Nationalism - I Can't Stand it
- Thread starter Maveroid
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But American didn't jump into the war two years late. In fact we were there right from the start, economically. Not to try and sound like the typical 'America won the war single handedly' redneck, but any historian worth their salts whether they be European or American or what have you, will say that without America's industry providing massive amounts of supplies in the early days/during the war things would have been a lot tougher for the allies.Regnes said:
This of course was because American industry was nearly untouchable by the Axis forces, allowing us to essentially continue pumping supplies out all the live long day. Whereas European industry could be--and often was destroyed during bombing campaigns. The way I see it World War II was won because of the following;
-The American Industry
-The British perseverance/never surrender attitude
-The Russians being beasts
EDIT: Edited some things for clarity.
You actually have patriotism and nationalism mixed up. A good example of patriotism is the Team America song "America, Fuck Yeah!" It is very visible boisterous, loud displays of affection for ones country.ablac said:
Nationalism is something far deeper.
Are you sure you are European? Most Europeans dont think Europe is one nation... which is what Nationalism implies.
Seems to me you are an American pretending to be "European" which would make your attacks of the glorious nation of "Europe" self-deprocating, just a guess... probably right.
Seems to me you are an American pretending to be "European" which would make your attacks of the glorious nation of "Europe" self-deprocating, just a guess... probably right.
What has the title got to do with anything you're talking about?
Bashing the US isn't nationalism...
Nationalism is thinking very highly of your own country...
A US citizen saying the USA is the greatest country ever! - that's nationalism.
A European saying the US sucks... Is something else entirely. (Unless they're implying it sucks because it's not their own country...)
I get the point you're making, but I can't see any relation to the title of the thread.
And I actually DO think nationalism sucks, because it leads to people thinking the only stuff that's important is the stuff going on in their own country.
Because there are no problems anywhere else right? And if there are, they don't matter as long as we're doing great...
Bashing the US isn't nationalism...
Nationalism is thinking very highly of your own country...
A US citizen saying the USA is the greatest country ever! - that's nationalism.
A European saying the US sucks... Is something else entirely. (Unless they're implying it sucks because it's not their own country...)
I get the point you're making, but I can't see any relation to the title of the thread.
And I actually DO think nationalism sucks, because it leads to people thinking the only stuff that's important is the stuff going on in their own country.
Because there are no problems anywhere else right? And if there are, they don't matter as long as we're doing great...
TBF you've just started bashing in the exact way that you're criticising other people for doingMaveroid said:
Kidding aside, I know what you mean. That's why I bash all countries with equal vigour when I think they deserve it, including my own. That's pretty much the antithesis of nationalism isn't it?
---
Aside: I swear that Godwins Law should be extended to include Pearl Harbor and D-Day. Every fucking time...
..And anyway,if we're going to talk about D-Day, why does everyone always forget about the Canadians?!
I've never met an American who bashes Germany over WWII. Not present day Germany, at least. Ya, we will talk about hot 1930-1940s Germany was a country ran by tossers, but this is fact. Never have I met a person who actually thinks modern day Germany would be a place full of Jew hating psychotics with the mind set of world domination.Maveroid said:
Funny thing that did pop into my head, however, is when my German teacher tried to make me feel sympathy about a building that got destroyed when Russia invaded Berlin in WWII.
Lastly, I do agree with you that we shouldn't bash other countries. I don't see a problem with people feeling pride in their country, I take pride in mine (a little less in the leaders, however ;P) a, though I will say I disagree with what some other countries are doing, I won't go around bashing them.
To be perfectly honest I used to bash other countries, namely America and France (I'm British by the way) for no reason beyond the fact I was an over zealous little shite who thought that Britian was the centre of the world, since then I've grown up and respect all fellow countries, except for those who are actually morally absent or just aren't very nice!
That's why I often hear Canadians bragging about how they won the War in France.Regnes said:
Ok? Who cares, this is part of the hate that people just don't seem to notice contradicts other statements, like they hate America for medelling in other people's affairs but then they hate it for not joining in 1939 to another war. Of course America didn't join in, they were not interested at all and it didn't matter what happened in Europe thus they were isolationist again.Regnes said:
Never got that, everyone seems to have a goddamn fetish for Russia at times and others hate it.Regnes said:
I live in the USA and I hate it.
Progress is a word that congress tries to literally stab itself with.
There's to much of a moderate control factor, and a heavy bend toward conservitisim. (Due to how our markets are built.)
We basically elect chess pieces, controled by corperations, who want nothing but oil.
Inovation?
Something I hate even more, is our nationalism.
I think we can learn something from Europe... and by something I mean a lot. Of course, you guys aren't without your problems, but whenever I bring up something Europe is supperior at (I.E. country layout) I'm met by a huge wave of overbearing american pride.
Fuckin' Napoleon.
Progress is a word that congress tries to literally stab itself with.
There's to much of a moderate control factor, and a heavy bend toward conservitisim. (Due to how our markets are built.)
We basically elect chess pieces, controled by corperations, who want nothing but oil.
Inovation?
Something I hate even more, is our nationalism.
I think we can learn something from Europe... and by something I mean a lot. Of course, you guys aren't without your problems, but whenever I bring up something Europe is supperior at (I.E. country layout) I'm met by a huge wave of overbearing american pride.
Fuckin' Napoleon.
Divide and conquer, comrades. The ruling classes create artificial divides between the workers in order to prevent true internationalism and the inevitable proletarian revolution. Or something.
In the meantime, it's too long since I've listened to this.
In the meantime, it's too long since I've listened to this.
Thinking about anything in terms of broad abstractions like nationalism usually doesn't help ways of thinking about a subject. That said, nationalism is almost always a mythology that governments, or specifically the special interests that control them, deliberately engender and promote in their citizens in order to discourage dissent, confuse informed debate and mystify history and politics, painting a picture of the world as good guys and bad guys, left and right, us and them, rather than the realistic picture. Which is that all people are fundamentally similar and have fundamentally similar needs and natures. The enemy lies not across the sea or the border but is entrenched within the state itself.
In medieval times, most of the royal families throughout Europe were in fact related to each other by blood. They intermarried. They'd play with their politics, which usually led to disastrous wars and famine for ordinary people, something they couldn't give a shit about, but at the end of the day they had more in common and in common interest with each other than with the people they ruled. And the sad fact is that most of these old power structures have survived into the time of the modern nation state. This is essentially what Karl Marx was on about, and though most of his theories were either impractical, false or simply hypocritical, he was right on one thing. Poorer people have a lot more in common with poorer people in other countries than with the richer people in their own country who exploit them. This is not without exception of course. There are cases where people have become wealthy through genuinely meritous exploits and anyone would be able to think of some good examples. But unfortunately, it's usually entrenched privilege and access to opportunity that determine how far up the ladder we get, not our ability or our drive. Doesn't matter how smart you are if your parents can't pay to feed you, let alone educate you.
That's never been more true than today, in a time when multinational corporations cross all borders and pursue profit irrespective of social obligations or morality, and their CEOs collect multi-million dollar bonuses whilst their most vulnerable workers slave away in sweat shops in south east asia, or suffocate in mines in sub-Saharan Africa. True, people have always suffered, all throughout history. But never have there been so many sick and starving throughout the world, whilst corporate and banking cartels like the Rothschilds are quietly, behind the scenes, richer than any king in human history, and less accountable to the people on which their riches are built. And our democratically elected representatives owe more allegiance to the special interests who line their pockets than the people who elect them, and will continue to enact policies that favor the giant, coroporate monopolies over small businesses, which are the true expression of 'free enterprise' and 'free markets' and real 'capitalism'. That's what's wrong with labels like nationalism, and capitalism, and socialism. They're labels, stereotypes that don't actually reflect the way our countries and our societies run, and they're promulgated deliberately to confuse us and make us believe we live in a world which in actual fact doesn't and has never existed.
In medieval times, most of the royal families throughout Europe were in fact related to each other by blood. They intermarried. They'd play with their politics, which usually led to disastrous wars and famine for ordinary people, something they couldn't give a shit about, but at the end of the day they had more in common and in common interest with each other than with the people they ruled. And the sad fact is that most of these old power structures have survived into the time of the modern nation state. This is essentially what Karl Marx was on about, and though most of his theories were either impractical, false or simply hypocritical, he was right on one thing. Poorer people have a lot more in common with poorer people in other countries than with the richer people in their own country who exploit them. This is not without exception of course. There are cases where people have become wealthy through genuinely meritous exploits and anyone would be able to think of some good examples. But unfortunately, it's usually entrenched privilege and access to opportunity that determine how far up the ladder we get, not our ability or our drive. Doesn't matter how smart you are if your parents can't pay to feed you, let alone educate you.
That's never been more true than today, in a time when multinational corporations cross all borders and pursue profit irrespective of social obligations or morality, and their CEOs collect multi-million dollar bonuses whilst their most vulnerable workers slave away in sweat shops in south east asia, or suffocate in mines in sub-Saharan Africa. True, people have always suffered, all throughout history. But never have there been so many sick and starving throughout the world, whilst corporate and banking cartels like the Rothschilds are quietly, behind the scenes, richer than any king in human history, and less accountable to the people on which their riches are built. And our democratically elected representatives owe more allegiance to the special interests who line their pockets than the people who elect them, and will continue to enact policies that favor the giant, coroporate monopolies over small businesses, which are the true expression of 'free enterprise' and 'free markets' and real 'capitalism'. That's what's wrong with labels like nationalism, and capitalism, and socialism. They're labels, stereotypes that don't actually reflect the way our countries and our societies run, and they're promulgated deliberately to confuse us and make us believe we live in a world which in actual fact doesn't and has never existed.
Did you just claim that the US won WW1 single-handedly? Or am i reading that wrong?superbowlbound said:
Two things: PROPER NOUNS DO NOT WORK THAT WAYPhasmal said:
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor
vs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbour,_New_Zealand
They are different places
Well in fact I am well aware of that, but they joined in shortly before the A-bomb, did nothing, and only intended to conquer Japan (after the US and Aussies did all the dirty work). So my point is still correct, I just didn't feel like adding 2 additional paragraphs for clarification.Blunderboy said: