Why do you love your country? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
Decky wrote::up:

Good luck Klasswar. Oh and don't do an Ireland and just settle for part of your country hoping that they will give the rest back later, it doesn't work.

Get it all back at once.

They won't give the rest back later. We will take the rest back later. Can't win no war for independence right now 'cause the catalan people is disarmed, so we gotta do it the democratic way, by jumping through all the legal hoops of calling for a self-determination referendum so that Spain blocks it and thus legitimizes our UDI. Problem is, the other territories have an unionist majority out of decades of anti-catalan propaganda and mass colonization by non-catalans.

The tide is starting to turn around, but way too slowly to just wait till Valencia and Baleares come around on their own: Spain gonna destroy us in the meantime. When Euskadi and Catalonia secede, Spain will become an utterly bankrupt failed state (might even collapse). Then it'll be relatively simple to recover the rest of the national territory.
Decky wrote:Meh that's what Ireland thought and the squatters are still on our 6 counties.

The situation here's different: An overwhelming majority of industry is in Euskal Herria and Catalonia. Spain is able to continue to exist as a country rather than going bankrupt because it annually pillages 8% of Catalonia's GDP, and EVEN THEN it runs high deficits. Being unable to extract a dime off the Catalans, they cannot but collapse. Euskal Herria they don't plunder as much 'cause of their fiscal regime, but the Basques are the second most important industrial heartland. As soon as Basques and Catalans secede, Spain WILL collapse. It cannot survive that kind of blow.

I'd very much like to liberate every inch of the Catalan territory (from the Franja de Ponent to Menorca and from the Pyrenees to Orihuela) by force, but right now, as a result of a disastrous policy of gun control, the Catalans are a disarmed people. We need to liberate SOME territory so we can rearm before that kind of campaign becomes a possibility. Ain't no other way.
I'm from the Netherlands as well and I don't love it. colonies, slave trade, apartheid and Geert Wilders are no things to be proud of, not to mention we lost within 4 days from the germans...
The situation here's different

Fair enough, I guess you know your own situation better than I do.

Are you a fan of Rugby league by any chance Klass war?

Catalan Dragons are the only non British team in the super league and aren't bad.
In my previous post I spoke in the abstract: all people have reason to love their country (the only alternative, at the risk of sounding nationalist, is to leave it). Because of love of country feeds the will to fight to improve your country when it is degenerating or is in the wrong.

But I'll write in this post about the specific. In the case of France, we have a beautiful country at the heart of Europe with a precious legacy: rationalism and science, democracy and the rule of law, the very invention of the modern Nation-State, the balanced and good life. Of course we share many qualities with our neighbors and the West in general. Perhaps France's most specific political characteristic is an extremely passionate desire for both equality and liberty.

The more time passes the more I am convinced that France, though only a medium-sized country making up less than 1% of the global population, will again show the enduring validity of the democratic Nation-State, including in a globalized world. The old, dangerous dreams of hegemony in Europe are dead. Instead I hope France can have the ambition of maintaining balance in Europe and of showing the world that modernization, equality and democracy can be had simultaneously through the Nation-State in spite of the imagined constraints of globalization. That apatride elites, whether the imagined power of "markets," comprador classes or international bureaurats, do not, in fact, dictate the fate of sovereign Nations. I think this would be a very honorable world-historical role for 65 million Frenchmen!

I will also mention the United States of America (because I am French-American). America has its heritage and qualities: the epitome of classical liberalism, its power, its wealth, the "pop culture" and sexual revolutions, its admirable traditions of immigration and free speech, love of the Constitution, its natural resources, the gentle life of suburbia... But I am more disturbed by America. Life is too needlessly insecure and violent over there. The hucksterism - the fact, in America, every man is a (lying) salesman (I exaggerate) - I just find repellent. America, since the 1980s, has been simply decadent, a writhing mass of entitlement, overconsumption and senseless violence at home and abroad.

Of course I am generalizing. America too has a magnificent heritage and boundless potential. Its main ambition should be healing itself: to reclaim power from the oligarchy, to live in a more economically secure and peaceful country, to not live with the fantasy (e.g. rejection of reality) that America can go as if there were no limits (to growth, to houses, to cars..), a fantasy of limitless growth that has fed into the country's triple indebtedness (household, financial, public) and allows it to ignore its real socioeconomic problems. The Founding Fathers considered Montesquieu the reference on constitutional matters, and the Frenchman had said: "Democracy is also love of frugality." Benjamin Franklin said much the same thing. How far is America today, then, from its fundamental principles? The thought fills me with a kind of dull sadness.

Rei - This is a semantic argument - and it's not at all surprising that self-styled "fascists" or "nationalists" would dislike my pejorative definition of "nationalism." But the point remains: there is a difference between hating other countries and loving one's own country, the latter is a necessary sentiment in any democratic society.
I agree with your point, just I guess we'll agree to disagree on the semantics of which is which. To me, patriotism is the shallower of the two, I know it from experience because I've met a great many 'patriots' who are basically grumpy blood-suckers who like waving flags and little else.

When I think of 'patriot' I think of 'Sean Hannity' and 'Rush Limbaugh'.

When I think of 'nationalist', I think of a wide gamut of people stretching from 'Hideki Tojo' to 'Park Chung-hee' to 'Ho Chi Minh' to 'Hugo Chavez', with their sleeves rolled up trying to actually do something to help themselves and their people out of a hole they've been put in.
there is a difference between hating other countries and loving one's own country,

Not always. What about countries who's interests are diametrically opposed? Can someone in Japan love Japan without hating north Korea? A country pointing nukes at it as we speak.

Cna an Irishman love Ireland without despising Britain (a country occupying six counties of Ireland as we speak and denying jury trial to Irishmen when arrested in the occupation zone)?

I'm not familiar with nationalist writings but how an the answer be anything other than no. Just as I cannot love my class without hating the parasites with their boot on our necks.
Decky - Sometimes the two feelings can be legitimately together. Put it this way: patriotism is the will to defend Japan from foreigners (North Korea), nationalism is the belief Japan should dominate foreigners (North Korea).
Decky wrote:What about countries who's interests are diametrically opposed?

You missed my point entirely. In some cases loving your country and hating someone else's is the same thing.
Japanese 'patriotism' presently involves diverting all attention toward bitching about the island battle that is the responsibility of the JSDF to solve in the end, while completely taking the eye off the ball on all the situations that civilians can change, while carrying out ineffective boycotts within the presently-existing paradigm.

Hence bizarre ideas such as:
My thought is "please get real". Some Japanese factories are presently still inside China, and some components used in Japan are sourced in China. How would such a boycott work? I will give them props for "No we can", though. Nice one.

But seriously, this is why nationalism is clearly better than patriotism. Patriotism involves actually doing lots of nothing like in the above image (hence why the word for 'patriotism' is written partly by using kanji for 'heart' - isn't it? Haha). Nationalism involves doing lots of something (and incidentally is a different word written with different characters).
What am I suppose to love about "my" country? The forests? The lakes? The millions of people who I have never met? What exactly?

To me, it appears that appeals to love thy country is an appeal to "render unto Caesar".
I love my country's beautiful landscapes. That's where any above average love ends.

I don't love "my people" (there is no such thing) any more than I love the people of most other countries. In fact I like the people in Tunisia and Iran where I have traveled, as well as people of some other cultures who I know and have talked with much more than the average Croatian, since they are much more polite and honest than westerners in general. This is because I base my love on actual experience and more than just on "I was born here so my people are best regardless of anything". As Soixante-Retard mentioned, what, am I supposed to love the millions of people I have never met just because we happen to share the same living space, speak the same language or because of some utterly superficial quality like skin and eye color? I base my love and opinion of people on how much I respect their values and personalities, not on some generalized "shared culture" which I actually don't even share beyond the language and perhaps 20% of the actual culture that I have in common with "my fellow Croats", and definitely not on some utterly invisible shared ancestry which can pretty much be a completely imaginary thing as far as I'm concerned since I can neither feel nor experience what happened 13 centuries ago. No, if one strives to be intelligent and reasonable, one will value people by their personalities, achievements and individual values that they hold first, whereas background aspects of who they are, which are largely a result of coincidence of birth and not in any way a result of anything they themselves ever did or believed in, are but trivial matters.

You can be pretty damn sure that if five Croats were drowning among several people of other ethnicity, I would make no ethnic-based distinction as to who I will save first. Same as this, if my country was attacked by an aggressor seeking to conquer it, I would naturally defend it. On the other hand, if my country attacked another country for a totally bullshit reason and committed crimes in it, providing that I had no people I personally care about living in my country, you can bet your ass I would fight for the other side, because "what's right" isn't necessarily "what's mine".

There is no evidence. So what we can say us that[…]


Both are true statements, which is why the second[…]

If you wish to narrowly define “disenfranchisemen[…]

Now reading

Lately I've been fascinated with this travel blog […]