Nationalism vs. Internationalism

Are you a Nationalist or an Internationalist?

  • I live in the U.S. and I am a Nationalist.

    Votes: 11 21.6%
  • I live in the U.S. and I am an Internationalist.

    Votes: 14 27.5%
  • I live in the E.U. and I am a Nationalist.

    Votes: 3 5.9%
  • I live in the E.U. and I am an Internationalist.

    Votes: 14 27.5%
  • I live somewhere else and I am a Nationalist.

    Votes: 3 5.9%
  • I live somewhere else and I am an Internationalist.

    Votes: 6 11.8%

  • Total voters
    51
You may care about people outside your country, but almost certainly you care more when something happens to people inside your own country.

I think that's natural, you care more about what's closer to yourself. People care even more about things that happen in their local area.
I don't think that's the way it should be, but many people (including myself sometimes) think that way.

I think that in a perfect society, there shouldn't be this kind of us-and-them-division, but it's hard to avoid. I still wouldn't go as far as to compare it to racism though, after all, people from the same nation generally share their culture and language, while the only similarity between people of the same race is the colour of their skin.
Of course, nobody should be discriminated against either way, but I can see why nationality is good in moderation.

By the way, there's a multi-quote button in the lower-right corner of each post, so if you press that button on each post you want to quote and then press the "quote" button on the last post, you can avoid having to make double or triple posts.
 
Yes, a more moderate form of nationalism is not nearly as bad as extreme nationalism, but why even have nationalism at all?
You can't just choose to remove nationalism from existence.

Also, nationalism may not require viewing some people as better than others, but it always involves valuing some people more than others, and implies giving more aid to some people more than others. So in a sense, it is devaluing others.
IIRC, nationalism is the support of your country, being a nationalist doesn't mean your devaluing other people. Nationalism isn't bad, as long as it's not extreme nationalism.
 
Alright, I used Answers.com on 'nationalism', and here is the result:



It doesn't say that nationalism necessarily means 'only having empathy for things happening in your country'. It means, according to point 1, 'being proud, or interested in, your country', or according to point 2, 'being opposed politically to the collectivisation of nation-states', or according to point 3, 'wanting independence'. If we use your definitions, then yes, internationalism is preferable to nationalism; however, if we use the genuine definition of nationalism, then the two need not be mutually exclusive.


I didn't say that having empathy for things happening in your country above other countries was the definition of nationalism. I am only saying that that is an aspect of nationalism. Definition 1 immidiately implies that you are not as interested in other countries.
 
You can't just choose to remove nationalism from existence.
That is a misquote. I was not saying that removing nationalism from existence was plausable or even preferable, just that in a perfect society their would be no positive reasons to have nationalism

IIRC, nationalism is the support of your country, being a nationalist doesn't mean your devaluing other people.

I agree that nationalism is the support of your country. However, this immidiately implies that you support your country more than others. So you are devaluing other countries.
 
I think that's natural, you care more about what's closer to yourself. People care even more about things that happen in their local area.
I don't think that's the way it should be, but many people (including myself sometimes) think that way.

I think that in a perfect society, there shouldn't be this kind of us-and-them-division, but it's hard to avoid. I still wouldn't go as far as to compare it to racism though, after all, people from the same nation generally share their culture and language, while the only similarity between people of the same race is the colour of their skin.
Of course, nobody should be discriminated against either way, but I can see why nationality is good in moderation.

By the way, there's a multi-quote button in the lower-right corner of each post, so if you press that button on each post you want to quote and then press the "quote" button on the last post, you can avoid having to make double or triple posts.

Yes, it is natural to care more about people who are close to you. However, I would not consider it natural to care more about one group of people than another if you do not personally know either.

As for nations sharing cultures, I think that cultures vary greatly within just one nation. However, nationalists still unite all these cultures withing their own nation. I do not think that it is culture that is the cause of nationalism, because of the fact that the cultures are so varied with nations.

Thanks for the info on the multi quote button.
 
Would you support military action to depose dictators worldwide?

I would certainly support uprisings to depose dictators. Military actions, however, often end up only making things worse. For example, in Iraq, many civilians have died during the military action. Also, if their is a military action by a state, the motives usually aren't to free people. After a dictator is deposed sometimes a new dictator is set up run by the country that invaded.
 
I would certainly support uprisings to depose dictators. Military actions, however, often end up only making things worse. For example, in Iraq, many civilians have died during the military action. Also, if their is a military action by a state, the motives usually aren't to free people. After a dictator is deposed sometimes a new dictator is set up run by the country that invaded.

So foreign nations shouldn't use military force to depose dictators?
 
So foreign nations shouldn't use military force to depose dictators?

It really depends. I doubt their has ever been a war started by one nation to free people of another nation. That is almost always been just a way to sell a war. Wars are usually for a profit motive.
 
It really depends. I doubt their has ever been a war started by one nation to free people of another nation. That is almost always been just a way to sell a war. Wars are usually for a profit motive.

Even if the war is for a profit motive and they depose a dictator and start a democracy, would you support it?

Democracy caused by profit, or dictatorship.
 
Even if the war is for a profit motive and they depose a dictator and start a democracy, would you support it?

Democracy caused by profit, or dictatorship.

I really can't make such a general statement. It depends on specific instances. When the motive is profit the country that invades really doesn't care about the other countries' civilians so many times it just makes the situation worse.
 
I really can't make such a general statement. It depends on specific instances. When the motive is profit the country that invades really doesn't care about the other countries' civilians so many times it just makes the situation worse.

Here I was, thinking everyone wanted liberty and freedom. :)
 
Here I was, thinking everyone wanted liberty and freedom. :)

All common people want liberty and freedom. However the state which rules those people may not want or care about those people having it. It is states that cause wars and that do not care about civilians, not common people.
 
I would certainly support uprisings to depose dictators. Military actions, however, often end up only making things worse. For example, in Iraq, many civilians have died during the military action. Also, if their is a military action by a state, the motives usually aren't to free people. After a dictator is deposed sometimes a new dictator is set up run by the country that invaded.

How would you reconcile that statement with what you said previously?

Yes, it is natural to care more about people who are close to you. However, I would not consider it natural to care more about one group of people than another if you do not personally know either.

I can understand when you say people care about who they know (family, neighbors) more than people they don't know. That is natural and understandable. But caring about people who live in your country but who you do not know more than caring about people who live outside your country who you do not know is not natural. It is self created and it is not demonizing to go against it.

Surely if one is to care about the one world community, then they would support getting rid of the dictators suppressing and oppressing the people under them. Why should the burden of getting rid of said dictator be only the domain of those under the dictator's grasp?
 
All common people want liberty and freedom. However the state which rules those people may not want or care about those people having it. It is states that cause wars and that do not care about civilians, not common people.

You would rather a dictator in place suppressing liberty and freedom than another nation deposing said dictator? :eek:
 
How would you reconcile that statement with what you said previously?





Surely if one is to care about the one world community, then they would support getting rid of the dictators suppressing and oppressing the people under them.

I will repeat what I just said. Almost all common people, who are not rich politicians, care about liberty and freedom. However the state, which is made up of rich, greedy, politicians, does not care about freedom and liberty of people. They care only about profit.
 
You would rather a dictator in place suppressing liberty and freedom than another nation deposing said dictator? :eek:

I will repeat what I said before. When the state, which is comprised of power loving politicians who want only profit, invades a country, they do not care about liberty, freedom, or civilian casualties. However most people in all countries, who are not power-crazed, do care about liberty and freedom. But the state does not, and that is not their motive for war, and when they invade with a motive other than liberty and freedom, their is often massive civilian casualties. The situation can often end up worse after the invasion then before.
 
Top Bottom