Which country is the most nationalistic?

[aronnax]

I vote for Fyromania. Not only they are uber-nationalist, they also have one of the most fabricated national myths around

No. Not again. Not in this forum. Not this argument again!

 

[Kyriakos]

No. Not again. Not in this forum. Not this argument again!

Anyone claiming there are 1.000.000 slavs living in Thessaloniki (ie 2/3 of its population) is a bit nationalist - not to mention out of reality- in my book

 

[aronnax]

<snip>
No, I'm not going to argue with you on this thing here. I'm not going to participate in this wild chase.

 

[Kyriakos]

Anyone who claims that Ancient Greeks, Byzantine Greeks and modern Greeks are even remotely related is a bit nationalist - not to mention out of reality- in my book

Sure, but

anyone failing to see the difference between the two mentioned claims is a bit ... in my book

 

[Traitorfish]

The hell is a "Fyromania"?

Edit: Wait, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, right?

 

[Kyriakos]

The hell is a "Fyromania"?

Edit: Wait, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, right?

Yes, that is one of its aliases

 

[Masada]

I was expecting to hear about Balor and the Formoire.

 

[Traitorfish]

I suppose any group of people whose king shoots death rays from his eyes has good reason to be nationalistic.

 

[Domen]

Leoreth:

Secondly, your attempt to construe a "Jewish Nation" in pre-WW2 Germany is just stock full of Unfortunate Implications. It implies that German Jews were somehow a "foreign body" in Germany, and you know what?

They were certainly a community of people. How closely related to "regular" Germans is another issue. Even if they were "simply Germans" - not any "distinct construct" - then the conclusion would be, that the Holocaust was a crime against German nation (and later also Polish and Russian - since Polish and Russian Jews were majority of its victims). So the state of Nazi Germany carried out crime of the Holocaust against its own, German nation. It doesn't really matter what nation we put here - it can be even "Blablabla" nation. Call it as you want. However, definitely victims of the Holocaust were members of some nation (or were considered to be so by their perpetrators) and were killed due to being members of this nation (or due to being considered as such).

2) And more importantly, yes I do reject your notion of "nation = collection of people". People are individuals and should be judged as such, by their own merit.

Wait a minute.

I didn't say that people aren't individuals and shouldn't be judged as such, by their own merit.

What I said was that people, APART from being individuals who should be judged as such, are usually also members of some nation (some may consider themselves as members of a few nations). I didn't say that individual people should be judged for what a nation they "belong to" did in the past or does at present. Not at all. What I said was that when you say something about a certain nation, it is like saying this about members of its nation (because nations ARE just collections of people - nothing more, they do not exist as material beings - in fact only people who form them exist as material beings). The best comparison would be family. Imagine that someone insults your family. Individuals should not be judged by merit of their family, of course - they should be judged by their own merit. However, it is obvious that when someone says terrible insults about a certain family, it also refers to its members. Can you imagine a situation when someone publicly says "Obama family are complete retards". And then Barrack Obama sues this guy for defamation. Do you think that explanation "I didn't mean to insult Barack Obama, I was just talking about his family - and everyone should be judged by his own merits, so I was not referring to him personally" will be accepted?

Now replace "family" by "nation". It is also a community of people.

Humans are social beings - you cannot consider them as "just" individuals, you cannot deny that they are also social beings - "part of something bigger". Apart from individuals - who should be judged by their own merit (I repeat this) - they ARE also members of various communities. Including family and nation.

In many ways, nations are just "abstract formations". Some things nationalists take their pride in don't even exist in actual reality. No matter if Germans or Poles can "rightfully claim" Copernicus, it's a moot point, because whatever Copernicus did has nothing to do with both Germany and Poland today. Copernicus is a really good example for this because he likely wouldn't even understand the question if he's German or Pole.

Yes, I agree with that part about Copernicus. But what you wrote is not a proof that nations are just "abstract formations" in many ways. It is a proof that in 15th century understanding of term "nation" was - in many ways - different than it is today. And if you asked Copernicus if he he's German or Pole, probably he wouldn't even understand. But if you asked him what kingdom (or what king) he faithfully serves - he would surely answer: "the Kingdom of Poland".

You're not. What does "insulting a nation" even entail?

Those dumb Polacks / Poland, for example. Those traiterous Jews. Etc., etc.

Just check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Polish_sentiment

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

Is the sentence "I don't care about Armenia" insulting to the Armenian nation?

No. Because "I don't care about you" is also not insulting for a person (maybe for a very sensitive person it would be - but objectively, it isn't).

Or are you referring to stuff like "all French are cheese eating surrender monkeys"? Things like that are usually stereotypes played for laughs.

More to this. But if they are played for laughs (not seriously) they are not really insulting. However, some may say (and do say) such things seriously. And not for laughs - at best for mockery.

And even if you're not trying to make a joke, you literally can only insult a nation by attacking a stereotype. Because, you know, nations are made up by highly diverse individuals. If someone is insulted by it, hey, whom the shoe fits? But everyone's in the "insulted" nation is simply free to say "I don't fall under the stereotyped view you have on my country, so I don't care".

Oh I would be careful with saying that you can only insult a nation by attacking a stereotype... You can also attack for example a distorted fact. Like "all Germans are murderers of Jews" or "Poland started WW2 by invading Germany". I wouldn't call these statements as "stereotypes".

If someone says Germans don't have a sense of humour, I don't go "HOW DARE YOU, we had the Comedian Harmonists!" or whatever, I just say "I think my sense of humour is just fine, thank you".

But this is a very "light" insult (if any). So once again, only a very sensitive person would get insulted (or person who takes everything very seriously).

Firstly, arguments like that make me wish to delete my location entry. Seriously.

No, please! Ok, I'm sorry for that. Please don't delete it! We have enough guys with "Pyjama town" etc. as location on this forum.

Thirdly, are you seriously suggesting that the problem with the holocaust was lack of national respect? Seriously? It was an endeavor solely fueled by nationalism and its even uglier stepchild, racism.

Fueled by chauvinism rather than by nationalism (of course the Nazis called themselves nationalists, but in fact they were chauvinists - not nationalists). If you read the fragment of discussion I pasted on the previous page, you would see that chauvinism involves lack of national respect towards other nations (we can call it this way for sure). So does racism - it also entails lack of respect towards other races (we can call it this way for sure).

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

Nationalism is something which is in fact not harmful for anyone (i.e. it doesn't involve hatred).

The thing which involves hatred is chauvinism - a radical form of nationalism.

It is like the difference between religion and religious fanaticism.

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

So yes - the problem with Holocaust was racism and chauvinism, both of which involve lack of national / racial respect. Thus, the problem with Holocaust was also lack of national / racial respect to some nations / races - it was one of key parts of Nazi ideology.

Most of the arguments fielded by you, like national achievements and history, are exactly the justifications the Nazis employed to style themselves a "master race" and to be entitled to commit the holocaust in the first place.

I didn't field arguments that nations deserve some amount of "respect" due to their national achievements or history. My point was that they deserve some basic amount of "respect" simply because they are nations - i.e. communities of people with common identity and culture, regardless of their achievements and history. And I said that every nation deserves it, not just one or few.

There are people who hate Jews, period, whether they're part of the Jewish nation (namely, Israel) or not.

Please tell me, why are you using "American way of thinking" here (i.e. you consider word "nation" to be synonym of word "state"). In German language words for "nation" and for "state" are also used interchangeably? I was referring to nation like Jews or Poles - not to nation like Israel or Poland.

So I am referring all the time to nations as communities of people - not as political organizations. In Polish language we do not use our words for "nation" (naród) and for "state" (pa&#324;stwo) interchangeably. Polish wikipedia defines nation (naród) as:

"Community* with ethnical, economic, political, social and cultural grounds formed during the historical process, reflected in awareness of its members."

*Not: organization, such as state (pa&#324;stwo).

So I was referring to nation (for example French nation) as people (French people) rather than state (French state).

And nationalism has not much to do with states as certain, currently existing political organizations.

Of course in many if not most (nowadays in most) cases, all inhabitants of one state - regardless of ethnicity, skin colour, etc. - consider themselves as members of one nation - so indirectly nationalism is related to states (or rather - to being citizens of some state), but it is not related to states as some current political organizations. For example, French nationalism is not related just to modern French state (namely the Fifth Republic of France, formed in 1958).

Jewish nationalism (Zionism) also existed long before the state of Israel was formed.

To summ up - all Jews are part of the Jewish nation (unless, of course, they are believers of the religion of Judaism, but not Jews), even those who don't live in Israel. Jewish diaspora is also part of the Jewish nation (Jewish people), even though they don't live in Israel.

Then there are people who don't like Israel, because of what it does, and it's only incidental that it's a Jewish state (those for whom it isn't belong into the first group).

Ok, I got what you mean and agree with it.

For example, I don't like Russia because of what it does, but it is only incidental for me that it is a Russian state. So, I belong to the second group - i.e. I have nothing against Russian nation (= Russian people), but I don't like the state of Russia and what it does. However, when I wrote this in another thread - immediately some Russians started to accuse me of Russophobia. Does it mean those were Russian nationalists?

 

[Domen]

Not only they are uber-nationalist, they also have one of the most fabricated national myths around

And Greeks too.

Modern Greeks has about as much to do with Ancient Greeks, as modern Italians with Ancient Romans / Italians.

I.e. - modern Italians have bravery on the battlefield in common with Ancient Romans, while modern Greeks - enterprising spirit with Ancient Greeks.

And this whole internet war between modern Greeks and modern Macedonians for the "heritage" of Alexander the Great resembles - what Leoreth mentioned - that Polish-German war for "heritage" of Copernicus.

The only difference is that Copernicus was half German half Polish (judging by his parents), while Alexander the Great was neither "Greek" nor "Macedonian" - as modern Greeks and Macedonians have both not much to do with Ancient Greeks (while both modern Germans and modern Poles are direct ethnic and political continuity of Poles and Germans from 15th century, when Copernicus was born).

 

[Leoreth]

@Domen: I'll reply to that later, to give it the time it deserves.

 

[Traitorfish]

Fueled by chauvinism rather than by nationalism (of course the Nazis called themselves nationalists, but in fact they were chauvinists - not nationalists). If you read the fragment of discussion I pasted on the previous page, you would see that chauvinism involves lack of national respect towards other nations (we can call it this way for sure).

On what basis are you constructing "chauvinism" and "nationalism" as mutually exclusive categories? That does not seem in an way self-evident. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that national chauvinism only makes sense when understood as an orientation within a broader nationalism; how can you be a national chauvinist if you don't commit to any nation in the first place? As such, describing the Nazis as "chauvinist, not nationalist" seems rather like describing them as "fascist, not statist".

Jewish nationalism (Zionism) also existed long before the state of Israel was formed.

To summ up - all Jews are part of the Jewish nation (unless, of course, they are believers of the religion of Judaism, but not Jews), even those who don't live in Israel. Jewish diaspora is also part of the Jewish nation (Jewish people), even though they don't live in Israel.

Would that also imply that I am part of the "Irish nation", because I am a member of the Irish diaspora? Or is a Jewish nationality regarded as in some way unique?

 

[Domen]

And if we asked Alexander the Great "was you Greek or Macedonian?" - he would answer: "What?! I was the Emperor of Persia!"

On what basis are you constructing "chauvinism" and "nationalism" as mutually exclusive categories? That does not seem in an way self-evident. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that national chauvinism only makes sense when understood as an orientation within a broader nationalism; how can you be a national chauvinist if you don't commit to any nation in the first place? Describing the Nazis as "chauvinist, not nationalist" seems rather like describing them as "fascist, not statist".

Well, yes, chauvinism can be considered a broader form of nationalism (and more radical at the same time).

I guess I wrote that chauvinism is radical nationalism? Not that they are mutually exclusive categroies.

So yes, technically the Nazis were both chauvinist & nationalist (as nationalism is included in chauvinism).

True, I shouldn't write that they were "chauvinist, not nationalist".

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, yes, chauvinism can be considered a broader form of nationalism (and more radical at the same time).

I guess I wrote that chauvinism is radical nationalism? Not that they are mutually exclusive categroies.

So technically the Nazis were both chauvinist & nationalist (as nationalism is included in chauvinism). True.

Actually, I was suggesting the reverse: that national chauvinism is a particular form of nationalism. Nationalism, in the most fundamental sense, is the belief in the existence of a "nation" as a discrete social entity, while chauvinism is a particular form of that general ideology, in which a particular national entity is regarded as superior to others. National chauvinism cannot precede nationalism, because national chauvinism itself presumes nationality and thus nationalism.

 

[Silurian]

Anyone claiming there are 1.000.000 slavs living in Thessaloniki (ie 2/3 of its population) is a bit nationalist - not to mention out of reality- in my book

Solun was a Jewish city so this claim is wrong.

The Macedonians lived in the countryside, but most were pushed out by the Greeks after the invasion in 1913 and after the civil war or assimilated to avoid discrimination.

 

[pesgores]

I think the Balkan states are the most nationalistic bunch of the world. At least in football.

 

[Silurian]

I think the Balkan states are the most nationalistic bunch of the world. At least in football.

El Salvador and Honduras are quite nationalistic about football.

 

[pesgores]

El Salvador and Honduras are quite nationalistic about football.

Well, in online games where people from a certain country have to gather in large numbers to advance as one, (ie: eRepublik), Balkan countries are the most populated. Serbia #1. It doesn't mean much, but it's still an interesting fact.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think the Balkan states are the most ethnocentric bunch of the world.

fixed

I am too much of a nationalist to have time for meaningless chatter about Alexander. Not even Leoreth being in the thread gives me enough incentive

 

[Domen]

Well, in online games where people from a certain country have to gather in large numbers to advance as one, (ie: eRepublik), Balkan countries are the most populated. Serbia #1. It doesn't mean much, but it's still an interesting fact.

Germany

Germans are very proud of having achieved the greatness of not being nationalistic.

Well, Leoreth must be right then :


Link to video.