Yeah, I know, it's not the kind of article you'd normally find here. I'm posting it because I find it to be a curious artifact. I came across it while thinking about the concept of Nationalism,...
Yeah, I know, it's not the kind of article you'd normally find here. I'm posting it because I find it to be a curious artifact. I came across it while thinking about the concept of Nationalism, and I remember way back in high school I had textbooks talking about nationalism as a bad thing (and of course not going into any depth because high school students aren't supposed to actually learn anything in history class), and I was wondering why it might have made such a bold statement. When I saw this article from the Heritage Foundation so high on the list, I just had to read it.
It doesn't seem to be that bad at the beginning, but it's also shrouded in very poorly defined details. If you're not well-vested in the topic of Nationalism - I happen to be on this boat - then it just seems strange that he's building this very specific wall around the term to define what is and isn't called nationalism.
It's not until the 3rd quarter that he reveals what this article is actually about. He wants to promote American Exceptionalism. What makes American Exceptionalism different from Nationalism? Because "It doesn't necessarily mean that we are better than other peoples, though I think probably most Americans do believe that they are."
This article goes and reaches into all sorts of reason why American Exceptionalism isn't Nationalism. He invents the concept of a universal American Creed, which is laughable on it's face; Americans are a diverse people with hundreds and thousands of different creeds. Keep in mind that he has already described progressives and liberals to have ideas that are counter to the concepts he brings up.
The most egregious statement he makes is as follows:
Another benefit of American exceptionalism is that it is self-correcting. When we fail to live up to our ideals as we did with slavery before the Civil War, we can appeal as Lincoln did to our “better nature” to correct our flaws. That is where the central importance of the creed comes in. Applying the principles of the Declaration of Independence correctly has allowed us to redeem ourselves and our history when we have gone astray.
Of course, this didn't happen. Slavery caused half of the country to secede and only gave up on slavery because they lost their war for independence.
And then there is the ending statement:
It was our creed and the belief system that was personified and lived in a culture, our institutions of civil societies and our democratic way of government that made America the greatest nation in the history of all nations. In a word, it was our belief in ourselves as a good and free people. That's what made American exceptional. That's what made us a free country. And it continues to do so today.
He's literally telling everyone that they should adopt nationalism-with-a-different-name, not to ever think about if our actions are good or bad because they are always, by definition, good, and to never question the poorly defined narratives about what it is that they should be deeply believing in.
This article is a nightmare. It's compelling you to embrace Nationalism - but to never use the term - and to blindly follow any pro-America narrative you see.
Just yesterday I read this article from Jonathan Heidt, and while I don't tend to agree with him very often, I think his comparison to the Tower of Babel is pretty apt. In the past few years we have seen vast swaths of people change their definition of words in a way that serves to affect political change. You've seen the mischaracterization and misunderstanding of "identity politics". You've seen the creation of "cancel culture" to flip the script on who is right and wrong on any given issue. Most notably you've seen "critical race theory" become a wall to prevent people from communicating about issues of race. The well has been poisoned and I'm not sure what I can do to prevent things from becoming worse.
I will never vote on anything submitted here that was produced by The Heritage Foundation, who are a morally reprehensible organization. And also worth noting is that the Wikipedia article on them...
I will never vote on anything submitted here that was produced by The Heritage Foundation, who are a morally reprehensible organization. And also worth noting is that the Wikipedia article on them doesn't even mention all their anti-LGBT stances and lobbying activities either, for some unknown reason; See: Their views on Marriage & Family, Gender, etc.
But thanks for the write-up, and providing your insights into the downright Orwellian views that they are espousing on Nationalism.
Yeah, I’m sorry for posting it like this. It was only after I submitted it that I realized it would have been better to put the link in my comment instead.
Yeah, I’m sorry for posting it like this. It was only after I submitted it that I realized it would have been better to put the link in my comment instead.
No worries. You can always do a Text Topic too, BTW. When submitting, if you don't put a URL in the Link section, any text (including links) you put in the Text section below that will count as...
No worries.
better to put the link in my comment instead
You can always do a Text Topic too, BTW. When submitting, if you don't put a URL in the Link section, any text (including links) you put in the Text section below that will count as the submission. And when it comes to submitting controversial material, that's probably the better way to do it, since that way context can be provided first. Whereas having the submission and comment separate from each other can lead to weird situations like another comment taking the top spot, making it harder for people viewing the Topic to understand the context of the submission.
@Akir's breakdown is exactly what we need when it comes to institutions like Heiritage. At that surface level, the title is great: Nationalism is incredibly problematic. So Heiritage can build a...
@Akir's breakdown is exactly what we need when it comes to institutions like Heiritage.
At that surface level, the title is great: Nationalism is incredibly problematic. So Heiritage can build a lot of goodwill from a catchy title.
It's only upon a critical reading that things like this show their true colors.
A 'critical analysis' tag of sorts might be useful in that vein.
I agree that it's beneficial to expose this sort of stuff, which is why I thanked Akir for their comment. However, submitting a link directly to controversial sites and only explaining why in a...
I agree that it's beneficial to expose this sort of stuff, which is why I thanked Akir for their comment. However, submitting a link directly to controversial sites and only explaining why in a comment can be a bit problematic (even with a topic tag), for the reasons I mentioned in my followup comment. So I would personally prefer stuff like this be submitted as a Text topic instead.
Yeah, I know, it's not the kind of article you'd normally find here. I'm posting it because I find it to be a curious artifact. I came across it while thinking about the concept of Nationalism, and I remember way back in high school I had textbooks talking about nationalism as a bad thing (and of course not going into any depth because high school students aren't supposed to actually learn anything in history class), and I was wondering why it might have made such a bold statement. When I saw this article from the Heritage Foundation so high on the list, I just had to read it.
It doesn't seem to be that bad at the beginning, but it's also shrouded in very poorly defined details. If you're not well-vested in the topic of Nationalism - I happen to be on this boat - then it just seems strange that he's building this very specific wall around the term to define what is and isn't called nationalism.
It's not until the 3rd quarter that he reveals what this article is actually about. He wants to promote American Exceptionalism. What makes American Exceptionalism different from Nationalism? Because "It doesn't necessarily mean that we are better than other peoples, though I think probably most Americans do believe that they are."
This article goes and reaches into all sorts of reason why American Exceptionalism isn't Nationalism. He invents the concept of a universal American Creed, which is laughable on it's face; Americans are a diverse people with hundreds and thousands of different creeds. Keep in mind that he has already described progressives and liberals to have ideas that are counter to the concepts he brings up.
The most egregious statement he makes is as follows:
Of course, this didn't happen. Slavery caused half of the country to secede and only gave up on slavery because they lost their war for independence.
And then there is the ending statement:
He's literally telling everyone that they should adopt nationalism-with-a-different-name, not to ever think about if our actions are good or bad because they are always, by definition, good, and to never question the poorly defined narratives about what it is that they should be deeply believing in.
This article is a nightmare. It's compelling you to embrace Nationalism - but to never use the term - and to blindly follow any pro-America narrative you see.
Just yesterday I read this article from Jonathan Heidt, and while I don't tend to agree with him very often, I think his comparison to the Tower of Babel is pretty apt. In the past few years we have seen vast swaths of people change their definition of words in a way that serves to affect political change. You've seen the mischaracterization and misunderstanding of "identity politics". You've seen the creation of "cancel culture" to flip the script on who is right and wrong on any given issue. Most notably you've seen "critical race theory" become a wall to prevent people from communicating about issues of race. The well has been poisoned and I'm not sure what I can do to prevent things from becoming worse.
I will never vote on anything submitted here that was produced by The Heritage Foundation, who are a morally reprehensible organization. And also worth noting is that the Wikipedia article on them doesn't even mention all their anti-LGBT stances and lobbying activities either, for some unknown reason; See: Their views on Marriage & Family, Gender, etc.
But thanks for the write-up, and providing your insights into the downright Orwellian views that they are espousing on Nationalism.
Yeah, I’m sorry for posting it like this. It was only after I submitted it that I realized it would have been better to put the link in my comment instead.
No worries.
You can always do a Text Topic too, BTW. When submitting, if you don't put a URL in the Link section, any text (including links) you put in the Text section below that will count as the submission. And when it comes to submitting controversial material, that's probably the better way to do it, since that way context can be provided first. Whereas having the submission and comment separate from each other can lead to weird situations like another comment taking the top spot, making it harder for people viewing the Topic to understand the context of the submission.
Yes, that was what I meant.
@Akir's breakdown is exactly what we need when it comes to institutions like Heiritage.
At that surface level, the title is great: Nationalism is incredibly problematic. So Heiritage can build a lot of goodwill from a catchy title.
It's only upon a critical reading that things like this show their true colors.
A 'critical analysis' tag of sorts might be useful in that vein.
I agree that it's beneficial to expose this sort of stuff, which is why I thanked Akir for their comment. However, submitting a link directly to controversial sites and only explaining why in a comment can be a bit problematic (even with a topic tag), for the reasons I mentioned in my followup comment. So I would personally prefer stuff like this be submitted as a Text topic instead.