Nationalism and Patriotism

[gimmepie]

So, obviously these things are very similar.

Nationalism:

un
identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

or

advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people.​

Patriotism:

the quality of being patriotic; devotion to and vigorous support for one's country.​

Where does one begin and the other end? Are these traits inherently or positive? What are the pros and cons? Are you a patriot or nationalist? Is there any merit in being proud of where you were born? Discuss anything relevant here but try to answer as best you can.

 

[Bidoof FTW]

Personally I don't think Nationalism is good. At a certain point, nationalism can lead to such pride over one's country that they could dislike other countries or get upset by people with nationalism towards different countries. I lived in a town with a huge south american presence for a long time and one thing that really surprised me was the nationalism they had. Brazilians, Colombians, Peruvians, all found ways to dump on the countries the others were from.

I think it just creates dumb pride that leads to division between people.

 

[lloebet]

One word is used to vilify people caring about the advancement and protection of country and one is the safe word for the same thing.

 

[Gabri]

One is bullshit and the other is horseshit.

We should have already progressed way beyond such feeble notions with the amount of knowledge humans have gathered thus far.

 

[twocows]

People act like these are bad words. I don't agree. I think they can be bad in excess, but I think almost anything can be bad in excess.

With respect to nationalism, I think it's completely rational to prioritize your own interests or those of the community you inhabit as long as that's tempered with an understanding that, in the globally connected world we live in, external problems can easily end up crossing borders if left unchecked. If you never advocate for your own interests, people just end up taking advantage of you and eventually you'll lose the means to advance your own interests, let alone those of others. I think helping others is important and something to aspire to when able, but I think it needs to be balanced against your own interests, which should generally take priority except in times of great personal excess or great external need. This isn't just limited to international politics, either, it's something that also applies on the individual level. I know a lot of people who are too willing to let themselves be taken advantage of or are too unwilling to help others; I think both of these extremes are destructive.

As for patriotism, I think it's actually fundamental to the cohesion of nations. Patriotism is the emotional basis for people acting as groups rather than as individuals. When acting as a group, people can accomplish much bigger things than any single one of them is capable of on their own. Patriotism gives people a reason to place their country's needs over their own, a reason that's more emotionally compelling than enlightened self-interest. Without that sense of pride and community, you'll find a lot of people aren't willing to sacrifice their own interests to advance the collective interest. That leads to a lack of cohesion and, in the extreme, the collapse of the collective itself. Of course, the problem with patriotism is that since it's more of an emotional construct, it's not always rational. It can very easily be taken too far and lead to bias against people who aren't part of the group.

 

[gimmepie]

As for patriotism, I think it's actually fundamental to the cohesion of nations. Patriotism is the emotional basis for people acting as groups rather than as individuals.

While I find plenty I'm not adverse to in your take, this really jumps out to me as just fundamentally wrong - at least the second part is. Patriotism has nothing at all to do with humans tending to act as groups not individuals. Human being are biologically constructed to be, essentially, pack animals. We are biologically predisposed to cluster together with other people and loyalty to an imaginary construct like a nation has nothing to do with that.

I'd also argue that blind loyalty to one's nation is dangerous and that one's loyalty should be to their fellow countrymen - and to humanity in general - not to their country.

 

[Ninetales]

I don't think either are inherently bad at all. I am proud to be Canadian, although I understand that my nation is imperfect and flawed, especially regarding our colonial history, but I still love my homeland regardless. Nationialism and patriotism become problematic when they cause an individual to develop a potent sense of superiority, and when they promote division and a self-centered ideology. We must consider all individuals and not just ourselves or those who reside in the same geographical region as us.

 

[Corrin]

Eh, you can be like "my country is a nice country, I'm happy to live here" without being an overbearing ass. To be honest, your birth and the circumstances of it are random, you could've been a citizen of any country, so is it really that smart to be proud of it? Be proud of things you achieved on your own.

 

[Maedar]

Blind loyalty to anything is bad. Eventually, it becomes a case of "my country, right or wrong" and you find yourself defending - and possibly committing - crimes against humanity.

The Nuremberg defendants claimed they were "just following orders" but they still hanged for what they did. The jury didn't buy that their acts of genocide and mass-murder were done out of "loyalty to country"

Here's an interesting opinion on it:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Theodore Roosevelt, a man who actually held the position of President, said that.

 

[twocows]

While I find plenty I'm not adverse to in your take, this really jumps out to me as just fundamentally wrong - at least the second part is. Patriotism has nothing at all to do with humans tending to act as groups not individuals. Human being are biologically constructed to be, essentially, pack animals. We are biologically predisposed to cluster together with other people and loyalty to an imaginary construct like a nation has nothing to do with that.

Early humans were largely solitary hunter-gatherers and there are still people who live that lifestyle. We've adapted to live more group-based lives, but there's still a large social component to getting people to act as a group.

I'd also argue that blind loyalty to one's nation is dangerous and that one's loyalty should be to their fellow countrymen - and to humanity in general - not to their country.

I'd argue that too. Blind loyalty to anything is wrong and dangerous, and a country IS the people that make it up. The reference might be a bit cheesy, but Asgard wasn't a place, it was a people. When I say loyalty to the country, that's what i mean: to the countrymen, not to the soil or the government.

The thing is, we aren't post-scarcity and time, effort, and resources are real limitations we have to deal with. People are going to have priorities as to who they devote their time, effort, and resources to, especially if there are conflicting interests. What the idea of patriotism does is it gives people a reason to prioritize their countrymen over themselves, which they aren't as likely to do in the lack of it. In that sense, it's an idea that's useful to the cohesiveness of a nation, it's just that like any emotional construct, it can be bad in extremes and it can be abused and used to manipulate people.