You can find more info on the meme here:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/our-blessed-homeland-their-barbarous-wastes
https://medium.com/@sukosuko1/our-blessed-homeland-0218f41bb51a
https://www.theguardian.com/books/gallery/2015/mar/11/a-life-in-letters-with-tom-gauld-in-pictures
Quote by Doug Stanhope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=QsPDT5qHtZ4
National patriotism is a religion that worships dirt.
That quote is from Doug Stanhope not accusing anybody of stealing comedy or anything, its a pretty basic view of nationalism, but its just a good way of phrasing. So credit where its due
Thank you, I edited both the title and the description.
That’s why you should travel and learn other languages when you are young. You’ll learn a different perspective, culture, way of life and even if you don’t make it your own, it’ll be harder to see one superior to the other.
Some way people need to realize we are all human and need to work together for the world but greed of the few, aided by politics & religion used to control the many, keeps getting in the way.
The origin of the word “nation” refers to the ethnicity (a folk, if you will) of the people that live in a land. No nation, no people. Example: The Roma, for example, are a nation without a country.
Now, to take pride in a thing means to regard it as good, worthy, admirable.
To take pride in one’s nation simply means to recognize the good, and to value, preserve, defend, and contribute to it. It means regarding one’s people, heritage, and public order as worthy of loyalty, care, and continuation. It does not require the claim that one’s nation is perfect, nor that it is superior to all others.
Nationalism becomes problematic as soon as loyalty to one’s own people or country becomes more important than truth, justice, and proportion. I think that there is where the issue truly lies.
TL;DR: There is nothing wrong in recognizing the good your nation does, and recognize that another nation may be incompatible with yours in certain parts is OK. “Abusus non tollit usum” - Cicero (I think?): “abuse does not cancel use”, or “misuse of something is no argument against its proper use”.
I like to relight nation towards root. That way it’s not about upholding the heart of walldoms.
I would love to understand what youre saying
To relight is to stop using one word and start using another word.
It plays on the idea that we can be enlightened about something like nationalism, but that we reckognize that this enlightenment is miscoloring our world, and so we ought to remove this word from our language. However, oftentimes it is not possible to simply remove a word, because it is a word that is used to refer to real world phenomenas, and so we have to find another word that can replace the miscoloring word.
In this deem, we have unlighted nation and enlightened root, thus relighting away from nation towards root. Think of it like a spotlight that is moved from one word to the other.
Okay…thats helpful. Now do “root” and “upholding the heart of walldoms”. If you don’t mind. Also “in this deem.”
Might use some help with your use of the word enlightenment, you mean kind of like a light, like how light changes the appearances of matter, an idea like nationalism is cast upon our direct experience I follow what you’re saying about “we aught to remove a word” and finding a new word to replace an old word. Which is all very abstract, I’m not sure who “we” are that is in the position to start making up words, and educating on their meanings. Also there’s always the possibility, probably the inevitability, that these new words will be used against us. Like how the word “woke”, a left wing concept, was turned around on us by the capitalists and the media. Which means, matters of language are not about words but about power. Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony is deeply rooted in the study of language, namely the Florentine dialect and its spread throughout Italy during the Italian Risorgiamento in the mid - late 1800s.
Coming back to the simile of a spotlight,alls a good comparison that illustrates sort of what I’m talking about, and can be extended in lots of interesting ways. Like, in order to shine a spotlight, you need to have a spotlight, and you need to have power. Light has a source so it is relevant who controls it. I don’t think you missed this per se, but considerations of language and meaning are purely practical.
When somebody claims authority over an geographic area; The authorities and that which it subjugates is the walldom. The heart of the walldom is where the authorities lies.
Roots are our sense of origin. The roots are unlike nations not connected to walldoms. One may regard their roots as from where their parents are from. So one could say that a person has roots in Norway and Germany for instance.
Thanks. Where are you getting this from? Or is this your own set of theories? Do you have writing somewhere?
I edited my comment and then it got kinda long and took a while to finish and now I forget what my original post was. Probably just the first paragraph.
The source
I am not the user you where interacting with, but these ideas can be found in Carl Schmitt in his work The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum.
This is because The Nomos of the Earth provides his most comprehensive exploration of how sovereign authority and geographic space are legally and historically intertwined. The previous comments are about authority’s spatial claim, and this book is precisely where Schmitt develops that idea at length.
An important fact to know about Carl Schmitt follows:
In 1933, Schmitt joined the Nazi Party and used his legal and political theories to provide ideological justification for the regime. He held various positions on Nazi councils, including the Prussian State Council and the Academy for German Law, and served as president of the National Socialist Association of Legal Professionals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt
A counterpoint
Perhaps the most pointed philosophical counterpoint to the text’s use of “roots” comes from the work of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, which was later applied to national identity by the philosopher Édouard Glissant. His seminal work Poetics of Relation has been used by scholars across the world to understand the rapid transformation of a multicultural world.
They critique the root as a metaphor for a singular, vertical, and exclusionary origin. Glissant argues that nations shouldn’t speak of having “roots,” as this implies one unique ancestral heritage.
Instead, he champions the image of the rhizome (a plant with a network of interconnected, horizontal roots) because it better captures a multicultural reality where identity is not fixed but is a dynamic, relational, and non-hierarchical network.
Where the text’s concept of “roots” traces a lineage back to a point of origin, the rhizome celebrates the connections made in the present.
When you begin to study the tradition of your country, you often discover that many words, fairy tales, and dishes that you consider traditions of your own country are actually from very faraway places.
For example: the zero and chess from India; algebra and algorithms from Arabic countries; paper, silk, gunpowder, and ceramics from China; tomatoes and potatoes from America; etc.
When you begin to study the tradition of your country, you often discover that many words, fairy tales, and dishes that you consider traditions of your own country are actually from very faraway places.
OK, and? That does not mean I can’t love the way my country is, and that I want to protect this way. And it can be done without destroying someone else’s country.
For example: the zero and chess from India; algebra and algorithms from Arabic countries; paper, silk, gunpowder, and ceramics from China; tomatoes and potatoes from America; etc.
Cool, and those countries use our inventions as well (telescopes, Stock Exchanges, pendulum clocks, polders (and water management in general)). That does not mean I stop wanting to preserve and protect the volksgeist of the country I live in.
No, that does not mean we don’t do anything wrong, ever, and that we cannot grow beyond where we are now, but there are certain foundational aspects that I 100% want to see preserved (like showing up on an appointment, on time).
Outside the more pragmatic and conceivable city-state, the very concept of nationality in the modern sense is pretty useless.
It is useless for the worker, but it is very useful for the owner. The owner will use foreigners as scapegoats for the low salaries of the workers.
The owner will use foreigners as scapegoats for the low salaries of the workers.
OK, but if you bring in a ton of foreigners to do a certain job, the salaries are going to be lower.
Not, that’s not the foreigners fault, but the state’s fault for letting those foreigners in, in the first place. Though I bet you have a strong opinion about mass-migration as well?
so many americans and europeans on this site are literally this and they’re probably gonna upvote this anyway
My neighbouring countries are all of Germanic descent, and I don’t have that big of an issue with them, but certain other countries can fuck right off, IMO.
Also, this image contains a stupid, ignorant, argument, so no upvote from me.
Pretty sure Lemmy is very anti-nationalist on average
Depends. Nationalism is progressive in liberating colonized countries from oppression, such as in Palestine. I don’t support nationalism in the abstract, but sometimes in the particular if it plays a progressive role. I still support communist movements more, but nationalists can be allied with against colonialism, neocolonialism, and imperialism.
my point is that they think they’re anti-nationalist but they still default to nationalist thinking. when discussing the global south, so many people here still insist that the west is somehow free and democratic while scary and different global south is oppressive and autocratic.
wow, the original
You can find more information about it here: https://medium.com/@sukosuko1/our-blessed-homeland-0218f41bb51a
At first I read “British invaders”
teaches you to take pride in shit you’ve never done
The better outcome.
I’m more disgusted by the fuckers who go out and do the war crimes, then come home and demand everyone else say “Thank You For Your Service”.
Some cases are very ironic, like the one of American veterans who fought in Vietnam coming back there to retire
https://phong-partners.com/en/american-veterans-choose-vietnam-for-retirement
