You’re comparing two things:
Actually observed collective pride in nations
Pride in hypothetical tribal bands that may have never existed
And saying the first is “silly” but the second is what we’re built for.
Understanding collective pride in its actual form is less silly than pushing into some dreamed-of past.
this thread is bringing all the Thatcherites out
You don’t have “second hand pride with extra narrative on top” from people that died long before you were born
The individualists in this thread are saying:
And I don’t agree with the 2nd premise at all. People are social beings and there’s lots of examples of collective pride.
You think I think you’re a
Most people don’t take it as a cultural dogma that the individual is the be-all-and-end-all
If you’re an angry autist with that cultural dogma, I’m not gonna try talk you out if it. Most people find it easy to be proud of their ancestors or family or country.
Suffers from the same individualism as some other comments.
Most people know how to be proud of things outside their small self. It’s only that Protestant individualist mindset that denies the reality of the collective, and with it collective pride.
indubitably
people tend to like to be around people that’ve shared a same background, is that’s ok? And to what degree?
There’s different ways of liking people: you don’t like your mam the same way you like your friends, and you don’t like your funny friend the same way you like your lover.
I have some pretty obscure interests, and the small group of local people who share my interests are from diverse backgrounds (but homogeneous in interests). Different ways of ‘liking’. Shared background is one.
Some of my life-achievements involved contributing to my nation.
The philosophy behind that is that only individual choices matter.
What you’re saying is logical, but only if you’re on-board with an individualist worldview to start.
I like it in an unintelligent sentimental way.
I support having mammoths, dire wolves, and Pleistocene megafauna around. Seems max lulz.
Comment calling Palestinians who take arms from Israel to kill other Palestinians “traitors” was removed for “racism”.
???
So not at all “after they attacked Israel and started a war” but rather before.
You have your timeline muddled. The Palestinian Authority have been working with Israel since '93. They killed Nizar Banat for speaking against them in 2021.
You said “So being praised for not supporting Hamas after they attacked Israel and started a war makes you a traitor to Gaza?” Your point just doesn’t really make sense. You’re speaking as though history starts in October 2023.
Again, what have you read about Palestinian politics / the PA / the Oslo Accords?
Various tribal structures have existed and still do (I’m a registered member of a clan, was clan secretary at one point) but Rousseau’s bands are a fantasy with no archæological basis.
I see to reason to speculate on history when we have collective pride visible in our daily experience. Especially not to say the former is valid and the really-experienced one isn’t.