3 ms·

That's all academic. Current nationalists base their 'nation' on skin color and religion: white and Christian (though the religious aspect is sometimes less emp

That's all academic. Current nationalists base their 'nation' on skin color and religion: white and Christian (though the religious aspect is sometimes less emphasized), like ISIS'/Daesh's nationalism based on Islam. You can read people advocating it in HN, just like you can read many attempts to whitewash it. The endlessly repeated lesson of history is that if human rights are not universal, if you accept the nationalist argument that 'people on my side have rights and those on the other don't', then it ends up justifying denying rights to any person or group, and the brutality that follows. That's why the foundation of the United States is universal human rights, 'all men are created equal and endowed ... with inalienable rights'. We've had enough slavery, segregation, Holocausts, Tutsi massacres, Milosovic's, ISIS's, oppression of women, Nazis, etc, etc. to know how it turns out; we don't need to try again and hope it's different this time. In contrast, universal human rights as the basis of the post-WWII order has provided the greatest expansion of freedom and prosperity in human history, with no comparison. Why would anyone want to give that up? Why are we looking for ways to divide people and to justify and whitewash hate? What is the basis of nationalism? That a human being's rights and my regard from them depend on an imaginary line on the earth? One step this way, I love them; one step the other way, I oppose them? It's absurd. Finally, nationalism is an obsession of a small group imposed on others. The nationalists say all white Christian people are part of their nation, but a most of those people don't see it that way. Certain nationalists claim me as part of their 'nation', but I abhor and oppose them and certainly am not a member. Nationalists are a small group of people who, just like the tyrants and evil people before them, simply try to impose their will on others. I believe the others should live free.

mantas 8y ago
> That's all academic. Current nationalists base their 'nation' on skin color and religion: white and Christian (though the religious aspect is sometimes less emphasized), like ISIS'/Daesh's nationalism based on Islam. You can read people advocating it in HN, just like you can read many attempts to whitewash it. That's somewhat true only in a very narrow world of USA and ISIS. In most of the world, nationalism is based on very different terms. > One step this way, I love them; one step the other way, I oppose them? It's absurd. Nah. Nationalism doesn't mean opposing anybody. It's belonging to community and working for it's greater good. > Finally, nationalism is an obsession of a small group imposed on others. Most people don't care about any political, societal or any other philosophical discourses. They just follow few people who are interested in that kind of stuff. As far as I looked all revolutions were imposed by a small group of concerned citizens on the rest of the community. I'm yet to find an exception where majority people truly believed in the original idea from day 1. They just followed people who seemed worthy.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  Rather than speaking generally, let's discuss specific political movements; the following is just off the top of my head: * Nationalism in the US: Based on white skin and, often, Christianity; it includes demonization of and state discrimination against Latinos, African-Americans, Muslims, Jews, and immigrants who are non-white and non-Christian - apparently anyone non-white and non-Christian - and also against the political left. It also includes militarism and an attack on democracy, including freedom of the press, the rule of law, and separation of powers. * Nationalism in India includes state and individual-level discrimination against Muslims. * Nationalism in Turkey includes a reduction in democracy and civil rights, oppression of Kurds, and a move toward militarism. * Nationalism in France includes discrimination against Muslims and people without white skin, as exemplified by the National Front, and state level actions including laws discriminating against Muslims and, if the state of emergency continues, reduction in civil rights. * Nationalism in Hungary includes discrimination against immigrants, attack on democracy, including separation of powers and the rule of law. * Nationalism in Poland includes state-level discrimination against non-Catholics (based on limited reading), and a reduction in free speech by censoring discussion of Poland's role in the Holocaust, and anti-semitism. * Nationalism in England includes demonization of and discrimination against immigrants and non-Whites, such as by UKIP. * Nationalism in Germany includes demonization of and discrimination against immigrants. * Nationalism in China includes demonization of Japanese and Americans, and a belief in the natural inferiority of other countries and, IIRC, non-Han in general. It also has included a move away from democracy, and toward international militarism > Nationalism doesn't mean opposing anybody. It's belonging to community and working for it's greater good. That's exactly what Hilter said, and many at the time believed, about his nationalistic policies. He was a man of peace, they insisted, until they invaded. They all make those claims, but that's not what they do or how it ever works out. Nationalism results in and comes from ethnic hatred, and ends in war, oppression and brutality. There's no mystery to it.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    What information source are you using for the above claims?
  - 8y ago
mistermann 8y ago
> That's all academic. Current nationalists base their 'nation' on skin color and religion They do? > You can read people advocating it in HN, just like you can read many attempts to whitewash it. > if you accept the nationalist argument that 'people on my side have rights and those on the other don't' > We've had enough slavery, segregation, Holocausts, Tutsi massacres, Milosovic's, ISIS's, oppression of women, Nazis, etc, etc. to know how it turns out; we don't need to try again and hope it's different this time. (I might as well excerpt your entire post, it is the perfect embodiment of my confusion on this topic. As are the rising downvotes, arguably proving my point and censoring my voice, as I will now have to leave this tab open and wait to post my sincere rebuttal later. Freedom of speech is a great principle until it disagrees with your ideas I guess.) I gave you a definition of nationalism from the dictionary, I will ask you once again: what definition are you using for the word nationalism? Going further, what is the origin of the various extreme beliefs & hatred you hold? Where did you learn these ideas?

mantas 8y ago

> That's all academic. Current nationalists base their 'nation' on skin color and religion: white and Christian (though the religious aspect is sometimes less emphasized), like ISIS'/Daesh's nationalism based on Islam. You can read people advocating it in HN, just like you can read many attempts to whitewash it. That's somewhat true only in a very narrow world of USA and ISIS. In most of the world, nationalism is based on very different terms. > One step this way, I love them; one step the other way, I oppose them? It's absurd. Nah. Nationalism doesn't mean opposing anybody. It's belonging to community and working for it's greater good. > Finally, nationalism is an obsession of a small group imposed on others. Most people don't care about any political, societal or any other philosophical discourses. They just follow few people who are interested in that kind of stuff. As far as I looked all revolutions were imposed by a small group of concerned citizens on the rest of the community. I'm yet to find an exception where majority people truly believed in the original idea from day 1. They just followed people who seemed worthy.

forapurpose 8y ago
Rather than speaking generally, let's discuss specific political movements; the following is just off the top of my head: * Nationalism in the US: Based on white skin and, often, Christianity; it includes demonization of and state discrimination against Latinos, African-Americans, Muslims, Jews, and immigrants who are non-white and non-Christian - apparently anyone non-white and non-Christian - and also against the political left. It also includes militarism and an attack on democracy, including freedom of the press, the rule of law, and separation of powers. * Nationalism in India includes state and individual-level discrimination against Muslims. * Nationalism in Turkey includes a reduction in democracy and civil rights, oppression of Kurds, and a move toward militarism. * Nationalism in France includes discrimination against Muslims and people without white skin, as exemplified by the National Front, and state level actions including laws discriminating against Muslims and, if the state of emergency continues, reduction in civil rights. * Nationalism in Hungary includes discrimination against immigrants, attack on democracy, including separation of powers and the rule of law. * Nationalism in Poland includes state-level discrimination against non-Catholics (based on limited reading), and a reduction in free speech by censoring discussion of Poland's role in the Holocaust, and anti-semitism. * Nationalism in England includes demonization of and discrimination against immigrants and non-Whites, such as by UKIP. * Nationalism in Germany includes demonization of and discrimination against immigrants. * Nationalism in China includes demonization of Japanese and Americans, and a belief in the natural inferiority of other countries and, IIRC, non-Han in general. It also has included a move away from democracy, and toward international militarism > Nationalism doesn't mean opposing anybody. It's belonging to community and working for it's greater good. That's exactly what Hilter said, and many at the time believed, about his nationalistic policies. He was a man of peace, they insisted, until they invaded. They all make those claims, but that's not what they do or how it ever works out. Nationalism results in and comes from ethnic hatred, and ends in war, oppression and brutality. There's no mystery to it.
- mistermann 8y ago
  What information source are you using for the above claims?
- 8y ago

mistermann 8y ago

> That's all academic. Current nationalists base their 'nation' on skin color and religion They do? > You can read people advocating it in HN, just like you can read many attempts to whitewash it. > if you accept the nationalist argument that 'people on my side have rights and those on the other don't' > We've had enough slavery, segregation, Holocausts, Tutsi massacres, Milosovic's, ISIS's, oppression of women, Nazis, etc, etc. to know how it turns out; we don't need to try again and hope it's different this time. (I might as well excerpt your entire post, it is the perfect embodiment of my confusion on this topic. As are the rising downvotes, arguably proving my point and censoring my voice, as I will now have to leave this tab open and wait to post my sincere rebuttal later. Freedom of speech is a great principle until it disagrees with your ideas I guess.) I gave you a definition of nationalism from the dictionary, I will ask you once again: what definition are you using for the word nationalism? Going further, what is the origin of the various extreme beliefs & hatred you hold? Where did you learn these ideas?