Trump says he is a nationalist

[Estro Felino]

Nationalism is nationalism.

The word nation that makes leftist sick comes from Latin natio, nationis which means birth and whose root is the verb nascor (to be born). So it's the inextricable link between you and your birthplace.

 

[Revoltingest]

The word nation that makes leftist sick comes from Latin natio, nationis which means birth and whose root is the verb nascor (to be born). So it's the inextricable link between you and your birthplace.

Many of our citizens weren't born here.
They should benefit from nationalism.

 

[ChristineM]

The word nation that makes leftist sick comes from Latin natio, nationis which means birth and whose root is the verb nascor (to be born). So it's the inextricable link between you and your birthplace.

Why should the word make leftists sick? There have been some very prominent nationalist left wing leaders.

My nationality is british, i have no links to Britain as my birthplace, i consider myself european and no semantics is going to change that.

 

[Stevicus]

To me, it's the point.

It's not arbitrary.
Those of us who live & pay taxes here vote in a government to serve us.
Wanting service for own before other countries makes sense.

I don't see it as just about service or paying taxes as if it's membership dues in a club. If a bunch of guys get together and form the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo and want their dues to serve the needs of their own group, that makes sense. Or as I mentioned earlier, the same principle can apply to state and local jurisdictions, where people pay taxes and expect a government which serves its constituency.

I think there's a difference between practical self-interest, which is what you're describing, versus nationalism, which has more emotional and passionate characteristics, with pride being a major component.

Yes, it will exclude people in other countries.
But I don't see it as being about race, religion, eye color, etc.

But it could just as easily be based on any of those factors. The whole point being is that when people believe that it's okay to exclude others based on...whatever you want it to be - then that can lead in all sorts of directions.

We can pursue national interests without it being about race.
To oppose nationalism doesn't advance racial tolerance anyway.

It largely depends on how one defines one's national identity and how they relate to national interests.

In the U.S., whether anyone wants to admit it or not, through much of our history, race has been a significant component in establishing the U.S. national identity. People from places like Sweden or Germany immigrated to America and were immediately accepted as "white" and treated as such, even if they might have talked funny.

However, if they came from Asia or Africa - or even indigenous to this continent, they were considered outsiders and treated differently - far worse than the treatment received by newly-arrived white Europeans.

Though even white Europeans were expected to learn English, to assimilate to the culture, and look and act like ordinary Americans. That's why a lot of immigrants changed their names, including some of my ancestors. Of course, not all immigrant groups were welcomed with open arms - some of it due to religious rivalries. A lot of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants didn't take too well to immigrants with Catholic or Jewish backgrounds. That sort of thing has also been a part of our history.

In recent decades, America has tried to move away from those earlier standards of national identity, claiming that it's more inclusive and diverse. It's all politically correct now and sanitized for our protection, but not everyone believes this to be the case. Some might believe that it's all a put-on, intended to mask some darker intention.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see it as just about service or paying taxes as if it's membership dues in a club.

So should city, state & federal tax revenue be distributed
mostly to the rest of the world....say on a per person basis?

In the U.S., whether anyone wants to admit it or not, through much of our history, race has been a significant component in establishing the U.S. national identity. People from places like Sweden or Germany immigrated to America and were immediately accepted as "white" and treated as such, even if they might have talked funny.

However, if they came from Asia or Africa - or even indigenous to this continent, they were considered outsiders and treated differently - far worse than the treatment received by newly-arrived white Europeans.

I don't see national identity the same as nationalism.
Nor need we behave the same as our predecessors did.

 

[Stevicus]

So should city, state & federal tax revenue be distributed
mostly to the rest of the world....say on a per person basis?

No, I never said that.

But let's look at it from the reverse. If it's simply a matter of practical material or monetary benefit for one's own area or region, then another nation could offer such benefits in exchange for another nation's independence.

If one could eat better and live a better material existence by eschewing nationalism and accepting aid from other nations - even if it means being ruled by them - wouldn't that be better, materially, for one's own region rather than letting pride get in the way and trying to go it alone?

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I never said that.

Of course not.
But you argue against distinctions between US citizens & foreigners in receiving Americastan's favor.
So I ask in order to better understand your position.

But let's look at it from the reverse. If it's simply a matter of practical material or monetary benefit for one's own area or region, then another nation could offer such benefits in exchange for another nation's independence.

If one could eat better and live a better material existence by eschewing nationalism and accepting aid from other nations - even if it means being ruled by them - wouldn't that be better, materially, for one's own region rather than letting pride get in the way and trying to go it alone?

That's a different context from what interests me, ie, US nationalism.

 

[Cooky]

I don't see it as just about service or paying taxes as if it's membership dues in a club. If a bunch of guys get together and form the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo and want their dues to serve the needs of their own group, that makes sense. Or as I mentioned earlier, the same principle can apply to state and local jurisdictions, where people pay taxes and expect a government which serves its constituency.

I think there's a difference between practical self-interest, which is what you're describing, versus nationalism, which has more emotional and passionate characteristics, with pride being a major component.



But it could just as easily be based on any of those factors. The whole point being is that when people believe that it's okay to exclude others based on...whatever you want it to be - then that can lead in all sorts of directions.



It largely depends on how one defines one's national identity and how they relate to national interests.

In the U.S., whether anyone wants to admit it or not, through much of our history, race has been a significant component in establishing the U.S. national identity. People from places like Sweden or Germany immigrated to America and were immediately accepted as "white" and treated as such, even if they might have talked funny.

However, if they came from Asia or Africa - or even indigenous to this continent, they were considered outsiders and treated differently - far worse than the treatment received by newly-arrived white Europeans.

Though even white Europeans were expected to learn English, to assimilate to the culture, and look and act like ordinary Americans. That's why a lot of immigrants changed their names, including some of my ancestors. Of course, not all immigrant groups were welcomed with open arms - some of it due to religious rivalries. A lot of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants didn't take too well to immigrants with Catholic or Jewish backgrounds. That sort of thing has also been a part of our history.

In recent decades, America has tried to move away from those earlier standards of national identity, claiming that it's more inclusive and diverse. It's all politically correct now and sanitized for our protection, but not everyone believes this to be the case. Some might believe that it's all a put-on, intended to mask some darker intention.

You must also be against the EU then, since it's not the GU (global union).

 

[Shaul]

Stalin Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Mussolini all said they were nationalist.

So? There are good nations and bad nations. Which means there are good nationalists and bad ones. You listed a bunch of bad nationalist. American nationalists are the good kind.

 

[Shaul]

Indeed. It all ties in with the same basic idea that "we are special" and distinguishing ourselves from those who are "not one of us."

You are conflating exclusionary and exceptionalism. They are different.

 

[Shaul]

Lmao

Yes the yankees have a squeaky clean record of upholding democracy and freedom

Americans have fine record indeed! No nation is perfect and nobody said America is. But comparatively America, and her are ideals, are great and exceptional.

The small minded often sneer at those attempting great things. If you think you can create a nation better than America, do it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Americans have fine record indeed! No nation is perfect and nobody said America is. But comparatively America, and her are ideals, are great and exceptional.

The small minded often sneer at those attempting great things. If you think you can create a nation better than America, do it.

I wonder what these critics of nationalism (ie, doing what's in the interest
of the country) propose as an alternative? I've gotten no answer about that.

 

[Stevicus]

Of course not.
But you argue against distinctions between US citizens & foreigners in receiving Americastan's favor.
So I ask in order to better understand your position.

It depends on what you mean by "distinctions...in receiving Americastan's favor." But that, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily entail "nationalism." It could just as easily be "localism," if we talk about favoring the local over that which is distant.

Of course, on the subject of "favor," we also make distinctions between foreigners, depending on which country they come from.

That's a different context from what interests me, ie, US nationalism.

I thought we were talking about nationalism in general and how it is manifested, not just about the U.S.

 

[Stevicus]

You must also be against the EU then, since it's not the GU (global union).

What led you to this conclusion?

 

[Stevicus]

You are conflating exclusionary and exceptionalism. They are different.

I know that they're different words and are slightly different concepts, but perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate what you're talking about here.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Americans have fine record indeed! No nation is perfect and nobody said America is. But comparatively America, and her are ideals, are great and exceptional.

The small minded often sneer at those attempting great things. If you think you can create a nation better than America, do it.

I dont need to. There are already nations better than the US. The US is just too busy tooting it's own horn to notice

 

[Stevicus]

I wonder what these critics of nationalism (ie, doing what's in the interest
of the country) propose as an alternative? I've gotten no answer about that.

That's because you keep trying to change the definitions. By your definition, every country is nationalist, since every country does what's in the interest of their country. Every country wants to spend its tax money on itself and its own citizenry - for the most part.

That's a materialistic concern unrelated to nationalism, which tends to favor national independence, sovereignty, and (most important) freedom from foreign rule or domination.

For example, if I was a Puerto Rican who wants what is in the best interest for Puerto Rico, I would not be a nationalist, since P.R. would be materially and economically better off under its current status, rather than if they tried to go it alone as an independent nation.

Likewise, here in the U.S., economic ideologues from both parties often favor globalism, since their argument is that the U.S. is materially better off with global alliances and free trade agreements than it would be under a policy of neutrality or "America First."

 

[Stevicus]

Americans have fine record indeed! No nation is perfect and nobody said America is. But comparatively America, and her are ideals, are great and exceptional.

The small minded often sneer at those attempting great things. If you think you can create a nation better than America, do it.

I somewhat agree that America is great on many levels, and how we got to this point is a long and interesting story - too long to tell here. But given our geography, climate, physical location, and other existent factors at the time Europeans started arriving on this continent - any group of people might have done just as well if they had the same tools, technologies, and backing from major powers. The indigenous populations were sparse - few and far between (possibly depleted by diseases which spread rapidly at the time of Europeans' arrival).

So, when you say "if you can create a nation better than America," the fact is, any group of people might have done it if they were in that particular time and place under the circumstances of the world in the 16th/17th/18th centuries. One thing that was truly exceptional were the skills of certain navigators, along with the fact that only a few countries in the world had the ability to build ships that could cross the ocean. The foul weather and treacherous waters around northwestern Europe forced them to build stronger seagoing vessels.

Other than that, once we got here, the people acted as any other national group would act. Farming, building, expanding, moving on to new lands (whether by purchase, treaty, or conquest) - other nations do this, too - and it's been going on throughout history. Nothing all that "exceptional," when you really think about it.

Even our Founders' ideals, as great as they were - they didn't originally conceive of the ideas of liberty and freedom which had already been circulating around Europe for quite some time.

None of this makes America bad, but the whole point here is that all along, we've really been an ordinary group of people in an ordinary nation acting as any other ordinary nation would do in our particular circumstances and location. We would ultimately become very powerful, due to the same geographical factors noted above - rich arable lands, teeming with resources and the building blocks of our industrial powerhouse. A lot of our technology was borrowed, but that's okay too.

I'm not really saying this to badmouth America, but it's more a matter of tough love and a warning against getting too overconfident and complacent. We should be willing to accept our own humanity and the fact that we are normal humans - not superhumans. If we did that, at the very least, no other nation could point their finger at us and consider us some kind of "demon" or "great Satan." No one could hold it against us if we simply acknowledged that we are...only human. But by the same token, being only human would also mean that we couldn't look down upon or pass moral judgments on other nations (as a justification for intervening in their affairs).

 

[Sunstone]

“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
― Charles de Gaulle

Taking into account everything Trump has said and tried to do, I think he's probably more of a nationalist in de Gaulle's sense of the word than a patriot.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's because you keep trying to change the definitions. By your definition, every country is nationalist, since every country does what's in the interest of their country.

I've changed nothing.
Americastan has been lavishly spending lives & money to fix other countries.
This doesn't benefit us. Nationalism means to me: Spend it here.