Pride in the nation can easily turn into nationalism. Nationalism is the most destructive force in history. Millions of innocent conscripts have marched to their deaths in the name of nationalism.

In this day and age of globalism we should make nationalism a part of history, not resurrect it from the grave for short term political gain.

Howard is playing with fire here. More Cronullas anyone?

Gusi, you need to define nationalism. There is a natural form of nationalism in which the individuals living in a particular country feel themselves to belong to a distinct culture, people and tradition. The people of that nation will feel a particular sense of connection to each other, and they will feel a particular responsibility to ensure the well-being of their own nation.

This kind of nationalism is often used for the right purposes. Think of the situation in 1940, when the Germans had rolled through much of Europe. If it weren't for the very solid nationalism found in Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, it's likely that the Germans would have triumphed in that war.

Gusi, you talk about an age of globalism. It's true that the Western nations have begun to jettison their national traditions in favour of a more globalised approach. But has the rest of the world?

And what will happen if the West continues to give up on the idea of national unity, whilst other parts of the world combine nationalism with economic growth and development? Won't the divided, globalised West eventually lose its power relative to countries like China? Won't the "Pax Americana" eventually break down if America loses its core nationalism and can no longer project a national strength on the world stage?

Finally, many wars of the twentieth century weren't brought about by simple nationalism. It was a century of contested ideologies and economic systems (nazism, communism, capitalism). Even without nationalism, there would still be a cause for war not only in such ideological conflicts, but also in power struggles amongst the elite, or through the efforts of a ruling faction to enrich themselves or gain additional power through territorial expansion.

Darwin1, mickijo, Runner, as I said, pride is unhistorical. It follows logically that the other side of that coin, shame, is also unhistorical. Thus your line of questioning is irrelevant. Please understand the article and let us know if you have any interesting questions.

I did not say I was ashamed of Australia – I only said there are some aspects of its foundation I do not admire. But apparently, in mickijo, Darwin1 and Runner’s world, even this fairly bland statement is some kind of unforgivable PC thoughtcrime. It seems the only people whom they will accept as Australians are those whose admiration of this country is total, unquestioning and absolute. Welcome to Stalingrad. I did mention something about pride being used by certain people to brand dissenters as unpatriotic, and they gave us textbook example.

Alchemist, it must be nice for you to be the only person who understands “the reality of the world”, but frustrating to have to share that world with all us “indoctrinated and programmed” people. So you imagine you see “another agenda” behind what I wrote and have a little psychological theory about why I wrote it. Your attempt to analyse my work was about as accurate as the average poststructuralist trying to deconstruct Shakespeare. See? You’re a postmodernist and you didn’t even know it.

As should be obvious from the article, I was talking about national pride; however I suppose much the same argument could apply to religion.

Mark Richardson, thanks for your comments. I agree that people tend to feel pride “when we feel that some entity we belong to created whatever is being admired”, but I maintain the view, for the reasons stated in the article, that taking pride in the achievements of others is unethical. It seems to me more appropriate that you would hold admiration for the temples of Kyoto, and for the Harbour Bridge, but that pride would be inappropriate (unless of course you happen to work on the Harbour Bridge!) Thank you for making the first interesting and useful criticism of this article so far.

Mercurious: Thank you for typing your rebuttal slowly so I can follow it more better.

I agree that Australia is 20 odd million people and not a land mass. My point was that whilst one cannot take pride in another’s individual achievements, one can take pride in the results of a fellow Australian’s effort. For example one cannot take personal pride in Graeme Clark’s development of the bionic ear. Clark and his family are the only ones who can do that. But it is entirely natural to feel proud that so many peoples lives have been improved through the genius of an Australian. I fail to see anything unethical in that!

You may not have used the word “hillbillies” but the implications of your words were clear and you know it.

“When I’m as horrified as you claim to be, I do something about it” - Yeah? Like what? It’s a pity you’re not horrified about the damage done to our kids by PC teachers unions and P & C’s over the years.

Mark,

With nationalism I mean the tribal behaviour displayed as a national group. Tribal behaviour must be something in our genes (I am not a psychologist) as it seems to pop up everywhere. From madly supporting a footclub to hating the supporters of an opposing club. While most people see that these divisions aren't real many don't. For example the dislike of kiwi's that so many australians have crosses from a joke to reality for too many people.

In the WWI and WWII nationalism was widely used to indoctrinate the masses. People went to war not "for the good of capitalism" nor the "triumph of communism" but "for king and country" or "mother russia". Even the germans made just a slight adjustment to their WWI slogan "Ein land, ein Volk, ein Gott" (One Nation, One people, one God) to "Ein Land, ein Volk, ein Fuehrer" in WWII. Opposition nationals were dehumanised (Huns, Untermensch etc) so we could hate them more easily.

Reality of course is that all people are exactly the same and most just want to lead a cofortable life and provide for their families, regardless of whether their soul is placed in a body born in the east, west, north or south.

Attempts such those of the internationals to stop ordinary people fighting in conscript armies failed as the masses rallied to the flag in 1914.

That is why I cringe each time pollies bandy the term "unaustralian" or we are bombarded with anthems at the Olympics.

Bozzie is correct, it is the 'black armband,left wing'ideology taught to our kids in school for the past few decades that have sickened most of us.
We are blamed for all ills, given praise for none. It is the lopsided view of people like yourself that gets the media's attention . When will we ever see articles praising the Flying doctors, nurses, care givers, volunteers? Those very worthy people who carry this country on their backs?
We hear plenty about rednecks,racists ect but very little about newcomers who come to this country and cause big trouble..sh! mustn't mention that..it is racist.
All that old pc stuff is over and done with. If it bothers you,find your perfect utopia elsewhere. You may just be too perfect for this imperfect nation.