• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are you a jingoist?

Are you a jingoist?


  • Total voters
    23

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
It's defined as "extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy".

In practice, it refers to the advocation of the use of threats or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what they perceive as their country's national interests, and colloquially to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others – an extreme type of nationalism.
 
Not absolutely.
 
"My country, right or wrong."

My country isn't superior to other countries. I treat it like it's superior because it's mine.
 
My country isn't superior to other countries. I treat it like it's superior because it's mine.

Nonsense.

Some countries are better than others, by objective standards such as quality of living, mortality rate, crime rate, amount of personal freedom, size of the prison population, etc.

And by anecdotal standards, thirty million invaders like the US more than the place they left.
 
Last edited:
I think that I, like most people, "have excessive bias in judging my country as superior to others" - but that doesn't necessary make us jingoists.
 
Some countries are better than others, by objective standards such as quality of living, mortality rate, crime rate, amount of personal freedom, size of the prison population, etc.

But the US isn't the best at ANY of those things...except size of prison population (if you really consider that a good thing).
 
But the US isn't the best at ANY of those things...except size of prison population (if you really consider that a good thing).

I think he probably meant a smaller population size in prison to denote more law abiding citizens.
 
And by anecdotal standards, thirty million invaders like the US more than the place they left.

"Thirty million"? Regardless, it's difficult for anyone to invade a land that their race was present on thousands of years prior to the arrival of Europeans...but only some misguided nationalistic delusion would enable one to regard Amerindian immigrants as having some allegiance to Latin American states when many of those states remain largely racist in nature and governed by white elites that often possess disdain for Amerindians. The misguided will refer to them as having poorly governed "their" countries, of course ignoring the fact that people of that race only had marginal political control of Latin American countries to begin with. :roll:
 
No, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtXl_TyM6aI"]YouTube - Al Murray Pub Landlord - God Bless America[/ame]

Warning strong language that may cause offence
 
Last edited:
Warning Strong yet fragarant language[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUdaPNXC_68"]YouTube - Al Murray vs. Americans[/ame]
 
Those of you who answered "No", what would say is the problem with being a Jingoist?
 
I have excessive bias in judging my country as superior to others

I view myself as a nationalist/patriot but it doesn't make me a jingoist. My country is superior to other countries, that is a fact.
 
I view myself as a nationalist/patriot but it doesn't make me a jingoist. My country is superior to other countries, that is a fact.

That's exactly what I am starting to think. I don't have excessive pride. But going to the other part of the definition:

the advocation of the use of threats or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what they perceive as their country's national interests

And that does fit me. I think national interests makes for justification of conflict.
 
That's exactly what I am starting to think. I don't have excessive pride. But going to the other part of the definition:



And that does fit me. I think national interests makes for justification of conflict.

What do you define as national interest?
 
What do you define as national interest?

National defense and spreading democracy, within limitations. Not so much economic interests, although that helps define geopolitical importance, which is a limitation to spreading democracy.

Justification for invasion of a country and regime change.
• Bad country: threat to neighbors, WMD history, dictatorship, cruel to people
• Geopolitically important: important neighbors, located in important region <oil>
• In the National Interest: spreading democracy
• Capacity for democratization: educated, economic potantial
 
National defense and spreading democracy, within limitations. Not so much economic interests, although that helps define geopolitical importance, which is a limitation to spreading democracy.

Justification for invasion of a country and regime change.
• Bad country: threat to neighbors, WMD history, dictatorship, cruel to people
• Geopolitically important: important neighbors, located in important region <oil>
• In the National Interest: spreading democracy
• Capacity for democratization: educated, economic potantial

I do not think using military force for those things make anyone a jingoist in a bad sense.
 
I do not think using military force for those things make anyone a jingoist in a bad sense.

Well, in honesty, I did express support for Manifest Destiny, when Agna called me a jingoist. But my support is more based on the fact the the US needed to settle the land before other European powers intervened, than it was the elimination and forced relocation of the Indians.
 
I do not think using military force for those things make anyone a jingoist in a bad sense.
really? i have never understood why people believe it's acceptable to invade a country because they have the capacity for democracy.
 
really? i have never understood why people believe it's acceptable to invade a country because they have the capacity for democracy.

Those thing should be taken together. They all must be met to invade a country and change it's government. It would be pretty pointless to invade a country to spread democracy that did NOT have the capacity for democracy. It is actually the weakest part of applying that justification to Iraq, IMHO.
 
really? i have never understood why people believe it's acceptable to invade a country because they have the capacity for democracy.

To me its about resources or wiping out a potential threat or maybe defending an ally. I do not really care about instilling democracy in countries that really have nothing to do with us or have no interest to us. Its one thing to try to make a country democratic if we invaded it, destroyed its military and removed its leaders like in Iraq and Afghanistan's case. Destroying and running is not really a good tactic.If we decided to do something about Sudan, do you think we should just wipe its leaders and military out and leave hoping that the next people in charge do not do the same thing or would it be better if we tried to rebuild and install a democracy?
 
I am not a jingoist, no, but I might point out that neither am I a self-loathing reactionary.

If the forums I have visited are any indication, the "America, love it or leave it crowd", is matched pretty closely by the "America is the source of all the world's ills" set.

Neither get my respect.
 
Those thing should be taken together. They all must be met to invade a country and change it's government. It would be pretty pointless to invade a country to spread democracy that did NOT have the capacity for democracy. It is actually the weakest part of applying that justification to Iraq, IMHO.
there is no justification for iraq, imo. and afghanistan is looking worse and worse.
 
To me its about resources or wiping out a potential threat or maybe defending an ally. I do not really care about instilling democracy in countries that really have nothing to do with us or have no interest to us. Its one thing to try to make a country democratic if we invaded it, destroyed its military and removed its leaders like in Iraq and Afghanistan's case. Destroying and running is not really a good tactic.If we decided to do something about Sudan, do you think we should just wipe its leaders and military out and leave hoping that the next people in charge do not do the same thing or would it be better if we tried to rebuild and install a democracy?
if we decided to do something about sudan, we should do it all the way. i don't know enough about their culture to advocate that, however.
 
Back
Top Bottom