Nationalism. What the heck is it?

Remove all ads!

It seems as though a lot of people are talking about nationalism lately, with quite different ideas of what it means. Hopefully this thread can sort it out.

Lengthy but broad definition (as well as some history) found here. Discuss.

 

Taking pride in your country, your heritage, your culture, your language, your religion etc. That would be the basic thing, and I'd say that each one of us has a degree of nationalism in us. Or does someone (who cares about sports in the first hand) claim that they cheer for a country they have no emotional/ancestral contacts to in international sports events?

The problem becomes when you make nationalism a political ideology. That's when things start to go wrong in my opinion, but since this is not in AoLS I assume we are not talking about political nationalism here.

 

That's patriotism, IMO.

Nationalism in my book is the ideology of superiority of some nation state over others.

 

To me, nationalism is the situation that arises when a group of people decide for whatever reason that they share a sufficient number of traits to be distinct from other people. These traits can include some or any of the following, but are not limited to the examples I will cite here:

Skin Colour, Language, Religious practice, Economic system (ie -- a mostly agrarian nation as opposed to a mechanized one or one that relies on other methods of reaping natural resources), geography, historical relation, descent from a particular individual or group of individuals, and social customs. To name a few Anyhow, these people decide that their lifestyle is pretty darn good and so they decide to work together to make sure they don't have to change it. Anyone who wants to enforce changes on these people is gonna have trouble.

Of course, then comes the bright idea that other people's national beliefs are stupid, and that brings a moral obligation to fix these idiots -- by force. Or, the belief arises that another group has taken something that should rightly belong to US, and so they try to eliminate, assimilate, enslave or forcibly re-locate these "lesser" nations.

When it is merely defensive in nature "I oppose the introduction of a law limiting my ability to travel and find work in another state as this is Un American." I have no problem with it. The problem arises when some idiot decides that he wants Liebenstraum (pardon the spelling) and so tries to kill off other nations in an offensive strike.

 

I don't agree there, Tal. You can be patriotic without with nationalistic.

Patriotism is about loving your country and feeling a certain connection to it. Nationalism is about think you're better than other people simple because you come from a more 'superior' country. The line can admittantly be a hazy one and is often tred upon. But I think they are two separate things.

I am a patriot, I love my country, but I wouldn't be called nationalistic.

 

I second that. Nationalism is about thinking one is superior to others. Patriotism is an emotional connection, a feeling of home and belonging and things like that. And yes, the line is not always clear.

 

Not sure I like the way this is going (where's Svy?) but here's my dime:

The most common thing for nationalism to be based on is thinking that your Nation (however it's defined) is superior to all the others and should not be sullied by the influence of the other inferior Nations.

But that's not the only way it could go. For example, it could also be built on fear that a more powerful Nation might assimilate theirs, and their Nation would no longer exist as such. (Can anyone say ?) I can't think of any others off of the top of my head, but I'm sure there's more.

Patriotism...well, let's take a couple quotes from wikipedia again:

EDIT: Dang it, Tal beat me to the link...but I quoted!

 

Hmm, this is most interesting.

It seems the concepts are more closely linked than I thought, and the differences are mainly in people's heads, and in the "tone" placed on the words.

 

And only the lefties like those who edit Wikipedia could manage to write a definition of patriotism as a "defensive euphemism." That's hilarious.

In my opinion part of the reason Europe is decaying so swiftly is because of a lack of patriotism/nationalism. (I agree with Taluntain that the two are virtually identical.) The Dutch are awash in unassimilated immigrants that threaten their very way of life because they didn't believe in their own culture enough to enforce it.

I can't believe it, but for the second time in three posts I've got to back up the French. I don't agree with things like the headscarves ruling, but I vocally agree with their efforts to preserve their culture by doing such things as banning certain English words on billboards. Of course, they're awash in unassimilated immigrants too, but that's more because they needed a ton of unskilled labor from Algeria back in the day.

Unfortunately, there is no real conservative movement in most of Europe, so the only place that people have to go if they're concerned about their culture being destroyed by immigration is to white supremacist nuts like Le Pen, Haider, etc.

 

To me, clinging to any ideology with too much fervor is highly questionable. Almost nothing is worse than a fanatic no matter what the cause is.

I fail to see the merging of cultures as a bad thing. This is partly because it cannot be furthered by enforcement or violence. Conservationism can be, and in most cases it is.

Keeping up traditions is admirable however. But keeping up traditions when they cause more trouble than they are worth is not.

Differences between people with different geographical backround are more cultural than anything else. Clinging to a set of cultural values and claiming pride in them is hubris; fool's pride.

Traditions, patriotism/nationalism might make oneself feel safer. This could be thought of its sole benefit. Categorizing and narrowing your possibilities, choices you make and your worldview often does make oneself feel safer. The monstrous diversity of different possible life-styles and single everyday choices a person has in her whole lifetime might very well be the single most terrifying thing in anyone's life.

Claiming that only certain arbitrary values are better than other equally arbitrary values is childish. This means that one might, and eventually should grow out of it.

What values and rules are arbitrary then? This should always be open for discussion and in my experience patriotism/nationalism and single-minded fanatism have a tendency to narrow down any discussion about the chosen set of values.

I also have noticed that patriotism, nationalism and fanatism tend to thrive in highly hierarchical societies. This is something worthwile to think about.

 

I for one believe that all cultures should be respected -- within boundaries. I will cite the example mentioned earlier -- Europe.

Here you have a relatively homogeneous culture like Sweden (I use this country as a stand in for all other European nations, not because I know much about it specifically.) They have a history that goes back hundreds or thousands of years. They have their own ways of doing things. Then, half a world away, there is trouble of some sort. Human compassion motivates the Swedes to take in those who have suffered. What thanks do they get for this?

In some cases (not all, of course) these refugees start trying to change the fabric of the society that took them in. Any attempt to defend the original culture is met with cries of racism and bigotry -- this is stupid; if they were truly bigots or racists they would not have offered shelter to the refugees in the first place. My point?

It's this -- immigrants and refugees can run their private lives as they see fit, but they should understand that they are going to have to make serious concessions to the society that has helped them. I despise those who bite the hand that aids them.

 

Naionalism is most of all a completely derisory and ridiculous concept. It mainly consist of weird people in small offices leaning over small tables. They were equipped with unproportional big pens to draw, curve and re-draw maps and borders. Then they conjured up names, lined up some random historical events and voilà: The birth of a nation.

Like Athena, headborn maiden of brain tissue, purely theoretical concepts with nearly no connection to reality. The brother Grimms only collected faery tales to prove the existence of a "German people". And who would have thought that faery tales weren't dangerous.

The problem with nations, before they can come into real existence, everything that was before them has to be extinguished and destroyed. Preferably without a trace and usually with iron and streams of blood.

The first victims of nationalism therefore are: tradition, culture, languages and history.

No wonder that the nationalism of the 19th. and 20th. century wiped out so many cultural goods, outlawed and supressed so many languages, burned so many books and exterminated so many people.

 

Here's my problem with nationalistic thinking: a culture has formed from intermingling, developtment, many influences, and become rich because of it - but the nationalistic people of the culture don't wish to keep this kind of development carrying on. If a culture has formed from different peoples mixing, immigration etc., and this is considered a natural process, why would modern-day immigration and intermingling be a bad thing? Why is it seen as something robbing the culture away, when the culture has formed out of a similar process? Who's to say when the culture is "ready" and the process should stop?

 

i think, like many others they are to an extent the same, and i belive the word natinalistic is though of more badly than patriotic, because of movies(Mel Gibson in the patriot) and history NATINONALsocialism(spl) - The Nazis!