Print

[razgueado]

Let's talk about nationalism.  The term seems to have developed a severely negative connotation.  As a guy who is fascinated by words and by the usage of words, this interests me.  By definition, "nationalism" and "patriotism" broadly overlap.  But it would seem that most people have a negative view of "nationalism" and a positive view of "patriotism." 

Do you think nationalism is a negative thing?  Where do you believe the line is between nationalism and patriotism?  Why?

I was a little confused at first because I didn't associate a negative connotation with the word NATIONALISM. Now I see what you were asking. No, I don't see this as a negative thing, but I can understand how it can be used in a divisive way, and I'm not happy about that.

Linking the word with something else, as TD indicated, can automatically put it into controversial territory - i.e. "White Nationalism" or "Christian Nationalism." But I'm more interested here in the word itself, which frequently enough is put into a negative light without linking it to other things.

I consider myself a realist, especially about international affairs, so like TD I cannot be considered an isolationist. But I expect y'all might find my views on America's role in foreign affairs rather...intense, perhaps? Maybe even "ultranationalist?"

But we're not going there. This is just about concepts. I'm curious whether y'all consider yourselves more nationalist, more internationalist, or somehow both.

I agree with that also.  For years we have been obsessed with spreading "democracy" to combat communism.  That pursuit has been totally FUBAR.  We have made a bigger mess of the middle east with our meddling and now are looking to do the same thing in South America.  None of our business.

Well, you said you weren't isolationist.  Is there any type of foreign involvement that is not "meddling?"  China pours money into South and Central America, and Russia, and even the mideast.  Is that not "meddling" on their part? And is their meddling not our interest? Is it only our business if it involves Europe? 

Again, genuine inquiry.  What's the line between "not isolationist" and "meddling?"

[Travellin Dave]

Let's talk about nationalism.  The term seems to have developed a severely negative connotation.  As a guy who is fascinated by words and by the usage of words, this interests me.  By definition, "nationalism" and "patriotism" broadly overlap.  But it would seem that most people have a negative view of "nationalism" and a positive view of "patriotism." 

Do you think nationalism is a negative thing?  Where do you believe the line is between nationalism and patriotism?  Why?

I was a little confused at first because I didn't associate a negative connotation with the word NATIONALISM. Now I see what you were asking. No, I don't see this as a negative thing, but I can understand how it can be used in a divisive way, and I'm not happy about that.

Linking the word with something else, as TD indicated, can automatically put it into controversial territory - i.e. "White Nationalism" or "Christian Nationalism." But I'm more interested here in the word itself, which frequently enough is put into a negative light without linking it to other things.

I consider myself a realist, especially about international affairs, so like TD I cannot be considered an isolationist. But I expect y'all might find my views on America's role in foreign affairs rather...intense, perhaps? Maybe even "ultranationalist?"

But we're not going there. This is just about concepts. I'm curious whether y'all consider yourselves more nationalist, more internationalist, or somehow both.

I agree with that also.  For years we have been obsessed with spreading "democracy" to combat communism.  That pursuit has been totally FUBAR.  We have made a bigger mess of the middle east with our meddling and now are looking to do the same thing in South America.  None of our business.

Well, you said you weren't isolationist.  Is there any type of foreign involvement that is not "meddling?"  China pours money into South and Central America, and Russia, and even the mideast.  Is that not "meddling" on their part? And is their meddling not our interest? Is it only our business if it involves Europe? 

Again, genuine inquiry.  What's the line between "not isolationist" and "meddling?"

Nothing wrong with helping other countries, sharing technology, assisting when asked.  Meddling is trying to ACTIVELY force regime change or putting inappropriate strings on aid or cooperation. 

[razgueado]

Let's talk about nationalism.  The term seems to have developed a severely negative connotation.  As a guy who is fascinated by words and by the usage of words, this interests me.  By definition, "nationalism" and "patriotism" broadly overlap.  But it would seem that most people have a negative view of "nationalism" and a positive view of "patriotism." 

Do you think nationalism is a negative thing?  Where do you believe the line is between nationalism and patriotism?  Why?

I was a little confused at first because I didn't associate a negative connotation with the word NATIONALISM. Now I see what you were asking. No, I don't see this as a negative thing, but I can understand how it can be used in a divisive way, and I'm not happy about that.

Linking the word with something else, as TD indicated, can automatically put it into controversial territory - i.e. "White Nationalism" or "Christian Nationalism." But I'm more interested here in the word itself, which frequently enough is put into a negative light without linking it to other things.

I consider myself a realist, especially about international affairs, so like TD I cannot be considered an isolationist. But I expect y'all might find my views on America's role in foreign affairs rather...intense, perhaps? Maybe even "ultranationalist?"

But we're not going there. This is just about concepts. I'm curious whether y'all consider yourselves more nationalist, more internationalist, or somehow both.

I agree with that also.  For years we have been obsessed with spreading "democracy" to combat communism.  That pursuit has been totally FUBAR.  We have made a bigger mess of the middle east with our meddling and now are looking to do the same thing in South America.  None of our business.

Well, you said you weren't isolationist.  Is there any type of foreign involvement that is not "meddling?"  China pours money into South and Central America, and Russia, and even the mideast.  Is that not "meddling" on their part? And is their meddling not our interest? Is it only our business if it involves Europe? 

Again, genuine inquiry.  What's the line between "not isolationist" and "meddling?"

Nothing wrong with helping other countries, sharing technology, assisting when asked.  Meddling is trying to ACTIVELY force regime change or putting inappropriate strings on aid or cooperation.

Do you think China or Russia are playing by those rules?

[A Friend of Charlie]

Let's talk about nationalism.  The term seems to have developed a severely negative connotation.  As a guy who is fascinated by words and by the usage of words, this interests me.  By definition, "nationalism" and "patriotism" broadly overlap.  But it would seem that most people have a negative view of "nationalism" and a positive view of "patriotism." 

Do you think nationalism is a negative thing?  Where do you believe the line is between nationalism and patriotism?  Why?

I was a little confused at first because I didn't associate a negative connotation with the word NATIONALISM. Now I see what you were asking. No, I don't see this as a negative thing, but I can understand how it can be used in a divisive way, and I'm not happy about that.

Linking the word with something else, as TD indicated, can automatically put it into controversial territory - i.e. "White Nationalism" or "Christian Nationalism." But I'm more interested here in the word itself, which frequently enough is put into a negative light without linking it to other things.

I consider myself a realist, especially about international affairs, so like TD I cannot be considered an isolationist. But I expect y'all might find my views on America's role in foreign affairs rather...intense, perhaps? Maybe even "ultranationalist?"

But we're not going there. This is just about concepts. I'm curious whether y'all consider yourselves more nationalist, more internationalist, or somehow both.

I agree with that also.  For years we have been obsessed with spreading "democracy" to combat communism.  That pursuit has been totally FUBAR.  We have made a bigger mess of the middle east with our meddling and now are looking to do the same thing in South America.  None of our business.

Well, you said you weren't isolationist.  Is there any type of foreign involvement that is not "meddling?"  China pours money into South and Central America, and Russia, and even the mideast.  Is that not "meddling" on their part? And is their meddling not our interest? Is it only our business if it involves Europe? 

Again, genuine inquiry.  What's the line between "not isolationist" and "meddling?"

Nothing wrong with helping other countries, sharing technology, assisting when asked.  Meddling is trying to ACTIVELY force regime change or putting inappropriate strings on aid or cooperation.

Do you think China or Russia are playing by those rules?

I know you're asking Dave, but I'll reply in his stead. Absolutely not, China and Russia are not playing by those rules. But like I tell my own kids, what the heck does that have to do with how we behave?

[Travellin Dave]

Exactly.  It's not like they are having success with their efforts either.

[Travellin Dave]

Missed page 3...

[Travellin Dave]

also...

[Travellin Dave]

then...

[Travellin Dave]

finally...