National pride

mdebets

“Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious”
— Oscar Wilde


“Nationalism is an infantile thing. It is the measles of mankind.”
— Albert Einstein

gozunda

mdebets wrote: »

“Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious”
— Oscar Wilde

“Nationalism is an infantile thing. It is the measles of mankind.”
— Albert Einstein

I presume your essays always got rubbish marks? You do know you are supposed to make a point or argument and then support it using quotes or examples? It's the back of the class for you ...

animaal

mdebets wrote: »

“Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious”
— Oscar Wilde


“Nationalism is an infantile thing. It is the measles of mankind.”
— Albert Einstein

Individuals who were great in one area, commenting on something else entirely. To be fair, their opinions were shaped by what was going on in the world around them at the time. But we can use quotes from respected people to further any cause...

"Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals"
— Gandhi on black people

"The female is a female by virtue of a certain lack of qualities; we should regard the female nature as afflicted with a natural defectiveness"
— Aristotle

"I would suggest that you analyze the whole situation and see if there is anything within your personality that arouses this tyrannical response from your husband."
— Martin Luther King to an abused wife

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

wakka12 wrote: »

Lots of circumstances beyond your control contribute to your personality. Your country might do that too, if you're from saudi arabia or syria or china or anywhere really the countries cultures,laws, economic problems, social problems will shape your personality and your opinions

This depends on whether it is an important factor in so. If you use the word "Irish" to describe someone, either you're describing someone very boring or you yourself are very boring if that's the first thing that comes to mind about their personality.

Being from a country tells me absolutly nothing about a person.

Anyway I don't see what removing borders would do to alleviate any nationalism. People would simply attach themselves to a county/state or city they reside in rather than the country, my city is better than your city... Cityism would replace nationalism, its simply a different scale of the same thing.Thats the only change there would be

It just wouldn't be called nationalism. There will always be borders as long as mankind is on the Earth. They might not be physical, political ones though.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

animaal wrote: »

I honestly don't recall anybody saying Ireland's the best country in the world - the closest was that time Enda Kenny promised to make us "the best little country in the world in which to do business".

But in general, I am proud of being Irish. This country isn't just somewhere we found ourselves for the first time yesterday morning. We actively make it what it is. We decide who runs the place. We decide the constitution and (indirectly) the laws. And we (or at least some of us) get taxed to the hilt to pay for it all. Why not take pride in it?

Sure, there are things that need to be fixed. And they deserve attention too. But the big picture is that we're doing a much better job than most of the world. There's no harm in recognising that. There are plenty of people who are quick enough to hit us over the head with it (i.e. we should be giving more to other countries because we're doing so much better).

But again - none of this tells me anything about who you are (other than a blindly loyal followed of democracy - nut you could be that and from any one of a number of different countries)

animaal

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But again - none of this tells me anything about who you are (other than a blindly loyal followed of democracy - nut you could be that and from any one of a number of different countries)

Yes, all true.

I don't think pride in my country says anything much about me either. It's fine for people from any country/society to be proud of the effort in creating an environment allowing them to flourish. I'm Irish and proud of what we have accomplished here, but that doesn't mean I think other countries can't also be proud.

Going back to the OP, I never understood the whole "Pride being a sin" thing that is ingrained in society. I have pride in my own accomplishments, in my family, in my country, in mankind as a whole. Isn't it amazing that a bunch of short-lived, smelly, instinct-driven animals (talking about mankind, not just about the Irish!) have such an understanding of the universe around us?

Edward M

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But again - none of this tells me anything about who you are (other than a blindly loyal followed of democracy - nut you could be that and from any one of a number of different countries)

I'm Irish, proud of who I am and believe in democracy.
That doesn't mean I'm proud of everything Irish or that happens in the name of Ireland.
I would call myself Irish if asked where from by someone in a foreign country, just as a way of letting them know my geographical location.
Society has evolved and being from somewhere now doesent necessarily mean you are culturally what people might expect. Humans do tend to have a more global identity now I feel.

donegaLroad

we are territorial by nature. In order for every nation to pull together and work as one, an alien invasion would need to happen.

Prune Tracy

Synthol wrote: »

So just because it's natural then that means that it's good?

Well what's actually wrong with just wanting to belong? I'm not talking about when nationalism goes negative - I'm just talking about the basic want/need to belong/identify.

mdebets wrote: »

“Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious”
— Oscar Wilde


“Nationalism is an infantile thing. It is the measles of mankind.”
— Albert Einstein

Depends on the nationalism/patriotism surely.

topper75

Merle said it best:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1Uyv6RmNyM

Grayson

boarders, nationalism, clannishness, cliques in work etc... They're all ways of identifying with a group. And it's normally harmless. It brings people together. The problem is when your group impinges on the rights or happiness of another. Or when one group thinks that it's group is simply better than everyone in other groups.

Shenshen

donegaLroad wrote: »

we are territorial by nature. In order for every nation to pull together and work as one, an alien invasion would need to happen.

So you think of nature as being entirely and eternally immutable?

server down

mdebets wrote: »

“Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious”
— Oscar Wilde


“Nationalism is an infantile thing. It is the measles of mankind.”
— Albert Einstein

I always doubt quotes from Einstein are real. And Wilde was a an eternal sophomore.

server down

Shenshen wrote: »

So you think of nature as being entirely and eternally immutable?

If you are going to have a world government you will need to accept the votes of the majority of the world on all issues, including issues of morality.

So say goodbye to Gay Marriage, and say hello to homosexuality being illegal again. And lots of other laws that are not liberal western.

Anyway, its not the States that cause the nationalism but the nations or ethnic groups that pre-exist in those States.

Hitman3000

server down wrote:

I always doubt quotes from Einstein are real. And Wilde was a an eternal sophomore.

' All attributed quotes on the internet are beyond question'
Abraham Lincoln

riffmongous

server down wrote: »

If you are going to have a world government you will need to accept the votes of the majority of the world on all issues, including issues of morality.

So say goodbye to Gay Marriage, and say hello to homosexuality being illegal again. And lots of other laws that are not liberal western.

Anyway, its not the States that cause the nationalism but the nations or ethnic groups that pre-exist in those States.

You could enshrine them as basic rights though.

I am personally in favour of positive nationalism, but I dont believe talk of it being in our blood or dna and that's just how was and ever shall be, humanity is starting to change quite fast considering how long we have been on the earth, and unless we send ourselves back to the stone age again I think within a few hundred years we'll be at the level of world government with one citizenry.

In the coming years though I think the biggest threat to our own nationalism will not be radical change from outside the 'West', but a general blanding down of our Irish culture due to Americanisation (with also a smaller influence from Britishness). Traditions that had long stood the test of time are quickly being lost amongst the youth

ArchXStanton

According to the EU nationalism is bad,meanwhile they want us to think of ourselves as Europeans first and foremost...

Nationalism = bad
EU nationalism = good

Shenshen

server down wrote: »

If you are going to have a world government you will need to accept the votes of the majority of the world on all issues, including issues of morality.

So say goodbye to Gay Marriage, and say hello to homosexuality being illegal again. And lots of other laws that are not liberal western.

Anyway, its not the States that cause the nationalism but the nations or ethnic groups that pre-exist in those States.

Interesting - we moved form "It's human nature and cannot be changed" to "would you want to be put into one group with people I would consider to be less developed".

To be quite frank, I found it disgusting that the human rights of gay people should ever have had to be put to a public vote in the first place, but there you go, democracy demanded that the majority be happy to "allow" a minority equal rights.

Not that that has anything to do with the topic at hand. Ethnic groups are an interesting point. Form the point of ethnicity, the vast majority of current nations are entirely artificial products, anyway.
A person from Bavaria would feel culturally much closer connected to someone from South Tyrol than to someone from Usedom.

I recently read an opinion piece in an online newspaper in which the author speculated about the future of nation states within super-national structures such as the EU. He made a very convincing argument that a very likely development would be the breaking up of the current nation states along ethnic lines (see Scotland for an example, Catalonia for another), while remaining in the framework provided by the super-national federation. Please bear in mind that we're not talking about a timeframe of days or weeks here, but decades.
How far this regionalistion my go would be very interesting to see. City states, maybe, as they would provide the most efficient and direct local administration. But still all bound into a larger group, without borders between the members.

Prune Tracy

riffmongous wrote: »

In the coming years though I think the biggest threat to our own nationalism will not be radical change from outside the 'West', but a general blanding down of our Irish culture due to Americanisation (with also a smaller influence from Britishness). Traditions that had long stood the test of time are quickly being lost amongst the youth

This is my fear. I like different cultures alongside each other. I don't want a watered down, uniform, homogenous "blend" - that is the very antithesis of diversity.

Shenshen

ArchXStanton wrote: »

According to the EU nationalism is bad,meanwhile they want us to think of ourselves as Europeans first and foremost...

Nationalism = bad
EU nationalism = good

Interesting - can you please link me to the corresponding EU declaration?

Taylor365

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

A borderless world will never happen.

Ever.

Oh it will....














.....when life itself is snuffed out. Even primitive animals have borders/perimeters.

topper75

ArchXStanton wrote: »

According to the EU nationalism is bad,meanwhile they want us to think of ourselves as Europeans first and foremost...

Nationalism = bad
EU nationalism = good

"There will be no federal EU so long as one Irishman lives and breathes so shove that blue flag up your jacksie."
Topper J Wilde.

server down

riffmongous wrote: »

You could enshrine them as basic rights though.

I am personally in favour of positive nationalism, but I dont believe talk of it being in our blood or dna and that's just how was and ever shall be, humanity is starting to change quite fast considering how long we have been on the earth, and unless we send ourselves back to the stone age again I think within a few hundred years we'll be at the level of world government with one citizenry.

YOu would need to create an unmodifable constitution for the world government, before creating the government. And this constitution would legalise gay marriage in (the country formally known as) Saudi Arabia, and across the middle east? Good luck with that.

In the coming years though I think the biggest threat to our own nationalism will not be radical change from outside the 'West', but a general blanding down of our Irish culture due to Americanisation (with also a smaller influence from Britishness). Traditions that had long stood the test of time are quickly being lost amongst the youth

I mean that ship has sailed. Its one of the reasons why Irish people dont defend their culture much. There isnt one.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Synthol wrote: »

What's up with the national anthems and being proud of your own country? To the point where you would cause conflict. It's literally a piece of land that you were born on by pure luck, borders were drawn with a pencil and then the people said this land is mine! It's the same piece of land as everywhere else. Imagine how great a world would be if it was just a single country with no borders and would be just like the earth has intended instead of imaginary borders drawn with a pencil by humans who decided that this particular piece of land is mine! And everyone should be proud of being born on this specific piece of land which is the same as all the others, but imaginary borders!

Our border is not a line drawn with pencil, its a physical border and either comprises the coastline from Louth clockwise to Donegal or streams/rivers which separate the 26 counties from the 6 counties in NI.

server down

Shenshen wrote: »

Interesting - we moved form "It's human nature and cannot be changed" to "would you want to be put into one group with people I would consider to be less developed".

Er, I didnt say anything about human nature, nor about it not being changeable. And I didnt say anything about other cultures being less developed either, thats your definition. of cultures with no gay marriage rights, not mine.

To be quite frank, I found it disgusting that the human rights of gay people should ever have had to be put to a public vote in the first place, but there you go, democracy demanded that the majority be happy to "allow" a minority equal rights.

Nice but irrelevant in actual practice and law, since we needed to change the constitution.

Not that that has anything to do with the topic at hand.

It clearly does. If you want no borders you need one government. I was trying to work out what laws this government would have.

Ethnic groups are an interesting point. Form the point of ethnicity, the vast majority of current nations are entirely artificial products, anyway.
A person from Bavaria would feel culturally much closer connected to someone from South Tyrol than to someone from Usedom.

However nation states are not that artifical, at least they are not random lines on the map?

I recently read an opinion piece in an online newspaper in which the author speculated about the future of nation states within super-national structures such as the EU. He made a very convincing argument that a very likely development would be the breaking up of the current nation states along ethnic lines (see Scotland for an example, Catalonia for another), while remaining in the framework provided by the super-national federation. Please bear in mind that we're not talking about a timeframe of days or weeks here, but decades.
How far this regionalistion my go would be very interesting to see. City states, maybe, as they would provide the most efficient and direct local administration. But still all bound into a larger group, without borders between the members.

That seems to be more nationalism, not less. Scotland is moving from one union to another for sure, but it will have much more control over its destiny than it had for many years in the British union. At least for now.

Europe isnt in fact, despite what someone just said above, trying to create a European nationalism. Besides some town twinnings, a dull flag, and the Beethoven tune there's not much.

ArchXStanton

server down wrote: »

Er, I didnt say anything about human nature, nor about it not being changeable. And I didnt say anything about other cultures being less developed either, thats your definition. of cultures with no gay marriage rights, not mine.



Nice but irrelevant in actual practice and law, since we needed to change the constitution.



It clearly does. If you want no borders you need one government. I was trying to work out what laws this government would have.




However nation states are not that artifical, at least they are not random lines on the map?



That seems to be more nationalism, not less. Scotland is moving from one union to another for sure, but it will have much more control over its destiny than it had for many years in the British union. At least for now.

Europe isnt in fact, despite what someone just said above, not trying to create a European nationalism. Besides some town twinnings, a dull flag, and the Beethoven tune there's not much.

You mustn't follow too closely what comes out of Brussels and Eurocrats...a rabid fanatical bunch

Shenshen

server down wrote: »

Er, I didnt say anything about human nature, nor about it not being changeable. And I didnt say anything about other cultures being less developed either, thats your definition. of cultures with no gay marriage rights, not mine.

You replied to my answer to that very question, though, did you not?

It clearly does. If you want no borders you need one government. I was trying to work out what laws this government would have.


However nation states are not that artifical, at least they are not random lines on the map?

Why would you require just one government? Look at Germany, for example - lots of government, each state has it's own. Responsibilities are shared with a national government, which in turn is regulated by various other institutions, such as the EU, the UN, etc.

And yes, national borders are random lines on a map. It's just that since the end of WW II, nobody has bothered shifting them much. Previous to that, they were as mobile as a camper van.

That seems to be more nationalism, not less. Scotland is moving from one union to another for sure, but it will have much more control over its destiny than it had for many years in the British union. At least for now.

Europe isnt in fact, despite what someone just said above, trying to create a European nationalism. Besides some town twinnings, a dull flag, and the Beethoven tune there's not much.

I wasn't talking about nationalism, but borders.
And to clarify, not open borders the way we see them today, but borders like the ones I grew up with, complete with full checkpoints, armed customs officials, sniffer dogs, and, in some cases, barbed wire, mines and spring guns.

The Highwayman

Synthol wrote: »

What's up with the national anthems and being proud of your own country? To the point where you would cause conflict. It's literally a piece of land that you were born on by pure luck, borders were drawn with a pencil and then the people said this land is mine! It's the same piece of land as everywhere else. Imagine how great a world would be if it was just a single country with no borders and would be just like the earth has intended instead of imaginary borders drawn with a pencil by humans who decided that this particular piece of land is mine! And everyone should be proud of being born on this specific piece of land which is the same as all the others, but imaginary borders!

Idiotic SJW, leftist, millennial, communist, rubbish. Borders and walls have let the world move forward. Not all cultures and society's are equal. The Romans built the colosseum 2000 years ago. Today millions are still living in mud huts in Africa. Thank God for borders that keep the savages and barbarians out.

Realt Dearg Sec

The Highwayman wrote: »

Idiotic SJW, leftist, millennial, communist, rubbish. Borders and walls have let the world move forward. Not all cultures and society's are equal. The Romans built the colosseum 2000 years ago. Today millions are still living in mud huts in Africa. Thank God for borders that keep the savages and barbarians out.

Did you ever ask yourself what actually happened in the Colosseum?

server down

Shenshen wrote: »

You replied to my answer to that very question, though, did you not?

No

Why would you require just one government? Look at Germany, for example - lots of government, each state has it's own. Responsibilities are shared with a national government, which in turn is regulated by various other institutions, such as the EU, the UN, etc.

Ok, so we are borderless already. A state has a constitution which over-rides local or State constitutions. If all you want is to create a world government which is as powerful as the UN then we have a world Government already.

And yes, national borders are random lines on a map. It's just that since the end of WW II, nobody has bothered shifting them much. Previous to that, they were as mobile as a camper van.

No they are not. If we had random lines on a Map we would have lots more separatist movements. Nation states are not just States. Some historic nations were split up - east and west Germany, and north and south Korea.

Some states are multi-national, like the UK. In multi-national states there tend to be separatist movements. In some parts of the world two competing nationalities are in conflict, like Northern Ireland. Nation states tend to be stable, mult-national states tend not to be.

( and by multi-national I dont mean multi-cultural. I mean countries with a ethnic or language group that was historically in the majority in a certain area).

In fact random lines on a Map is what colonialism left Africa and to a certain extent the middle east and it doesnt work.

I wasn't talking about nationalism, but borders.
And to clarify, not open borders the way we see them today, but borders like the ones I grew up with, complete with full checkpoints, armed customs officials, sniffer dogs, and, in some cases, barbed wire, mines and spring guns.

Well nobody wants that back within Europe, although it may happen in IReland yet.