"Debate nationalism"

Post Reply New Topic

Nationalism is where you take a look at what is going on in the rest of the world and say "f**k THAT s**t!! !", and xenophobia is just another way to say that a group of foreigners are being a pain and are not welcome anymore.

How utterly absurd, to define one's self by and take pride in something so beyond your control as where you're born.

We are all products of our environments and our life experience. I consider myself British as a collective identity but others are internationalist and reject all national identity. I am from the Ribble Valley in Lancashire. Lancashire's countryside, its towns and my environment have all had an effect on who I am as a person. A Nigerian-born immigrant from South London would have a very different identity to mine, for instance.

I can name three dozen things that are a part of my composite identity which I had no control over.
Should I pump my fist and shout hoorah because of the name my parents gave me, or having pale skin, or red hair?

If you want to be proud of something, celebrate your elective, deliberate ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

"Woohoo! I was born somewhere...kinda like...everyone else...who's ever existed...."

We are a by product of our ancestry too. Remember the UK is a bastard country thanks to historical invasions & immigration.
By my ancestry alone I'm more Celtic that English, plus am half Welsh. So if the act of the Union went bye bye would I be deported back to Wales; or Ireland, Scotland or Germany by any chance cos of am ancestor of immigrants?

No, don't be ridiculous. In the event of the Act of Union being repealed you would just have three sovereign, independent nations (Northern Ireland would probably go into some form of a United Ireland by that time in the very unlikely event this came to pass) that would probably have some sort of currency union/join the euro.

No-one would be deported anywhere.

So its ok not to deport me however its fair game to deport immigrants that come into the counrty

If there is anything credible about the 'you are not from my country' line, it would have to be when a European flies the Confederate flag as if it was a symbol of white supremacy. It is a symbol of Southern pride and everyone was a white supremacist back then (the abolitionists were a minority). Lincoln's original plan was to just send them all back to Africa. The North wanted slavery banned not because they cared about blacks, but rather wanted to screw over the South economically by making them give wages to their workers. You can obviously tell because the correct decision by far was for the government to give slave reparations and compensate the Southern plantation owners for lost work, but they did not do that. So you might as well fly the American flag too based on that logic. That is not really on an Internet message board though, but if I see it online I am pointing that one out.

I would surely say 'you're not from my country so stop being an idiot' to that.

Like most things, my views of debate nationalism are contextual. There are some times in which it seems appropriate to question a non-residents perceptions of a nation (especially concerning day to day life), and then there are times when it is just a stupid cop out to avoid a point. Off the top of my head I can recall having used the tactic when non-Americans have described the country as being far more dangerous than it actually is, doubtlessly influenced by the penchant of the media for sensationalizing violent crime. I stand by the usage in that case, news stories and stats are no substitute for living in an area for forming an accurate opinion of it.

Okay, so someone's heavily biased anecdotal evidence is much better than intersubjectively verifiable statistics? That seems like a lame cop out, either show statistics or provide context as to why the crime rate is so high (i.e. "most of the crime is non-violent" or "most of the crime committed only occurs against other criminals, so the average person is safe" or something like that). "You're not from the country" is a very cheap, populist ploy to win a debate.

What I'm talking about is mostly characterizations, like "the streets in America run red with blood" sort of thing. I can and will attack statistics when I think they're wrong or that the methodology used to compile them was biased, but when dealing with a purely subjective statement from someone who's merely parroting second hand info, questioning their qualification to make said statement can be appropriate. I don't need to tell you that statistics can be misleading if not outright wrong, and I don't think you really think that first hand experience is valueless either. Sure, debate nationalism is often misused, but to say it's always bad overstates the case.

EXACTLY. Also statistics are subject to interpretation and attribution of cause and effect just like personal experience is. Neither of em should be relied on alone, but there's no substitute for seeing things first hand.

Sure there is.

MANY people, who are versed in methodology and elimination of variables in a controlled environment seeing things first hand.

There is by definition no argument that can be made,
except about one's own experiences,
which would be considered empirically-supported by ONE'S OWN EXPERIENCES.

Not "not relied on alone", but not relied on at ALL.

Science fail.

Patriotism- the belief that your country is the best in the world simply by virtue of you being born there

f**k that s**t!

"It is easy to lie with statistics, but it is easier to lie without them.”

I stand by my position. Debate nationalism is fundamentally an intellectually obstructionist ploy generally used by those who are either too inarticulate to make their objections effable or to lazy to debunk claims. Furthermore, it's based on little merit, is difficult to overcome (you'd have to book a trip to some destination to "refute" it), and may very well be prejudicial (what if the foreigner was to "you're neck of the woods" on a few occasions and got mugged every time?).

Does this principle only apply when discussing different locations? For example, can one argue about the lifestyle and choices of the poor without having been poor yourself? Can I as a white man credibly argue about the life difficulties faced by woman or minorities without having personally experienced them? If they're treated differently, why are these areas that one can only learn about through personal experience vs research when research alone is sufficient for arguing about what it's like to live somewhere?

Sometimes there is no substitute for experience; London has been described to me but I wouldn't try and tell someone who lives there how to get around in it. On the other hand, I'd be inclined to take my doctor's word for it when he tells me a something is going to be painful even if he hasn't experienced it personally; this is context.