Is nationalism inherenetly evil?

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

Acts 17:26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

And what do you want to mean exactly by this? That because "God" would have created the nations, nationalism can't be evil?

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

Isn't it necessary to use 2 words to speak about the 2 kind of love we can have toward nation?

Patriotism: You love your nation for what it is and you want the best development for it. You're before everything interested in the construction of your nation.

Nationalism: You love your nation in the sens you feel this one is superior to the other ones. It can lead you to the will of destruction of other nations

Patriotism vs. Nationalism

Construction vs. Destruction

In that sens, yes, nationalism would be inherently evil.

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

In fact, before asking if nationalism is inherently evil it seems it would be more useful to establish a definition of nationalism. Sounds that's not that evident.

And if there can be some positive forms of nationalism, I mean some that don't promote the superiority of one's nation on other ones, what the hell to do with the word "patriotism"?

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.