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?
It is intepretable in that sense. Hate to tell you my friend, but slavery is long time dead. Now we call it 'forced labour'.
If you're trying to show me up by arguing semantics...? I'm not interesting in having a dick measuring competition with you; I could care less. Make a new thread about it if you feeling passionately about people calling slavery 'forced labour'. I'll be sure not to participate.
Being merely intepretable does not necessarily equate to that particular scenario from happening.
If you think people in poverty & terrible living conditions being forced to work for the glory of the state doing something they don't want to do is a thing of the past, you have a long way to go.
If you think people in poverty & terrible living conditions being forced to work for the glory of the state doing something they don't want to do is a thing of the past, you have a long way to go.
Adequate examples? States that force people for glory. And glory alone.
If you're trying to show me up by arguing semantics...? I'm not interesting in having a **** measuring competition with you; I could care less. Make a new thread about it if you feeling passionately about people calling slavery 'forced labour'. I'll be sure not to participate.
Everthing in an argument is just a 'bloody play of linguistics'.
States that force people for glory. And glory alone.
The 'glory' part is to feed to the plebians to make them believe they're working for something. The people who are running the show don't actually believe in that crap - they just want to stay in power. Nationalism is a tool.
Everthing in an argument is just a 'bloody play of linguistics'.
Actually, *real* debates & arguments are about making points & discussing their merits or flaws, or presenting counter-points to foster further discussion; not regurgitating the same thoughts over and over but with different words.
You claimed earlier in the thread that you support fascism, which I think is a joke, frankly, - and nationalism, but failed to explain why. Do you think it's hip or something?
The 'glory' part is to feed to the plebians to make them believe they're working for something. The people who are running the show don't actually believe in that crap - they just want to stay in power. Nationalism is a tool.
my main question was are there any examples in the present. Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but I didn't want a long paragraph on glory.
You claimed earlier in the thread that you support fascism, which I think is a joke, frankly, - and nationalism, but failed to explain why. Do you think it's hip or something?
Hip? Choosing politics based on the whims and vanity of a person alone? Who would do that? Do you think I suffer people calling me a Jew-hater just because I think that it is cool?
Regarding explaining, I'm sure I said something about it before.
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?
my main question was are there any examples in the present. Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but I didn't want a long paragraph on glory.
The Chinese government dealing with political subterfuge in an attempt to sabotage their 'glory' on the international stage with regards to the olympics:
Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria
http://www.newsweek.com/id/131751
Hip? Choosing politics based on the whims and vanity of a person alone? Who would do that? Do you think I suffer people calling me a Jew-hater just because I think that it is cool?
Total wankers, that's who would do that. Do I think you suffer being called a Jew-hater because you think it's cool? I don't know... do you?
Regarding explaining, I'm sure I said something about it before.
You really didn't. On page 3 You stated that nationalism was 'justified' if you've earned it, but not why you believe fascism or nationalism are 'good'. Please, feel free to explain, and, in great detail.
The Chinese government dealing with political subterfuge in an attempt to sabotage their 'glory' on the international stage with regards to the olympics:
And the Chinese people are happy about it. I told my PCR friend off, and he just spouted lines from Mao. They do not mind.
Total wankers, that's who would do that. Do I think you suffer being called a Jew-hater because you think it's cool? I don't know... do you?
I am not a mental Machosist.
You really didn't. On page 3 You stated that nationalism was 'justified' if you've earned it, but not why you believe fascism or nationalism are 'good'. Please, feel free to explain, and, in great detail.
And the Chinese people are happy about it. I told my PCR friend off, and he just spouted lines from Mao. They do not mind.
Of course they're happy about it - they believe in their government & their 'great' country. Did you read the article at all or what issues it's addressing?
Those things can be done without arrogantly holding onto a title of 'champion' or nationalism, or pretending you're better then other people.
That's why I argued about having the evidence first...
You still didn't answer the question.
To put it in plainer words: I did not choose to believe in that doctrine to allow myself to suffer mental or physical hurt in one way or another.
Fascism: I believe in a strong central government. Because I am influneced by my context, my country's system. A one party state that runs efficiently, without having to seek consensus with other parties that might lead to squabbling in parliament. Rather a single party, with a powerful leader to control the country properly. If you have the right man for the job, the right Party, I don;t see why we have to invite other factions into a government. Yes it has worked many times before, a multi-party state. But no, Singapore with it's tiny size and population cannot suffer a two-party parliament. The PAP has been in power so long, doing such a marvellous job over the years that many Singaporeans have become 'olitically inactive'. It's a reliable system over here. And believe me, the other parties suck so badly it wouldn't pay to let them lead.
Not really a Fascist as in Hitler type of Fascists. A softer version, without the more harsh elements mixed inside. The government for example doesn't ban rivals. Rather it has the most resources to draw all the bright young people to their side, train them.
I think Singapore lacks the authoritarian/totalitarian elements to be truly fascist. It may be leaning in that direction, but the parliament is democratically elected. If a single party continues to be successful, it is because they understand the needs & wants of their population; and being that it is not an enormous demographic, it is easier to cater to.
They don't crush dissent, there are other political parties available which have won seats in parliament (though nothing approaching even an opposition party).
Previously, my provincial government was held almost entirely by one party. Another election came and went this year, and while support dropped for them, they still have a majority control over the provincial parliament; I wouldn't call it fascism though. If they decide to do something so contrary to public acceptance/opinion, they'll get booted out. If the People's Action Party continue to do the right things & the populace continues to vote for them; they'll stay in power - and that is democratic.
I don't think you can really have a 'softer' version of fascism, because then.. it's not really fascism.
I think Singapore lacks the authoritarian/totalitarian elements to be truly fascist. It may be leaning in that direction, but the parliament is democratically elected. If a single party continues to be successful, it is because they understand the needs & wants of their population; and being that it is not an enormous demographic, it is easier to cater to.
I know, they are not a Fascist state. In fact mentioning that here would get me in jail with the title 'olitical prisoner'.
it's not really fascism
There's is no single form of accepted Fascism. Hitler may have been a muderous anti-Semite but the Brazilian Fascist Movement was for race equality.
I think Singapore lacks the authoritarian/totalitarian elements to be truly fascist. It may be leaning in that direction, but the parliament is democratically elected. If a single party continues to be successful, it is because they understand the needs & wants of their population; and being that it is not an enormous demographic, it is easier to cater to.
They manage to 'crush' them by subtle soft means. James Gomez and the CCTV. The SDP and it's law suit cases. The government stil can very much do it, though regarding how I don't know. Plus they do block out certain forms of media and books. And they force us to recite the pledge, sing the anthem everyday...feeding us history about Singapore's hardship, which is true but it appears now that Singapore only has one history. The government controls the education system, controlling youngsters minds. No one can mention anything about politics in class. The government tends to arrest...or warn anyone that critisizes it.
Hm, while I'm glad to see that there's lively discussion going on in this thread, I feel the need to cut through the crap a bit.
Is everybody here actually clear about each other's premises? I'm not sure this is the case, which is why the arguments are rambling on and, in fact, more about semantics than they are about content. Stream-of-consciousness is all well and good but I'm not sure you guys are aware that it's going to lead you in circles.
HiddenDistance, you've made it clear that you believe that "nationalism" (as you define it) is detrimental, and Nichodemus (and possibly Cenere) appears to disagree with that. But I still find everybody's exact definition of "nationalism" unclear. I ask if all the participants here are able to forward a single, rigorous definition of "nationalism" and distinguish it from related terms e.g. "atriotism" so you all know where each other stands.
Also, HiddenDistance, have you provided a definition of Fascism?
Competition propels people to greater heights - *not* pride.
While progress has frequently been attributed to competition, I think this is simplistic and does not take into account that competition has also driven people to greater depths. More appropriately progress can be thought of as the result of a balancing act between cooperation and competition. Furthermore, how does competition not involve pride?
Can we have a single definition to debate on Hidden...But not a wiki one.
I won't or rather I can't give a definition of Fascism. Too many variations. No single regime has been the same. Given the relatively short time they were in power, it further complicates things up.
