[KingOfCoders]

Oh no, another thread that will bring the nationalists out (see the hundreds of Wikipedia fights about nationality and naming of famous people). The Wikipedia page of Curie had it's share.

As if it is important from what nation a person is who gifted humanity with a piece of art, an invention or scientific breakthrough. I wonder why people are so eager to associate their nation with the results of individuals. I never felt the urge or understood the reasoning.

[AlexTWithBeard]

It's important for two reasons.

First, it's just a precautionary measure. Every once in a while I have to remind my children that USA is not the only great country in the world. Other countries have also fought for their land, produced great artists and scientists and usually have quite an interesting history.

Second, putting my scientific hat on, if some country has much more/less scientists than another, then at least the fact should be noted and reflected upon.

[konjin]

It is then odd that the majority of scientists have rejected nationalism for as long as nations existed.

[saiya-jin]

It is kind of sad you have to actually remind your kids about that, don't you think?

Balanced, objective education system would have no problem learning kids exactly that, but in many places that's a pipe dream. And US is surprisingly, at least in some aspects, one of those places.

[KingOfCoders]

I agree. Germany has lost scientists in three waves. First those who fled the Nazi regime, then those killed by the Nazi regime, then those trading their crimes for a future in the US or Soviet Russia afterwards. Then no one was left.

I disagree with the concept of "Other countries have produced great artists" though.

Assume the discussion about the difference or non-difference of the regime and the people here.

[adventured]

I agree with your sentiment, generally speaking. It derives from needing to pull pride from another thing through self-selected association. It's the same thing that sports fans do when their preferred team wins a championship. You see all sorts of weird permutations of this concept in action. When NASA or SpaceX does something, it's said to be an accomplishment for all of humanity, people around the world want a piece of that pride, to be part of a great thing.

It's a component of tribalism (and neither inherently positive nor negative), probably deeply wired into humanity. It also happens around race, religion, politics and ideology broadly.

Why? Well, the answer is a mixed bag of positives and negatives. It's the same reason people obsess over celebrities (tabloids, fan groups, and so on). Their own lives are not very interesting, they lack/yearn for accomplishment, so they desperately seek to fill voids via the things they take an interest in, trying to grab hold of accomplishment elsewhere, slice off a tiny bit of that for themselves through distant association. It's why nations culturally revel in their historical accomplishments, even if they were 2,000 years ago. On the positive side, it probably helps create bonds between people socially, culturally, and is likely a requirement for the formation and sustainment of civilization (drawing pride from a thing, allocates self-interest in supporting/protecting the thing).

[thefounder]

There is no single answer for this but I believe it also helps promote better systems(political/economical). It's obvious that a gifted person without support from the environment can achieve very little. Think of what Steve Jobs would have achieved if he was to be born and raised in Syria. Not much I would say.

Therefore I believe it's right for people to pull pride from someone's else work through association. You (would) have no SpaceX without the US capitalist system.

When NASA or SpaceX does something, it's an accomplishment of the very people working there, then of the people who supported them and not least of all the humanity. It'a like winning a war. It's not only the people that fight in the front lines that matter. It's a whole system.

[KingOfCoders]

I think Budha achieved a lot.

[imtringued]

Individuals don't exist in isolation. When you are associating results of individuals with a nation you are acknowledging that the farmer, the truck driver, the grocery store employee, the construction workers, etc all contributed their part to society that enabled the result of that individual.

This article is associating the success of Marie Curie with the group of women that supported her directly. Nations are just large groups of people.

When an individual claims to have done everything on his own it reeks of narcissism. A lot of wealthy people never talk about the support they have received and claim their individuality to be the sole reason of success even when their wealth was built on the backs of millions.

[rootsudo]

I always felt like it was the only thing people could relate to. "Wow, we're from the same place, see we are (better,best,number1)" vs actually contributing to their own nation.

But, I also think being proud of the country you're/belong to in isn't a bad thing either.

So fun stuff.