What's new

The Caravan

I'm relying on Timothy Snyder a great deal lately. I guess he provides me with meditations of a sort....

“The president is a nationalist, which is not at all the same thing as a patriot. A nationalist encourages us to be our worst, and then tells us that we are the best. A nationalist, “although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat, revenge,” wrote Orwell, tends to be “uninterested in what happens in the real world.” Nationalism is relativist, since the only truth is the resentment we feel when we contemplate others. As the novelist Danilo Kiš put it, nationalism “has no universal values, aesthetic or ethical.” A patriot, by contrast, wants the nation to live up to its ideals, which means asking us to be our best selves. A patriot must be concerned with the real world, which is the only place where his country can be loved and sustained. A patriot has universal values, standards by which he judges his nation, always wishing it well—and wishing that it would do better. Democracy failed in Europe in the 1920s, ’30s, and ’40s, and it is failing not only in much of Europe but in many parts of the world today. It is that history and experience that reveals to us the dark range of our possible futures. A nationalist will say that “it can’t happen here,” which is the first step toward disaster. A patriot says that it could happen here, but that we will stop it."

― Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century



“What is patriotism? Let us begin with what patriotism is not. It is not patriotic to dodge the draft and to mock war heroes and their families. It is not patriotic to discriminate against active-duty members of the armed forces in one’s companies, or to campaign to keep disabled veterans away from one’s property. It is not patriotic to compare one’s search for sexual partners in New York with the military service in Vietnam that one has dodged. It is not patriotic to avoid paying taxes, especially when American working families do pay. It is not patriotic to ask those working, taxpaying American families to finance one’s own presidential campaign, and then to spend their contributions in one’s own companies. It is not patriotic to admire foreign dictators. It is not patriotic to cultivate a relationship with Muammar Gaddafi; or to say that Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin are superior leaders. It is not patriotic to call upon Russia to intervene in an American presidential election. It is not patriotic to cite Russian propaganda at rallies. It is not patriotic to share an adviser with Russian oligarchs. It is not patriotic to solicit foreign policy advice from someone who owns shares in a Russian energy company. It is not patriotic to read a foreign policy speech written by someone on the payroll of a Russian energy company. It is not patriotic to appoint a national security adviser who has taken money from a Russian propaganda organ. It is not patriotic to appoint as secretary of state an oilman with Russian financial interests who is the director of a Russian-American energy company and has received the “Order of Friendship” from Putin. The point is not that Russia and America must be enemies. The point is that patriotism involves serving your own country."
― Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century

What is "the worst" and "best" in us is subjective and depends on who you ask. Patriotism or nationalism are the exact same kind of identity. The difference is in presentation. Nationalism has a taint to it because of some of the groups that used it, so people with nationalist tendencies (and some without, but who would still like to conform to a something seen as a good value), will use the word patriot instead. The Patriot Party, for example, is clearly a nationalist organization.
 
What is "the worst" and "best" in us is subjective and depends on who you ask. Patriotism or nationalism are the exact same kind of identity. The difference is in presentation. Nationalism has a taint to it because of some of the groups that used it, so people with nationalist tendencies (and some without, but who would still like to conform to a something seen as a good value), will use the word patriot instead. The Patriot Party, for example, is clearly a nationalist organization.

I've never been much for nationalism, at least for most of my life. The era of nation states isn't that old, relatively speaking, and I do prefer to think of myself as a citizen of the Earth. And nationalism can be divisive, and is a principle cause of our world wars. At the same time, I was born an American, and it's no secret I hate the fact that Russia interfered in our 2016 election. It did assault our sovereignty and my pride as an American. So, I am contradicting myself, it is clearly a mixed bag with me.

But, just listening to Trump's rallies, it is clear enough to me that he aims to bring out the worse in his listeners, simply by appealing to their fears, their anger and anxieties, their hatred of "the others", that Trump, as a demagogue, has identified as scapegoats for their fears and anger. He gets them to chant "USA! USA!", and gets them to feel they are the best by telling them, as I heard him tell them, that demonstrators at his rallies represented "the worst people in America", and that his followers should feel free to beat on those demonstrators. This is a nationalism that brings out the worst in his countrymen, while making them feel they are really the finest of Americans. Quite diabolical, quite divisive, and he would not have it any other way.

Whenever he gives lip service to unity, as he briefly did following the massacre at the synagogue, he speaks in a dull monotone. His heart is never really in it. Never. It's very clear that he's reading and not speaking from the heart. Then, within hours he's back calling the media "the true enemy of the American people", at his very next rally, and he puts his heart into that hate and anger. And the crowd responds in kind.
 
Thanks Siri. But the difference between "loyalty and devotion" to a country and "love or devotion" to a country is arbitrary. Patriotism is just a more acceptable name for nationalism. If you're a patriot then you're a nationalist. Having pride in who you are is not substantively different from having pride in who you're not.
The definition didn't end there...
 
The definition didn't end there...

It did for patriotism. I quoted the corresponding part for nationalism. I don't agree with the rest about how nationalism elevates one nation over others, while patriotism doesn't. As I explained, both can presented in either way. One can claim to be a nationalist with the justification that one loves his or her country, without regard to where said country ranks.
 
It did for patriotism. I quoted the corresponding part for nationalism. I don't agree with the rest about how nationalism elevates one nation over others, while patriotism doesn't. As I explained, both can presented in either way. One can claim to be a nationalist with the justification that one loves his or her country, without regard to where said country ranks.
Okay, so if you don't like "nationalism" as the word we all use to describe a type of devotion to one's nation that elevates it above all other nations and is generally tied to a common sense of national identity then please provide us a word to describe that since you're not going to accept it when we use the word that is defined that way in the ****ing dictionary.
 
I've never been much for nationalism, at least for most of my life. The era of nation states isn't that old, relatively speaking, and I do prefer to think of myself as a citizen of the Earth. And nationalism can be divisive, and is a principle cause of our world wars. At the same time, I was born an American, and it's no secret I hate the fact that Russia interfered in our 2016 election. It did assault our sovereignty and my pride as an American. So, I am contradicting myself, it is clearly a mixed bag with me.

But, just listening to Trump's rallies, it is clear enough to me that he aims to bring out the worse in his listeners, simply by appealing to their fears, their anger and anxieties, their hatred of "the others", that Trump, as a demagogue, has identified as scapegoats for their fears and anger. He gets them to chant "USA! USA!", and gets them to feel they are the best by telling them, as I heard him tell them, that demonstrators at his rallies represented "the worst people in America", and that his followers should feel free to beat on those demonstrators. This is a nationalism that brings out the worst in his countrymen, while making them feel they are really the finest of Americans. Quite diabolical, quite divisive, and he would not have it any other way.

Whenever he gives lip service to unity, as he briefly did following the massacre at the synagogue, he speaks in a dull monotone. His heart is never really in it. Never. It's very clear that he's reading and not speaking from the heart. Then, within hours he's back calling the media "the true enemy of the American people", at his very next rally, and he puts his heart into that hate and anger. And the crowd responds in kind.

I don't disagree that Trump and the nationalists are toxic trash. I just don't want the opposition hanging on to similar concepts, no matter how they dress them up.
 
Okay, so if you don't like "nationalism" as the word we all use to describe a type of devotion to one's nation that elevates it above all other nations and is generally tied to a common sense of national identity then please provide us a word to describe that since you're not going to accept it when we use the word that is defined that way in the ****ing dictionary.

I do accept it. Just as I except that patriotism is just another word for it.
 
I gotta add that I find "but it's in the dictionary" argument hilarious. I read the poster DutchJazzer claiming that the Nazis were left-wing socialists because "they have that word in their name!". I guess that's a common kind of argument around these parts.

P.S. The dictionary is written by people to reflect how words are being used at this moment in time. It is not Yahweh's declarations. I'm sure if you look up certain words, say, homosexuality, in 1950's Webster, the tone would be very different from the definition today.
 
Thanks Siri. But the difference between "loyalty and devotion" to a country and "love or devotion" to a country is arbitrary. Patriotism is just a more acceptable name for nationalism. If you're a patriot then you're a nationalist. Having pride in who you are is not substantively different from having pride in who you're not.

You have the inclusion backwards. Nationalism is a subset of patriotism, which includes the elevation of your country above others. You can be patriotic without downplaying/dismissing other countries.
 
I gotta add that I find "but it's in the dictionary" argument hilarious. I read the poster DutchJazzer claiming that the Nazis were left-wing socialists because "they have that word in their name!". I guess that's a common kind of argument around these parts.

You asked what the difference was; the dictionary clearly explained it.

P.S. The dictionary is written by people to reflect how words are being used at this moment in time. It is not Yahweh's declarations. I'm sure if you look up certain words, say, homosexuality, in 1950's Webster, the tone would be very different from the definition today.

Since I'm using a dictionary from our time to describe how I'm using words today, I don't see that problem as applicable.
 
I gotta add that I find "but it's in the dictionary" argument hilarious. I read the poster DutchJazzer claiming that the Nazis were left-wing socialists because "they have that word in their name!". I guess that's a common kind of argument around these parts.

P.S. The dictionary is written by people to reflect how words are being used at this moment in time. It is not Yahweh's declarations. I'm sure if you look up certain words, say, homosexuality, in 1950's Webster, the tone would be very different from the definition today.
Yeah, but we were talking about what words mean.
 
Back
Top