Does Nationalism excuse ones behaviour?

[AshtonBlack]

Just because we're all forced to coexist on the same latitude, share common last names, language and face whatever our forebears left us to deal with, that surely doesn't make me feel proud, more critical and guilty, in many instances.

Again? What the fuck?
I already explained that innate National pride doesn't make sense, and than national pride only makes sense when it's rationally based on something. Why the fuck do people keep not getting this extremely simple point?

If everyone is not getiing it, YOU are not explaining it right, perhaps?

[CJ]

Just because we're all forced to coexist on the same latitude, share common last names, language and face whatever our forebears left us to deal with, that surely doesn't make me feel proud, more critical and guilty, in many instances.

Again? What the fuck?
I already explained that innate National pride doesn't make sense, and than national pride only makes sense when it's rationally based on something. Why the fuck do people keep not getting this extremely simple point?

Then presumably ryokan is agreeing with the first element of your point. As she hasn't addressed your second point directly why do you assume she does not agree with it? On what evidence do you base the assertion 'Why the fuck do people keep not getting this extremely simple point?' You are not the only person with a brain around here but you definitely behave as though you think you are.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I see that no-one has responded to my post, so that must mean I'm right by default, because no-one has refuted my argument.

I WIN!!!

Did you respond to mine?

No, because if you mean the post after mine, and before the childish inter-county pissing contests, then I mostly agree with it.

I see that no-one has responded to my post, so that must mean I'm right by default, because no-one has refuted my argument.

I WIN!!!

You can't "win" around here this is rationalia we just derail your furry ass

Not an image I want, thanks.

Well, mrenutt4, that did sound a lot like something else, so eww. Are you sure that you aren't secretly turned on by Syrup Kitty, my Avatar, and are thus transferring it onto me?

Your argument about group behaviour and association with the place and way in which you were brought up is valid up to a point. However, it could be used equally to describe people that are brought up as christians, moslems, racists or cannibals.

You are conflating personal choice with automatic associations. Fail. Just because humans sometimes make bad decisions in relating to certain things doesn't mean they should all be personally isolationist nihilists.

such as... oh yes, those Quebecois again! "They are not a nation." There is a fatuous statement IMO.

Complete bullshit. Quebec is an absorbed colony. You might want to base your posts on some vague sense of historical perspective. Fail.

I don't believe that I was being fatuous. You could also extend it in another direction to include more parochial nationalism, What does that mean except to say that their arbitrary slab of land mass is not afforded the same status as Canada by an equally arbitrary group of humans that decide such things.

So you agree with Henry Ford, then, and think that "History is bunk"? I have absolutely no idea how you write off all historical developments and social trends as "arbitrary", and think that everything in history is completely relative and unrelated to anything else. Is this some strange strain of Nihilism? Because I honestly have no idea where you're pulling all this weird stuff out from.

What I do not do is hold up my country as intrinsically 'better' than any other simply because I live there.

EPIC FAIL. I already mentioned the difference between chosen associations and automatic associations. For example, I could never say that I'm proud of Canada's mountains, because they have nothing to do with anything cultural. On the other hand, I can be proud of Canada's achievements in Hockey. But some people don't care for hockey. That's why it's called a chosen association.

Cherry picking my arguments and responding to selected ones out of context and out of sequence does not a win make.

You DID NOT CHOOSE to be born Canadian, or to be brought up there and immersed in its culture. That you choose to remain there once you were old enough to decide was of course your choice but that doesn't make you in any way responsible for any of Canada's achievements. To the best of my knowledge, you do not play for the Canadian hockey team - so their achievements are not yours in any way. There is nothing wrong with supporting a local or national team and delighting in their victories and bemoaning their defeats. There is everything wrong with claiming pride in their achievements - delight sure - pride no. This is the part of my argument that I don't think you get.

You are lucky enough to live in a country with a liberal attitude and a reasonable standard of living (OK, no summer - but hey...) and you are right to consider yourself lucky for doing so. IMO though, you are dead wrong for considering yourself special for being so lucky. There are many people born in shit-hole countries that will never have the chance to be Canadian - calling it a conscious choice is disingenuous.

You are also wrong in taking a slight against your country as a personal insult. As with all such statements, they should be judged on merit and argued against logically and not using emotive, nationalistic rhetoric.

[Transgirlofnofaith]

Just because we're all forced to coexist on the same latitude, share common last names, language and face whatever our forebears left us to deal with, that surely doesn't make me feel proud, more critical and guilty, in many instances.

Again? What the fuck?
I already explained that innate National pride doesn't make sense, and than national pride only makes sense when it's rationally based on something. Why the fuck do people keep not getting this extremely simple point?

If everyone is not getiing it, YOU are not explaining it right, perhaps?

Well, I have explained it clearly. Over the span of several posts.

As she hasn't addressed your second point directly why do you assume she does not agree with it?

Well, because that pretty much blows the shit out of the argument that nationalism is bad just because you are born in a certain place and can't control where you came out of your mother, which is what it seems that others on this thread were arguing.

You are not the only person with a brain around here but you definitely behave as though you think you are.

I take exception to bad logic, or a lack of logic wherever i find it. That doesn't mean that I'm being personally hostile. I get upset when people repeat the same things after I have debunked them. I don't see what's so wrong with that. The underlined is completely absurd and an ad hom and a strawman, and you should apologise. As a mod, you should know better, CJ.

To the best of my knowledge, you do not play for the Canadian hockey team - so their achievements are not yours in any way. There is nothing wrong with supporting a local or national team and delighting in their victories and bemoaning their defeats. There is everything wrong with claiming pride in their achievements - delight sure - pride no. This is the part of my argument that I don't think you get.

I do understand what you're trying to say. It just doesn't make any sense. It is a basic aspect of Human nature and society to claim pride on behalf of something, stupid as our selections in these things sometimes are. This is because when someone joins a group, they take on to a degree the aspects of that group's identity, such as it's achievements. For example, I can't draw worth shit, but I'm proud to be part of the Furry community because we have what I consider to be a great appreciation for art. This is because I am identifying with the group's aesthetic tastes, because I am part of that group and taken on that identification, and vicariously accept their achievements as in some small way being my own, without claiming that I have done those achievements myself. This is a basic feature of tribalism, which is a normal part of Human Nature, and that is why I am so bewildered that you don't look at it that way.

[Beelzebub2]

Just because we're all forced to coexist on the same latitude, share common last names, language and face whatever our forebears left us to deal with, that surely doesn't make me feel proud, more critical and guilty, in many instances.

Again? What the fuck?
I already explained that innate National pride doesn't make sense, and that national pride only makes sense when it's rationally based on something. Why the fuck do people keep not getting this extremely simple point?

Who says I was talking to you anyway? I was expressing my opinion about nationality in general, and not once have I mentioned you, or quoted you or anyone else for that matter.

This isn't your thread, in fact one of the mods has started it, and not every post is a response to your post - there were at least ten people contributing (in either way) to this thread.

[Transgirlofnofaith]

Who says I was talking to you anyway? I was expressing my opinion about nationality in general, and not once have I mentioned you, or quoted you or anyone else for that matter.

This isn't your thread, in fact one of the mods has started it, and not every post is a response to your post - there were at least ten people contributing (in either way) to this thread.

Well, if three people give the same argument, then I respond to the argument of all three at once, because it's the same argument. I just assumed that everyone here had read all of the posts, and that this is one big conversation, not several isolated ones in the same thread. And yes, there were some posts that weren't addressed to me. Like the county argument. That is why I didn't respond to them, because I wasn't involved with that argument.

[Beelzebub2]

Who says I was talking to you anyway? I was expressing my opinion about nationality in general, and not once have I mentioned you, or quoted you or anyone else for that matter.

This isn't your thread, in fact one of the mods has started it, and not every post is a response to your post - there were at least ten people contributing (in either way) to this thread.

Well, if three people give the same argument, then I respond to the argument of all three at once, because it's the same argument. I just assumed that everyone here had read all of the posts, and that this is one big conversation, not several isolated ones in the same thread. And yes, there were some posts that weren't addressed to me. Like the county argument. That is why I didn't respond to them, because I wasn't involved with that argument.

Well, not everything is about you, or your opinions - I would have said the same regardless of what you or anyone else has said about this subject. And yes, I have read all the posts so far.

[Transgirlofnofaith]

Well, not everything is about you, or your opinions -

Well, duh. And I just said as much in the post you quoted. What the hell is with you today?

I would have said the same regardless of what you or anyone else has said about this subject.

Well, that's fascinating, but people post in threads for a discussion, not as just a one-off statement of opinion unrelated to everything else. Not everything is about you, or your opinions.

[Beelzebub2]

If you think that by merely repeating what I have said you're making a point, you're wrong. I stated my opinion which wasn't in relation to yours or anyone else's, but in relation to the subject of the thread. Or I don't have the right to do so?

You are generalizing and projecting - people post to state their opinion just as well as to discuss.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

To the best of my knowledge, you do not play for the Canadian hockey team - so their achievements are not yours in any way. There is nothing wrong with supporting a local or national team and delighting in their victories and bemoaning their defeats. There is everything wrong with claiming pride in their achievements - delight sure - pride no. This is the part of my argument that I don't think you get.

I do understand what you're trying to say. It just doesn't make any sense. It is a basic aspect of Human nature and society to claim pride on behalf of something, stupid as our selections in these things sometimes are. This is because when someone joins a group, they take on to a degree the aspects of that group's identity, such as it's achievements. For example, I can't draw worth shit, but I'm proud to be part of the Furry community because we have what I consider to be a great appreciation for art. This is because I am identifying with the group's aesthetic tastes, because I am part of that group and taken on that identification, and vicariously accept their achievements as in some small way being my own, without claiming that I have done those achievements myself. This is a basic feature of tribalism, which is a normal part of Human Nature, and that is why I am so bewildered that you don't look at it that way.

My emphasis.

You claim to understand what I am saying but defend it on the grounds that is is a fundamental part of human nature to associate oneself with a 'group' or 'tribe' and to take pride in its achievements.

You continue to defend this despite admitting that this is often stupid behaviour.

You have once again presented an argument for any form of tribalistic behaviour.

Wouldn't you defend Aryan supremacists as readily? Surely they are only identifying themselves with a group - stupidly so in most opinions? Your claims of great achievements by Canadians - which you use to justify your nationalism - are directly analogous to the claims of great achievements by Aryans used by the nazis. What difference does it make that your tribalism is delimited by geographical boundaries and not racial ones? I can't see a valid distinction. Both are accidents of birth.

I admit that tribalism is a natural part of human nature. It was undoubtedly very valuable in evolutionary terms when the planet was sparsely populated by warring tribes competing for the same resources. My argument is that we should be able to recognise our nationalistic, racist and similar impulses as a throwback to a harsher time - not something that is relevant in today's global, multi-cultural society. In exactly the same way as the tribal war gods of Arab goat-herders no longer have a place.

[CJ]

Sort of moved things around a bit.

You are not the only person with a brain around here but you definitely behave as though you think you are.

The underlined is completely absurd and an ad hom and a strawman, and you should apologise. As a mod, you should know better, CJ.

I have nothing to apologise for, not according to your rules of engagement, you feel free to express antagonistic comments about other members all the time, kitchen > heat > leave. And IMO you DO behave in an absurdly arrogant manner and one which is quite unnecessary and unacceptable on this forum. If you don't like my opinion feel totally free to ignore it.

I take exception to bad logic, or a lack of logic wherever i find it.

Fine. So what?

That doesn't mean that I'm being personally hostile.

IMO you almost always get personally hostile, carefully within the rules, but none the less you use bullying tactics and rarely 'discuss' anything. You state your opinion and rant at anybody who fails to agree with it, you behave like a bully.

I get upset when people repeat the same things after I have debunked them.

Yet you continue to comment on things that you disagree with WTF! One rule for you and a different one for everybody else? If one does not agree with you are they only allowed to express that disagreement once. I'd love to see you abide by that rule.

I don't see what's so wrong with that.

Overbearing arrogance, hypocrisy, selfishness, bad manners? I'm sure I could go on but that would be the way you sometimes behave.

If it appears I don't like your behaviour on this forum that is exactly the point I am trying to make. I am being absolutly honest with you. I feel the quality of your arguments is done no service whatsoever by the manner in which you deliver them. I of course have every right to express my opinions about your behaviour and you of course are perfectly free to ignore those opinions.

Regards
Chris

[Clinton Huxley]

Is it an argument? Is it a meta-argument? No, it's just a bit meh.....

[Transgirlofnofaith]

You have once again presented an argument for any form of tribalistic behaviour.

Complete and absolute nonsense. I have provided an explanation for why tribalistic behaviour occurs, not a blanket endorsement of any kind of it. I have no idea how you go from A to sea urchin unless you are being dleiberately obtuse.

Wouldn't you defend Aryan supremacists as readily? Surely they are only identifying themselves with a group - stupidly so in most opinions? Your claims of great achievements by Canadians - which you use to justify your nationalism - are directly analogous to the claims of great achievements by Aryans used by the nazis.

Now, I'd rather not have to say this, Xamonas, but that really is spectacularly absurd. Canada isn't based on a cult of racial superiority, apocalyptic destruction of supposed undesireable elements, extreme central governmental control, and bloody military conquest. That is just such a fucking stupid comparison that you should apologise to the Canadians on this board for that slanderous comparison. Yes, nationalism can be a source of great stupidity and evil. So can kitchen knives. The possible negative aspects of each are directed by conscious choice. Now, you're a smart guy generally, Xamonas, and I like you most of the time, so I'd really rather not be this hard on you, but this Canada-Nazis comparison is bunk on an industrial scale, and it is extremely insulting and offensive. You don't pull out the N-word unless it's for good reason, not as some petty rabbit-out-of-the-hat-trick to win some bizarre argument about how people shouldn't have group identity.

What difference does it make that your tribalism is delimited by geographical boundaries and not racial ones?

Because my tribalism isn't based on the Fraser river or Baffin Island. It's about the sociological construct that inhabits the area containing those things, not the area itself.

My argument is that we should be able to recognise our nationalistic, racist and similar impulses as a throwback to a harsher time - not something that is relevant in today's global, multi-cultural society. In exactly the same way as the tribal war gods of Arab goat-herders no longer have a place.

You mention society, but society is itself a kind of tribalism, in how it is composed of different parts, eg. teachers, etc, and how the society of any particular country relates to the outside world. It matters how that tribalism is expressed, but if we reject tribalism or herd it in somehow, as you seem to be saying, then how can we even have society?

You offer the typical horror stories in any lay criticism of Nationalism, but it isn't all extremes. I love Canada, and I think it's the best country in the world in a lot of ways, but I wouldn't say that it's somehow more deserving than other countries, or that Canadians are inherently or always better than people in other countries. And I readily admit it's pretty fucking far from perfect. I don't think of it as some Idol to be mindlessly worshipped. I could only ever believe in a reasoned, civil Nationalism, and I abhor jingoism as an automatic and unthinking reflex, and the impulse to sneer at other people from other places on the broadest basis. Now that doesn't mean we can't take the piss out of each other on other issues, but when we use it as an opportunity to beat up on others for no real reason I think that's disgusting. Hence the post that started this thread, but that was a reaction to what I considered a rude thing to say, and mainly a joke, said to explain that I take offense at that kind of thing.

And for the record, I think that if we have some out of this century pretty well as a civilization(the whole world), we will have resolved to a high degree most of the problems that will have been a possible source of conflict and bloodshed, and nationalism will by then be irrelevant. Until then, however, I will settle for us Canadians celebrating and being proud of our heritage and achievements, and acting with reason, justice, and mutual deserved repect between Nations on the world stage.

[klr]

...

And referring back to the OP - how would you feel, MonF, if some Quebecois came and planted your teeth in your brain for your comments about 'his' slice of 'your' country? Just asking.

Then he'd be a psychotic and out of touch with reality, for the same reason as why your usage of this potential occurence is absurd in this context. I can describe it in five words: Quebec is not a nation.

Neither was Ireland 100 years ago, or East Timor even 10 years ago (even though it tried to declare it's independence back in 1975). The political map of Europe is very different to what it was just 20 years ago, and unrecognisable to what was there at the beginning of the 20th century. As for Africa and Asia ...

[RPizzle]

I see that I have an uncanny ability to break threads. I guess due to that fact I should clarify my position. This is not a response to any posts on this thread at the moment, merely an explanation of my views. I have no intention to offend, but I am laying things flat out. Also, you'll have to forgive me because my thought processes tend to be fairly non-linear and I can sometimes be unclear. Feel free to ask if you need an explanation on a point.

I have to say that this issue is one which does bring up a fair amount of emotion to me. In my view nationalism is destroying my country. I consider myself Anti-nationalist.

I was born in America simply by chance.

I would say that I am happy to be American. I'm grateful for the freedoms and oppurtunities that come with such a title. Comparatively few are as lucky as I have been, simply based on the hands that were dealt. However, I am not proud to be an American. I know this may sound like mincing words, but to me pride is something that you take after expending effort. One would be proud of earning a promotion, achievement, or a job well done. To me, being proud to be an American is synonymous with being proud to have blue eyes. Granted, I have blue eyes, and blue eyes are totally better than brown eyes and green eyes. Why? Because they are blue.

That last line was partially a joke, but also partially true. Why is America better than all other countries? That's the rub, just because. I can give a myriad of reasons that the locals would use, we have democracy, the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, press, and the like. We also have oppressive family values, positively reinforced by the mainstream of society. These things however, are all social constructs. One who is inundated with such things for all of their life will at one point view everything from the lens of their surroundings. However, one must be careful to not overvalue their own judgments based on such a construct.

Nationalism is equally dangerous as religion. It bypasses reason and rewards conformity. In my own country we have had panels destroy lives for the appearance of being un-American. In fact, we have sitting senators who would like to examine the statements and voting records of members of our Congress to determine if they are pro or anti-American. I will use a real-life example from some rednecks I know. I asked them what they thought about Obama. Obviously, they were against him (because they are racists and conservative Republicans). I asked them what they would think about a Japanese American or Indian American becoming President. They found that a far more terrible option, because at least blacks were American. As long as the in-group nationalistic bias remains...they will never be considered true Americans (even if they are 3rd or 4th generation).

While we try to purify ourselves internally, we extrapolate these ideals to be used to Americanize the outside world. The Korean and Vietnam Wars, and our current meddling in the Middle East, are partially predicated on spreading America's value of democracy to everybody. If they like it good, if not that's just too damn bad, because America's nationalism > everyone else. Much as religion creates sheep using an appeal to authority, nationalism creates sheep using an appeal to in-group conformity.

Religiosity and nationalism are one and the same. God and the Flag, Priests and Congressmen. It is simply another layer of control by different means. You must believe in [insert point] to believe in God. You must believe in [insert point] to believe in America. In the past we sent our sons to die for God, now we send them to die for a flag. All of this is completely and utterly arbitrary.

I understand I am using my country as the largest portion of my discussion. This is because my lens is best focused on what I know best. It would probably be fair to take much of this text and insert various country names without changing the purpose. If I were born in the Middle East, this could be Egypt or Iran. If I were born in Europe, France or England. If I were born in Asia, China or Japan. If these instances were the case, then I'd also probably be a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, or Shinto. These beliefs would be entirely based on my birth environment.

Again, I'm happy to be America...but I'm far from proud.