0
   

Nationalism vs. Patriotism

 
 
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 05:36 pm
Is there a meaningful difference between the two? Is it "patriotism" when it happens at home and "nationalism" when it happens abroad?

Here's what the good ol' O.E.D. has to say:

nationalism: Advocacy of or support for the interests of one's own nation, esp. to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Also: advocacy of or support for national independence or self-determination.

The O.E.D. also adds this note: Whereas patriotism usually refers to a general sentiment, nationalism now usually refers to a specific ideology, esp. one expressed through political activism. In earlier use, however, the two appear to have been more or less interchangeable.


patriotism: The quality of being patriotic; love of or devotion to one's country.


That's how the distinction looks on paper. How has it worked out in practice?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,833 • Replies: 42
No top replies

 
anton
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 05:54 pm
Patriots who defend their country against US aggression are deemed to be Terrorists by most Americans?
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 06:00 pm
The love of one's country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?
Pablo Casals

Patriotism is easy to understand in America. It means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country.
Calvin Coolidge

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.
Albert Einstein

Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles.
George Jean Nathan

A nation is a society united by a delusion about its ancestry and by common hatred of its neighbours.
William Ralph Inge

You'll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race.
George Bernard Shaw
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 06:07 pm
Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons.
Bertrand Russell

Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them!
Albert Einstein

A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.
George William Curtis
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 03:11 am
einstein wasn't very patriotic, he completely betrayed the party that was ruling germany, and he betrayed the spirit of the nation at that time.

not to mention that party was democratically elected. but i think we can agree he did the right thing.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 05:08 am
Quote:
Eric Fromm

A nationalist thinks a priori that his country is the best.

A patriot considers his country to be excellent but it could be better.


The only patriotic thinng I do, is reading our local/regional paper
http://i20.tinypic.com/28ml2rd.jpg
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 11:35 am
tinygiraffe wrote:
he completely betrayed the party that was ruling germany, and he betrayed the spirit of the nation at that time.


It's worth noting that one can be opposed to the current ruling party of one's country, or to the spirit that its majority currently expresses, and still love one's country.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 02:50 pm
absolutely. after all, just because some fascist party takes over, doesn't mean you don't still have family you care about, or years of history caring about that country.
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 09:15 am
I seem to detect a lot of "Wouldn't it be wonderful if all the world lived in peace, harmony and love"? in here. Yeah, it would. A lofty ideal and eminently supportable, in concept.

However, as long as there exists but one human (and by extension, family, tribe, group, region....) out of the population of the planet who does not "buy into" the program....... we end up exactly where we are now.

The world "society" as we find it today is not the result of careful and considered planning, but rather a result of how we have interacted with each other since man evolved. It has always been "them versus us" to one extent or another. To make it otherwise would require a complete remake of the human psyche as it pertains to social interaction for the greater portion of upwards of seven billion humans.

I submit that attempting to change the direction of a herd of seven billion is a good method to get trampled into the dirt. :wink:

Halfback
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 04:28 pm
Anyone who uphold/appreciate/adore the country of his birth( A mistake of the parents in bed for their relaxation)
is entitled to be blind and parochial to show his arrogance.
Patriotism is worse than Hiitlers nationalism or Hinduthuva's barbarism
I leave other isms
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 04:46 pm
"Any given nation is a pessimist and generally an ass"
~ my mother Smile
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 06:17 pm
your mom is awesome.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 08:33 pm
Halfback wrote:
I seem to detect a lot of "Wouldn't it be wonderful if all the world lived in peace, harmony and love"? in here. Yeah, it would. A lofty ideal and eminently supportable, in concept.

However, as long as there exists but one human (and by extension, family, tribe, group, region....) out of the population of the planet who does not "buy into" the program....... we end up exactly where we are now.

The world "society" as we find it today is not the result of careful and considered planning, but rather a result of how we have interacted with each other since man evolved. It has always been "them versus us" to one extent or another. To make it otherwise would require a complete remake of the human psyche as it pertains to social interaction for the greater portion of upwards of seven billion humans.

I submit that attempting to change the direction of a herd of seven billion is a good method to get trampled into the dirt. :wink:

Halfback


Agreed.

So what does one do when human nature shaped and sharpened over hundreds of thousands of years does not comply with one's sense of what is right?

Should one reassess one's sense of what is right?

What would it mean to being human if the nature that gives rise to tribalism were altered in order to do away with violent conflicts among nations?

The quaint notion of the lion laying down with the lamb has a fanciful appeal, but if it ever happened, it would mean the extinction of lions. Lions cannot survive on a vegan diet, and if the magic finger snap that caused them to lie down with the lamb was able to "fix it" so they could, they would stop being lions, and before long they would look remarkably like lambs.

At some point in the not too distant future we may have the ability to transform human nature through genetic engineering. Do we want to?
Do we trust those with the power to accomplish such a feat to limit their tinkering to tribalism, and even if we could, wouldn't the elimination of tribalism most assuredly have a negative impact on some of the qualities of human nature that we admire and wish to preserve?

There is some irony in the fact that the very same people who would lecture us for trying to seperate our species fate from that of nature in general, would so love to see us seperate ourselves from the evolutionary heritage we have been building for hundreds of thousands of years.

Tribalism is, obviously, a very effective survival mechanism. It is unlikely to disappear through the natural process of evolution...at least not in any time soon. It is also not going to be overcome by righteous thinking and education. Even if one could, through education, convert an entire populace to a collection of pacifists with universal love for all mankind, the result would be similar to that of convincing the lamb to lie down with the lion, but leaving the lion as is.

It's all or nothing and that sort of effort can only be achieved in an environment of highly centralized control , and willingness (at least at the level of control) to impose a program of genetic engineering the scope of which is almost unfathomable to the 21st century mind.

Wouldn't it be wonderful...

I do think John Lennon was a dreamer, and irrespective of whether or not he was the only, he was dreaming. Dreams can be pretty though.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 08:58 pm
tinygiraffe wrote:
einstein wasn't very patriotic, he completely betrayed the party that was ruling germany, and he betrayed the spirit of the nation at that time.

not to mention that party was democratically elected. but i think we can agree he did the right thing.


Wasn't Einstein Jewish? I thought he needed to leave Germany at that point in history, since he sensed what was coming. That's not betrayal, that's survival during a regime that would have disenfranchised him from his citizenship.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 09:13 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Tribalism is, obviously, a very effective survival mechanism. It is unlikely to disappear through the natural process of evolution...at least not in any time soon. It is also not going to be overcome by righteous thinking and education. Even if one could, through education, convert an entire populace to a collection of pacifists with universal love for all mankind, the result would be similar to that of convincing the lamb to lie down with the lion, but leaving the lion as is.



Scotland had clans (aka tribes), ancient Israel had tribes, Ireland had clans. Today there are Scots, Jews, Irish living all over the world, and not subscribing to clans/tribes. Some might be a bit ethnocentric, but so are a lot of ethnic groups. I think tribalism just dies out when modern living takes the place of the tribal life. Change is slow naturally.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 09:27 pm
Foofie wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Tribalism is, obviously, a very effective survival mechanism. It is unlikely to disappear through the natural process of evolution...at least not in any time soon. It is also not going to be overcome by righteous thinking and education. Even if one could, through education, convert an entire populace to a collection of pacifists with universal love for all mankind, the result would be similar to that of convincing the lamb to lie down with the lion, but leaving the lion as is.



Scotland had clans (aka tribes), ancient Israel had tribes, Ireland had clans. Today there are Scots, Jews, Irish living all over the world, and not subscribing to clans/tribes. Some might be a bit ethnocentric, but so are a lot of ethnic groups. I think tribalism just dies out when modern living takes the place of the tribal life. Change is slow naturally.


If that were true then we wouldn't have the types of killings we have in Iraq between the 3 main groups. They are in essence tribes with seprate beliefs within the same religion. They have all lived in the same area for hundreds of years and still can't get along. How much slower can these people move?
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 09:55 pm
FINN; THAT was a considered and eloquent post and right on the nail head! Cool I do have to draw the line at potential mind control. If I had to submit to that, then I wouldn't be the same grumpy old curmudgeon that I am today. Laughing

FOOFIE; When the tribes go out or become modernized they are replaced by a larger group. Using your example: The clans have gravitated to Scotland (Uber alles), but you won't convince me that all the clan loyalty is gone. How about rival street gangs in big cities?

Kinda like in USA, the civil war has been over for 140 years and there are still folks in my adopted State who think DamnYankee is one word. Laughing

Old loyalties are hard to subdue, despite modern society. Iraq is prime example.

Halfback
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 10:51 pm
"Nationalism is perhaps the most interesting delusion of modern times.
Its power is illustrated by the fact that lots of otherwise sensible people are unapologetic nationalists, even though nationalism requires its adherents to subscribe to various bizarre beliefs.

For example, the nationalist believes that while other nations act invariably on the basis of self-interest, his country is historically unique, in that it makes great sacrifices for the good of others.

The American nationalist believes that America is "inherently good," and that therefore our imperialist adventures have nothing in common with those of other great powers.

Try this thought experiment:
Imagine Nicolas Sarkozy defending French foreign policy by pointing out that France is "inherently good," or
Vladimir Putin claiming the right to imprison suspected terrorists for life without trial, because the Russian security forces can be trusted not to make mistakes

In short, when a political leader claims he is the head of a unique nation, anointed by history or even God himself to be a light unto the world, we tend to consider him either an amusing crank or a dangerous lunatic

Paul Campos professor of law at the University of Colorado
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2007 12:06 am
tinygiraffe wrote:
einstein wasn't very patriotic, he completely betrayed the party that was ruling germany, and he betrayed the spirit of the nation at that time.

not to mention that party was democratically elected. but i think we can agree he did the right thing.


FYI, up until Hitler was APPOINTED Chancellor of Germany (he was never elected to any office in the German govt), the Nazi party never had a majority of seats in the German govt.

But,they had become such a strong minority that to appease them Hitler was made Chancellor.

So,the Nazi party was never elected to be the majority in Germany, at least not until AFTER Hitler became dictator.

Just thought I would point that out to you.
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2007 05:48 am
Rama;

I vote with Dr. Campos' "dangerous lunatic" description. :wink:

Halfback
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Nationalism vs. Patriotism
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/12/2021 at 11:48:03