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?
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.
People have a right to pride, if they have done great things, trememdous leaps in their countries... it is important. Why you ask? To spur you to greater heights. To achieve even more stupendous progressions, to outstrip competition. It glorifies yourself, in your mind at least, you are the 'current champion'. So why lose that 'accomplishment'? Why?
But why do you mind those specific things changing?
Because they work fine. Different coin: Because it look fine, if we change it will be the same, but without the coin. You might not understand this, and it is really hard to explain, but it really would not feel the same to pay with Euro. It would not make it fun to travel either, because it is the same all over, and when we come back, there is no foreign coin to remember it by. The Monarchy: We have had it always, but i all need to be the same, we will loose it. Because we all need to be equal, if we have to believe you. And there have been talk about voting for or again changing the rule about if the firstborn (if it is a girl) should be allowed to become queen, instead of her little brother. There is some fundamentally wrong in that, but I will not go into details.
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.
Just as a slightly violent rejection of that statement on my part...
Some countries do not possess a rich, eventful history. It's rare but yes. Example:
This particular country has been transformed from a third world backwater to a first world metropolis in the short time of 40 years. Yet, the citizens there are proud, patriotic, albeit having a snobbish streak when holidaying in other countries.
Asking 'why not' as a response to a why question is a poor answer and a deflection instead of addressing the argument.
I'm sorry about that, didn't make my point clear.
Whatever reasons you could give as to 'why not' would be likely to be valid to the same level as any reasons I could give to 'why'. It is not an argument I see sense in picking.
Also, it is not necessarily a deflection. It's also a lazy way to find stuff to argue with. "Why do you think that's right?" "Why don't you?" "*reason*" "*argues with that reason*" Because it's pointless to argue about the sides you agree about of a case you disagree about.
As for the rest of your post, I do not see your point other than "feeling superior because of stuff 'our people' did in the past is bad". Which I've already agreed with.
@Cen: I very much agree about the coin part, but why is the monarchy thing fundamentally wrong to change like that?
People have a right to pride, if they have done great things, trememdous leaps in their countries... it is important. Why you ask? To spur you to greater heights. To achieve even more stupendous progressions, to outstrip competition. It glorifies yourself, in your mind at least, you are the 'current champion'. So why lose that 'accomplishment'? Why?
Do people have a 'right' to pride? It's not the core of this discussion, but I'd say they don't. Pride is the same thing as nationalism - pretending you're somehow better then other people because of something you've done, instead of the country. Personally I find prideful people to be jerks & I don't associate with them.
Competition propels people to greater heights - *not* pride.
Because they work fine.
What's to say they couldn't work better?
Taking your coin/currency example - okay, maybe you don't have a shiny souvenier to bring back as currency, but the big plus to it is that when you would decide to vacation elsewhere in Europe, you don't have to exchange currency. Whenever I go across the border to the U.S.A. I have to buy American currency. That's a pain in the ass; I'd rather just use my own - but I can't.
The Monarchy: We have had it always, but i all need to be the same, we will loose it. Because we all need to be equal, if we have to believe you.
The point of my counter-nationalism viewpoint isn't to make everything the exact same. It's a little silly to think that the entire world could adopt the same set of rules or standards for laws & government; what I'm talking about is the sense of pride that would come with that.. like thinking you're better then others *because* Denmark has a monarchy, and they don't.
Also, it is not necessarily a deflection.
Not always; I do, however, find people who don't have a reason will often ask that question because they don't have an answer. I think it.. distasteful when 'why not' is purely on it's own. If you gave a reason & asked why not in return, it would be addressing my question & asking one of your own, instead of ignoring my question altogether.
As for the rest of your post, I do not see your point other than
There's another point? At it's simplest form it's 'Nationalism is bad. Here's why'. There's not much more to it.
Taking your coin/currency example - okay, maybe you don't have a shiny souvenier to bring back as currency, but the big plus to it is that when you would decide to vacation elsewhere in Europe, you don't have to exchange currency.
I find it worth it.
like thinking you're better then others *because* Denmark has a monarchy, and they don't.
But I am not thinking I am better than others, I am simply just proud of it. And to me it does sound like it was everything the same...
I very much agree about the coin part, but why is the monarchy thing fundamentally wrong to change like that?
Okay, the current law is that it is the firstborn BOY that shall inherit the throne, but we are going to vote for or against a change of that law, to make the boys and girls equal, which means that the firstborn, whether a boy or a girl will inherit the throne. Now, I am against this for the same reason that my dad is. If we change it, so the princess and prince become equal, should we not change it, so that, if the queen marries, the husband then become king, instead of just prince. There is nothing that would stop this, really. As my father argues, every woman could become a female, while no man but the heir of the throne can become the king.
I do not subscribe to fashion over function. At my core, there is much that is very much so utilitarian. I don't see the point in having unique money if all it does is inconvenience me.
You keep saying that you're proud of it - as if pride is a good thing. I left it alone before, as I was purely addressing nationalism; however - per http://www.dictionary.com
Pride: a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc.
No offense, but that's not someone that I would be friends with.
pleasure or satisfaction taken in something done by or belonging to oneself or believed to reflect credit upon oneself
A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect.
Pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement, possession, or association
Really, pride is many things, pride is not a bad thing in small amounts either. If you are saying it is like that, I highly doubt you would even want to be friends with yourself, unless you have a self esteem like mine. All people feel proud of something, sometimes. It is just the degree of it that varies.
I am proud of my country and to be a Dane. It is not really something I think about often, but sometimes I do, like in the cases I have mentioned. On the other hand I can really feel bad about being in a country that will not allow people under the age of 24 to marry. Stuff like that. We are an exceptional small country, we do not really do much, actually we are kind of fail most of the time, but when we get to the, what, semifinals in football(soccer), I feel a little proud, not because I am thinking that the other countries are worse than us, but simply because we achieved to go there, even if we fail before the end. My sense of pride is not superiority, it is simply acknowledgement of the bad sites and still wanting to live here.
At my core, there is much that is very much so utilitarian. I don't see the point in having unique money if all it does is inconvenience me.
I just see it as part of the feeling of travel, I guess. I do not travel much, I have my education to think of, so it is a special feeling for me to go out of the bank with a bunch of Euro bills. That is just me.
Do people have a 'right' to pride? It's not the core of this discussion, but I'd say they don't. Pride is the same thing as nationalism - pretending you're somehow better then other people because of something you've done, instead of the country. Personally I find prideful people to be jerks & I don't associate with them. Competition propels people to greater heights - *not* pride
.
Pride does not equal to nationalism. In fact, not many words can claim to be actual synonyms to each other. There are hints of differences between each. Pride does spur on competition. Take Cen's definition. A sense of satisfaction. Isn't that what the elders used to spoonfeed us? Don't rest on your laurels? Celebrate but at the same time take steps to keep ahead and advance?
As for not being entailed the right to 'ride' in one's handiwork compared to others...that seems a little conscripting. Barbaric some free-thinking people might say. It's not as if there are negative connotations. You have a choice, be proud and shove that unceremoniously in someoneâs face, or keep it to yourself.
I highly doubt you would even want to be friends with yourself, unless you have a self esteem like mine. All people feel proud of something, sometimes. It is just the degree of it that varies.
I'm not - I'm always at war; I'd disagree with you on the feeeling proud bit - it's not something that I take in anything. I'm very easily replaced; I think most people are in most things - and in the situations where they're not, they don't need to be anything except for just 'them', whoever that happens to be.
Pride does not equal to nationalism.
I don't remember saying that at any point.
Getting back to my original point - your sense of pride or... like of your country's heritage & history is not 'Nationalism'. Nationalism is far more aggressive, and I feel, destructive toward common goals & relationships between different peoples.
Taking this definition into account, Nationalism doesn't appear that aggressive.
Perhaps not in a foreign policy sense, but such a definition is easily interpretable as a country that justifies treating their own citizens poorly in terms of civil rights, freedom, or even resorting to slavery. After all, they're all working toward a common goal for the greatness of their nation.
Perhaps not in a foreign policy sense, but such a definition is easily interpretable as a country that justifies treating their own citizens poorly in terms of civil rights, freedom, or even resorting to slavery. After all, they're all working toward a common goal for the greatness of their nation.
It is intepretable in that sense. Hate to tell you my friend, but slavery is long time dead. Now we call it 'forced labour'.
Being merely intepretable does not necessarily equate to that particular scenario from happening.
