![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Check out the pictures from the Freeway Bloggers Free Speech Day. Some are dumb or boring, but some are clever. Have any favorites?
By the way, why is it that so many on the right are so nationalistic? Do they think that the rest of the world is only there to be ignored or dominated? And are they the same people that went crazy over who won their high school football games? (Living two blocks from a high school football stadium tends to warp one's thoughts after a Friday night.)
By the way, why is it that so many on the right are so nationalistic? Do they think that the rest of the world is only there to be ignored or dominated? And are they the same people that went crazy over who won their high school football games? (Living two blocks from a high school football stadium tends to warp one's thoughts after a Friday night.)
(no subject)
Nationalism:
1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
If you use the first definition of "nationalistic" in the sense of "go home team go!", then everyone ought to be more nationalistic. I'll instead assume you used a crappy metaphor, and meant "nationalistic" as in "imperialist" (which isn't the same thing, at all, but I get the sense that this is where your post was pointing...).
Imperialism:
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony(influence) over other nations.
In this case, I would have to argue that we have no duty to the world. We don't know what's best for other nations, and other nations don't know what's best for us. To argue that we should make decisions in the best interests of other nations flies in the face of lessons taught over the course of human civilization. A nation's duty is to its people, and only to its people. If you honestly believe that other countries aren't doing the same thing, then I need only point you to the UN's Oil For Food debacle.
I'm a fan of Zbignew Brzezinski, I must admit. Have you read any of his books? Highly recommended.... good, thought-provoking stuff.
We are all humans
The lesson taught over the course of human civilization is that the more nations look out for only their own interests rather than working with others, the more nations fight and the more innocents suffer.
Re: We are all humans
I consider myself a nationalist. I do believe that our country is about the best nation to live in on Earth. I do not believe it is flawless, in fact I am painfully aware of its flaws. Simply put, I think that despite those painful flaws it is about the best thing going in the world. There are other cultures and nations that are also very wonderful in the world and I also believe that a lot of them have been able to maintain that status because they are under the shield of the US and the allies we lead.
That being said, we've also destroyed and betrayed some wonderful cultures and we don't need to go back to the 19th century to find examples. Not supporting the Iraqi uprisings after the first Gulf War should make any American patriot sick.
There is another way to look at your last point about innocents' suffering. Even if you assume everyone cares about the suffering of innocents, which history shows isn't often the case, the argument can be made that while many innocents suffer in the short term civilization often benefits in the long term. Usually periods of great development for the human race are linked to imperial conquest and consolidation of power. Pick any empire and look at the advancements it made in the development of civilization, science, etc... Then look at the people who suffered at the same time. I am too much of a realist not to accept that history does show this to be one truth.
I am also too much of an idealist to believe this is the only way progress can be made. I hope that as a race we're growing past that point, in fact I believe technology is forcing that growth upon us. Modern warfare has already taught us that open conflict is no longer as viable a solution to solving our differences. The fact that we didn't have a nuclear war before the end of the Cold War shows that we're starting to learn that lesson.
Getting back to my nationalistic side, this is why I would love to see a president who will lead the nation to take a greater role in the UN. Once again, it isn't a perfect body, but it is the largest organization that actually tries to give a damn about the world as a whole. I believe that when the US backs the UN it can accomplish impressive things. When that happens you have the fall of a tyrant like Milosovich. When you have a president who turns America against the UN you have the government of Sudan going unpunished while they try to outpace Rwanda for the "most countrymen killed" award.
It takes power to get nations to work together. We have a lot of power. If we use it responsibly we can bring great change to the world without trampling the weak. To me, that IS nationalism and patriotism.
(no subject)
Nationalism - the belief in the innate and absolute superiority of one's country.
Imperialism - The act of one country or culture dominating and imposing its will on another.
I consider myself very patriotic in that I wholeheartedly support the U.S. Constitution and defend it when necessary (through discourse, voting, and protests.) This country was founded on the principle that the people are the government, which means I don't have rulers to obey - I am one of the rulers and have a responsibility to keep myself informed and vote responsibly for what is best for the country.
I am not, however, even remotely nationalistic. I love my country because it's mine, not because it's the best in the world. I might even place Canada higher. Nonetheless, I would never leave here. No matter how bad things get (and I think they're getting pretty bad), I have a responsibility to stay and make things better. The biggest danger of nationalism is imperialism, because if you believe that your country is better than all others, that gives you the moral right to invade other countries and force them to your way of thinking. To me, that goes against the spirit of the U.S. constitution, which is grounded in the belief that all human beings have certain inalienable rights (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.) This includes people in other countries.
Needless to say, I feel the war in Iraq is imperialistic and morally wrong. (If need be, I'll explain.) Beyond the ethical issues, though, it is also wrong from a pragmatic standpoint. We're wasting resources and our own armed forces in Iraq. These could be put to better use in Afghanistan, here to defend our country if necessary, and even as part of a U.N. peace-keeping force to stop the genocide in the Sudan, where the human rights violations are far worse than they ever were in Iraq.
(no subject)
Our definitions are slightly, yet significantly different. I do consider myself nationalistic by my definition but not by Nontacitare's. Largely I think it is a question of degrees. I do not believe fanaticism is required for nationalism, I feel that you can believe your nation is the best overall without discounting the qualities of other nations nor overlook the flaws in your own.