Posted on 06/25/2019 3:27:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
In order to make arguments for nationalism, we have to define it.
The first definition in Merriam-Webster is "loyalty and devotion to a nation." But in a second paragraph, it adds, "especially: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups."
Let's be clear: If the second paragraph is the only definition of nationalism, nationalism is always a bad thing. Furthermore, I acknowledge that this definition is what some people have in mind when they call themselves nationalists.
At the same time, even anti-nationalists would have to acknowledge that if the first paragraph is the definition of "nationalism," nationalism can often be a beautiful thing.
So, if we are to be honest, the answer to the question of whether nationalism is good or bad is "How do you define it?"
Dictionary.com offers seven definitions.
The first is "spirit or aspirations common to the whole nation."
The second is "devotion and loyalty to one's own country; patriotism."
Only when we get to the third definition is the definition pejorative: "excessive patriotism; chauvinism."
Therefore, a) based on the competing definitions of the term, b) assuming both definitions can be true and c) if intellectual honesty is to govern our discussion, we can reach only one conclusion: There is good nationalism and bad nationalism.
That -- not "nationalism is always good" or "nationalism is always bad" -- is the only accurate assessment.
Therefore, morally speaking, nationalism is no different from anything else in life.
There is moral violence (in self-defense, in defense of innocents, in defense of a society under unjust attack, etc.) and immoral violence (murder of innocents, wars of aggression, etc.).
There is moral sex (consensual sex between adults and, in the Judeo-Christian value system, within marriage) and immoral sex (such as rape, incest and with a child).
There is moral use of a gun (in self-defense, etc.) and immoral use of a gun (against an innocent, etc.).
Knives are used morally by chefs and surgeons and immorally by murderers, muggers and torturers.
Even love must be morally assessed according to context. Love is not always beautiful and moral. Germans' love of Hitler, Chinese people's love of Mao and Russians' love of Stalin were evil.
Nationalism is beautiful when it involves commitment to an essentially decent nation and when it welcomes other people's commitment to their nations. Nationalism is evil when it is used to celebrate an evil regime, when it celebrates a nation as inherently superior to all others and when it denigrates all other national commitments.
One should add that nationalism is evil when it celebrates race, but that is not nationalism; it is racism. Nationalism and racism may be conjoined, as German Nazism did. But they are not definitionally related. While some Americans have conjoined American nationalism with race (such as the Confederacy, the Ku Klux Klan and currently various fringe "white identity" movements), American nationalism, based as it is on the motto "e pluribus unum" ("out of many, one"), by definition includes Americans of all races and ethnicities. That is how conservatives define American nationalism. I have never met a conservative who defined American national identity as definitionally "white."
Otherwise, nationalism -- the celebration of one's nation and one's national identity -- is almost always a beautiful thing.
The creation of nations was a major moral achievement. It got people to identify with something beyond their families and tribes, which always involved violent feuds and warfare. The creation of the nation is one of the main reasons the West developed morally and in many other ways ahead of other cultures.
And the lack of a unifying national identity is one of the two main reasons (the other being corruption) that much of Africa lags behind other regions. If Hutus and Tutsis would have identified first as Rwandans, one of the worst genocides in the contemporary world -- the Hutu slaughter of nearly 1 million Tutsis in a little over three months in 1994 -- would likely never have happened. It was murder at a greater pace than the Nazi genocide of the Jews in the Holocaust -- and without any modern machines of death. It was done one-on-one almost entirely using machetes.
Today, nationalism in Europe is increasing primarily because of the belief among many Europeans that the European Union is overbearing and because many Europeans do not believe that a "European" identity can offer anywhere near the comfort, emotional sustenance and communal ties a national identity offers.
Human beings need a descending order of commitments: first to oneself, then to one's family, then to one's community, then to one's nation and then to humanity. It is neither possible nor praiseworthy to cry over a family killed in a car crash on the other side of the world as one would cry over the death of one's own family or a family in one's neighborhood or in one's own country.
The great teaching of the Bible is "Love your neighbor as yourself." It does not say "Love all of humanity as yourself." Love must begin with our neighbor. It should never end with our neighbor, but it must begin with him.
Larger is usually on the mark. I disagree about his denunciation of the second definition. What, exactly is wrong with that? Unless your massing armies to destroy other nations, what is wrong with thinking your country is better than othwrs? I sure hope he’s not suggesting we equate the United States with Pakistan or Zimbabwe, for example is he?
Prager is usually on the mark. I disagree about his denunciation of the second definition. What, exactly is wrong with that? Unless your massing armies to destroy other nations, what is wrong with thinking your country is better than othwrs? I sure hope he’s not suggesting we equate the United States with Pakistan or Zimbabwe, for example is he?
Reads like a steaming pile of cuckery.
Our country won the wars we won. The presidents and congress declared then. The people fought and won with the support of those who sent them or let them go. A divided country lost Vietnam to communism.(Thanks, professors. actors and liberal media.)
A president can not make a country stand. It takes a people. Divided we fall. We cannot serve a dozen gods. Only one made the sun. the oceans and the systems of circulating water. To survive as a country we need to honor the God of the founders.
Our country won the wars we won. The presidents and congress declared then. The people fought and won with the support of those who sent them or let them go. A divided country lost Vietnam to communism.(Thanks, professors. actors and liberal media.)
A president can not make a country stand. It takes a people. Divided we fall. We cannot serve a dozen gods. Only one made the sun. the oceans and the systems of circulating water. To survive as a country we need to honor the God of the founders.
Maybe you’re not smart enough to get it.?
This is inaccurate. Nazism was religionist, not racist. I have never met a non-white Jew. Nazism also was brutal towards handicapped people of any race or religion.
“I have never met a non-white Jew.”
Sammy Davis?
No, I get it he seems to think it’s bad to put one’s Nation above all others which makes him a cuck and you too if you happen to believe that bullshit.
I agree with you. There is nothing wrong with promoting your nation and your culture if your nation and culture are superior to others. History has shown us that the American culture, as codified in the Constitution and founded in our faith in the Judeo-Christian God, is indeed superior to all others. Only when we veer away from God and the Constitution do we start to fall short.
It is not wrong to be a bigot if you are correct.
Proud to be Irish.
While I generally agree with the article, I disagree with the claim that the Confederacy defined itself as White any more than the Union or various other countries of that time did. It was a racist age to be sure. That unfortunately was the norm everywhere in the mid 19th century. It is unfair to try to cast that “sin” off via means of projecting it exclusively onto the South when everybody was massively guilty of it worldwide.
I don’t see anything wrong with people thinking their own country/culture is the best. That does not mean they necessarily must hate others. People naturally prefer what they are used to. For example, me saying my mom’s cooking was the best does not mean “your mom’s cooking was terrible”. It only means I love/prefer mine. What’s wrong with that?
It’s one of the Left’s favorite tricks. To smear their enemies with the sins of all mankind from the dawn of civilization. While simultaneously counting themselves as separate from that history.
Take a trip to Israel. You'll meet plenty of them.
ML/NJ
>> But in a second paragraph, it adds, “.,.placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.”
Canada and France both do this. Where is the international outrage?
What is wrong with that? Prager is a disappointment. He is siding with the globalists who devalue citizenship and nationalism. He is echoing the words of Macron:
In the shadow of a grand war memorial here, French President Emmanuel Macron marked the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I by delivering a forceful rebuke against rising nationalism, calling it a “betrayal of patriotism” and warning against “old demons coming back to wreak chaos and death.” ...Speaking in French, Macron emphasized that a global order based on liberal values is worth defending against those who have sought to disrupt that system. The millions of soldiers who died in the Great War fought to defend the “universal values” of France, he said, and to reject the “selfishness of nations only looking after their own interests. Because patriotism is exactly the opposite of nationalism.”
Prager must have a problem with American exceptionalism and MAGA. The left in Europe have always used nationalism as a pejorative to brand their opponents Neo-Nazis and far right. The fact is that Brexit and the many separatist movements in Europe are undermining the EU and the UN. People want to retain their language, culture, and history and not be branded as racists and Nazis. Globally, nationalism is winning. In 1949 the UN had about 50 nations; today there are close to 200. The nation state and nationalism are alive and well. People don't want to be governed by supranational organizations
How about Japan?
Maybe you’re not smart enough to get it.?
___________________________________________________
Nah...he gates it and he’s right. This article reads like a milksopish piece from someone like Michael Medved. There’s nothing wrong with placing one’s culture above other cultures (not all cultures are equal, are they?) as long as one does not engage in imperialism. Now the U.S. has been guilty of said imperialism, but that still does not make it wrong to promote a particular culture within one’s own borders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.