Allaying the fear of renewed nationalism.

a reply to: schuyler

There is nothing wrong with supporting and being loyal to your country.

While that is true, it's a 2-way street, your country should be loyal to you as well.

Take me for instance, I make just enough to be ignored by the Democrats, and nowhere near enough to be embraced by the Republicans. So I would make great cannon fodder for both parties, otherwise I am just ignored and pushed to the side

originally posted by: Annee
I think the next generation, and the one following see a more connected world then past generations.

They grew up Globally connected.

Nationalism will have a different meaning.

Just like heritage. People used to congregate in ethnic groups - - still do to some extent - - but, I don't think the coming generations will want that.

I think they'd feel stuck. The world is open to them and always has been.

It an interesting point and I see it as valid. It will happen of it's own accord to some degree. When that evolution is enforced, mandated, especially by repressing natural resistance to that enforcement is where the alternative, Patriotism, draws it's strength.

The U.S. is already one of, if not the most, diverse nations in the world. Apparently, that is insufficient. Now the pendulum swings back, in many countries. Interesting times.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Then start your own thread on 'White Nationalism'. This one is on nationalism.

Again, your topic is not germane to this thread.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Then start your own thread on 'White Nationalism'. This one is on nationalism.

Again, your topic is not germane to this thread.

You just tried to argue nationalism is the same as white nationalism....

a reply to: nwtrucker

I really don't understand your view like nearly everyone else here seems to. US swings from nationalist to normalcy? What is normalcy? We have been in a war almost every single year of our existence. Nationalism has always been our normal since this country started. It's only in the past couple of decades that this has been challenged.

As far as white nationalism is concerned, yes. We have been white nationalist since our inception. If you don't like it, change it, don't lie about it.

Hitler's Germany came about as a response to a unique set of circumstances like Wiemar and Communism. It has nothing to do with us beyond a few vague parallels. US nationalism is not some new trend because we want to be Nazis.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: nwtrucker

I really don't understand your view like nearly everyone else here seems to. US swings from nationalist to normalcy? What is normalcy? We have been in a war almost every single year of our existence. Nationalism has always been our normal since this country started. It's only in the past couple of decades that this has been challenged.

As far as white nationalism is concerned, yes. We have been white nationalist since our inception. If you don't like it, change it, don't lie about it.

Hitler's Germany came about as a response to a unique set of circumstances like Wiemar and Communism. It has nothing to do with us beyond a few vague parallels. US nationalism is not some new trend because we want to be Nazis.

You equate 'war' with Patriotism/nationalism? Let's see, the current rise of nationalism is recent. Yes? Yet we've been at war for quite some time, as you say. I see no particular increase in war since this spike has occurred. In fact, I see the opposite occurring, Negotiations about to occur, Agreements with China beginning to happen.

I see very patriotic nations not at war. Canada would be an example.

If you desire to call me a liar do so to my face rather than hiding behind a keyboard. I have never even heard the term 'White nationalism' until here on ATS. Likely, the left coined it as a disparagement to Nationalism. White racists? Yes. Racists? yes. White Nationalism? A psy-op.No such thing. A counter racist head game, no more.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Then start your own thread on 'White Nationalism'. This one is on nationalism.

Again, your topic is not germane to this thread.

You just tried to argue nationalism is the same as white nationalism....

Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I quoted the meaning and difference between the two on the bottom of the last page , are you sure it's my reading comprehension that is the issue?

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: nwtrucker

I really don't understand your view like nearly everyone else here seems to. US swings from nationalist to normalcy? What is normalcy? We have been in a war almost every single year of our existence. Nationalism has always been our normal since this country started. It's only in the past couple of decades that this has been challenged.

As far as white nationalism is concerned, yes. We have been white nationalist since our inception. If you don't like it, change it, don't lie about it.

Hitler's Germany came about as a response to a unique set of circumstances like Wiemar and Communism. It has nothing to do with us beyond a few vague parallels. US nationalism is not some new trend because we want to be Nazis.

You equate 'war' with Patriotism/nationalism? Let's see, the current rise of nationalism is recent. Yes? Yet we've been at war for quite some time, as you say. I see no particular increase in war since this spike has occurred. In fact, I see the opposite occurring, Negotiations about to occur, Agreements with China beginning to happen.

I see very patriotic nations not at war. Canada would be an example.

If you desire to call me a liar do so to my face rather than hiding behind a keyboard. I have never even heard the term 'White nationalism' until here on ATS. Likely, the left coined it as a disparagement to Nationalism. White racists? Yes. Racists? yes. White Nationalism? A psy-op.No such thing. A counter racist head game, no more.

You have misread nearly everything I wrote. I was trying too keep the comment short and didn't express myself properly. I meant nationalism is not new. It has been the norm since the country was founded. There is no other condition that we return to after some nationalistic spike.

As for the liar thing, I wasn't referring to you. When I reread this I can see how it looks and I apologize for giving that impression. What I was attempting to refer to are all these speeches about all men are created equal and the founding fathers envisioned a multicultural paradise on earth. They most assuredly did not. Voting required you to be free, white, and own property. Immigration was limited to white people until 1965. The country was established for the founders and their children not some noble melting pot experiment. Racist? Maybe but true nevertheless.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: nwtrucker

I quoted the meaning and difference between the two on the bottom of the last page , are you sure it's my reading comprehension that is the issue?

I have zero interest in your deflection from the subject of the thread.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Hyper-socialism and hyper-globalism make as much sense as hypernationalism?

Fair enough. It's a figure of speech not an accepted term.

Nationalism itself is fine; at median levels we call it "patriotism." Humans identify with groups; it's wired in.

Nationalism tending toward militarism and authoritarianism begins to be a problem for free societies [sic.]

Nationalism tending toward scapegoating of racial or socio-cultural groups as "the enemy" is where the line is crossed and it becomes dangerous, toxic, etc.

IMHO.

a reply to: toms54

OK. It strikes as a twisted view point.

I'd word it a bit differently. A Nationalism which happened to be 'white'. Go earlier. To the immigration from Asia of the first nations' people. Would you consider that Asian nationalism or 'red' nationalism?

I didn't think so. Probably not even a 'nationalism' at all. But the comparison completely negates the color label you place in your post. The dominant race of both those periods of immigration have zero to do with the issue 'race'. Or Racism, for that matter. One was Asian dominant and next one was European dominant. Circumstantial. Not 'racist' in either instance.

It would be interesting to see who didn't have slavery in their culture at some point. The 'Native Americans' certainly did. It still exists to this day in numerous Islamic nations, from my understanding. The Brits, for example, had a slavery 'lite'. Indentured individuals. It would be interesting to see when they finally got rid of that one.

So that removes the 'free' portion of your post as well as the 'white' from the subject of nationalism/patriotism. Yes?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nwtrucker

Hyper-socialism and hyper-globalism make as much sense as hypernationalism?

Fair enough. It's a figure of speech not an accepted term.

Nationalism itself is fine; at median levels we call it "patriotism." Humans identify with groups; it's wired in.

Nationalism tending toward militarism and authoritarianism begins to be a problem for free societies [sic.]

Nationalism tending toward scapegoating of racial or socio-cultural groups as "the enemy" is where the line is crossed and it becomes dangerous, toxic, etc.

IMHO.

I can't argue it. Any 'ism' can be and has been subverted and used for nefarious purposes. Even if the original intention was more ideal.

As they say, every sword has two edges. My point is the original intent and concept of nationalism, in and of itself, doesn't contain those mechanisms. One doesn't need nationalism to create 'enemies'. Plenty of 'one on one' scraps exist on a regular basis.

Then there's highly patriotic nations that are benign. Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, to name a few.

I suppose much of this has to be dumped into the human nature 'trash bin'. Which has been screwing up almost every effort of improvement from day one.

a reply to: nwtrucker

FWIW:

While I'm still not fond of Mr. Trump's actions as President, I think the constant comparison of every single thing he says and does to racism/white supremacism/Nazism to be trite and ill-considered.

Mr. Trump is doing about what I thought he would. In the past month or so, he seems to be settling down into the Office, and he's discovered a way he can personally make a difference (the pardon power) without being subject to Congress or those pesky laws, LOL.

I disagree with him on trade, immigration, civil rights, and just about everything else ... LOL. He's not Hitler though.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Fair enough.

a reply to: Gryphon66

He certainly isn't. One thing he is though is a change in standard. Once a nation venerates a reality TV star where else will they look for a leader? It shows that people are still prone to charismatic leaders and therein lies a small comparison to the 1930s.

It makes me despair for the future. At the same time, aren't all leaders ultimately disappointing? The political classes have failed to deliver so maybe it's time to give the popular vote its turn.

With regards to the OP, I've been noticing lots of political tinder across Europe, USA and the Middle East for a few years. Social media is full of assholes trying to throw matches. Somehow it seems that people love to have a them and us society and social media is busily allotting values to ever more defined sub-groups across a moronic Left/Right axis. Muslims and migrants are looking like the new Jews. Conditions are ripe for charismatic leaders to lead us into war under the usual banner of 'peace.'

a reply to: nwtrucker

Wikipedia

The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.[1]

Pursuant to this power, Congress in 1790 passed the first naturalization law for the United States, the Naturalization Act of 1790. The law enabled those who had resided in the country for two years and had kept their current state of residence for a year to apply for citizenship. However it restricted naturalization to "free white persons" of "good moral character".

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: nwtrucker

Wikipedia

The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.[1]

Pursuant to this power, Congress in 1790 passed the first naturalization law for the United States, the Naturalization Act of 1790. The law enabled those who had resided in the country for two years and had kept their current state of residence for a year to apply for citizenship. However it restricted naturalization to "free white persons" of "good moral character".

Ok, Seeing the first nations didn't have a Constitution, what would have happened if you, a white person walked into a tribe and said you wanted to join? Roasting over a pit?

Like I said show me where a culture of nation didn't have slavery or rules of who could or couldn't join? I'm not supporting it, I'm saying it isn't connected to nationalism or patriotism whatsoever.

Next, using historical points, even if valid, as some argument to negate a current view is disingenuous. That isn't the case now and isn't in any accepted culture or nation today-outside of islamic-that I'm aware of.

If you have a need to disparage the U.S., indulge it to your heart's content. Nothing in your posts connects those earlier flaws with the concept of Nationalism/Patriotism. The same mechanisms you cite exist on a singular basis. An individual basis. Can Nationalism or patriotism be used to empower those flaws? Of course. Any 'Ism' can. Nationalism can also used to restore the ideals of that group or maintain them as well.

In my estimation, the Constitution is an amazing concept that has been unmatched since. Despite imperfections.

As a matter of fact, I cannot think of a better method than Nationalism/Patriotism to create, maintain or expand on human growth into the future. None.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Political leaders are all disappointing indeed. As is the media, the public, etc.

Further, since all government is authoritarian, drifting over into the authoritarian nationalistic extreme (Nazism/facism/communist totalitarianism) is always possible.

Yes. Us vs. Them is universal and is continually exploited by those who crave power ... human tribalism writ large.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Indeed and I haven't seen any signs of things changing.

if we escape military conflicts and charismatic messiahs there's always climate change and food shortages to look forward to! Things are likely to get quite '1930s' under those conditions.