wmw999 2,589 #51 November 10, 2006 Nothing wrong with being nationalistic. I think the "too far" version is probably better called jingoism. I went and looked up nationalism in Webster, because I've always thought it was really kinda like love of country. But I never associated the second definition with it. nationalism : loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups There there's jingoism: extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy Nationalism can be taken too far; but it kind of sounds like jingoism is where you go when you get there. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #52 November 10, 2006 Nicely put, Wendy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #53 November 10, 2006 >In WWII over 9 million Americans volunteered for military service. > Was this extreme nationalism? Arguable, YES! Was is considered bad? No, that was good! But did they need a draft back then? Do they need a draft now? >So you don't think the USA is any better than Somalia, Sierra Leon or > Sudan? How about Bangladesh? Are we all equal, just different? Are we better hockey players than the Canadians? Better craftsmen/engineers than the Germans? Is our medical system better than Switzerland's? Do we have better beer than Germany? Are we better car designers than the Japanese? We are better in some ways, not as good in others. Like everyone else. I like living in the US (I think it's a great place to live, and it does a lot of things very well) and I support it through what I do. Doesn't mean I think the US is better than every other nation out there in every way. I think most people think the same way. >On a much more benign level, when we beat the Russians in hockey, >in the 1980 Winter Olympics, was the sentiment not "WE ARE BETTER THAN >YOU! OUR COLLEGE GUYS BEAT YOUR BEST." >I don't recall anyone saying "But they played a fine game. Afterall, it's just >sports". Wow, your recollection is very different than mine. I'm glad most people in the US take the latter approach - we'd be jerks if we usually took the former approach. Which is good, because other countries beat us in the olympics with great regularity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #54 November 10, 2006 Quote>In WWII over 9 million Americans volunteered for military service. > Was this extreme nationalism? Arguable, YES! Was is considered bad? No, that was good! But did they need a draft back then? Do they need a draft now? What does this have to do with my point? Quote>So you don't think the USA is any better than Somalia, Sierra Leon or > Sudan? How about Bangladesh? Are we all equal, just different? Are we better hockey players than the Canadians? Better craftsmen/engineers than the Germans? Is our medical system better than Switzerland's? Do we have better beer than Germany? Are we better car designers than the Japanese? We are better in some ways, not as good in others. Like everyone else. I like living in the US (I think it's a great place to live, and it does a lot of things very well) and I support it through what I do. Doesn't mean I think the US is better than every other nation out there in every way. I think most people think the same way. Nice strawman. Quote>On a much more benign level, when we beat the Russians in hockey, >in the 1980 Winter Olympics, was the sentiment not "WE ARE BETTER THAN >YOU! OUR COLLEGE GUYS BEAT YOUR BEST." >I don't recall anyone saying "But they played a fine game. Afterall, it's just >sports". Wow, your recollection is very different than mine. I'm glad most people in the US take the latter approach - we'd be jerks if we usually took the former approach. You have anything sources to back this up. From Wikipedia: QuoteThe two teams were natural rivals because of the Cold War. In addition, President Jimmy Carter was at the time considering a US boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics, to be held in Moscow, in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which began the year before. Carter eventually decided in favor of the boycott.... The home crowd, reinforced by the US team's improbable run during group play and the Cold War "showdown" mentality, were in a patriotic fervor throughout the match, waving US flags and singing patriotic songs such as "God Bless America".... The match versus the Soviets popularized the "U-S-A! U-S-A!" chant, which has been used by U.S. supporters at many international sports competitions since 1980... Some historians and political commentators actually consider the 1980 hockey game as a major turning point in the political races that were taking place in 1980. Does this really sound like "just a game"? How old were you when you watched that game? QuoteWhich is good, because other countries beat us in the olympics with great regularity. This is completely irrelevant. I get the impression you're not a fan of team spectator sports. Most fans are well aware of what's beyond a simple W or L, especially in significant events. If this was just a game why did Carter boycott our participation in the subsequent Summer games? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #55 November 10, 2006 QuoteI disagree with the "accepted wisdom" that Hitler was a madman...I remember Adi Amin and Pol Pot being described the same way; and even today, people are calling Kim Jong Il a "madman". No he's not. His evil is the product of a rationally calculating mind – and that's what makes it truly dangerous. Learn from history, people. He clearly was mad. He was also clearly a genius. But that does not mean he was sane. No sane person would try to kill what 6 Million people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #56 November 10, 2006 You're confusing evil with insanity. Unspeakable evil does not equate insantity. QuoteNo sane person would try to kill ... 6 Million people Yes. One would. In fact, several sane people have done such things. And, with all due respect, if you fail to appreciate that, you're being dangerously complacent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #57 November 10, 2006 QuoteI think it would depend on the context. Generally, no. Feminazi? Canopy nazi? PLF nazi? Safety nazi? They're just words. Insults generally say a whole lot more about the person doing the insulting than the person who's supposedlly being insulted. Excellent point Wendy, I like to rant about Health Nazis and Bible Nazis myself from time to time. But as for just calling somebody a plain and simple Nazi, no. The Nazis were a really extreme bunch when you consider the things they did. So unless you're talking about things like the forced deportation, enslavement, and planned exterminations of entire peoples, simply for who they are and not for anything they've done, or talking about systematically killing people with physical or mental problems, lay off the Nazi label. Very few people have ever even approached the Nazis for the scope and thoroughness of the horrors they inflicted on the world, before most of us were even born. I don't think anyone really appreciates just how lucky we are to have been born into this world AFTER the Nazis were defeated. Those guys were THE Evil Empire - and they almost won that war. That's the scary part. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
