Is nationalism inherenetly evil?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Think you have to be careful about confusing nationalism with patriotism. Wartime propaganda is a case in point.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Think you have to be careful about confusing nationalism with patriotism. Wartime propaganda is a case in point.

Euh, I don't know if I bad expressed myself, but I precisely wanted to make a difference between both.

[12th Doctor]

The only reason people stick negative connotations to "nationalism" is because that word, in particular, is associated with Nazism, and then only in popular culture.  That is not an academic definition of nationalism.

[12th Doctor]

Or, to quote wiki:

"Nationalism refers to an ideology, a sentiment, a form of culture, or a social movement that focuses on the nation."

That is far more broad than the definition many here assume.  Nations can be defined in many ways, inclusive and exclusive.  Nationalism does not mean hatred.  It can be positive or negative.

[12th Doctor]

And so, take Herder, for instance, who I mentioned before.  Herder was a huge nationalist, but he defined his nationalism in terms of respect for all nations.  For him, nationalism was culture, and the destruction of national identities by empires was a bad thing.  Language, culture, custom, those are all a part of national identities.  That kind of nationalism is a positive force.

Or, as i said before, if your concept of your nation is tied into the fight for liberty and justice, then that's a good thing.  If that is what your country celebrates as its national identity, then that's just as valid a form of nationalism as German nationalism in the 1930's, which was, itself, a bastardization of what the German nation was.

[12th Doctor]

And by juxtaposing these two terms "patriotism" and "nationalism" all you are doing is establishing a false dichotomy, in an attempt prove a point.  the opposition of patriotism ad nationalism has no basis in reality, its just a clever word game which has no bearing on the topic.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

But the word "patriotism" exists, and is used, and has a meaning.

And "nationalism" used to be used for describing negative purposes.

You may wanna stick with a definition, and this one may be accurate, but well, if the common understanding make a clear difference between that both terms to express the difference between a positive and a negative love of the nation, why going against it?

Humans make the words before that the words make humans...

[12th Doctor]

And since I can guess where this conversation is going to go next, let me add that, yes, national identities do change over extended periods of time.  Today, we have European Nationalism which is a concept very few would have thought of 100 years ago.  And of curse, national identities exist within larger nations, and often times, nations exist without states, and vice verse.  But the fact that identities change doesn't make them any less valid, as it is not the validity of the idea that changes, but rather the circumstances in the world around us.

Maybe someday we will have "Earth Nationalism" and that is great, just so long as we don't define that as the need to dominate others, and hopefully, by then, we will have advanced beyond that way of thinking.

[12th Doctor]

But the word "patriotism" exists, and is used, and has a meaning.

And "nationalism" used to be used for describing negative purposes.

You may wanna stick with a definition, and this one may be accurate, but well, if the common understanding make a clear difference between that both terms to express the difference between a positive and a negative love of the nation, why going against it?

Humans make the words before that the words make humans...

Or, I could refuse to submit to a popular way of thinking, just because a otherwise potentially noble idea has been corrupted by some individuals.

Should I make up a term other than "Christian" to call myself because there have been bad Christians?

[12th Doctor]

And if there really is a difference between these words, then tell me, what was the difference between German "patriotism" and German "nationalism" during WWII?  Patriotism can be corrupted pretty easily and the result is no different.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

But the word "patriotism" exists, and is used, and has a meaning.

And "nationalism" used to be used for describing negative purposes.

You may wanna stick with a definition, and this one may be accurate, but well, if the common understanding make a clear difference between that both terms to express the difference between a positive and a negative love of the nation, why going against it?

Humans make the words before that the words make humans...

Or, I could refuse to submit to a popular way of thinking, just because a otherwise potentially noble idea has been corrupted by some individuals.

Should I make up a term other than "Christian" to call myself because there have been bad Christians?

Well, that's for sure, by no way I've to tell you which word you should use, but I expressed my point of view, and I think I'll stay with it.

And since I can guess where this conversation is going to go next, let me add that, yes, national identities do change over extended periods of time.  Today, we have European Nationalism which is a concept very few would have thought of 100 years ago.  And of curse, national identities exist within larger nations, and often times, nations exist without states, and vice verse.  But the fact that identities change doesn't make them any less valid, as it is not the validity of the idea that changes, but rather the circumstances in the world around us.

Maybe someday we will have "Earth Nationalism" and that is great, just so long as we don't define that as the need to dominate others, and hopefully, by then, we will have advanced beyond that way of thinking.

I find what you say here is interesting. And speaking about this and the future, the notion of nations could be blast or seriously modified in the future, and already tends to be in the present. I mean, more and more communities of people form themselves without the notion of territory, or without the same kinds of territory. Aren't we on the net? Aren't we on a forum which has an Atlasia? Isn't there something named facebook on the net? Etc...

And if there really is a difference between these words, then tell me, what was the difference between German "patriotism" and German "nationalism" during WWII?  Patriotism can be corrupted pretty easily and the result is no different.

That's because I make a difference between both, and I guess I'm not alone, but one more time I would never force you to make that difference, that precisely it couldn't have been used.

As I said in a preceding post I see patriotism as a love of the nation based before everything on the development, the construction of that one.

The nationalism, to me, would refer to a love of the nation to impose the superiority of this nation on other ones, and so would lead to the destruction of over nations.

For example:

Patriotism would be: being interested of developing a nation around the value of freedom.

Nationalism would be: wanting to destroy the other nations to impose "freedom".

That said, I agree, it can remain pretty subjective but I would stand with both words and oppose them in that way.

[12th Doctor]

But the word "patriotism" exists, and is used, and has a meaning.

And "nationalism" used to be used for describing negative purposes.

You may wanna stick with a definition, and this one may be accurate, but well, if the common understanding make a clear difference between that both terms to express the difference between a positive and a negative love of the nation, why going against it?

Humans make the words before that the words make humans...

Or, I could refuse to submit to a popular way of thinking, just because a otherwise potentially noble idea has been corrupted by some individuals.

Should I make up a term other than "Christian" to call myself because there have been bad Christians?

Well, that's for sure, by no way I've to tell you which word you should use, but I expressed my point of view, and I think I'll stay with it.

And since I can guess where this conversation is going to go next, let me add that, yes, national identities do change over extended periods of time.  Today, we have European Nationalism which is a concept very few would have thought of 100 years ago.  And of curse, national identities exist within larger nations, and often times, nations exist without states, and vice verse.  But the fact that identities change doesn't make them any less valid, as it is not the validity of the idea that changes, but rather the circumstances in the world around us.

Maybe someday we will have "Earth Nationalism" and that is great, just so long as we don't define that as the need to dominate others, and hopefully, by then, we will have advanced beyond that way of thinking.

I find what you say here is interesting. And speaking about this and the future, the notion of nations could be blast or seriously modified in the future, and already tends to be in the present. I mean, more and more communities of people form themselves without the notion of territory, or without the same kinds of territory. Aren't we on the net? Aren't we on a forum which has an Atlasia? Isn't there something named facebook on the net? Etc...

And if there really is a difference between these words, then tell me, what was the difference between German "patriotism" and German "nationalism" during WWII?  Patriotism can be corrupted pretty easily and the result is no different.

That's because I make a difference between both, and I guess I'm not alone, but one more time I would never force you to make that difference, that precisely it couldn't have been used.

As I said in a preceding post I see patriotism as a love of the nation based before everything on the development, the construction of that one.

The nationalism, to me, would refer to a love of the nation to impose the superiority of this nation on other ones, and so would lead to the destruction of over nations.

For example:

Patriotism would be: being interested of developing a nation around the value of freedom.

Nationalism would be: wanting to destroy the other nations to impose "freedom".

That said, I agree, it can remain pretty subjective but I would stand with both words and oppose them in that way.

#1  So... you really do think I should no longer identify as a Christian, because evil acts have been committed in the name of Christianity?

#2 But that is exactly my point.  First, the term "nation" and "state" have never been the same thing.  Nations are based on identities and not restricted to geography.  One could say that a "real" nation can't be based around superficial identities... so for instance, collective fans of sports teams often call themselves "nations" like Raider Nation, Steelers Nation, Red Sox Nation, etc, but what we are talking about is a little deeper here.  However, nations are not just people living in France, or people living in Finland.  Nations can exist across boarders, and within boarders, and with a total disregard to boarders.  Catholicism is a kind of nation.  As I mentioned, we now have European Nationalism.  Nationalism can be broadly defined or narrowly defined, but it is not defined by territories.

#3 Your definition of the differences between patriotism and nationalism are at least as arbitrary as any definition of nationalism.  Certainly, there are many patriots, in many countries, that don't have a tradition on liberal democracy.

[12th Doctor]

And frankly, this is not a conversation about how we should define nationalism, and whether that definition is good or bad.  This is part of a larger war by those on the Left against national identities.  By pointing at all the bad things that can result from nationalism, they can then advance their notion that all national identities should be discarded.  They also tend to use this as a clever way of attacking any and all forms of social conservatism.

Its a war on ideas... which is ironic, because nationalism became "bad" in Germany when it was combined with a war on ideas.  For, you see, nationalism is not "PC".

[nclib]

Being proud of the positive aspects of one's nation (or culture, etc.) is fine. Being proud of something just because their nation does it or seeing one's own nation as better in every dimension than others simply because it's that nation, is not desirable.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

#1  So... you really do think I should no longer identify as a Christian, because evil acts have been committed in the name of Christianity?

It's you to see, History is to be made... Do, what you think you've to do, and you'll make History, other ones will do the same, and will remain what will remain...

Then Christianity use to refer to something which carries something good, when nationalism use to refer to negative acts. The History had this impact on these words, but once again, if some feel they should no longer call them Christian because they feel the term doesn't suit them, they are free to change their denomination...

History is to be made...

#2 But that is exactly my point.  First, the term "nation" and "state" have never been the same thing.  Nations are based on identities and not restricted to geography.  One could say that a "real" nation can't be based around superficial identities... so for instance, collective fans of sports teams often call themselves "nations" like Raider Nation, Steelers Nation, Red Sox Nation, etc, but what we are talking about is a little deeper here.  However, nations are not just people living in France, or people living in Finland.  Nations can exist across boarders, and within boarders, and with a total disregard to boarders.  Catholicism is a kind of nation.  As I mentioned, we now have European Nationalism.  Nationalism can be broadly defined or narrowly defined, but it is not defined by territories.

Héhéhé. Once again, that notion might be like it in your mind, and you can find accurate examples to illustrate it is like it. But as language is here to be shared and understood by several people, if the term refers to other things for most people, if the term is mostly used in an other way, we can't avoid it, and claiming in streets with our dictionary "STOP STOP YOU'RE WRONG I've the truth! Look it's written here!!".

Even if some sports teams already call themselves like that, for most people a nation means a territory, for what we speak about people use to speak about communities. And that's interesting you referred to Christianity, I wanted to speak about it in my preceding post.

Just curious, would it be because of your Christian filiation that you're so attached to that word? That's frankly just a question.

#3 Your definition of the differences between patriotism and nationalism are at least as arbitrary as any definition of nationalism.  Certainly, there are many patriots, in many countries, that don't have a tradition on liberal democracy.

Yes, yes, and I assume it, and I guess I'm not alone to drive with patriotism vs. nationalism. Everything is arbitrary, isn't it?

If I wanted to say that "freedom" means "being on time at school" and that everyone would be ok with it, then, we would rewrite all the dictionaries in that way. And those who disagree would make their own dictionaries, and History will retain what it will retain...

And frankly, this is not a conversation about how we should define nationalism, and whether that definition is good or bad.  This is part of a larger war by those on the Left against national identities.  By pointing at all the bad things that can result from nationalism, they can then advance their notion that all national identities should be discarded.  They also tend to use this as a clever way of attacking any and all forms of social conservatism.

Its a war on ideas... which is ironic, because nationalism became "bad" in Germany when it was combined with a war on ideas.  For, you see, nationalism is not "PC".

I don't know what is the exact purpose of that conversation but looking to it, sounds that definition wasn't clear for everyone, and sounds still isn't...

Well, if ever it is the war you describe, first today I think it's no more a significant fight, and speaking from a country with a strong far-left who today envisage the possibility to make win their ideas, so not the guys who stay on enjoying the vehement debate of concepts, they clearly become pragmatic, and focus before on economical issues of the nation in which they live...

Second, well, if they want to blast the current nations, why not? I don't say I support them, I just say that's their right to wanna change the things. Then, according to your definition of "nation", they would create a new one...! Your definition of a nation is unbreakable because it is used to describe a gathering of people around some criteria, abstract ones and/or concrete ones. The question is just to know if your definition of "nation" and "nationalism" has an actual, effective, efficient, existence...

Well, personally, as you've seen, I wouldn't blame them, because I would associate "nationalism" to bad purposes.

In that same way, you may should know that in French we have the word "communautarisme", which, according to the dictionary I use, hasn't translation in English. That word is pejorative in French, it's used to describe the fact that some people gather themselves around a community, and give more importance to this community and to its rules than to the French republican community and to its rules (might have heard about the importance of our "modèle républicain" here, a strong national model of community). I think that word can't exist in US and if we use an easy translation "communautarism", that wouldn't have that pejorative connotation because your society is based on the existence and the free expression of the different communities. The best example to illustrate it is the way we practice secularism compared to US.

Here we are with a notion, "community", on which some ones disagree concerning the positive/negative connotation. Way to illustrate words are not something universally shared in same way, depends what people put in it, and it can change, according to people and to epochs, there aren't "definitive definition".

Well, pardon if was a bit long, and I don't know, maybe not enough clear, but it's 03h37am here. Should go to bed now.

[Verily]

P.S.  After reading the end of you post, it is quite clear that you thought I was talking about WWI, and I have no idea why.

Sorry, I typically associate nationalism with WWI, not WWII, where it wasn't really a significant force at all. I hastily read your post. But WWII is even worse as an example. The war wasn't about nationalism at all (at least on the US/UK/Soviet side) but about a clash of other ideologies. Those ideologies became wrapped up with nationalism in wartime propaganda, but the "triumph of liberty" is not nationalism; it's triumphalism for an ideology, not a nation. (Although certainly the British played into true nationalism occasionally, but there in a malevolent way because when they did tap into true nationalism it was all about preserving the glory of the highly abusive British Empire.)

In any case, I am vaguely aware of what Herder had to say, and while what he has to say is of marginal interest, the nationalism he portrays is so far from what is in practice nationalism that it is essentially irrelevant.

In any case, given the extreme degree to which different "nations" (entirely artificial creations of the modern era) often overlap or conflict in zones of settlement or control, the idea of respecting all nations is ridiculous. What do we do about the clash between Han Chinese nationalism, which claims Tibet as an integral part of China, and Tibetan nationalism, which claims Tibet as a free and sovereign state? What about nationalism of a group that is a minority where it resides--Hungarian nationalism in Romania, for example, or Basque nationalism in France, or pan-Chinese nationalism in Malaysia? There's no reasonable solution that acknowledges nations at all.

Anyway, you can whine all you want about leftists hating nationalism because they think nationalists are Nazis. I will point out that it was you who made a big deal about Nazis.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

(Although certainly the British played into true nationalism occasionally, but there in a malevolent way because when they did tap into true nationalism it was all about preserving the glory of the highly abusive British Empire.)

Basically wasn't a feature of wartime propaganda here (outside some of Churchill's speeches). Mostly the propaganda, not including the comically bad early efforts*, was social-patriotic in tone (which is why I posted the J.B.Priestley picture). Makes quite a constrast with the jingoism of propaganda in earlier wars. Though there was some crude anti-German stuff as well; IIRC much of that was drawn up by Hugh Dalton (must have been a dream job for him; he was always quite the xenophobe...)

*The like the infamous "YOUR strength, YOUR courage, YOUR determination will bring US victory". Actually I'm not sure if I've remembered the words right, but the message (and the "YOUR" "US" bit) is as it was...