Quote:
|
Originally Posted by demonrail666
That's part of the problem. Nationalism in Britain anyway is very selective about what it celebrates as 'great'. It celebrates institutions (the monarchy, the military) but sees any kind of radicalism as running counter to that greatness. So the SAS are celebrated but not the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Women's Institute but not The Diggers - and yet it was that radical spirit which had far more of a hand in the creation of things like the Welfare State - something I'd happily wave a union jack for over a royal wedding. And it's why I support the campaign to make Blake's 'Jerusalem' the national anthem.
|
i had to read a bunch of wikipedia articles to know what you were talking about, which is great (well, not about blake, you caught my reference to him i think, but about everything else).
and yes: it's usually the vast majority of idiots which defines "nationalism" these days, and on the worst possible terms.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nefeli
basically this.
stupid:its like missing the point. of life, humanity.
dangerous: its used to serve interests.
|
right, but without XIX century nationalism you'd still be in the ottoman empire, no? (there would still be an ottoman empire, probably, all the way to bosnia. also, india would still be a colony. but there would be no nuclear arms race with pakistan... always many sides to everything).
serbia/kosovo/etc