Youth nationalism

[unmerged(4253)]

The Nazis had "Nazi Youth"
The Communist Russians had "Freedom Fighters"
The UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, and the US, etc.. all have "Scouts". Yes, the scouts are seperate from the government but they thus reflect the pluralist and independent views of their nations. And the scouts are VERY into patriotism. (Love of one's country/land)


What is the Peoples Republic of China's patriotic Youth organization?

 

[unmerged(6116)]

I think you are mixing things up a bit, as i can be patriotic which is a good thing and not being a nationalist,IMHO,and scouts mixed up with brown shirts(nazi youth)?

I think that one should be patriotic as i am, not nationalist as it is the other face of the same coin.

 

[unmerged(4876)]

I know China had a youth commie group... There is a book Red Scarf Girl about a girl and her experences with the commie youth... Just can't remember the name...

Anyway, the commie youth (it was maos time) was forced to work in the fields (they thought this was good for them), and do other pro-China stuff.

 

[viper37]

Originally posted by Falcão
I think you are mixing things up a bit, as i can be patriotic which is a good thing and not being a nationalist,IMHO,and scouts mixed up with brown shirts(nazi youth)?

I think that one should be patriotic as i am, not nationalist as it is the other face of the same coin.

are you implying that being nationalist is a bad thing?

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Originally posted by viper37


are you implying that being nationalist is a bad thing?

Depends where you stand .. there is a sliding scale of nationalism which goes on the one hand, from feeling mildly proud to be an Englishman because it's such a good country in comparison to places like Burkina Faso, all the way through to Nazism. The lower end is rarely called "nationalist" but rather "patriotic." But "nationalist" could mean somebody halfway up the scale, or right over at the Hitler end. Consequently it often does mean a bad thing.

 

[pithorr]

Have you ever heared about Soviet Kid-Lenin?

 

[unmerged(6116)]

Originally posted by Heyesey


Depends where you stand .. there is a sliding scale of nationalism which goes on the one hand, from feeling mildly proud to be an Englishman because it's such a good country in comparison to places like Burkina Faso, all the way through to Nazism. The lower end is rarely called "nationalist" but rather "patriotic." But "nationalist" could mean somebody halfway up the scale, or right over at the Hitler end. Consequently it often does mean a bad thing.

Indeed, i wouldn't say better, only that there is a thin red line between "nationalism" and "patriotism", and that one should be patriotic(mildly-be proud of).

 

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by viper37


are you implying that being nationalist is a bad thing?

Since the WW2 nationalism has in Europe a very bad reputation. It is partially correct because often it is used as argument for racism or other kinds of dicrimination. Also any kinds of separate movements are not encouraged. For former communist countries it is different as there nationalism is often seen as the cause of destroying communism so often priced. It however caused already many wars, particulary in former Yugoslavia.
Btw, In the Netherlands is being patriotic also not encouraged. Our politicians think that it could be a danger for the multicultural society here.

 

[unmerged(6116)]

Originally posted by Kasperus

Since the WW2 nationalism has in Europe a very bad reputation. It is partially correct because often it is used as argument for racism or other kinds of dicrimination. Also any kinds of separate movements are not encouraged. For former communist countries it is different as there nationalism is often seen as the cause of destroying communism so often priced. It however caused already many wars, particulary in former Yugoslavia.
Btw, In the Netherlands is being patriotic also not encouraged. Our politicians think that it could be a danger for the multicultural society here.

So let me say i disagree with your government, as even the multicultural society must be proud of the nation that has receive them.One not only in Holland should be able to define where patriotism turns into nationalism.
If your gov says that, then you tend to loose your identity.
I think it isn't in anyway offensive to the multicultural society you live in to show that the country where all live in has history, tradition etc etc, that's being mildly patriotic by loving your country's past, traditions, and no one should be embarassed with it.

 

[unmerged(4217)]

"Nationalism" as a politcal idea is different from the feelings of pride in one's own country that most people now associate with "nationalism". Nationalism is a political idea that developped together with democracy. It was no coincidence that the French revolution saw the rise of french nationalism.

Under the "ancient regime" states were governed by kings and princes who got their title by birth. The borders of the state were the borders of the feudal possesions of the kings. This changed when nationalism and democracy gained terrain as political ideas. Both ideas stimulated and influenced each other. Democracy would not have existed today without the development of the nation-state. But nationalism was in its turn greatly reinforced by democracy. The state was no longer defined by the feudal possesions of the King but by the territory that was inhabited by a group of people who defined themselves as a nation.

Nationalism was a radical idea that changed history; the idea that all peoples (nations) have the right to govern themselves. This is an idea I fully support (and is inscribed in the UN-charter) and thus I consider myself to be a nationalist.

As Kasperus mentioned, nationalism got a bad reputation after WWII and the excesses to which it had led. But in itself it is still a good idea IMO. And it is still the most pervasive political idea, together with its sibling democracy, of our current thinking about politics. For if nationalism has led to excesses it is often overlooked that nationalism (or the idea that all nations have the right to govern themselves) has often been a very liberating force. Decolonisation would have been impossible if the nationalist idea hadn't morally triumphed by that time. For the first time in history imperialists voluntary gave up possesions. Not that they weren't pushed by those they had governed. But this too was only possible through the nationalist credo which had influenced people like Gandhi and Lumumba. They felt they had the right to govern themselves and the colonising powers felt more and more they had no right to govern others.

Even today nationalism is often a potent liberating force. As was witnessed by the break-up of the Communist Bloc.

 

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by Falcão


So let me say i disagree with your government, as even the multicultural society must be proud of the nation that has receive them.One not only in Holland should be able to define where patriotism turns into nationalism.
If your gov says that, then you tend to loose your identity.
I think it isn't in anyway offensive to the multicultural society you live in to show that the country where all live in has history, tradition etc etc, that's being mildly patriotic by loving your country's past, traditions, and no one should be embarassed with it.

I agree with you, but probably only because I`m not originaly dutch. Most dutch people do not care about thei identity. They were taught it for 40 years. So now the only form of patriotism you see is during football and only part of identity is the royal family.
Btw, at school pupils do not learn dutch history (perhaps just a small bit, things as caollaboration during WW2 and slave-handle) Dutch don`t seem to be proud of their history.

Originally posted by Bylandt
As Kasperus mentioned, nationalism got a bad reputation after WWII and the excesses to which it had led. But in itself it is still a good idea IMO. And it is still the most pervasive political idea, together with its sibling democracy, of our current thinking about politics. For if nationalism has led to excesses it is often overlooked that nationalism (or the idea that all nations have the right to govern themselves) has often been a very liberating force. Decolonisation would have been impossible if the nationalist idea hadn't morally triumphed by that time. For the first time in history imperialists voluntary gave up possesions. Not that they weren't pushed by those they had governed. But this too was only possible through the nationalist credo which had influenced people like Gandhi and Lumumba. They felt they had the right to govern themselves and the colonising powers felt more and more they had no right to govern others.

Even today nationalism is often a potent liberating force. As was witnessed by the break-up of the Communist Bloc.

Yes, nationalism was a liberating force. Thanks to it all the colonial world is free and the communist goverments in eastern Europa are overthrown. Just take a look at those countries in Africa, with no political stability, constant wars. Look at wars on balkan. See terrorism, economical problems, dictatorial regims, massacres, discrimination. Everything thanks to nacionalism. I suppose it wasn`t the greatest achievement of the humanity.

 

[unmerged(4253)]

Originally posted by Kasperus

Dutch don`t seem to be proud of their history.

True, they had the highest volunteer inlistment rate in the german army. That shows collaberation. But 50% of the jews in Holand survived the war. That shows some humanity for the Dutch... It's something to be proud of. The only country with a better rate was Bulgaria, which practically no jews were killed in. Think about Belgium, they killed way over 10 million people in the congo durring their colonial perriod. Thats a bad history....


As far as nationalism arising with democracy... I don't agree. Democracy is an idea as old as Tyrus himself. Although there was never any democracy in Greece.... Thats where it got it's origins. There is almost no democracy in existence today. I don't know of one soverign democratic nation. Nationalism was co-developed with liberty... and to that extent.... Liberalism. The Jakobin influences were the closest the world has ever gotten to democracy. When Republics started to be formed... in France, England, and the United States.... Nationalism took hold and was inadvertedly spread through the rest of Europe by Bonaparte. As one scholar once put it, "Until the 18th century, everbody who had heard of democracy knew exactly what it was and almost nobody was in favor of it. Today, almost nobody knows what democracy is and everybody is in favor of it" The more a doctrine gains acceptance, the less clear it becomes. Just ask all the communist nations that call themselves democracies.... They are no less democratic than western governments.

 

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by CoolElelphant


As far as nationalism arising with democracy... I don't agree. Democracy is an idea as old as Tyrus himself. Although there was never any democracy in Greece.... Thats where it got it's origins. There is almost no democracy in existence today. I don't know of one soverign democratic nation. Nationalism was co-developed with liberty... and to that extent.... Liberalism. The Jakobin influences were the closest the world has ever gotten to democracy. When Republics started to be formed... in France, England, and the United States.... Nationalism took hold and was inadvertedly spread through the rest of Europe by Bonaparte. As one scholar once put it, "Until the 18th century, everbody who had heard of democracy knew exactly what it was and almost nobody was in favor of it. Today, almost nobody knows what democracy is and everybody is in favor of it" The more a doctrine gains acceptance, the less clear it becomes. Just ask all the communist nations that call themselves democracies.... They are no less democratic than western governments.

I agree with your visions. At least to the point that you say that a real democracy is a democracy to the Athenian model, cos they invented it. Our democracy is different and I think we should think of an another name. Btw, I think in many countries democracy is just an long forgotten ideal, an excuse for a couple of people to rule and make themself rich. I think that the most pure democracies are those in the former communist countries as they are new, still exploring, still vital and not so static as in the western countries.

 

[unmerged(904)]

Originally posted by Bylandt
Even today nationalism is often a potent liberating force. As was witnessed by the break-up of the Communist Bloc.

Yes....didn't Milosevic consider himself a Socialist-Serbian Nationalist. The only part of the Eastern bloc were it has arguably helped is the Baltic states.

Although I did see a documentary about a train consecrated as an Orthodox church that went through Eastern Siberia to try and bring the church and patriotism in Russia back. The Priests believed that American corporations and cults (Like Jehovah's Witnesses ?) Were trying to steal it for it's resources. Although it did show that communist education is a way succeeded in it's goal. Most people didn't know what existed before the USSR except vague references to the Tzar.

 

[unmerged(4217)]

Originally posted by Kasperus

I agree with your visions. At least to the point that you say that a real democracy is a democracy to the Athenian model, cos they invented it.

Wrong. Our democracies do not stem from the Athenian model. They originated from the Germanic "Ding"-tradition. Remember the Germanic kings were elected. And the first parliament in the world was Islandic.
Our modern democary has it roots in medieval traditions not in the renaissance and the rediscovery of Greek traditions.

 

[unmerged(4217)]

Originally posted by Sheilbh
Yes....didn't Milosevic consider himself a Socialist-Serbian Nationalist. The only part of the Eastern bloc were it has arguably helped is the Baltic states.

Never knew the socialist Milosevic considered himself to be a nationalist. This old-school-communist used popular feeling amongst the Serbs to further his cause, which is altogether a different thing.
The real nationalists were the Slovenes and Croates who resented the Serbian dominance and wanted to free their people from it. They ended the communist regimein Yugoslavia.

 

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by Bylandt

Wrong. Our democracies do not stem from the Athenian model. They originated from the Germanic "Ding"-tradition. Remember the Germanic kings were elected. And the first parliament in the world was Islandic.
Our modern democary has it roots in medieval traditions not in the renaissance and the rediscovery of Greek traditions.

That`s exatly what I said. You understood me wrongly. I said our democracy is different than Greek but Greek democracy was the real democracy cos they invented it, so we are wrong`

 

[unmerged(4217)]

Originally posted by Kasperus

That`s exatly what I said. You understood me wrongly. I said our democracy is different than Greek but Greek democracy was the real democracy cos they invented it, so we are wrong`

Sorry, posted too fast.

 

[Krasnaya Strela]

Soviet et al & Chinese = Young Pioneers
Freedom Fighters sounds like US propaganda for proto/larval-Taliban and/or Contra/Drugrunners.
Today in Russia the young nationalists are called "skinheads" for the right-wingers, National Bolsheviks for the leftwingers and "lonely and confused" for the communist youth.

About 200 of the skins recently invaded an outdoor market generallly serving the Caucausian groups. Using iron bars they clubbed 2 to death. The police made no arrests of the skins, their only response was to declare a clamp down on Caucausians for being a provocation.

 

[unmerged(904)]

Originally posted by Bylandt

Never knew the socialist Milosevic considered himself to be a nationalist. This old-school-communist used popular feeling amongst the Serbs to further his cause, which is altogether a different thing.
The real nationalists were the Slovenes and Croates who resented the Serbian dominance and wanted to free their people from it. They ended the communist regimein Yugoslavia.

Milosevic called himself a Serb nationalist.

The Croats though do not deserve to be beatified over this they had some pretty horrendous massacres (None as bad as the Bosnian Serbs though). The Croats and Slovenes and Bosnians ended a Communist regime in Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegovina however Yugoslavia still existed with Serbia, Monetnegro and Kosovo (Possibly Macedonia, when did they achieve independence ?) Yugoslavia in the form of Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo were ruled by the Communist-Nationalist Milosevic until the "People Power" revolution brought Kostunica to power.