Comments on: Patriotism v. Nationalism http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/19/patriotism-v-nationalism/ Making the World Safe for Liberalism Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:00:17 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: ivan http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/19/patriotism-v-nationalism/comment-page-1/#comment-327626 ivan Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:36:37 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=431#comment-327626 please tell what are the example of promoting patriotism and nationalism please tell what are the example of promoting patriotism and nationalism

]]> By: The Mahablog » Responsibility http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/19/patriotism-v-nationalism/comment-page-1/#comment-248178 The Mahablog » Responsibility Sun, 24 Jun 2007 17:51:19 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=431#comment-248178 [...] Awhile back I wrote a post called “Patriotism v. Nationalism,” which was followed up by “Patriotism v. Paranoia,” “Patriotism v. Francis Fukuyama,” “Patriotism v. Hate Speech,” and probably some other posts. Anyway, in the first post I repeated some quotes about patriotism and nationalism I found in Bartlett’s. Here are some of them, again: The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war. — Sidney J. Harris Patriotism is a lively sense of collective responsibility. Nationalism is a silly cock crowing on its own dunghill and calling for larger spurs and brighter beaks. I fear that nationalism is one of England’s many spurious gifts to the world. — Richard Aldington [...] [...] Awhile back I wrote a post called “Patriotism v. Nationalism,” which was followed up by “Patriotism v. Paranoia,” “Patriotism v. Francis Fukuyama,” “Patriotism v. Hate Speech,” and probably some other posts. Anyway, in the first post I repeated some quotes about patriotism and nationalism I found in Bartlett’s. Here are some of them, again: The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war. — Sidney J. Harris Patriotism is a lively sense of collective responsibility. Nationalism is a silly cock crowing on its own dunghill and calling for larger spurs and brighter beaks. I fear that nationalism is one of England’s many spurious gifts to the world. — Richard Aldington [...]

]]> By: Dawn http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/19/patriotism-v-nationalism/comment-page-1/#comment-39395 Dawn Wed, 25 Oct 2006 04:47:15 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=431#comment-39395 In studying ideas set forth by Barbara Ehrenreich I came across this blog article. It is so wonderfully constructed. Ehrenreich takes the point further in "Blood Rites" and looks at three recent examples of "religious nationalism". One being "the ritualized 'patriotism' that emerged in the postwar United States." The book is not focused on this topic, but is worth the read of her interpretation of the "Origins and History of the Passions of War." In studying ideas set forth by Barbara Ehrenreich I came across this blog article. It is so wonderfully constructed.
Ehrenreich takes the point further in “Blood Rites” and looks at three recent examples of “religious nationalism”. One being “the ritualized ‘patriotism’ that emerged in the postwar United States.” The book is not focused on this topic, but is worth the read of her interpretation of the “Origins and History of the Passions of War.”

]]> By: The Mahablog » The Patients Are Running the Asylum http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/19/patriotism-v-nationalism/comment-page-1/#comment-18354 The Mahablog » The Patients Are Running the Asylum Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:44:51 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=431#comment-18354 [...] Awhile back I wrote a post called “Patriotism v. Nationalism,” which was followed up by “Patriotism v. Paranoia,” “Patriotism v. Francis Fukuyama,” “Patriotism v. Hate Speech,” and probably some other posts. [...] [...] Awhile back I wrote a post called “Patriotism v. Nationalism,” which was followed up by “Patriotism v. Paranoia,” “Patriotism v. Francis Fukuyama,” “Patriotism v. Hate Speech,” and probably some other posts. [...]

]]> By: The Mahablog » Bitter and Sweet http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/19/patriotism-v-nationalism/comment-page-1/#comment-4725 The Mahablog » Bitter and Sweet Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:54:45 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=431#comment-4725 [...] We don’t want to call it disloyalty. No, no, no. Loyalty is more important than responsibility to the Right. Let’s call it we don’t want to be tied to this loser when the mid-term election campaigns heat up. [...] [...] We don’t want to call it disloyalty. No, no, no. Loyalty is more important than responsibility to the Right. Let’s call it we don’t want to be tied to this loser when the mid-term election campaigns heat up. [...]

]]> By: The Intelligent Party » Blog Archive » Eliminationism, Vitriol, and Partisanship http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/19/patriotism-v-nationalism/comment-page-1/#comment-4049 The Intelligent Party » Blog Archive » Eliminationism, Vitriol, and Partisanship Sun, 26 Feb 2006 06:08:42 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=431#comment-4049 [...] The crucial point here, I think, is that the right has been effectively divorced from political conservatism. Rather than being at heart a political philosophy, the right has become a monolithic cultural machine, based on manipulative and hateful rhetoric for the sake of political expediency (and, y’know, advancing the causes of big business and evangelical Christianity—the other big business). This disconnect is relevant in all sorts of ways, from the abandonment of fiscal conservatism and small, efficient government to the embrace of jingoistic foreign policy and the erosion of individual rights. These are all things worth pondering, but the point I want to make here is simply this: right-wing political orthodoxy of the 21st century has only a remote connection to conservatism as a political philosophy. It is, more than anything, about the sort of overly reductive, “you’re with us or you’re against us” dogma that has been so prevalent since 9/11. It is about nationalism over patriotism, to the point where any position of criticism can be dismissed as unpatriotic and treasonous. In this way, there is an ideological connection between the right and eliminationist rhetoric. As long as political conservatism has been so completely abandoned in favor of neoconservative/theocratic “culture wars” nonsense, it’s just not enough to say that there’s no connection between rhetoric and “underlying attitudes.” Yes, the hateful rhetoric is primarily a product of “the current political climate,” but when genuine political philosophy has been replaced by dishonest and combative fear-mongering, we must examine the ideological roots of these strains of eliminationism and hatred. We can agree, I think, that any sort of fundamentalism is objectively bad by definition (being an abandonment of reason in favor of orthodoxy), whether it comes from the left or the right, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold the right culpable for being the source of the overwhelming majority of hate-masked-as-politics. [...] [...] The crucial point here, I think, is that the right has been effectively divorced from political conservatism. Rather than being at heart a political philosophy, the right has become a monolithic cultural machine, based on manipulative and hateful rhetoric for the sake of political expediency (and, y’know, advancing the causes of big business and evangelical Christianity—the other big business). This disconnect is relevant in all sorts of ways, from the abandonment of fiscal conservatism and small, efficient government to the embrace of jingoistic foreign policy and the erosion of individual rights. These are all things worth pondering, but the point I want to make here is simply this: right-wing political orthodoxy of the 21st century has only a remote connection to conservatism as a political philosophy. It is, more than anything, about the sort of overly reductive, “you’re with us or you’re against us” dogma that has been so prevalent since 9/11. It is about nationalism over patriotism, to the point where any position of criticism can be dismissed as unpatriotic and treasonous. In this way, there is an ideological connection between the right and eliminationist rhetoric. As long as political conservatism has been so completely abandoned in favor of neoconservative/theocratic “culture wars” nonsense, it’s just not enough to say that there’s no connection between rhetoric and “underlying attitudes.” Yes, the hateful rhetoric is primarily a product of “the current political climate,” but when genuine political philosophy has been replaced by dishonest and combative fear-mongering, we must examine the ideological roots of these strains of eliminationism and hatred. We can agree, I think, that any sort of fundamentalism is objectively bad by definition (being an abandonment of reason in favor of orthodoxy), whether it comes from the left or the right, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold the right culpable for being the source of the overwhelming majority of hate-masked-as-politics. [...]

]]> By: eRobin http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/19/patriotism-v-nationalism/comment-page-1/#comment-3925 eRobin Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:08:24 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=431#comment-3925 That distinction between nation and state is a valid one but I've only ever heard it used by cultural and political geographers. We really aren't a good example of a nation at all in the technical sense of the word. But that's not what your post was about. Something's been making me nuts since this UAE story started humming. I'm opposed to the UAE deal because I don't want that particular foreign government managing our poorly secured ports. I'm also opposed to the rampant, kill-the-poor globalization that's going on now. Do you think that that automatically make me a crazy xenophobe or just someone who can't make the case against "free trade" cogently? That distinction between nation and state is a valid one but I’ve only ever heard it used by cultural and political geographers. We really aren’t a good example of a nation at all in the technical sense of the word. But that’s not what your post was about.

Something’s been making me nuts since this UAE story started humming. I’m opposed to the UAE deal because I don’t want that particular foreign government managing our poorly secured ports. I’m also opposed to the rampant, kill-the-poor globalization that’s going on now. Do you think that that automatically make me a crazy xenophobe or just someone who can’t make the case against “free trade” cogently?

]]> By: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/19/patriotism-v-nationalism/comment-page-1/#comment-3905 maha Fri, 24 Feb 2006 03:52:10 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=431#comment-3905 <i>America is not a nation, only a government. And would define patriotism as rabid blind following.</i> "Nationalism" is rabid blind following. Patriotism is not. <i>Within America consists the African nation, Aztlan, Celtic tribes, Anglo-saxons, Scandinavians, Italians, assorted tuetons, the Mulatoes, various mixed races, wogs, and New York/Hollywood/New Zion. All sorts of different nations.</i> Oh, for pity's sake, that's absurd. For example, I am a tenth-generation American. My ancestors include early Pennsylvania Dutch, various Scots-Irish hillbillies, one of the first German Lutheran pastors in the colonies (and he was a descendant of one of Martin Luther's students who became spiritual advisor to Austro-Hungarian royalty), several generations of Welsh stonecutters, and lots of threads we can't trace to anywhere but may not have been European at all. I had ancestors who fought in the American Revolution who were already second- and third-generation themselves. My foremothers scratched gardens out of the wilderness and gave birth in frontier log cabins. One of my great-great grandfathers marched through Georgia with Crazy Bill Sherman. My grandfather went to France with General Pershing; one of my dad's cousins went down with the Arizona at Pearl Harbor. Etc. etc. So what is my "nation"? My family history is deeply entwined with my country's history. The United States is my country, and I love my country. Not blindly, but with a sense of respect for what my ancestors helped create, plus a sense of responsibility for that creation. This past summer I got a chance to go to Wales and meet some of my distant relatives. The Welsh are a nation-within-a-nation with complicated loyalties; British but not English. And I throughly enjoyed being there and soaking in the family heritage -- I got to see the very cottage one of my great-grandfathers grew up in -- but Wales is not my country. The United States is my country. And all the African, Aztlan, Celtic, Anglo-saxon, Scandinavians, Italians, Germanic, etc. Americans are my fellow countrymen. If you are a United States citizen and feel "America is not a nation, only a government," I would say the deficiency is in you, and not in the United States. But perhaps you'd be happier somewhere else. America is not a nation, only a government. And would define patriotism as rabid blind following.

“Nationalism” is rabid blind following. Patriotism is not.

Within America consists the African nation, Aztlan, Celtic tribes, Anglo-saxons, Scandinavians, Italians, assorted tuetons, the Mulatoes, various mixed races, wogs, and New York/Hollywood/New Zion. All sorts of different nations.

Oh, for pity’s sake, that’s absurd. For example, I am a tenth-generation American. My ancestors include early Pennsylvania Dutch, various Scots-Irish hillbillies, one of the first German Lutheran pastors in the colonies (and he was a descendant of one of Martin Luther’s students who became spiritual advisor to Austro-Hungarian royalty), several generations of Welsh stonecutters, and lots of threads we can’t trace to anywhere but may not have been European at all. I had ancestors who fought in the American Revolution who were already second- and third-generation themselves. My foremothers scratched gardens out of the wilderness and gave birth in frontier log cabins. One of my great-great grandfathers marched through Georgia with Crazy Bill Sherman. My grandfather went to France with General Pershing; one of my dad’s cousins went down with the Arizona at Pearl Harbor. Etc. etc.

So what is my “nation”?

My family history is deeply entwined with my country’s history. The United States is my country, and I love my country. Not blindly, but with a sense of respect for what my ancestors helped create, plus a sense of responsibility for that creation.

This past summer I got a chance to go to Wales and meet some of my distant relatives. The Welsh are a nation-within-a-nation with complicated loyalties; British but not English. And I throughly enjoyed being there and soaking in the family heritage — I got to see the very cottage one of my great-grandfathers grew up in — but Wales is not my country. The United States is my country. And all the African, Aztlan, Celtic, Anglo-saxon, Scandinavians, Italians, Germanic, etc. Americans are my fellow countrymen.

If you are a United States citizen and feel “America is not a nation, only a government,” I would say the deficiency is in you, and not in the United States. But perhaps you’d be happier somewhere else.

]]> By: Israeli Moving Company http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/19/patriotism-v-nationalism/comment-page-1/#comment-3900 Israeli Moving Company Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:46:46 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=431#comment-3900 I would say the opposite. America is not a nation, only a government. And would define patriotism as rabid blind following. Within America consists the African nation, Aztlan, Celtic tribes, Anglo-saxons, Scandinavians, Italians, assorted tuetons, the Mulatoes, various mixed races, wogs, and New York/Hollywood/New Zion. All sorts of different nations. Anti-nationalism is an attempt to vilify mainly "evil" white European races who in reality have little stake in an America controlled by New Zion/Big Israel. America is of decreasing value to irreverent guiltless people recovering peices of their old world heritage. Bush/our governors are all israeli opsessed nutjobs. I would say the opposite.
America is not a nation, only a government. And would define patriotism as rabid blind following.
Within America consists the African nation, Aztlan, Celtic tribes, Anglo-saxons, Scandinavians, Italians, assorted tuetons, the Mulatoes, various mixed races, wogs, and New York/Hollywood/New Zion. All sorts of different nations.
Anti-nationalism is an attempt to vilify mainly “evil” white European races who in reality have little stake in an America controlled by New Zion/Big Israel. America is of decreasing value to irreverent guiltless people recovering peices of their old world heritage. Bush/our governors are all israeli opsessed nutjobs.

]]> By: The Mahablog » Patriotism v. Francis Fukuyama http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/19/patriotism-v-nationalism/comment-page-1/#comment-3652 The Mahablog » Patriotism v. Francis Fukuyama Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:23:58 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=431#comment-3652 [...] This nicely supports what I said of neoconism in the last post, “Patriotism v. Paranoia,” which was a follow up to “Patriotism v. Nationalism“: “I see neoconservatism as proactive isolationism. Foreigners scare us, so we’ll make them be more like us so they’re not so scary.” [...] [...] This nicely supports what I said of neoconism in the last post, “Patriotism v. Paranoia,” which was a follow up to “Patriotism v. Nationalism“: “I see neoconservatism as proactive isolationism. Foreigners scare us, so we’ll make them be more like us so they’re not so scary.” [...]

]]>