• 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
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 didn't notice you making that point sorry. I believe that all people are fundamentally equal in worth. However a nation is not merely people, it is shared culture, accomplishment, economy, land, and a bunch of other stuff. Most of it is what people choose throughout their daily lives. People choose to uphold their cultural, economic, moral, etc values over other possibilities in their every day decisions. It is the result of those choices which has a great influence on how successful a nation is going to be. If something works well, it is certainly superior to something that does not work well. Like a car, I would rather have a nice toyota tundra that can go 150k miles without problems over some cheap 80s american car that can barely go 40k miles. The tundra is superior because it is better fit to its purpose. The same is true with a country.

I see humans in a totally different manner because 1 they can choose their own purpose and often their own fitness to it (or at least have influence, we cannot all be michael jordon) and 2 the wellbeing of people (which is the purpose of society) has a moral value attached to it that does not deviate between individuals.
 
Last edited:
Yes and no, on the yes side look at Nazi Germany and its idea of Nationalism which it attempted to pass off as National Socialism which was actually nothing more then a half a$$ attempt at Fascism on the Nazi level. That said the answer can also go to no because you should always have some form of commitment to your nation through the patronage to its causes. That does not mean you have to approve everything that it does nor do you have to support the Government you must simply love your nation and the values its based on and then fight to maintain it even if that means the Government of foreign invaders.
 
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.

...Or control of anything else, for that matter. Things happen and we respond the only way we know how.

ricksfolly
 
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.

And nationalism is NOT an arbitrary sociological construct? Do you deny that nationalism imposes a loyalty to strangers than to members of your own family? Nationalism demands that you give the same treatment, the same respect, and the same charity to people in New York City as you would to people in your immediate family who live in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

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.

But the Nazis attempt to rid the world of international Jewry in the '30s and '40s is not something you oppose?

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.

So basically, you believe that all attempts to eliminate another family or nationality in a time of war is totally acceptable. Blood wars based on clan ties have illustrated to be the most chaotic societies in history.
 
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.

That is true. But it is much easier to protect the interests of the collective than it is to protect the interests of the individual. You have to be a pretty patient and hard-skinned outsider in order to protect the equal rights of all individuals. To stand up for the interests of one massive majority is quite easy. You can simply go about your day and not say or do a thing to support such an entity, and that would be enough.
 
I didn't notice you making that point sorry. I believe that all people are fundamentally equal in worth. However a nation is not merely people, it is shared culture, accomplishment, economy, land, and a bunch of other stuff. Most of it is what people choose throughout their daily lives. People choose to uphold their cultural, economic, moral, etc values over other possibilities in their every day decisions. It is the result of those choices which has a great influence on how successful a nation is going to be. If something works well, it is certainly superior to something that does not work well. Like a car, I would rather have a nice toyota tundra that can go 150k miles without problems over some cheap 80s american car that can barely go 40k miles. The tundra is superior because it is better fit to its purpose. The same is true with a country.

I see humans in a totally different manner because 1 they can choose their own purpose and often their own fitness to it (or at least have influence, we cannot all be michael jordon) and 2 the wellbeing of people (which is the purpose of society) has a moral value attached to it that does not deviate between individuals.

I know the components of nationalism. But you said that America is obviously superior to Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. I don't see how, if America is composed of AMERICANS and Venezuela is composed of VENEZUELANS, you cannot think that Americans are superior to Venezuelans.
 
The general population believes that they are better than non-Americans

That is probably true of most nation's populations...

and how America is the greatest and most powerful country in the world.

I don't think that most powerful can really be debated. Greatest can be measured ina number of ways from civil liberties, education and structured law to economic stability, wealth and security (secure borders and lack of internal fighting).

And nothing bad has happened because of this.

America has done a lot of things wrong from slavery to assassinations... no nation is perfect.

So do you think that extreme nationalism is a bad thing?

Extreme Sports are about the only good extreme...
 
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.

And what if the best interest of the collective is to let the individual die? Nobody wants to be that individual unless they are a parent to their child. Individual interests will generally trump the collective interests...
 
What does a nationalist do when his country no longer exists? He or she has a choice between acceptance and revenge.
 
I know the components of nationalism. But you said that America is obviously superior to Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. I don't see how, if America is composed of AMERICANS and Venezuela is composed of VENEZUELANS, you cannot think that Americans are superior to Venezuelans.

I just explained why, did you not read my post?
 
"Is extreme nationalism ALWAYS bad in every situation?"

No. While there may be situations where it is bad, there may be other situations where it is perfectly acceptable. People like to say that because Germans had powerful "nationalism" that nationalism is a bad thing, completely ignoring the fact that it was another country with a high level of nationalism(America) to drive them back, and to effectively bring down the Soviet Union. Those douchebag hippies in the 60s and 70s tried to erode that in this country, but that's what drugs will do to you.
 
And nationalism is NOT an arbitrary sociological construct?

Oh, it certainly is. But it, at least, is an outgrowth of natural human patterns of loyalty. As the individual is to the tribe, the tribe is to the nation. It makes sense, and it provides both a means and a justification for the loyalty demanded.

Do you deny that nationalism imposes a loyalty to strangers than to members of your own family? Nationalism demands that you give the same treatment, the same respect, and the same charity to people in New York City as you would to people in your immediate family who live in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

I have relationships with people in New York City. I have shared cultural and traditional values with them. I could be related to people from New York City.

But the Nazis attempt to rid the world of international Jewry in the '30s and '40s is not something you oppose?

It was their business.

So basically, you believe that all attempts to eliminate another family or nationality in a time of war is totally acceptable. Blood wars based on clan ties have illustrated to be the most chaotic societies in history.

Hence why we have the State to impose order.
 
I just explained why, did you not read my post?

Your expression that superiority can be determined based on metric comparison is a lot like arguing that black people are inherently superior to white people in terms of athletic ability. If we're talking about national superiority, your argument is chauvinistic through and through. Land and resources are irrelevant. Government and economic structures can be compared and put on a gradient scale, based on historic success. But culture, in this debate, is the source of your chauvinism. But not to worry, you're no different than the billions of other people who think their "culture" is superior to anothers. I don't approach the topic in that direction. Even if we take the easiest challenge from an anthropological perspective- the female circumcision debate. Anthropologists can't decide whether or not they should shun an entire culture based on a single tradition. Many claim that because certain African cultures produce female circumcision rituals, that all cultures are superior to that one. I don't see it that way. I think we should destroy the ritual and condemn it globally. However, I do not propose that my culture is superior to theirs because of their archaic traditions.

Such prejudism and collectivist judgements lead to the most heinous crimes against humanity. The next step would be to eliminate the inferior cultures or to forcibly absorb them into our own.
 
Oh, it certainly is. But it, at least, is an outgrowth of natural human patterns of loyalty. As the individual is to the tribe, the tribe is to the nation. It makes sense, and it provides both a means and a justification for the loyalty demanded.

I'm guessing you really loved the Japanese Imperial mentality during WW2. The individual is a cheap piece of the overall national machinery. Its value is easily expendable.

I have relationships with people in New York City. I have shared cultural and traditional values with them. I could be related to people from New York City.

Pick any small town anywhere in the USA where you do not have any relations or historic genome links. How close do you feel to those people? Will you die for them? Will you sacrifice your boys for their safety and protection? Will you pay out of your own pocket to provide for their own well-being?

It was their business.

You CONDONE the holocaust because it was someone else's business.

As the old saying goes...

"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Hence why we have the State to impose order.

I don't think you understood my statement. Nations killing each other and attempting to rid the world of certain undesirables is exacty like the decentralized clan wars based on blood ties. I was discussing the international, not the intranational.
 
An extremely good nation deserves extreme nationalism. The citizenry must be wise enough to know when their nation is extremely great.
 
I'm guessing you really loved the Japanese Imperial mentality during WW2. The individual is a cheap piece of the overall national machinery. Its value is easily expendable.

Yes.

Pick any small town anywhere in the USA where you do not have any relations or historic genome links. How close do you feel to those people? Will you die for them? Will you sacrifice your boys for their safety and protection? Will you pay out of your own pocket to provide for their own well-being?

If I joined the military, I would already be doing so. The taxes I pay go for their well-being. And as distant as I may feel to those people-- because the USA is a distant, alienated society-- I am still closer to them than I am to foreigners.

You CONDONE the holocaust because it was someone else's business.

Yes. Come now, do you honestly think we would have ever lifted a finger to stop it if we weren't already at war with the Germans? If the Japanese hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor, don't you think we'd have been more than content to allow Germany to murder its way across Europe and Japan to do the same all throughout Asia?

We put a stop to it because it was convenient to do so. Because it suited our interests.

I don't think you understood my statement. Nations killing each other and attempting to rid the world of certain undesirables is exacty like the decentralized clan wars based on blood ties. I was discussing the international, not the intranational.

Do you think the limitations we place on warfare, the Geneva Conventions, lead to less warfare in the world or more?
 
I believe that all people are fundamentally equal in worth.

People may all be equally created, but that doesn't mean in worth. Their worth and values are the result of life conditioning, having the right kind of parents, sibs, peers, friends, and associates.

ricksfolly
 
Yes.



If I joined the military, I would already be doing so. The taxes I pay go for their well-being. And as distant as I may feel to those people-- because the USA is a distant, alienated society-- I am still closer to them than I am to foreigners.

I understand that. But what's the worth of providing for the welfare of society and protecting it when its components are easily expendable? What is so great about supporting the collective if the sum of the individual parts is nothing special?

Yes. Come now, do you honestly think we would have ever lifted a finger to stop it if we weren't already at war with the Germans? If the Japanese hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor, don't you think we'd have been more than content to allow Germany to murder its way across Europe and Japan to do the same all throughout Asia?

The Allied assault during WW2 is arguably one of the most justified wars in history. Did we do enough to save the prisoners at the time? Certainly not. But there was a real purpose of fighting the war on the side of the allies. I can't say it would be right to expend the resources and manpower to police the world and maintain peace throughout all regions. I do understand that it is the business of the neighboring countries to do something about the massive atrocity. But the thing about Hitler was that he was on path to kill everybody, even Americans. And you can't wait till all of your allies are down before you join in. It may be too late.

We put a stop to it because it was convenient to do so. Because it suited our interests.

It was the business of the region's national members to secure peace in their time. Unfortunately, they waited and condoned it as the German's business, until the German's business landed on their doorstep.

Do you think the limitations we place on warfare, the Geneva Conventions, lead to less warfare in the world or more?

First, you did not directly respond to the point I made. Second, I don't believe that was the intention of the conventions. I believe the general intention of the law produced by the conventions is to limit the horror and atrocity of war, not war itself. That was the League of Nations and UN, both of which are exceptional failures in preventing wars. But I suppose you have no interest in the horrors of war, no matter how despicable they may be.
 
An extremely good nation deserves extreme nationalism. The citizenry must be wise enough to know when their nation is extremely great.

so when an unwise citizenry does not know that their nation is extremely good, there will be no extreme nationalism?
 
so when an unwise citizenry does not know that their nation is extremely good, there will be no extreme nationalism?

Welcome to modern America. Without realizing what we had, we are now doing everything in our power to change our country away from its constitutional foundation and I fear we will change to something far worse.
 
Welcome to modern America. Without realizing what we had, we are now doing everything in our power to change our country away from its constitutional foundation and I fear we will change to something far worse.

We are doing everything in our power to change our country away from its constitutional foundation? Examples please... I am glad to be welcomed to modern America, but I will miss my slaves.
 
Murdering en masse? Got a link for that?

Do you know anything about Italy other than 'it looks like a boot'?

Second Italo-Abyssinian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Among other things, the Treaty of Peace with Italy signed between the Italian Republic (Repubblica Italiana) and the victorious powers of World War II on February 10, 1947 in Paris, included Italy's formal recognition of Ethiopian independence and an agreement to pay $25,000,000 in reparations. Ethiopia became an independent nation again, and Haile Selassie was restored as its leader. At the time of this treaty, Ethiopia presented Italy with a bill of its own for damages inflicted during the course of Mussolini's colonial adventure. Claimed were the loss of 2,000 churches, the loss of 525,000 houses, and the slaughter and/or confiscation of six million beef cattle, seven million sheep and goats, one million horses and mules, and 700,000 camels. The bill for this presented to the Economic Commission for Italy came to £184,746,023.[47]
In addition, these human losses were recorded by the Ethiopians:
275,000 - combatants killed in action; 78,500 - patriots killed during the occupation (1936-1941); 17,800 - civilians killed by bombings; 30,000 - massacre of February 1937; 35,000 - persons who died in concentration camps; 24,000 - patriots executed by Summary Courts; 300,000 - persons who died of privations due to the destruction of their villages.
The Total was 760,300 human losses.[47]Of course the Italians complained about this huge amount, arguing that real ethiopian casualties were half those losses[62]

Are you going to dispute the meaning of en masse?

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.

Ah so now Mussolini wasn't as bad as the other guys? lol mkay there.

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.

Mussolini's Italy: Life Under the ... - Google Books

Did you read the rest of my statement? Obviously not considering you have proven time and time again that you can't read.
 
I can't believe the cowardice in this thread.

Extreme nationalism motivated the American population into over drive so that it could face the extreme nationalism of Japan and Germany. Families were recycling, buying war bonds, and going without for the war effort. Hollywood churned out a never ending wave of nationalistic movies about who the good guys and bad guys were. This extreme nationalism carried on as the world watched Americans on the moon beating out the Soviet's Sputnik achievement.

The truth is that cultures and populations define what it's extreme nationalism entails. The most powerful nation in the world post World War 1 was the U.S., yet it was the U.S. that moved to create the League of Nations so that power could be shared and checked. The most powerful nation in history in the post World War 2 was the U.S., yet it was the U.S. that moved to create the United Nations so that power could be shared and checked. Throughout these highs in American nationalism, the U.S. recognized that it came with responsibility. This is not the case for others who have used their extreme nationalism to motivate death and destruction and to instigate world crisis. Someone used Iraq. Did we assault across the landscape of the ME building concentration camps and prescribing mass executions or did it stay defined within the borders and hand over the nation to its democratic and prospering people? Someone brought up Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did we go on to drop bombs all over the world or become the leading voice to control the development and use of such weapons? We have controlled our power and remained true to our core ideals no matter how powerful we got and along the way, extreme nationalism has been the motivator.

So when somebody asks the question about nationalism, one should honestly consider the cultures involved rather than pretending that we are all one globally ****ed up family too weak to wield power positively. The international world's greatest fear is that they are powerless to prevent us from doing whatever we want. However, their fears are grounded not on our historical example (which they will exaggerate in order to create legitimacy), but on their own culture's decrepit examples. Why should American nationalism and pride be shunned for the sake of others who defined their nationalism and pride by the blood soaked ground around them?
 
Last edited:
I have, but what was bad? We won the Iraq War.

The most powerful country on the planet attacked one of the weakest, and we still have thousands of troops there to prevent rebellion and protect the oil. Does that mean we won?

This war is one of the best examples of why extreme nationalism is not a good thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom