# How important is your nationality for you?



## veleño

¿how important is your nationality for you?

There's a lot of migration in the world, the people move for job, money, love, etc. and they leave their countries, customs, etc. 

I guess there should be people without a stable home!!!

So, would you move easily to another country or perhaps you think twice about it?


----------



## Mirko_87

depends........i'd like to study in UK, but i want to return to my country for work


----------



## .   1

My nationality is of no importance to me at all.
I will shortly be free of the requirement to stay in my country and I intend to have a bit of a wander.
I will most probably wind up back here but I want to have a look to see if reality is distorted through the media lens.  I reckon that most people are pretty much the same all over the world and I want a chance to find out.

.,,


----------



## John-Paul

I wish there was a World Passport - but that would be a paradox.


----------



## Trina

John-Paul said:


> I wish there was a World Passport - but that would be a paradox.


What a lovely idea. Were do I apply?

Speaking for me personally, and not for all Australians, it used to be a lot more important to me than it is now. When I was younger, I defended Australia from even the slightest slur. Now, I tend to believe that a lot of the time, we probably deserve it.
I think my change in attitude came after I started travelling a bit overseas. As they say, _Travel broadens your horizons.
_Yes, I could just pack up and move to another country tomorrow but at the same time if that opportunity never arose, I would be perfectly happy living here.


----------



## Nunty

Maybe it's a language issue (!), but for me "nationality" and "citizenship" are two different things. I might change the country where I live, and that country might grant me nationalized citizenship (meaning I hold its passport, can vote, and so on), but my _nationality_ as an Israeli Jew, albeit a Catholic one, remains unchanged.

I have the feeling that this sort of question has very different meanings in Europe and North America, for example, than in the Middle East.


----------



## Joelline

I find it interesting (and somewhat amusing) that not a single American has answered yet.  We are taught (rightly or wrongly) from the cradle that everyone wants to come to the USA, so the idea that we might want to live in another country is alien to the vast majority of the population.  I don't know what our emigration rate is, but I would guess that it was comparatively low.

The older I get, the more I think that I could easily live elsewhere for 1/2 of the year, but not permanently.


----------



## Trina

Joelline said:


> [...]
> * The older I get*, the more I think that I could easily live elsewhere for 1/2 of the year, but not permanently.


That's exactly how I feel! I wonder if this is widespread?


----------



## maxiogee

Nationality, like religion and other divisive concepts, is a thing to which I have no great attachment. More and more I see my Irishness as just an accident of birth - something over which I had no control and which my parents could have changed but didn't.
I do not thank anyone or anything that I was not born somewhere else, nor do I offer thanks that I was not born something else.
Yes, of course I would be a different person had I been born in Xyzland, or had I been born black, or a woman or into a different religion - but as being any of those wouldn't be better or worse than what I was born as, there is no reason for pride, thankfulness or vanity.

I agree with the World Passport. I see no good reason to keep anyone out of any country. And we're going to need something like that when the dirty rotten Martians arrive and start taking all our jobs.


----------



## Brioche

. said:


> My nationality is of no importance to me at all.
> I will shortly be free of the requirement to stay in my country and I intend to have a bit of a wander.
> I will most probably wind up back here but I want to have a look to see if reality is distorted through the media lens. I reckon that most people are pretty much the same all over the world and I want a chance to find out.
> 
> .,,


 
If you are leaving Australia then your nationality will be of great importance. 
The passport you hold will determine which countries you can visit without a visa, for how long you can stay, whether you can work, and so on.
It will also determine whether you can come back to Australia.

Having an Australia passport also means that you can take advantage of reciprocal health care agreements in Finland, Italy, Norway, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 

If you are an Australian citizen, and have no second passport, the only country where you can legally work without a permit is New Zealand.

You'll find that not everyone is the same. If they were, they'd be no point in leaving home!


----------



## .   1

G'day Brioche,
I do not understand you quoting me but not making a comment.

.,,


----------



## natasha2000

Nun-Translator said:


> Maybe it's a language issue (!), but for me "nationality" and "citizenship" are two different things. I might change the country where I live, and that country might grant me nationalized citizenship (meaning I hold its passport, can vote, and so on), but my _nationality_ as an Israeli Jew, albeit a Catholic one, remains unchanged.
> 
> I have the feeling that this sort of question has very different meanings in Europe and North America, for example, than in the Middle East.


 
I completely agree with you, Nun. I might get the Spanish citizenship, as a matter of fact, I want it due to all benefits it has over Serbian citizenship. But I will always be a Serbian girl, even though my way of living is more similar to a Spanish than to a Serbian one. 

On the other hand, I do not give too much importance to it. My nacionality is just a fact, so I treat it like this. I don't consider myself better of worse than the others. In the world of constant migrations, the nationality has each time less importance, unlike the citizenship, just as Brioche described. Some passports give youthe possibility to feel like a person, and others to make you feel like a persecuted and unwanted dog. So much about the just world we live in.


----------



## Etcetera

When I was a bit younger... well, what a strange statement for a girl of 20. Nevertheless, when I was 15, I the only thing I could dream about was leaving Russia and moving to Europe. Now things are quite different. I still want to go abroad, but not to live there all the time. I would like to study and work for some time in the UK, Finland ot Italy, but I can't think of abandoning St. Petersburg any more. 
I don't have great love for Russia. There's too many things I dislike about the laws, the authorities, the media. But I'm too fond of my home city. 
Frankly, I would define my nationality as "Petersburger" rather than "Russian".


----------



## ireney

I am not sure what the question is about. I am Greek and I will continue to be Greek even if I move to another country. It's not as if I can switch nationality even if I wanted to (citizenship is another thing altogether; if that is what is asked no, I am not attached to my citizenship all that much although I would like to be able to have double citizenship). And I see no reason why I could possibly want to. I don't know if that counts as being attached or not.
Now am I attached to living in Greece?  Well I haven't lived abroad for long so I cannot say for sure. Knowing that I'll return I didn't even think about the whole thing. In general though, if there's a good enough reason (and in my case there is), the only thing keeping me back, the only thing that makes me try to find a solution that will allow me not to leave for the time being is family (parents to be exact).


----------



## natasha2000

I am not sure about this question. I understood it if my nationality is important to me, i.e. in my case, if being a Serbian is important to me. But I see that people broaden this question to: Is it important to you to live in your own country? or Could you live in some other country other than your own? Well, if this was a queston, too, here's the answer:
I already live in a country other than mine. The only thing I miss is my family and friends, and a couple of national dishes. Nothing more. As a matter of fact, I would like to travel more, to go to other places to live and work, but as I said, my Serbian citizenship is not very helpful at all...


----------



## palomnik

As for myself, only work is keeping me here in the USA.

Once I retire, which I am trying to do early, I'm leaving and never coming back...


----------



## cuchuflete

How important is my nationality for me?  You decide.  After living in a country for over half a century, one adopts a perspective based on assumptions about everyday life, the way things "are" or "ought to be".   I've lived in other countries, so I'm fairly open to acknowledging and sometimes embracing other ways of looking at things than those of my nation.  Still, it's a lot of baggage. If and when I next go to another country to live, I'll carry that baggage with me, and hope I can stash it in a closet while I try to learn to see things with local eyes.


----------



## JazzByChas

First, being in this forum is my idea of a "neighborhood" in which I'd like to live...I am ethnically a multi-racial person who has never been particularly drawn to any one culture....now, like Cuchu, I have lived in the U.S.of A most of my life, and have a rather uniquely American point of view. I will say, however, that I appreciate and endorse all cultures. With all the emmigration taking place all over the world...cultural influence from all over the world permeates a good majority of the countries in the world.

I also suppose, given my "World Passport," I would like to visit a different country than the USA...and ultimately return to the country of my origin.


----------



## ayaram7700

Hello everybody,

I came to the US when I was *51 years of age*, it was like being born again, even though I had been to other countries like France and Spain, Argentina, Colombia, and US before, but just as a tourist. I came to the US for good although  I love my old country, Chile. I adapted to life here perfectly well. I miss my family, my friends, colleagues, coworkers, the streets, BREAD, special places, music, and so many other things,  which is  natural, but I try to live in harmony with a new environment in the best possible way. 

I am completely CHILEAN, in every aspect, and it is very important to me, because it is a great part of who I am, of my own identity. In nine years I have never lost the way in which we speak, the special sayings, like "al tiro" and others, and whenever I call my family or friends, I ask them if they can detect anything strange in my accent and I feel happy when they say NO. My American co-worker keeps teasing me, he calls me "Chile" or "the lady from Chile", as I am a little fanatic. I would never be anything but Chilean, at least inside. And I am proud of it. I consider my nationality IMPORTANTISIMA.

Loving this thread,


Ayaram7700


----------



## invictaspirit

Although I agree with maxiogee that my Englishness is an accident of birth, it does not stop me from being very fond of it.  I have lived in the USA, Spain and the Netherlands, and enjoyed myself in those three places, but would not emigrate anywhere permanently.  I am too rooted here, and living where I do (with London and Paris both a short train-ride away) suits my interests.

I enjoy my life very, very much and consider myself an extremely happy, fulfilled person.  Part of that life is the fact that most of it takes place in England.  I'm therefore in no hurry to leave.


----------



## topaze

I agree with all you say Ayaram,
it 's especially when you are far from your country that you can feel how close you are from.See how emotionaly we are when watching at the TV the olympic games ! We are made of all surroundings that belong our country.Of course we can move for work,wedding or thousand other reasons ,but I think we deeply keep in heart our country where we were born,and growing up.


----------



## JamesM

To me, the question of how much my nationality is important to me comes more into focus if I think of raising my children elsewhere. While I would want them to be completely at home in my adopted country, I wouldn't want them to look at Americans as "them" with some strange idea about the country and its people. 

I'd want them to experience the country I grew up in, meet their relatives, and have a sense of what it is like to live in the U.S. I'd want them to be able to speak English comfortably enough to be able to move freely and easily in the U.S. on their visits, so that they could explore on their own. I'd want them to have an awareness of our traditions, the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves, and the different "characters" that are identified as quintessentially American. So I think it means more to me than I'd care to admit. 

As for this thread, it's one of the most interesting I've ever read on this board! I keep finding questions pop up for me from reading other people's comments:

From .,,: "I will shortly be free of the requirement to stay in my country..."

What requirement are you under to stay in your country? I'm having trouble imagining the circumstances, so I'm wondering if things are very different in Australia somehow.

From Nun-Translator: "...but my nationality as an Israeli Jew, albeit a Catholic one, remains unchanged." 

A Catholic Jew.... I'd love to hear how this came about and how you see the two of these co-existing.

From ayaram7700: "I came to the US when I was 51 years of age, it was like being born again,..."

I'm curious what you mean by "born again" here... in what way? 


Of course, many of these are not directly related to the topic, but I wanted to say that the thread is provoking lots of thought.


----------



## .   1

JamesM said:


> From .,,: "I will shortly be free of the requirement to stay in my country..."
> 
> What requirement are you under to stay in your country? I'm having trouble imagining the circumstances, so I'm wondering if things are very different in Australia somehow.


My daughter is almost old enough to be independent and I am almost financially secure.  When the almosts become are I am gone.

.,,


----------



## JamesM

. said:


> My daughter is almost old enough to be independent and I am almost financially secure. When the almosts become are I am gone.
> 
> .,,


 
Ah!  Well, good for you on both counts!  

- James


----------



## ayaram7700

JamesM said:


> To me, the question of how much my nationality is important to me comes more into focus if I think of raising my children elsewhere. While I would want them to be completely at home in my adopted country, I wouldn't want them to look at Americans as "them" with some strange idea about the country and its people.
> 
> I'd want them to experience the country I grew up in, meet their relatives, and have a sense of what it is like to live in the U.S. I'd want them to be able to speak English comfortably enough to be able to move freely and easily in the U.S. on their visits, so that they could explore on their own. I'd want them to have an awareness of our traditions, the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves, and the different "characters" that are identified as quintessentially American. So I think it means more to me than I'd care to admit.
> 
> As for this thread, it's one of the most interesting I've ever read on this board! I keep finding questions pop up for me from reading other people's comments:
> 
> From .,,: "I will shortly be free of the requirement to stay in my country..."
> 
> What requirement are you under to stay in your country? I'm having trouble imagining the circumstances, so I'm wondering if things are very different in Australia somehow.
> 
> From Nun-Translator: "...but my nationality as an Israeli Jew, albeit a Catholic one, remains unchanged."
> 
> A Catholic Jew.... I'd love to hear how this came about and how you see the two of these co-existing.
> 
> From ayaram7700: "I came to the US when I was 51 years of age, it was like being born again,..."
> 
> I'm curious what you mean by "born again" here... in what way?
> 
> Of course, many of these are not directly related to the topic, but I wanted to say that the thread is provoking lots of thought.


 

JamesM, 

What I meant was that, coming to live in another country when you are older, starting over, living so many different things, even getting used to a new job, new food, everything makes you feel that this is  a new life. In many aspects I felt like I did not know anything. When I came to this country I worked as a baby sitter (In Chile I did  something else, and it does not mean that I regret anything) and I had never done it before, but I loved it. The first girl I helped raise  is now 8 1/2 years old, so many things have changed in my life, what I feel now is that I am like two different people, and the person I am now is young and open to change, growing up fast... And I feel brave, bold and ready to go anywhere. Like a seven-year-old.

Regards,

Ayaram7700


----------



## JamesM

ayaram7700 said:


> ... what I feel now is that I am like two different people, and the person I am now is young and open to change, growing up fast... And I feel brave, bold and ready to go anywhere. Like a seven-year-old.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ayaram7700


 
Wow, Ayaram7700!  That sounds like a ringing endorsement for the experience of emigrating.  I'd love to feel "brave, bold and ready to go anywhere."  Thanks for sharing that.  It's inspiring.


----------



## ferran

My point of view: 
My nationality has not a big importance to me. I can't say I'm proud of my nationality. I'd rather say I dislike it because of mentality people in my country have, history... On the other side it made me appreciate foreign countries, customs, people, which doesn't happen often in Croatia. 
For my way of thinking and behaving I don't match here and I'm not the only one.
I think I could/will easily leave and move to another country that I like and prefer, of course. For now, being from Croatia doesn't bring me many goods since we're not part of EU. So, it's much harder to create a new life abroad. Hopefully, that will change soon.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Ooops, what an unpatriotic spirit throughout the thread!! 
Having lived in over 50 countries, I would definitely decline any idea of a World Passport, I strongly believe in nationalities and the spirit of belonging as well as in the ability of all nations to respect each other and inhabit this world peacefully. But I think, it is only people like me who realise how much belonging means to an individual. It is OK if you are in your country all the time, you might feel like you don`t really need it but once you realise you are not at home anywhere and not part of any group anymore...well, it is hard. We humans are social animals and tend to belong to a group. Even if we destroy the boundaries of the nationalities which we have today, we will soon form new divisions, that`s our nature. Don`t see any wrong with it. Don`t know why it has recently acquired the connotations of essential aggression twds others going with it side by side.


----------



## Nunty

JamesM said:


> [...]
> From Nun-Translator: "...but my nationality as an Israeli Jew, albeit a Catholic one, remains unchanged."
> 
> A Catholic Jew.... I'd love to hear how this came about and how you see the two of these co-existing. [...]



Off-topic and chat. Not to mention religion, politics and the Middle East. We'd never get away with it here, but you know how to reach me.


----------



## dificilima

I would ask first what you mean by nationality.  Both legally and personally, it is defined differently in different places.    Some countries confer nationality on anyone whose mother was physically on their national territory at the time of birth.  Others, notoriously Germany before 2000, defined it as anyone, born anywhere with "German blood,"  excluding non-ethnic Germans who have been resident in the country for generations from the possibility of naturalization.  Some countries demand that other citizenships/nationalities be given up upon naturalization.  Others do not ever recognize any renunciation of citizenship by their nationals.   Then there is your personal identity and how others perceive you.  I carry a US passport most of the time these days, but people continue to ask me where I'm "really" from or tell me how well I speak English.  Even though I've spent the greater part of my life here, many people still don't consider me American.    I was born in Taiwan, the descendant of Austronesian aborigines intermarried with Chinese who settled there in the 17th century. My family had been living there for over 10 generations without ever setting foot in China yet some would call me Chinese.   I left Taiwan as a toddler and have not lived there in 40 years.  I barely speak the language and am culturally and technically illiterate when I visit.  There are very few jobs I'm qualified to hold there.  My Taiwanese passport is not recognized by the vast majority of countries in the world.  At times, I have been labeled as stateless.   Most of my childhood was spent in South America.  That is where I was educated.  My parents are Brazilian citizens.    I am now an expatriate living in different countries around the world.  Although based in the US, I don't really spend much time there.    People often ask me where I'm from and I never know how to answer.  For all practical purposes, I seem to have become a professional foreigner.  I have many coworkers with similar mixed backgrounds and I think the numbers are growing.   When you ask how important my nationality is to me, I ask you back, what do you consider my nationality?


----------



## maxiogee

Setwale_Charm said:


> Ooops, what an unpatriotic spirit throughout the thread!!



Yes, and isn't it great that so many people are unpatriotic?
Patriotism has led to some of the greatest instances of "man's inhumanity to man". 
Once we begin to identify ourselves with groups we quickly realise that this automatically means that other people are not of our group.
On the personal level of family and village this is probably not a bad thing.
But on the inpersonal level of nations/countries/states I see no good in it.
There is another thread running titled "American Bashing" - could that happen if it were on a family or village level?  
Could gross generalisations be made about one's next door neighbours or about the folks who live two miles away - and would one's listeners let one get away with it? 



Setwale_Charm said:


> Don`t know why it has recently acquired the connotations of essential aggression twds others going with it side by side.


I'd argue with your use of "recently". History is littered with the corpses of those who couldn't get on with those of another nation. It's been going on for millennia.


----------



## natasha2000

Setwale_Charm said:


> Don`t know why it has recently acquired the connotations of essential aggression twds others going with it side by side.


 
Maybe because as humans we are not able just to be aware of the fact that you are X nation and I am Y and to finish with this there. Human being has some inexplicable urge to say, confirm an reconfirm that HIS group is better than others, that HIS group has more rights to something that others, that other groups are there to serve his group, end many other nonsences we had the opportunity to hear and see through the history of a humanity. And because a human being is ready to kill, torture, violate and do many other horrifying things to other fellow human being only because the other does not belong to his group. This is sad. And this is why many people here don't mind so much about their natonality any more.


----------



## Cecilio

Having a nationality is like belonging to a club, in some cases a very exclusive club. In my case, I have a Spanish ID. That means I have free health care, good highways, free education, retirement benefits, democracy, not to mention small details like notm being at war, having drinkable water and electriciuty at home, etc., etc. That's nationality for me. I laugh a lot when some people 'deny' belonging to a given country. Do they also refuse the benefits involved in being a member of such a priviledged club? That's what nationalities are about, and that's why so many millions are trying desperately to escape their own countries (or clubs) and to join another country (or club), generally a better, more exclusive one.


----------



## natasha2000

Cecilio said:


> Having a nationality is like belonging to a club, in some cases a very exclusive club. In my case, I have a Spanish ID. That means I have free health care, good highways, free education, retirement benefits, democracy, not to mention small details like notm being at war, having drinkable water and electriciuty at home, etc., etc. That's nationality for me. I laugh a lot when some people 'deny' belonging to a given country. Do they also refuse the benefits involved in being a member of such a priviledged club? That's what nationalities are about, and that's why so many millions are trying desperately to escape their own countries (or clubs) and to join another country (or club), generally a better, more exclusive one.


Cecilio, this is so cruel and sad, but it is also very, very true...


----------



## invictaspirit

Is it not true, however, that we seem to enjoy a mixture of what unites us all as human beings *but also what divides us and makes us different*?

I contend that too much unity or too much division causes want, war and unhappiness. We seem to need a measure of unity and commonality and an equal measure of difference. In that balance lies the nation state.

The nation is an imperfect construct but it *the least imperfect we have come up with.*

Nationalism has brought freedom to many people and slapped down the hand of colonial oppression (Irishness, for example).

Nationalism has brought unity and greater size and power when people felt cut off from those who they saw as their cultural, national and linguistic kin by artificially small states (Italy and Germany in the 19th Century would be prize examples of how nations have needed to increase from small units to form a distinct common identity).

And history is replete with examples of smaller communities trying to break free from larger ones, where an over-riding unity is seen to be faulty (East Timor, Kosovo, and many others).

It seems to me that *trans-national states always fail* (USSR, Yugoslavia, multiple views of what the European Union should or should not be, perhaps one day Spain and the UK?). And likewise, *busting up areas that to many are nations and dividing them into artificial small countries also fails* (Germany, Italy in the past, and currently, arguably the Arab lands, large parts of Africa etc).

I disagree that the nation is a damagingly divisive construct. I think we need and like it. We seem to need to settle ourselves into states with broadly similar people who to some extent share our culture and language. I accept that there are exceptions. But history to me seems full of nations who needed to shake themsleves into bigger areas to be with those who they identified as their countrymen, or to shake themselves into smaller communities to rid who they saw as their countymen from a foreign or unwelcome neighbour.

Who would argue with these citizens:

A Dubliner in 1910 who wanted an Irish state.
A Prussian and a Bavarian in 1805 who both felt German.
A Lombard and a Venetian who both felt Italian in 1822.
A Lithuanian in 1988 who was sick of rule from Moscow.
A Ugandan who feels artificially seperated from a Kenyan today.


----------



## Vanda

> ...More and more I see my Irishness as just an accident of birth - something over which I had no control and which my parents could have changed but didn't.
> I do not thank anyone or anything that I was not born somewhere else, nor do I offer thanks that I was not born something else.
> Yes, of course I would be a different person had I been born in Xyzland, or had I been born black, or a woman or into a different religion - but as being any of those wouldn't be better or worse than what I was born as, *there is no reason for pride, thankfulness or vanity.* (my highlight)
> I agree with the World Passport. I see no good reason to keep anyone out of any country


 
I totally agree with Maxiogee. I have no merit being born in my country and speaking the language I do. Those are things neither of us have chosen or have anything to do with it. I either could be Italian hadn't my ancestors emigrated or a native indian. Nobody asked me where I wanted to be born or which language I liked the most to be my own. If I were born French, for example, or Japanese, that would mean I should come here and say this (any of them) is the best. So it is just a matter of which side you are. 
Of course, I feel better here because I was born here, I like my language because it is emotially linked to me. It would be the same thing, I repeat, if I were .... Germany!


----------



## natasha2000

Vanda said:


> It would be the same thing, I repeat, if I were .... Germany!


 
Precisely! Because if you were born in Germany, you would have got used to German way of life, and not Brasilian one. The fact thqt nations are only the handful oc circumstances and bad/good luck are people who were born in other countries other than their parents'. A German born in Spain will behave, think and talk like a Spaniard, although German blood will still run through his veins. He would be a Spaniard a 100 %. 

A long time ago, we had a TV presenter in Serbia who was black. His parents came to Serbia from Africa to study (as in those days we were non-aligned country and offered benefits for students from non-aligned countries, there were quite number of African students in Belgrade). Eventually, they stayed in Belgrade, and there his son was born. It was so unusual to hear a dark faced person speaking Serbian with no accent even using a great deal of slang when speaking, (you'll see, there are not many black persons living in Serbia). Due to the color of his skin, we kept on forgeting that he is as much Serb as any of us.


----------



## karuna

invictaspirit said:


> A Lithuanian in 1988 who was sick of rule from Moscow.



Lithuania was occupied by the USSR, so it was no wonder that they didn't like it. But then they joined the EU as soon as they could. Of course, nationality – native language, culture, religion – is very important to people, but conflicts around the world are not sightly. The EU seems a good compromise – keeping independent nation states in global free economy.

If we could minimize the conflicts around the world in the similar way with free movement of workers and close economic ties, yet independent nation states, I would want to get a world passport at once. Humans are not simply biological organisms that can only listen to their natural impulses, they can dream and make their dreams true to certain extent and trancend their dark side.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

I'm following this thread with a lot of intrest, but this particular quote struck me:



natasha2000 said:


> A German born in Spain will behave, think and talk like a Spaniard, although *German blood *will still run through his veins. He would be a Spaniard a 100 %.


 
What is German blood? Or for that mater, any kind of [nation X] blood??? What exactly do you mean by this? Nationalism defined by the amount of red, white blood cells and platelets swimming in the plasma?

Could you please explain?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## natasha2000

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm following this thread with a lot of intrest, but this particular quote struck me:
> 
> 
> 
> What is German blood? Or for that mater, any kind of [nation X] blood??? What exactly do you mean by this? Nationalism defined by the amount of red, white blood cells and platelets swimming in the plasma?
> 
> Could you please explain?
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank


It is hards to explain. And at the same time easy. Having blood of some nation means having antcestors of the same nation.. For example, this German of ours from my previous post, would have both granparents from both sides German, and greatgrandparents, etc. I see it just as a fact, that shouldn't be forgotten, but it also shouldn't be given any importance. I see it as an existing fact, and that's it. The thing is tha many people don't see it as afact, and then oblige their children to learn the language of their parents, or grandparents, against their will, they keep on talking to them that they are something that they are not any more (they were when they were born, but as they were growing up, they just stopped to be)-. If a child has an interest inknowing his roots, its ok. But if he doesn't ..

Let me explain in something more concrete. I, for instance, have  Serbian, Croatian, Czech, German and Polish blood, but I was born and raised in Serbia, so, I feel Serbian, but I never forget thatr my blood is not only Serbian. It is not good, it is not bad. It is just  ...  a simple fact.


----------



## micafe

Joelline said:


> I find it interesting (and somewhat amusing) that not a single American has answered yet. We are taught (rightly or wrongly) from the cradle that everyone wants to come to the USA, so the idea that we might want to live in another country is alien to the vast majority of the population. I don't know what our emigration rate is, but I would guess that it was comparatively low.
> 
> The older I get, the more I think that I could easily live elsewhere for 1/2 of the year, but not permanently.


 
Well... the problem for people who were born American is that if they want to naturalize in another country they have to renounce their American Citizenship. Something that happens in very few countries. And, of course, not many people are willing to do that.

When a foreigner becomes an American citizen he's supposed to renounce his former citizenship. The problem is... many countries do not recognize that, and that's how you become a *'dual citizen'*. The US knows dual citizenships exist, but there's nothing they can do about it. 

The funny thing is, the only Americans that have the privilege of having two or more citizenships, are the ones that were not born in this country. It doesn't sound fair, does it. 

I liked this forum.. I'll be back. In the meantime I'll go back to the 'Spanish English forum'..


----------



## Joelline

Micafe,
The original questions did not concern citizenship:


veleño said:


> ¿how important is your nationality for you?
> 
> So, would you move easily to another country or perhaps you think twice about it?


 
If the question had been "How important is your citizenship to you? Could you renounce your native citizenship and take up easily that of another country," I would have posted a very different answer: My citizenship is very important to me; I wouldn't renounce it for all the tea in China!  So, you may be right: the option of dual citizenship (which I would willingly entertain) is precluded for me, and nothing would induce me to give up my current citizenship.


----------



## mkaminski

I'm American... but that just says where I'm from. I don't think nationality is of much importance. We're all world citizens.


----------



## ernest_

For me, my nationality is half important. I do not consider myself to be patriotic or nationalist, but I think that my nation is in real danger of disapearing. We are not very numerous and do not have a State that protects us. I would like to know what is like being a nation with a State, like the Netherlands or Denmark, etc. but I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime.


----------



## Nunty

mkaminski said:


> I'm American... but that just says where I'm from. I don't think nationality is of much importance. We're all world citizens.


With all due respect, that is true in terms of ecology and of sharing resources and so on, but not on a day-to-day basis.

Just one example. Your American passport and my Israeli one are not "good" for the same countries. Some Lebanese citizens (nuns, professionals, some others) can have visas to Israel for specific purposes. _No_ Israeli can set foot in Lebanon. (This has been true for years; it is not a function of the recent war.) I can't go to most Arab countries; just Jordan and Egypt. I can't go to the US without a visa; you can come to Israel and get a 3-month tourist visa on arrival at the airport. I'm not picking on the US. Much of this can be said for much of Europe, too.

Things are always more complicated than they seem.


----------



## maxiogee

Nun-Translator said:


> With all due respect, that is true in terms of ecology and of sharing resources and so on, but not on a day-to-day basis.
> 
> Just one example. Your American passport and my Israeli one are not "good" for the same countries. Some Lebanese citizens (nuns, professionals, some others) can have visas to Israel for specific purposes. _No_ Israeli can set foot in Lebanon. (This has been true for years; it is not a function of the recent war.) I can't go to most Arab countries; just Jordan and Egypt. I can't go to the US without a visa; you can come to Israel and get a 3-month tourist visa on arrival at the airport. I'm not picking on the US. Much of this can be said for much of Europe, too.
> 
> Things are always more complicated than they seem.



Perhaps this is more due to the mentality behind the concept of passports than that behind the concept of 'world citizen'.
Issuing your citizens with passports is not only done to identify them, it is to distinguish them from others.


----------



## micafe

Joelline said:


> Micafe,
> The original questions did not concern citizenship:
> 
> 
> If the question had been "How important is your citizenship to you? Could you renounce your native citizenship and take up easily that of another country," I would have posted a very different answer: My citizenship is very important to me; I wouldn't renounce it for all the tea in China! So, you may be right: the option of dual citizenship (which I would willingly entertain) is precluded for me, and nothing would induce me to give up my current citizenship.


 
Well, he did talk about 'nationality' -which in my language means almost the same as 'citizenship'-, not about 'residency'. Maybe I misunderstood him. 

I was just giving information that some people might be interested in. Not everybody knows that.


----------



## badgrammar

Hi Micafe, 

Actually, i think that is a misconception about the U.S. recquiring people to renounce their citizenship in other countries.  I know lots and lots of foreign-born US citizens who are still citizens of their original countries, and lots of American citizens that are also citizens of other countries.  It is not a problem.

This was discussed at length in another thread.

I would not give up my US citizenship, unless I had to, to continue living in France.  I am defnintely American, even though it is no longer my home.  My nationality is, for better or for worse, a part of me.  If I said it were not, it would be like denying where I come from...  it would be dishonest.  That does not say anything about what I think about my homeland's government, or any of the social/economic/moral issues dealt with there.  But that's were I was raised, it's part of me. 



micafe said:


> Well... the problem for people who were born American is that if they want to naturalize in another country they have to renounce their American Citizenship. Something that happens in very few countries. And, of course, not many people are willing to do that.
> 
> When a foreigner becomes an American citizen he's supposed to renounce his former citizenship. The problem is... many countries do not recognize that, and that's how you become a *'dual citizen'*. The US knows dual citizenships exist, but there's nothing they can do about it.
> 
> The funny thing is, the only Americans that have the privilege of having two or more citizenships, are the ones that were not born in this country. It doesn't sound fair, does it.
> 
> I liked this forum.. I'll be back. In the meantime I'll go back to the 'Spanish English forum'..


----------



## karuna

Joelline said:


> If the question had been "How important is your citizenship to you? Could you renounce your native citizenship and take up easily that of another country,"



I, for one, would renounce my citizenship in exchange for better one (for example, of the USA  ) in a blink of an eye. But I could never change my nationality and stop being Latvian. Citizenship to me is just a system of social responsibilities and rights. It doesn't concern native language, culture, religion, race, tradional clothing, cuisine, music and all other distinctive things that makes our nationality. 

Consequently I think that the world citizenship would be a good idea as it would ensure equal rights and protection for everyone on this planet. Yet, there is no need to abolish nations.


----------



## badgrammar

I think when you leave your country and immigrate elsewhere is the moment when your nationality becomes an issue.  And not before.  Go somewhere else for 15 years, then talk about how your nationality has no bearing on who you are. 

Edited to add: I am not directing this at anyone in particular...  Just something I wanted to add.


----------



## Lusitania

Well, like Vanda said. Nationality has to do with the place where you were born and the tag you get on you with it. For me, what more important it's identity. Many people live here and although they haven't been born here, they would be more nationals than me.

What I find really good about it is my language as it's like being part of a huge family and also culture. Identity it's more important for me, that's what relates to other people living in the same country as me and in other countries with similar characteristics.


----------



## Calloway

my nationality is not a huge importance it is what i am,in the near future i have a dream of traveling latin american (mainly) mexico,puerto rico...i would love the chance to live in a latin american country for a few months but permanently i dont know


----------



## Brioche

badgrammar said:


> I think when you leave your country and immigrate elsewhere is the moment when your nationality becomes an issue. And not before. Go somewhere else for 15 years, then talk about how your nationality has no bearing on who you are.


 
You won't need to go for 15 years!

If Maxiogee [for example] goes from Dublin to live in Dingle, as far as the locals are concerned he'll be a Dubliner for the rest of his life, and prove it everytime he opens his mouth.  If he goes to Dubrovnik, to the locals, he'll be a Irishman for the rest of his life, however good his Croatian becomes.

If you stay away long enough, you may end up in a neither-nor situation. You and your homeland will change, and you may feel a little out of place in what was once "home". So you may not quite fit in either place.


----------



## Layzie

I dont care for nationalism. I also think it's a poor word. I was born and have lived in virginia all my life. If I go to europe, I'm an american, but what does that mean? I'm not the same as someone from texas, california, or alaska for that matter. People are shaped by their immediate surroundings, but beyond a certain radius you just happen to be in between imaginary borders. If I move to new york or something I'd be known as "that guy from virginia" so why is it any different from going to europe and being known as "that american guy"? Europeans wouldnt be sure I'm american anyways, because then there's that thing about me being mestizo. The reason some of us cling to "ism" is because we're brainwashed with it. I'm in high school, and I'm supposed to identify strongly with my school and consider the other high schools as "rivals". I laugh at that notion. I'm too much of an individualist to ever be nationalist.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Ok, so I seem to be in proud opposition to most of you here.


----------



## cuchuflete

Not really.  There seem to be at least three factions, or tribes, or () nations here:

—Unrepentent and proud nationalists, a.k.a., Setwalians;
—Those who think that nationalism is a baaaaaad thing;
—The many who acknowledge that place, upbringing, habit, etc.
are part of themselves, whether they like it or not.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

cuchuflete said:


> Not really. There seem to be at least three factions, or tribes, or () nations here:
> 
> —Unrepentent and proud nationalists, a.k.a., Setwalians;
> —Those who think that nationalism is a baaaaaad thing;
> —The many who acknowledge that place, upbringing, habit, etc.
> are part of themselves, whether they like it or not.


 
 I am not an UNrepentent nationalist. I am moderate so I may repent some day, provided I duly pray, fast and the rest. 
 And do not forget you talking about Charming Setwalians and I suggest you head straight for Wikipedia to register the newly discovered species and thus make yourself enter in history.


----------



## micafe

badgrammar said:


> Hi Micafe,
> Actually, i think that is a misconception about the U.S. recquiring people to renounce their citizenship in other countries. I know lots and lots of foreign-born US citizens who are still citizens of their original countries, and lots of American citizens that are also citizens of other countries. It is not a problem.


 
No, badgrammar, it's not a misconception. It's real. Yes, of course you know lots of foreigners who are US citizens and are also citizens of their original country. I *am* one of them. The truth is, they made me renounce my former citizenship but then, the government of my country does not recognize that, so they won't allow me to lose my citizenship. And there's nothing the US can do about it.

I'll copy here the first part of the Oath of Allegiance, so you'll see. I took it from my papers I still have: 

_*Oath of Allegiance*_
_I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state and sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that_….. (and then comes the rest)

On the other hand, if a US citizen marries a foreigner and is automatically granted the other country's citizenship, he/she will *not* lose his/her US citizen. 

But... -and I also got this from my papers-: 

_However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship...._

They don't joke, badgrammar. They are very serious. They just can't do anything about dual citizenship, they even ignore it and don't talk about it. The worst mistake you can do is show -by mistake, or whatever- both your passports when you go through immigration to enter the US; they get really upset. 
So you'd better put your other passport where nobody can see it.


----------



## mirx

How important is my nationality for me?

Well I think I agree with most of you guys here.

I was born in Durango, Mex. Do I feel Mexican?
I'd ask then what being mexican means.

I don't find anything interesting in chile, I have hated beans all my life and tortillas just don't appeal to me.

Do I regret having born in Mexico? well, why should I regret soemthing I didn't have influence in.

I've been living in Ireland for a time now, and honestly I can tell you, the only things that make me remember I am Durangian are a couple of regional dishes, and when my family calls to say hi.

Cecillio posted a very practical definiton of citizenship, I couldn't agree more with it, and I can say that I like much better the club where I am in now.

Somebody also said, that we needed our nationalism to feel part of something. well from my personal experience and as far as I've seen here, many of us don't have absolutely nothing in common with the people of our respective countries.

So, I may not speak Irish, but I didn't speak mayan or tepehuan back home, if I don't fit with the social contexts here it would be ok. But if I ever went back to Mexico and not fitting wth the social contexts there, well That's a problem, and an issue I am not willing to go through again.

I love where I am, and had never felt so much in home before. (Mexico is a nice club though)


----------



## maxiogee

micafe said:


> The truth is, they made me renounce my former citizenship



What?
You were forcibly 'converted' into an American citizen, against your will?

Oh, that's different - you sought this new citizenship, voluntarily.
You meant to say that the US requires those who wish to acquire American citizenship to show some commitment to their new country - commitment best evinced by renouncing one's previously espoused nation.




micafe said:


> On the other hand, if a US citizen marries a foreigner and is automatically granted the other country's citizenship, he/she will not lose his/her US citizen.
> 
> But... -and I also got this from my papers-:
> 
> However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship....



There is a big difference between acquiring something as a consequence of a separate action and acquiring it by application.


----------



## Nunty

My mother was a US citizen. I was born in Israel. When we moved to the US I was a kid and I don't know what our family status was, but I do know that I was admitted to university as an American, not a foreign, student and I had a social security number. Some years later I moved back to Israel, and here I was not considered an immigrant, but a returning resident and had to explain why I had never reported to the army when I was drafted. Somewhere along the line I acquired an American passport, but it's expired since I came back to Israel 24 years ago or so, and I haven't bothered with it. 

Kind of flattering, actually. Everyone just sort of assumes I'm "theirs".


EDIT: Forgot to relate to the question. 

For me "nationality" is much the same as "ethnicity" and cannot be changed. "Citizenship" is different and is far less important to me, except that I'd love to go to Saudi Arabia some day and Isarelis are not allowed in.


----------



## mirx

Nun-Translator said:


> My mother was a US citizen. I was born in Israel. When we moved to the US I was a kid and I don't know what our family status was, but I do know that I was admitted to university as an American, not a foreign, student and I had a social security number. Some years later I moved back to Israel, and here I was not considered an immigrant, but a returning resident and had to explain why I had never reported to the army when I was drafted. Somewhere along the line I acquired an American passport, but it's expired since I came back to Israel 24 years ago or so, and I haven't bothered with it.
> 
> Kind of flattering, actually. Everyone just sort of assumes I'm "theirs".
> 
> 
> EDIT: Forgot to relate to the question.
> 
> For me "nationality" is much the same as "ethnicity" and cannot be changed. "Citizenship" is different and is far less important to me, except that I'd love to go to Saudi Arabia some day and Isarelis are not allowed in.


 
When the time comes, you may want to bother with the american passport, and enjoy yourself in Saudi Arabia


----------



## Nunty

mirx said:


> When the time comes, you may want to bother with the american passport, and enjoy yourself in Saudi Arabia


Unfortunately, an American passport issued in Israel is as useless as an Israeli one for the countries that don't have dipolomatic relations with Israel.

I'll wait. I have great patience!


----------



## natasha2000

Brioche said:


> If you stay away long enough, you may end up in a neither-nor situation. You and your homeland will change, and you may feel a little out of place in what was once "home". So you may not quite fit in either place.


Sometimes, I feel just like this...


----------



## PhilFrEn

HI everyone,

I have never seen this thread before, I am glad that I have let my eyes running throught this forum today.

Nationality...a great debate is this word, we could argue hours and hours without making breaks. A nationality in my opinion, is somehow a way of life (of course, don't yell immediately, everything is relative and here is only my point of view!!). 

Somehow, I am French, born in the moutains, in Northen Alpes, where a lake and mountains were and are still fighting to know who is the most beautiful thing to see. Probably both together make the charm of my town Annecy.

Anyway, I let my tought running. What I want to say, is that a Nationality is on one hand as embedded in minds as figerprints are in your hand. I am and live in Deutschland right know, I work over there, have fun here, have my life with my girlfriend here. My girlfriend is German, so that we mix our culture. I learn from her, she learns from me. But the most interesting thing, is that I am in my case becoming day after day more and more German.
Why? I speak more and more the language, I take German breakfast habits among others. A nationalty is leading people to behave in a way that you can be recognized. I take an example: you are around a table, you are having lunch with 5 persons (German, English, Russian, French and let's say Greek), the first person which is going to ask why there is no water on the table will be recognized as French. That's the point.

But what's with when you loose such habit? Do you become less French?
And what's with children who are wearing a double nationality, like my futur children will be german/french? How to wear habits of two bigs countries? 

I am proud to be French, not because of political reasons, this is off topic, but I am proud to live a nice country, where freedom is since a long time embedded in our mind. I am happy to be European, because I can travel as I want. I have taken this chance to come in Germany. result: I live now. And now, I am becoming German a little bit more every day...


Conlusion: a nationality is not a Passport, your make your own nationality, mainly with habits .


----------



## djchak

I think your post is very intresting, although I really don't agree with certain aspects of it.


----------



## ireney

PhilFrEn said:


> Why? I speak more and more the language, I take German breakfast habits among others. A nationalty is leading people to behave in a way that you can be recognized. I take an example: you are around a table, you are having lunch with 5 persons (German, English, Russian, French and let's say Greek), the first person which is going to ask why there is no water on the table will be recognized as French. That's the point.




Awwww! And I always thought I am Greek!  No, honestly, the French person who is going to beat me to asking about water has still to be born . I'm not saying it's the norm in Greece, I have no idea how fast my compatriors would be in asking for water.

Jokes aside, I think that _this_ is the trap about thinking that nationality means a specific thing and can be therefore recognised from stereotypical actions and reactions.


----------



## micafe

maxiogee said:


> What?
> You were forcibly 'converted' into an American citizen, against your will?
> 
> *No, I was not!!!*
> 
> Oh, that's different - you sought this new citizenship, voluntarily.
> You meant to say that the US requires those who wish to acquire American citizenship to show some commitment to their new country - commitment best evinced by renouncing one's previously espoused nation.
> 
> *I apologize if my English is not as good as yours. Yes, that's what I meant.*
> 
> There is a big difference between acquiring something as a consequence of a separate action and acquiring it by application.
> 
> *Who said the opposite?.*


 
I'm not trying to argue in any way. I'm just telling what I went through because my experience tells me that very few people know about this. I think it's interesting to know. 

I did not lose my Colombian citizenship and I'm very happy for that. I knew that before I became a US citizen. If I were to lose my Colombian citizenship I wouldn't have become a US citizen because no matter how many problems it may have, I love my country a lot. 

Now I feel privileged. There's nothing wrong with that. I live in the US. I am a citizen of this country. I'm married to an American-born citizen, (and that's not why I married him either!) I love it here, I'm very happy. On the other hand, I love going to Colombia at least once a year and seeing  my family and friends whom I miss very much and eating the delicious food.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

ireney said:


> Jokes aside, I think that _this_ is the trap about thinking that nationality means a specific thing and can be therefore recognised from stereotypical actions and reactions.


 
Yes!  That is exactly what I think.  I have been following this thread since it was born (  ), and I hadn't dared to reply since the original post that started it all seemed a bit ambiguous to me.

Take me, for instance.  I was born and raised in Venezuela, but my blood is a crazy mingle.  You can find all kind of traces in it: French, Brazilian, Portuguese, Scot, American (United Statean?  ), Spanish (Iberian? Spaniard? "From Spain"?)...

Spanish is my native language, but English is the language of my soul (I used to keep a diary in English, not in Spanish.  I just can't write poetry in Spanish, but I can in English.  My favourite musicians are English speaking people, and the films I like are seldom in Spanish).

I look like a French woman (that, said by most French people, surprised by the contrast caused by my evidently foreign accent, and my Frech surname and French-looking face)

However, I feel Venezuelan, since I am Venezuelan in many ways, especially legal and cultural ones (nationality, citizenship, habits, most cultural aspects and even sense of humour  ).  My nickname proves I don't mean to hide all that sum of things that make me who I am.  But, I am totally aware I am the way I am just because of an accident, which is, being born in Caracas.

So, if I were attached to my nationality,  I would not really be attached to that accident, but rather, to the things I learned while growing up (and that I have learned to love).  

And, if I moved to France (which nearly happened a few months ago), and I got my French citizenship, would I stop being Venezuelan?  It depends on the point of view.  

Let's take it further: If I had to give up my habits in order to fit up there, would I stop feeling this "Venezuelan blood" in my veins?  Or, what if I didn't get the citizenship, but I happened to like the French lifestyle and values better? (see? ambiguous...).  So, what are we, really, talking about?


----------



## invictaspirit

ireney said:


> Awwww! And I always thought I am Greek!  No, honestly, the French person who is going to beat me to asking about water has still to be born . I'm not saying it's the norm in Greece, I have no idea how fast my compatriors would be in asking for water.
> 
> Jokes aside, I think that _this_ is the trap about thinking that nationality means a specific thing and can be therefore recognised from stereotypical actions and reactions.


 
You are absolutely right.  These stereotypes lend very little to sensible discussions of nationality.  However, I would like to point out...the Englishman and the German would be fighting over who was the first to ask why there was no beer on the table.


----------



## .   1

invictaspirit said:


> You are absolutely right. These stereotypes lend very little to sensible discussions of nationality. However, I would like to point out...the Englishman and the German would be fighting over who was the first to ask why there was no beer on the table.


That's because the Aussie nicked the beer before it made it to the table and is out the back at the barbie on the piss with his mates while the Englishman and the German are having a blue. 

.,,
Cultural stereotypes are slippery beasts.


----------



## jabogitlu

> If you stay away long enough, you may end up in a neither-nor situation. You and your homeland will change, and you may feel a little out of place in what was once "home". So you may not quite fit in either place.



Hey, this is happening for me right now and I've never even LEFT my country! 

Evidently "on the piss" means something different in Australian than it does American, too.   But why in the world would water be on the table, and if it's not, why would one ask for it???  Guess I'm showing my non-European enculturation here or something...


----------



## John-Paul

It's usually other people who define me as "Dutch" or "Eurotrash". I really don't care about my nationality. But, having said that, there are always moments, a picture online, or a snippet on the news which will get to me. Another thing: I would hang out with people who I'd never be interested in at home, just because they were Dutch. Wheather I like it or not I am a member of a "tribe" and that membership is not coming from my head or my wallet, but it's coming from downthere where the heart meets the stomach. I tried to fight it for a long time, but it's seems to be undefeatable.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

John-Paul said:


> It's usually other people who define me as "Dutch" or "Eurotrash".


----------



## John-Paul

Setwale_Charm said:


>



If you live among your country men you have a bond with them, but you have no clue what it means to be of a certain nationality until you meet people from other nationalities. If you live, like me, solely among people from all kinds of different backgrounds, you will be 'branded' . I was 'branded' Dutch, and, by some, Eurotrash. So suddenly I was a Dutchman and I was expected to answer questions about the Spanish wars, William and Mary and the difference between Gouda and Edam. I vaguely rememebred all those things, but I had to  start readin, because I was Dutch and I thought I needed to know all that stuff. To define somebody means not only putting a certain label on, it also excludes you from the 'main' group. In de US that main group is very easy to get into, in other countries, it's much more difficult. In Dutch we use the word 'allochtoon' to define someone as 'not being Dutch'. If you're Dutch, or assimilated, you will be called 'autochtoon'. Hope that'll lift the shroud...


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Well, that I can understand quite well. Have experienced much of that myself. But I meant: what has "Dutch" got to do with "Eurotrash"?


----------



## John-Paul

Setwale_Charm said:


> Well, that I can understand quite well. Have experienced much of that myself. But I meant: what has "Dutch" got to do with "Eurotrash"?



I don't know. How about this: Nowadays you're both Dutch and European, but Eu-ro-pe-an has 4 syllables and Eurotrash only 3, and it sounds better.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Still do not see the point, sorry.


----------



## panjabigator

dificilima said:


> I would ask first what you mean by nationality. Both legally and personally, it is defined differently in different places. Some countries confer nationality on anyone whose mother was physically on their national territory at the time of birth. Others, notoriously Germany before 2000, defined it as anyone, born anywhere with "German blood," excluding non-ethnic Germans who have been resident in the country for generations from the possibility of naturalization. Some countries demand that other citizenships/nationalities be given up upon naturalization. Others do not ever recognize any renunciation of citizenship by their nationals. Then there is your personal identity and how others perceive you. I carry a US passport most of the time these days, but people continue to ask me where I'm "really" from or tell me how well I speak English. Even though I've spent the greater part of my life here, many people still don't consider me American. I was born in Taiwan, the descendant of Austronesian aborigines intermarried with Chinese who settled there in the 17th century. My family had been living there for over 10 generations without ever setting foot in China yet some would call me Chinese. I left Taiwan as a toddler and have not lived there in 40 years. I barely speak the language and am culturally and technically illiterate when I visit. There are very few jobs I'm qualified to hold there. My Taiwanese passport is not recognized by the vast majority of countries in the world. At times, I have been labeled as stateless. Most of my childhood was spent in South America. That is where I was educated. My parents are Brazilian citizens. I am now an expatriate living in different countries around the world. Although based in the US, I don't really spend much time there. People often ask me where I'm from and I never know how to answer. For all practical purposes, I seem to have become a professional foreigner. I have many coworkers with similar mixed backgrounds and I think the numbers are growing. When you ask how important my nationality is to me, I ask you back, what do you consider my nationality?



There is a Panjabi saying which states that "the washerman's dog neither belongs to the river bank nor the house."   I feel the same way in some aspects.  Being born and brought up in the US is a blessing for me in so many ways, but it confuses the hell out of me.  For some, I'll never be American enough, perpetually being asked "oh where are you from...etc."  And for Indians, I am never quite enough for them.  American-Indians, generally, come out seeming "white-washed" and so many are taken a back by any knowledge that I have.

More on this topic later.


----------



## John-Paul

Setwale_Charm said:


> Still do not see the point, sorry.



If you are "Eurotrash" your nation is Europe, and you're "trash" because you're (not you, me) snooty and rich, at least that's what they thought of me. The reason I liked being called Eurotrash (maybe I should change my log in name) is that it doesn't  represent a real nation - it's Europe. Come to think of it, may be,  after a few more years, you will find that this language forum develops in a virtual nation with its own laws, currency (you wait), markets and yes, language. Think about it? How are people connected? At firtst by birth (tribes), then by 'owner' (fiefdom)  then political entity (city state) and now by nation. The next step will be that people will cling together, not because they carry a certain passport, but because they have a certain interest. There will be trade lands, art lands, language lands, foody lands, sport lands etc. Countries will be obsolete, mark my words.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

I rather doubt it. I think, if the present national division will be obliterated, it will be just a different set of names. But it is always a bit of pity, though.
I don`t think, nations will ever be obliterated as a form of division.

P.S. And it is really a pity, you are not that rich.

 Edit: And, after all, I simply love Germans!!! My love for them deserves some laudatory dedications!! What will I do if there are no Germans any more??!!! Come, what are you talking about???


----------



## John-Paul

Nations are impractical and feudal by nature. I think that'll be the next liberation wave, to get rid of them.

 I don't particularly "love" the Germans, but I do like them and I would move to Berlin in a heart-beat.

PS. Rich? No. Let's put it this way: I'm poor, my driver is poor, my cleaning staff is poor, the people in the kitchen are poor, even my pilot is poor.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

John-Paul said:


> Nations are impractical and feudal by nature. I think that'll be the next liberation wave. I don't particularly "love" the Germans, but I do like them and I would move to Berlin in a heart beat.
> 
> PS. Rich? No. Let's put it this way: I'm poor, my driver is poor, my cleaning staff is poor, the people in the kitchen are poor, even my pilot is poor.


 

Guy, I am wailing in tears for pity for all of you!!! How can the world be so cruel!!

Maybe you are right about nations but, in reality, it is not all about nations, it is about any human group which is eliticist by definition. Believe me, I see many armed conflicts, if it is often not nationality at all, it would be religion, family, social status, etc etc. We can and should aim at increasing our humane attitude and respect for all but I don`t think division will ever disappear entirely, no matter along which lines it exists.

P.S. Do not particularly like Germans? You simply understand nothing about men, poor you!

 I used to like Dutchmen too but they were overwhelmed by that and I decided to give them a short break


----------



## John-Paul

Setwale_Charm said:


> Guy, I am wailing in tears for pity for all of you!!! How can the world be so cruel!!
> 
> Maybe you are right about nations but, in reality, it is not all about nations, it is about any human group which is eliticist by definition. Believe me, I see many armed conflicts, if it is often not nationality at all, it would be religion, family, social status, etc etc. We can and should aim at increasing our humane attitude and respect for all but I don`t think division will ever disappear entirely, no matter along which lines it exists.
> 
> P.S. Do not particularly like Germans? You simply understand nothing about men, poor you!
> 
> I used to like Dutchmen too but they were overwhelmed by that and I decided to give them a short break



Thank you for your empathy. 

I'm glad we kind of agree -  let's just hope that the people who have the power to change things around actually will start doing so. 

I "like" 'em - just don't "love" them - some I love, but not all.

Tja - we - as a nation - are easily overwhelmed by kindness.


----------



## ireney

Division is not by itself bad since it is the source of diversity and diversity usually means progress. We all have an "us and them" gland it seems. What we should realise is that the "us" is no better or worse than "them"; just different. 

I don't think nationalities is really little things like liking a certain food. You'd think I'd like fish for instance and retsina but I don't. I also am an atheist so there goes religion (another "useful" "us and them"). The only traditional dance I know is the once I had to learn in junior high and most of folk music makes my head hurt. I have some traits which seem to be rather common among Greeks though I think that we share at least a few of them with other people too.

What I consider as my "Greek nationality" is not the same therefore as what some of my compatriots and many non-Greeks consider as "Greek nationality". It's more of a vague feeling than something I can pinpoint really and I don't think it's going to go away even if I change my ways (though I don't think I am ever going to change enough to like sweet and sour plates).

One of the most exciting thing about belonging to a part of the world is not seeing how different you are from the rest by the way, but finding similarities where prejudice would only expect differencies although I admit that exploring the differencies is equally exciting, especially where you think there would be similarities.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

ireney said:


> Division is not by itself bad since it is the source of diversity and diversity usually means progress. We all have an "us and them" gland it seems. What we should realise is that the "us" is no better or worse than "them"; just different.
> 
> (...)
> 
> One of the most exciting thing about belonging to a part of the world is not seeing how different you are from the rest by the way, but finding similarities where prejudice would only expect differencies although I admit that exploring the differencies is equally exciting, especially where you think there would be similarities.


 
Those are really beautiful words, indeed. Could anyone have said it clearer?

The trick is backing that up with deeds, of course. Narrow-mindness is perhaps the illness of this world, and the reason that lies behind many weapons of war and spiteful words (both being just as wrong to me).

I wish more people could really, truly, honestly think and live the way you have depicted here, ireney.

Thanks for such a rich intervention.


----------



## Cereth

no answer from Mexicans yet?
Well...I think I would like to be citizen of Japan and marry to a Japanese man...I can speak japanese and I can understand somehow their very opposite culture..but I can never stop being mexican!
I can hate mexican politics and increasing insecurity...but I am afraid that even if I wanted too, I can´t stop loving being mexican and I would like that my not yet born children would feel more like mexicans like japanese...mm that is a little bit egoista I know...This is the first time I really think about it..I think I am such an hedonistic person result of Mexican culture...


----------



## PianoMan

Personally, I don't have a great deal of American national pride, mostly I take pride in my immigrant ethnicities (North Irish and German) both are places I'm insisting on visitng.


----------



## Macunaíma

The more you travel, the less you feel linked to your own "background". That's why the rich are so cynical. I think very few things are more limiting than national pride, patriotism, and so on. Brazil, for instance, owe more to Brazilians who don't think much of it than to those who repeat like monkeys " I love Brazil, I love Brazil!". The same is true of most other nations ( I would say "of all nations", but I'll keep it flexible ).


----------



## Sallyb36

Nationality is an accident of birth, not a choice that we make.  I never understand when people say they are proud of their nationality, as if it were something they had worked hard to acheive.


----------



## katkinsy

I am English, however i WOULD move to another country should it be necessary and it would be beneficial to my future. For example, my boyfriend is Spanish and lives in Spain, however i live in England, which is not ideal. Sooner or later one of us will have to move to the others country. It would not worry me moving to Spain as i enjoy the lifestyle, my only concern would be my career. 

I do not agree with narrow minded people who think people should stay in their own countries, surely we should all be able to live together?


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Sallyb36 said:


> Nationality is an accident of birth, not a choice that we make. I never understand when people say they are proud of their nationality, as if it were something they had worked hard to acheive.


 
I do understand it.

Some people I've met, brag about their nationality as they would brag about a gift: they haven't done a single thing to deserve it, but they "know" how worthy it is, so they're proud.

Some other people, think of their nationality as something they could give up, but they don't, so it is (somehow) as if they have worked for it.

And even others, just like what they have seen and learned within their country, and like to talk about it.

I would say I am a bit of all, and yet, none.  I like my homeland, I have learned a lot in here, I just CANNOT hide or deny who and how I am (even if I wanted to), but it would be stupid from me to consider myself superior (or inferior) than other people just because mom delivered in Caracas instead of Kuala Lumpur.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Macunaíma said:


> The more you travel, the less you feel linked to your own "background". That's why the rich are so cynical. I think very few things are more limiting than national pride, patriotism, and so on. Brazil, for instance, owe more to Brazilians who don't think much of it than to those who repeat like monkeys " I love Brazil, I love Brazil!". The same is true of most other nations ( I would say "of all nations", but I'll keep it flexible ).


 

 My experience is entirely the opposite, I must say. The people who travel a lot and have to live abroad for a long time usually develop sentimental attachment to their country. If you need to see real national pride, look for it among those living far from home.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

I do not mean BRAGGINg either. But I must say, it is sad the way the community feeling is disappearing. It is not going to disappear altogether as well as the basic family never will and who knows what it might be replaced with or, at least, attempted to.


----------



## Brioche

PianoMan said:


> Personally, I don't have a great deal of American national pride, mostly I take pride in my immigrant ethnicities (North Irish and German) both are places I'm insisting on visitng.


 
When you get there, the Irish won't accept you as Irish, and the Germans won't accept you as German.  They will persist in seeing you as a US American.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Brioche said:


> When you get there, the Irish won't accept you as Irish, and the Germans won't accept you as German. They will persist in seeing you as a US American.


 
 That`s true!!  It is a matter of mentality rather than (or, at any rate, more than) blood. I have got Icelandic, Finnish and Estonian blood in me, not much but .. I doubt these nations would ever recognise me as having anything to do with them.


----------



## mirx

Sallyb36 said:


> Nationality is an accident of birth, not a choice that we make. I never understand when people say they are proud of their nationality, as if it were something they had worked hard to acheive.


 

I couln't have explained myself better!!!!

Cheers


----------



## karuna

Sallyb36 said:


> Nationality is an accident of birth, not a choice that we make.



Actually in Latvia this statement wouldn't be true. There are no genetically pure Latvians. For many nationality is a conscious choice they make and which group they want to belong to. My schoolmate was dark skinned, his parents was from Azerbaijan but he had no connection to his native land and grew up as Latvian. I have never considered him anything else but Latvian. But there are many other Azerbaijanis who grew up in Russian speaking environment in Latvia and would rather consider himself what is called "Russian speaking minority". It was his choice that he considered himself a Latvian.

Many Latvian citizens keep their identities as Russian, Poles, Ukrainians, Lithuanians etc. And there are others who feel that they belong to two nationalities at the same time. In this way nationality is very different from the citizenship. 



> I never understand when people say they are proud of their nationality, as if it were something they had worked hard to acheive.



What's wrong with feeling some confidence about what you are? Of course, if it is "I am better than you because I am xxx nationality" then it will only be a source of all kinds of problems. But patriotism can also be a very good motivator to care about culture, people of your nation, nature etc. As long as it does not become blind following.


----------



## Sallyb36

pride and confidence are very different things.


----------



## Stigmatas

after reading two pages... its time to add my thoughts.
Living in america as an minority that is bi-racial doesnt play well for me.
I am often made to feel that i'm not a REAL american. People like me aren't welcomed or liked in certain areas.[residence, work, fun]
On top of that being bi racial the category i'm "SUPPOSED" to fit in doesnt even consider me american.

I hope to move somewhere else, but when I see videos like Fans throwing bananas and ronaldhino and Etoo.. i think twice. Racism isnt just in the states....
I dont feel american and maybe i'm a little jaded with being one.


----------



## Cereth

Hello stigmatas!
I´d like to ask you something...What is an american? people in that country has all the different backgrounds possible...
I guess it´s more tuff for non-white people to fit in USA... (although those white people have british,irish, italian heritage)...
for mexicans (wetbacks)is difficult because they don´t behave like the Mexicans living in Mexico and they are not americans...so what are they?....they don´t fit here, they don´t fit there ....
Is it really important to be a REAL American?... and If you live under their system and laws, you vote and care about the other people who live in your same country..why you wouldn´t be an american? An American with heritage of another part of the world....
Personally I met many people who believe they are truly americans and they are so narrow minded and racist... Why would you like to become like that?

there are stupid ones all around the globe...people is racist everywhere...but thank god most of the people have good brain...so don´t be afraid to be a citizen of the world!
They Threw bananas to Ronaldhino and Eeto because they would love to be on their  shoes...  ;-)


----------



## Québec-Jakarta

I can say that I travelled a lot those last years and I'm very happy to have a Canadian passeport!  You're welcome anywhere in this world and you're never alone whatever your problem is...  and when you go back home, you have free healthcare, free education, etc...


----------



## TRG

When I was young and idealistic I thought of national pride as a generally bad thing. It just seemed to be the basis of conflict. That feeling was eventually replaced with one of feeling that I was probably quite fortunate to be born in the place and time that I was because it afforded me many opportunities in life. For that I am grateful. Lately though, I'm feeling a little more conflicted because of 9/11 and the GWOT which seems to be creating a lot of resentment towards the US. At times being an American begins to feel like a burden and I find myself wishing I could be from some corner of the world that nobody pays that much attention to. I could go on and on, but to just answer the question, I think nationality is quite important and that people are right to have national and cultural pride, but always remember the words of Eliza Doolittle: "England(insert your country name) still will be here without you".  

p.s. I started posting on the "America bashing" thread and it got closed, so I hope I don't jinx this thread.


----------



## Zoowärter

This is an interesting question, yet I suppose some people including myself cannot really choose. I was born in Hungary, grew up in the U.S. and moved to Austria fifteen years ago. I have spent two years in Israel and one year in Spain. Two years ago I received the Austrian citizinship and am also still an American citizin. The funny thing is, I do not feel American, nor Austrian. The older I become, the more I feel European and also Viennese. Not only a World citizinship would be interessting, also a City, or Continental citizinship!


----------



## hohodicestu

As we all know every country has its own culture. I think most of our values and costumes come from our nationality. So I believe nationality is very important because we identify ourselves through our countries.


----------



## Sepia

Zoowärter said:


> This is an interesting question, yet I suppose some people including myself cannot really choose. I was born in Hungary, grew up in the U.S. and moved to Austria fifteen years ago. I have spent two years in Israel and one year in Spain. Two years ago I received the Austrian citizinship and am also still an American citizin. The funny thing is, I do not feel American, nor Austrian. ...



How would you expect to "feel American or Austrian"? I don't understand that. We are individuals, aren't we?

I have talked to more than a few people about different cultures and many agree a person from Stockholm and a person from Rome probably have more in common than both of them have with people from more rural corners of their countries. Only barrier might be the language - and might not? After all there is a good chance that both of them speak English.


----------



## CiegoEnamorado

I hope I'm not too late to enter!!

My nationality is not very important to me. I know I will always be branded as an American since I was born here, but I dislike being called and thought so. I wish I were born somewhere else. Though once I start thinking that, I wonder if the reverse would true, would I likewise wish that I had been born somewhere else? In any case, the only reason I am currently living here still is for my education. Otherwise, once that is done, I'm leaving as soon as I can.


----------



## LassiesMom

Well, I'm the second American who's posting in this thread.  But my excuse is that I'm often quite busy.  I want to visit these boards at least once a month.

One of the reasons I joined the boards is because my heritage is important to me.  Plus I am interested in other people's cultures.   When I think of my heritage, I also will use the word "nationality" as in "What nationality are you?"  From childhood on, I knew I was Polish.  As I researched Jewish and Polish history plus my family tree, I saw other nationalities in my family's history.  So now I claim to be American, Polish, Jewish, Moldovan, German, Argentinian and Brazilian.  

I added Asian after seeing a documentary about Chiune Sugihara, a Japanese ambassador who helped a lot of Jews escape Lithuania during World War II.  At one point, one of the Jewish leaders explained to the Japanese leaders that Israel was on the other side of Asia, and how they had more in common with the Japanese, than the Japanese had with the Germans in Hitler's time!

I live in the Bronx.  The people here are from every country in the world.  I'm very grateful to have their experiences, cultures, and that I can learn from them.  I wish we all would instead of criticizing them for wanting to live here.


----------



## Brioche

LassiesMom said:


> From childhood on, I knew I was Polish. As I researched Jewish and Polish history plus my family tree, I saw other nationalities in my family's history. So now I claim to be American, Polish, Jewish, Moldovan, German, Argentinian and Brazilian.
> 
> I added Asian after seeing a documentary about Chiune Sugihara,


 
As I remarked to another "multi-national", if you go to Poland, they won't accept you as Polish, ditto for Germany, Argentina, Brazil and Moldova; and double ditto for Asia.
In all of those places, you'll be a US American.


----------



## Poetic Device

Nun-Translator said:


> ...but for me "nationality" and "citizenship" are two different things.


 
I concurr with that statement.  However, it's for slightly different reasons.  Living in the United States, I am confused as to what exactly is "American" because so many different cultures come here and have their traditions and what have you adapt to living here (and I am not saying that is a bad thing at all) and because of that I can't figure out what originated here.  Because of this, I always think of myself as at least one of my many, many heritages/nationalities.  Most of the time it is Italian.  However, I have about six others to choose from. 

In any event, to answer your question, yes, my nationalities are very important to me.  They help form who I am and if I did not know who I was then I would never be proud of what flows through my veins.


----------



## Stigmatas

Well the people that I come across, they believe american is white.
For me it is hard to fit in if not just coexist.
its not really important to be american, but I should be able to exist and not be bothered or stereotyped.

american here is white. When people see me they consider me to be black.. i'm puerto rican.. i have brown skin but i'm not black. Black here means something else.. negative.

Its politically correct to call me an american.. but the real deal is i'm not.

Just like if a first generation german.. was to have a child in cuba.. the baby is not cuban.. just born there.

I'm from New york living in md, people here are alot more racist and narrow minded and I HATE IT. so i really dont care to be like them.

Just trips me up everytime I think what it means to be american.. or anything but the mold..


----------



## Poetic Device

Stigmatas said:


> Well the people that I come across, they believe american is white.
> For me it is hard to fit in if not just coexist.
> its not really important to be american, but I should be able to exist and not be bothered or stereotyped.
> 
> american here is white. When people see me they consider me to be black.. i'm puerto rican.. i have brown skin but i'm not black. Black here means something else.. negative.
> 
> Its politically correct to call me an american.. but the real deal is i'm not.
> 
> Just like if a first generation german.. was to have a child in cuba.. the baby is not cuban.. just born there.
> 
> I'm from New york living in md, people here are alot more racist and narrow minded and I HATE IT. so i really dont care to be like them.
> 
> Just trips me up everytime I think what it means to be american.. or anything but the mold..


 
I'm sorry, but being black does not mean negative.  Yes, there are people that are more racist than others, but they are not all over the place.  Example, PA is not as racist.  I dislike the United States for many reasons, but I think that it is very unfair that you clumped us up all in one lump sum.  Also, (newsflash)  Puerto Rico is territory to the United States, so even if you were born, raised and died there you would still be a technical American.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Stigmatas said:


> Well the people that I come across, they believe american is white.
> For me it is hard to fit in if not just coexist.
> its not really important to be american, but I should be able to exist and not be bothered or stereotyped.
> 
> american here is white. When people see me they consider me to be black.. i'm puerto rican.. i have brown skin but i'm not black. Black here means something else.. negative.
> 
> Its politically correct to call me an american.. but the real deal is i'm not.
> 
> Just like if a first generation german.. was to have a child in cuba.. the baby is not cuban.. just born there.
> 
> I'm from New york living in md, people here are alot more racist and narrow minded and I HATE IT. so i really dont care to be like them.
> 
> Just trips me up everytime I think what it means to be american.. or anything but the mold..


 

 The best way to deal with it is not to make too much of it. I assure you, people in Russia who are malicious and embittered and aggressive find other ways of finding fault with one and for being aggressive even if you are not a different colour. It is important to understand that it is not colour behind all this, it is the general climate and the attitude to people. White people in such places are treated no better, one just finds something else to be wrong with them. Do not attribute it to your being dark-skinned just the way the proverbial man with a long nose thought everybody was talking about his nose.


----------



## Stigmatas

Poetic Device: I agree with both of you but the AREA i'm in and the AREAS i've been to and lived. Black is someone who is lazy, steals, and cheats... etc etc. Now if your an african american thats something different. THROUGH my experience. 
IE: You will never hear some african american came here and shoot up all the people and raped the woman. It will be, SOME BLACK GUY came here blah blah. Yea i'm not ignorant I understand that PR is apart of THE USA.
BUT like i said earlier.. that is the political correctness of it. Just like the one drop rule, i'm sure your familiar with it. Just like dominicans dont consider themselves BLACK. Just like some of my oriental friends that came here and got their visa... ask them what race they are.. the first thing out of their mouth.. American as best as some of them can say it.

Setwale: Yes if we were all the same color, PEOPLE would discriminate by height, or hair, or length of feet. Its just I am finding it hard to just take.. it.. it only gets worse when that happens.


----------



## Poetic Device

Stigmatas said:


> Poetic Device: I agree with both of you but the AREA i'm in and the AREAS i've been to and lived.


 
Simple solution:  Do your homework and MOVE to a place that's NOT like that.  Also, let me tell you something.  Not all of NY is like that.


----------



## djchak

Uh, most of NYC isn't like that.


----------



## DickHavana

My passport is only a paper, my heart is only organic matter. My passport is Spanish, but my heart is Basque. Now, I got a Spanish passport and Spanish documentation. Tomorrow, it would be an European Union passport, or a Planet Earth passport, or an Euskalherria passport, or... Then, it's only a paper. My heart is only organic matter, but my heart always will feel Basque.

I think Spanish hymn is a beauty hymn, but I don't feel it as mine.
I think Spanish flag is another flag, as French, Italian, German and another 200 o 300 flags in all the world.
I think that I like Spanish people, but I like too French people or Italian people or Serbian people and I would like the Kazakhstan people if I could  communicate with them.

My wife is Spanish and I have no problem. She feels Spanish and I understand it. I don't feel Spanish and she understands it. Some of my friends feel Spanish, some of my friends feel Basque, no problem.

I suppose that my nationality is important for me, but, how can be important my nationality if it's no real? Then.... it's a difficult question. 

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Feliz Navidad y Próspero Año Nuevo
Zorionak eta Urte Berri On


----------



## Stigmatas

Poetic Device said:


> Simple solution:  Do your homework and MOVE to a place that's NOT like that.  Also, let me tell you something.  Not all of NY is like that.



I make good money here, and constantly doing better. I'm not going to move anywhere because of others. Lets not derail this topic by arguing. Your right I should of been more specific. NY is by far the opposite of where i'm at now.
If you wish to talk more about this topic we can do so my private msgs.


----------



## roxyfoxy

it's is hard *not* to be a "nationalist" when you live in a different country that is not yours, and there are so many reasons for it. it happened to me and, to be honest, i used to think that i don't care about my nationality. i was wrong...my life is now away from my native country, Romania, and i miss it so. love has brought me here, i married a wonderful man and i love it here in the US. but there's always the feeling of something missing and it is distrubing. it's rather hard to live in a community where people know so little of your background and any revival of it in you own advantage will probably end miserably...there's no place like home. i can say now that i am more a nationalist, a more Romanian that i was before thru my actions. it's nice not to feel alone, it's nice to know you are a singularity in a foreign country, it's nice to know you bring color to the new world...but will it last? up until you realize that everything changed about you, even the language you speak sounds strange, you've embraced the new you that is not...you. it is maybe your alter-ego, one that now lives in a different continent and leads a totally different style of life, and whose nationality counts maybe more, now that you see things clearly. and then you realize that far away from home doesn't necessarily means "far away" inside your heart because, in there, you are still *home! *


----------



## michita

I'm Spanish and it is very important to me, but I think that it should be so important was born in other part of the world.

I don't think there is anybody who doesn't love and is not prownd of the place where was born.


----------



## Lugubert

michita said:


> I don't think there is anybody who doesn't love and is not prownd of the place where was born.


I could care less about my birth place. My birth place is more or less an accident out of my control. If I were to move to Denmark, the Netherlands, India or China, to pick a few countries that I seriously have considered, I would still be me, not necessarily a Swede. I would be, or at least try to be, a citizen of where I lived.


----------



## Etcetera

michita said:


> I don't think there is anybody who doesn't love and is not prownd of the place where was born.


I know some people who aren't. And I'm simply sorry for them. 
Speaking of accidents of birth... I was born in Leningrad. And that couldn't be an accident from my great-grandmother's point of view. What, I haven't told you about my great-grandmother yet?! OK, listen. She was originally from Tver, a town halfway from St. Petersburg to Moscow. She moved to Petrograd in the early 1920s. In 1941, she and her two children (my Granny and her brother) were evacuated from Leningrad to Kemerovo. And immediately after the Siege of Leningrad ended, she returned to the city. And that was really difficult, especially in that time!
I feel that she would be really sorry if I stated that it was only an "accident" that I was born in Leningrad.


----------



## panjabigator

> Originally Posted by *michita*
> 
> 
> I don't think there is anybody who doesn't love and is not prownd of the place where was born.



I wasn't for a very long time.  I used to hate the fact that I was born in America.  My reasons were silly and stupid.  Now, I am somewhat proud of my being an American, but you probably wont see me as jubilant as others are on the 4th of July (Independence day).  

My nationality is American.  It is important.  My ethnicity and culture however are far more important to me.  I hope I don't seem racist now...gulp.


----------



## gaer

I was born in the US. I have lived my entire life in the US. I am comfortable with English and especially with American English.

I am used to US customs. I don't think I could be happy living anyplace else. I'm not a flexible, outgoing person. I like to put down roots, to know what is around me, who is around me. I like knowing that I have a job that is unlikely to change tomorrow. 

I suppose that means that my nationality is very important to me.

But here is my problem: it seems to me that the majority of Americans born in this country assume that their preference for "all things American" is due soley to the superiority of the US rather than at least partially to the pure accident of having been born here.

I believe there are many countries in which I might have been equally comfortable had I been born in one of them and lived my whole life in it. 

I don't think the US is better than other countries, in general. It's better for me because of my personality and the way I was shaped. After 58 years of living here, I fit here. I think that is rather common for those who have reached my age, living in many countries around the world.

Just some random thoughts at the beginning of the New Year…

Gaer


----------



## GorgyNL

I love my citizenship! I'm a European citizen! I not from The Netherlands but I can live in this country because of EU!


----------



## Lingvisten

For me, being Danish has a lot to say. This identity is, in the meen time, mixed up with many others more or less important: Being scandinavian (almost compete with danish) I could easily move to Sweden or Norway, and fell at home. Being European (not that important to me). Then there's the regional identities, I'm "sjællænder" (from Zealand) almost as important as being danish, and so on. nationality is not that important when it concerns the country/state ect. Danish people have more of a tribe feeling. The mutual wordless understanding of ones countymen is important, and so are the collective memory. This is my point on danish "nationalism", other danes may view it different.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Lingvisten said:


> For me, being Danish has a lot to say. This identity is, in the meen time, mixed up with many others more or less important: Being scandinavian (almost compete with danish) I could easily move to Sweden or Norway, and fell at home. Being European (not that important to me). Then there's the regional identities, I'm "sjællænder" (from Zealand) almost as important as being danish, and so on. nationality is not that important when it concerns the country/state ect. Danish people have more of a tribe feeling. The mutual wordless understanding of ones countymen is important, and so are the collective memory. This is my point on danish "nationalism", other danes may view it different.


 
That`s inspiring!


----------



## Einstein

We all like certain things about our own countries, but because we are used to them and know them, not because they are necessarily the best in the world. Every country has things to learn and things to teach.
I have lived just over half my life in a foreign country (Italy) and I honestly can't say whether I prefer Italy or Britain (in fact it's a problem that I don't even think about). In Italy I don't like either anglophiles or anglophobes, because both display incredible ignorance about Britain! And when I see Italians standing to attention before the flag I find it as ridiculous as when the British do it!
When I hear of people dying in a tragedy, of course it's terrible if they are friends or relatives, but if I don't know them I feel the same sadness or horror independently of their nationality and don't feel particularly hurt because they're British. I know this may upset some people...
As for pride, I can only feel proud of what _I_ personally have done. I did nothing to be born British and I feel neither proud nor ashamed of it!


----------



## Stiannu

No Italian yet? So here I am.
Italy has been characterized by the relative absence of national pride, at least from popular culture. 1982 was one of the first times people got excited for the national flag (we won the football World Cup). We were famous for underestimating ourselves, our history and our political life (with some reasons: we lost nearly every war we took part to, we have a very unstable and not so transparent political system, etc.): foreigners do it better, we thought (except some details like sex, food and cuisine, sports, arts and monuments... but this is obviously a tipical self-indulgent attitude accompanying the inferiority complex).
I may be exaggerating... anyway, things have changed these last years and people are becoming more and more attached to some national symbols like the flag or the anthem (giving way to irritating debates when football players are seen not singing the anthem loud before a match, or when pop singers re-arrange it in new sounds defined _negroid _and accused of being far from our melodical tradition, etc.)

I think it's clear I'm not at all into patriotism or nationalism... I must admit, anyway, that sometimes I feel proud for Italian artistic tradition, literature and history (only in some parts: e.g. Renaissance), or for the good results achieved by Italian intellectuals and scientist (usually, abroad: and this is a source of rage, too). I know I have no merit in this positive features, still I think it's a positive heritage that can be shared with anyone (tourists or people who love art, for example) and does not divide people, unlike other kinds of nationalism.

P.S. we are a very small group of people who work as translators (not my case) or are anyway used to work in different languages and see different countries. Most of us feel cosmopolitan and are not particularly patriotic. But we are *not representative* of the majority, I guess you all are aware of that. Or aren't you?


----------



## shoobydoowap

After living almost three months in Spain, I've noticed that I'm still just about as patriotic as I have been (some... not a lot, though), however I am MUCH more proud of my home state (Kentucky) and love sharing its culture. So, at least in my case, I'm much more proud to call myself a Kentuckian than to call myself an American.


----------



## LaReinita

I was born here in the US and so that is my nationality. It's important to me, because it has molded me into the person that I am today. I like my country. I know it not perfect, but let's a find a country that is . . ! I would like to associate myself with my blood heritage, but as previously mentioned . . they would not recognize me as that so I am American and that's all I can be . . it's all I know! That being said, I would love to travel to another country for more than a vacation and I will before I die . . that's for sure. Also, to avoid confusion, as far as I've ever been able to tell . . . you don't have to be "white" to be considered American. This country is based on cultures and people from all over the world blending together into one common society. And certainly being black or being called black, is not negative either. As one other thread said . . you can't call every black person African American because "Not every black person is from Africa and not every person from Africa is black"


----------



## Setwale_Charm

It is rather sad to see how the national feeling (and hence, the feeling of community) has atrophied for most Europeans. This, in reality, is a sign of certain degradation of the community sense and thinking and, I suspect, the widespread public tendency to present national pride as something akin to things like fascism, nazism and so on, stupid as it is, has played its role here.


----------



## karuna

In some ways I can understand why nationalism is not very popular nowadays. From one side I am entirely a Latvian by nationality – it is my native language, country, traditions, feelings, childhood etc. I can't be anything else even if I wanted. At least, not without really long time living completely emerged in some other situation. 

But at the same time I don't really think that the place you were born it that important. I was born in Riga, the capital of Latvia, just because the maternity hospital was there. But I never lived there, I spend all my childhood in the country and I still hate living in big cities. Citizens of Riga seem to me completely different people. I can find better mutual understanding with a farmer in a poor Indian village than with people from the capital city I was born. So, the place of birth matter does not matter much for me.

But what makes me hate nationalism is how it is manipulating people. The nationalistic attitude indoctrinate you in various subtle and gross ways – you are a Latvian, thus you are supposed to act in a certain way without questioning the rationality of it. You should profess certain religion because of your nationality, you should hate the people that are the enemies of your countries, etc. But what about allowing me to make my own decisions? 

I guess in some countries it is easier than in Latvia where people often become stupidly absorbed in this nationalism thing. It is ok if it is a feeling of community and desire to do the best for my country. However, there is only a short step to the arrogance that "my country is the best".


----------



## Mahaodeh

Nun-Translator said:


> Maybe it's a language issue (!), but for me "nationality" and "citizenship" are two different things. I might change the country where I live, and that country might grant me nationalized citizenship (meaning I hold its passport, can vote, and so on), but my _nationality_ as an Israeli Jew, albeit a Catholic one, remains unchanged.
> 
> I have the feeling that this sort of question has very different meanings in Europe and North America, for example, than in the Middle East.


 
Totally agree.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Mahaodeh said:


> Totally agree.


 
Do you mean that it is to a greater extent influenced by the religion?


----------



## LalitaX

I'm from USA, parents PR and Cuban, and have been living in Japan for 12 years.   

Having grown up in a predominately PR neighborhood (in NY's South Bronx, the mother of all modern American slums), I was a PR until I came to Japan (for adventure, ended up staying).  I didn't become an "American" until I lived in Tokyo.  At this point, my heart is Hispanic, my mind is American, my soul, who knows?  

Since I was a member of a minority, my perspective on the US has always been been informed by my ethnicity but even more so by class -- I grew up urban poor, not middle class, and I have found the greatest differences among people stem not from white/black/latino perspectives, but from socio-economic perspectives.  (This is also true of current notions of what it means to be black in the US, but that's a topic for another discussion.)

So I find myself now an American more than ever before, but something that is so sure, so profound that it doesn't need advertising or slogans or trumpeting or anything else.  I simply am, that's all.

And I can't wait to return to the US for good next year!

By the way, I'm new to the list, just joined yesterday!

aa


----------



## Athaulf

Setwale_Charm said:


> It is rather sad to see how the national feeling (and hence, the feeling of community) has atrophied for most Europeans. This, in reality, is a sign of certain degradation of the community sense and thinking and, I suspect, the widespread public tendency to present national pride as something akin to things like fascism, nazism and so on, stupid as it is, has played its role here.



But "national pride" is a relatively recent invention by any historical standards. The feeling of _community_, on the other hand, is a different thing altogether. A real community consists of people one knows face to face or at least has some personal business with, people for whom one has feelings independent of any abstract collectivist notions such as "nationality". What feeling of community am I supposed to have with some distant stranger with whom I share only the fact that we were born within the same enclosed line on the political map of the world? Sure, we can have a common linguistic and cultural background, which is certainly something to be appreciated -- but I can also have that in common with other people that fall outside the standard definition of my "nationality", and often even more so. 

In fact, whenever a wave of nationalism swept over any part of Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries, it resulted in violent _destruction_ of real community bonds between people -- because such bonds are are a barrier to the faceless power of authoritarian political structures that nationalists are fond of creating. The feeling of community is indeed sadly declining in today's world, but if you're going to look for the reasons of this decline, one of the principal ones has been exactly the tearing apart of traditional social institutions in the name of nationalism.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Athaulf said:


> But "national pride" is a relatively recent invention by any historical standards. The feeling of _community_, on the other hand, is a different thing altogether. A real community consists of people one knows face to face or at least has some personal business with, people for whom one has feelings independent of any abstract collectivist notions such as "nationality". What feeling of community am I supposed to have with some distant stranger with whom I share only the fact that we were born within the same enclosed line on the political map of the world? Sure, we can have a common linguistic and cultural background, which is certainly something to be appreciated -- but I can also have that in common with other people that fall outside the standard definition of my "nationality", and often even more so.
> 
> In fact, whenever a wave of nationalism swept over any part of Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries, it resulted in violent _destruction_ of real community bonds between people -- because such bonds are are a barrier to the faceless power of authoritarian political structures that nationalists are fond of creating. The feeling of community is indeed sadly declining in today's world, but if you're going to look for the reasons of this decline, one of the principal ones has been exactly the tearing apart of traditional social institutions in the name of nationalism.


 
I beg to differ. National pride as a sense of belonging to some community/nation has been around since the dawn of the human race. What you probably mean is that the current division into nations as we name them today is recent.


----------



## alexacohen

I do not feel at home living in big cities, even in Spain. I feel absolutely foreign in Madrid or Barcelona, pretty much as foreign as I've felt living in London or Antwerpen.
My citizenship doesn't mean anything to me. Just a word written on my passport. But I am a Spanish Jew, and will always be, even though I end up living in Tunbridge Wells, which is home to me. My family is there, my friends are there, the shop owners know me and I know them, I chat with the neighbours. Home.


----------



## Athaulf

Setwale_Charm said:


> I beg to differ. National pride as a sense of belonging to some community/nation has been around since the dawn of the human race. What you probably mean is that the current division into nations as we name them today is recent.



No, I actually mean that the modern concept of "nation" itself is recent. The sense of belonging to communities based on kinship, religion, language, etc. has indeed always been around, but trying the project the modern concept of "nation" with its standard implications more than about two centuries ago is naive at best, and dangerously ignorant at worst (not to mention that in many cases, this limit is actually much more recent). Our ancestors from several centuries ago would have been baffled if someone had told them how we would nowadays be retroactively classifying them into such categories completely alien to their minds.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

I think, the concept is more or less the less. The details which it entails (as well as the composition of nations) may change, yet the concept behind it remains and little does it matter what we call it or how the exact situation changes. People don`t realise to what extent they brear the brunt of their national/community features and it is rather dangerous to see people renounce these things, that`s what we to a great extent owe the creeping social collapse in our countries to today.


----------



## Stiannu

Athaulf said:


> But "national pride" is a relatively recent invention by any historical standards. The feeling of _community_, on the other hand, is a different thing altogether. A real community consists of people one knows face to face or at least has some personal business with, people for whom one has feelings independent of any abstract collectivist notions such as "nationality". What feeling of community am I supposed to have with some distant stranger with whom I share only the fact that we were born within the same enclosed line on the political map of the world? Sure, we can have a common linguistic and cultural background, which is certainly something to be appreciated -- but I can also have that in common with other people that fall outside the standard definition of my "nationality", and often even more so.


 
I totally agree. And may I remind that in Italy (and Germany, too) nationalism and fascism do have real connections? Mussolini pushed the Italian nationalism of the late 19th and early 20th century to its excesses, and some symbols could never be used again after his dictatorship (the flag, which was changed; the _fascio littorio_, a symbol from Roman empire, too closely associated with fascism; Balilla, a young boy who was a national hero of Risorgimento, too closely associated with the juvenile fascist movement; etc.)
It's a luck that we (and the Germans, even more) kind of feel uneasy when it comes to national pride and connected symbols. That's because we know from history that nationalist movements can become aggressive and authoritarian.
And I guess that's why I have the impression that nationalism divides people and human groups, fosters opposition and rivalry. Unlike Setwale_Charm, if I try to think of attitudes that reunite men and promote social and human ties, I tend towards cosmopolitism and internationalism instead.


----------



## Brioche

Lugubert said:


> I could not care less about my birth place. My birth place is more or less an accident out of my control. If I were to move to Denmark, the Netherlands, India or China, to pick a few countries that I seriously have considered, I would still be me, not necessarily a Swede. I would be, or at least try to be, a citizen of where I lived.



If you moved to India or China, the Indians or the Chinese would never accept you as a "citizen" of where you lived. You would remain a Swede, a European, a foreigner, and an outsider until your dying day.


----------



## Outsider

Brioche said:


> If you moved to India or China, the Indians or the Chinese would never accept you as a "citizen" of where you lived.


How do you know?


----------



## Brioche

Outsider said:


> How do you know?



Many years of in-depth study of the cultures of India and China.
Many, many interviews with foreigners  who have visited, lived in or worked in India and China.


----------



## Outsider

There's a wonderful saying in English, "The plural of anecdote is not data", though I will concede that I don't know how thorough your study was -- or how representative your sample of foreigners was. (Maybe _they_ never tried to be accepted by the local cultures in the first place.)

But nevermind all that, it's beside the point. I let myself be caught in a discussion of the wrong question. Maybe the Indians, and the Chinese do resist the integration of immigrants, but so what? Who said we needed to match their flaws? Assuming they're xenophonic, why should we strive to be as bad as them, and not _better_?


----------



## karuna

Brioche said:


> If you moved to India or China, the Indians or the Chinese would never accept you as a "citizen" of where you lived. You would remain a Swede, a European, a foreigner, and an outsider until your dying day.



I am thinking what it really means to be "accepted"? If you grew up in a different culture, you will always carry it with you and in that sense you will be always different from the locals who have grown up in a different situation. But other than that there is no such thing as "accepted by locals" because locals are never homogeneous group. You may be accepted by certain individuals and rejected by others as it happens in your native country as well (For example, dark skinned French citizens who are still not fully "accepted" in France). If you are allowed to live in another country then it already means you are accepted in some way or another.

When I was staying in India some people would adjust momentarily, others had great difficulty and wished to return as much as possible. It is very individual. Some of my former colleagues have stayed there permanently and would not change India for any other country, while most locals simply wish to emigrate from India at the first opportunity.

P.S. I personally have been accepted by Indians in India much better than I could ever wish to be accepted in any other place. Of course, it is an individual thing because I practice Indian religion and I make my contacts selectively. I know the India's dark side too but in general I find Indians as very welcoming people, even more welcoming than many Europeans.


----------



## ernest_

Stiannu said:


> I totally agree. And may I remind that in Italy (and Germany, too) nationalism and fascism do have real connections?



I seem to recall that nationalism and pacifism had real connections in India, for example. As I see it, since everything is connected with everything else in some way, this exercise of finding connections is kind of futile.



> And I guess that's why I have the impression that nationalism divides people and human groups, fosters opposition and rivalry. Unlike Setwale_Charm, if I try to think of attitudes that reunite men and promote social and human ties, I tend towards cosmopolitism and internationalism instead.


I am all for internationalism and human fraternity, but I just do not see why some communities should have the right to rule over some others. That is why support the right of self-determination. All this promoting of social and human ties is perfectly okay to me, as long as it is an act of free will. Otherwise, it is a sham.


----------



## Athaulf

ernest_ said:


> I am all for internationalism and human fraternity, but I just do not see why some communities should have the right to rule over some others. That is why support the right of self-determination. All this promoting of social and human ties is perfectly okay to me, as long as it is an act of free will. Otherwise, it is a sham.



Unfortunately, people who enthusiastically argue in favor of the principle of self-determination when it comes to the right of some group X to cut ties with some other group Y are usually the first ones to react with shock and horror (and often even violence) when someone proposes that the same principle should be further applied to some subgroup of X, thus violating the integrity of their beloved group X. Of course, the story is repeated recursively, with the proponents of "self-determination" being equally hypocritical at each step, and insisting that at some level people just have to accept the authority of a collective whose integrity must not be violated by any means. So I'd say that at the end of the day, it's a sham in any case...


----------



## Stiannu

Yes, self-determination is quite tricky. It can assume progressive and libertarian views, but also become a good propaganda tool covering mainly economic interests (this is the case for some autonomist movements in Northern Italy, for example; but similar examples can be found in all Europe).
I could push it further: in fact, often the self-determination principle just assumes the nationalist attitudes, reproducing them at a lower level. Nationalism centres around the goal of the correspondence between political units (the States) and cultural units (the nations). Nations are conceived as cohesive, homogenous communities with a solid history and a solid culture, as eternal structures - although their translation into recognised political units can be contingent, even recent. By investigating in every nation's historical past and cultural refractions, we see that this idea is false. Rather, it's more a strategy for mobilizing resources and struggles than a description of reality. 
There is no human group that can be honestly described as original, or totally homogeneous. We should accept the fact that political governments are arbitrary and somewhat artificial structures, that they'll never correspond to some supposed cultural or even spiritual units; but of course "artificial" governments, at every level, can manage this reality in very different ways, from authoritarian and repressive solutions to more democratic and pluralist solutions (and I agree we should support the 2nd option).


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Stiannu said:


> I totally agree. And may I remind that in Italy (and Germany, too) nationalism and fascism do have real connections? Mussolini pushed the Italian nationalism of the late 19th and early 20th century to its excesses, and some symbols could never be used again after his dictatorship (the flag, which was changed; the _fascio littorio_, a symbol from Roman empire, too closely associated with fascism; Balilla, a young boy who was a national hero of Risorgimento, too closely associated with the juvenile fascist movement; etc.)
> It's a luck that we (and the Germans, even more) kind of feel uneasy when it comes to national pride and connected symbols. That's because we know from history that nationalist movements can become aggressive and authoritarian.
> And I guess that's why I have the impression that nationalism divides people and human groups, fosters opposition and rivalry. Unlike Setwale_Charm, if I try to think of attitudes that reunite men and promote social and human ties, I tend towards cosmopolitism and internationalism instead.


Well, this is exactly what I find so bothering about today`s Europe. As you described it, we can see that in reality we have not really made progressed and walked away from what we so much strive to walk away, we just reverted to the other side of it. 
The trouble is that people who think they actively propagate openness, cosmopolitism and internationalism (welcoming by all means the former, I wonder whether the latter two are realistically possible on a larger scale), in reality, are very little different from those they condemn, those nationalists and fascists, they have just reverted to another extreme of labelling and now propagate the opposite but with the same degree of intolerance, agressiveness, flatness. Having been hammered certain ideas of hating the form of fascism as expressed by Hitler, for example, they are just unable to see that they are going precisely the same way, only on the other side of the coin. You are putting an equality sign between national feelings and violence and nazism simply because you are thinking according to the same pattern, in the same way as the ones from whom you are willing to dissociate - you are just looking from the other side but with the same degree of "broadness of mind".
And there is another point... as I said, I do not believe in erasion of national divisions ever really happening, well, I just see it having lived in dozens of cultures, and I fear that it is not for nothing that such views are so widespread in Europe - the part of the world which has been becoming increasingly.. I do not know, either childish or senile recently. Not having real hardships and conflicts (OK, we are beginning to have them now,partly as a result of that "limitless brotherhood" policy), idealistic ideas have been developing widely. And do not get me wrong, I am all for having values and ideals of peace BUT there is a marked difference between having democratic values and reasonably fitting them into the real world taking into account that it is by far not all smooth and ideal and becoming so relaxed, naive, and spineless that you lose the ability to tackle reality which well contains plenty of agressiveness and hatred. 
And, by the way, I consider it a real shame of today`s Europe that it has stooped to making Germans feel uneasy .... now this is a good proof of that fascism has not gone an inch away... we are repeating the same old thing...Germans have the right to be proud just like anybody else and reducing this right or ability of theirs by reminding them of some past sins (which EVERY single folk has in their history) is a form of that very reverted, extremely cynical fascism or just ultimate stupidity, and I do not know which is more in this case.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Outsider said:


> There's a wonderful saying in English, "The plural of anecdote is not data", though I will concede that I don't know how thorough your study was -- or how representative your sample of foreigners was. (Maybe _they_ never tried to be accepted by the local cultures in the first place.)
> 
> But nevermind all that, it's beside the point. I let myself be caught in a discussion of the wrong question. Maybe the Indians, and the Chinese do resist the integration of immigrants, but so what? Who said we needed to match their flaws? Assuming they're xenophonic, why should we strive to be as bad as them, and not _better_?


 

Outsider, you`re absolutely right. We should NOt stoop to being as bad as they are (assuming they are bad, sorry, Indians and the Chinese, I am just taking the example offered). But you somehow constantly continue to fail to see the difference between stooping to a low level and defending firmly against the development of its influence. I can try to give a comparison: when you punish criminals in a strongly democratic society (which is meant to be tolerant but NOT tolerant to crime and intolerance), this by no means mean that you stoop to their level, this is in fact a measure aimed at preventing their intolerance and crime from spreading further. 
The truth is the world is a globalised place today and you cannot preserve your democracy on your little piece of land and pretend that those "bad 'uns" do not exist, you will have to see them, deal with them, live alongside them. And you will be treated by their token, not by yours. And Europe will be the primary field for fascism over the coming decades, I think, most political experts and demographers will confirm this, there is springing and blooming fascism in most major cities of Europe, especially those with large immigrant populations but by far not only that, on both or on all sides.
And with regard to the problems we have with be that Islamic extremism or any other fascism or even our own home-grown crime, this is not because these are in any way special from what the rest of the world has -there is aggressive fringe anywhere, the problem is not in them,but this is precisely because Europe has grown unable to tackle such with all its infantile idealism and inability to distinguish between stooping to the level of intolerance and stifling intolerance. An essential part of democracy and tolerance to me is the ability to stifle sprouts of intolerance and aggression. And this is what we have by no means achieved. We already had precisely the same situation alsmot 70 years ago, remember?


----------



## Brioche

Outsider said:


> There's a wonderful saying in English, "The plural of anecdote is not data", though I will concede that I don't know how thorough your study was -- or how representative your sample of foreigners was. (Maybe _they_ never tried to be accepted by the local cultures in the first place.)
> 
> But nevermind all that, it's beside the point. I let myself be caught in a discussion of the wrong question. Maybe the Indians, and the Chinese do resist the integration of immigrants, but so what? Who said we needed to match their flaws? Assuming they're xenophonic, why should we strive to be as bad as them, and not _better_?



Who's talking about the locals resisting integration?
Who's talking about xenophobia?
Who's talking about matching them?

The cultural baggage that a 60+ year old Swede brings to India [or elsewhere] will not melt away like snow in spring. 

Just of starters, how will she earn a living? Will she be living on a pension from the old homeland? Does she have skills to sell in the Indian economy at Indian prices?


----------



## Stiannu

Setwale_Charm said:


> Well, this is exactly what I find so bothering about today`s Europe. As you described it, we can see that in reality we have not really made progressed and walked away from what we so much strive to walk away, we just reverted to the other side of it.
> The trouble is that people who think they actively propagate openness, cosmopolitism and internationalism (welcoming by all means the former, I wonder whether the latter two are realistically possible on a larger scale), in reality, are very little different from those they condemn, those nationalists and fascists, they have just reverted to another extreme of labelling and now propagate the opposite but with the same degree of intolerance, agressiveness, flatness. Having been hammered certain ideas of hating the form of fascism as expressed by Hitler, for example, they are just unable to see that they are going precisely the same way, only on the other side of the coin. You are putting an equality sign between national feelings and violence and nazism simply because you are thinking according to the same pattern, in the same way as the ones from whom you are willing to dissociate - you are just looking from the other side but with the same degree of "broadness of mind".


 
Well, in the beginning of the post I was hoping you weren't referring exactly to ME, but apparently you are. OK.
I think I'm REALLY, REALLY different from the fascist and the nazi I condemn. First of all because I accept discussion and criticism, and difference of opinion; and I don't send to confinement or concentration camps those who don't agree with me. Second, because I'm worried about the degree of aggressiveness and violence that some (yes, SOME, not all) nationalist movements and tendencies can in some cases (yes, IN SOME CASES, not always) reach; whereas fascism and nazism were political movements partly based on violence. 
One doesn't become a disguised fascist only by holding a political view or criticizing others. You should restrict a little bit your use of the word "fascism". If "fascism" is everything you don't like (cosmopolitism, immigrants, crime), then it is nothing in particular.

In post 129, I was ironically referring to the fact that we cosmopolitans are a minority, after all. I'm very aware of the fact that nationalisms and particularisms have not disappeared in the world. Sometimes they've even strengthened. And I don't despise or ridiculise the people who hold feelings of national pride; I try to understand why they focus on such feelings rather than, e.g., regional belonging, religious affiliation, gender or generational solidarity, corporative affiliation, etc. 
But this does not change my points of criticism toward the idea of nation and the degenerations of nationalism. Why should it? I'm not naive and I'm not "all for" peace and love, brotherhood etc. (let's stop making caricatures of cosmopolitan attitudes! By the way, there's nothing more naive in affirming "I'm citizen of the world; race: human" than in crying and getting all emotional at the national anthem, I think); I bring informed and documented critics to the idea of nation and the supposed eternity of nationalism.


----------



## Outsider

Setwale_Charm said:


> The truth is the world is a globalised place today and you cannot preserve your democracy on your little piece of land and pretend that those "bad 'uns" do not exist, you will have to see them, deal with them, live alongside them. And you will be treated by their token, not by yours. And Europe will be the primary field for fascism over the coming decades, I think, most political experts and demographers will confirm this, there is springing and blooming fascism in most major cities of Europe, especially those with large immigrant populations but by far not only that, on both or on all sides.


I'm sure that there are many _fascist_ "political experts" making that claim, but I usually take no notice of fear-mongering alarmists. Such people are not to be taken seriously.

The people who most vociferously decry the supposed imminent "barbarian invasion" of Europe, and the loss of democratic values that will supposedly ensue, are typically those who never cared much for democratic values in the first place. That fact tends to taint their credibility, to put it kindly. It sure looks like what they're really trying to do is make Europe more _in_tolerant, and, in the long run, more _un_democratic. Which is a movie I think we've all seen before in Europe. Will we never learn?


----------



## ernest_

Athaulf said:


> Unfortunately, people who enthusiastically argue in favor of the principle of self-determination when it comes to the right of some group X to cut ties with some other group Y are usually the first ones to react with shock and horror (and often even violence) when someone proposes that the same principle should be further applied to some subgroup of X, thus violating the integrity of their beloved group X.



I can't say I don't agree, but what you say is hardly a reason for not supporting self-determination! It would be like arguing against the right to private property saying that someone may come and steal your private property.  So what? Yes, there are people who do not obey the law, but that doesn't mean there should be no law.


----------



## ernest_

Stiannu said:


> Nations are conceived as cohesive, homogenous communities with a solid history and a solid culture, as eternal structures - although their translation into recognised political units can be contingent, even recent. By investigating in every nation's historical past and cultural refractions, we see that this idea is false. Rather, it's more a strategy for mobilizing resources and struggles than a description of reality.


Sorry, but a nation is real as soon as the nationals believe it is real. This is what a nation is all about - a group of people who identify themselves as a nation. It is purely an emotional thing. It doesn't matter at all if they have a solid history or a bland one. Unless, of course, you have some scientific criteria that permit establish which human groups qualify as a nation and which don't. If so, I am willing to hear what these are.



> There is no human group that can be honestly described as original, or totally homogeneous. We should accept the fact that political governments are arbitrary and somewhat artificial structures, that they'll never correspond to some supposed cultural or even spiritual units;


Well, no human group is totally homogeneous, but certain groups are more homogeneous than certain others. In the same way, certain states match more closely the underlying national reality than certain others. I suppose that some degree of arbitrariness cannot be avoided, but it could be reduced to a minimum by letting every people freely decide which state they want to belong to.


----------



## Athaulf

ernest_ said:


> Athaulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, people who enthusiastically argue in favor of the principle of self-determination when it comes to the right of some group X to cut ties with some other group Y are usually the first ones to react with shock and horror (and often even violence) when someone proposes that the same principle should be further applied to some subgroup of X, thus violating the integrity of their beloved group X.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say I don't agree, but what you say is hardly a reason for not supporting self-determination! It would be like arguing against the right to private property saying that someone may come and steal your private property.  So what? Yes, there are people who do not obey the law, but that doesn't mean there should be no law.
Click to expand...


This is not a valid analogy at all. It seems like you didn't understand my above quoted point. I'll try phrasing it in a different way. Proponents of self-determination, by definition, seek to break the bonds of group X with some larger group Y that currently binds X in a political arrangement of some sort. Their opponents, again by definition, seek to preserve the integrity of group Y. However, in practice, within the group X there will always be a significant number of people who either don't want to break bonds with Y, or who want to take the principle of self-determination one step further and break off from group X. The same applies even further, since the self-determination of any group, however small, will leave some even smaller dissatisfied subgroups who might want to exercise their self-determination at an even finer scale. At the end of the day, the proponents of self-determination of any given group X are necessarily caught in a contradiction, since on one side they support self-determination of X in face of Y, but at the same time insist that the right of self-determination must be ultimately denied at _some _level, usually immediately as soon as something threatens the integrity of X. Your analogy fails to draw any parallels with this _inherent _contradiction, which was the whole point of my above post.



> Well, no human group is totally homogeneous, but certain groups are more homogeneous than certain others. In the same way, certain states match more closely the underlying national reality than certain others. I suppose that some degree of arbitrariness cannot be avoided, but it could be reduced to a minimum by letting every people freely decide which state they want to belong to.


An individual obviously can't decide which state he wants to belong to (except by emigrating), so by "people freely deciding" you probably mean the majority opinion expressed through a referendum or some similar political process. But this way, you've again just shifted the level at which one group dictates its terms to others in the name of adherence to some collectivist entity. Of course, some political arrangements will leave fewer people dissatisfied and thus offer a better chance of stability, peace, and prosperity -- but this is a purely pragmatic observation, and you can't derive some abstract "right to national self-determination" from it. In fact, in many cases, pursuing the "free decisions" of "the people", even when these "decisions" were clearly backed by democratic elections or referendums, has led to nothing but disaster.

All this is not just idle theorizing. In the corner of the world where I come from, turmoils caused by pursuing the "right to self-determination" of various ethnic groups have been among the leading causes of death through the last hundred years.


----------



## Beautiful Princess

My nationality is not important.. if it's not for the benefit I get from being a citizen of a country I belong to.. for the people I represent to.. Part of my well being depends on my nationality.. But knowing that my nationality is part of a group of nationalities make me say.. all nationalities have equal footing..


----------



## Einstein

When society is developing and going forward, people are happy to feel they are part of something bigger. When economic crisis arrives, the illusion is then created that separation from a larger entity will be a solution for the minority.
Self-determination for a homogeneous population in an area is a right to be respected, but this is different from proposing it. I respect people's right to vote Conservative in GB, but this doesn't mean I agree with their decision! Even if an area gains independence and then has to live under the dictatorship of a corrupt ruling class, what kind of self-determination is this for ordinary people?
When the population is not homogeneous, then self-determination is impossible without all the horrors of ethnic cleansing. The objective should be a united struggle for a different organisation of society in the interests of ordinary people.


----------



## ernest_

Athaulf said:


> Proponents of self-determination, by definition, seek to break the bonds of group X with some larger group Y that currently binds X in a political arrangement of some sort.



In my opinion, you are a bit wide of the mark here. Proponents of self-determination do not seek to break bonds, what they seek is the possibility of breaking bonds by means of a democratic process. That is not quite the same.



> Their opponents, again by definition, seek to preserve the integrity of group Y.


Again, as far as I know, opponents of self-determination are against the democratic process in question, regardless of their personal preferences about the outcome of said process.

We seem to have a fundamental discrepancy here.



> However, in practice, within the group X there will always be a significant number of people who either don't want to break bonds with Y, or who want to take the principle of self-determination one step further and break off from group X. The same applies even further, since the self-determination of any group, however small, will leave some even smaller dissatisfied subgroups who might want to exercise their self-determination at an even finer scale. At the end of the day, the proponents of self-determination of any given group X are necessarily caught in a contradiction, since on one side they support self-determination of X in face of Y, but at the same time insist that the right of self-determination must be ultimately denied at _some _level, usually immediately as soon as something threatens the integrity of X. Your analogy fails to draw any parallels with this _inherent _contradiction, which was the whole point of my above post.


Yes, I hadn't fully understood you. After reading all this, I am afraid, I have to say that your reasoning is a bit flawed. It doesn't follow that, because some hypothetical proponents of self-determination contradict themselves, there's an inherent contradiction in the principle itself. Therefore, my analogy was perfectly valid, I think.


----------



## Flaminius

ernest_ said:


> In my opinion, you are a bit wide of the mark here. Proponents of self-determination do not seek to break bonds, what they seek is the possibility of breaking bonds by means of a democratic process. That is not quite the same.


This sounds dangerous to me because movements that seek their self-determining goals with a non-democratic recourse are then easily termed as terrorists, rebels or criminals.

I think I hear *Athaulf *say that seeking self-determination can be problematic in any form and size because nation is a concept that cannot hold without defining what is not that nation.  I think I can summarise the history of nationalism as a great display of fear of _the others_; discrimination, exploitation, oppression, manipulation, confrontation and so on in contrast with conceited laudation of _we_.

I find myself largely a product of where I live but this does not justify anything nor does it prevent me from learning, if need be, from other ways.


----------



## Bryan05

I'm just a baby... So I can't love my country.


----------



## argentina84

John-Paul said:


> I wish there was a World Passport - but that would be a paradox.


 
So do I! But I bet that if there were one, I would not be able to apply for it. 

I love my country, but that doesn't mean that I would not like to travel and live in other countries to have different experiences and learn from other cultures. 

The opportunity to travel longer distances in less time, and the Internet are one of the few things I like about this globalized world. 

Regards!


----------



## Porteño

Although I have come late into this topic, only coming across it today, I have a few comments to add to all the very interesting threads that I have dutifully read.

Some people have suggested that bloodlines can define nationality. I think that this is a misconception since, apart from a few indigenous tribes scattered around the world, there are very few ethnically ‘pure’ races or nations. This has been true for several centuries, especially in the Americas, but also holds good for many European countries too. I was born in England and consequently have English nationality and British citizenship. However, one side of my family goes back to around 1210 when some ancestors arrived in England from a part of, what is today Germany. On the other side, my great-great-great-great grandfather arrived in Cornwall from France with his Spanish wife, so even in those days blood lines were getting pretty mixed up. Let’s not forget that Britain was also invaded by the Romans, the Vikings and later, the Normans, so it is extremely doubtful that there are any ethnically ‘pure’ Englishmen. There might be some ‘pure’ Welsh however.

I left the UK some 42 years ago to seek my fortune where there were better opportunities than those on offer at that time. All in all I have lived in more than 20 countries for varying periods of time. The greatest benefit of this has been to learn how other people lived and thought. Like most people in those days, and you have to remember that back in the 60s people did not travel very far afield, I had preconceptions regarding nations and races and it was truly eye-opening to find that people around the world were not so very different from oneself after all. Usually they were friendly and hospitable and only too willing to share their culture and thoughts with you. This began to give me a much more balanced view of the world and the events that were taking place.

Later on I obtained life-time residence status in both Brazil and Argentina where I am  currently domiciled. I married an Argentine, but our children are Brazilian, although they also hold UK passports. We are all tri-lingual, although English is the more usual language in our home. Throughout all of this, whilst I don’t go about trumpeting it, I have never lost my inborn nationality and correspondent nationalism (perhaps patriotism would be a better word) as regards the UK. I love the country and am intensely proud of its achievements, while freely owning up to the blacker sides in its history. Of course, when I go to the UK, I am considered a foreigner, which I find very amusing. Once I asked someone why they thought that way and they said that, apart from my skin-colour (I was more sunburnt than the average Englishman in winter), my RP accent was dated in modern SE England with its ‘estuary’ English.  Also my clothes were cut a little differently. So it was the small things that made the difference. Both in Brazil and Argentina I have always studiously avoided associating myself with the local ‘British’ communities where people pretend they’re still living in the UK and try to avoid the local ‘lingo’ or deliberately mispronounce it to be different and ‘superior’,

Of course, I always have a terrible dilemma when the World Cup comes around as to who I’m going to root for and, to preserve my sanity and blood pressure, have to avoid watching any of the games where one of my three ‘home’ countries is playing one of the others.

But the biggest problem began to raise its ugly head when my eldest grandson, who is Argentine and 5 years old, asked me why the English stole the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands from Argentina. How on earth can you answer that one? I’ve tried to get round it by saying that the islands were lost during the 1982 South Atlantic conflict in order not to get bogged down in long no-win arguments.

This of course does not affect my nationality one iota, but does illustrate how ‘nationalist’ feelings and long held ‘misconceptions’, as I see them, can bring one down to earth with a bump.


----------



## Athaulf

ernest_ said:


> In my opinion, you are a bit wide of the mark here. Proponents of self-determination do not seek to break bonds, what they seek is the possibility of breaking bonds by means of a democratic process. That is not quite the same.
> 
> Again, as far as I know, opponents of self-determination are against the democratic process in question, regardless of their personal preferences about the outcome of said process.
> 
> We seem to have a fundamental discrepancy here.



But even the most ardent proponents of democratic self-determination will draw the line _at some level_. If me and my housemates wanted to form an independent state consisting of our house and our backyard, few people would recognize our right to do so, despite the 100% democratic support for such a decision within our community. The same would be the case if the inhabitants of a street, neighborhood, or a village wanted to secede from the surrounding state. This right starts being recognized only for geographic and demographic groups of much greater sizes, and there is no consensus -- or any rational argument, for that matter -- about the smallest size where the right of self-determination should kick in. Hence the fundamental and unavoidable contradiction: a proponent of democratic self-determination will advocate the right of democratic vote for independence of groups of certain size, but will deny it for groups below that size -- and this limit is usually determined by personal preferences in favor of the integrity of some group.

Again, this is by no means idle philosophizing. This is in fact one of the main mechanisms how the bloodiest ethnic and religious conflicts come about.  Suppose that a region mainly populated by ethnicity X, let's call it X-ia, is a part of the same state as another region mainly populated by ethnicity Y, call it Y-ia. Suppose then that the members of ethnicity X overwhelmingly vote in favor of independence of X-ia. However, those members of Y who live in X-ia are unhappy, because they want to stay in the same state with Y-ia. Thus they hold their own counter-referendum and overwhelmingly vote in favor of seceding from X-ia in those regions of X-ia where they are the local majority, and joining those regions to Y-ia. But of course, in those local regions, there are also members of X who are the local minority, and possibly the local majority in certain villages and neighborhoods, and they don't want to suddenly be cut apart from X-ia by any means, and not to mention that X-ian patriots are not happy with the prospect of a partition of X-ia either. The situation can of course be even more complicated, with ever finer local subdivisions. At the end, each side will claim that the right of self-determination stops at a certain point, only disagreeing at which one exactly -- and this conflict will likely result in violence, which may easily escalate into a full-blown war and campaigns of ethnic cleansing. Democratic decision-making won't help to solve the problem at all -- in fact, it _is _the problem, because the conflict stems _exactly_ from the disagreement about the level at which the minority must bow down to the will of the majority. 

Just replace X with "Croatia" and Y with "Serbia" in my above paragraph, and you'll get (more or less) the story about the start of the war in former Yugoslavia. The same pattern was of course replicated in countless places throughout the past century. Self-determination of ethnic groups is a concept that sounds very nice in theory, especially when we start talking about democratic self-determination, let alone when we additionally spice it up with stories of a history of foreign (whatever that means) domineering and oppression, whether real or imaginary. But in practice, few ideas have brought more blood and misery to the human race in recent history.


----------



## ernest_

Athaulf said:


> But even the most ardent proponents of democratic self-determination will draw the line _at some level_.



But not by definition. Not necessarily. There is nothing in the principle of self-determination that requires a line to be drawn anywhere. The problem you describe is not inherent in self-determination, it is merely circumstantial.



> If me and my housemates wanted to form an independent state consisting of our house and our backyard, few people would recognize our right to do so, despite the 100% democratic support for such a decision within our community. The same would be the case if the inhabitants of a street, neighborhood, or a village wanted to secede from the surrounding state.


The thing is: Would it be practical to form a new state of such tiny dimensions? Would it be practical to have a lot of isolated areas belonging to a state inside another state? Most likely, it wouldn't, and there are lots of examples to back this up. Remember West Berlin after WWII. The Western allies had to supply the city entirely by air because of the Soviet blockade. In the long term it wouldn't be sustainable, in most cases. My point is that at a certain level there are some practical barriers that make people not willing to exercise their right to self-determination. I am not saying that they have no right to self-determination, as I have got no objections to communities of any size self-determinating, I am just saying that secession would only do them more damage than good, therefore they would voluntarily renounce to it.



> At the end, each side will claim that the right of self-determination stops at a certain point, only disagreeing at which one exactly -- and this conflict will likely result in violence, which may easily escalate into a full-blown war and campaigns of ethnic cleansing. Democratic decision-making won't help to solve the problem at all -- in fact, it _is _the problem, because the conflict stems _exactly_ from the disagreement about the level at which the minority must bow down to the will of the majority.
> 
> Just replace X with "Croatia" and Y with "Serbia" in my above paragraph, and you'll get (more or less) the story about the start of the war in former Yugoslavia.


Very sad, indeed. But I think you are a bit overly pessimistic. It is true that there is no general agreement on at what level the minority must accept the rule of the majority, but we don't have to kill each other just because of this. There are civilised ways to deal with conflicts. We have invented the rule of law. He have got judges and everything. There should be some international law-enforcement entity to prevent disasters like the one you described from occurring.  And even if there is none yet, we don't need to go to war. As I said, I support the right to self-determination, and as much as I would like to see my nation becoming independent, I don't want and I will not kill anyone or use violence in order to achieve it. And I can tell you I am not on the side of the minority on that one, at least here in my little corner of the world


----------



## uchi.m

veleño said:


> ¿how important is your nationality for you?
> 
> There's a lot of migration in the world, the people move for job, money, love, etc. and they leave their countries, customs, etc.
> 
> I guess there should be people without a stable home!!!
> 
> So, would you move easily to another country or perhaps you think twice about it?



From my brief previous experience, I think you only give importance to your origins after you are gone, away from home.

Living abroad makes you homesick. If you never leave your country, you will never know how does that feel.


----------



## bibliolept

Entertaining thread, if a bit far-ranging.

I was born in one country and raised in another. I never identified with either, but I suspect that comes from having a hard time identifying fully with anyone around you--I'm a lousy fit anywhere. I've always said that it's silly to hate people for their skin color, ethnicity, language, or religion: there are far better reasons available.

I don't consider myself as having an ethnicity; I have or can easily claim citizenship in three different countries, I'm a mutt (Spanish and German ancestry, at least), and I don't believe that knowing a person's nationality or ethnicity can tell me anything of value about them.

Mind you, I admire people who take pride in their country or culture "of origin," whether they were raised within them or elsewhere. As someone who is passionate about folklore, I'm always glad that people go to extraordinary lengths to preserve their individual "heritage."

Yes, patriotism/nationalism can be manipulated or can lend itself to violence and to atrocities. So can any other human idea, practically.


----------



## Porteño

bibliolept said:


> Entertaining thread, if a bit far-ranging.
> 
> 
> I don't consider myself as having an ethnicity; I have or can easily claim citizenship in three different countries, I'm a mutt (Spanish and German ancestry, at least), and I don't believe that knowing a person's nationality or ethnicity can tell me anything of value about them.


 
I can't entirely agree with you there. In very general terms I think a person's nationality, perhaps not ethnicity, can tell you quite a lot about how they are likely to think or react. Of course, it is a long way from being 100% accurate and many people will not exactly fit the category you have devised for that particular nationality.


----------



## bibliolept

Porteño said:


> I can't entirely agree with you there. In very general terms I think a person's nationality, perhaps not ethnicity, can tell you quite a lot about how they are likely to think or react. Of course, it is a long way from being 100% accurate and many people will not exactly fit the category you have devised for that particular nationality.



I suppose you could say that their nationality cannot reliably tell you a lot about them. The question is, does relying on this "information" cause more harm than good?

I guess I just have an obsession with individualism or individuality. (Must be a Narragonian thing.)


----------



## Porteño

I'm afraid I don't know waht 'Narragonian' is. As to whether relying on this 'information' does more harm than good is rather a moot point, it would very much depend on what happened afterwards.


----------



## Athaulf

ernest_ said:


> The thing is: Would it be practical to form a new state of such tiny dimensions? Would it be practical to have a lot of isolated areas belonging to a state inside another state? Most likely, it wouldn't, and there are lots of examples to back this up.Remember West Berlin after WWII. The Western allies had to supply the city entirely by air because of the Soviet blockade. In the long term it wouldn't be sustainable, in most cases. My point is that at a certain level there are some practical barriers that make people not willing to exercise their right to self-determination. I am not saying that they have no right to self-determination, as I have got no objections to communities of any size self-determinating, I am just saying that secession would only do them more damage than good, therefore they would voluntarily renounce to it.



But what if an area is so thoroughly mixed that ethnic divisions really  go to such microscopic levels? This isn't just speculation -- that's exactly what Eastern Europe looked like a century ago, and many parts of the world still look like that. Observe, for example, this colorful ethnic map of Austria-Hungary from back then. This map is in fact far too simplistic; if you looked at a similar finer-scale map for even the smallest uniformly colored patch on it, you would find ever more complicated local ethnic patterns. Every large city was populated by a mix of up to a dozen ethnicities, thoroughly mixed down to the level of individual small neighborhoods and streets. Many small towns were also highly mixed, and even if you found a relatively homogeneous town or village, if would often be surrounded by nearby smaller towns and villages with an entirely different ethnic composition. The Polish mathematician Stanisław Ulam wrote that during his student days in Lviv, it was nothing unusual for his fellow students to randomly switch between four or five different languages in a typical conversation. Bosnia was still the home of a similar chaotic ethnic mix before the outbreak of the last war 16 years ago. 

So what does the right of "national self-determination" mean in such a situation? It can't mean anything other than forcing the will of majority onto the minority at some level, which can very easily lead into violent conflict that won't stabilize until the areas in question are forcibly homogenized by campaigns of ethnic cleansing -- which is exactly what happened in the 20th century, in which Eastern European lands probably drank more blood than any other area in human history. I feel particularly strongly about this because I personally felt the consequences of the last round of ethnic conflicts there, but I think I have every right to do so. Nowadays, the nation-states existing there are fairly stable, but who will claim that the price in death, devastation, and forcible population transfers was worth paying to establish the present situation where (almost) every ethnic group is "enjoying" its own highly homogeneous nation-state? 



> Very sad, indeed. But I think you are a bit overly pessimistic. It is true that there is no general agreement on at what level the minority must accept the rule of the majority, but we don't have to kill each other just because of this. There are civilised ways to deal with conflicts. We have invented the rule of law. He have got judges and everything. There should be some international law-enforcement entity to prevent disasters like the one you described from occurring.


But what you are now saying in a roundabout way is that the problems normally brought about by striving for national self-determination can be prevented by -- forcibly preventing the national self-determination, or at least giving up on it. If people decide to just continue living together, rather than insist on separation along ethnic lines, this means giving up on national self-determination and embracing some sort of political organization different from an ethnically-based nation-state. Moreover, the idea of supranational law enforcement that you mention is _the very polar opposite_ of the idea of national self-determination! What was, for example, Austria-Hungary, if not a supranational entity that was (however imperfectly) capable of ensuring long-lasting peace and relative freedom for dozens of ethnic groups that it encompassed? And yet, the very concept of "national self-determination" was pioneered by those who fought to break up such supranational political entities in the 19th and early 20th century.



> And even if there is none yet, we don't need to go to war. As I said, I support the right to self-determination, and as much as I would like to see my nation becoming independent, I don't want and I will not kill anyone or use violence in order to achieve it. And I can tell you I am not on the side of the minority on that one, at least here in my little corner of the world


Your corner of the world was however lucky in that when your last dictator died, the situation happened to develop in a relatively peaceful and stable direction, and nationalist passions were never seriously embraced except by a handful of nutcases. I frankly think that this was sheer luck -- former Yugoslavia didn't look any less stable than Spain back when both countries were still under the firm grip of their respective dictators (in fact, it was arguably even more stable, since we had nothing similar to ETA back then). In Spain, there has been a lot of grumbling against the central government and a healthy level of insistence on the local identities, but nobody except a few extremists would invest serious effort and accept serious sacrifices for the goal of breaking up the country along ethnic lines. On the other hand, in Yugoslavia after Tito's death, the situation unfortunately developed in an entirely different direction...

And please allow one more remark. If you had visited my home country 20 years ago, do you think that the people there would have seemed to you as bloodthirsty? In fact, do you think that you would have found them, on average, any less decent and non-violent than you and your compatriots? And yet you probably know what followed soon. To paraphrase Orwell, most nationalists are akin to people who enjoy playing with fire, but don't even know that the fire is hot.


----------



## LuisPuntoNet

I enjoy  living here in Ecuador. I guess I'm not going to go out of my PAIS.
Here, I'm with my family, my friends.


----------



## Lumememm

Dear Luis

I am new here and now I am trying to participate in your discussion about nationality.
I think that nationality has been and is important in our era, but may be not so important in future - like 1000 years forward. I expect all people speaking one language then and there will be no borders between the countries anymore. 
Thank you for your atteintion and looking forward your comments, Lumememm


----------



## Viperski

Well in my oppinion every single person has inprinted feeling to belong to a place or to a group of people. It's our natural instinct. First what you can realised is a common of lenguage that you and your mather/father/brather/friends speak. Then when you are 2 or 3 you can use the lenguage that your mather tough you to communicate to other people. You must live somwhere so since your childhood in most cases you know better and better your local neiborhood then your vilage/tow and the older you are the more you like it (in most cases). In certain period of your live you realised the town you live in is a part of greater land (county, wojewodztwo, land etc) that is a part of much bigger place called country. Your country is in most cases a state as well and has a history that is interested to you. Then one day you also realise your country and your countrymen belonged to a bigger group of countries with maybe different lenguages but similiar, in global, culture, ideas, behaviour, religions, customs. 
Anyway next step open you the whole world but in that stage you are SOMEONE SOMEWHERE ON THE EARTH.
I simply may say about me I feel first Polish then European.


----------



## Lumememm

Dear Viperski

Thank you for your opinion and interesting explanation, how the language is formed through development of human being from one`s childhood and in further life. 

I would like to express my friendly support to your statement of identity:
 "first Polish then European" 
as I see here similarity on my locality: 
feeling myself first Estonian then European. 

There is no doubt that language i one of the the most important factors
 in determination of the identity. 
Abovementioned feelings "Polish", "Estonian," "European",
may still be defined as internal point of view or as the opinion of subject. 
(which of course is very important considering the identity)
From the other side, there should be also taken into account some external opinion, the reflection from outside, to have more objective and broader basis for our discussion about european and national and language as the changing factor influencing the eurpeanization process.
Trying to imagine, how our national identity may be understandable to the people who are not europeans, it would be interesting to know, how it is perceptible externally.
May we presume that they specify us first like europeans and then like Polish or Estonian? I have to confess that I had no possibility to travel outside of Europa yet, thus I am not able to answer to that question. 
Hoping that someone can continue our discussion.
Best greetings to you 
Lumememm from Tallinn, Estonia


----------



## Dempsey

I was born here, but I have no ties to Australia. I think nationalism is dangerous and destructive, and prefer to be more 'my own man'.
In short, I will tolerate this culture (perhaps even enjoy it), and I will tolerate the government, until they become overbearing, in which case I will move to a different country. If the nation is the cause of my unhappiness then I will leave, it's that simple.

The only people that are important to me are the ones that I affect and am affected by. The people I interact with and my family and friends. Nationalism is irrelevant.


----------



## eujin

I agree with Dempsey. Increasingly a large number of people do not fit into the mould depicted by Viperski. Many people now grow up in several countries because their parents move, or they have parents from two or more different countries or they speak a different language at home to the one spoken in the country they live in.

This trend is only going to continue. As people who have dual nationality start families with other people with dual nationality, their offspring have some funny sort of quadranationality and so on. In some countries it works fine identifying with the country you were brought up in, but in somewhere like Korea, if both your parents were of mixed European descent, but you grew up speaking mainly Korean because you went to a Korean school, I think it would be hard to identify yourself as being "Korean". You could do it, but you'd get a lot of funny looks from both Koreans and non-Koreans.

People ask me where I'm from, in a "you must be from somewhere" type way. The answer I give depends on the context. Sometimes if they want a long complicated story I tell them, but sometimes I just pick one of the countries I could arguably be said to "come from" and go with that. When they get to know me they figure it out for themselves. Legally, linguistically, socially, emotionally, it's all different and so I don't think it really matters.


----------



## ilaria77

I am of the opinion that nationality is not something we choose, and there is therefore no point in being proud of it.

It's good to care about our country, but I do not understand patriotism sometimes.

I am Italian and 8 years ago I moved to the UK. 
I don't feel less Italian for it, and there's more: I also feel a little English, deep inside. I think you can be both, in this case.

Why not?
You can take all the positives from each country and use them to make you a better person.


----------



## Sepia

ilaria77 said:


> I am of the opinion that nationality is not something we choose, and there is therefore no point in being proud of it.
> 
> It's good to care about our country, but I do not understand patriotism sometimes.
> 
> ...



I agree ... but one can still feel a certain gratitude for what one has learned through growing up within a certan culture which is also often closely connected to a certain nation (although not always), right?


----------



## ilaria77

Sepia said:


> I agree ... but one can still feel a certain gratitude for what one has learned through growing up within a certan culture which is also often closely connected to a certain nation (although not always), right?


 
I wouldn't say gratitude but I can accept what I am as a result of the environment I was brought up in.

You can live, say, in Italy and not conform to the stereotypical Italian person, then move to another country and find out you can relate more to 
a "foreign" culture than you do to your own.


----------



## chronomantic

For me is utterly unimportant and here's my rant. I think people are so busy in their own affairs, that they don't often realize that we're all the same, we may look different but we're the same. 
  Patriotism/Nationalism are so arbitrary since we don’t chose to be born, let alone in a specific place. And ‘being proud of your country’ how’s that beneficial to me? It’s such an impersonal point of view. But of course the government only wants to keep perpetuating the status quo, and nationalism enables that, nationalism represents the government not its people. It’s the people who matters not the government who acts to solely benefit itself.  History doesn’t lie, what patriotism has been doing (and keeps doing so) for centuries? Producing wars with the military as its trigger. 
I know that is human nature wanting to belong, to be cherished in a community, in a certain place with people who have the same characteristics like you, but we have the same potential, we’re biologically the same. Is that hard to be just us, as individuals, wanting to be in a community with no more layers or anything else in between? I guess this derives from my very critical stance towards the state and its machinery. But now, culture and identity are other issues entirely, albeit interlinked between each other. 

Maybe I’m derailing a bit because I could go on and on, but this is one of those ideologies that don’t represent me at all.


----------



## Mate

Moderator Note:

After 183 posts, we have to close this interesting thread because it doesn't follow the current forum's guidelines.

Thank you all for taking part in this  interesting discussion, and for you understanding.

Thread closed.


----------

