• 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!

Is extreme nationalism really a bad thing?

Is extreme nationalism ALWAYS bad in every situation?

  • yes

    Votes: 25 64.1%
  • no

    Votes: 10 25.6%
  • other

    Votes: 4 10.3%

  • Total voters
    39
Are you reading? Please tell me that you aren't. Because if you were you'd realize that it's not the tax that made his nationalism extreme. It was the fact that he started murdering en masse to achieve it. And no one died when Mussolini went overboard with nationalism. Serioulsy. Pick up a history book?



I've never even heard of this. Source? Or are you just pulling it out of your ass? What relevance does this even have? Don't people who are married with children receive more tax breaks than people who are not?



Ah yes, obviously shooting the Roma is comparable to fingerprinting the Roma. Only, it's not. There is general attitude of distrust towards the Roma in Europe. However it was only through nationalism that they became actual victims of facism.



Blatantly ****ing false. Mussolini's creation of concentration camps in Ethiopia along with Nazi Germany's war with the Herrero people during the early 20th century served as the blueprint for concentration camps in most of Europe. There is an immense library of literature that shows the involvement that officials from the OVRA and PAI had in concentration camps. Your revisionism is made even more ridiculous by the fact that there are lists of concentration camps for Jews in Italy. Seriously, do you ever get tired of making **** up?



... Ah okay, it just so happens that every fascist government to date has committed a mass killing of some sort. Oooooooookay.

Murdering en masse? Got a link for that?

While it's true that every facist government to date has killed alotta people, Franco and Mussolini can't be placed in the same ballpark as Hitler. It's apples and oranges.

Hell, allied bombing killed more people than Franco and Mussolini.

I've never even heard of this. Source? Or are you just pulling it out of your ass? What relevance does this even have? Don't people who are married with children receive more tax breaks than people who are not?

Doesn't surprise me that you've never heard of the bachelor tax. You're huddling around the fantasy that Mussolini was somehow running his own version of the Holocaust.


http://books.google.com/books?id=6D...gK#v=onepage&q=mussolini bachelor tax&f=false
 
Last edited:
Obviously, I would argue that it is a good thing. Nationalism is merely the love of one's own people-- the people to whom one's moral obligations are strongest.

Is racism and anti-semitism good things? Is ethnic cleansing and genocide good things?
 
I'm a nationalist, I don't think it's a bad thing, and as long as you don't tie anything else into nationalism, like race or religion, it's not a bad thing at all.

Nationalism is a substitute for race and religion. See Nazism as a substitute for religion, Zionism as a substitute for race, etc.

Nationalism, like race and religion, often defines itself exactly by what it is not. Therefore, nationalism is inherently exclusive and notoriously xenophobic. We, as a human civilization, must get past these vague group identities. Let us embrace a more individualistic approach to mankind. One that cherishes the merit and worth of each individual life, regardless of race/sex/religion/etc.
 
The general population believes that they are better than non-Americans and how America is the greatest and most powerful country in the world. And nothing bad has happened because of this. So do you think that extreme nationalism is a bad thing? I didn't post this in the basement, because I'm hoping we can be civil when discussing this.

I voted YES because nationalism is an obscure group identity concept that remains as exclusive, as xenophobic, and as self-sacrificing as the most notorious and violent gang, mob, political ideology, movement, race or creed. Nationalism kills individual spirit and holds that the good of the colony demands the sacrifice of the individual (much like a gang, mob, party, movement, race, or creed).
 
Nationalism is a substitute for race and religion. See Nazism as a substitute for religion, Zionism as a substitute for race, etc.

Nationalism, like race and religion, often defines itself exactly by what it is not. Therefore, nationalism is inherently exclusive and notoriously xenophobic. We, as a human civilization, must get past these vague group identities. Let us embrace a more individualistic approach to mankind. One that cherishes the merit and worth of each individual life, regardless of race/sex/religion/etc.

As a liberal, I believe in equality, so I'm inclined to a world that takes each individual as they are, but until we reach that perfect world, nationalism, specifically liberal nationalism, is the most harmless of all the identifiers that people use, it is less divisive than race or religion, as it is almost entirely a legal identity, and a cultural one at worst. As long as notions of what constitute a nationality stay as a legal concept, then there's really no harm in nationalism at all, until is used an excuse for less salubrious activities, but the same can be said of any identifier.
 
As a liberal, I believe in equality, so I'm inclined to a world that takes each individual as they are, but until we reach that perfect world, nationalism, specifically liberal nationalism, is the most harmless of all the identifiers that people use, it is less divisive than race or religion, as it is almost entirely a legal identity, and a cultural one at worst. As long as notions of what constitute a nationality stay as a legal concept, then there's really no harm in nationalism at all, until is used an excuse for less salubrious activities, but the same can be said of any identifier.

The way I see it. Nationalism is great and fine, but the moment people start believing their nation is superior to others without objective, empirical, and quantitative evidence to back it up, there's a problem. It means that there is a loyalty when none is warranted by evidence or logic.
 
The greatness of a nation can be empirically measured. By some metrics the United States is at the top or near the top (e.g. civil liberties, economic vibrancy, GDP per capita, military power). By other metrics the United States lags far behind our peers (e.g. education, health care, criminal justice, poverty). Waving the flag and proclaiming America to be better than everyone else is ****ing stupid. Most of the people who do that haven't done a damn thing themselves to make America great; they could have just as easily been born in Nigeria.

While we totally agree in terms of nationalism, we differ on the "metrics" used to define our lagging areas of health care, criminal justice, poverty and education. First, we have an excellent health care system. We are world renowned for our health care in the areas of the hearts and lungs, as well as prescription drugs, bio-medical technology, and various other fields. The big scare over 45,000 uninsured Americans is not so bad as the vast majority of the world. European countries do share many advantages in lifelong longevity, less violent crime and cuisine, there are also many circumstances which must be considered. This includes observing the massive demographic shift in Europe and the changing political/economic landscapes of various countries. Liberals often praise the EU's accomplishments and advantages, but fail to recognize that their system isn't working and many strongly pro-labor European governments have already massively cut back on social spending. When you consider that the retired population will soon outnumber the working population by a significant margin, you have to wonder how long the political spending party will last. Many of these countries, particularly Canada, benefit from the capitalistic venture medicine in this country that produces so much medical innovation. Canadian practitioners wait for drugs and devices to be tested and approved here before they decide to implement similar drugs and devices.

There are many things that can improve our system and simultaneously drive down costs. We can change behaviorally as a nation. We can smoke less, eat less, exercise more, etc. in order to sustain a healthier less. We could work less, but I tend to believe the American workweek is not that horrible. The French will fight hard to keep their 32 hour work week, but watch what happens when the politicians propose cutting EVERYONE'S pay down to 24 hour work weeks so that the next guy can get a job. It's not pretty.

Our eduation can be improved by tailoring education to fit each individual student's need. Such a decentralized, bottom-up view of education doesn't get many supporters. People tend not to mind the status quo of centralized and heavily regulated education. Look at what happened to the woman who was in the middle of transforming D.C. public schools for the better- she got fired just as soon as the next mayor moved in. We seem to fear change when it comes to educational reform. Throwing more money and creating a bigger bureaucracy seems to be accepted status quo of our system. A very unfortunate fact, indeed.

Our criminal justice system can also be greatly improved if individuals were willing to let a lot of unconstitutional, moralistic laws go. Drug possession and drug trade must be decriminalized if not legalized. Prostitution and gambling must be legalized and DUI laws should be repealed.

Our foreign policy and our defense spending must also be dramatically altered, but I suppose we might agree on that one and move on.
 
Last edited:
As a liberal, I believe in equality, so I'm inclined to a world that takes each individual as they are, but until we reach that perfect world, nationalism, specifically liberal nationalism, is the most harmless of all the identifiers that people use, it is less divisive than race or religion, as it is almost entirely a legal identity, and a cultural one at worst. As long as notions of what constitute a nationality stay as a legal concept, then there's really no harm in nationalism at all, until is used an excuse for less salubrious activities, but the same can be said of any identifier.

I'm not sure how to swallow that statement. Liberalism is strongly related to individual freedom, while nationalism is strongly rooted in collectivism and limited consideration of individual spirit. I'm sure you won't hesitate to explain how you merge the two together. But in my mind, it's an oxymoron.

I'm not arguing that we must end all nations at once, for I also believe we're not ready for such a revolution (which, at that immediate speed, would mean violent revolution). I do believe that we should empower individuals rather than groups, and not be beholden to some self-sacrificing nationalistic idea.
 
The way I see it. Nationalism is great and fine, but the moment people start believing their nation is superior to others without objective, empirical, and quantitative evidence to back it up, there's a problem. It means that there is a loyalty when none is warranted by evidence or logic.

Nations are no more superior to each other than you are to me.
 
Nations are no more superior to each other than you are to me.

I certainly see the US as superior to Venezuela or Saudi Arabia based on certain indicators that I believe are important, such as GDP, Education, Political Freedoms, Health, and Rule of Law. However, we can point to numerical indicators that let us know objectively why the US is better and letting me know why I should be proud to be a US citizen and giving me something to point to if I am ever asked to explain why. It also lets us know what we need to work on. If some other nation has achieved some level of competence in some areas, it means it can be done with today's technology and advancement. This gives us a roadmap for the future.
 
Last edited:
I certainly see the US as superior to Venezuela or Saudi Arabia based on certain indicators that I believe are important, such as GDP, Education, Political Freedoms, Health, and Rule of Law. However, we can point to numerical indicators that let us know objectively why the US is better and letting me know why I should be proud to be a US citizen and giving me something to point to if I am ever asked to explain why. It also lets us know what we need to work on. If some other nation has achieved some level of competence in some areas, it means it can be done with today's technology and advancement. This gives us a roadmap for the future.

Then perhaps you also believe that Americans are superior to Venezuelans and Saudi Arabs.

Read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond regarding this topic.
 
I'm not sure how to swallow that statement. Liberalism is strongly related to individual freedom, while nationalism is strongly rooted in collectivism and limited consideration of individual spirit. I'm sure you won't hesitate to explain how you merge the two together. But in my mind, it's an oxymoron.

The way I see it, nationalism is a flexible belief, take me and my country for example, I'm proud of being Australian, and, for example, so is the person of Sudanese descent who lives next door, while my family's been here for 100+ years, and he only became a citizen a few years ago, in my idea of nationalism, we'd still both be equally Australian, even if our ideas of what makes us Australian differ, it's the shared idea, rather than the way that people go about it, is what's important, thus it doesn't infringe on individuality.
I'm not arguing that we must end all nations at once, for I also believe we're not ready for such a revolution (which, at that immediate speed, would mean violent revolution). I do believe that we should empower individuals rather than groups, and not be beholden to some self-sacrificing nationalistic idea.

It's my belief that while individual freedom is a good thing, a completely anarchist society would cause people to form there own little groups and it would just become fractured, people have a need to belong to something, and the less specific it is, the more personal freedoms it would allow as it is less restricting.
 
Then perhaps you also believe that Americans are superior to Venezuelans and Saudi Arabs.

Read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond regarding this topic.

I have a copy of the book on my bookshelf and I have read it. I agree with much of its reasoning, but I don't agree with its level of determinism.
 
Nationalism is a substitute for race and religion. See Nazism as a substitute for religion, Zionism as a substitute for race, etc.

Nationalism, like race and religion, often defines itself exactly by what it is not. Therefore, nationalism is inherently exclusive and notoriously xenophobic. We, as a human civilization, must get past these vague group identities. Let us embrace a more individualistic approach to mankind. One that cherishes the merit and worth of each individual life, regardless of race/sex/religion/etc.

I agree with this for the most part, though I am not in favor of strict individualism. Strongly identifying with yourself can have many of the same negative consequences and really forms the basis for such things as nationalism.
 
He said extreme nationalism – nationalism itself is all well and good to a point - but it can be taken too far, IMO.

Today's nationalism is blind faith in partisan politics, not consideration for the people's welfare, not based on logic or common sense, only what the military, politicians, and media chose to tell us.

ricksfolly
 
I really don't understand why anyone would be "proud to be an American" or any other nationality. You had no control over where you were born, any more than you had control over your race or sex. Sure, nationalities (like race and sex) can on rare occasions be changed, and I can understand why new immigrants would feel proud to be Americans. But aside from that, what exactly do you have to be proud of? Are you proud of the fact that you had the foresight to pop out of a vagina in the United States instead of one in Zambia?

I can understand appreciating the history, politics, and culture of a nation...but you can do that just as easily whether you are a member of that nation or not. The United States certainly has a rich history with some good points, just like many other nations do. I appreciate American history, but in the detached sense that I can also appreciate British history or French history or Turkish history. I don't feel any particular "pride" in America's past, because I had nothing to do with it.
 
Last edited:
The way I see it, nationalism is a flexible belief, take me and my country for example, I'm proud of being Australian, and, for example, so is the person of Sudanese descent who lives next door, while my family's been here for 100+ years, and he only became a citizen a few years ago, in my idea of nationalism, we'd still both be equally Australian, even if our ideas of what makes us Australian differ, it's the shared idea, rather than the way that people go about it, is what's important, thus it doesn't infringe on individuality.

I do think that "the way people go about it" is very important. You have a kind-hearted soul like yourself who praises his nationality, and then you have a reactionary, xenophobic nationalist doing very bad things. Both are exhibiting a degree of nationalistic tendency.

My main point was that nationalism tends to lead to zealous, xenophobic and exclusive group behavior. You can be proud to be American, but the OP is specifically about extreme nationalism. I think it should be obvious to all that extreme nationalism (much like anything extreme) is unhealthy for society and for individual liberty.

It's my belief that while individual freedom is a good thing, a completely anarchist society would cause people to form there own little groups and it would just become fractured, people have a need to belong to something, and the less specific it is, the more personal freedoms it would allow as it is less restricting.

Simplification of civil society is the new idea. Anarchism is notoriously painted as violent, thieving, and chaotic (which it is). But often there are many strands of anarchism just as there are strands of all political ideologies. There's insurrectionary anarchism, and the violent revolutions attempted by the anarchists of the late 1800s and early 1900s. There's also Immediatism Anarchism, Mutualism, Individualist Anarchism, Social Anarchism, etc. I personally like the concept of the Temporary Autonomous Zone, developed by writer and thinker, Hakim Bey. Bey is able to illustrate how even your casual neighborhood get-together is a form of anarchism, where no central authority is delegated or maintained. There's more to anarchism than Luigi Galleani.

With that said, I'm not an anarchist. I'm a libertarian (or minarchist) and there is a significant difference.
 
I agree with this for the most part, though I am not in favor of strict individualism. Strongly identifying with yourself can have many of the same negative consequences and really forms the basis for such things as nationalism.

I don't see how. Could you expand the point?
 
I have a copy of the book on my bookshelf and I have read it. I agree with much of its reasoning, but I don't agree with its level of determinism.

I notice you didn't respond to the first and most important point. If you're willing to say that the US is "certainly" superior to Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, then how can you not also say that Americans are superior to Venezuelans or Saudi Arabs?
 
I don't see how. Could you expand the point?

To put it simply people bring their nationality into their self identity to where a slight against a nation is considered a slight against the individual.
 
To put it simply people bring their nationality into their self identity to where a slight against a nation is considered a slight against the individual.

But still, what does strict individualism have to do with extreme nationalism? I don't deny the above statement, but it sounds more like a group think mentality rather than individualistic one.
 
But still, what does strict individualism have to do with extreme nationalism? I don't deny the above statement, but it sounds more like a group think mentality rather than individualistic one.

Except it all arises from that individualistic thinking. When your chief interest involves what is best for you as an individual you naturally learn to get that out of others even if it as their expense. For the individual to disregard the interests of the collective is no better than for the collective to disregard the interests of the individual.
 
Is racism and anti-semitism good things? Is ethnic cleansing and genocide good things?

Racism is the perverse and toxic notion that, as a white American, I should have more in common with the white German than with the black American. It is the belief that according to some arbitrary sociological construct with pseudo-scientific justification, I should have more loyalty to strangers than to members of my own family. It replaces culture and heritage with genome, and as such I find it is as offensive to culture and heritage as your liberal equivocation of these things.

Anti-Semitism is tied up in a number of things, ranging from racial discrimination to religious discrimination to nationalism. I'm not opposed to it in principle, but Jews have always been a proud and productive part of the American national fabric and I would be opposed to the efforts of any group which desired to deny or change that.

I have no problems with genocide as carried out in the course of a war, and consider it nothing more than the logical endpoint of any war that is not ended for other reasons.
 
Back
Top Bottom