I have zero national pride. In fact, this country disgusts me more often than not. Will McAvoy's rant from the show "The Newsroom" pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter
Sorry but that's a terrible analogy. My dog is like a cross between a child and a possession. She is mine and mine alone and hogging her all to myself doesn't affect anyone else in any way. I was here before her and it's my job to provide for her and take care of her. I do not live on my dog and neither does anyone else.
Yes, those are differences. And one of the other differences between a dog and a country is that "dog" is three letters and "country" is seven. The question is: how do these differences mean that you can love your dog without coming into conflict with anyone else, but can't love your country without coming into conflict with anyone else? How do they actually break the analogy?
I do care about and am attracted to things where I live, which is a planet, not a city or a state or a country.
It's all of those things. One does not exclude the others. And you have to care about them in different ways. You care about the planet in a big-picture way; you do not and cannot care about the small-picture details of every place on the planet the same way you care about the details in your own city. You care about traffic laws and public parks and zoning ordinances in your city; you do not care about those things in Berlin and Budapest and Beijing. It's cognitively impossible. Your brain is not big enough for it all. You have to trust that the people who live elsewhere are taking care of their corner of the cosmos on that level at the same time you're taking care of yours. Meanwhile, on a higher level, you and they are also collectively taking care of the slightly larger corner of the cosmos that you all share. But if you only commit to that grand, big-picture level - well, that just means you're leaving it to someone else to sort out how to collect the garbage.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I've had to answer the question 'do I love my country?' before and I mulled it over for quite some time.
My search was prompted by the all to common catch-cry of 'If you/they don't like it, then you/they can leave!' (or 'go home', if the person doesn't look white enough), when responding to criticism on a broad range of topics; from anti-corruption sentiment to government mismanagement, or even from pointing out police incompetence to pretty much anything to do with politics or religion (ie. non-christian religions).
[...]
This is more or less that 'love it or leave it' catchcry, right?
I do not know if you are a SMH reader. Though, if you are, did you read the comment by Mark Seymour?
And yes, I've seen people tell indigenous Australians to 'go home'.
I have zero national pride. In fact, this country disgusts me more often than not. Will McAvoy's rant from the show "The Newsroom" pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter
I think that the internet allows for more interaction with humanity that would otherwise have been much more scarce. But since it is still a relatively new in the scale of human history, regionalism still exists. I think that due to globalization and the internet that eventually regionalism might become a smaller thing.
I agree completely. I think humanity is at the beginning stages of some massive change that's going to make the renaissance look small and we have the internet to thank for it. Never before in human history has information been exchanged so freely amongst the people without any sort of filter from the people in charge.
@Blinking Spirit, I get what you're saying and you do make good points. I guess my big problem is that 99% of the time (at least in my experience anyway) loving one's country turns into an "us vs them" type situation. It seems that most people seem to feel like they can love only where they live. Since we have all these borders and labels and things it becomes "I live in ______" instead of "I live on earth". That's a big part of why I feel like the whole idea of counties and borders is inherently divisive.
@Blinking Spirit, I get what you're saying and you do make good points. I guess my big problem is that 99% of the time (at least in my experience anyway) loving one's country turns into an "us vs them" type situation. It seems that most people seem to feel like they can love only where they live. Since we have all these borders and labels and things it becomes "I live in ______" instead of "I live on earth". That's a big part of why I feel like the whole idea of counties and borders is inherently divisive.
And my point is that it doesn't have to be that way. Indeed, I don't think it is that way, at least not for most people in the developed world. The news fixates on when diplomacy is at loggerheads and fails to acknowledge the truly staggering amounts of international cooperation that occur in this day and age. A mere century ago, Europe was on the eve of the the First World War, probably the greatest exercise in pointlessly destructive jingoism in human history. That kind of conflict is unthinkable today, because the First World nations all recognize that they are indeed in this together.
Except where fjords are concerned. In that, there can be only one.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I live in a country whose political parties refuse to work with one another for the greater good.....under a government that ignores rules and laws as it fits their agenda. A government waging wars against minorities and women and homosexuals and the poor. A governemt more concerned with the rest of the worlds problems than its own. In a country where its no longer about what you know, but WHO you know.
And since Im assuming youve never seen the clip I was talking about, here's the script:
Just in case you accidentally wander into a voting booth one day, there are some things you should know, and one of them is: There is absolutely no evidence to support the statement that we're the greatest country in the world. We're seventh in literacy, twenty-seventh in math, twenty-second in science, forty-ninth in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, number four in labor force, and number four in exports. We lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are allies. None of this is the fault of a 20-year-old college student, but you, nonetheless, are without a doubt a member of the WORST-period-GENERATION-period-EVER-period, so when you ask what makes us the greatest country in the world, I don't know what the **** you're talking about! Yosemite?
We sure used to be. We stood up for what was right. We fought for moral reasons, we passed laws, struck down laws for moral reasons. We waged wars on poverty, not poor people. We sacrificed, we cared about our neighbors, we put our money where our mouths were, and we never beat our chest. We built great big things, made ungodly technological advances, explored the universe, cured diseases, and we cultivated the world's greatest artists and the world's greatest economy. We reached for the stars, acted like men. We aspired to intelligence; we didn't belittle it; it didn't make us feel inferior. We didn't identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last election, and we didn't scare so easy. We were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed. By great men, men who were revered. The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one. America is not the greatest country in the world anymore.
So what exactly is it that im supposed to be proud of?
The question is: how do these differences mean that you can love your dog without coming into conflict with anyone else, but can't love your country without coming into conflict with anyone else? How do they actually break the analogy?
The actual difference is that the countries actually compete with each other. They compete on offers for treaties, have differences regarding international legislation, have their own interests on resources. There is this whole thing called war that happens every now and then. They exist in a state where resources are not infinite.
Imagine for a moment that you have a more exotic pet. Say, a panda. You love this panda very much, like you love your dog. Now imagine that all the local bamboo forests have been cut down, and you're reliant on import bamboo to feed your pet. Your neighbour also has a panda, who they also love very much. One time, there is only barely enough bamboo imported to feed one panda in this town. The other one will invariably die. There is no way around it.
And that's what countries essentially are. With an exception, I grant you, that countries are born of necessity exactly because competition for resources exists. If we lived in a magical world of abundance of everything that we could possibly want, we would have no need for countries. Countries are a construct to prioritize the needs or wants of those close to you over those of people far away from you while refusing to feel bad or responsible for doing so.
US in particular is pretty guilty of this. The price of oil is ricing? Give Saddam some money so he can invade neighbouring countries and take over their oil fields. Let's get some few millions killed in middle-east so we can keep oil prices down, whoo! Those African countries are actually trying to recover? Let's ship guns to rebels in those areas, and then only offer to sell guns to the government if they reduce the import and export tariffs, so their farmers will be screwed over economically, and we can buy all the fields, whoo! What do you mean there is a continent south of us with insane amounts of natural resources but barely no technology? Let's invade that and take their resources, whoo!
Okay, that last one was Europe, but I think you get the point. Countries are willing to price the desires of their members over the needs of others, and often refuse to recognize this as an issue at all. Or if they do, they still keep doing it. For the mother/fatherland, yay!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Sigh. And here I was hoping the only trash-talk would be fjord related.
Unfortunately, I can't even deliver on that point - I've never been to New Zealand (though I wish to, at some point). But if I were to guess, I'd say that our fjords are better than their ones Though I'd say New Zealand probably has a richer flora & fauna and a less hostile climate. I bet I'd be able to grow as fond of NZ's geography, given time, as I am of Norway's.
Man, Sene, you just don't get this whole nationalism thing. You gotta be ruthless in the struggle for national prestige. Fight for everything, concede nothing. It's a zero-sum competition, and every scrap that you win, you have to take by force from some other sucker of a country.
The thread says so, so it must be true!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sigh. And here I was hoping the only trash-talk would be fjord related.
You seriously thought there could be a thread about national pride and patriotism, something US is #1 in (Tied with Venezuela.), and no US-bashing in that thread? As far as I am concerned, it's worth bashing countries with high amounts of patriotism and national pride for that fact alone. US is also a really easy target. The fact that the thread title also has a flag of a certain country in it just makes it a more enticing one.
I'm willing to bet we could observe a non-insignificant positive correlation between patriotism and amount of war crimes committed, just like we can with nationalism and the amount of wars.
EDIT: Also, excuse me, but it's time for some anti-nationalism/patriotism.
Quote from Banksy, Wall and Piece »
“People who enjoy waving flags don't deserve to have one”
Quote from Voltaire »
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”
Quote from Arthur Schopenhauer, Essays and Aphorisms »
“Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.”
Quote from C.J Sansom, Dissolution »
“In worshipping their nationhood men worship themselves and scorn others, and that is no healthy thing.”
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
This is an interesting debate, one that has been something of an undercurrent in Canadian society for my entire life. We try to have as strong national identity here, but almost anyone with a brain and enough sense to think about it for a little while comes to the conclusion that the fundamental idea behind our culture is this: "Canada; most definitely, absolutely, decisively not the United States."
Sure we have many things about our country that stand on their own, without any real relation to happenings south of the border, but when you live so close to a nation that has ten times your population and the economic and cultural power that comes with that, you can't help but collectively define yourselves in comparison to that. There are a great many things that are percieved as being distinctly Canadian, just because "they don''t do/have that in the States," even when they do (like hockey and maple syrup).
Note that for many of us, myself included, this is not done with a sense of jealousy, hatred, fear or disdain; just a genuine desire to be identified as ourselves, not someone else. Let's bring it down to an analogy on a smaller scale: Steve is bigger, richer and more famous than his brother Bob. People know Steve, but Bob lives a quiet life out of public view. Because of this, people refer to Bob as "Steve's brother." If it gets to the point where even their parent's forget Bob's name, and call him "Steve's brother," Bob will have an identity crisis. He may love his brother dearly, but would want to be known as "Bob."
So, when it comes down to the "Do you love your country?" question, I'm forced to ask myself: Do I love Canada for what it is; or do I love not being American? I believe that this is be big divide between Canadian patriotism (identifying and supporting one's nation), and Canadian nationalism (belief that one's nation is inherently superior to other nations).
In the end, I think I fall in the first camp more than the second. The only "beef" I have with the United States, is that I find the negative aspects of American culture are finding their way into Canadian society more and more (and by "negative aspects," I think most honest Americans would identify most of the same things as things they don't like about their own country, like the prevalence of gun violence and apathy towards anyone but "me and mine"). Understand me on this, I don't blame the US for these things. I love and respect my American friends, and wish the best for their nation, but their country has issues like any other country. What I don't like is this; instead of dealing with our own problems, Canadian society as a whole is borrowing problems from south of the border to add to them. While I find this infuriating, it's not because I hate my country or theirs. It's because I love Canada and Canadians and the Canadian way of life (as nebulous and hard to define as it is). I'm upset and disappointed with my country right now because I believe we're better than this. We're capable of greater good than the growing violence, corruption and selfish ambition there is in this country right now. Are we as bad as the brutally corrupt dictatorships in many other places? Absolutely not, but we shouldn't be headed even a single step in that direction. So yes, I love my country. I love it so much I feel like weeping over it's current state.
Anyway, sorry for the rant, but here's the short version: In my opinion, truly loving one's country doesn't result in nationalism that divides people against each other, or blind acceptance of the way things are as the way they should be. There is and must be such a thing as patriotic acceptance of other nations, and there is and must be such a thing as patriotic dissent to keep the nation honest.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A polite player might call my card choices "interesting." At my budget, "interesting" is the only option.
This is an interesting debate, one that has been something of an undercurrent in Canadian society for my entire life. We try to have as strong national identity here, but almost anyone with a brain and enough sense to think about it for a little while comes to the conclusion that the fundamental idea behind our culture is this: "Canada; most definitely, absolutely, decisively not the United States."
I thought it was merely a discussion. Well, as they say, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
The actual difference is that the countries actually compete with each other. They compete on offers for treaties, have differences regarding international legislation, have their own interests on resources. There is this whole thing called war that happens every now and then. They exist in a state where resources are not infinite.
Imagine for a moment that you have a more exotic pet. Say, a panda. You love this panda very much, like you love your dog. Now imagine that all the local bamboo forests have been cut down, and you're reliant on import bamboo to feed your pet. Your neighbour also has a panda, who they also love very much. One time, there is only barely enough bamboo imported to feed one panda in this town. The other one will invariably die. There is no way around it.
And that's what countries essentially are. With an exception, I grant you, that countries are born of necessity exactly because competition for resources exists. If we lived in a magical world of abundance of everything that we could possibly want, we would have no need for countries. Countries are a construct to prioritize the needs or wants of those close to you over those of people far away from you while refusing to feel bad or responsible for doing so.
US in particular is pretty guilty of this. The price of oil is ricing? Give Saddam some money so he can invade neighbouring countries and take over their oil fields. Let's get some few millions killed in middle-east so we can keep oil prices down, whoo! Those African countries are actually trying to recover? Let's ship guns to rebels in those areas, and then only offer to sell guns to the government if they reduce the import and export tariffs, so their farmers will be screwed over economically, and we can buy all the fields, whoo! What do you mean there is a continent south of us with insane amounts of natural resources but barely no technology? Let's invade that and take their resources, whoo!
Okay, that last one was Europe, but I think you get the point. Countries are willing to price the desires of their members over the needs of others, and often refuse to recognize this as an issue at all. Or if they do, they still keep doing it. For the mother/fatherland, yay!
Wow, are you being serious, dude?
Quote from Amadi »
You seriously thought there could be a thread about national pride and patriotism, something US is #1 in (Tied with Venezuela.), and no US-bashing in that thread? As far as I am concerned, it's worth bashing countries with high amounts of patriotism and national pride for that fact alone. US is also a really easy target. The fact that the thread title also has a flag of a certain country in it just makes it a more enticing one.
I am certain there's a fine line that can be walked here, where you can reasonably discuss national pride and patriotism without prejudice.
Anyway, whatever, man. To other, more important things.
Unfortunately, I can't even deliver on that point - I've never been to New Zealand (though I wish to, at some point). But if I were to guess, I'd say that our fjords are better than their ones Though I'd say New Zealand probably has a richer flora & fauna and a less hostile climate. I bet I'd be able to grow as fond of NZ's geography, given time, as I am of Norway's.
To be fair, Norway is lovely only, oh, all year round. If size matters, the fjords in Norway are, like, 5 to 20 times longer (and Norway does not have Hobbiton, Matamata and presumably Hobbits). Again, if size matters (of course it does! :tongue:).
The fjords in Iceland, Greenland, and even Canada are worthwhile to experience too.
So the opinions here are pretty much what I expected. For me it's rather simple, no country is never going to be perfect, and if you expect it you're a fool. I love my country because it's where my family lives, where the majority of the people I can about live, and because it at least tries to give everyone a fair shot and a voice and it's possible to change things without a bloody revolution. The downside of everyone having a voice, however, is that not everyone has something worthwhile to say, but chooses to say it anyway. That's the curse.
Unfortunately, I can't even deliver on that point - I've never been to New Zealand (though I wish to, at some point). But if I were to guess, I'd say that our fjords are better than their ones Though I'd say New Zealand probably has a richer flora & fauna and a less hostile climate. I bet I'd be able to grow as fond of NZ's geography, given time, as I am of Norway's.
STOP BEING A NICE EUROPEAN, SENE. You should have led with this:
"Your fjords are so weak they're actually drowned river canyons, fool. Do you even glacier?"
STOP BEING A NICE EUROPEAN, SENE. You should have led with this:
"Your fjords are so weak they're actually drowned river canyons, fool. Do you even glacier?"
Yes, New Zealand has various rías, but Milford Sound is a bona fide fiord.
Rather than agree to disagree, can't we agree that Lysefjorden and Nærøyfjord are beautiful fjords as well and that the fiords/fjords are as beautiful are those in the other country? Why can't we be friends?
Admittedly, though people say that the scenery or nature in New Zealand is like no other, I don't see what they see.
Dead serious. I do not see why countries should be treated differently from religions* in this regard. They're all about "us vs them"-mentality. If they were not, they would be completely unnecessary and serve no function.
*: I also hate all organized religions in equal measure.
I am certain there's a fine line that can be walked here, where you can reasonably discuss national pride and patriotism without prejudice.
My goal is to attack the concept of national pride. The only way to do so is to show thatit has only led to bad things. I could've used Nazi Germany as an example, but if I did, people would've responded with "But that's like, Nazi Germans man, US would never do that." It would, in fact, just strengthen the sense of national pride in these individuals, because they could use justifications such as "Yeah, we're totally better than Nazi Germany, go USA!"
And I do not doubt anyone here would claim that US hasn't had a really bad record of unwarranted wars for resources or political control in the past 50 years or so. I could cite the entire war on terror as an example of the mentality I've outlined before. Just because the attack was against the America, it received insane amounts of news coverage and was responded to by practically destroying a country. 3000 people were killed in what was, in the grand scheme of things, a highly symbolic attack done by an extremist group.
US used that to justify roughly 185,000 deaths in Iraq. Out of these, roughly 135,000 civilians. Being proud of the US is seeing this as something to be proud of. Or living in denial, or even worse, being able to justify these actions, because "It was worth it".
I hate the US, but it's not that my hate for the US is particularly spectacular. I hate Finland, too. I repeat what I said in my first post: I hate all countries in equal measures. Once people begin to identify with something that is not themselves, they'll begin to use this as a justification. Rather than asking themselves "What would a good person do?" when presented by a moral dilemma, they resort to "What would a good Finn/American/Catholic/Muslim do".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I hate the US, but it's not that my hate for the US is particularly spectacular. I hate Finland, too. I repeat what I said in my first post: I hate all countries in equal measures. Once people begin to identify with something that is not themselves, they'll begin to use this as a justification. Rather than asking themselves "What would a good person do?" when presented by a moral dilemma, they resort to "What would a good Finn/American/Catholic/Muslim do".
You know, you're right. The exact same observation can be made about any non-self grouping.
We use human/not human to define what we can own, kill, and eat; to a larger extent we use animal/vegetable in the same manner and going deeper, we use living/non-living in even boarder strokes.
We use the excuse of "it's not human" to justify designating other animals as our property, we use "it's just a plant" to justify constant mutilation of grasses and "it's not even alive." to justify the destruction of billions of tons of rock each year.
So I guess using "What would a good person do?" in your example has you falling into the same trap you're railing against. Maybe "what would a good entity do?" is a better question to ask?
But then we'd be prejudiced against stuff that doesn't exist.
You seriously thought there could be a thread about national pride and patriotism, something US is #1 in (Tied with Venezuela.), and no US-bashing in that thread?
The word I used was "hoping". You disappoint me; you do not surprise me.
Oh funny, I haven't logged in here for months, maybe a year, but this thread certainly gave me a venue to vent and I'll certainly seize the opportunity.
See that table there? Where it says Chile is even more patriotic than the United States? It's goddamn true, terribly obnoxiously horribly true!
It's just that I can't comprehend it, it's just such an horrible sentiment, and it feels so empty; being proud of your country for what? Simply being it? Chilean culture is horrible in that respect, our jingoism such that we not only love our country in an exagerated manner, for no good reason at all in the first place, but it's most often than not expressed in disgust on comparison with our neighbors, people truly look down on our northern neighbors thinking of them as if they were an inferior race, the average citizen is borderline xenophobic, or openly so, but the government encourages it, our relations with Argentina is little better, and the worst thing is that they hate us back for it, and with reason, we think ourselves superior to them, for no real good reason truly, but damn if we're proud of our country, right?
We've got nothing to be proud of, truly, our country has little big accomplishments on it's history and those are by far outshined by the attrocities that have happened here, yet people are oblivious to them, prefering to love the country above all else because, heck, we've got a high IDH, right? We're the first country in Latin America considered a "first world one! yay! Ugh, I hate this, more often than not patriotism feels like government brainwashing to me, trying to keep the masses dumb and forming some kind of worship to such empty concept as our fatherland to, in that way, overlook our faults, because we're superior! See?. Sweeping over the rug or overlooking our faults, I can't stand that sentiment.
Now that brings me to another point, I've seen this repeated many times, for I moderate another forum for an historical strategic game modification I and some others made, and we decided to include some often overlooked countries, that showed me some harsh truth though, that when it comes to patriotism, the smaller and pettiest your country is, it seems that the more that patriotism is exacerbated.
There's countless fights I've had to dissolve on people from the Balkans fighting over who had the least-worst country, and every so often someone claims that "if it weren't for those damn turks our country would totally be a world power by now! unlike those guys from neighboring country X! I've seen it happen just so many times it's not even funny, and the same thing happens here in Latin America, Peruvians badmouthing chileans badmouthing argentineans badmouthing bolivians, they fight over such petty things even when in the grand scheme of things the rest of the world doesn't even care. (I bet most people stopped reading my rant a good while ago because, well, Chile, who cares? right?) Why being proud of your country? Even more important, why being proud of your country for no real reason at all? What's the damn point?!? The sentiment brings nothing but animosity and hate between people, it's the only thing I've seen so far.
But yeah, we've got fjords, and some damn good beautiful ones at that, maybe that justifies it all in the end?
In short, I find the the concept of "loving one's country" ridiculous. To say I love my country does a great disservice to my definition of love. Not a popular sentiment among many I'm sure but I feel very strongly that the term patriotism is falsey defined. Honor my country? Sure thing. Believe in what it represents? Absolutely. Respect it? Damn straight. But love a country, that's just complete B.S.
Dead serious. I do not see why countries should be treated differently from religions* in this regard. They're all about "us vs them"-mentality. If they were not, they would be completely unnecessary and serve no function.
*: I also hate all organized religions in equal measure.
My goal is to attack the concept of national pride. The only way to do so is to show thatit has only led to bad things. I could've used Nazi Germany as an example, but if I did, people would've responded with "But that's like, Nazi Germans man, US would never do that." It would, in fact, just strengthen the sense of national pride in these individuals, because they could use justifications such as "Yeah, we're totally better than Nazi Germany, go USA!"
And I do not doubt anyone here would claim that US hasn't had a really bad record of unwarranted wars for resources or political control in the past 50 years or so. I could cite the entire war on terror as an example of the mentality I've outlined before. Just because the attack was against the America, it received insane amounts of news coverage and was responded to by practically destroying a country. 3000 people were killed in what was, in the grand scheme of things, a highly symbolic attack done by an extremist group.
US used that to justify roughly 185,000 deaths in Iraq. Out of these, roughly 135,000 civilians. Being proud of the US is seeing this as something to be proud of. Or living in denial, or even worse, being able to justify these actions, because "It was worth it".
I hate the US, but it's not that my hate for the US is particularly spectacular. I hate Finland, too. I repeat what I said in my first post: I hate all countries in equal measures. Once people begin to identify with something that is not themselves, they'll begin to use this as a justification. Rather than asking themselves "What would a good person do?" when presented by a moral dilemma, they resort to "What would a good Finn/American/Catholic/Muslim do".
Yeah. Sure. Okay. Thanks for your response and insights.
Yeah. Sure. Okay. Thanks for your response and insights.
Hm. At the time of the race riots that made national news, I lived quite close.
Yeah.
He sums it up pretty well, but it's not like it's a new attitude or anything.
I'm reminded of the (somewhat explict) Rap News episode about Australia day (I think it was ep. 11?). As far as a parody goes, it was disturbingly close to reality.
I'm going to challenge your source of a branding institute with a university. See: NORC report. World Values Survey also polled people based on who was proud of their nationality, and the Ireland and US were tied for first place in 2005.
So I guess using "What would a good person do?" in your example has you falling into the same trap you're railing against. Maybe "what would a good entity do?" is a better question to ask?
True, but it's all about trying for the highest rank you can maintain. I'm happy enough if I can live my life as a good person.
I also maintain that there is a difference. I was born a human, and I have no choice in that matter. I can choose my country, my religious orientation, and most other things.
But yeah, we've got fjords, and some damn good beautiful ones at that, maybe that justifies it all in the end?
"Missing link found between Fjords and patriotism!"
-MTGS Survey 2014
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I'm going to challenge your source of a branding institute with a university. See: NORC report. World Values Survey also polled people based on who was proud of their nationality, and the Ireland and US were tied for first place in 2005.
And I'm going to challenge your imagination with the concept of linear time. Check those dates, dude.
Also, Australian Wizard Elvis (AWE) seems way more trustworthy than something called "NORC".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's all of those things. One does not exclude the others. And you have to care about them in different ways. You care about the planet in a big-picture way; you do not and cannot care about the small-picture details of every place on the planet the same way you care about the details in your own city. You care about traffic laws and public parks and zoning ordinances in your city; you do not care about those things in Berlin and Budapest and Beijing. It's cognitively impossible. Your brain is not big enough for it all. You have to trust that the people who live elsewhere are taking care of their corner of the cosmos on that level at the same time you're taking care of yours. Meanwhile, on a higher level, you and they are also collectively taking care of the slightly larger corner of the cosmos that you all share. But if you only commit to that grand, big-picture level - well, that just means you're leaving it to someone else to sort out how to collect the garbage.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Besides, there is no contest; Kipling didn't name any fjord in Norway as a Wonder of the World.
This is more or less that 'love it or leave it' catchcry, right?
I do not know if you are a SMH reader. Though, if you are, did you read the comment by Mark Seymour?
*smh*
Please explain.
I agree completely. I think humanity is at the beginning stages of some massive change that's going to make the renaissance look small and we have the internet to thank for it. Never before in human history has information been exchanged so freely amongst the people without any sort of filter from the people in charge.
@Blinking Spirit, I get what you're saying and you do make good points. I guess my big problem is that 99% of the time (at least in my experience anyway) loving one's country turns into an "us vs them" type situation. It seems that most people seem to feel like they can love only where they live. Since we have all these borders and labels and things it becomes "I live in ______" instead of "I live on earth". That's a big part of why I feel like the whole idea of counties and borders is inherently divisive.
And my point is that it doesn't have to be that way. Indeed, I don't think it is that way, at least not for most people in the developed world. The news fixates on when diplomacy is at loggerheads and fails to acknowledge the truly staggering amounts of international cooperation that occur in this day and age. A mere century ago, Europe was on the eve of the the First World War, probably the greatest exercise in pointlessly destructive jingoism in human history. That kind of conflict is unthinkable today, because the First World nations all recognize that they are indeed in this together.
Except where fjords are concerned. In that, there can be only one.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I live in a country whose political parties refuse to work with one another for the greater good.....under a government that ignores rules and laws as it fits their agenda. A government waging wars against minorities and women and homosexuals and the poor. A governemt more concerned with the rest of the worlds problems than its own. In a country where its no longer about what you know, but WHO you know.
And since Im assuming youve never seen the clip I was talking about, here's the script:
We sure used to be. We stood up for what was right. We fought for moral reasons, we passed laws, struck down laws for moral reasons. We waged wars on poverty, not poor people. We sacrificed, we cared about our neighbors, we put our money where our mouths were, and we never beat our chest. We built great big things, made ungodly technological advances, explored the universe, cured diseases, and we cultivated the world's greatest artists and the world's greatest economy. We reached for the stars, acted like men. We aspired to intelligence; we didn't belittle it; it didn't make us feel inferior. We didn't identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last election, and we didn't scare so easy. We were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed. By great men, men who were revered. The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one. America is not the greatest country in the world anymore.
So what exactly is it that im supposed to be proud of?
The actual difference is that the countries actually compete with each other. They compete on offers for treaties, have differences regarding international legislation, have their own interests on resources. There is this whole thing called war that happens every now and then. They exist in a state where resources are not infinite.
Imagine for a moment that you have a more exotic pet. Say, a panda. You love this panda very much, like you love your dog. Now imagine that all the local bamboo forests have been cut down, and you're reliant on import bamboo to feed your pet. Your neighbour also has a panda, who they also love very much. One time, there is only barely enough bamboo imported to feed one panda in this town. The other one will invariably die. There is no way around it.
And that's what countries essentially are. With an exception, I grant you, that countries are born of necessity exactly because competition for resources exists. If we lived in a magical world of abundance of everything that we could possibly want, we would have no need for countries. Countries are a construct to prioritize the needs or wants of those close to you over those of people far away from you while refusing to feel bad or responsible for doing so.
US in particular is pretty guilty of this. The price of oil is ricing? Give Saddam some money so he can invade neighbouring countries and take over their oil fields. Let's get some few millions killed in middle-east so we can keep oil prices down, whoo! Those African countries are actually trying to recover? Let's ship guns to rebels in those areas, and then only offer to sell guns to the government if they reduce the import and export tariffs, so their farmers will be screwed over economically, and we can buy all the fields, whoo! What do you mean there is a continent south of us with insane amounts of natural resources but barely no technology? Let's invade that and take their resources, whoo!
Okay, that last one was Europe, but I think you get the point. Countries are willing to price the desires of their members over the needs of others, and often refuse to recognize this as an issue at all. Or if they do, they still keep doing it. For the mother/fatherland, yay!
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Sigh. And here I was hoping the only trash-talk would be fjord related.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Unfortunately, I can't even deliver on that point - I've never been to New Zealand (though I wish to, at some point). But if I were to guess, I'd say that our fjords are better than their ones Though I'd say New Zealand probably has a richer flora & fauna and a less hostile climate. I bet I'd be able to grow as fond of NZ's geography, given time, as I am of Norway's.
The thread says so, so it must be true!
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You seriously thought there could be a thread about national pride and patriotism, something US is #1 in (Tied with Venezuela.), and no US-bashing in that thread? As far as I am concerned, it's worth bashing countries with high amounts of patriotism and national pride for that fact alone. US is also a really easy target. The fact that the thread title also has a flag of a certain country in it just makes it a more enticing one.
I'm willing to bet we could observe a non-insignificant positive correlation between patriotism and amount of war crimes committed, just like we can with nationalism and the amount of wars.
EDIT: Also, excuse me, but it's time for some anti-nationalism/patriotism.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Sure we have many things about our country that stand on their own, without any real relation to happenings south of the border, but when you live so close to a nation that has ten times your population and the economic and cultural power that comes with that, you can't help but collectively define yourselves in comparison to that. There are a great many things that are percieved as being distinctly Canadian, just because "they don''t do/have that in the States," even when they do (like hockey and maple syrup).
Note that for many of us, myself included, this is not done with a sense of jealousy, hatred, fear or disdain; just a genuine desire to be identified as ourselves, not someone else. Let's bring it down to an analogy on a smaller scale: Steve is bigger, richer and more famous than his brother Bob. People know Steve, but Bob lives a quiet life out of public view. Because of this, people refer to Bob as "Steve's brother." If it gets to the point where even their parent's forget Bob's name, and call him "Steve's brother," Bob will have an identity crisis. He may love his brother dearly, but would want to be known as "Bob."
So, when it comes down to the "Do you love your country?" question, I'm forced to ask myself: Do I love Canada for what it is; or do I love not being American? I believe that this is be big divide between Canadian patriotism (identifying and supporting one's nation), and Canadian nationalism (belief that one's nation is inherently superior to other nations).
In the end, I think I fall in the first camp more than the second. The only "beef" I have with the United States, is that I find the negative aspects of American culture are finding their way into Canadian society more and more (and by "negative aspects," I think most honest Americans would identify most of the same things as things they don't like about their own country, like the prevalence of gun violence and apathy towards anyone but "me and mine"). Understand me on this, I don't blame the US for these things. I love and respect my American friends, and wish the best for their nation, but their country has issues like any other country. What I don't like is this; instead of dealing with our own problems, Canadian society as a whole is borrowing problems from south of the border to add to them. While I find this infuriating, it's not because I hate my country or theirs. It's because I love Canada and Canadians and the Canadian way of life (as nebulous and hard to define as it is). I'm upset and disappointed with my country right now because I believe we're better than this. We're capable of greater good than the growing violence, corruption and selfish ambition there is in this country right now. Are we as bad as the brutally corrupt dictatorships in many other places? Absolutely not, but we shouldn't be headed even a single step in that direction. So yes, I love my country. I love it so much I feel like weeping over it's current state.
Anyway, sorry for the rant, but here's the short version: In my opinion, truly loving one's country doesn't result in nationalism that divides people against each other, or blind acceptance of the way things are as the way they should be. There is and must be such a thing as patriotic acceptance of other nations, and there is and must be such a thing as patriotic dissent to keep the nation honest.
Wow, are you being serious, dude?
I am certain there's a fine line that can be walked here, where you can reasonably discuss national pride and patriotism without prejudice.
Anyway, whatever, man. To other, more important things.
To be fair, Norway is lovely only, oh, all year round. If size matters, the fjords in Norway are, like, 5 to 20 times longer (and Norway does not have Hobbiton, Matamata and presumably Hobbits). Again, if size matters (of course it does! :tongue:).
The fjords in Iceland, Greenland, and even Canada are worthwhile to experience too.
Oh, yeah, come to New Zealand.
STOP BEING A NICE EUROPEAN, SENE. You should have led with this:
"Your fjords are so weak they're actually drowned river canyons, fool. Do you even glacier?"
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Yes, New Zealand has various rías, but Milford Sound is a bona fide fiord.
Rather than agree to disagree, can't we agree that Lysefjorden and Nærøyfjord are beautiful fjords as well and that the fiords/fjords are as beautiful are those in the other country? Why can't we be friends?
Admittedly, though people say that the scenery or nature in New Zealand is like no other, I don't see what they see.
Dead serious. I do not see why countries should be treated differently from religions* in this regard. They're all about "us vs them"-mentality. If they were not, they would be completely unnecessary and serve no function.
*: I also hate all organized religions in equal measure.
My goal is to attack the concept of national pride. The only way to do so is to show thatit has only led to bad things. I could've used Nazi Germany as an example, but if I did, people would've responded with "But that's like, Nazi Germans man, US would never do that." It would, in fact, just strengthen the sense of national pride in these individuals, because they could use justifications such as "Yeah, we're totally better than Nazi Germany, go USA!"
And I do not doubt anyone here would claim that US hasn't had a really bad record of unwarranted wars for resources or political control in the past 50 years or so. I could cite the entire war on terror as an example of the mentality I've outlined before. Just because the attack was against the America, it received insane amounts of news coverage and was responded to by practically destroying a country. 3000 people were killed in what was, in the grand scheme of things, a highly symbolic attack done by an extremist group.
US used that to justify roughly 185,000 deaths in Iraq. Out of these, roughly 135,000 civilians. Being proud of the US is seeing this as something to be proud of. Or living in denial, or even worse, being able to justify these actions, because "It was worth it".
I hate the US, but it's not that my hate for the US is particularly spectacular. I hate Finland, too. I repeat what I said in my first post: I hate all countries in equal measures. Once people begin to identify with something that is not themselves, they'll begin to use this as a justification. Rather than asking themselves "What would a good person do?" when presented by a moral dilemma, they resort to "What would a good Finn/American/Catholic/Muslim do".
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Looked it up. It's the one where he sees the bumper sticker with the phrase on it, right?
You know, you're right. The exact same observation can be made about any non-self grouping.
We use human/not human to define what we can own, kill, and eat; to a larger extent we use animal/vegetable in the same manner and going deeper, we use living/non-living in even boarder strokes.
We use the excuse of "it's not human" to justify designating other animals as our property, we use "it's just a plant" to justify constant mutilation of grasses and "it's not even alive." to justify the destruction of billions of tons of rock each year.
So I guess using "What would a good person do?" in your example has you falling into the same trap you're railing against. Maybe "what would a good entity do?" is a better question to ask?
Also:
Australia Australia Australia we love you, amen!
And it doesn't even have any fjords.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But we do have plenty of Fords
That's almost the same thing.
See that table there? Where it says Chile is even more patriotic than the United States? It's goddamn true, terribly obnoxiously horribly true!
It's just that I can't comprehend it, it's just such an horrible sentiment, and it feels so empty; being proud of your country for what? Simply being it? Chilean culture is horrible in that respect, our jingoism such that we not only love our country in an exagerated manner, for no good reason at all in the first place, but it's most often than not expressed in disgust on comparison with our neighbors, people truly look down on our northern neighbors thinking of them as if they were an inferior race, the average citizen is borderline xenophobic, or openly so, but the government encourages it, our relations with Argentina is little better, and the worst thing is that they hate us back for it, and with reason, we think ourselves superior to them, for no real good reason truly, but damn if we're proud of our country, right?
We've got nothing to be proud of, truly, our country has little big accomplishments on it's history and those are by far outshined by the attrocities that have happened here, yet people are oblivious to them, prefering to love the country above all else because, heck, we've got a high IDH, right? We're the first country in Latin America considered a "first world one! yay! Ugh, I hate this, more often than not patriotism feels like government brainwashing to me, trying to keep the masses dumb and forming some kind of worship to such empty concept as our fatherland to, in that way, overlook our faults, because we're superior! See?. Sweeping over the rug or overlooking our faults, I can't stand that sentiment.
Now that brings me to another point, I've seen this repeated many times, for I moderate another forum for an historical strategic game modification I and some others made, and we decided to include some often overlooked countries, that showed me some harsh truth though, that when it comes to patriotism, the smaller and pettiest your country is, it seems that the more that patriotism is exacerbated.
There's countless fights I've had to dissolve on people from the Balkans fighting over who had the least-worst country, and every so often someone claims that "if it weren't for those damn turks our country would totally be a world power by now! unlike those guys from neighboring country X! I've seen it happen just so many times it's not even funny, and the same thing happens here in Latin America, Peruvians badmouthing chileans badmouthing argentineans badmouthing bolivians, they fight over such petty things even when in the grand scheme of things the rest of the world doesn't even care. (I bet most people stopped reading my rant a good while ago because, well, Chile, who cares? right?) Why being proud of your country? Even more important, why being proud of your country for no real reason at all? What's the damn point?!? The sentiment brings nothing but animosity and hate between people, it's the only thing I've seen so far.
But yeah, we've got fjords, and some damn good beautiful ones at that, maybe that justifies it all in the end?
Yeah. Sure. Okay. Thanks for your response and insights.
Hm. At the time of the race riots that made national news, I lived quite close.
Yeah.
He sums it up pretty well, but it's not like it's a new attitude or anything.
I'm reminded of the (somewhat explict) Rap News episode about Australia day (I think it was ep. 11?). As far as a parody goes, it was disturbingly close to reality.
I'm going to challenge your source of a branding institute with a university. See: NORC report. World Values Survey also polled people based on who was proud of their nationality, and the Ireland and US were tied for first place in 2005.
True, but it's all about trying for the highest rank you can maintain. I'm happy enough if I can live my life as a good person.
I also maintain that there is a difference. I was born a human, and I have no choice in that matter. I can choose my country, my religious orientation, and most other things.
"Missing link found between Fjords and patriotism!"
-MTGS Survey 2014
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Also, Australian Wizard Elvis (AWE) seems way more trustworthy than something called "NORC".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.