Enkä tarkoita isänmaallisuutta/kansallismielisyyttä, jota voi syntyä, kun puolustat kotimaatasi miehittäjältä tai kolonisaattorilta. Voin löytää siitä voimaa. Mutta mikä tahansa ylivaltaa ajava retoriikka, kun asut turvallisessa, kehittyneessä, varakkaassa maassa, on yksinkertaisesti typerää.

Hello precious little teacup

Taking notes to see those too... 👀

Make-believe geopolitical "experts" who take bounds of their own cognition or knowledge to outline the actual reality we live in...

Next presidential elections are brewing up and eeeeeveryone will want to please the farmers. To be fair, I may be overestimating their intelligence.

I'd guess the line lies in how they're used. Is it a symbol of unity, solidarity, or even just a simple decoration? Or is it to convey inherent superiority, aspiration to dominate and such? Intent is way easier to establish in retrospect but it's not like we don't have history to help us make sense.

As in that was the driving force, the key sentiment. I'd guess most nations developed over time some artifacts dear to their heart (even if a direct threat is no longer there) that say "this is us, we like it, it is nice" and continue to celebrate them.

That's obviously not the case and context does play into it a fair bit. Rarely will you see someone scoffing at the nationalism of Poles fighting to preserve their culture, language, or mere existence when occupied by say Nazi Germany, fighting for independence and survival.

I think that's adequate. As a kid, I remember being taught back in school that patriotism = good, chauvinism and nationalism = pretty bad, nazism, racism, supremacism, etc. = very, very bad. All makes perfect sense should we understand these terms the same way across the board and with no context.

In retrospect, it is rather astounding how popular this illusion (or supposedly hope?) across the general population in CEE was that homo sovieticus would die out of natural causes post-1991 with the change of political setup. But it's a bit of a cockroach of a mindset, isn't it.

So is an American with a U.S. flag bumper sticker a dangerous nationalist? Maybe she is, maybe not. Is a kiwi doing haka on the parliament floor one? Is a teen celebrating her quinceañera one? I think it's the double standard for me.

It can be a historical figure carved in stone, a slogan that caught on and lives a life of its own, a piece of clothing that's been around for generations.

I mean if it's not folklore, handicrafts, legends, or whatnot, it will be something else. Any larger group will have cultural artifacts they gather around that symbolize their shared sense of belonging and identity.

Is it short sighted and counterproductive? No doubt about it. Still within their democratic right to organize and protest, isn't it? Reasoning aside, a fantastic fodder for any fearmongering populists.

I reckon it's tough for some to imagine that drive for independence and freedom when the victim mindset of "it's just one or another puppet master, why bother" is far more convenient. No need to move a finger and plenty of opportunity to complain, pretending you know better.

And y'all stood up to fight when others tried appeasement and naively hoped it's all end of history and Eurovision from now on. It was a pretty fairy tale many of us fell for.

Completely beyond your point but it's almost as if things existed in a vacuum and people didn't naturally hold onto their national identity (or any other) when threatened but yes, let's see the problem in matchbox prints smh

Oh yes, banning middle schoolers from anything, all these words are extinct now