ADVERTISEMENT

Patriotism vs. Nationalism

Scribe Tiger

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Jan 7, 2011
22,265
33,594
113
"America is wholly unique among the nations of the world. Conceived as an asylum for oppressed peoples everywhere, George Washington would write 'I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong.'

"America enjoys influence from everywhere:

"France helped secure our independence. Our numbers come from India and Baghdad. Our religions are from Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Our languages have mostly Latin and Asian roots. Our arts are from Greece. Our jurisprudence comes from Rome. Our 4th of July fireworks were invented in China. Our calendar comes from the Catholic Church. I hail from Germany and Ireland. My neighbors are from Mexico and Africa. I served in the American military with men and women who came from all points on the compass.

"As Jill Lepore says, 'To love this particular nation… is to love the world.'”

But there's far more
 
It's died down a little, but for a while there were lots of people, and I mean LOTS of people, who were proudly declaring their nationalism. I was sure they just didn't know what they were saying. Now I'm pretty sure they did.

“The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does.”
 
The dictionary is correct. They remain synonyms. People trying to find a distinction without a difference.

I’ve never known anybody that believes their country was better regardless of what it did....

I agree with what the first two paragraphs contain.
 
The dictionary is correct. They remain synonyms. People trying to find a distinction without a difference.

I’ve never known anybody that believes their country was better regardless of what it did....

I agree with what the first two paragraphs contain.

Very much different, sorry. Nationalism is like racism on a national scale; "I am better because I am American, and you are lesser because you're not. If my country does something, it's not for you to question or judge, because we're simply on a different level." Patriotism says "I recognize the potential of this country, regardless of how well or how poorly we are doing now, and I believe in working towards solutions for our problems because at heart I believe the citizens of this nation, no matter how vastly different they may be, have the ability to overcome almost all obstacles."
 
Last edited:
Very much different, sorry. Nationalism is like racism on a national scale; "I am better because I am American, and you are lesser because you're not. Patriotism says "I recognize the potential of this country, regardless of how well or how poorly we are doing now, and I believe in working towards solutions for our problems because at heart I believe the citizens of this nation, no matter how vastly different they may be, have the ability to overcome almost all obstacles."

People often times try to twist the meaning of words into something they want so they can use it as a crudgel to batter others. I don’t make the language subject to my whimsy, if that happens actual reasonable communication is impossible. Words are not subject to re-definition for one’s convenience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BAW02
Very much different, sorry. Nationalism is like racism on a national scale; "I am better because I am American, and you are lesser because you're not. Patriotism says "I recognize the potential of this country, regardless of how well or how poorly we are doing now, and I believe in working towards solutions for our problems because at heart I believe the citizens of this nation, no matter how vastly different they may be, have the ability to overcome almost all obstacles."

Sorry, I’ll go with the history of the English language instead of the revisionists. Again words have meanings, not subject to whimsy or preference
 
  • Like
Reactions: BAW02
Th
A patriot always loves his country but not always his government. I saw that quote on COD MW2. That and one about how the press is the propaganda mouthpiece of communist countries.
Pretty good quotes IMHO.
Ey are usually the propaganda mouthpiece of fascist also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowardlyToaster
The dictionary is correct. They remain synonyms. People trying to find a distinction without a difference.

I’ve never known anybody that believes their country was better regardless of what it did....

I agree with what the first two paragraphs contain.
Not only are you wrong, but that's how fascism happens. Fascism begins when authoritarianism coopts nationalism; but it cannot flourish unless nationalism has already coopted patriotism. You sound insane.
 
Not only are you wrong, but that's how fascism happens. Fascism begins when authoritarianism coopts nationalism; but it cannot flourish unless nationalism has already coopted patriotism. You sound insane.

That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard. George Washington was a nationalist. Do you think he was a fascist too? Oh, wait, you probably do.

Talk about redefining words and not knowing their meanings....
 
  • Like
Reactions: BAW02
This thread is proof that my position is correct. Notice how many different meanings and interpretations people are giving the word. So when somebody uses the word nobody knows what the hell they mean.


Well played gang.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BAW02
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard. George Washington was a nationalist. Do you think he was a fascist too? Oh, wait, you probably do.

Talk about redefining words and not knowing their meanings....

No, Washington was a dissident. There really was no "nation" to be nationalistic over.

More to the point, given your propensity toward "conservative" beliefs and nationalism, you would have almost certainly trashed Washington as liberal scum. You'd have been as loyalist as possible. You'd have written on The Bunker that the British Empire was the greatest in history, and that if Washington didn't like it, then he could just leave.
 
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard. George Washington was a nationalist. Do you think he was a fascist too? Oh, wait, you probably do.

Talk about redefining words and not knowing their meanings....

Washington was not a fascist. He was a nationalist though. Thus why he thought people from the African nation were below him and he used them as slaves.

Men can do great (fighting for freedom, devising the laws that a people must follow) and they can also do terrible (owning slaves).

A nationalist would say Washington made no mistakes under his leadership when it came to moral wrongs. A patriot would recognize Washington wasn't always morally right, but can still celebrate him for what he did.
 
Washington was not a fascist. He was a nationalist though. Thus why he thought people from the African nation were below him and he used them as slaves.

Men can do great (fighting for freedom, devising the laws that a people must follow) and they can also do terrible (owning slaves).

A nationalist would say Washington made no mistakes under his leadership when it came to moral wrongs. A patriot would recognize Washington wasn't always morally right, but can still celebrate him for what he did.

not sure who your replying to. Never implied much less stated he was a fascist.

and i love how people judge historical societies by their own preferences. There were more white slaves in Africa at this time then they were blacks in the entire history of the US. Every culture thought it had the right to own slaves. At least ours was starting to become uncomfortable with it and liad the groundwork for its abolition.
 
The dictionary is correct. They remain synonyms. People trying to find a distinction without a difference.
Since some of y’all lack dictionaries, here you go:


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalist
Lmao. Well, your boys at Merriam Webster seem to think there's a distinction, and since you've deemed them "correct" I guess we'll just have to roll with what they say, right? Right?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/patriotism-vs-nationalism

tenor.gif
 
Lmao. Well, your boys at Merriam Webster seem to think there's a distinction, and since you've deemed them "correct" I guess we'll just have to roll with what they say, right? Right?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/patriotism-vs-nationalism

tenor.gif

actually they agree with what I said. They even that at the last paragraph, more eloquently than I have stated, pointing out that there are better ways to express the pejorative.

We can, however, advocate for the revival of the tradition of insult with precision.


smdh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BAW02
actually they agree with what I said.
People trying to find a distinction without a difference.
From the article:
"A nationalist believes that his country is the best because they live in it. But a patriot believes that his country is the best but there is always room for improvement.

A nationalist can’t tolerate any criticism of his country and considers it an insult. But a patriot can tolerate criticism and have a thoughtful conversation about improvements.

A nationalist puts more importance on unity through a shared cultural background. But a patriot puts more importance on unity through shared values.

Many even go so far as to define nationalism as evil, xenophobic and racist."
91x.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scribe Tiger
not sure who your replying to. Never implied much less stated he was a fascist.

and i love how people judge historical societies by their own preferences. There were more white slaves in Africa at this time then they were blacks in the entire history of the US. Every culture thought it had the right to own slaves. At least ours was starting to become uncomfortable with it and liad the groundwork for its abolition.

Two wrongs don't make a right, so I'm not sure what the logic is for bringing up what the Africans did as far as slavery is concerned. Can't both be condemned, instead of justifying one with the other, because your whole post was "they did it too, nana na boo boo".

Last I checked Africans still partake in slavery to this day, and as you pointed out we do not. Why did it take our forefathers almost 100 years to think, "hey, maybe forcing humans into manual labor with no pay and abuse is bad"? Especially when we fought ourselves to gain freedom.

Where would you and I, or most whites, be today if the African slaves did to us what we did to King George and revolted?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scribe Tiger
This entire thread is an attempt to make being conservative=white supremacy. That is all it is. You guys carry on with your discussion but you will need to also answer why other countries have gravitated towards more nationalist ideologies. I’ll hang up and listen you hate mongering pussies.
 
This entire thread is an attempt to make being conservative=white supremacy. That is all it is. You guys carry on with your discussion but you will need to also answer why other countries have gravitated towards more nationalist ideologies. I’ll hang up and listen you hate mongering pussies.

Why do Americans have to answer for other countries?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowardlyToaster
Two wrongs don't make a right, so I'm not sure what the logic is for bringing up what the Africans did as far as slavery is concerned. Can't both be condemned, instead of justifying one with the other, because your whole post was "they did it too, nana na boo boo".

Last I checked Africans still partake in slavery to this day, and as you pointed out we do not. Why did it take our forefathers almost 100 years to think, "hey, maybe forcing humans into manual labor with no pay and abuse is bad"? Especially when we fought ourselves to gain freedom.

Where would you and I, or most whites, be today if the African slaves did to us what we did to King George and revolted?

i was just simply pointing out that the ‘morality’ of slavery was viewed quite differently hundreds and thousands of years ago, that, every culture thought it was acceptable, that all races were and held slaves. To judge them by todays perspectives gives an errant view of history.
 
It's died down a little, but for a while there were lots of people, and I mean LOTS of people, who were proudly declaring their nationalism. I was sure they just didn't know what they were saying. Now I'm pretty sure they did.

“The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does.”
lolwut?

No

Otto von Bismarck, David Ben Gurion. Simon Bolivar, Gandhi, Charles de Gaulle, Chang Kai Shek, George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Kamal Attaturk - please describe the ways that idiotic quote applies to each of those Nationalists
 
lolwut?

No

Otto von Bismarck, David Ben Gurion. Simon Bolivar, Gandhi, Charles de Gaulle, Chang Kai Shek, George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Kamal Attaturk - please describe the ways that idiotic quote applies to each of those Nationalists

They cannot. This is ploy to stretch conservatism white supremacy. That is all.
 
People often times try to twist the meaning of words into something they want so they can use it as a crudgel to batter others. I don’t make the language subject to my whimsy, if that happens actual reasonable communication is impossible. Words are not subject to re-definition for one’s convenience.

The meaning of words changes all the time. The definitions you see in dictionary are a representation of the etiology over sometimes thousands of years of human development. There are few words which mean precisely what they meant when they first emerged into common use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scribe Tiger
The meaning of words changes all the time. The definitions you see in dictionary are a representation of the etiology over sometimes thousands of years of human development. There are few words which mean precisely what they meant when they first emerged into common use.

common use, Not whimsical fancy denying the historical definition. Just read this thread everybody’s got a different definition. That makes it impossible to rationally communicate.
 
common use, Not whimsical fancy denying the historical definition. Just read this thread everybody’s got a different definition. That makes it impossible to rationally communicate.

Only if you want to be difficult. You just have to recognize that the concepts ARE different, and not in just the trendy understanding of them, but the common usage as well.
 
The meaning of words changes all the time. The definitions you see in dictionary are a representation of the etiology over sometimes thousands of years of human development. There are few words which mean precisely what they meant when they first emerged into common use.
LMAO

we gotta big Newspeak is DoublePlusGood fan here
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Blue
LMAO

we gotta big Newspeak is DoublePlusGood fan here

Sorry you don't understand the subtleties of language. It's sad and I feel sorry for you. You miss so much when you insist on keeping your head in the sand as the world about you changes.

Note that this doesn't mean you have to accept the new, watered down/broadened meaning of terms. You just have to try to understand why those terms are used and how to get someone using them to listen to you long enough for them to grasp how using overbroad or shifted terminology doesn't accurately portray what they intend to convey. I've found that most people will at least listen if you give them a reason.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Scribe Tiger
lolwut?

No

Otto von Bismarck, David Ben Gurion. Simon Bolivar, Gandhi, Charles de Gaulle, Chang Kai Shek, George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Kamal Attaturk - please describe the ways that idiotic quote applies to each of those Nationalists
Well for one thing, I think all those dudes were dead before the two words drifted away from one another.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT