to the war effort.

Nationalism- derived from the Latin noun natio, nationem- nation (as in people of same ethnic and cultural background) means love for said nation.

Chauvinism on the other hand is about asserting dominance of one nation over others, which is obviously bad.
Yeah I know the meanings of each term. And I wasn't actually taxing you and all the nationalists of chauvinists.
Still the love for said nation seems slightly ridiculous to me, I understand it - to a certain extent - but I'm far from agreeing with it.
I'm not saying that we should abolish all nations or some shit like that, that would be even more ridiculous (and truly, this time).

[SethfromMI]

I think it can be used/meant for a lot of good. however, it could be used to steer for the potential of bad as well. it just depends how one tries to use it for their agenda. I think the problem is, some people do bad things, but they do it under the guise of nationalism to get people to support it, when they don't care about the nationalist aspect of it

[Stronk Serb]

If a nation is opressed then of course they should try to become independant buddy! If I was nationalistic about my little town, should me and my fellow townsfolk get to rule it independant from the county we're in?

Nationalism entails an entire nation (ethnic group), not a local community, like the example you gave.

Yeah I know the meanings of each term. And I wasn't actually taxing you and all the nationalists of chauvinists.
Still the love for said nation seems slightly ridiculous to me, I understand it - to a certain extent - but I'm far from agreeing with it.
I'm not saying that we should abolish all nations or some shit like that, that would be even more ridiculous (and truly, this time).

Well, I think it's okay to be proud on what your people contributed to the world, traditions, history and aspire to repeat the golden ages of the past. For example, you French are proud of your wine, cheese and other treats, for example. Also I guess there is pride to be had in abolition of monarchy and founding a revolutionary republic, etc. Not to mentiom French contributions to art and science. That's something to strive for. Of course, up the dose on national sentiments a bit too much and it mutates into filthy chauvinism, yuck! Moderation is key in this situation.
Vlerchan

They're squabbling over money, I think. The north got pissy because their money goes to the impoverished south. It's like that here, except the County of Belgrade contributes the most into our budget without being pissy, while the Autonomous Region of Vojvodina contributes roughly the same amount, except they get more in returns and are very pissy about some poor sods down south getting a normal road. Both give about 30-40% each, while Belgrade gets 2% of total contributions back, while Vojvodina gets far more due to it's larger size. I think both Vojvodina and some North Italian regions still have to grasp the ideas of centralization and investing into equal regional development.

[Flapjack]

Nationalism entails an entire nation (ethnic group), not a local community, like the example you gave.

What's the difference? One has more land?

[phuckphace]

everything I don't like is Hitler: the thread

[Stronk Serb]

What's the difference? One has more land?

What you described is based on some land, nationalism doesn't entail land but people of same ethnic and cultural background.

[Leprous]

TheFlapjack

I feel like you label any nationalist as racist almost insantly without actually listening to their political standpoints. Extreme nationalism is just as bad as extreme socialism aka communism.

To me socialists are far worse than the nationalists. Take a look at Belgium: the socialist party that has control in Brussels and the surrounding towns (including Molenbeek) were unwilling to admit Molenbeek had seperated itself from the rest of Belgium and turned into ISIS land. They kept believieving in their "they're just people with a different culture we should respect them" bullshit that got our airport bombed by the people in Molenbeek. I'm not saying that all Muslims are bad, but they were ignoring the already obvious problems in there.

Basicly what you are saying is that if a person loves his country and is proud of the fact they live in said country they are a bad person. Borders where made for a reason. People want to feel like they are part of something, for example a country. These borders have been around for a long ass time now.

A country is not just a piece of land, it's a place where people with the same culture and language live together, where they feel like they are part of a group.

Being proud of where you're born and live and who you are in general is only human. If you tear appart a countries nationalistic feelings and prohibit them (because that's the direction you are going in) from being proud of their country you'll only create more problems.

In my opinion socialism in it's extreme form has created more problems than nationalism has (I am against extreme left and right wings though).

If you unite everyone with no borders cultures will collide, and this is guaranteed to happen. It happened before and will keep happening. NEVER force countries to merge and take away their nationalistic pride. That is a terrible idea and will end terribly.

Right now your politcal statements are also leaning towards the extreme.

[Vlerchan]

They're squabbling over money, I think. The north got pissy because their money goes to the impoverished south.
The North-South divide is an issue too.

But there is also considerable regional cleavages that might be considered more fundamental to this - 5 regions have home-rule through the constitution.

[...] while the Autonomous Region of Vojvodina contributes roughly the same amount, except they get more in returns and are very pissy about some poor sods down south getting a normal road.
I presume this is because a large proportion of the population aren't Serbian.

To me socialists are far worse than the nationalists.
I feel I should point out that the Belgian Socialists are in fact left-liberals and the issue highlighted is multiculturalism.

Comrade Stalin would never have allowed for Molenbeek.

[Leprous]

I feel I should point out that the Belgian Socialists are in fact left-liberals and the issue highlighted is multiculturalism.

Comrade Stalin would never have allowed for Molenbeek.

It are still the socialist parties who have allowed this to happen. To be more specific the Walonian social party.

[Vlerchan]

It are still the socialist parties who have allowed this to happen.
Sure. But the point I'm making is that there is no necessary connection between the politics of Socialist Parties in Europe and historical Socialist politics. So declaring Socialism is worse than nationalism on the basis of European politics misses the issue.

Nonetheless, I digress.

[Leprous]

Sure. But the point I'm making is that there is no necessary connection between the politics of Socialist Parties in Europe and historical Socialist politics. So declaring Socialism is worse than nationalism on the basis of European politics misses the issue.

Nonetheless, I digress.

Well true but I still have my opinion when it comes to socialism in it's extreme form. It's not good for anyone.

[phuckphace]

To me socialists are far worse than the nationalists. Take a look at Belgium: the socialist party that has control in Brussels and the surrounding towns (including Molenbeek) were unwilling to admit Molenbeek had seperated itself from the rest of Belgium and turned into ISIS land. They kept believieving in their "they're just people with a different culture we should respect them" bullshit that got our airport bombed by the people in Molenbeek.

the destructive nature of Leftist politics creates nationalism tbh, especially the extreme variants

when everything's running just fine - law, order, normal people doing normal things, etc. (which necessarily requires that Leftists not be in charge) you don't find too many ultranationalist parties or discussion. it's when the distilled inanity of Leftism drains down from the cloistered (((intellectual))) class and begins to influence the public policy that affects everyday people that things start to get messy. when Leftists run things we get four-year-old trannies, bombed airports and jail sentences for saying mean things on Twitter, which is right about the time that it dawns on Average Joe that Hitler in fact did literally nothing wrong.

if Leftists didn't go full scorched-Earth/take-no-prisoners in their approach to things they don't like, there would probably not be such an extreme corresponding rightwing backlash.

[sqishy]

What is wrong about being proud of your country and people?

Not wrong if you have done something in intended advancement of the aspects of your country that you are proud of.

What I don't get though is being proud of being a citizen of a certain country, because you didn't have a choice in that. You didn't really do anything to be proud of.

[Flapjack]

Right now your politcal statements are also leaning towards the extreme.
Like?:)

[Leprous]

Like?:)

Calling out an entire group of people bad people and saying they're racists for example.

[Flapjack]

Calling out an entire group of people bad people and saying they're racists for example.
Never done that, nationalism leads to racism. Not all nationalists are racists and not all racists are nationalists.

[Stronk Serb]

Never done that, nationalism leads to racism. Not all nationalists are racists and not all racists are nationalists.

That's chauvinism. Nationalists hate that small minority of chauvinists who declare themselves as nationalists because they are the loudest and give the rest a bad name.

I presume this is because a large proportion of the population aren't Serbian.

Not really, in a majority of municipalities, the majority people are Serbs. The minorities by constitution have their own political parties which have a far lower threshold for parliamentary positions and have a designated minimal number of MPs in parliament, language taught at school and some schools offer courses in minority languages. Also the regional TV station has programmes and news in minority languages. Minority cultural traditions are allowed to be practiced freely and are usually broadcast on the regional TV programme.

[Judean Zealot]

Never done that, nationalism leads to racism. Not all nationalists are racists and not all racists are nationalists.

How is this different (truth values aside) from "Islam leads to terrorism. Not all Muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists are Muslim"?

[Flapjack]

How is this different (truth values aside) from "Islam leads to terrorism. Not all Muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists are Muslim"?
I did think this while I was writing it! It is different because my nationalism post is not encouraging racism or discrimination, but fighting against the ones doing it.

To identify as a nationalist one must be not a little proud of the stuff their country does, but very proud and would most likely thinks less of other countries etc etc

[phuckphace]

it's not censorship if it's something I disagree with

[Flapjack]

it's not censorship if it's something I disagree with
What?:') are you mocking someone or is that your serious imput?xD

[Vlerchan]

It is different because my nationalism post is not encouraging racism or discrimination, but fighting against the ones doing it.
Your intention is irrelevant. Your typical anti-Islamist could argue that he is fighting against pain and suffering in the form of terrorism.

The point remains that when it comes to Muslims you abandon the same logic you use to paint Nationalists in a bad light.

---

Please also note that I posted a thoroughly liberal defence of Nationalism (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3380094&postcount=13), that went ignored.

[Leprous]

What?:') are you mocking someone or is that your serious imput?xD

You must be incredibly ignorant.

Your definition of nationalist also makes no sense.
So if someone is proud of their country (which is nationalism in a certain degree) they are not nationalists.

If you think other countries are worth less than yours then you are one.

I'm a nationalist myself and I don't think that other countries, other cultures or other races are worth less than the one I am part of.

So according to you I will, just like all nationalists eventually become a racist? Also might I ask for you to explain a statement?

"ALL nationalists (which you have stated) think other countries are worth less but not all nationalists are racist".

Also now for something else.

If nationalist didn't excist, there wouldn't be as many people joining the army since they are not proud of their country so they do not feel the need to fight for it.

If people didn't love their countries as much, allot more people would be moving out. For example Belgium, if people didn't like living here they would probably move to let's say Norway. What the result would be is that on the long run allot of people would move out of Belgium into Norway resulting in Norway getting a very high immigration and Belgium having a decrease in natives.

Norway might not have the available work on the labor market to support all these people moving there and Belgium would have allot of jobs open. This would hurt the economy aswell.

Of course this is unlikely to happen and is just a theory in an extreme scenario but still, it shows nationalism keeps people in their countries.

[Stronk Serb]

I did think this while I was writing it! It is different because my nationalism post is not encouraging racism or discrimination, but fighting against the ones doing it.

To identify as a nationalist one must be not a little proud of the stuff their country does, but very proud and would most likely thinks less of other countries etc etc

No, chauvinists think less of other PEOPLES, not countries. Read my first or second reply on this post. I also find it hypocritical how you defend Muslims for terrorism and spit on nationalists.

[Flapjack]

You must be incredibly ignorant.

Your definition of nationalist also makes no sense.
So if someone is proud of their country (which is nationalism in a certain degree) they are not nationalists.

If you think other countries are worth less than yours then you are one.

I'm a nationalist myself and I don't think that other countries, other cultures or other races are worth less than the one I am part of.

So according to you I will, just like all nationalists eventually become a racist? Also might I ask for you to explain a statement?

"ALL nationalists (which you have stated) think other countries are worth less but not all nationalists are racist".

Also now for something else.

If nationalist didn't excist, there wouldn't be as many people joining the army since they are not proud of their country so they do not feel the need to fight for it.

If people didn't love their countries as much, allot more people would be moving out. For example Belgium, if people didn't like living here they would probably move to let's say Norway. What the result would be is that on the long run allot of people would move out of Belgium into Norway resulting in Norway getting a very high immigration and Belgium having a decrease in natives.

Norway might not have the available work on the labor market to support all these people moving there and Belgium would have allot of jobs open. This would hurt the economy aswell.

Of course this is unlikely to happen and is just a theory in an extreme scenario but still, it shows nationalism keeps people in their countries.
Maybe I should have been more clear then buddy, I have nothing against good people being proud of their country. But I do have something against the people the people that are so crazy about their country that they discriminate etc etc. I know my opinion is skewed because there was a racist fruit loop that was nationalist and was extremly racist and shared all those nationalist pages on facebook with the racist crap on them.

I also don't see the point in nationalism and when you don't see the point in something and it is causing so much harm in the world you tend to resent it:')
No, chauvinists think less of other PEOPLES, not countries. Read my first or second reply on this post. I also find it hypocritical how you defend Muslims for terrorism and spit on nationalists.

chauvinist: a person displaying aggressive or exaggerated patriotism. My understanding is that they are to nationalism what radical femisnists are to feminism.

[Leprous]

TheFlapjack I feel like you are changing your opinion every single post but that might just be me.

Good people being proud of their country can be nationalists, yet you claim that is a bad thing. Not all racists are nationalists either. You don't have to be a nationalist to be racist and the same goed the other way around.

Nationalism isn't causing harm in the world. Extremeist are. Just like socialism is. Like I said earlier the socialists have caused more damage here in Belgium than any other poliical parties combined. And the socialism I am talking about isn't even in it's extreme form. Might I ask you if you know what extreme left winged people are?

[Flapjack]

My brother is a good drawer (like, actually, really good). Is it OK for me to be proud of his drawing abilities?

Of course!:) If I was norwegian I would be proud of their new carbon neutral goal. The thing is buddy my identity is not tied to a particular nationality so when I see people getting wrapped up in their countries honour, I find it really silly! For example, Russia cutting every branch of the goverment apart from the military. The people of russia do not benefit from this and it is not like Russia needs the extra military power.

Furthermore, do you think you'd be the same person if not for the social setting you brought up in? Nope:)

Nationalism isn't causing harm in the world. Extremeist are.
Yeah I completely agree with this buddy!!:)

I do see why you think my opinion is changing my friend, I am not used to debating stuff! I will try to be more careful in what I say:)

Might I ask you if you know what extreme left winged people are?
Yeahhh communists or animal right activists that kill people 'cos people kill animals, there are fruit loops everywhere:)

[Leprous]

Of course!:) If I was norwegian I would be proud of their new carbon neutral goal. The thing is buddy my identity is not tied to a particular nationality so when I see people getting wrapped up in their countries honour, I find it really silly! For example, Russia cutting every branch of the goverment apart from the military. The people of russia do not benefit from this and it is not like Russia needs the extra military power.

Nope:)

Yeah I completely agree with this buddy!!:)

I do see why you think my opinion is changing my friend, I am not used to debating stuff! I will try to be more careful in what I say:)


Yeahhh communists or animal right activists that kill people 'cos people kill animals, there are fruit loops everywhere:)

I don't think communists are the same as animal right activists but okay.

I find it weird how you suddenly agree that not all nationalists are bad because that's what you thought at the start of this thread.

[Flapjack]

I don't think communists are the same as animal right activists but okay.
Not do I! I am an animal rights activist and kinda a socialist:') I was saying that at the far left there is all sorts of crazy.


I find it weird how you suddenly agree that not all nationalists are bad because that's what you thought at the start of this thread.
*Goes and checks my OP*
I stand by my OP, might have made my feelings a little more clear but it's all good.

[Leprous]

Not do I! I am an animal rights activist and kinda a socialist:') I was saying that at the far left there is all sorts of crazy.


*Goes and checks my OP*
I stand by my OP, might have made my feelings a little more clear but it's all good.

I wouldn't call you 'kinda' a socialist but a complete one. To be honest you didn't make them more clear but only more confusing.

[Flapjack]

I wouldn't call you 'kinda' a socialist but a complete one.
Why do you think that? I'm curious why people think stuff about meXD
To be honest you didn't make them more clear but only more confusing.
I know buddyxD Imma be more clear in the future don't worry:)

[Leprous]

Why do you think that? I'm curious why people think stuff about meXD

I know buddyxD Imma be more clear in the future don't worry:)

Since you believe in the good of humanity more than realising that sometimes there are people you cannot threat as equals because of what they have done.

[Stronk Serb]

My understanding is that they are to nationalism what radical femisnists are to feminism.

Well, your understanding of said topic is pretty flawed. Nationalism means love and pride for one's people, while chauvinism entails self-percieved superiority to other peoples and aims to enforce it.

[Vlerchan]

If I was norwegian I would be proud of their new carbon neutral goal. The thing is buddy my identity is not tied to a particular nationality so when I see people getting wrapped up in their countries honour, I find it really silly!
OK. Then you can agree that it is correct for people to care - approve of - the character of their own nation.

Furthermore, even if you don't consider your nation your primary identifier - out of interest, what is it? - it's clear from the preceding statement, that you are at least to some extent concerned with nobility.

Nope
Then surely you see the natural relationship between pride in yourself, and pride in the social forces that bequeathed you, i.e., your nation.

For example, Russia cutting every branch of the goverment apart from the military. The people of russia do not benefit from this and it is not like Russia needs the extra military power
Russia isn't a nation state, it's a federation built on roughly the same lines as Imperial Russia. It's defence spending is also required in order to maintain the campaigns it runs with reference to Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East and Mediterranean.

You might find competition in the international arena counter-productive, or silly, but no actual state does, which is the reason military spending exists.

Since you believe in the good of humanity more than realising that sometimes there are people you cannot threat as equals because of what they have done.
I agree with this statement, since I don't figure they are mutually exclusive.

I'm also not a socialist.

I'm a nationalist myself and I don't think that other countries, other cultures or other races are worth less than the one I am part of.
You figure that the culture in Saudi Arabia is the equivalent to Flemish culture?

I also presume you're a Flemish nationalists, since there's no such thing as Belgians (other than Phillipe and, perhaps, Kompany).

If people didn't love their countries as much, allot more people would be moving out.
This claim is highly dubious. In the United States, geographical mobility remains strikingly low, because people prefer to remain close to their friends and families. It has little to do with love for their nation.

This would hurt the economy aswell.
In the long-run, where there was no restriction on labour mobility, we would see the most efficient placement of labour, which would be socially optimal for both Belgians and Norwegians.

There might be some frictions in the short-run, but what you described really would be pretty good for any with a reasonable sense of time-preference.

[Flapjack]

Since you believe in the good of humanity more than realising that sometimes there are people you cannot threat as equals because of what they have done.
Interesting, I always thought it was the capitalists that belived in the good of humanity too much as they believe corperations can self regulate and often insist there is no need for trade unions.

I am kinda a socialist buddy, I want stuff like the justice system (inc. prisions), the military and healthcare to be state owned but tech and furnature companies to be privetly owned, with regulation:)
------------------------------------------------------------
Vlerchan (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=89715)- I am crazy tired, thanks for the reply but it is very tired and I love how thought provoking it is but I need sleepxD I will reply tomorrow:)

[Vlerchan]

Vlerchan- I am crazy tired, thanks for the reply but it is very tired and I love how thought provoking it is but I need sleepxD I will reply tomorrow
No problem, take whatever time you need.

:)

[Leprous]

OK. Then you can agree that it is correct for people to care - approve of - the character of their own nation.

Furthermore, even if you don't consider your nation your primary identifier - out of interest, what is it? - it's clear from the preceding statement, that you are at least to some extent concerned with nobility.


Then surely you see the natural relationship between pride in yourself, and pride in the social forces that bequeathed you, i.e., your nation.


Russia isn't a nation state, it's a federation built on roughly the same lines as Imperial Russia. It's defence spending is also required in order to maintain the campaigns it runs with reference to Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East and Mediterranean.

You might find competition in the international arena counter-productive, or silly, but no actual state does, which is the reason military spending exists.


I agree with this statement, since I don't figure they are mutually exclusive.

I'm also not a socialist.


You figure that the culture in Saudi Arabia is the equivalent to Flemish culture?

I also presume you're a Flemish nationalists, since there's no such thing as Belgians (other than Phillipe and, perhaps, Kompany).


This claim is highly dubious. In the United States, geographical mobility remains strikingly low, because people prefer to remain close to their friends and families. It has little to do with love for their nation.


In the long-run, where there was no restriction on labour mobility, we would see the most efficient placement of labour, which would be socially optimal for both Belgians and Norwegians.

There might be some frictions in the short-run, but what you described really would be pretty good for any with a reasonable sense of time-preference.

Yes I am a Flemish nationalist, I'm also supporter of the split if Flanders and Wallonia.

As you said, where there is no restriction on labour mobility. I also said how highly unlikely it would be so yeah.