Misplaced Nationalism: Difference between revisions

m
categories and general cleanup
m (Mass update links)
m (categories and general cleanup)
Line 72:
*** There are conflicting definitions of "Scandinavia", for some it is just Sweden and Norway, but not Denmark. The "Nordic countries" also can include the Faeroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland.
* Naturally, given [[The Irish Question|the]] [[The Troubles|history]] between Ireland and the United Kingdom (but England in particular), it's very easy to rile up tensions between denizens of the two. Similarly, between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which remains a territory of the United Kingdom. And Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. And between the different denizens of Northern Ireland, many of whom have very strong opinions on exactly whether they should be part of either Ireland or the United Kingdom.
** This extends into real life, where a lot of (Catholic) Americans, often ex-pats or with Irish ancestors, often took the side of the IRA during the Troubles. Bono of [[U 2]], a born-and-bred Dublin lad, was ''[http://en.[wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day_Bombing:Remembrance Day Bombing#U2_responseU2 response|very]]'' annoyed at those kind of people, especially after Enniskillen.
** Most 'Irish' anti English sentiment is largely from foreign people of Irish extraction, above all Americans who, from a European viewpoint, seem to be using a fake Irish identity to justify anti-English prejudice. In reality actual English and actual Irish people are usually highly integrated (lots of Irish people live and work in the UK) and get on well with each other, there isn't any real cultural difference between the two countries and pragmatism has usually overcome any historical tensions.
* Suffice it to say, the United Kingdom is like a storm in a teapot. The various territories that make up the UK all have their own prides that clash with each other. Some of the British have developed a knack for self-deprecation humour, suggesting that they're the worst people in at least of all of Europe, and are the most irritating visitors <ref>after the Germans, who, in a case of what may be considered friendly rivalry, are stereotyped as humourless people who get up ridiculously early to place their towels in the best spots and then leave again</ref>. Others have pointed out that England, and to a lesser extent, Wales, get the worst of everything within the UK <ref>unless in Wales, in which case change this to 'Wales, and to a lesser extent the north of England, get the worst of everything'</ref>, paying large sums of money to Scotland and in England's case, not having their own national parliament like Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
Line 204:
** The comments from videos of national anthems from any country or other patriotic songs. A big part of them consist of people from other countries bashing either the anthem, the country itself or its countrymen. Another big part are fellow countrymen attacking or defending their current government.
* Likewise, take any page on [[The Other Wiki]] dealing with any historical event, entity or person.
** Or worse, the talk page for any article about an ancient tribe, nation, or ethnic group. Odds are it will contain a raging flamewar between the people who insist they are the sole descendents of that group (and hence are unique and special and downtrodden), and the people who think that ancient tribe was just an offshot of ''their'' ancestors (and hence they can claim credit for everything they did and/or should own the land where that tribe lived). Expect to see lots of shouting, people taking (or giving) personal offence, and early 20th Century (or earlier) academics and out-dated notions of racial classification dragged in as "proof" of whatever point is trying to be made. Typical examples: were the [http://en.[wikipedia.org/wiki/:Talk:Bulgars |Bulgars]] Turkic or Iranic, and are the Bulgarians mainly descended from them or from the Slavs?]].
* This even extends to ''[[The Economist]]'''s website, of all places. Discussion relating to any article which mentions a country by name (to wit, all of them) will consist of three groups - one group genuinely discussing the article, one group maintaining that "Country X is bad!" and one group maintaining that "The Economist is spreading vile lies about Country X"... even if the article itself was entirely neutral in tone.
** There's a slight variation on this if it's an article on relations between country X and Y in Europe. One groups discusses the article. One claims "Country X mistreats the wonderful country Y" another "Country Y mistreats the wonderful country X" then another "This is why country X/Y should agreed with us, country Z instead" instead.
Line 220:
[[Category:Internet Backdraft]]
[[Category:Misplaced Nationalism]]
[[Category:Hottip markup]]