patriotism?

[Traitorfish]

Yes. State, nation, government are the pillar of civilization. And patriotism is the pillar for them.

Have to say, I'm surprised to discover that civilisation was invented in the 18th century.

 

[Domen]

Have to say, I'm surprised to discover that civilisation was invented in the 18th century.

??? State was clearly not invented in 18th century AD. Government is an integral part of any state.

And states were usually formed by nations - either one or few of them. In English "nation" is even a synonym of "state".

State is a pillar of civilisation. Of course you can argue that civilisation existed also in chiefdoms and city-states.

But 1) chiefdoms and 2) city-states are basically 1) less advanced 2) smaller equivalents of states.

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

And if your point was that nationalism was "invented" in 18th century - then this is also wrong.

The specific form of nationalism which was typical for the following centuries - 19th and 20th - was born in 18th century.

But other forms of nationalism existed already before that. They are as old as civilisation and exist also today (the newest trend is this "civic nationalism" which you mentioned). What was changing throughout ages was the understanding of "nation" and things to which members of one "nation" pledged allegiance.

Globalists are also nationalists in a sense - but they consider all humans as one "nation" and pledge allegiance to global civilisation.

Nationalism can be defined in a simple way as placing the interests of one group of people (called "nation") above those of other groups of people.

And guess what is the definition of globalism? Exactly the same - just the group of people is a different group in this case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism

"The attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations."

Of course "the entire world" denotes "people of the entire world" (certainly not cows, pigs or monkeys of the entire world).

 

[Traitorfish]

For brevity's sake,

In English "nation" is even a synonym of "state".

Nonsense.

State is a pillar of civilisation.

Ideology.

And if your point was that nationalism was "invented" in 18th century - then this is also wrong.

The specific form of nationalism which was typical for the following centuries - 19th and 20th - was born in 18th century.

But of course other forms of nationalism existed already before that. It is as old as civilisation and exists also today (the newest trend is this "civic nationalism" which you mentioned). What was changing throughout ages was the understanding of "nation" and thing or things to which members of one "nation" pledged allegiance.

Special pleading.

 

[red_elk]

Have to say, I'm surprised to discover that civilisation was invented in the 18th century.

In the same sense that microorganisms were invented in 1675

 

[Traitorfish]

No. Five characters.

 

[Domen]

Ideology.

So family is a pillar of civilisation? Or maybe local community is a pillar of civilisation? Or maybe one person is enough to call it a civilisation?

Show me a single historical civilisation without developed state or state-like (chiefdom, city-state) structures.

Special pleading.

It is simply a fact. When you check for example Medieval written sources, you can see plenty of nationalism there.

The basic grounds of Medieval nationalism were the same as of 18th century one - "my nation", "my state", "my people" = better ones.

If there was no nationalism in Ancient Greece - Greeks would happily greet the Persian invaders, instead of opposing them.

And if there was no nationalism in Ancient Athens - Athenians would not defend access to their citizenship for foreigners so fiercely.

Ancient Greeks / Romans would not call everyone who was not Greek / Roman "barbarians" (already at that time it had negative connotations).

 

[Traitorfish]

So family is a pillar of civilisation? Or maybe local community is a pillar of civilisation? Or maybe one person is enough to call it a civilisation?

My point is that "pillar of civilisation" is a meaningless phrase. It's grandiose, sentimental and vaguely fascist-sounding, whichever of those takes your fancy, but it doesn't actually refer to anything of theoretical substance.

It is simply a fact. When you check for example Medieval written sources, you can see plenty of nationalism there.

The basic grounds of Medieval nationalism were the same as of 18th century one - "my nation", "my state", "my people" = better ones.

If there was no nationalism in Ancient Greece - Greeks would happily greet the Persian invaders, instead of opposing them.

And if there was no nationalism in Ancient Athens - Athenians would not defend access to their citizenship for foreigners so fiercely.

Redefining "nationalism" to mean something other than "nationalism" and then claiming to see it everywhere is not "simple fact", it is, as I said, special pleading.

 

[Domen]

My point is that "pillar of civilisation" is a meaningless phrase. It's grandiose, sentimental and vaguely fascist-sounding, whichever of those takes your fancy, but it doesn't actually refer to anything of theoretical substance.

Your "fascist-sounding" is a meaningless phrase and empty talk.

For Communists, everything which is not Communist or Socialist, is "fascist".

You distorted the meaning of word "fascist".

Fascism was born in 20th century in Italy - it can't be applied to what existed before that (and "pillar of civilisation" is a much older concept).

but it doesn't actually refer to anything of theoretical substance.

But it does refer to factual substance.

There is no civilisation without state and state without civilisation... Simple as that.

Unless, of course, you change the meaning of word "civilisation" and consider groups of hunter-gatherers as "civilisations"...

Redefining "nationalism" to mean something other than "nationalism"

I am not redefining nationalism. The definition of nationalism reminds the same and as such it perfectly fits to all historical eras.

It was the definition of "nation" and things to which people pledged allegiance that changed throughout ages multiple times.

 

[Traitorfish]

Your "fascist-sounding" is a meaningless phrase and empty talk.

For Communists, everything which is not Communist or Socialist, is "fascist".

You distorted the meaning of word "fascist".

Fascism was born in 20th century in Italy - it cannot be applied to concepts which existed before that (and "pillar of civilisation" is a much older concept).

Funny thing, in another window I'm explaining to somebody why the EDL is better understood as neo-loyalist than fascist.

But it does refer to factual substance.

There is no civilisation without state and state without civilisation...

That's a pretty crude truism, so it doesn't really resolve my criticism. If anything, it just pushes us to the further realisation that "civilisation" is itself an ideological construct.

 

[Domen]

it just pushes us to the further realisation that "civilisation" is itself an ideological construct.

Civilisation exists also in the sphere of tangible objects (buildings, roads, cities, crops, etc.) so it is certainly not only ideological, also physical construct.

I would even say that there is much more of fact than ideology in what constitutes a civilisation.

If civilisation was just an ideological construct, then it probably was born in the mind of some caveman long before it started to exist in the sphere of facts.

Funny thing, in another window I'm explaining to somebody why the EDL is better understood as neo-loyalist than fascist.

Which doesn't negate what I claimed about Communists considering so many things as "fascist".

Neo-loyalism may be one of forms of fascism for them (or rather neo-fascism, the original one was annihilated in ca. 1945).

Considering that Communists used to call the pre-war Poland "a fascist state" - everything is possible.

 

[Domen]

Patriotism is conventionally understood as loyalty to the nation qua nation, and that any corresponding loyalty to your co-citizens is derived from a shared national identity, rather than a shared humanity; that an American patriot is loyal to the United States in itself, and loyal to other Americans only insofar as they are American. If instead a person's fundamental loyalty is to other human beings as human beings, even while holding a special attachment to their own cultural heritage, they'd simply be a humanist. I think that everyone should be a humanist, and so find counter-humanist sentiments fundamentally objectionable.

What, in the above, do you find so shockingly problematic?

Nothing in the above is problematic.

But what you wrote above undoubtedly means that being a humanist and being a patriot are not exclusive conditions. Patriotic sentiments are not counter-humanist sentiments and inversely. What you wrote clearly means that one person can be both a humanist and a patriot. Thus the last of your statement is wrong, provided that you assume (which it seems to me) that patriotic sentiments are per se counter-humanist sentiments (which is clearly not true).

There doesn't have to be a conflict between being a patriot and a being a humanist.

The scopes of the set of patriots and the set of humanists are criss-crossing:

 

[red_elk]

Poland?

 

[Domen]

Poland?

What ??? Ok - I guess my conclusion needs further explanation.

We have a certain person X.

Person X is Iranian and is loyal to his co-citizens. His loyalty to his co-citizens is derived from a shared national identity with other Iranians.

Person X is also loyal to other human beings. His fundamental loyalty to them is a loyalty to other human beings as human beings (not as Iranians).

Conclusion - person X is both a humanist and a patriot. He belongs to the set of patriots and to the set of humanists (see above).

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

And in fact majority of patriots would be humanists at the same time.

That's because most of patriots (of any nation) also have the feature of fundamental loyalty to all human beings as human beings.

For example - while being a Polish patriot - I am not disloyal and I am loyal to people who are not Polish. So I am a humanist.

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

We might come to 3 conclusions - from the perspective of pros & cons for other people who ineract or might interact with you:

1) If you are a patriot but not a humanist, then it is bad for majority of other people (for those who don't share a national identity with you).
2) If you are a humanist but not a patriot, then it should be OK for everyone else (unless some feel bad about your lack of patriotism).
3) If you are both a patriot and a humanist, then it should be OK for everyone else (unless some feel bad about your patriotism).

There is also one more option, the worst one of all (from the perspective of others):

4) You are neither a patriot, nor a humanist - this is bad for everyone else. You are a "hostile", disloyal element to all other people.

The question should be whether or not patriotism is a bad thing.

Basing on the conclusions presented above - no, there is absolutely nothing bad at all in being a patriot and in patriotism.

There is something bad (from the perspective of majority of other people) in not being a humanist and in lack of humanism.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Have to say, I'm surprised to discover that civilisation was invented in the 18th century.

It is stupid to always appeal to a concept as if it were the original source of a phenomena while it is based on the phenomena.

Nation-state is a theoretical concept, a step in evolution of nations/states/governments exclusively in the West, but nothing more. And this concept is based on the fact of previous existence of nations and states, that's why it is called so.

 

[metatron]

[...]

 

[holy king]

It is stupid to always appeal to a concept as if it were the original source of a phenomena while it is based on the phenomena.

Nation-state is a theoretical concept, a step in evolution of nations/states/governments exclusively in the West, but nothing more. And this concept is based on the fact of previous existence of nations and states, that's why it is called so.

is that what they teach you in russian schools?

 

[Flying Pig]

But i've served my country in its military for going on 26 years now. I took an oath to protect the constitution and the people of this country. Whats more patriotic than that?

I heard someone very wisely say that it's easier to be a 'patriot' than to make your community a better place in which to live; I think the real patriots who spend so much time and energy in thankless tasks to do just that. Taking a job where you get paid to go ski-ing (allegedly) isn't quite in the same league.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

is that what they teach you in russian schools?

Do I hear prejudice?

 

[holy king]

against the public schools of russia regarding nationalism? yes.

 

[Traitorfish]

Civilisation exists also in the sphere of tangible objects (buildings, roads, cities, crops, etc.) so it is certainly not only ideological, also physical construct.

I would even say that there is much more of fact than ideology in what constitutes a civilisation.

Simply because you perceive "civilisation" in physical things does not meant that it exists in them independently of your perception. A Christian may as well claim that his belief in the sanctity of churches demonstrates the existence of God.

If civilisation was just an ideological construct, then it probably was born in the mind of some caveman long before it started to exist in the sphere of facts.

Well, no. The term only comes into use in its modern form in the 18th century. Prior to that, it had meant something similar to "civility. The closest you would get before that it is the denigration of foreign peoples as "barbarians", but given that this was a claim made, for example, by the Greeks of the Persians, it can't really be understood as describing the sort of distinction we would understand by the term.

Which doesn't negate what I claimed about Communists considering so many things as "fascist".

Neo-loyalism may be one of forms of fascism for them (or rather neo-fascism, the original one was annihilated in ca. 1945).

Considering that Communists used to call the pre-war Poland "a fascist state" - everything is possible.

I really think that you're taking a little quip about something being "vaguely fascist-sounding" a bit too much to heart.

Nothing in the above is problematic.

But what you wrote above undoubtedly means that being a humanist and being a patriot are not exclusive conditions. Patriotic sentiments are not counter-humanist sentiments and inversely. What you wrote clearly means that one person can be both a humanist and a patriot. Thus the last of your statement is wrong, provided that you assume (which it seems to me) that patriotic sentiments are per se counter-humanist sentiments (which is clearly not true).

There doesn't have to be a conflict between being a patriot and a being a humanist.

The scopes of the set of patriots and the set of humanists are criss-crossing:

If you're doing both, you're doing one of them badly.

It is stupid to always appeal to a concept as if it were the original source of a phenomena while it is based on the phenomena.

The phenomena of "nation" is primarily ideological, so it makes perfect sense to discuss it in terms of ideology.