Amazon.com Widgets
  • Too much bad but too little pathetic.

    Sure you get Nazi's and communists and America engaging in every damn war when you've got too much but that still isn't a breaking point for me, the people exist, endure and can change for the better over time. But if you have too little you get subservient states or eradicated nations. Just look at the Native Americans, they could have their own country if they had some nationalism pride and fear of their blood and existence disappearing. Don't expect it to happen though, they haven't had visionary leader since Tecumseh.

  • People working in synergy and proud of it

    It is normal for the people of a region to become identified with each other. Having access to the same resources, subject to similar problems, sometimes inter-cooperating to achieve common goals. In these conditions, synergy can be easily achieved in the completion of those goals, in the administration and distribution of resources, the defense vs other groups, and in the end, the growth and developement of that community. It is a universally accepted truth that the union of many individuals achieve a goal more easily than a single person. And what a better union can one get than that of people having same goals, similar values, same language, a common pride...
    When there is no notion of country, nor group, nor pride, nor identification with common values, you get among other things (like loss of resources and poor production of these) , a mass of individuals looking after their own good. A mass easy to break, easy to take advantage of. A sad example is Scotland. A land that for centuries was so divided, that every lord would look for his own benefit, even if it meant helping the king of England to crush their own people, only to obtain more english lands and rents.
    Only when the scots united in the past under the notion of a single country would they beat the english.
    I agree that there is no perfect human system or institution, but I think that nations and the nationalism are the best way to go. And I firmly believe, that the new individuals trying to immigrate into a country need to identify themselves first with the nation they are moving into. Learn and adopt their values, history and language. Is is always great when they can keep their own religion, and show and celebrare their culture too, but without forgetting they are no longer in their old country, and that they owe respect to the place that opened its arms to them. After all there is a reason why they left their old home in the first place. They are now depositaries of the pride and history of a nation. Why would a person leave a country to escape a social hell, then immigrate to another (better) country, and then try to make this new place the same hell he had to leave before.
    I would state that it is not ethical for a person or group to travel from country to country sucking its resources without working for the good of that nation. When a human being acts that way, he can be truly labeled a parasite

  • There is no such thing on this planet as open boundaries

    It is normal for the people of a region to become identified with each other. Having access to the same resources, subject to similar problems, sometimes inter-cooperating to achieve common goals. In these conditions, synergy can be easily achieved in the completion of those goals, in the administration and distribution of resources, the defense vs other groups, and in the end, the growth and developement of that community. It is a universally accepted truth that the union of many individuals achieve a goal more easily than a single person. And what a better union can one get than that of people having same goals, similar values, same language, a common pride...
    When there is no notion of country, nor group, nor pride, nor identification with common values, you get among other things (like loss of resources and poor production of these) , a mass of individuals looking after their own good. A mass easy to break, easy to take advantage of. A sad example is Scotland. A land that for centuries was so divided, that every lord would look for his own benefit, even if it meant helping the king of England to crush their own people, only to obtain more english lands and rents.
    Only when the scots united in the past under the notion of a single country would they beat the english.
    I agree that there is no perfect human system or institution, but I think that nations and the nationalism are the best way to go. And I firmly believe, that the new individuals trying to immigrate into a country need to identify themselves first with the nation they are moving into. Learn and adopt their values, history and language. Is is always great when they can keep their own religion, and show and celebrare their culture too, but without forgetting they are no longer in their old country, and that they owe respect to the place that opened its arms to them. After all there is a reason why they left their old home in the first place. They are now depositaries of the pride and history of a nation. Why would a person leave a country to escape a social hell, then immigrate to another (better) country, and then try to make this new place the same hell he had to leave before.
    I would state that it is not ethical for a person or group to travel from country to country sucking its resources without working for the good of that nation. When a human being acts that way, he can be truly labeled a parasite

  • It creates unity

    It makes you all feel like 1 and the same and puts aside your differences. It makes you all meet on the same side and side. Also if a country is to be invaded then the nationalism makes you untite against the common threat that needs to be defeated. So yes its good

  • All Politics are local

    Diversity within a country is a cancer. Celebrating and emphasizing the differences among us is as productive as self abusers cutting themselves. Instead, emphasis should be on what unites us, and for newcomers, adapting to it. If you don't want to adapt to that model, find another country. Nationalism allows a country strength thru such unity.

  • Nationalism is the foundation of democracy and modern world

    In order to understand Nationalism, it is essential to understand the history and true political and philosophical concept of Nationalism.

    In the past, the concept of authority was based on the divine right to rule. King ruled in the name of God, after the fall of Roman Empire, Chruch took over the whole Europe as the political authority. Chruch dictated policies, they influenced decision makers, even strong Monarchs needed Chruch's approval to rule the masses. Everything changed during French revolution and Enlightenment when intellects and philosophers challenged the concept of divine rights of kings to rule. They argued that state should be secular and the basis of authority derives from the will of the people. Nations should be able to form and establish their own authorities and monarchs cannot rule the population in the name of God. This very concept founded the Nationalism, Americans fought against British Empire, French people abolished their monarchy. European continent was transformed into nation-states. All major nations got their own states, their own governments. Nationalism was always a good thing and it is a good thing now. People who try to portray Hitler's fascism as Nationalism does not understand the history and true philosophy of nationalism. The concept of democracy itself emerged from nationalism because there can not be a democracy if there is no nation-state. How can someone implement the democratic will of the people, if in the first place someone doesn't accept the concept that authority derives from people's will and consent?

    #FreeBalochistan

  • Nationalism is the basis of modern world and it has transferred power from Empire and Monarchs to nations and people.

    In order to understand Nationalism, it is essential to understand the history and true political and philosophical concept of Nationalism.

    In the past, the concept of authority was based on the divine right to rule. King ruled in the name of God, after the fall of Roman Empire, Chruch took over the whole Europe as the political authority. Chruch dictated policies, they influenced decision makers, even strong Monarchs needed Chruch's approval to rule the masses. Everything changed during French revolution and Enlightenment when intellects and philosophers challenged the concept of divine rights of kings to rule. They argued that state should be secular and the basis of authority derives from the will of the people. Nations should be able to form and establish their own authorities and monarchs cannot rule the population in the name of God. This very concept founded the Nationalism, Americans fought against British Empire, French people abolished their monarchy. European continent was transformed into nation-states. All major nations got their own states, their own governments. Nationalism was always a good thing and it is a good thing now. People who try to portray Hitler's fascism as Nationalism does not understand the history and true philosophy of nationalism. The concept of democracy itself emerged from nationalism because there can not be a democracy if there is no nation-state. How can someone implement the democratic will of the people, if in the first place someone doesn't accept the concept that authority derives from people's will and consent?

    #FreeBalochistan

  • Nationalism is not how it is portrayed.

    Nationalism is not Militarism or Racism or Traditionalism, It is a separate ideology. Nationalism revolves around love for ones country, and your country being your number one priority. It is an attitude that has been adopted by some people who are evil but also by people who are loving and also just love their country. It doesn't require destruction of what's different just the betterment and preservation of your country.

  • Nationalism unites and sets apart divides.

    Nationalism promotes a common identity among the people of a nation, which ties them to the land. In many countries that have rejected nationalism, like Canada or countries in the EU, there are many divides along ethnic and cultural lines. Many immigrants in those countries have little understanding of the native language there or even care about the nation. They have much more feelings towards their homelands. Nationalism, however, places everyone into the same group, so whether you are new to the country or have a deep rooted ancestry, you are all members of one culture, one nation, and one identity.

  • Red Robin yum

    Red Robin is delicious and so isn't nationalism. My g why u alway goin to Red Robin. It's so delicious and I'd eat all day thier and enjoy it with all my heart. It my culture, nationalism is great and let's me believe in my Red Robin culture and great.

  • It makes you think you are better than others and hate people that arent from your country

    I think that a lot of time it makes people hate other nationalities. Yes, its a very good to be proud of your own country, but i feel that often it creates more hate in the world which isnt a good thing. Please tell me what you guys think, thanks!

  • Nationalism is neutral

    Nationalism can be used for bad or good. It can be use for bad, like, people become TOO nationalistic and slowly become facialists instead. Facialism is when someone says, "Oh, your not of my country, so you're scum." However, nationalism can also be used for good. It can boost people's morals or be used to reform a country or nation.

  • Nationalism is neutral

    Nationalism can be used for bad or good. It can be use for bad, like, people become TOO nationalistic and slowly become facialists instead. Facialism is when someone says, "Oh, your not of my country, so you're scum." However, nationalism can also be used for good. It can boost people's morals or be used to reform a country or nation.

  • Nationalism is neutral

    Nationalism can be used for bad or good. It can be use for bad, like, people become TOO nationalistic and slowly become facialists instead. Facialism is when someone says, "Oh, your not of my country, so you're scum." However, nationalism can also be used for good. It can boost people's morals or be used to reform a country or nation.

  • Nationalism is not only bad it's absurd.

    Nationalism like communism is a good ideal on paper but it never works as it intends to in actual. It also sets limitation of boundary in people's minds. Imagine…

    A world where nations are not defined by their geographical borders. Rivers are bodies of running water rather than mystical devices of political separation; landmarks do not signify where “our stuff” ends and “your stuff” begins. People can cross such and such mountain or sea without their change in location entailing political offense. People are not stigmatized for being born in a particular place, but are welcomed as participants in said place’s culture. Now pause for a second. What is the difference between the world you are imagining and our actual one?

    The difference has nothing to do with what is actually there in the world. We are the ones that have made up borders and everything they connote; we are the ones who protect ourselves from the horrors of the far away by drawing little lines on our maps. We need to understand and be aware of this fact.

  • Nationalism has leads to bloodshed, and discord.

    Even though nationalism may start off with the hopes of improving lifestyles and working for the good of the people, it always seems to end in calamity and/or carnage and is seen as mostly negative throughout the history of humanity.  Considering the reasons behind the commencement of World War I, Serbian nationalism was a major factor.  The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austrian throne, constituted as the kindle that started World War I. Nationalism also played a part in starting World War II.  Germany, Italy, and Japan sought the method of expansionism to increase their land mass and gain resources and market. They were working for the good of their countries, yet this seemingly harmless behaviour set the stage for World War II.   The French Revolution which was a vivid demonstration of nationalism in France,  caused  the Reign of Terror. This perspective should be embraced because in these examples given from history, nationalism has led to bloodshed, and discord.

  • Nationalism is tempered self-decption/inception/sean

    George Orwell preached so. Wow 46 more words needed thats such a large requirement who would ever want to type on this website i think its a terrible system, just like nationalism. 18 more words to go hang with me one two three for five seex seven eight nine ten yas i did it gonna press submit now!

  • Q q q

    Q q qqq q q q q q q q q q q q q q q qq q q q q q q q q qqq q q q q q q q q q q q q q q qq q q q q q q q q qqq q q q q q q q q q q q q q q qq q q q q q q q

  • Q q q

    Q q qqq q q q q q q q q q q q q q q qq q q q q q q q q qqq q q q q q q q q q q q q q q qq q q q q q q q q qqq q q q q q q q q q q q q q q qq q q q q q q q

  • Nationalism causes people's pride to develop into feelings of a master race leading to devastating events like war.

    When diverse people are forced together, their identity is lost, along with their culture. The people do not assimilate into a melting pot, even though they cannot remain an inconsistent salad bowl. The result is usually a sloppy, weak patch-work quilt, made from scraps, but inevitably falls apart after too much abuse. Sometimes people even lose their Natural Rights to life, liberty, and property (John Locke) because the general will may contradict the desires and rights of the minority, threatening the stability of the states with rising tensions. As the region becomes increasingly strained for unity, people become defensive, either of their origin or the identity of their new homeland. This leads to outbreaks which can spiral into full-fledged warfare, since the newly developed feelings of unity enacts a role of self-protection. Examples of these outbreaks are the Greek War of Independence (1821–28), WWI, and WWII. As the unrest unfold, a feeling of superiority emerges, sprouting racism which develops among the people. These people are not evil; they are acting in the most primal way - self-preservation before all else. They are only trying to form an identity, since they have been thrust through drastic changes, striping the population of everything they knew, and now it is time to strengthen their new home. Is there another option?


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.