Riverstone Logistics’ Post

Did you know that tug of war was once an Olympic sport? It featured in the Summer Olympics from 1900 to 1920. Interestingly, countries could enter multiple teams in the competition, allowing them to sweep the podium. In 1904, the United States achieved this feat, winning all three medals, and in 1908, British teams took all the top spots. Curious about other sports no longer included in the Olympic games? Find out more in our upcoming resource, The Olympic Movement: Sport, Global Politics and Identity: https://okt.to/Kb1oyP

I really miss watching the Olympics. It's one of the few times the world comes together, united in cheering for athletes from every nation. As a life long wrestler, and American, my most anticipated event was watching a 42 year old Cuban wrestler, Mijain Lopez, compete and win his 5th (& final??) Greco-Roman heavyweight gold medal. But literally every performance my children and I watched were full of incredible moments. What stood out the most for me was the respect, kindness, and camaraderie between all competitors, regardless of their backgrounds. But just a week after the closing ceremonies, it hits me that there are over 50 countries currently in conflict (or over 90, if you include those involved outside their borders). That’s the highest number ever recorded. I can't help but think: what if some of these nations could channel that spirit of unity and competition we see at the Olympics into simply starting a conversation—just one meeting or call—to move toward peaceful resolution or compromise? One step might be all it takes to spark something bigger. The money spent on these conflicts, along with the interest paid by each country to the World Bank, could instead be used for education, healthcare, infrastructure, and so much more that would improve the lives of literally everyone on Earth. A wise person once told me that sometimes you just need to put an idea out there, and it can spark change. The universe works in mysterious ways. Now, I’ve never won the lottery, but I have seen my hopes for important issues come to fruition, sometimes in ways that defy explanation. My hope is that humanity can eventually evolve beyond war and conflict and look toward a brighter, more peaceful future for everyone. (I’m just sharing some thoughts. I know the politics—and sometimes the beliefs and histories—in each conflict are extremely different and complex. I'm also not taking sides, as I’m not educated enough to speak on these individual conflicts. I just believe that the sportsmanship and diplomacy we witness at the Olympics could inspire our governments to do better for all of us.)

Thanks Adam Grant for posting on topic which is too crucial for future of peaceful world!!  It is big topic space is too limited here.  Just few questions and statements. Does nationalism always result into love your nation and hate others? Not student of history, generally leftist (or can I say western) academism spread that Nationalism is negative – as theory itself? Is it true?  Yes, from limited knowledge of history all over world, it tends justify it on practical ground. As it is best way by politicians to use hate of others to build the nation (or recover from downfall), win elections :-) power ;-) I recall Swami Vivekananda saying in his lectures, if you want to control hate, well control love too. As love for one entity means hate of others – it is natural phenomena. So all is topic of individual and collective human psychology. Stopping here!

How do people come up with the idea of adding up all the medals won by the USA, China or the EU countries and deriving success from this? In sport in particular, all countries work independently and not according to American, Chinese or EU guidelines. If you see an EU team here, please don't forget that only 2 starters or 1 team are allowed to compete per competition, i.e. not 30 or 15 as in Paris. Apart from how the selection process within the EU is supposed to work, the medal haul would be significantly lower. In this respect, the medal table per capita is probably closer to the truth 🥇🥈🥉 https://lnkd.in/dgDFEGxr

Patriotism, often perceived as an expression of pride and loyalty towards one’s nation, can devolve into a dangerous ideology with far-reaching negative consequences. The danger lies in how easily patriotism can morph into nationalism. When patriotism transforms into an exclusionary belief system that prioritizes one nation’s interests over others, it fosters xenophobia, promotes conflicts, and undermines global cooperation. An examination of how patriotism can lead to nationalism, and the dangers therein, elucidates the importance of advocating for the free movement of people, goods, and services across borders. https://lnkd.in/gbnjUqW3

Adam Grant's article is well worth a read. And so is his interview with Yuval Noah Harari, referenced in his article. A particular snippet that stood out to me: [00:29:18] Yuval Noah Harari: Can democracy survive without nationalism? More and more convinced that in, at least, many cases, nationalism is a precondition for democracy and without, uh, strong patriotic feelings, without, uh, um, a strong national community, democracy cannot survive. Now, by nationalism, I, I, I, I'm don't mean the dark side of nationalism of, of hating and fighting other communities. Uh, I mean the feeling of special love and care for your particular community. I, I think that without that, democracy cannot survive for long. [00:30:04] Adam Grant: This is really tricky, though. It feels like a bit of a slippery slope. I, I think of some work by Marilyn Brewer, for example, which suggests that most discrimination stems not from outgroup hate, but from ingroup love. And, if you just have a preference for your own kind, that's enough to create entire structures and cultures that end up privileging one group over others. [00:30:25] Yuval Noah Harari: That's true. But, again, the other side of the coin is that without strong feelings of a national community, people feel loyal only to one tribe within the nation. They will do anything to win the election for their tribe. If they win, they only take care of their own tribe, not caring about the other tribes in the nation. If they lose, they see no reason to accept the result. And, over time, this leads to the collapse of, of the democratic system. [00:31:00] Adam Grant: There's the distinction that's often overlooked between, uh, being proud of your group and saying, this group is, is a great fit for me, uh, and saying I'm attached to my group and it's better than all other groups. https://lnkd.in/gxjDdky3 #peacemaking #peacebuilding #democracy #civicwellness #civicengagement #politics

Positive patriotism is about celebrating and valuing your own country, culture, and people without diminishing others. It’s about fostering a sense of pride and belonging while respecting and appreciating the diversity of other nations. Negative nationalism, on the other hand, often involves an exclusionary mindset, where the pride in one’s own country comes at the expense of looking down on or devaluing others. This can lead to division and conflict. Your point about ingroup solidarity not requiring outgroup prejudice is crucial. Building strong, supportive communities doesn’t mean we have to create enemies or foster negative attitudes towards those who are different. It’s entirely possible to love and support your own group while also being open, respectful, and kind to others.

This is a far too simplistic dichotomy between "positive patriotism" and "negative nationalism" Adam Grant. While it correctly identifies that loving one's country doesn't necessitate hating others, it oversimplifies complex sociological phenomena. The distinction between patriotism and nationalism is more nuanced than the statement suggests. National sentiment exists on a spectrum, from inclusive patriotism to exclusive nationalism. Healthy expressions of national identity celebrate shared values and achievements while remaining open to self-improvement and global cooperation. The collective energy generated by national belonging can be channeled positively to foster social cohesion and progress, or negatively to create division. The key is to harness this collective effervescence in ways that unite people within the nation while maintaining respect and openness toward other nations and cultures. It is crucial to acknowledge the power of collective identity while emphasizing the importance of directing it constructively. It is also important to recognize that national sentiment is complex and multifaceted and we should avoid tossing around overly simplistic categorizations and platitudes.

In the production environment, there’s a strong sense of ingroup solidarity, where workers tend to become deeply attached to the specific processes they’re responsible for. This attachment can lead to a sense of pride and ownership, which is positive for performance within their particular domain. However, this can also create a narrow focus, where workers begin to view their process as the most important, often at the expense of recognizing the significance of other processes. This mindset fosters a subtle form of “outgroup” prejudice, where workers might become critical or dismissive of other processes, forgetting that every step in production is vital to the overall quality of the product. Quality in manufacturing isn’t just about one step being done well; it’s about the seamless integration and coordination of all steps. If workers only value their own process, they may overlook issues that arise in other stages, leading to a lack of cohesion and, ultimately, defects in the final product.

the right words at the right time always