This story is not relevant to the privacy issues at hand. This is distracting from the conversation we should be having.
You are not your government. It's possible to love your country while not accepting that the actions and authority of your government are correct.
Edward Snowden obviously loves his country and the people of it.
I think Snowden's actions demonstrate a motivation more virtuous than preserving nationalistic ideals. His acted in the name of humanity! It wasn't just about American's 4th amendment, but the privacy of the people of the world.
> It's possible to love your country while not accepting that the actions and authority of your government
What is a country but the actions of it's government? A country without a government is just.. people?
When people talk about their love of country as distinct from their love of their country's government, they're generally expressing appreciation for a set of national characteristics that'll likely endure for a lot longer than their current government.
But nationalism applies to a specific territory -- as defined by a government. It just seems arbitrary to love people of a certain territory and not another due to a border established by a monopolistic force on violence.
You're trying to simplify something that's rather complex because you don't like nationalism - but people almost universally have more affection towards those who share things in common with them, and that's all nationalism is at its core. Borders on a map don't create this national affection - instead, nationalism creates the borders! When borders get out of sync with nations, you get war and unrest, both within and between countries, and when this happens, it's usually the border that eventually ends up getting adjusted, with exceptions only achieved through brutal repression.
I guess I don't understand the point of nationalism -- besides the obvious -- to distinguish and dehumanize people of other cultures.
In your opinion, should people take pride in the color of their skin?
Nationalism is something people seem to naturally do. Whether it has a 'point' or not in 2013 is pretty irrelevant - if people are doing it anyway, it's important to try and understand it. While nationalism certainly does distinguish people, it doesn't follow that it dehumanizes others. Having a 'love of country' is perfectly compatible with recognizing the humanity of those not in it.
As for your last question, of course not. I'm a little curious why you asked me that. Do you think I'm some sort of racist for trying to explain a concept to you that's prevalent across the globe?
Google defines ethnicity as: The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
Sounds a bit circular.
> Nationalism is something people seem to naturally do.
Nationalism is something you do? How does one nationalism?
> Whether it has a 'point' or not in 2013 is pretty irrelevant - if people are doing it anyway, it's important to try and understand it
Based on what I've gathered, nationalism is a way to arbitrarily distinguish your culture from another in hopes of inevitably forming a border with your neighbor in order to enact a national government?
> Do you think I'm some sort of racist for trying to explain a concept to you that's prevalent across the globe?
Not one bit. I understand the notion is prevalent, but I wonder if we would be better off without it. Similar to racism, it's prevalent and we would be better off without it. I do feel that many arguments in favor of national pride work in favor of racial pride as well -- which is why I brought it up.
Lonnie Snowden has not spoken to his son since April, but he fears that Edward may be manipulated by WikiLeaks handlers and would like to get in touch with him.
"[...] probably [...]"
"[...] has not spoken to his son since April [...]"
The article mentions what his father has said. It says nothing about what Edward Snowden has offered.