41–50 of 91 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you love your country, your homeland, your family, your culture? Then that's very okay. Do you think that your country, your homeland, your family, or your culture are objectively superior to others? Then you're a fanatic/xenophobe.
Are politics becoming outdated, in your opinion, too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The American-led world order since WWII has led to an expansion of freedom and prosperity [...] It also embodies a just and fair way of managing international affairs, through law and democracy rather than the undemocratic system of the strong forcing the weak. Wow... The people in Guatemala [1], Iran [2], Chile [3], Timor [4], and dozens other places will disagree with you. The will of the people stamped down by th…
The incidents you cite are indeed deeply regrettable and even shameful. But quaere whether you're overweighting them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose there's some semantic clarification needed here. I don't see why identifying with one's ancestors [1] (patriotism) or nation (nationalism) precludes free trade, multiculturalism, human decency, etc. On the contrary, if we want people to think long-term, it's important to get them to associate personal motivations (love of their grandchildren, love of their neighborhoods) with the sacrifices needed to keep c…
Do you love your country, your homeland, your family, your culture? Then that's very okay. Do you think that your country, your homeland, your family, or your culture are objectively superior to others? Then you're a fanatic/xenophobe.
Fair enough, but what do we do about the culture of "citizens of the world"? Aren't we trying to create or grow a better culture when we reject nationalism? Is that fanaticism? Why not?
Boy oh boy if only I could make more people read this. So many people in India just conflate patriotism with nationalism and it has become a fashion to brand any patriotic talk as "nationalistic". And they assume they are right because they think great people of past agree.
> it has become a fashion to brand any patriotic talk as "nationalistic" Considering modern usage of the word, I can't tell what you mean by this. I've explained why here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17059121 EDIT: Aaaaand, immediately downvoted with no reply. I rest my case. :)
I always really admired Orwell's style as a political journalist and writer. He writes clearly and gets to the point. He doesn't hide in flowery ambiguity, like most journalists do when writing about "isms." Here specifically , I don't think he's clear and timeless. This is an essay about British politics of the time, for the British. Nationalism meant the bad guys from the war, which was just ending. Orwell is warni…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no basis offered for any of the parent. Some things are obviously false: > oil ... That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought over. > Certain nations, like the US, don't have to work with anyone > expand the US to include the anglo-nations ( Canada, Australia, etc ) etc. These are arguments of white christian nationalists, who, as Orwell pointed out about nationalists in general, have no interest in reality, only jus…
>The American-led world order since WWII has led to an expansion of freedom and prosperity [...] It also embodies a just and fair way of managing international affairs, through law and democracy rather than the undemocratic system of the strong forcing the weak. Wow... The people in Guatemala [1], Iran [2], Chile [3], Timor [4], and dozens other places will disagree with you. The will of the people stamped down by th…
Agreed, and I considered whether to include that part of the story. On one hand, every HN comment can be criticized for leaving out details - we always can write more; these aren't dissertations or books, and each comment needs to draw the line somewhere. On the other, I probably should have mentioned that side of it.
But with that issue in mind, I was careful to write something that didn't contradict the parent's point. I said the expansion of freedom and prosperity have been unprecedented, which is true. It should be even more, including for the people of the places mentioned above, but it still has been unprecedented. I also wrote that the international order "embodies a just and fair way of managing international affairs, through law and democracy"; I was careful not to say it implemented those things are actually is democratic; it's not nearly that. But the UN, alongside the leading country actively promoting democracy and liberty is a huge step forward compared to human history, as are other international organizations and structures. There is a very long way to do, and every person that has suffered in those places and does suffer today deserves justice; we have a lot of work to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very well said. Along the same line of thinking, I'd like to point out a few things from the article that were a bit of a revelation for me: "As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’, but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation — that is, a sin…
That's all academic. Current nationalists base their 'nation' on skin color and religion: white and Christian (though the religious aspect is sometimes less emphasized), like ISIS'/Daesh's nationalism based on Islam. You can read people advocating it in HN, just like you can read many attempts to whitewash it. The endlessly repeated lesson of history is that if human rights are not universal, if you accept the nation…
They do?
> You can read people advocating it in HN, just like you can read many attempts to whitewash it.
> if you accept the nationalist argument that 'people on my side have rights and those on the other don't'
> We've had enough slavery, segregation, Holocausts, Tutsi massacres, Milosovic's, ISIS's, oppression of women, Nazis, etc, etc. to know how it turns out; we don't need to try again and hope it's different this time.
(I might as well excerpt your entire post, it is the perfect embodiment of my confusion on this topic. As are the rising downvotes, arguably proving my point and censoring my voice, as I will now have to leave this tab open and wait to post my sincere rebuttal later. Freedom of speech is a great principle until it disagrees with your ideas I guess.)
I gave you a definition of nationalism from the dictionary, I will ask you once again: what definition are you using for the word nationalism?
Going further, what is the origin of the various extreme beliefs & hatred you hold? Where did you learn these ideas?
Boy oh boy if only I could make more people read this. So many people in India just conflate patriotism with nationalism and it has become a fashion to brand any patriotic talk as "nationalistic". And they assume they are right because they think great people of past agree.
Boy oh boy if only I could make more people read this. So many people in India just conflate patriotism with nationalism and it has become a fashion to brand any patriotic talk as "nationalistic". And they assume they are right because they think great people of past agree.
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. --Samuel Johnson
A better name for what Orwell calls "nationalism" here would be "partisanship".