patriotism?

[MobBoss]

This isn't a partisan attack.

Of course it is.

Its simply obvious that both patriotism and nationalism are in many ways over-lapping and intersecting. I actually rather like the comment about part of telling them apart depends on who is in power at the moment. Witty, that.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is clearly not a "partisan attack" at all.

It is "simply obvious" that there is quite a difference between the two words as they are used by most scholars today. Patriotism is rather benign and harmless while overt nationalism is a major international problem with drastic consequences and major side effects which threaten the peace of entire regions. Take neo-conservatism, for instance.

 

[Berzerker]

Ever heard of Hammurabi?

I didn't learn about an eye for an eye from him, did you? I got it from the Bible...

I thought we dismissed that notion pages ago. This isn't a partisan attack. It is a fundamental difference between the two words, at least how they are used in a modern context by most scholars.

Who is "we"? I never said it was partisan, I said patriots are nationalists when they're in power and they're patriots when they're out of power. That is the fundamental difference - "we" are in power, "we" speak for the nation. We're out of power, someone we dont agree with speaks for the nation.

TY Mobby

 

[MobBoss]

It is clearly not a "partisan attack" at all.

It is "simply obvious" that there is quite a difference between the two words as they are used by most scholars today. Patriotism is rather benign and harmless while overt nationalism is a major international problem with drastic consequences and major side effects which threaten the peace of entire regions. Take neo-conservatism, for instance.

What you define as 'most scholars' are quite partisan as we all well know. And you continually throw conservatives in what you consider the 'bad' labeling of 'nationalism' as opposed to what you call 'patriotism' which is what you engage in, correct?



And come on Form. Practically every topic you've ever commented on in this forum (aside from NASCAR stuff) has a partisan slant from you. I dont really see how you could even deny that with a straight face.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Right...

Neoconservative Moral Nationalism in U.S. Foreign Policy

Neo-conservatism is the best example of excess nationalism since WWII.

So you've demonstrated other people's ability to use the word nationalism wrong too. Now tell me, since presumably you believe there is one definition of the word, are we using yours or Krystol's when he describes it as nationalist?
Because if we use yours, Krystol would probably disagree with you.
If we use it the way he did, you'd probably disagree that Neo-Conservatism qualifies as Nationalism.
If we use the accepted meaning of Nationalism, it'd be pretty clear that "Universal Nationalism" is an absurd contradiction of terms.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I thought we dismissed that notion pages ago. This isn't a partisan attack. It is a fundamental difference between the two words, at least how they are used in a modern context by most scholars.

Yeah, I'm sure you're up on the modern scholarship on Nationalism.
What's your take on Zeev Sternhell?

I can't imagine any scholar actually using your definitions, not only because they're in contradiction to standard usage, and therefor unnecessarily confusing, but also is academically useless. Categorizing someone as a nationalist or a patriot under your definitions amounts only to a personal opinion of the author, and is therefor useless to him and useless to his peers.

Your very fond of claiming scholarly consensus and practice on your side in a debate, but really show no interest in scholarship. For all my arguments I've had with Mobboss where he's driven me up a wall, I can at least say he knows his limits and doesn't pretend to be a scholar.

 

[MobBoss]

Your very fond of claiming scholarly consensus and practice on your side in a debate, but really show no interest in scholarship. For all my arguments I've had with Mobboss where he's driven me up a wall, I can at least say he knows his limits and doesn't pretend to be a scholar.

Thanks!

Well, lets just say I try to be scholarly in the subjects I have a lifetimes experience in (things military, marriage and raising kids). The rest of it, well, i'm pretty good at research, so can at least carry the conversation along, but i'll gladly defer to subject matter experts upon the subject they are expert in as well.

 

[Domen]

Tolerance clearly predates the "Biblical (Judeo-Christian) tradition". Some early examples of toleration were actually accorded to the Jews by other societies.

Surely, but I was talking about written accounts. In verbal accounts, most of thoughs / ideas probably root back to cavemen.

Flying Pig:

This was the empire which tolerated, and even encouraged, just about every god and religion out there, right?

Not right. It tolerated only those who accepted the divinity of original Roman gods. And the divinity of the Roman Emperor.

You could believe in any gods you wanted, but you had to believe in Roman ones. And in divine Emperor. This is not tolerance.

Besides, I was not talking just about the religious aspect of tolerance.

Ajidica:

And on most occasions added those gods to their pantheon. After all, when you really need your broken arm healed it is a good insurance policy to pray to as many gods of healing as you can.

But if you wanted to pray to just one God - you had a big problem!

Or if you wanted to pray to many gods - but not any of Roman gods - you had a big problem too!

So no - that was by no means tolerance, Mr. Apologist of the Roman Imperialism.

 

[Domen]

Hitti-Litti:

No, national football teams aren't directly related to nations, they're related to peoples.

Nations themselves are related to peoples...

So national football teams are directly related to nations (even name "national" indicates this), and indirectly to peoples.

Poles in England continue supporting Poland, Russians in Finland continue supporting Russia.

That's because Poles in England feel to be members of the Polish nation. They don't feel being English.

Maybe after several generations they will start feeling to be English.

Do you know the concept of national or ethnic minority?

They live in another nation

OMG Traitorfish just laughed at me when I told him that in English language "nation" is a synonym of "state" / "country".

And now you write about "living in a nation". So decide yourself!

You can't live in a nation, since nation is not a piece of territory! You can live in a state / country!

English language is so freaking confusing.

The term "national team" has different connotations in different languages. The English version of the word links the team to the nation, while for example the Swedish and Finnish translations would be called "land team" if translated word-by-word. A nation is a political entity, people don't group with each other in accordance to political borders. I don't have a nation but I have some sense of belonging to a arbitrarily defined group called "Finns".

Certainly "Finns" are not an arbitrarily defined group.

There is no any organ / authority which arbitrarily defines "you are Finn, you are not Finn, he is, she isn't".

It is up to everyone whether he considers himself as a Finn or not. The same refers to members of any other nation.

That's why during a population census you can choose what is your nationality.

A nation is a political entity,

Citizenship is - but surely not nation.

Russians who live in Finland do not consider themselves as Finns, rather as Russians. Even if they have Finnish citizenship.

Of course there are people who consider themselves to be members of two or more nations at the same time. Like Russian and Finn.

A nation is a political entity, people don't group with each other in accordance to political borders.

But a nation is not limited to people inside political borders of a particular state.

If I move to England, I will not stop being a person of Polish nationality.

The most important criterion which determines to which nation or nations you belong, is your own opinion. That's why in population censuses there is usually question about nationality. The criterion of secondary importance would be citizenship.

A national is an entity of dual nature - only partially political (citizenship).

But there are nations which exist even though they don't have states - for example Kurdish nation or Basque nation.

==============================================

What about the rule of self-determination of nations in international law. Why this rule if you claim that "nations don't exist"?

Or if you claim that a nation is a purely political entity - it would mean that British colonies had no right to fight for independence.

------------------------

Formaldehyde:

There isn't much tolerance at all in many aspects of Judaism.

I guess there isn't much tolerance at all in many aspects of the human nature...

But at least in theory Christianity was supposed to be a religion of tolerance. If it was messed up - human imperfection is to be blamed.

I'm not sure about Judaism - probably it does not praise tolerance to the same extent as Christianity.

Holy King:

well, that's because the bible has it's roots in various myths, philosophical concepts and thoughts that naturally predate it.

to think that the bible suddenly was there at some point in history without having been influenced by what was before is rather ridiculous.

The Bible itself was being written during a period of thousands of years.

The oldest fragment of the Old Testament was written around 1500 BC (the newest - after 440 BC).

And the New Testament was also not written "suddenly, at some point in history", but was being written for some time.

And actually what the Bible contains today - its contents -, was established in 4th century AD.

From what roots did the law come from?

Depends what law.

 

[Traitorfish]

There isn't a single moral tenet of any modern country which owes its roots to the Bible.

Eh, I wouldn't mind if a few counties adopted the Biblical prohibitions on usury. "Modern" and "better" are not identical.

 

[Quackers]

You would end wonga.com TF?

 

[Traitorfish]

Those adverts alone are worth a spell in Botany Bay.


Edit: And since we've been playing in the dead quote Olympics,

"Tell people that patriotism is bad and most of them will laugh and say: ‘Yes, bad patriotism is bad, but my patriotism is good!’ "

- Leo Tolstoy

Seemed pertinent, ken?

 

[Domen]

Everything used for bad purposes is bad, but used for good purposes is good. Like atomic energy.

BTW, this guy (Leo Tolstoy) is fundamentally wrong in his claims about patriotism, for example:

"Patriotism inevitably leads to war" - Leo Tolstoy

Tell me please which war in 20th century was caused by patriotism?

Maybe the Winter War between the Soviets (who were, of course, humanists and globalists - and just wanted to help other peoples / nations, by annexing them into their great, ideal communist world of freedom) vs Finns (who decided to defend their independence driven by vile, evil, disgusting patriotism).

Of course - the Winter War was caused by patriotism. They responded in a hostile, evil, patriotic way to the "liberation march" of Soviet humanists.

The Finns should greet the Soviet "liberation march" with open hands - that's what humanists who are loyal to all people - especially foreigners - do.

=========================

By the way:

How ironic is the fact, that ardent communists - the Soviets - called their 1941-1945 war against Germany "the Great Patriotic War".

Apparently, that war was also caused by excess of patriotism among Soviet people. They should have surrendered Moscow without a fight.

 

[Traitorfish]

How does one go about "using" patriotism? It seems to me a sentiment, like a fear of water or a fondness for Jammy Dodgers, rather than a tool, like a hammer or the metric system.

 

[Domen]

How does one go about "using" patriotism? It seems to me a sentiment

Yes, it is a sentiment - similar to other sentiments, for example to ethos of work.

You can use ethos of work to do good things.

================================

BTW - what should a humanist do when there is a conflict of obligation of loyalty?

Every humanist is obliged to be loyal to all people (otherwise they are not humanists), as you said.

We can imagine a situation when you cannot be loyal to everyone and you have to choose.

What then? Is a suicide the only option if you don't want to stop being a humanist?

 

[Traitorfish]

No, that doesn't really make any more sense. Firstly, an ethic is not a sentiment. (Seriously: what?) Secondly, you can't "use" a work ethic, you either possess it or you don't. One can work harder, but that's not "using" a work ethic, it's merely displaying it.

I kinda get the impression that you're confusing grammar with ontology; that because one can construct the sentence "I use X", then X must be a thing that one can use.

 

[Domen]

Firstly, an ethic is not a sentiment.

Ethos of work is neither ethic nor part of ethic.

I said about ethos of work (cult / admiration of work - in other words). Not about ethic of work / work ethic...

then X must be a thing that one can use.

You can use patriotism for example to improve morale of soldiers.

Or to start war / to be a pretext to start of war - as Leo Tolstoy claimed.

Admiration of work can be used to improve the will to work in the society.

You propagate it and the will to work is increasing.

you either possess it or you don't.

Nope. You can engraft it in somebody. It can be taught.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ethos of work is neither ethic nor part of ethic.

I said about ethos of work (cult / admiration of work - in other words). Not about ethic of work / work ethic...

That's not what the word "ethos" means.

You can use patriotism for example to improve morale of soldiers.

Or to start war / to be a pretext to start of war - as Leo Tolstoy claimed.

Admiration of work can be used to improve the will to work in the society.

You propagate it and the will to work is increasing.

I wouldn't describe that as "using" patriotism, but rather as the manipulation of patriotic sentiments. "Use" implies a direct apprehension of patriotism, which is impossible.

 

[Formaldehyde]

And come on Form. Practically every topic you've ever commented on in this forum (aside from NASCAR stuff) has a partisan slant from you. I dont really see how you could even deny that with a straight face.

When are you going to stop attacking the person instead of even trying to address the real issues being discussed? You lecturing me or anybody else about partisanship is the epitome of absurdity.

So you've demonstrated other people's ability to use the word nationalism wrong too.

How do you perceive the difference between the two words? Or are they synonyms?

And yes, even nationalism can extend beyond the boundaries of a country. Take the support of Israel by many American neo-conservatives, for instance.

Or do you still stick to that ludicrous contention that neo-conservatism has nothing to do with nationalism?

 

[Domen]

but rather as the manipulation of patriotic sentiments.

If there are no such sentiments, you can't manipulate them.

First you have to cause the appearance of such sentiments in minds of people.

That's not what the word "ethos" means.

But that's what the combined words "ethos of work" mean.

"Ethos" is a set of ideas, but when you say "ethos of work" you think about one particular set of ideas - which consist in admiration / cult of work.

You don't think about ideas which consist in despising work & hating it - but such feelings are also "ethos of work" - simply a different one.

So don't nitpick, please.

Patriotism is a kind of "ethos of homeland / nation" which propagates a certain set of ideals - "you should love your homeland / nation" and such.

"Use" implies a direct apprehension of patriotism, which is impossible.

Ok - so replace "use" by another verb which you think that can describe exploitation of immaterial entities to various purposes.