• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The List of Blame for all Conservatives' problems

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
31,570
10,325
146
That's not true. It's been pointed out multiple times and linked as well where the term nationalism came from. It's not an old word.
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,787
2,470
136
Honestly I think the moment your country is no longer controlled by another, nationalism quickly changes from self defense to infighting.
That is not necessarily true. It seems that way because the political leadership often pays lip-service to the natural expectation that as the consequence of nationalism, the consensus should be in favor of adoption of secular law.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,443
2,651
136
Nationalism and liberty should NEVER construed to be anywhere the same thing. In general, when nationalism rises, liberty falls. Nationalism has risen in Turkey and liberty has fallen. Nationalism has risen in Russia and liberty has fallen. You get the point.

Nationalism has been used FOREVER by autocrats to suppress liberty. It is the go to option and it works nearly 100% of the time.

At least when I was younger, the general recieved-wisdom was 'nationalism good, patriotism bad'. At least on the left. Patriotism was what conservatives in powerful established countries went in for, expressing their belief in their superiority, nationalism was the legitimate desire for the colonised to determine their own future. Indian nationalism, Irish nationalism...generally seen as causes to be supported.

This of course also enrages those of a more conservative disposition, who (not 100% without justification, I'd say) see it as a double-standard. Even now something like Scots nationalism has a very ambiguous status, depending on who is judging it.

I would absolutely agree it's 100% dependent on context, and there are many instances where 'nationalism' has another connotation entirely. There really doesn't seem to be any real agreement on what the distinction between 'nationalism' and 'patriotism' actually means. (I'm also less negative about patriotism than I used to be).

You mention Turkey, but the Ottoman empire fell partly because of Arab nationalism. Nationalism in that case was the enemy of imperialism.

And what happens repeatedly is yesterday's oppressed nationalists struggling for self-determination, become tomorrows' suppressors of their own national minorities in turn.
 
Last edited:

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,443
2,651
136
so you changed the definition of nationalism to suit your own purposes, claim it is the original definition, then just get mad.

We already have a word for what you want to defend, and that is patriotism.
Not sure who you are replying to. But I refer you to my reply to bshole. Different cultures/communities/eras use those two words in different ways.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,112
3,987
146
These aren't decade-old definitions. These are the generally accepted definitions among historians and philosophers. They don't change over time or on somebody's whim, unless their meanings are twisted by those in power to suit their own purpose.
Language evolves all the time. If you walk down the street, calling people nationalists right now, there's a certain connotation that'll probably carry (may depend on where you physically are). You don't get to mansplain your way out of what's currently the generally accepted definition.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,356
18,973
136
Language evolves all the time. If you walk down the street, calling people nationalists right now, there's a certain connotation that'll probably carry (may depend on where you physically are). You don't get to mansplain your way out of what's currently the generally accepted definition.
The Nazis hold a pretty solid grip on adopting and perverting terms towards their end. They had quite the impact on world culture. The swastika is no longer perceived, in the west anyway and much of the world that retains strong ties to the fallout of the war, as a symbol of general well-being and spiritual wholeness. And as the 20th century's premiere ultra nationalist rightwing force, The Nazis claimed for themselves and for everyone else that wants to dogwhistle the principles of the Nazi party, the commonly accepted definition of nationalism and how it differs from the far more mundane concept of patriotism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
31,570
10,325
146
@pmv , while I agree overall with your post, tmanz version of nationalism is coupled with his irrational fear of liberals and feminists. His version of conservatism coupled with a healthy adoration for what he calls nationalism is problematic.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,148
6,187
136
That is not necessarily true. It seems that way because the political leadership often pays lip-service to the natural expectation that as the consequence of nationalism, the consensus should be in favor of adoption of secular law.
Look at that, you are already infighting. Secular vs. nonsecular.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,443
2,651
136
@pmv , while I agree overall with your post, tmanz version of nationalism is coupled with his irrational fear of liberals and feminists. His version of conservatism coupled with a healthy adoration for what he calls nationalism is problematic.
Yeah, having laboriously traced the argument backwards, that has become apparent!

It's reminiscent of how white racists here are prone to use terms like 'indigenous peoples' to refer to white people in Europe. Appropriating 'progressive' language for different ends.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY