 Originally Posted by Xei
I guess nationalism is pretty much always bad. It's what a person turns to when they don't have many personal achievements to their name. Nationalism allows you to feel responsible for the achievements of people who really had nothing to do with you. The most benign effect is to make somebody obnoxious... at worst it can make somebody violent.
I have to disagree. I don't think nationalism is inherently good or bad in and of itself - it's a neutral concept like capitalism, communism, etc - how it is applied is what matters. I think there's two ways of going about it - unflinching support for your government regardless of the circumstances, or a deep devotion to your people and their shared ideals.
 Originally Posted by Voldmer
In its essence (as I view it), nationalism is a grouping together of people, with fairly sharply drawn lines between the various groups. Within the groups there is a feeling of "we're something special - we are more like each other in here, than we are like the others out there".
I think this grouping happens automatically and is inevitable, even though there are obvious similarities across neighbour groups. I also don't think this is a bad thing.
What is bad, is when the members of a group, through political power and control, are manipulated into feelings of disdain, or even hatred, towards members of the other groups. This has generally been used as a way of bringing on war between neighbouring groups.
 Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Unconditional nationalism can be extremely dangerous. It is exactly what allows large militaries to fight for sick causes. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany are good examples of that. Nationalism can be good when a military is on the right side because it allows a military to gladly take orders and fight hard without questioning every detail of what they are fighting for, but that is a horrible situation when the military is fighting for an evil cause.
^ This brand of nationalism is obviously disastrous in the long run and has no place in the modern world. But...
 Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I am nationalistic to a certain extent because I live in my country and care about it. I am very dedicated to it. However, I am not unconditionally dedicated to my government. I criticize it on a regular basis, though I agree with a whole lot of what it does and am glad we have it. Just like with a friend or a relative, if my government is wrong, I say it is. I don't automatically side with my government against factions of the people or against other nations just because it's my government. I always side with whom I perceive to be the good guys. Always.
I think we have an excellent Constitution, and I am very dedicated to it. When my government goes against the Constitution, I side with the Constitution.
... this brand of nationalism serves a vital function. If the nationalist operates with the citizenry's best interests at heart (as opposed to their government's best interests), they're compelled to hold their government to a higher standard and flex their democratic muscles if/when that system puts personal profit above the people at large.
-------
 Originally Posted by Random Guy On The Internet
"I remember Gord Downie of The Tragically Hip once talking about the New Canadian Nationalism. This must have been around 2004-2006. It was about the things we identify with as Canadians, whether they are completely accurate, fair, or not. As a 28-year old, I grew up in a time when Canadians according to polls most associated their identities with Health Care, Peacekeeping, and Hockey. Underneath all that, their was a belief in multiculturalism, tolerance, liberalism, modesty, and I believe being a microcosm of what the world should be.
I always believed that Canada was, in contrast to America, the truer experiment in globalization. We were bringing together many different cultures. Beginning with French, English, and Aboriginal cultures, we strove to create an ever-changing cultural mosaic. Unlike America whose melting pot forced everyone to be American and whose foreign policy forced the rest of the world to benefit America, Canada didnt try to change anyone into a Canadian: we would meet them halfway by changing ourselves into something newer and inviting them to change as well.
On the international stage, we werent striving for our interests; we were peace-brokers, trying to have our citizens home countries live in harmony like their peoples were already doing in Canada.
Like all nationalisms or national-myths, this one isnt exactly accurate and can be heavily criticized. But it was a good myth to try and live up to. Being a New Canadian Nationalist, to me, was being someone who strove to advance these ideals.
I still try my best to be polite, sensitive, worldly, and knowledgeable when I travel around the world in my own contribution to this cause. But Canada today, with multiple election victories for Stephen Harper, isnt that Canada anymore. We arent seen in the same way. And we need to take responsibility for that as a nation. I think we will become that progressive, idealistic, modest, and sensitive Canada once again, but for now the New Canadian Nationalism is on the ropes. Its just plain ol literal nationalism, like Mike is talking about. And it makes me ashamed of Canada, even though Im still proud to be Canadian."
How Canadian identity has changed and what it means for our future | National Post
I think there's a lot of potential in this brand of nationalism - it encourages the citizenry to:
A) live up to an certain standard (an admirable one at that)
B) protect a specific system of thought (ie. beliefs, principles, ideals, culture) from outside influence
C) protect the economy from outside influence
D) protect the government itself from outside influence
D) *other stuff that'll have to be edited in later* >_> <_<
|
|
Bookmarks