The torture debate after Bush

Remove all ads!

Umm... that Ben Franklin quote has nothing to do with your argument. Quite frankly, you'll need to prove that patriotism gives up rights.

I could randomly apply quotes for a confusing effect as well.

 

See, that's the thing, Coin. So have generosity, freedom, business, resources, mercy, and about a hundred other motivators. That doesn't mean they're evil, and that's hardly the only thing they've been used for. You see a tool being used for bad things and have decided to blame the tool, not the user. That makes no sense to me.

Again, you're only looking at a few worst-case scenarios to base your entire judgement on. Nationalism has been used to justify a loss of freedom, but it's also been used to justify gains of freedom. Oh, and nationalism wasn't designed by anyone. It's a natural phenomenon that some encourage for various reasons.

Now, you see, here you're limiting the definition to suit your arguement. Pride moderated by reason can be patriotism, too.

 

Well, perhaps it helps to clarify something:
Patriotism can be combined with all sorts of other motivators. The american war of independance was also motivated by a desire for freedom from british oppression. The americam civil war was motivated by the desire to abolish slavery, (or to maintain it, for the south).
If nationalism is combined with any legitimate motivator that opposes injustice, then it can be percieved to be a good thing. But here's the catch: Patriotism is an empty motivator. The love for one's country is morally neutral, and should be seen as separate from any issues of morality.
Looking purely at nationalism, it can be established that it motivates people to be willing to 'die for their country'; 'fight' and 'kill' follow shortly after. In the light of this, giving up civil liberties seems only minor.
Patriotism legitimates state interests, making nationalism both the means, and the end.
I'm mixing up the terms nationalism and patriotism here, but I'm referring of course to the phenomenon exhibited in the States, where as T2 admits, it has reached 'Orwellian' heights. Meaning that it distorts reality and reasoning in a similar way as religion does.

It's also hard to see pride in one's own country, without looking down on other countries in comparison. The human mind discriminates in order to see patterns, but this is not a kind of discrimination that you should want to encourage. *True* patriotism, as it was known centuries ago, should incorporate humility, not pride. To be a truly civilized patriot, you should be ready and willing to admit when you are wrong, for the greater interests. Not go to war even if you know your country is wrong. *My* country is the world, and the day we meet an alien, it will become the universe.

First of all, it would be impossible to identify a 'user' to hold accountable for the misuse of this tool, since US patriotism has existed for centuries. People with the influence to turn nationalism into overdrive, or tone it down, may not know the full effects of their actions.
As for the other motivators you mentioned, they aren't empty motivators. They're either morally relevant, or serve a personal interest.

Nationalism has never been used to justify anything, it's a tool used alongside other motivators. Granted that the other motivators can often be morally justifiable, but they have no bearing on the phenomenon of nationalism. And nationalism was most definitely created in Europe, there's nothing 'natural' about such a man-made ideology.

Ah but it takes a strong will to oppose your own nationalism if it advocates committing an atrocity. Identifying the injustice, swallowing your own pride, and speaking out in opposition of the 'national interest' requires big cojones. In fact, nationalism discourages such dissenting opinions, labeling them as 'unpatriotic'.
Pride in one's self, and one's nation, are effective motivators regardless of whether they are expressed outwardly. Many proud people would find it tactless to flaunt their achievements to others, or even raise a flag on a national holiday, because they're considerate instead of confrontational.
In summary: Personal spirituality GOOD. Organized religion BAD.
Inward pride and humility GOOD. Outward pride and nationalism BAD.

 

Yes, that's very much the point. Patriotism and nationalism are morally neutral. They can be used for good or ill.

You'd be surprised on that one. A lot of the people I know who are willing to fight, die, and kill for their country (people in our military that I know) are also willing to fight, die, and kill (if necessary) to protect their civil liberties, even from their own nation. There's something in one of those oaths, protecting out country from all threats "both foreign and domestic". Now, please don't start saying this is a declaration of war on Obama or anything, but if Obama actually were to try and confiscate/ban all civilian firearms, I think you'd find an aweful lot of very patriotic and nationalistic people willing to resist with force if necessary.

Again, I think you'd be surprised. Sure, Nixon used it that way, but it doesn't do it automatically. In fact, I think much of the patriotism you see today is actually targeted at opposing state interests, for good or ill.

I think we may disagree exactly on what patriotism means (honestly, I'm not sure, but that last comment made me wonder), but I see it as the desire for your country to be the best. Meaning, if we aren't, if something's wrong, we should fix it.

I don't know, between the politicians standing at the mike and the pundits on TV, I think we could identify a few.

In that sense, so does patriotism (at least how I see it, the desire). That serves personal interest through reinforcing social bonds.

Oh, yes, because the African tribesmen never boasted about how they were the best tribe, never looked down on others simply for being from another tribe. Oh, and the people of Babylon and Egypt were never focussed on their rulers, the symbols of their nations, as gods, and moreso, gods more powerful than any other. Noooo, it's definitely a recent phenomenon. It is human nature to socialize, and it is human nature to see your social group as better than their social group. You just have to look at any school to see that. Nationalism is just that social group expanded to national boundaries.

Again, I think we may disagree as to what nationalism is. I often see nationalism opposing percieved atrocities. People always want to see their nation as the morally pure.

You can only justify that arguement by assuming it. I don't see raising a flag on a national holiday, or even not on a national holiday, as confrontational unless you live next to someone with whom we're currently at war.

 

Wrong. If you are going to quote me, quote me correctly. If you wish to use something I am referring to, I recommend you understand the reference. In 1984 the government has a list of words that are acceptable -- anything off the list is given an "un" prefix. Which means if the action is not specifically defined in the government terminology it it an "un" definition and therefore wrong or illegal. "Unpatriotic" has been used in a Orwellian way in the past. Your conjecture that patriotism distorts reality and reasoning is entirely false and DEFINITELY NOT WHAT I SAID. You've done this in several arguments with my quotes. STOP.

This statement really implies an anarchist belief:

That is obviously your personal opinion and I would not agree that either you list as "bad" is truly "bad."

 

Let me try again: True nationalism exists when it becomes a consideration of its own, separate from morality and self-interest.
It's similar to religion. Religion preaches that you must believe in God and love Him. So the religion insists upon its own relevance. But in reality, other motivators drive people to be religious, such as social acceptance, and the belief in reward or punishment. Asking too many questions about the bible, is called 'blasphemy'.
Just like nationalism. Many nationalists pursue it for personal interest, or belief in a connecting moral implication. But the nationalist doctrine preaches that a patriot should be selfless in his devotion, and discourages people from making their own moral judgements about their nation. It's 'unpatriotic'.
Once there's a nationalist upsurge, it's dangerous to be a dissenting voice in the crowd. There's a reason why Nationalism and Free Speech are both legal civics in Civ4; you can't have both.

Well, I'm not disputing that it reinforces those bonds, and that this can be a positive thing. But there are many kinds of community spirit, and I'm of the opinion that there are much better motivators to keep society together. They have much less negative side-effects. Nationalism feeds hatred, violence and discrimination, because it is based on pride and hubris. For certain regimes, it's the side effects of nationalism that are the intended effects. It's easier for a government to control the population through hatred and fear, than actually appease them.

God-kings are a comical example of two reality-distorting ideologies neatly combined into one king-sized lie. If that doesn't give you a clue, then I don't know what will. But deification of sovereigns is different from the european ideology of nationalism, as it's present in the States.

Then why is it that nationalism becomes strongest exactly when there are atrocities to be defended/justified/ignored/denied? We are on the torture thread. The debate was raised a while back (conveniently by the media) as to whether the atrocity of torture is justified for national interests. Sure, there were absurd hypotheticals thrown in, to make you believe it would save lives and stuff, but true nationalists would support torture regardless.

Well I'm glad you check the nationality of your neighbourhood before doing this. Only people from nations the US is currently at war with, could possibly object to US nationalism. Naturally people don't care, or pay attention, to US policy unless their nation is being attacked.

T2, I'm not sure exactly how you feel that I'm misquoting you. If it's the case, then I apologize.

 

And again, you are changing the definition to suit your arguement. No, that's not true nationalism, that's nationalism taken to one extreme. Nationalism as a whole is a much larger body.

Actually, I fail to see how that's similar to anything you were talking about, except that you blame it for much evil.

Umm, no. Actually, asking questions is encouraged.

Again, wrong. That's not nationalism, that's what a few people have done with nationalism. Those are two different things.

Riiiight, because video games are a good model of reality. Again, you're re-defining nationalism to fit your claim. 'Nationalism is evil, because if it isn't evil, it isn't nationalism.' That doesn't work.

Maybe we didn't connect on that last one. What I'm saying is that there is no european ideology of nationalism. It's not european, it's human. You see it in China, in India, in South America, in Africa, in every place humans have ever inhabited, past and present. And I think you'll have to do better than Wiki to counter that.

There you go re-defining nationalism again. What I see as nationalism often comes out against atrocities, like it did in the media and in the liberal movement. Sure, some extremist conservatives called in 'unpatriotic', but the fact was that it was quite patriotic. And actually, I think patriotism and nationalism were much stronger right after 9/11 than they were right after we invaded Iraq, or right after the Gitmo story broke, or right after accusations of wide-spread use of torture came out.

Oh, I'm not saying they don't have opinions that may run counter to mine, but saying it's 'confrontational' means that it was done in an effort to produce a confrontation. If I know my neighbor is an Iraqi immigrant, and that his sister was just killed by US soldiers, raising my flag would be a grave insult and seeking a confrontation. Raising it at half-mast (signifying the death of someone significant) may not be (depending on if I tell him it's at half-mast for his sister and/or America's innocence). On the other hand, if my neighbor voted for Obama, or is an Italian immigrant who just isn't really impressed with American foreign policy, I'm not really making a conflict, am I?

It's the distinction between 'patriotic' and 'unpatriotic'. It's subtle, but significant.

 

The doctrines of nationalism didn't just spread to the US, they were adopted by every nation in the world. States all have their own nationalist movements nowadays, but they were all inspired by nationalist philosophy originating from Europe.

You use this argument often, but it only indicates that we have different definitions of nationalism. You see the cleanups after Katrina and 9/11, and you attribute it to nationalism/patriotism.
I see great acts of human compassion as the main motivator. And people slapping the sticker 'US patriotism' on it.

Actions can be confrontational, without the person doing them being aware of it. People may also not be aware of how offensive things may seem to others. Knowing when it's useful to be confrontational is an essential part of human interaction, as you well know.

Then it seems T2 failed to adequately explain what he meant by Orwellian the first time, meaning the error is his. But I do apologize for putting words in his mouth.

T2, this is a very short summary of my conclusions. BAD would mean obsolete, outdated, detrimental, unjust, harmful. Since I motivated my opinions with practical examples, I feel that they do not count as beliefs, but as valid assumptions. Furthermore, an anarchist doesn't support any existing form of government, so belief is not required.
In reality I choose to support The Venus Project, although I'm not sure even they hit the nail on the head (hasn't even been tried yet). But it's closer to ideal government, and definitely better than nationalistic states.

 

Coin - I happen to agree with Orwell on definitions:

http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

 

I think nationalism gives very bad vibes around Europe in just about anywhere among moderates. One reason being that it as a concept completely undermines the EU and the other that it almost allways carries with itself arguments of ethnic or racial superiority.

I would also point out that the troublesome nature of nationalism has its causes more in the first world war than the second. While WWII took it to a new extreme WWI gave a dangerous example of what it can cause. WWI is also a better example since its more difficult to pick out the bad guy or even who really started the whole mess. In any case a lot similar rhethoric and lines of thought are visible with the american neo-conservatives and some of the rightwing pundits, which is quite scary and hopefully not winning over the masses.

 

I somewhat agree Chandos. The two have the same meaning (and are basically cross-referenced in most dictionaries); however, as is often the case one word has negative connotations and one positive. Hence you could look at sever groups of words and see the same pairing:

freedom fighter:terrorist
traditionally:historically
patriotism:nationalism

I didn't really want to go to far into such semantics. I think Orwell took it one step further in his essay.

By the way I said "unpatriotic" was being used by some in an Orwellian way, not "patriotic." There is a difference. Some people have very limited definitions of "patriotic" and so their definition of "unpatriotic" is quite broad -- which is what occurs in 1984. However, the nation as a whole has a very healthy view of patriotism.

 

While I will concede that George Orwell (which is actually a pen name) produced several great literary works in his realatively short life (Animal Farm springs immediately to mind), he is probably best known for his last major literary undertaking, 1984. When something is described as "Orwellian", it is usually in reference to the fictional totalitarian government portrayed in 1984 - "Big Brother" in particular. I have honestly never seen "Orwellian" used in any other way. I do not think the onus should be on T2 to explain more fully what he meant by Orwellian, because it was quite self-evident. I would think anyone who was familiar with Orwell's works would realize this, and those unfamiliar with Orwell's works would show some discretion in drawing any conclusions from such a reference.

 

We'll have to disagree on that. I think that US nationalism has been recently perverted into what is known as jingoism or chauvinism.

 

I was very specific:

Often the use of 'unpatriotic' reminds me of "newspeak" from 1984. I certainly did not say the use of the term "patriotic" or our government were Orwellian. Those were implied by someone else.

 

He was also a journalist and literary critic and he wrote extensively on the craft of writing. Orwell understood the importance of language and how we used it. Our government redifined some terms in order to achieve some specific objectives (and not just saying GWB did this), and Orwell would have had a field day with some of these. A few come to mind and I'm sure more can be added:

"Nation building" - Imperialism
"Enhanced interrogation" - Torture
"Contractors" - Mercenaries

 

Chandos, that definition of nationalism you provided does change my perspective on the debate somewhat. I see how different definitions for nationalism and patriotism can be useful, and how that does tend to put nationalism on the negative end (though still it can be used for good purposes).

Coin, my problem with your definition of nationalism is that it is entirely result-oriented. Meaning, according to you, we can't know if a movement is nationalistic or not until we see the consequences. That is a largely useless definition. That definition is only useful in a historical sense, not in a current events sense.

And my point on the origin of nationalism may be lost due to differences in definitions. What I'm saying is that it is human nature, and not an invented tool, to favorably compare ourselves to others. "I'm better than you", extended to "We're better than you all", extended to "Our city's better than yours", "Our state's better than yours", "Our nation's better than yours", "Our race is better than yours", and maybe even someday "Our world/species is better than yours" is human nature. The particular manifestations are only dependant on the existence and importance of organizational levels. I call that nationalism. You may not.

 

I don't follow how this definition would be after-the-fact. Many people saw what GWB was doing the moment he made nationalistic statements, and we knew in advance that it was going to create an awful mess, and hurt many innocent people. I bet even people claiming to believe in Bush's sincerity, actually knew how harmful the nationalist upsurge would be. But those people *wanted* to see people get hurt - it's what they've been indoctrinated into their whole lives. That's nationalism.

The emotions that nationalism appeals to are very basic ones, namely hate and fear. But that doesn't make it natural. It's like saying it's natural when a demagogue intices a voter, by appealing to hate and fear, to vote against his best interest. It isn't natural, it undermines balance, order and justice. It's system abuse, creating widespread problems.
It's common for people to seek refuge in a group, even children do this. It gives reassurance, comfort, and courage. But that isn't what nationalist doctrines are about: Nationalism is aggressive by its very nature.
There are many similar concepts ranging from street gangs, to football teams, to social status. They are the result of a widespread shortcoming in our education:
We are taught, even encouraged, that these group behaviours are acceptible. We're also not taught proper self-control, meaning many people go through life being impulsive, whimsical, and selfish. The reason why this behaviour isn't discouraged, is because it's profitable. An impulsive person exhibiting this group behaviour, will need many products to satisfy his impulses. It's a market for consumer goods, drugs, weapons, lawyers, you name it. We are being taught dependance upon the system.
The reason why sociology and psychology are such primitive, undeveloped sciences, is because they are obliged to view certain behaviours as acceptible.

 

No, that's . You're now saying all of Congress and the vast majority of the American public, for at least a little while, wanted to see innocent people killed for no reason? You're arguing that's what Americans have been indoctrinated into their whole lives? The war in Iraq wasn't about nationalism, it was about fear. People wanted war because they were afraid, and rash (and usually violent) responses tend to go with fear.

No, Coin. They are the result of human nature. We know this because they're seen at all age-groups in all cultures observed throughout history to some degree or another. For sociologists, that's the equivalent of empirical evidence that it is a genetic trait of humanity, not a learned behavior.

Now, I'll agree that impulse control could potentially reduce it, just as impulse control can, with enough effort, reduce anger, but it doesn't make it go away and that definitely doesn't make it unnatural.

 

@NOG
The war in Iraq was about some of our -leaders- nationalism, and our -peoples- fear. This is if I have right idea in my head about the common American. I think I do. I'm about as "common" as it gets myself. :-/
Fear and/or anger in the average citizen as well as nationalism in the leaders combined (or caused) at the same time is deadly.

 

I don't even think our leaders were in it for nationalism. I'd put greed, fame, and about a dozen personal motives above nationalism for every one of them.