Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The prospect of “Becoming a nationalist” scares you solely because of the liberal-tolerant confusion that is the main content of the modern information space.�
No views, no ideology in itself contains evil and heresy, much less something as harmless as nationalism.�
A person really feels much more comfortable in the company of people of the same culture, mentality, traditions and upbringing – this is called a monocultural, highly contextual society. Most often, such a society consists of people of the same nationality or similar socio-cultural traditions of nations: for example, modern Scandinavia (excluding Sweden, which is increasingly turning into a “black hole”) or modern Israel.�
Problems start only when a person's views and ideology become a reason for aggression and violence: both in relation to him and on his part in relation to dissidents.
If your intellect and morals serve you as a sufficient insurance against this , then profess any views on health that historical experience suggests to you, including.
And what, in fact, in the knowledge of history, encourages you to nationalism? I am curious because I am just interested in history (and not only in the history of my country, but of the whole world), and I have never received any hints of the formation of nationalist values from a long-standing and thoughtful study of history so far.
Would it be difficult for you to expand your question in the comments to make it clearer what exactly you are talking about?
A Russian citizen who knows history cannot become a nationalist. Our great rulers were either semi-Slavs, or directly foreigners. Great military leaders and artists are also not pure Slavs. In addition, we have a lot of nations with which we had different relations at different times.�
And the famine of the 30s you arrive simply by ignorance. It's like the Ukrainian front, where only Ukrainians fought.
The famine was in the territories, not in ethnic groups. No one went and fed the Russians not in the Volga region or in Ukraine. Everyone died the same way. By the way, the country was headed by a Georgian.�
And yes, this was not the first famine in Russia. In tsarist Russia, they starved and died no less.
Learn history, read not science fiction, but documents and scientific works.
The fact is that the human past is not given to us by itself. Just remember the famous saying: “History is written by winners.” History can be considered not only as a science about the past, but also as a kind of language for describing it. If we consider it as related events that form a complete story about the past, we come to the conclusion that the resulting plot serves as a memory. But what is memory? If there is a memory, then there is a rememberer. And the memory clearly does not exist for decorative purposes. It serves as identification. Nationalism is indeed unthinkable without history, though understood only in a certain way. And if we look at the above statement more deeply than in the everyday sense, then the authorities get a monopoly on the interpretation of not only history, but also culture, sexuality, science, and much more.
What's wrong with that? The fact that once you get into the iconic networks of a certain ideology, you lose your subjectivity. You are no longer subordinate to yourself, but to a certain group and its ideas about the good and beautiful. You can figure out the consequences for yourself.
It is necessary to resist the approach to history, in which the meanings extracted by individual scientists claim totality. The study of history can make a person both a nationalist and a liberal. But this only tells us that the totality of our perception of the human past leads to our deindividualization.
So in history, there is everything for this!
Nationalist states live less and are less successful than multinational empires.
Mononationalist states fall in a catastrophe with monstrous victims and loss of cultural baggage, while multinational ones fall-transform into something new-there are fewer victims, the fall of culture is not so catastrophic.
UPD: I love history� and I really wonder why the above opinion is minus – I wonder what you can say, maybe I'm really wrong. Write it down at least in the abstract.