Is nationalism inherenetly evil?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes it is.

[Keystone Phil]

Love of nation is not a problem. Love of nation before God is a serious problem.

[Franzl]

There's a fine line between patriotism and nationalism, of course. I consider myself patriotic. I'm proud to be American.

Since you're asking in the religion thread, though.....I guess I'd give the same answer as Phil. Being patriotic doesn't cause any problems....but I suppose every religion would tell you the same thing....being that love of nation is a "worldly" thing and shouldn't be more important than love for God(s) or whatever.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

No, of course not.

[JSojourner]

Love of nation is not a problem. Love of nation before God is a serious problem.

[John Dibble]

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

[Verily]

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.

[Lief 🗽]

I think so, yes.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes it is.

How many times do we have to go over this?

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

[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".

[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?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

[Earth]

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

If you supported the Allies and their actions during WWII, then you'd have an example of how nationalism is not "inherently evil". What a laugh that phrase is anyhow.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

[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.

[John Dibble]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nationalism is simply a feeling, an emotion held towards one's nation

Is it?

[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.

[Verily]

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.

[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.

[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"?