GameBanshee Forums

Posted: **Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:03 am**

It's the Swedish national day today. I've been having a discussion with a friend about nationalism. We are not very well versed in the subject, though, so I thought to ask for you opinions.

1) How would you define nationalism?
2) How has it manifested itself during history?
3) Is it of good or of bad?

Posted: **Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:13 am**

Quite the topic there, Astafas

people identifying themselves with their nation.
tough to answer. When driven too far, I would say "war" is the obvious result.
I think it's neither good or bad, as long as it's not driven too far. In that case, the word "chauvinism" is used. E.g. the French have on several occasions been accused of being chauvinists (no offense to any French members).

Posted: **Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:21 am**

Hey this is an excellent pre-cursor to a thread i wanted to start, on which is more important nationalism or doing the right thing with reference to pakistan and india or any war type situation.

Now for your questions:

1. Where you identify with a single nation state.

2. If in balance it can be a good thing. However the idiot that you can't say anything against your country in the name of nationalism is stupid. Or that you can't say anything good about your enemy for nationalism is another example.

3. Various ways, during colonial times, armed struggle. Present times, through discussions, protests etc. However I feel the time for nationalism has really come to end, with the whole globalization thing and the fact that humanitarian values are taking precedence over national rights and soveriengty.

Posted: **Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:23 am**

1) Nationalism is taking pride in one's country. It is different from ethnic pride because national boundaries may include more than one cultural, religious or racial group. It transcends people's individual differences and causes them to rally behind a single flag.

2) This is a big can of worms. Basically, anyone who calls people together under a single banner that covers a large geographic region can be considered a nationalist.

3) Both.

Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist more than he was a communist. He wanted to be free of the French colonials so during the Second World War, he went to the American OSS (Office of Strategic Services, the precursor to the CIA) and asked for help. They gave him help fighting the Japanese, but after the war, the Americans needed the help of the French in Europe so they turned Ho away. So he went to the Chinese (and later the Soviets) for help. They gave him ideological "training" as well as guns, so he aligned with them, but he would have been just as happy to receive American's patronage. Was nationalism bad in Vietnam? It depends on who you ask.

Adolf Hitler was also a nationalist. In an era when Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles stripped Germany of their pride and forced them to accept blame for the First World War, Hitler restored that pride by making Germans feel good about themselves. He had to step on some toes (millions of them, in fact), but when Hitler came to power, it was the first time in over a decade that Germans felt they could be proud of themselves.

Another nationalist was Ronald Reagan. The former president made people feel good about being Americans and told us what we wanted to hear. That's why Republicans harp on him being the "great communicator" when he actually spent the country way into debt and wasn't half as good a president as they would have you believe. After the Vietnam era, Reagan made it okay to be proud to be an American again.

So is nationalism good or bad? I depends on how it is used. At its best, nationalist leaders make us proud of the things we do and help us put our collective best foot forward. At its worst, nationalism convinces us that we are better than those around us and leads to intolerance and destruction by easily manipulating our pride and ego.

Posted: **Thu Jun 06, 2002 9:36 pm**

Nationalism is....

damn you HLD, you took everything I wanted to say...

Page didnt load when I clicked reply.

Posted: **Thu Jun 06, 2002 11:17 pm**

Originally posted by Astafas
It's the Swedish national day today. I've been having a discussion with a friend about nationalism. We are not very well versed in the subject, though, so I thought to ask for you opinions.

1) How would you define nationalism?
2) How has it manifested itself during history?
3) Is it of good or of bad?

1. Love and pride for one's flag and country. This would be best describe as doing something that is good or deemed best for one's flag without having to unwarrantly stepping on other nation states or ethnic/minority groups.

2. (among others that were mentioned)Glorifying one's country with pride through excellent performances in international competitions and conferences. Revolt against colonial masters. Taking centerstage on achievements only few (if none at all) countries can be proud of.

3. I think the bad form of nationalism is best described as "fundamentalistic fanatics."

Posted: **Fri Jun 07, 2002 2:16 am**

3. It's only good in games, like the world cup right now. Otherwise, it gives a lot of troubles...

Posted: **Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:46 am**

Originally posted by Obsidian
damn you HLD, you took everything I wanted to say...

All part of the plot . . . muwhahahahahahaha!

Posted: **Fri Jun 07, 2002 8:11 am**

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Adolf Hitler was also a nationalist. In an era when Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles stripped Germany of their pride and forced them to accept blame for the First World War, Hitler restored that pride by making Germans feel good about themselves. He had to step on some toes (millions of them, in fact), but when Hitler came to power, it was the first time in over a decade that Germans felt they could be proud of themselves.

Seems i am chasing you around today HLD

...one of the problems for Germany was how well established they were previous to the wars, they had one of the greatest artistic societies, many famous actors came out of Germany, they were some of the first people to dabble in cinema (silent thought it might have been) This in my opinion precipitated how badly the war hurt Germany, by stripping away everything they basically made a perfect pedestal for someone to rise up...

Onto the vamphirric lawyer's questions

1) Nationalism: Having a form of pride in ones country.
2) Manifistation: I think it is difficult to give one example, as HLD points out in his concise examples it is defined by the effect of what is done, not necessarily the theory of nationality. There is also a smaller less discussed effect of nationalism, effecting the people at a grass roots level causing the NP of most countries gaining votes, which is just not right.
3) I think it is (in most situations) bad, it leads to a feeling of isolation and also a greater degree of segregation, one has to have a national identity but not to the point of discrimination.

Posted: **Fri Jun 07, 2002 8:29 am**

Seems i am chasing you around today HLD ...one of the problems for Germany was how well established they were previous to the wars, they had one of the greatest artistic societies, many famous actors came out of Germany, they were some of the first people to dabble in cinema (silent thought it might have been) This in my opinion precipitated how badly the war hurt Germany, by stripping away everything they basically made a perfect pedestal for someone to rise up...

@Sleep, it can be argued (and has been, quite successfully) that Germany's greatest artistic period bar none occurred right *between* the wars, when their economy and nationalistic spirit was crushed; definitely not before. For instance, German cinema before WW I was largely nowhere--the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is notable for its cubist backdrops, but as *cinema* it's frankly garbage, a full decade behind the development of film language in Sweden, Denmarik, the US, France, impoverished Russia and even conservative Britain. After WWI, the German film studio Ufa became not merely the prototype for big studios everywhere, but also the proving ground of literally more than 70% of the talent that would operate behind the scenes making American films after Hitler's rise to power. Hollywood films in the 1930's look like German films in the 1920s with sound, precisely because they were being made by Germans (and Austrians, Hungarians, etc). The German film industry of the late teens and 1920s had nothing in common with earlier German films, which were barely fit for home consumption.

This analogy can be extended to the other arts, but I just wanted to make the point since you brought up cinema that Germany actually peaked artistically during its period of greatest disillusionment and hardship.

Posted: **Fri Jun 07, 2002 8:40 am**

@fable:
Perhaps this is because they were looking for any way to restore some of the pride that had been stripped from them. Hitler was elected because he was advocating something similar to "Germany for the Germans".

The old Confederacy also received a hard settlement after the Civil War and many people feel that if Lincoln had lived Recontruction would have been far more lenient than it had been after Andrew Johnson installed military governors in the 11 secession states. Because of the harsh terms imposed during the military occupation and a stripping of "southern pride", there are people throughout the deep south who are still reliving the war, almost 140 years after it ended.

Nationalism is often a collective banner that manipulative leaders use to disguise other problems. We see this in things like anti-immigration attitudes; we allow ourselves to become convinced that all of "those damned foreign immigrants" are the source of our problems and that if we shut our borders and leave "America for the Americans" that everything would go back to the way it was. Of course, this is absolute hogwash and it is the use of nationalism for its most insidious purposes.

Posted: **Fri Jun 07, 2002 8:43 am**

I think we also should ask;

Is it rational to be nationalistic?

We cant really say yes or no to that until we determine the concept a bit more.
Astafas and others said it had to do with taking pride in your country.
I dont think that is the whole story but its a place to start.

So is it rational to be proud of the actions of your country if you had nothing to do with those actions?

I dont think it is rational to have a feeling of pride in such a case. Its like the people that sit and watch the football in front of their telly and then say if the side they support win - "I am proud to be ****". Why should he have the right to be proud, all he did was to sit on his fat arse.

Take the case of a man that can only save one of his two children in a burning house. He might feel terrible guilt but the feeling, however real, is irrational.
Just as the man cannot rationally feel guilty that he didn’t save both his children so a man cannot rationally feel pride over actions he had nothing to do with.
You might say - I am just proud to be *****. While it might be true you feel this way its not clear that you are rational in doing so, after all its not like you had a choice in where you were born (you might well however feel lucky for growing up in a rich country).

But there is more to nationalism than just a feeling of pride. Surely there is also an element of supporting your nation over others.
But this seems to me both morally wrong and dangerous (as history has shown it to be).

Lets say however that you consciously decide that you will support your country whether its doing something morally wrong or right.
Surely this cant be a morally good attitude to have - I mean we would not accept this if we scaled it down to say neighbourhood size - what ever criminal activities my neighbourhood gets up to I will support it.

Things seem even worse if we say that it is an unconscious support. This is really spooky. You actually believe that what ever your country gets up to is morally right...

So to sum up my opinion: Nationalism is mad, bad and dangerous

Posted: **Fri Jun 07, 2002 8:50 am**

Originally posted by fable
This analogy can be extended to the other arts, but I just wanted to make the point since you brought up cinema that Germany actually peaked artistically during its period of greatest disillusionment and hardship.

Make your point, it is entirely valid Conflict does usually bring about some of the more impressive artistic contributions, witness war poerty of WW2, some of it is really expressive and touching, more so than most of the twaddle we are insulted with now a days.

A lot of actors that started out in the pre WW1 era then moved on to bigger and better things in America, perhaps i am wrong, this is the impression i got from a documentary i saw a while back. Thanks for proving that wrong

Posted: **Fri Jun 07, 2002 8:59 am**

Originally posted by HighLordDave
@fable:
Perhaps this is because they were looking for any way to restore some of the pride that had been stripped from them. Hitler was elected because he was advocating something similar to "Germany for the Germans".

I'm not suggesting that the artistic explosion in Germany between the wars was due to the *lack* of nationalsim, but it wasn't due to an attempt to rebuild national pride, either. If anything, it did the opposite. Weill and Brecht tore down patriotism and all the traditional, national virtues on stage. Hindemith attacked the god of German high musical culture, Wagner. Mysticism, cynicism, symbolism, dadaism, impressionism, expressionism, surrealism, cubism: these were the philosophies behind the new arts movement in Germany.

Fact: Germany before WW I had nothing, artistically speaking, on Germany after WW I. The reasons for this aren't relevant to the thread (Eastern Europe was in a far worse state, and many artists moved west; the politically weak German democracy set in place some excellent socialistic policies throwing huge sums of money at live arts on the new medium of the day, radio; etc). Mind, I'm not making a claim that Germany represents a standard. I'm only trying to correct a misimpression in one instance, and an exceptional instance due to external factors, at that.

Posted: **Fri Jun 07, 2002 9:02 am**

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
A lot of actors that started out in the pre WW1 era then moved on to bigger and better things in America, perhaps i am wrong, this is the impression i got from a documentary i saw a while back. Thanks for proving that wrong

No problem. I also like to be corrected without hammering when I've been wrong.

(Have been, too!) And in the US, artistic continuity did exist before and after WW I. But in the warzone itself--France, Belgium, Germany, etc--the changes were like night and day.

Posted: **Fri Jun 07, 2002 10:44 am**

Great! Tom has already posted my opinion, thus saving me from the effort to try to find the right wording

I see nothing positive at all with nationalism. Some would argue that nationalism leads to preservation of cultural aspects that would otherwise be lost. I strongly believe culture can be preserved by other means, independant of nationalism. Besides, conservation/preservation don't necessarily have an eigen-value.

In war situations, there is often argued that without nationalistic pride and love for your country, any "evil powers" would be allowed to invade the counry. Well, except that I'm against the very idea of the national state, I also think if people should defend their country, it shouldn't be for nationalistic reasons.

I don't understand the idea of nationalism, especially not nationalistic pride. Why should anyone be proud of being a citizen in a certain country? A vast majority of people belong to a country because they were born there, it's not a choice, if fact you have no influene at all over where you are born. So being proud over one's country is to me no more meaningful than being proud over one's shoe-size. If a country does a lot of good things (win football games, give aid to developing countries, send peace-keeping forces to war-ridden areas etc) you shouldn't be pround of this unless you contributed to it. And if you contributed to it and think it's good you did, you should rather be proud of yourself for choosing to contribute.

Posted: **Fri Jun 07, 2002 10:55 am**

One thing nationalism does is give people a common identity and a sense of belonging. This is especially important in a nation that is built upon immigrants (almost everyone in the US can trace their origins to another continent by only going back five or six generations). It provides a common ground for people who may not share the same culture, language, religion or ethnic background.

Like many other motivational tools, nationalism can be used positively or negatively, and is more often used not to make the world a better place, but to advance the agenda of a specific group. We see this in the former Yugoslavia. The root cause of the problems in the Balkans isn't really ethnic hatred, it's years of oppression, fratricide and economic hardship, but the leaders there have made it into a nationalist struggle between the three or four major factions there. I think to say that there is nothing positive about nationalism is a little harsh, but more often than not nationalism is not used for constructive purposes.

Posted: **Fri Jun 07, 2002 10:17 pm**

Originally posted by C Elegans
If a country does a lot of good things (win football games, give aid to developing countries, send peace-keeping forces to war-ridden areas etc) you shouldn't be pround of this unless you contributed to it. And if you contributed to it and think it's good you did, you should rather be proud of yourself for choosing to contribute.

Now we get to the tricky part.

The $##00.00 I paid in taxes last year. Used to pay for....."aid" and to pay "forces". And there was no choosing in this..I don't pay...I get visited by men/women with either papers or guns.

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2002 12:15 am**

Originally posted by Weasel
Now we get to the tricky part. The $##00.00 I paid in taxes last year. Used to pay for....."aid" and to pay "forces". And there was no choosing in this..I don't pay...I get visited by men/women with either papers or guns.

The larger the nation, the more likely it is that the ruled are going to find themselves in complete disagreement with their rulers and the way their tax monies are spent. I think Plato suggested a limit of 40,000 as workable for democracies. I'm inclined to think the number should be considerably less--perhaps 10,000.

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2002 4:28 am**

Originally posted by HighLordDave
One thing nationalism does is give people a common identity and a sense of belonging.
<snip>
It provides a common ground for people who may not share the same culture, language, religion or ethnic background.
<snip>
We see this in the former Yugoslavia. The root cause of the problems in the Balkans isn't really ethnic hatred, it's years of oppression, fratricide and economic hardship, but the leaders there have made it into a nationalist struggle between the three or four major factions there. I think to say that there is nothing positive about nationalism is a little harsh, but more often than not nationalism is not used for constructive purposes.

I know it sounds harsh, but I really can't think of anything positive that can be achieved with nationalism, that couldn't be achived equally well with other, IMO better means.

We humans need a sense of coherence in their existance, of being part of context. We are also a group living creature, and as such, we need to identify with others and feel like we are part of something beyond our personal selves. I would go as far as defining this as a human need. You can achive this with nationalism, but also with other common causes. The problem I see with nationalism, is that it focus on a "we and them" division of people. It is both inclusive and exclusive, whereas I think we humans should strive to distance ourselves from the idea of dividing humanity into groups. "We and them" thinking is the root of much tragedy in our world, and knowledge from social psychology show that people care most about each other when we identify with each other. Thus, I think we should focus on how incredible alike each other we are, rather than divide ourselves into arbitrary groups based on such things as looks, where we were born.

In the case of former Yugoslavia, as well as in Romania, I certainly see how nationalism was used in a very positive way. This has been the case in several of the new nations in Europe. Nationalism and pride in your new, independant country is a natural reaction against many years of oppression where a culture and an ideology has been forced upon people, and many elements of their original culture were prohibited. However, I am doubtful whether any nationalism can still be defined as nationalism without the elements of thinking your country and your people is especially good, especially worth to fight for, more than other countries and other people. So even when nationalism is used to achive positive goals, it seems we do not get rid of the dividing element.