Why is nationalism such a bad thing? What is wrong with having pride in one's identity, culture, values, etc...
Historically, this has always been a good thing and was something people took pride in. Only recently has the social perception of this began to sour. What gives?
Perceptions of nationalism went sour after WW2.
Then even further after the Balkan wars.
Nationalists have a nasty habit of purging the "lesser races", which isn't fun at all if you are one of the "lesser races" or someone else conquers you.
Like most things it has good and bad effects. The good effects is that itncsn be used to bring large groups of people together into cohesive societies and nations that can perform certain tasks more effectively. It is not the only force that create a shared sense of identity however.
On the bad it can lead to people becoming to rigid in their ways because they expected to follows uniform culture in order to be a member of a nation. It can also result in excluding people's that don't fit into the nation. This means that the state's will have access to less resources. Also, patriotism can be used to silence those who have real and necessary criticisms of the state or nation.
>Perceptions of nationalism went sour after WW2
I would argue it was more the Great War tbqh
Fair point. This kind of explains why the socialism aspects of the Scandinavian countries have had a fair bit of success. Their population is small and homogeneous - unlike the USA which is full of faggots and niggers and no one wants to pay for their shit
>Perceptions of nationalism went sour after WW2.
>Then even further after the Balkan wars.
The Balkan Wars happened 28 years before WW2 bruv
Bleh, Yugoslav wars. They were the death knell of nationalism in Europe.
There were still plenty of Nationalists after WW1, especially in Eastern Europe, Italy, and Germany.
WW1 did in 19th century nationalism in France and Britain. It bit the bullet even earlier in Sweden, after the Great Northern War.
The catalyst for the demise of Nationalism is a war where you lose 50% of your male population between the ages of 16-30.
>Why is nationalism such a bad thing? What is wrong with having pride in one's identity, culture, values, etc...
nations have been invented by liberals and a nation is a retarded idea, like anything created by liberals
They have an inherent othering affect (precived and real) which can be used to justify some real shity treatment of people.
>It bit the bullet even earlier in Sweden, after the Great Northern War.
Sweden literally sterilised people as part of "racial hygiene" in the 20th century
because when you put yourself above others you can use that to excuse violence in solving problems
>Historically [...]
Wrong. Fuck off
>What is wrong with having pride in one's identity, culture, values, etc...
Because you as an individual contributed fuck all to those things.
Enjoy them sure but they were not the fruits of your labor and to act as though they are and a means for you to denigrate and look down on others just shows how much of a piece of crap you are.
What if you're an active and beneficial member of your community, and are keenly aware of what makes your community different than that if the rest of the world?
Your statement seems reliant on the idea that the proponent be a basementdweller, but what if they're a fireman, policeman, or town mayor?
>Historically, this has always been a good
example?
It leads to violence racism and authoritarian regimes with a lack of human rights and democracy.
See Trump for example
nationalism =/= pride in one's nation
poor bait
It lost a point from western European perspective. There are no longer empires oppressing lesser nations or kings proclaiming to be above common man like in 19th century.
Before someone makes more arguments about being proud of something you took no part of.
What about gay pride, black pride or something similar? Why does no triggered intellectual never bother these people?
>oppressing lesser nations
Define opression. People claim that blacks were opressed in South Africa but the living standard there was the best in entire Africa.
>What is wrong with having pride in one's identity, culture, values, etc...
That isnt nationalism thats patriotism
Nationalism is where you say you're better than others and then start attacking them
>and then start attacking them
Its hardly an attack when people illegaly invade your nation and abuse the social system.
Defending what was left behind by your ancestors is being evil agressor now.
All nationalist countries have invaded countries not even close to their own, stop talking bullshit.
Huurr duur wars happen because of nationalism.
And yet every influential warmonger wishes to destroy nationalism and import people who fail to assimilate to start civil wars
After WW2, nationalism is implicitly connected to war, genocide, and unrestrained imperialism.
Being punished for speaking one's language, for example.
>Huurr duur wars happen because of nationalism.
Yes
>Country becomes nationalism
>suddenly its trying to create an empire
>unrestrained imperialism
But nationalism was the restrain that stopped imperialism.
Are you retarded? Nationalism is the final form of imperialism.
>Historically, this has always been a good thing and was something people took pride in.
This is not true though, even in the case of a most cursory glance at history. Take Greek influence in ancient Rome for instance.
Cato the Elder had to constantly brandish the rhetoric against the influence of Hellenic culture on the Republic and needless to say, he failed.
Look to Europe also (or any major continent for that matter), despite many groups sharing a common heritage they splinter off then subsequently war with each other.
Further, it is something of a myth to say that current culture, identity, values and what have you is not a patchwork of preceding peoples.
This is not an issue within itself, but conflicting elements within the constituent parts are simply left unresolved and put aside.
Anyways, the decrease in popularity can be chalked up to Globalism. It's as simple as that.
>Being punished for speaking one's language, for example.
A society of many languages does not work. It is bound to fail and if your IQ was above 80 you would know it.
No one is banning people from speaking a certain language but knowing the language of their country should be a requirenment to be allowed to stay in it.
>Huurr duur wars happen because of nationalism.
This is objectively true. Nationalism invites people to adopt an "US vs. THEM" point of view, where it is okay to commit horrible atrocities so long as it benefits "your" nation.
No it isnt. EU is imperialistic and most EU citizens are not nationalistic.
Destruction of small nations will lead to one world empire
>Nationalism is the final form of imperialism
Same can be said about communism. It makes people think "us vs them" . Wait communism sounds way more destructive as nationalism
>EU is imperialistic
lol. Confederation isnt imperialism
Because they likely go through those same troubles, but I notice within these communities you have people being criticized for using it for political personal gain (like blacks who criticize al sharpton), or gay black and browns who call out the white gays who talk about struggle, when they likely had things easier and use the gay angle also for personal gain. Maybe you just don't spend enough time within these communities to see their internal problems,
Switching your argument to an attack on communism doesnt make you any less wrong
I live in a country where mass murders and civil war happend because of communism.
Another dangerous thing would be religious fanaticism aka the current theme of muslims hating nonmuslims
This is why most words ending in "ism" are stupid, unclear and vague. Nobody even fucking agrees on what they mean.
Am I "nationalist" if I don't want mass immigration into my country? Some will say yes, some will say no, but either way, the "ism" is not important.
Nationalism is ideology. Should all ideologies be frowned upon because they cause division?
Nationalism and communism both have globalist agendas.
Communism and Fascism are the same thing in practice regardless of ideological difference.
Because nationalism implies conformity. There's nothing wrong with standing by your culture, assuming that culture allows improvement and complexity. [Some] Empires strike a good example of that. Countries not so much. Leaving aside the usual perpetrators, it's enough to look at the Greeks if you want a good example. They've routinely done purges in the northern parts of Greece, erasing any trace of the original Macedonians (mind you, REAL Macedonians, not the Slav pretenders) and claiming that land was Greek forever.
I think that's what offends me about nationalism the most. Empires are at least more honest when they stake a claim and want to take some territory. They'll come up with some casus belli bullshit and just do it. But nationalist states go out of their way to displace other populations and distort history to fit their agenda. At their core, nationalists are ideologues, not politicians.
Yes.
Because (((they))) said it is bad, btw it is only bas when white people do it
If negroes or sandnegroes do it, it is good
Since when do all homosexuals and blacks in the west struggle? I love seeing some E celeb that makes 5 times more than a hard working man cry about white privilege.
This is your stupidest argument yet. No, obviously, but not all ideologies invade Poland and Manchuria.
Communism and Nationalism aren't opposites. They often go hand-in-hand. The USSR was very nationalistic.
Sweden isnt nationalistic, only in that neoliberalism type of civic.
Sweden aint rly socialist even, the market is very free = lots of monies = welfare and partymembers living good on taxmoney bc muh workers
One of them does not lead your country into a phase of starvation. Which is it oh which is it?
Communist Russia invaded Poland. Communist Russia sent people to work camps.
Fascism, so what, it can produce food, it's still shit.
And? Every time someone attacks nationalism you randomly mention communism for no apparent reason other than to deflect, as if people don't view communism as equally shit.
Dude what
It can produce food so what? Dude are you serious? Fascism is way better than communism even if it has many flaws.
Do you even realize that most of you would lose your property under communism? That people were forced to take strangers into their normal sized homes under communism?
Yes, but most people were still fed under communism, but who cares, they're both equally shit. Communists just kill their own people while fascists kill others.
>as if people don't view communism as equally shit.
No they dont. Communism unlike Nationalism is being promoted in colleges and universities.
Communism is actually growing within youth and becoming a popular thing once again.
>No one is banning people from speaking a certain language but knowing the language of their country should be a requirenment to be allowed to stay in it.
Therefore all Poles should have moved from Russian empire? All those Slavs, Magyars and Romanians should have left the Habsburg Empire? And Irish should've just jump from their isle?
>As long as you're only starving "other" people it is okay
It is and that's worrying but people with actual brains who are educated realise they are both the same shit.
>Do you even realize that most of you would lose your property under communism? That people were forced to take strangers into their normal sized homes under communism?
t. someone that knows nothing about communism
My parents and grandparents both grew up in a communist regime. And let me tell you, sunshine, nobody ever shared a fucking bed. Everyone had a home. EVERYONE. And a job, and lots of money. The only problem was that there was no food to buy, and nothing to spend your money on.
But homes and beds? Trust me. They had homes and fucking beds. It's literally the one thing they did have.
You have no idea how many people starved during the war. The fact that they were captured alive meant that they were not starved on purpose or they would be murdered on the spot.
>Communism unlike Nationalism is being promoted in colleges and universities.
Pro-tip, saying that rich people should pay a higher percentage of income taxes isn't communism, unless you think that literally every US president since Woodrow Wilson was secretly communist. Hell, even Calvin Coolidge made rich people pay higher income taxes and he was probably the most fanatically anti-taxation of any modern president.
Nationalism is itself only 150 years or so old. It is not the 'natural' way humans associate with each other. It is very much a social construct (yes, I know, the word gets overused for many cultural facets, but it is quite simply true here). What's most 'natural' for humans is extended family clan structures, as you see in more primitive groups. But it kinda makes sense.
The problem is if if you have multi-ethnic states, inevitably one 'major' identity gets chosen as the default and minorities are instantly 'Othered', even if they've also been local inhabitants for centuries (i.e. Jews in Poland, natives in USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, Mexico, Brazil, etc).
I think nationalism really only works organically for smallish mono-lingual, and (more or less) mono-cultural states. Portugal, Denmark, Uruguay, etc. Very few countries are truly ethnically homogenous, especially in the face of globalization et al. Otherwise it's quite artificial. It can still work, but then the nation needs to be values based rather than ethnicity based.
Even today, fairly homogenous nation-states like Germany, France, USA, China, and so on have large regional identities and differences. What varies is how much the nation-state is identified with.
because nationalism invariably leads to racism and genocide. see trump, brexit
Besides from the fact that you are proud about something you didn't have any part in, no there is nothing wrong with nationalism.
Are you implying the holocaust didnt happen
>A society of many languages does not work.
Holy fuck, how retarded can you be? There's millions upon millions of people that end up bilingual. Also, there's countries with clusters of minorities where a single language is spoken just fine. I'm Romanian, and the Hungarian population here has a spot right dab in the middle of the country where everybody speaks Hungarian and they study in Hungarian. So fucking what? Does that make them less human, somehow? They're just normal people.
What exactly were you trying to accomplish by bringing up empires that were broken apart and divided into nation states, which would be desirable if you wanted to apply nationalism universally?
It *can lead* to violence racism and authoritarian regimes with a lack of human rights and democracy.
>ftfy
Switzerland, Yemen or Belize haven't bothered too many people.
Actually i am from a former yugoslavia and that was the case here. Also people could only drive a car every second day, had limited food supplies and other things.
Stop lying to children on here. Sure a lot of things were built on debts by the end of regime but that left the future generations screwed.
muh anecdote
Not him, but I find it rather hard to believe that a productive member of society would fall into an ideological trap if they didn't also have some issues on the side. That being said, it's just my own personal theory but if a person has their priorities in order and also uphold a healthy amount of self-esteem as a result or in congruence with that, what reason would there be to compensate by proclaiming you're the member of a master race that needs to genocide all subhuman filth or whatever the fuck. Couple those tendencies with stupidity or naivety, and the outcome will be so mind-numbingly vacuous that I'll have to massage my temples each time my brain has to process it.
I mean, I do believe that pride in the people and culture you identify with is generally a good thing. I love the history and traditions of my people, but I also make a conscious effort to cut out wholly unnecessary hypocrisy and keep a consistent world view, so I do not use it as an excuse to exalt myself over entire groups of people, some of whom will be more meritorious than I.
>Pro-tip, saying that rich people should pay a higher percentage of income taxes isn't communism
Not him but communism, and Marxism, is genuinely being promoted in colleges, two of my tutors are self proclaimed Marxists and several students in my classes are too.
Yes holocaust never happend. If it did there would be no camp survivors. Nearing the end of the war the Germans would just order to murder people and try to hide as much evidence as it could.
Leaving survivors would be a terrible idea and feeding them would be retarded
>The fact that they were captured alive meant that they were not starved on purpose or they would be murdered on the spot.
You forget about the need for slave labor. The Nazis relied heavily on prison labor to feed their war machine. They kept prisoners around just long enough until they felt they were no longer useful before killing them, sometimes with starvation, sometimes with gas.
What were you trying to accomplish here in the first place?
Saying that the Holohoax never happened is taboo in this commie board.
I'm not lying faggot. I'm sorry Yugoslavia was (and to be honest still is) the shithole of Europe, but not every communist country was the same. Communist countries loved to pride themselves on how they needed no one and could be self-sufficient, which is why there were plenty of buildings but nothing to eat. HOW THE FUCK AM I LYING TO CHILDREN? AND WHAT CHILD WOULD RATHER HAVE A HOME THAN FOOD? YOU STUPID FUCK. I JUST TOLD YOU THERE WAS NOTHING TO FUCKING EAT. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE MOTHERFUCKING PRAISE?
You're correct that that isn't the definition of nationalism but you're still wrong
They're slave labour work camps fool.
>Nearing the end of the war the Germans would just order to murder people and try to hide as much evidence as it could.
That is literally what they did.
>you
nope
Well history is on my side.
>Not him but communism, and Marxism, is genuinely being promoted in colleges, two of my tutors are self proclaimed Marxists and several students in my classes are too.
t. Americanski or western European
If you think this shit flies in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, etc., you're sorely mistaken.
And yet there are so many survivors some even claiming to have survived 4 years in death camps.
But its antisemitic to call such man a liar. He must have starved for 4 years like some magical indian guru
>sandnegroes
That doesnt even make sense
>tfw comfy liberal nationalism will never return
Because reactionaries LARPing as the "Left" want to destroy every element of true Liberalism, and nationalism is one of them.
>If you think this shit flies in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, etc., you're sorely mistaken.
Yes it does. Look at your universities especially the ones that focus on human studies like sociology, psychology etc
People can't even hide evidence of a simple murder. And you're expecting that the entire Axis (since the Holocaust didn't only take place in Germany) would've managed to hide all evidence that it took place? While they were struggling to survive another day? Are you this fucking retarded?
>They're slave labour work camps fool.
But people say they are death camps and their main purpose was to murder people. So starving people to death as fast as possible should be a priority.
Why let someone live for 5 months risking your plans to be uncovered? It makes no sense from a logical standpoint
One of the evidence they could get rid of is the actual people as that is what camps were suppose to be designed to do.
You know to prevent actual survivors from speaking out like they still do in 2017
No, it really doesn't. Stop projecting. In Romania there was a huge protest just this year where students came out in the streets chanting death to the "Red Plague." But, yeah, man, keep believing what you're believing.
Then again, I guess it depends on how brainwashed you've become already. Since you people have a very liberal definition of Marxism. I've seen retarded Sup Forumsacks go so far as to say that Kant and Hegel count as Marxists as well. So if you're definition is so broad as to encompass, I don't know, THE WHOLE OF CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY, then, yeah, they teach that in every civilized country.
>And yet there are so many survivors some even claiming to have survived 4 years in death camps.
All that means is that they were seen as useful as slave labor. Prisoners were used as slaves, and killed off when they were not longer considered useful. The idea that nobody was killed simply because a few survived is outrageously stupid and you should be ashamed of parroting storm-fag bullshit.
Its not just the evidence. If you are hell bent on genociding jews why risk having them be freed?
I'm British, what's your point, that former communist shitholes dont care much for communism. True enough, except how butthurt you all get about Gorbachev.
They needed labour, they didn't care too much about being discovered since most of them had a bullet through the head.
>All that means is that they were seen as useful as slave labor.
But the main purpose was to GENOCIDE people and make sure Jews are whiped off the face of the earth.
>you people have a very liberal definition of Marxism.
How do you infer this?
>One of the evidence they could get rid of is the actual people as that is what camps were suppose to be designed to do.
...Are you listening to yourself? You're talking as if every person ever sent to a death-camp survived. The majority didn't. Some did, despite the efforts of the Axis members to kill them and/or cover up in time. What exactly is so confounding about this?
And all these assumptions. You're saying: (1) that Nazis would be able to pull off anything they wanted to do without so much as human error, and (2) that every Nazi was so loyal to the cause and put aside self-preservation as to do their utmost to kill innocent people. In reality, many of the Germans/Romanian/Croatians/whatever had misgivings about what they were ordered to do. Which is why we honor so many fascists that risked their lives to make sure that these people got away.