Skip to comments.Notes on Nationalism
Posted on 10/29/2001 6:27:39 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
click here to read article
I hate that word!! Its thrown into every conversation of patriotism for the last 30 years...and its usually mouthed by someone of European/UK origin.
I guess you could say the more serious posters will go to the trouble of reading long, but important, articles. Others might not.
all too often I have run across non-Americans who not only bristle, but bloviate over the fact that I expressed pride in the country of my birth and gave specific reasons why...and I think jingoism is a slam towards those who have the audacity to express that pride. As someone who is proud of her own country, I would not find fault in say, someone from Madagascar expressing great love for that African island. Why would I consider it an insult to hear him brag of it?
The only time *I* would get offended is if they started putting down America without ever having experienced the country. How could I put down Madagascar without having ever been there???
On the same note, I have heard one or two British slam America...that's to be expected considering our historical relationship. But since I am well educated in both my own history and that of Great Britain, the insults and slams do not affect me...because I happen to have such a high opinion of America...and I believe I have the better deal.
I really hate the word 'jingoism.' Nothing more than New Speak for the 1984 era.
Orwell's distinction between patriotism and nationalism is valid. The nationalist often doesn't have much love for his actual country. But this was a distinction that Orwell had to work out for himself. For many of those who came afterwards this distinction has been just be a way of making an easy condemnation of those one disagrees with -- more armament for political argument than something to really reflect upon.
I enclose more "Notes on Nationalism" that someone posted on the Internet.
THE SEVEN RULES OF NATIONALISM.
1. If an area was ours for 500 years and yours for 50 years, it should belong to us -- you are merely occupiers.
2. If an area was yours for 500 years and ours for 50 years, it should belong to us -- borders must not be changed.
3. If an area belonged to us 500 years ago but never since then, it should belong to us -- it is the Cradle of our Nation.
4. If a majority of our people live there, it must belong to us -- they must enjoy the right of self-determination.
5. If a minority of our people live there, it must belong to us -- they must be protected against your oppression.
6. All the above rules apply to us but not to you.
7. Our dream of greatness is Historical Necessity, yours is Fascism.
I did. Excellent article. Amazing how the pro and anti Israeli, pro-Southern (there are few true pro-Northerners), and pro and anti Catholic groups here on FR (among others) illustrate his points perfectly. All rationality disappear when "their side" is viewed as under attack.
I have seen numerous people, who one presumes are normally decent human beings, call for the slaughter of more than a billion humans for having the nerve to be of the same faith as that claimed by the killers of 9/11.
I just skimmed this briefly, but will print, read, and comment tomorrow (time and mid-terms permitting). I found the above passage curious. Is he confusing Chesterton with Belloc? I know the latter actually served a hitch in the French army -- artillery, if I am not mistaken.
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.