Interesting definition of nationalism - how it relates to Macedonia

[sf.]

If you think about it, it is quite reasonable. You think it is about being in love with your country. But why love your country? What is so special about it? Clearly you love it because it is better than all other countries. Otherwise you would not love it. By declaring your love for your country (in a patriotic way), you are declaring there is none better.

Then you do not understand me. I love Macedonia and the Macedonians because they are my people and it's my culture and heritage. This is why I want to see the country and people prosper. It has nothing to do with notions of superiority. Do I believe that Macedonians are better? No. Worse? No. People are generally the same the world over.

But that has nothing to do with my question about whether nationalism is good for Macedonia.

There's no need to go in circles here. We've established that the assessment of the notions depends on the definition used. I provided my definitions/interpretations and based my answers on this.

[Risto the Great]

Then you do not understand me. I love Macedonia and the Macedonians because they are my people and it's my culture and heritage. This is why I want to see the country and people prosper. It has nothing to do with notions of superiority. Do I believe that Macedonians are better? No. Worse? No. People are generally the same the world over.

I want to see Macedonia prosper too. I accept that other nations will potentially have to suffer for Macedonia to be better off. We are indeed talking about competition amongst nations and should take note of Delchev's famous quote. You want lovely things for Macedonia and choose to look at the rosier side of things.

There's no need to go in circles here. We've established that the assessment of the notions depends on the definition used. I provided my definitions/interpretations and based my answers on this.

Your opinion appears to be as follows:

People here have spoken about secret conspiracies (eg Brandeburg), but the evidence is there in plain sight. And nationalism, with its focus on states and outdated political concepts, doesn't account for the imminent dangers brought on by the nwo.

I am not trying to attack you in any way. Just trying to make sense of your conclusions. Are you suggesting a better development for Macedonia would bypass nationalism? What would it entail?

[Rogi]

I'm not sure that it is right in purpose and correct in definition to equate Nationalism with some sort of zero-sum notion.

[sf.]

Edit: @ RTG

OK, perhaps I'm not being understood here. Let's try a little exercise.

I don't know you personally, but from your posts here and the testimonials others have posted, I feel I understand your character well and that we're more on the same page than you think. So with confidence, I would like you to indulge me for a moment and contemplate the following (I don't want or expect an answer here): how would you describe your character, values, and role in society (professional, personal, family relationships)? Who or what experiences instilled these in you? How do these inform your actions as a man?

Now think of someone that you personally know that perhaps rubs you the wrong way. What is so disagreeable about this person?

Then reflect on my argument. If you still don't understand my POV after this, then no amount of words I expend here will suffice.

[Risto the Great]

sf., I will let you know what colour jocks I wear later. (My hint is Red & Gold)
I am still trying to understand your argument. What are you actually saying? I think it is "Patriotism is good, nationalism is bad ... nationalism is out of date we need something new" ??

What is it?
How do we replace "nationalism" with something else and develop a future for Macedonia?

[mango]

Why is that, why most of Macedonian intelectuals are cosmopolitan?

And why the right to defend its own existance, identity and language is marked as - nationalism?

Even Mangovski should re-edit a bit his opinion.

/snip/

The only thing I would change is that there are more and more intelectuals that are nationalists, fortunately. Unfortunately they are not in power. The cosmopolits, on the other hand, have a powerful grip on the media.

I should define what I mean by nationalism. IMHO there are two types: patriotism and chavinism. I certainly had in mind the former and stand by what I wrote many years ago.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Wasn't aware that you were around the MTO Mango, welcome.

[Risto the Great]

Welcome Mango.
It is pleasing to hear that more intellectuals are grasping the need for healthy nationalism. It can be the only way forward in my opinion.

[mango]

Welcome Mango.
It is pleasing to hear that more intellectuals are grasping the need for healthy nationalism. It can be the only way forward in my opinion.

Thanks for the welcomes, guys. It's a pleasure to be in company of true patriots.

[TrueMacedonian]

Nationalism is healthy. Yet it can be harmful. I think that there has to be a balance because when we start hearing of certain Macedonian scholars making ludicrous claims of a 70,000 year old Macedonian language then I have to question his validity and all of his lifes works.
Alot of the scholars in this specific field have their own definitions of Nation, State, Nationalism, Patriotism, etc. It gets confusing. I remember when we were having a 40 page long debate on the definition of nation as applied to Macedonia and Macedonians. This is the definition of Nation from Miroslav Hroch;

"Now the 'nation is not, of course, an eternal category, but was the product of a long and complicated process of historical development in Europe. For our purposes, let us define it at the outset as a large social group integrated not by one but by a combination of several kinds of objective relationships (economic, political, linguistic, cultural, religious, geographical, historical), and their subjective reflection in collective consciousness. Many of these ties could be mutually substituable - some playing a particularly important role in one nation-building process, and no more than a subidiary part in others. But among them, three stand out as irreplaceable: (1) a 'memory' of some common past, treated as a 'destiny' of the group - or at least of its core constituents; (2) a density of linguistic or cultural ties enabling a higher degree of social communication within the group than beyond it; (3) a conception of the equality of all members of the group organized as a civil society."

Hroch, Miroslav. "From National Movement to the Fully-formed Nation: The Nation-building Process in Europe," in Balakrishnan, Gopal, ed. Mapping the Nation. New York and London: Verso, 1996: pp. 78-97. See especially p. 79.

What do you guys think of Hroch's definition where it concerns Macedonia and the Macedonians?

Last time I used Symmons-Symonolewicz alot of you agreed with his definition of nation (except for Vangelovski) so here it is again;

a territorially-based community of human beings sharing a distinctive variant of modern culture, bound together by a strong sentiment of unity and solidarity, marked by a clear historically-rooted consciousness of national identity, and possessing, or striving to possess, a genuine political self-government.

[Risto the Great]

a territorially-based community of human beings sharing a distinctive variant of modern culture, bound together by a strong sentiment of unity and solidarity, marked by a clear historically-rooted consciousness of national identity, and possessing, or striving to possess, a genuine political self-government.

I don't believe I can agree with this.
I think it may well be closer to a definition of an ideal nation. But we know many nations exist that do not meet this criteria, therefore it cannot be correct.

[TrueMacedonian]

Fair enough Risto. What do you think of Miroslav Hroch's definition which is again;

"Now the 'nation is not, of course, an eternal category, but was the product of a long and complicated process of historical development in Europe. For our purposes, let us define it at the outset as a large social group integrated not by one but by a combination of several kinds of objective relationships (economic, political, linguistic, cultural, religious, geographical, historical), and their subjective reflection in collective consciousness. Many of these ties could be mutually substituable - some playing a particularly important role in one nation-building process, and no more than a subidiary part in others. But among them, three stand out as irreplaceable: (1) a 'memory' of some common past, treated as a 'destiny' of the group - or at least of its core constituents; (2) a density of linguistic or cultural ties enabling a higher degree of social communication within the group than beyond it; (3) a conception of the equality of all members of the group organized as a civil society."

[Risto the Great]

Fair enough Risto. What do you think of Miroslav Hroch's definition which is again;

I think the complication with all definitions is that it is difficult to extricate the emotional attachment one has with the concept of a nation and Macedonia.

a large social group integrated not by one but by a combination of several kinds of objective relationships (economic, political, linguistic, cultural, religious, geographical, historical), and their subjective reflection in collective consciousness. Many of these ties could be mutually substituable - some playing a particularly important role in one nation-building process, and no more than a subidiary part in others. But among them, three stand out as irreplaceable: (1) a 'memory' of some common past, treated as a 'destiny' of the group - or at least of its core constituents; (2) a density of linguistic or cultural ties enabling a higher degree of social communication within the group than beyond it; (3) a conception of the equality of all members of the group organized as a civil society.

I am not adverse to this. It makes sense to me. I do not believe point (3) is essential at all however.