Is nationalism inherenetly evil?

[12th Doctor]

....That hardly is an endorsement in believing that your nation is superior to others, or worthy of any special privileges.

And if BRTD had spent anytime studying the subject, he would know that the kind of nationalism he is describing is only one form.  In fact, there are several different types of nationalism, among them, the theories of Herder, which directly contradict the notion of "national supremacy".

[12th Doctor]

Please point me to any incident in history where nationalism was ever positive. Nationalism brings absolutely nothing except persecution, death and genocide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Persian_Wars

The Greeks refused to become part of the Persian Empire, because, in their mind, to do so would mean they would lose what made them Greek.  Not all the states defined their liberties in the way Athens did, but they recognized that their conceptions of liberty, as a whole, were quite different from those of Persia.

In WWII the Allied Powers were just as Nationalistic as the Axis powers.  It's just that they defined their nationalism differently.  Churchill believed that the defense of liberty was inherent in the idea of being British, and were the British to negotiate a peace with Germany, then Britain would, in effect, cease to be British.

[12th Doctor]

But if it weren't for nationalism, the Persians or the Germans would've never started the wars.

So?  If it weren't for the human beings, the any number of threats that have been posed to this planet would vanish... but then we wouldn't be here having this conversation, would we?

You asked if nationalism itself is evil.  I grant it can lead to bad things, but only if people attempt to define their nationalism in negative ways.

[12th Doctor]

And, actually, Persia was not nationalistic, in the least.

[12th Doctor]

No. Nationalism can lead to people performing evil actions, but nationalism in and of itself is not evil.

I would say that is the very definition of what makes an abstract concept evil, at least so long as there is no corresponding greater good that comes of it. And there is no corresponding greater good associated with nationalism.

As Supersoulty pointed out, there are incidents where nationalism can be good. Nationalism is simply a feeling, an emotion held towards one's nation. The reasons why that feeling is held will usually determine what kind of outcome you'll get - people are nationalistic usually because they agree with whatever ideals their state supports.

I disagree with Soulty about basically everything he posted, most of which is absurd distortion. There were multiple factors at work in WWI, most of which were only vaguely on the "good" side. Certainly a small number of people actually did believe in "liberty", whatever that means with regards to the Allied Powers, but they were not fighting for their nation but for liberty; they were not nationalist.

Those who were nationalist didn't care so much about liberty, although they were perfectly happy to free-ride on the propaganda about it, and fought the Germans because England was great (for example). And that wasn't to anyone's benefit because they didn't understand anything which made England better than Germany and would have happily exchanged liberty for dictatorship as long as it kept England great.

If your primary devotion is to liberty, you're not a nationalist. If your primary devotion is to England, you're a nationalist. And the latter is barely better than if your primary devotion were to some more malevolent state (ignoring all the various horrible things the UK was busy doing before, during and after WWI anyway, all to the loud cheers of the nationalists), and certainly not "good".

The idea that WWI was some kind of clash between liberty and tyranny is laughable to historical ears, although by coincidence it did end up as fought between democratic (or semi-democratic in the case of Italy) and non-democratic states once the February Revolution took place. But certainly the British, French, etc. governments would have liked you to believe that their great struggle was against tyranny rather than pitting their own nationalism against German and Austrian nationalism.

Ultimately, I disagree that people are nationalist because of things they like about their nation. People are nationalist because we are inherently territorial. What is good about our nation tends to become an excuse for that territoriality and clannishness, but it is not its cause. There is a reason, after all, why there were German nationalists in WWI, or why there are Russian nationalists today. They found/find a nationalist connection, and that connection brings them to support the ideals of the state: militancy, or centralized authority. But what those ideals are doesn't actually matter to nationalism and are actually quite easy to dislodge and replace.

At first I thought you had made a mistake by saying "WWI" but then you said it several times.  I said WWII, not WWI.

If you did simply make a mistake, then as I said, Britain in particular, and the United States both believed that liberty was part of their national character, and Allied propaganda got plenty of millage out of this this kind of nationalism.  Certainly, the Axis powers defined several principles as being a part of their national character, for that is what nationalism is.  How is saying "defense of liberty is [art of the British character" any different from saying "the will to dominate is part of the German character"?

Once again, the problem here is not nationalism itself, but how a person defines their own nationalism.  People who don't like the concept get an incredible amount of millage out of cherry picking which concepts they are willing to say of nationalistic, all of which are, of course, negative.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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".