The Problem with Patriotism/Nationalism | Hacker News Reader

The Problem with Patriotism/Nationalism

mattmaroon.com

19 pointscwan20 comments

"So when I buy a shirt, whether the job of making it went to an American or a Chinese person, someone got paid and I’m happy for that."

While I (think I) understand the heart of this sentiment, if you're going to be non-patriotic, you should still be pro-human rights to some degree.

If a corporation exploits workers (either at home or abroad), you shouldn't be happy about giving them your money. Yes, the "anti-establishment, local-everything" crowd takes this to the extreme, but I still think it should be a factor in your decision-making.

While I (think I) understand the heart of this sentiment, if you're going to be non-patriotic, you should still be pro-human rights to some degree.

If a corporation exploits workers (either at home or abroad), you shouldn't be happy about giving them your money.

I'm not certain I understand precisely your argument; I have the impression that you're referring to the sweatshops and similar? I wouldn't put "A minimum wage of $foo" under the header of "human rights", myself, which is why I think I'm missing your point a bit.

On the assumption that I understand it, however, and the primary complaint against these companies is that they pay their workers very little, I would like to ask: what other options do the companies actually have? Paying the workers anything like a first-world wage would probably cause all sorts of fun with inflation. Paying them a third-world wage is evil. Is the solution to just not have employees in (e.g.) China at all? (Honest question.)

But, again, I probably misunderstood your point.

Perhaps "human rights" is too broad an umbrella, but I still think it applies.

My primary complaint is not about wage. It's about the treatment of workers in general. Unsafe conditions, unsustainable hours, exposure to chemicals, dangerous equipment, forced labor, physical abuse, etc. And, yes, people can be underpaid even relative to their cost of living.

Combine those things with governments that afford little or no transparency and you have what amounts to a "human rights" problem (in my opinion).

Seriously, it's not hard to find reports on working conditions in China ... yes, I know they aren't all bad ... but it aint Willy Wonka's chocolate factory over there. Nothing wrong with putting a little research and thought into your purchasing decisions–that was my point.

Oh, and I don't think your last question was honest ... because it makes no sense. The solution obviously isn't to have no employees in China.

exploits != just low wages.

If I kidnap your children and force you to work for me -- Even if I offer to pay $1000/hour I'm still exploiting.

In general - "sweat-shops" with low wages are good for the people/country involved.

But any contract should be a two-way street. If I can't leave (see the international sex trade, immigrant workers in Dubai, etc) Or am being compelled to doing something I otherwise wouldn't - then that is an infringement of human rights.

I think patriotism is just a special case of misusing the word "we". As in "we put a man on the moon". No you didn't. Hundreds of physicists, mathematicians, engineers, workmen, and men (and women) with really big balls put a man on the moon. You had almost nothing to do with it (other than being forced to provide an infinitesimal part of the funding, but that's hardly your achievement).

This is the reasoning Al Gore uses when he claims to have invented the Internet.

Can we get that bullshit out of the way? The guy was misquoted and both Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, pioneers and creators of many of the Internet's base technologies, recognize the man's achievements on this matter. http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~fessler/misc/funny/gore,net.txt

Putting a man on the moon would not have been possible without the funding that was supplied by the American people so yes WE is appropriate.

As sort of an aside: I'm living in England, and have a friend with a very (English) nationalistic bent - and he actually identifies far more with, say, our Indian or Polish communities than he does with the angry, ignorant, BNP style person that would have them "go home", as he sees them as having a far greater sense of their heritage than the baseball-cap wearing, drum-and-bass club-frequenting, take-away chomping thralls that have "lost all sense of their national identity".

How important any of this is is definitely open to debate (we argue about it all the time, actually), but he's a smart guy with an interesting point of view, and I think he serves as a good example of why you shouldn't automatically associate patriotism/nationalism with racism, protectionism and bigotry.

That said, though, he is probably quite an exception in this regard.

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it."

There's a critical difference between nationalism and patriotism. What that quote is talking about is nationalism.

Here is what the quote should say:

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is good because its people, culture and government are fundamentally moral."

By "moral," I mean "good for human life."

It's right to be patriotic about America. In this country, more than anywhere in the world, people are free. Free to live their own lives, to generate wealth, and to generate happiness. And we have a culture that supports reason, productiveness, and life in general.

Of course there are lots of exceptions to that, like protracted and pointless wars in the Middle East, but those are not fundamental artifacts of the conception of America; they are side-effects of bad culture today.

By your definition of patriotism, there is no such thing in practice. It always degrades from loving your country because you were born in it, to hating other countries because you weren't born in them. It's extremely rare to see a benevolent version of patriotism the way you describe it.

It's extremely rare to see a benevolent version of patriotism the way you describe it.

I see it every weekend at Rugby matches.

Patriotism is the belief that people who happened to be born on this bit of land created something unique and greater than the sum of its parts here, and the desire to be a part of that and live up to its ideals.

If someone doesn't feel that where they are now, and doesn't relocate to somewhere where they can feel it, well, I feel a bit sorry for them.

This is fundamentally the same argument that communists use when they are asked about Stalin or Ceausescu. I dislike the notion that all bad parts of an arbitrary system can be explained away by saying "Well, that's not really the system. The real system has zero-latency networks and functional immortality and no-one ever cries."

The "fundamental artifacts of the conception of America" are infinitely less important than what America actually is. The same applies to communism, anarchism, and C++.

I think Political Leadership allover the world want their voters to be subservient and they mask this is as Patriotism/Nationalism

Is this suitable for HN?

It's something to think about. That's HN in a nutshell, as far as I'm concerned.

What do you not think about (just playing devil's advocate here)?

Now there's an infinitely-answerable question! I don't think bout what would happen if my pineal gland turned into trifle, or the implications of the increasing variety of hair-care products on Afro-Vietnamese relations, or how many M&Ms it would take to fill my shoe (though I admit that the latter question could well turn up in one of these trendy job-interviews we keep hearing about - get researching!)

Basically, I don't think about those things (in any depth, at least) because nobody else does. Subjects such as the double-edged sword of nationalism etc. plague our collective consciousness and as such are worth the brain-cycles, if you're that way inclined.

So flag it then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com