[adaml_623]

There is an important point in there though.

You are not your government. It's possible to love your country while not accepting that the actions and authority of your government are correct.

Edward Snowden obviously loves his country and the people of it.

[smokeyj]

> Edward Snowden obviously loves his country and the people of it.

I think Snowden's actions demonstrate a motivation more virtuous than preserving nationalistic ideals. His acted in the name of humanity! It wasn't just about American's 4th amendment, but the privacy of the people of the world.

> It's possible to love your country while not accepting that the actions and authority of your government

What is a country but the actions of it's government? A country without a government is just.. people?

[gyardley]

A country minus the government is usually more than 'just people' - it's often a group of people with a shared history, culture, and language, what's often referred to as a 'nation'.

When people talk about their love of country as distinct from their love of their country's government, they're generally expressing appreciation for a set of national characteristics that'll likely endure for a lot longer than their current government.

[smokeyj]

> it's often a group of people with a shared history, culture, and language, what's often referred to as a 'nation'

But nationalism applies to a specific territory -- as defined by a government. It just seems arbitrary to love people of a certain territory and not another due to a border established by a monopolistic force on violence.

[gyardley]

Nationalism applies to a nation. Some nations have governments, and some don't. Some governments govern over multiple nations peacefully, and many others don't. Some nations without governments have aspirations to form them, while others don't. Even tying a nation to a specific territory is problematic - some nations, often due to persecution, are widely dispersed in a diaspora.

You're trying to simplify something that's rather complex because you don't like nationalism - but people almost universally have more affection towards those who share things in common with them, and that's all nationalism is at its core. Borders on a map don't create this national affection - instead, nationalism creates the borders! When borders get out of sync with nations, you get war and unrest, both within and between countries, and when this happens, it's usually the border that eventually ends up getting adjusted, with exceptions only achieved through brutal repression.

[smokeyj]

It sounds like nation is another word for culture.. am I far off?

I guess I don't understand the point of nationalism -- besides the obvious -- to distinguish and dehumanize people of other cultures.

In your opinion, should people take pride in the color of their skin?

[gyardley]

Culture is a big part of it, yes, but often 'nation' does include aspects of ethnicity. Like I said, the term is complex.

Nationalism is something people seem to naturally do. Whether it has a 'point' or not in 2013 is pretty irrelevant - if people are doing it anyway, it's important to try and understand it. While nationalism certainly does distinguish people, it doesn't follow that it dehumanizes others. Having a 'love of country' is perfectly compatible with recognizing the humanity of those not in it.

As for your last question, of course not. I'm a little curious why you asked me that. Do you think I'm some sort of racist for trying to explain a concept to you that's prevalent across the globe?