# Patriotism



## Snowflake Minuet (Feb 20, 2016)

Do you consider yourself to be somewhat patriotic? Or very much so?


pa·tri·ot·ism
(ˈpātrēəˌtizəm)
_noun_
noun: patriotism
"the quality of being patriotic; vigorous support for one's country"


​Even if it's not "vigorous" support, how do you feel about being a part of a country? Is that "being a part of" something really important to you? A value? 

Or are you like me, typically preferring not to associate yourself with a country like that, for many reasons which I won't go on about in this post (I've talked about it here before too). Even countries I really love, I don't think that "feeling" of patriotism is something I've ever had. It just isn't me. So I'm curious about other people and types!


The poll should be fairly straight forward, just make four votes total, one for each of your MBTI letters. Thanks for participating!


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

[INTP]

When I was younger, I was very patriotic. Now and days, not so much.
I love my country, but I'm not proud of it. The people here some oblivious too all our countries flaws, and simply mentioning them is seen as the worse thing yet. A lot of the people here grow up thinking that our country is the best, but it isn't.

The schools in my country have strong political biases, and only teach students too be closed minded, and too only look at one side of every story.
Most of the people here can't handle hearing things they don't like. There was even a case where these radical feminists ruined a guy's life, and bring him too court, for 
* *




Saying that in his opinion, women getting beaten up in video games isn't a big deal


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

Yes, I consider myself patriotic.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Lots of people appear to be patriotic here in the United States. Why is that?


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

BigApplePi said:


> Lots of people appear to be patriotic here in the United States. Why is that?


Because of their McD's, fried Mars Bars, Honey Boo Boo and guns! Duh...


----------



## Flaming Bassoon (Feb 15, 2013)

While I don't hate the U.S., I can't say I'm overly patriotic about it (except on, like, Fourth of July because I love it when shit explodes). I find the "God bless America" and "best country in the world" shit a lot of politicians do is completely disingenuous and annoying. Like, the U.S. isn't a _bad _country, but the _best_​? Chill.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Indeed, I am patriotic, because _currently_, I live nowhere else on earth, other than my own country. Thus, it is necessary I take care of / protect it.

(e.g., my country_ is good _but it can always do better, _owning up to the past _(learning from history in order not to repeat it -- demythologizing), etc.

Proactive / positive attitude (towards ones own country / inhabitance), regardless of "_how many mistakes we make,_" or "_how many times we fuck something up,_".


----------



## dlb (Aug 30, 2017)

INFP

I live in the US and have lived abroad. We're very fortunate to live in this country; despite its many flaws.


----------



## Jaune (Jul 11, 2013)

I am ISTP.



Snowflake Minuet said:


> Do you consider yourself to be somewhat patriotic? Or very much so?
> 
> 
> pa·tri·ot·ism
> ...


I live in the United States. I consider myself lucky to be a citizen in this country compared to others, despite its problems. As such, I make sure not to badmouth this country (although I must add delivering constructive criticism about certain things is fine as long as you're willing to do your part and vote). One of my pet peeves is people who constantly complain about where they live without doing anything productive or trying to move out.

However, I'm not sure that I can consider myself a patriot, so I voted "no" in the poll. It's not an important value in my life to support my country. I also do not find it important to have a sense of belonging in this country. I do not consider being an "American" to be an important part of my identity. I do not relate to the so-called "patriots" of my country. I certainly don't consider the US as "the best country." I don't think I _love_ my country, but I _respect_ it.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Am I patriotic? What do I have to do to be patriotic? After all I live here and can't help it. My country ain't so innocent like yours says it is but am I gonna let you get away with what you say about it? Dog God bless _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

I'm not.  every country is equal


----------



## Monadnock (May 27, 2017)

It depends. I don't buy into the idea that America is a single country. I mean, anyone who lives here (and alot of Non-Americans too) recognize that people in, say, Alabama, tend to believe very different things from those who live in Connecticut. Or that the Pacific Northwest does things a certain way, but when you travel east to Idaho or Montana, the way of doing things has totally changed. 

I like the national boundaries idea that Joel Garreau talks about in his "Nine Nations Of North America" book. He says explicitly what everyone else has already figured out: there is alot more than one country here, and that includes the Canadian provinces too.










from this perspective:

-I'm patriotic about Mexamerica which is the nation I live in, the Empty Quarter, and the Breadbasket
-I like Ecotopia but I don't respect it
-I respect Dixie and The Foundry without liking them
-New England I want nothing to do with 


* *




One stereotypical patriotic thing about me is my huge support for the right to self-defense. When people start talking about stricter gun laws as a way of "reducing violence", I go from ambivalent about America to Patriot McFreedom. Shall not be infringed. What a wonderful phrase. <3


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

King Wenceslas said:


> from this perspective:
> 
> -I'm patriotic about Mexamerica which is the nation I live in, the Empty Quarter, and the Breadbasket
> -I like Ecotopia but I don't respect it
> ...


My off-the-cuff prejudices:

Mexamerica - Exotic peoples
Empty Quarter - Stay away from mt space
Breadbasket - I'm glad if hungry
Ectopia - Idealists
Foundry - Someone has to do work
The Islands - Too close to drowning
Dixie - Dangerous traditions
Quebec - A cold culture
New England - Glad for a home base

Change my mind if you please ...


----------



## Monadnock (May 27, 2017)

BigApplePi said:


> Change my mind if you please ...


I don't have any intentions of doing that, people like what they like and dislike what they dislike. I guess if you wanted your mind changed, you could travel to each area, one by one, to fully take each of them in.


----------



## master of time and space (Feb 16, 2017)

It s not for me. 

Patriotism for me seems to be a one way street. I just cannot understand the “love” that one is supposed to feel fore the country you were born in. Its just a country!

It s a conservative republican manifestation to bring all those like minded people together with a Hollywood slogan. 

To me it is just the face of the military institutions as I hear patriotism mentioned in every NSA, FBI, spy films, war films, terrorist films, politicians and anything and anyone that involves extreme power and control 

I very rarely hear the word in the UK and it is only used by politicians to stir up the right wing racist hatred of those who are different to the white majority


----------



## commejaimal (Dec 4, 2017)

King Wenceslas said:


> It depends. I don't buy into the idea that America is a single country. I mean, anyone who lives here (and alot of Non-Americans too) recognize that people in, say, Alabama, tend to believe very different things from those who live in Connecticut. Or that the Pacific Northwest does things a certain way, but when you travel east to Idaho or Montana, the way of doing things has totally changed.
> 
> I like the national boundaries idea that Joel Garreau talks about in his "Nine Nations Of North America" book. He says explicitly what everyone else has already figured out: there is alot more than one country here, and that includes the Canadian provinces too.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't say anyone. I personally disagree with you that there's several regions within the U.S. that are distinct. People from those regions, as well as "the way that things are done" in those regions are more or less all the same to me with negligible differences. I've travelled to each area and saw no distinction except in sometimes density and geography, but never the people.

--

I personally think patriotism is lame. It's one thing to be comfortable in the place you live in but it's another to take on your self-identity and exhume pride from it. I personally believe pride should come only from your achievements and taking pride in other people's achievements, which is ultimately what constitutes patriotism, is a sign that someone has little to offer. I've never loved something and I hope I never do. I'm much more content moving from place to place.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

King Wenceslas said:


> I don't have any intentions of doing that, people like what they like and dislike what they dislike. I guess if you wanted your mind changed, you could travel to each area, one by one, to fully take each of them in.


When I asked for what I meant was suggestions to change my mind about these attitudes I claimed for these territories, I was underneath trying to look for clues about patriotism. Sorry if this seems distant.

My views on those territories are superficial and not written in stone. If they were hardened they could wrongly affect those territories if adapted by too many people. Sure I could travel to those territories and learn, but I'm not going to do that. I live where I am (East coast) and can have my mind changed.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

commejaimal said:


> I personally think patriotism is lame.


It would seem so. I see the reason being what does an individual's values have to do with an entire country filled with people of whom we can know only very few?

I see the answer having to do with outside countries. We do see many other countries by how they interact with ours. If they appear to act on our side favorably that is one thing. If the opposite, that is another. If other countries actions become newsworthy it can unite one's own country. A problem though is we can become victims of those in our country whose values don't represent us. Propaganda. We have to learn about our own country and verify that bad or good things are happening to it else we be caught up in false patRIOTism.


----------



## commejaimal (Dec 4, 2017)

BigApplePi said:


> It would seem so. I see the reason being what does an individual's values have to do with an entire country filled with people of whom we can know only very few?
> 
> I see the answer having to do with outside countries. We do see many other countries by how they interact with ours. If they appear to act on our side favorably that is one thing. If the opposite, that is another. If other countries actions become newsworthy it can unite one's own country. A problem though is we can become victims of those in our country whose values don't represent us. Propaganda. We have to learn about our own country and verify that bad or good things are happening to it else we be caught up in false patRIOTism.


Patriotism is nothing more than living vicariously through other people. The ideology is literally taking personal investment in other people's achievements. It also implies a common "union" between you and others you have absolutely no idea of who just so happen to have the same nationality, and presumably the same interests though you've never met them. 

I understand the purpose of patriotism from a government standpoint but I wholeheartedly dislike the notion personally. I think it's morally bankrupt.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

esfp

It's hard to feel "patriotic" when your country embarrasses the heck out of you by electing a....

never mind.

"If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all."

(shuts mouth, says nothing)


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

He's a Superhero! said:


> Patriotism is uncomfortably close to something authentically terrifying...Nationalism.


I'm a Nationalist! 

I see that people seem to have a poor understanding of what political ideologies entail. In case you're thinking of people like DJ Trump as Nationalists, then no, they're not! Even the alt-right thing people have in America and Canada and similar ideologies throughout the world are more like imitations, but not the real thing. They're using Nationalist and Populist language, but seem to be lacking its spirit.

I would refer you to people like Otto von Bismarck to see what it is like. Actually, it is related in some respects to Liberalism (the European kind, not American Social-Democracy, which they call Liberalism). Nation states were formed throughout Europe through a combination of these ideas Nationalism and Liberalism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Modern developed states like Germany, Italy, even France, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc. to some extent, are direct consequences of Nationalist ideas.

But please, can you detail what worries you about Nationalism?


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

1nquisitor said:


> I'm a Nationalist!
> 
> I see that people seem to have a poor understanding of what political ideologies entail. In case you're thinking of people like DJ Trump as Nationalists, then no, they're not! Even the alt-right thing people have in America and Canada and similar ideologies throughout the world are more like imitations, but not the real thing. They're using Nationalist and Populist language, but seem to be lacking its spirit.
> 
> ...


Nationalism is one of the root causes of war, as it effectively divides people, promotes fear and hatred for other nations, and selfishly seeks it's own interest above all others. Nationalists feel superior to other nations (which is racism), and they will consider the lives of their own nation to be more important than the lives of those from other nations, dehumanizing everybody else. It is extremist, and was the force behind countless historical atrocities, such as the holocaust. It was what caused Yugoslavia to violently implode. It was what brought about the Khmer Rouge. It is what created ISIS.
Nationalism is a cancer of this world.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

He's a Superhero! said:


> Nationalism is one of the root causes of war, as it effectively divides people, promotes fear and hatred for other nations, and selfishly seeks it's own interest above all others. Nationalists feel superior to other nations (which is racism), and they will consider the lives of their own nation to be more important than the lives of those from other nations, dehumanizing everybody else. It is extremist, and was the force behind countless historical atrocities, such as the holocaust. It was what caused Yugoslavia to violently implode. It was what brought about the Khmer Rouge. It is what created ISIS.
> Nationalism is a cancer of this world.


I see your point, but throughout world history, if you look at it people have gone to war long before there was any Nationalism. War is part of human nature, and if don't don't have war for national considerations we will have war for other reasons. Humanity is a warring species. Regarding the division of people, I have to say that we can have division and peace and understanding at the same time. I would see it as good neighbourly relations (say I'm your neighbour, I like you, I respect you, we coexist peacefully, but I don't move in with you). Regarding the fear and hatred, it may happen that is true, but normally no, it doesn't. And it is normal to prioritise your own group's interests above others (consider your family, you would prioritise your children's needs above those of other people's children, and it's not because you hate other children, but because you really, really love yours).

You also mention racism... I've noticed that in American media this word is used a lot, without any clear understanding. Indeed, you are right, racism is the belief that one's own race is superior to (some) other races. I will give you the example of president Trump's "shithole countries comment". I follow world news from a variety of news outlets (MSNBC for the US, CBC for Canada, Euronews and others for Europe and Al Jazeera for Africa and the Arab world). His comment clearly deserves condemnation, but it is a comment about countries, not races or people. It is about poorer countries, some of them being so-called failed states. Again, I feel that current US foreign policy is either confusing or offensive to other states. I also don't see the whole wall thing as racist, but as an insult to the sovereign and independent country of Mexico. But that isn't racism, it is how great powers throughout time, regardless of race or creed have treated weaker nations.

Regarding the last part of your comment, it is true that Nationalism did create the Holocaust and was a driving ideology in the Yugoslav wars. You are right about that. However, I have to disagree regarding the Khmer Rouge (it was Socialism/Communism) and ISIS (it is Islamic fundamentalism). Democracy also created countless victims, think of what the Democratic United States did to the American Indians. Or Socialism... Think of the GULAG in the Soviet Union or the Great Leap Forward in China, actually it is estimated that Socialism murdered over 100 million people...

What I want to say is the fact that I come from a Eastern European country (Romania) which did have experience both with Socialism/Communism and Islam. We were conquered by the Soviet Union after World War II and the regime imposed on us was... Atrocious... They invented the Pitesti Experiment, which Alexander Solzhenitsyn, rightfully in my opinion, called it "the most terrible act of barbarism in the contemporary world" (and he came from the Soviet Union, he had seen some bad stuff) Regarding Islam, we fought sporadically against Islamic-Turkish expansionism for centuries. We have Islamic Tatar and Turkish minorities in our country and I want to say that there are no terrorists among them (they are very well integrated in our society). While under Ottoman occupation, there was a systematic plunder going on, but they respected our Eastern Orthodox religion and let us practice it peacefully (something the Catholics in Transylvania weren't very keen on). After centuries of conflict, in the end, we won our independence from the Ottoman Empire. Current relations with Turkey are peaceful and civilised.

Also, I want to tell you something about the Nazis. We had both Nazis and Communists in our country and my grandmother was young when World War II occurred. She repeatedly told us how civilised the German Nazis were... Whenever you offered them something, they offered to pay for it. They were always polite and civil, even when we became their enemies. The Communists however were an altogether different story... The Cossacks were ok, they were civilised. However the Asians from the Soviet Union were savages. They raped, murdered and plundered everything in sight (they seemed to have a fascination with watches). My grandmother had to hide with her sisters from them. They even raped Polish women, and Poland was their ally.

So yes, the media and films simplify a more complex story, since we humans want to believe we (good) are fighting against evil (them). It sells better. Every ideology, even Democracy, has within it both good and evil, it can empower or persecute. Just because I love my people, doesn't automatically mean I hate others, just like I consider it normal for those others to favour their own kind above me.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

1nquisitor said:


> I see your point, but throughout world history, if you look at it people have gone to war long before there was any Nationalism. War is part of human nature, and if don't don't have war for national considerations we will have war for other reasons. Humanity is a warring species.


War does have more than just one cause, however that doesn't mean we should just accept these problems, since if we take away one source for wars we will still have wars...If we can just reduce wars, don't you think that would be worth it? Besides this, the way I understand it is that war is not something that the human brain was meant to be able to deal with. The is a real problem with the amount of soldiers who suffer from PTSD, and that's due to the fact that the human brain doesn't cope well in horrific situations like being in a war zone, and actively trying to kill other humans...That does something to the mind. War is an emotional and psychological nightmare that usually permanently damages those who survive it.



1nquisitor said:


> Regarding the division of people, I have to say that we can have division and peace and understanding at the same time. I would see it as good neighbourly relations (say I'm your neighbour, I like you, I respect you, we coexist peacefully, but I don't move in with you). Regarding the fear and hatred, it may happen that is true, but normally no, it doesn't. And it is normal to prioritise your own group's interests above others (consider your family, you would prioritise your children's needs above those of other people's children, and it's not because you hate other children, but because you really, really love yours).


That's not what I meant by _dividing_ people. Of course, people will have their own houses and families ~ that's just part of life for any nation. Just because we don't live in eachothers' houses doesn't mean we are divided though, just like living in separate rooms doesn't divide us in this way. Also, if we live in different houses, and are part of different families, that doesn't mean we see ourselves as superior to the other. On the other hand, how Nationalism divides people is nefarious. It teaches that "us" really is better then "them", and that we can't coexist in the same place if we are of different nations, and that we can't get along. It blows things out of proportions, just like how the Football War started between El Salvador and Honduras. Sports are supposed to bring humans together, but not so when Nationalism is involved, it turns a friendly game into a fierce rivalry, and further divides us.



1nquisitor said:


> You also mention racism... I've noticed that in American media this word is used a lot, without any clear understanding. Indeed, you are right, racism is the belief that one's own race is superior to (some) other races. I will give you the example of president Trump's "shithole countries comment". I follow world news from a variety of news outlets (MSNBC for the US, CBC for Canada, Euronews and others for Europe and Al Jazeera for Africa and the Arab world). His comment clearly deserves condemnation, but it is a comment about countries, not races or people. It is about poorer countries, some of them being so-called failed states. Again, I feel that current US foreign policy is either confusing or offensive to other states. I also don't see the whole wall thing as racist, but as an insult to the sovereign and independent country of Mexico. But that isn't racism, it is how great powers throughout time, regardless of race or creed have treated weaker nations.
> 
> Regarding the last part of your comment, it is true that Nationalism did create the Holocaust and was a driving ideology in the Yugoslav wars. You are right about that. However, I have to disagree regarding the Khmer Rouge (it was Socialism/Communism) and ISIS (it is Islamic fundamentalism). Democracy also created countless victims, think of what the Democratic United States did to the American Indians. Or Socialism... Think of the GULAG in the Soviet Union or the Great Leap Forward in China, actually it is estimated that Socialism murdered over 100 million people...


The Khmer Rouge was extremely Nationalistic. The fact that they were Socialist/Communist doesn't change that, as Socialism/Communism is very capable of Nationalism (China under Mao Zedong, for example).
ISIS certainly uses religion as a way to rally support, however there is a lot more to it than that, and we cannot ignore that they too are Nationalist Extremists.

I agree with you on Democracy and Socialism in connection with Nationalism and terrible atrocities. Nationalism under any form of government is scary, and often results in atrocities.



1nquisitor said:


> What I want to say is the fact that I come from a Eastern European country (Romania) which did have experience both with Socialism/Communism and Islam. We were conquered by the Soviet Union after World War II and the regime imposed on us was... Atrocious... They invented the Pitesti Experiment, which Alexander Solzhenitsyn, rightfully in my opinion, called it "the most terrible act of barbarism in the contemporary world" (and he came from the Soviet Union, he had seen some bad stuff) Regarding Islam, we fought sporadically against Islamic-Turkish expansionism for centuries. We have Islamic Tatar and Turkish minorities in our country and I want to say that there are no terrorists among them (they are very well integrated in our society). While under Ottoman occupation, there was a systematic plunder going on, but they respected our Eastern Orthodox religion and let us practice it peacefully (something the Catholics in Transylvania weren't very keen on). After centuries of conflict, in the end, we won our independence from the Ottoman Empire. Current relations with Turkey are peaceful and civilised.
> 
> Also, I want to tell you something about the Nazis. We had both Nazis and Communists in our country and my grandmother was young when World War II occurred. She repeatedly told us how civilised the German Nazis were... Whenever you offered them something, they offered to pay for it. They were always polite and civil, even when we became their enemies. The Communists however were an altogether different story... The Cossacks were ok, they were civilised. However the Asians from the Soviet Union were savages. They raped, murdered and plundered everything in sight (they seemed to have a fascination with watches). My grandmother had to hide with her sisters from them. They even raped Polish women, and Poland was their ally.
> 
> So yes, the media and films simplify a more complex story, since we humans want to believe we (good) are fighting against evil (them). It sells better. Every ideology, even Democracy, has within it both good and evil, it can empower or persecute. Just because I love my people, doesn't automatically mean I hate others, just like I consider it normal for those others to favour their own kind above me.


Caring about what we know is not Nationalism. Nationalism is extreme behaviour that goes beyond what is/should be normal. Sure, we tend to love our own families especially, but having love for all humans no matter what their nation is the opposite of Nationalism.
The thing is, it is both expected and very easy for us to love our own families and close friends, but showing love for a stranger, an outsider, a foreigner we have never met before, that is not always so easy, and it's certainly not expected. Imagine now how difficult it would be to show love for an enemy?

This reminded me of a couple of verses in the Bible...

"_For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing?_" (Matthew 5:46, 47)


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

You are right, if we can reduce the number of wars, we should do that. But I don't see Nationalism as being worse than just about any other justification used to justify wars. I think that there is in fact a single main cause for most wars and that is Economics. We fight for resources. My neighbour has something that I want, I can't afford the peaceful price (trade), but I think I'm stronger than my neighbour, therefore I will take it by force. However ideologies were invoked to justify wars. They were needed since people (those actually fighting, but also the leaders who needed to feel better about themselves) will think that a war for economic reasons isn't a just war. We're going to risk our lives for something, therefore we want it to at least be just. So leaders will create moral reasons for the war (it may be Nationalism, but it can just as easily be Democracy, actually the most recent important international conflicts were triggered by a Democratic nation: the United States... I'm not condemning them, I am simply making an observation). If it's not political, they will invoke religion or ancestry or laws, etc. The ideologies are the victims here, from my point of view. Many people condemn religion as one of the greatest causes of wars, but I see it in fact as a victim of political leaders who used it to justify their actions and place them in a moral context.

Going back to Nationalism. It didn't really mention anything about any superiority, at least not originally. Fascism and National-Socialism are offshoots of Nationalism, but they are not the same thing as the original ideology. Regarding the coexistence of different people in the same geographic space... It depends on how large a minority is and how many minority groups there are:
1. I think large homogeneous minorities cannot coexist peacefully with the majority population (for hundreds of years black and white Americans were unable to find a form of peaceful and mutually respectful coexistence, even when things seem peaceful there is a simmering resentment on both sides).
2. Multiple small minority populations with a smaller majority population can coexist somewhat peacefully (think of Canada, overall it seems to be peaceful, but there is an underlying tension present within Canadian society, especially regarding the Muslim and First Nations minorities).
3. Multiple small minority populations with larger majority population can coexist peacefully (think of Japan, there are some minorities, but overall they are well integrated into society)

You mention that Nationalism is extreme behaviour going beyond what is acceptable. I will give you the example of my country. Back in the 19th century, it was divided into 3 different zones: 2 semi-independent states, which during the course of the century united and became independent (Wallachia and Moldavia) and 1 region within the Austrian Empire, later Austria-Hungary (Transylvania). Although the Romanians were the majority population in Transylvania, they had inferior status compared to German and Hungarian speaking minorities, both politically and religiously. A number of 1892 a number Romanian Nationalists gathered and wrote a petition to the Austrian Emperor demanding religious and political rights, since they were discriminated against. For example, there was pressure to convert to a form of Catholicism (Greek Catholicism... a sort of Eastern Christianity under the control of the Pope). Were they unreasonable? I will let you judge for yourself. Nationalism over time liberated many nations. I will give you only my country's example, but I'm certain Hungarians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Germans, Colombians, Venezuelans, Mexicans, Indians, and many other nations, have similar stories in their own histories.

I want to translate to you a part of what Nationalists said then:

"Din însărcinarea acelei conferinţe, în care au fost reprezentaţi toţi Românii din Cisleithania, ne prezentăm cu omagială supunere la treptele gloriosului Tron al Maiestăţii Voastre, ca să atragem părinteasca luare aminte a Majestăţii Voastre asupra primejdiilor ce rezultă pentru Patria comună din actuala politică de stat şi să aducem la cunoştinţa Majestăţii Voastre faptele în urma cărora Românii, cei mai credincioşi şi mai răbdători dintre cetăţenii Monarchiei, s-au văzut siliţi a renunţa, deocamdată, la exercitarea celor mai mari dintre drepturile, pe cari le au din îndurarea Maiestăţii Voastre, drept răsplată pentru jertfele de avere şi de sânge, pe cari le-au adus întru gloria Casei Domnitoare şi pentru Monarchie."

Link to the entire text in the original language: Memorandumul din 1892 - Enciclopedia României - prima enciclopedie online despre România

"By delegation of that conference, in which all Romanians from Cisleithania were represented, we present ourselves with humble submission at the stairs of Your Majesty's glorious throne, to draw Your Majesty's fatherly attention with regard to the dangers to our common Fatherland resulting from the current state policies and to bring to Your Majesty's attention the deeds which subjected the Romanians, the most faithful and patient citizens of the Monarchy, to giving up, for now, the exercise of the most important rights, that were granted by Your Majesty's grace, as a reward for the wealth and blood sacrifices, that they have made for the glory of the Ruling House and for the Monarchy"

These are the real words of Nationalists, not what the media or films interpret them to be or what they think they would be, but their real words. They wanted to study their own language in schools, they wanted to practice their religion freely, they wanted access to political offices (they were barred from doing so at the time). I will let you judge for yourself how much hate there is in these words.


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

No, I've never had any nationalistic inclinations whatsoever. I'm not particularly passionate about my country's culture, people or the language we speak. These are aspects which have been indifferent to me for as long as I can remember. (intj)

My family is not patriotic either, although both of my parents have lived here their entire lives and willingly paid military service. With time they've just come to realise this place does not serve its people in return. You ask me, I think it took them long enough, considering they lived their youth under some sick absolutism which an increasing amount of people today even doubt was worse than our current political conditions. A majority of the old and the newer generations' gems have been treated poorly by the country they belonged to.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

I'll call myself a tame non-violent ethno-nationist who believes in cultural homogeneity, rejects multi-culturalism (if said multi-culturalism results in moral relativism), freedom of association and disassociation as well as freedom to demand segregated spaces non-violently ... and yeah, I'm fairly patriotic. 

I'm fairly high on the extroversion scale. The rest of the letters are useless in my case as I'm very balanced.


----------

