I'd like to start a discussing on the merits & flaws of these items. Nationalism, for those who don't know & are too lazy to look it up themselves:
the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
And ethnocentrism:
the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture.
Adding my own opinions:
I dislike both of these. Often they go hand in hand, but not always. My thoughts & feelings go with a world-view & set of interests that benefit the planet, not those that are purely set to better a single nation or people.
I find the idea that a group of people, divided by religion, breeding, geographical heritage, or other criteria somehow being simply 'better' then everyone else particularly offensive.
A few things that irk me on the subject:
The Olympics. Why is it that these days it always seems to be about what country won how many gold medals? Where is the spirit of competition, or the celebration of incredible team, or individual effort and achievement?
Proclamation that your nation is the best nation on the planet, despite the fact that they have never travelled abroad or studied a foreign country, much less *all* of the other countries in the world.
It also surfaces in pro sports, like the world cup. People of every nationality support their countries team in such a flagrant "I'm better then you because I was born in the same country as the one that won the world cup".
Well, that's my bit for now. What does everyone else think?
I see. The definitions are valid, I was just pointing out that in practice, they are often linked.
Point taken; I'll endeavour in the future to ensure including that if I am creating a post for discussion (never hurts to cite source material after all).
My upbringing stripped me of any nationalistic feelings. You tend to get a lot of ire in Canada for being born in the USA, and Austin Texas, even worse. Was funny though, I only lived in the USA for a year before my family of British parents moved back to Canada, so really, I was more Canadian then a US citizen.
*shrugs*
They still mocked and touted their own superiority. I thought it would change when I reached adulthood, but adults are still just as immature as children & I still receive BS for being born in the states.
I know a few states born people who push back & insult Canada and talk about how they're better then Canadians. I think it's all a bunch of crap & it's not worth my time. I'm just lucky to live in a place where Nationalism isn't as.. destructive here as it is in other places in the world. Even so - I'm still against it.
Cenere:
But stuff like the constant tries on making Denmark a part of a united Europe, like one big country with the same king of money and that... That is what bothers me.
Why?
Because we have been ourselves for this long, we have had out history, now why should this change?
Why not? Is there something wrong with change?
We were the leaders of most of Scandinavia once, and somewhere I think that spirit is still in the Danes. We have something to be proud of, like other countries have, so why should we forget about that?
Now this is something that I can't quite understand. Something to be proud of. Now.. what is that? Nationalism & pride, at its core, is being proud of being the descendents, or even just being born in the same area as people that have done... something. I hear people in the USA and Canada talk about it all the time. This great country 'we have built'. What we? You're living it in now, surely. I don't have any friends that helped write the declaration of independance, or the constitution. Did you help Denmark rule Scandinavia? It's like me, with two British parents being proud to be a Texan, because of great things & deeds like the last stand at the Alamo. It doesn't make sense.
Additionally, this is why I don't agree with hand-outs for reparations for black slavery, or destruction of native American tribes. I certainly didn't kill them, or enslave them. I'm not responsible. The 'sins of the father' is a load of crap - beyond that, my family line isn't even on this continent.
Why should we be like all the other?
I think equality is more important then feeling better then others.
Shoot I was really hoping some flamer *cough* *cough* of maybe serbian decent *cough* *cough* would respond to my bolded all caps accusation that serbia played a part in both world wars (was the cause of).
I think equality is more important then feeling better then others.
Uhm, are you quoting me there, because I think I stated it was not a superior feeling, it was simply a urge to be able to differentiate.
Why?
History. Being Denmark and not Europe.
Why not? Is there something wrong with change?
Again, as I stated: I do not mind change, I mind some specific things changing.
@the rest: I might not have done much. Not rule anything, because it is the past. But the knowledge of living in a country that might be small but once had power... I think it is better that I feel proud of being a Dane, than just be like I always am: Feeling bad, non existing self esteem, depression... Danes are said to be some of the happiest people on Earth. On the other hand we have a lot of people getting bad grades. It is our problem, now isn't it? I am not against people living together like one people, I just do not want to forget the past.
That is just me. I am not voting for the parties that want to kick out the immigrants, because why should I? There are so many other problems than people being different, "not fitting in"...
I think equality is more important then feeling better then others.
Equality is good, but so is having a sense of your self. Equal rights, different lives.
I tl;dr'd on most of the posts in this thread... >_>
Nya.
Ethnocentrism: No, kthnxbai.
Moderate nationalism: Yes plz. To the degree where it preserves what is the interesting differences between countries. It's awesome if everyone can get along and have similar laws, but if everything was exactly the same everywhere except for the climate... Well hello, more boring world.
Feeling that you, personally, are better because of your origin is FAIL. Being proud of your origin is not.
That's not why Nazism failed. It's why it succeeded. This illogical belief is very attractive to the masses.
to the masses it applied to, Then everyone else hates you. I'm saying Nazism succeeded in germany as demonstrated by hitler's reign, but it failed because look at it today, whenever people mention nazi's unless they are skinheads, they receive a scowl.
Plas xcus m for not typing any 'e's in th rst of this post.
But why do you mind those specific things changing?
Just gussing hr: Caring for th historic valu, sam as popl want to prsrv old buildings as thy ar just kinda.. Landmarks? It's sad whn dialcts ar forgottn, vn though it's a good thing that vryon can undrstand ach othr...
History and a f-ling of hom connctd to th things spcific for that rgion.
Ar thr any good rasons for why vrything should chang? :P Chang only nds to b whr it is ncssary.
thats definitely not why nazism failed the true answer to why it failed is blowin' in the wind that is to say there's plenty of reasons but all of them are a matter of debate
Caring for th historic valu, sam as popl want to prsrv old buildings as thy ar just kinda.. Landmarks? It's sad whn dialcts ar forgottn, vn though it's a good thing that vryon can undrstand ach othr...
Ar thr any good rasons for why vrything should chang? :P Chang only nds to b whr it is ncssary.
Historic value - I'm not talking about burning down works of art. But if a country joins the European union, it doesn't do that stuff either; the culture and history of a country don't just disappear.
Sure, change happens when it is necessary, but people *still* resist it, even if it would be a good thing.
I'll go a step further - why is historical value so important?
Historic value - I'm not talking about burning down works of art. But if a country joins the European union, it doesn't do that stuff either; the culture and history of a country don't just disappear.
Different coins, different laws, more and more internationalization...
why is historical value so important?
Why is it not? It is entirely a matter of opinion and not something I'll argue eithr side of. specially not when my 'e' isn't working right.
As a Fascist myself...*shock!*, *gasp*. Yes I support nationalism, but only if you have proved your mantle. Yes, only with sufficient achivements, linear progressions, improvements, can you deem yourself as better when compared to other subjects. Won't you have a right to feel in the loosest sense of the word...'superior'? Haven't all your wonderful gains displayed that? And when against countries that pale in these criterion compared to yourself, what's wrong to harbour such nationalistic feelings?
But fail, move a step back and then no...you do not have the right to feel superior. Nationalism vanishes in a poof of smoke.
Why is it not? It is entirely a matter of opinion and not something I'll argue eithr side of. specially not when my 'e' isn't working right.
Asking 'why not' as a response to a why question is a poor answer and a deflection instead of addressing the argument.
The 'why not' is precisely what my argument against nationalism has been. People get wrapped up in the glory that is their nation, because of it's place & greatness in history in comparisons to other countries. You can live in a country where there is a lack of war, crime, where there are civil liberties & feel good about 'life' without having to feel good or better, because of any historical or cultural connotation attached to that. Nationalism is feeling superior to other humans because of things that other people have done in the past, or in the present. Otherwise, it's just 'ride' and it relates to your *own* accomplishments.
