income is that it's like social security for the rest of us. a basic income would be a monthly payments that would go to everyone. does a $1000.00 a month. no strings attached, i think is a have, i will like them names. i don't know. i just won't go crazy. no reason that i am a fan of guaranteed income because it is this idea that everybody is deserve it. and just by virtue of your being here with ah, america has made nationalism back demonizing up putting

a your country 1st. even though it was built on the basis of it has now become a political so pop, which can even land someone in the same category as being racist, homophobic, or, and i submitted as a formation of groups like nato or the world health organization are leading the world down a very familiar path, one which could possibly in world war 3. but this is not the goal of all countries . china is putting himself 1st and seeing their country grow. switzerland refuses to become involved in world affairs. brett's. it was the outcome of the u. k, trying to put themselves 1st. now a leading into the movement is a scotland. he was actually trying to re establish its own identity, all with a push for independence from u. k. even though some would argue it, could it so that it can rejoin the you? i'm sky now. he's on this edition of 360 view. we're going to find the answer on if

nationalism deserves the bad name. and if the goal of reducing pride in one's own country is more about preparing the citizens to accept their global play. ah, is a nationalism being taught as evil in today's society? what turns out it just depends on who you ask or international correspond. roxana solano finds out if nationalism is dead or saving the countries embrace it. scotty, to begin to discuss nationalism, we had to start with explaining globalism. in world war 2, we saw the negative effects of nationalism as nancy. germany use it as an excuse to eliminate the use it alice wish to unify the country with nationalism in the 19 hundred's lead to the dictatorship. rule of mussolini nationalism is defined as the

support for your nation's interest. even if it comes at the detriment of other countries or people. however, in world war 2, hitler in nazi germany and was selina in italy, turned the idea of nationalism into believing one race or people of one country are superior to another. what was once, having pride injured country, became tainted by war and genocide. countries fell to fight discrimination. they had to adopt a globalist identity. we saw the implementation of organizations like nato, w, h o and the united nations. gerber. listen, can be defined as the banding together of countries to share ideas, medical advancement, trade of natural resources, and homogeneous immigration policy, has their world overreacted trying to make up for the scenes of the past. now we're

seeing the united states and that you go in the opposite direction with globalism that us open border policy has led to political rift in the country. that european union president of accepting refugees from anywhere has pushed britain to a breaking point. according to peer research, this led to the rise of leader, a slight boris johnson and donald trump, as people began to feel left behind. the research also did a study showing western countries, europe and the united states feel in order to combat racism and discrimination. they must adapt a more inclusive identity during their surveys. peer research found many people, mislabeled discrimination as nationalism lead in many countries to not only adapt a more global east approach, but also have less pride in their own country. but these views mainly the fur along

party lines. when comparing the u. k, u. s. france and germany, those identify as conservative, are 3 times more likely to say they are proud of their country most of the time. compared to those on the left who lean more liberal on the other side of the world, people in india were surveyed to high attached religion and language to their feeling of nationalism. while india has dozens of different languages. the research found, 2 thirds of hindu indians felt not only practicing the hinder religion, but also speaking. here though, are very important to be truly consider indian other groups including 47 percent of muslims, also agree speaking. kindle is what makes a person indian chinese taking many steps to teach nationalism in schools. not only are student learning to love their country, but china's education ministry has made up plans to ramp up physical education

classes and hire more male teachers to give boys a masculine influence. china is trying to educate boys in hopes of aspiring a new generation of soldiers to protect them in an innovation. meanwhile, the polarized lack of nationalism in america is actually attributing to rec, or law recruitment rates in all branches of the u. s. military. while some countries are running from nationally seem others are embracing the idea of food in their countries need 1st, for 360 view and brooks, and salon. all history shows the dangers of nationalism in the past. germany and italy has the world over corrected. now, china is putting themselves 1st at all cost and reaping the benefits. meanwhile, the u. s. who for 4 years did have in america 1st policy is now aligning with organizations who go against everything. the united states was actually built on

america joined as a founding member of the north atlantic treaty organization, or nato, all back in 1949 during the cold war to form alliance with other countries seeking protection from the soviet union. now nato was originally supposed to be disbanded after the fall of soviet russia in 1991. as ukraine looks to join nato, this could very well lead to world war 3. americans now vowing to protect a country. most americans couldn't even point out on a map. 6 months ago, ukraine's bed to join nato has garnered animosity from turkey in russia all to launch an attack. as united states pours itself into conflict, should we actually be taking the lead from other countries like china, and putting ourselves 1st. robert ross is a professor of political science at boston college and associate at the center for chinese studies at harvard university and joins us to talk about nationalism in today's world. thanks for joining us, professor auth. hi, pleasure. okay,

let's start with an organization like nato, as a whole. have we learned nothing from the former ally and access powers and history? well, i do think that we are facing russian intentions, important intentions to use force to advance russian power in europe. the question is how we respond is the appropriate way to respond as to beef up american president, ground force president in europe is the appropriate way to respond to expand 8 o 2 sweetie. these are the issues at the bay, but there is no question that russia is changing the map of post code where you are to the detriment of nato allies that caused some response, at least some response to russian activities in the ukraine, the expansion russian power. but is there a reason for nato today? i mean, originally when that union was formed, it was meant to disband, and yet we have seen that not only not happen, we have seen more and more funds be poured into it. with united states having the

most china actually has continued to grow by not being involved in those types of partnerships. so who has it right and who has it wrong? well, we only have a native responding to the ukraine there where we can be grateful that nato still exists, or there's an organization with united states to participate in to respond to russian activities and ukraine. whether united states should be taking the lead in nato. whether it should be the frontline and resisting russian activities, or whether to be friends or germany or great britain or other country that is a bait that's in question the united states should the united states be focusing if activity in europe at the detriment of its presence in europe are attending, i'd say you to front at once. you are right. the chinese certainly are more restrained in international affairs. they are focused on the stage here, focus on expanding their influence and undermining american presence in the stage and do that. and they're building a very large navy with one focus in mind and at the same the challenge united

states is we're so active in civil wars and syria, yemen, iraq, and the lease. and now we're involved in activities in europe to resist soviet activities near cray can the united states be involved in all these hostility and focus on hated simultaneously. that's the fundamental question facing american security policy. one that's very interesting because, you know, after this disastrous pull out that we've seen in afghanistan is seen, this administration was going to focus on putting america 1st. i mean, did we learn our lesson and not get involved with other countries? politics, as you mentioned, there's multiple theaters that the u. s. is involved in right now, that doesn't necessarily have a direct correlation with american security. so it is america really gain more from being a part of nato than to stand our own. i mean, do we actually think nato would come to the u. s. as defense on our soil, if ever challenged, they are certainly came to american defense quite with great commitment falling on the left. so yes, if they went to say that was in afghanistan,

when we know the saudi arabia was the one that was behind 911. so was that really tar defense? if you're asking about neo and wouldn't it america wonder under a cat with a come to our defense and they did come door defense. they did fight nap garrison. so yes, and the answer the question is yes, they would. so again, the question is not like leather the russians to pose a challenge to american security, because of course, since $776.00 american security is dependent on developments and you're as much as they have. and then the question is, how forward should america be in the more forward america is less likely you will see the french, the germans, the british step up and defend their interest in europe by themselves, america, seeing who it cannot do multiple wars in multiple regions simultaneously. the fundamental challenge is trying major. now understand we have an interest in asia to is not is stronger than temporary interest in europe, but the russians are less powerful and less of a threat to america. so it's america 1st, but what is 1st for america?

it is defending american interest in asia and our relationship with japan and other countries there who are vital to american security interest in the stage will be interesting to see if china does decide to go an aggressively in a stage. if they decide to go in and how nato will respond, if they'll consider them to be an ally. but it's not only in regard to the military . it's also a regard to the pandemic. because another organization, the world health organization, really botched the way and handle the coven 19 pandemic across the globe. it did not properly. i think, investigate china's claims. initially. the disease could not transfer between humans. surprise, we've learned a can and advised against restricting travel from countries which actually could have slow the initial spread. and there seems to be this lack of transparency about finding the origin of code itself. labs are looking more and more suspect president donald trump ever ties with who present bite and rejoined on day one and office

should america continue to pump money into an organ? is this organization that some say actually exist really just to serve china and it's interest? well, we should not be surprised that the w t o is a political organization for obviously they operate in international park. and if they want access to other countries, whether it's in africa, whether south asia, whether there's latin america, to promote health, global health, which america has an interest in, they are going to have to work with local governments, with the local government to find the w t o hostile to their interest, they can't get into those countries though as a w t o political, of course they are no more, no less than any other international organization. whether it's the un, whether it is the math, whether it's the w, t o or international organization to political, including the world health organization. absolutely right. the chinese were less than parents. they were slow to respond. in those circumstances, we want the w t o in trying to learn as much as they can, even though it's not as much as we like. is core more beneficial. so i'm at that

which i rather have no accidents. no, in that any circumstances, should we be the heart of the w. h. o? absolutely. because they're not only involved in china, revolves in africa, as we well know. we don't want americans to become sick from cove it. we must prevent the spread of coven around the world, because it was 1st occurs in africa, or india, or japan, or china. it will ultimately end up in the united states. american health is a global issue, and the w h. o is far better to deal with global health issues. it's simply the united states acting alone. well, that is one thing that we have learned from the pandemic is how quickly one thing can spread and how quickly can come over. but obviously, transparencies important. now, china is a country, i think that we can universe, they agree, put themselves 1st. the government cut all the red tape for buildings and continues to erect cities really honestly without much care to the environment, even though they say they do. china continued to gain a larger influence in the world as it takes over america spot as a world power,

but also their education. they are taught to love their country is one of china's main goals right now is to raise the next generation, not only of citizens, but soldiers. is china success with nationalism something that other country should mirror or is this potentially going to far? well, the unity of the chinese people behind their government is clearly a strain. and no last decade or so, the united states become increasingly polarized, with many people believe in the american democracy in the united states. americans believe this or democracy is illegitimate. and so we have to ask ourselves, what is causing this polarization in america rather than coming together to address national problems into some extent. this polarization reflects us government policy, leadership, policy, leadership, speech and speak to some members of congress, members in the senate who are resisting, creating a unified perspective legitimacy of american institutions. so you can say part of

the problem is china and how to use the cop again, the system. but they're part of the problem with us leadership congress and send it disparage american democracy you undermine or institution. and that creates as much polarization and the absence of unity as anything else in this country. well, professor ross, i just hope that we could actually encourage more unity and courage. the good that's in the united states where so many times we focus on the bad. i think that would pay a good role in a future society. thank you so much for joining us and sharing your insight. thank you. now after the break, we're going to look at a brack said and the current status. and if the boat without the day, would the nationalist is still have the power to pass that when we come back? ah huh. ah, ah, in east of can't go to russian state total. never.

i've stayed as i'm phoning most landscape div, asking him now knocking something up for me. he could be an assistant babbled. it's been okay. so mine is gonna be the one else with we will van in the european union, the kremlin. yup. machine. the state aunt rush up to date and split our t spoke neck. even our video agency, roughly all band on youtube with me. i was just all ready for the last to

read business with the law which ours would make you know. my goal is to, to really you care about me. if you care about the play. i wish somebody could just tell me, like, let's go. harold. hatred, lynching the beating poverty why supremacy is so disgusting ambulance. the people in mississippi voted on a flyer and 65 percent of the people voted to keep the current slide. our purpose is to, to play in the good name and the confederates held because of these monuments that you see everywhere or not can, but they're not monuments to the confederate government. they're monuments to the soldiers, to the battery. you know, if we're going to be offended by everything, every negative part of our history, we have to get rid of everything. i

look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such order that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about our personal intelligence at that point, obviously is to create trust rather than fear a job with artificial intelligence. real summoning with a robot must protect its own existence with oh, welcome back to you. 360 view, i'm not enough. now brooks, it took over national headlines as

a britain tried to sever ties with the european union. now it looks like scotland is following their lead. so discuss, we want to bring an economist, dr. richard. well, thanks for joining me, dr. wolf. glad to be here now. thank you. ok, well, i want to hold off on scotland for a moment. i want to start with bracket, you know, this was the original, i'm putting my country 1st plan as a britain voted to exit the you. now this would prevent the united kingdom from having to pay the european union as was limit who can easily travel between the countries. now the sentiment was jumpstart by a string of terrorism attacks in england. and this form of nationalism allowed britain to protect themselves. so do you see this form of nationalism leading other countries to break out of packs, such as the e, u, nato, and even the united nations? absolutely, nationalism can go both ways. it always has, historically, it has been progressive, assuming we all agree on what that means roughly,

and it has been regressive or reactionary. it depends on who's making use of it for what purpose. so for example, with briggs it, there you had a group of politicians, a conservative party that had been in office for a while, and that was looking that it was going to lose its position. england's situation since 2002008 has been declined by every important measure. and so a winning of the conservative is led by mister boris johnson decided that kind of nationalism would allow the conservative party to hold on. and they were right. they guessed, politically correctly. they went on a chair and they forced the vote, which they decided to have. and then they were often brought broke away from

europe. i don't think anyone, including most of the people who supported it, would today tell you with enthusiasm that they were right. there's a lot of debate in london to say the least about whether that was and a political mistake. and by the same token, on the other side, you have ukraine or places like that, that are trying to goal in a very different political direction. but seeing nationalism in their context as a way to do that. so scotland is pushing again yet in another direction, located not so many days ago, the republican party meeting in texas insisted on making a statement that they reserve the right for texas to secede from the united states . so the notion of a nationalism defined at various different levels, whether it be a region like scotland or texas or a whole country,

i think you're going to be seeing nationalism played with by all the political sides over the immediate future in lots of ways. we, we will find surprising, you know, dr. wolf, i love that you look at this and both ways. on one hand, you have nationals and causing people to separate from the bigger organization. on the other hand, you have it causing to want to join the big organization. it's amazing to think if the present time situations between the pandemic and obviously the war in ukraine if that same vote breakfast held today if it would have the same results. but i do want to look at the scotland rolling all of this, 52 percent of people in britain voted in favor of breaks it back in 2016, 38 percent of scotch voters actually wanting to join their british counterparts and breaking away from the usa was not scotland is supportive this now scotland once their population out of control of their own future and is planning a vote on becoming an independent country. all this is scheduled for october of 2023. what does scotland have to gain by declaring independence?

and do you see this vote being more about having to join the you as the number one leading factor? i think what you're seeing in scotland is 2 things coming together. the, and i'll try to be polite here. the animosity felt by large portions of the scottish people toward the british, the english is very old and runs very deep. so all the politicians in scotland have known for a long time their whole lives that this is a very powerful reality that could be tapped in the past. it was kept under wraps because the british empire would not allow their to be the thing to go anywhere. and the pressure from london was always weird economic center. you could never make it on your own, given the size of scotland,

given where england's whole economy is developed without scotland, having its own reality within it. what has changed now? is that brags it opens up the space to break away, and what the scots could do is cut a deal with the rest of europe. go the other direction. and then you'd have the irony, that part of the british united kingdom, expressed its nationalism by breaking away from europe. whereas another part of the united kingdom, scotland expressed it's nationalism by reconnecting and becoming part of the e u. that kind of a scottish breakaway. well, that's a very different story and could be imagine the economically in a way that kind of going it alone. literally, that's a hard sell to get even to the, to the people there for dr. wealth,

as the economic environment continues to decline in europe becomes more strange. it will be interesting to see when countries going to self preservation mode for themselves rather for the entire entity. doctor, i've always great to talk to thanks for joining me. my pleasure. thank you. and so when has it become wrong for the people of a country to not have pride in their homeland? now granted, having too much pride can be just as dangerous as germany showed us in world war one and 2. however, if you tell a good person that they are bad enough times at some point, they begin to believe it and even act like it. the same can also be if you turn entire nation, they should not be proud of their history, their present, or what their future looks like. they eventually will believe it. even more convincing is the fact that it is coming from the leadership of that country. the ironic part is what a society should do when they're being told by their leaders that they are not good

is hold those leaders accountable. and ask why the leaders are not motivating or creating an environment for the people to be their best. but this is the only way the world a lead can get the strongest of nations to agree to a global agenda. why else would you want to involve yourself unless you were being deceived? to think you were less and you were at the mercy of others for help. a country being its very best does not automatically cause it to be a detriment to another. the more self sustaining and successful a country can be on its own, the better it is for everyone else. moving forward, it might be those a nationalist who exists within a country who might be the best and only hope for preserving it's existence in the future. it has been part one of our series on nationalism come back next time to discuss how nationalism is specifically affecting economies around the world. i'm sky now here's if you're free to give you up today's world news. morales. thanks

for watching. ah ah ah ah ah ah a spoke no, you're not going to pick up from china. it's impossible it. oh can you can you diminish here the news for you?

because the americans, they will not have the christmas. they will not date given that is that. ringback to how we tar. ah ah, watching it was a national z m a

a going to be looked at the pool. let's provide the but headline so this out see london lesson on to the reposition with like military and then the republic. it's a warning i regarding ukraine thing weapons sent to the company may end up in paris a or to be essentially because it will go again. so i'm actually a ideology doesn't.