Towards a Useful Theory of Nationalism

[Drake Tungsten]

Useful Theory

Oxymoron alert...

[Elok]

I never really got the point of nationalism/patriotism, at least in the forms I've seen. Well, I get "the point" that it's useful for demagogues to have a crowd of rabid idiots pulling at a leash, but not why it makes sense for the individual. Now, a form of nationalism in which you love your country for the ideals it purports to represent, and making the upholding of those ideals a major priority in your life...that sounds like something I could get behind. If more people said, "ours is the land of Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt...damn, we've got a lot to live up to!" I'd be all for it. Sadly, that's rare.

Favoring one group of people over another just because they happen to share your language or certain unimportant customs is, of course, idiotic.

[zakubandit]

Ok so the obvious reasons why one should love their nation of birth, it is the nation of birth. You love your parents because they are your parents. You love your morning coffee because it is your morning coffee. But as we grow and grow as individuals we familiarize ourselves differently. I love my country because it is my country, I am free to speak my mind without being incriminated, I am free to own guns (though restricted), I am free to move across state lines without papers, I am free to go to the store, by a case of beer, go home and get highly inebriated without risk of going to jail (unless I drive or beat someone). I love America because it is my country. Now am I a zealot? No. I did wear the uniform and will wear it again if needed (actually I am trying to get back in) and I have no regrets for what I have done for my country. But will I admit when my countries leaders are wrong, of course. Will I side with a president or the people of America...thats obvious.

Patriotism, as I see it, is pride in being an American no matter what. That you are proud of the flag and the country and would do anything to protect it.

Nationalism, as I see it, is similar but not just towards the country but also towards the leader who leads it. Like Obamanics now who say they love America "more than ever"...like his wife who only loves America now because of him. Nationalists would bleed red for their leader where Patriots would bleed red for the flag and the country.

This is how I see it, I believe myself a patriot not a nationalist.

[Kitschum]

Patriot = positive, nationalist = negative has to be an English language quirk. It tends to the opposite in my tiny native language.

[fed1943]

To bleed red for the flag, that's dangerous, because flags do not talk.

It always was the way to start a dictatorship: a leader convinces the military to do
something for the flag.

[BeBMan]

- do you see the same problem I am seeing? A rift between what the population feels and what the media tell them to think?

- do you really believe that it is possible to only have positive emotions about your country?

- if you love your country, do you know why you love it?

Nationalism is usually understood negatively here as well, more in the line of chauvinism with a sense of superiority over other nations. The more formal way of describing nationalism as a set of views towards a nation, the nation-state as some kind of vehicle for national self-determination (and a number of other things) is more an academic thing here, it's less prone to generate heated debate compared to the 'loaded' one above.

About the rift you mention: I can only speak for Krautland, but IMO it's not really there anymore. While 'nationalism' remains something seen as mostly negative as explained above people and media have become more relaxed in those issues in recent years. The usual buzzword in the media here is "Verfassungspatriotismus" (some thing like 'constitutional patriotism') which is more in the line of what Elok meant, a view that doesn't relate to the nation as such, but to the values laid down in our constitution.

But apart of all this, I think it is much simpler - people like to ID themselves with stuff, groups and whatnot, if they do it more or less with small groups like the family, local sports team and/or large formations like the 'people' 'nation' 'country'. Having only positive emotions about one of those seems strange to me - unless someone lives in the ideal family, home town, country whatever where no bad thing ever could happen. Having only negative emotions is equally absurd to me.

[Dr Strangelove]

At the dawn of time people were nomadic hunter-gatherers who lived in family/kin groups. They fed off the vegetation and what game they could hunt in an area until the food supply was exhausted and then they moved on. When they came to another group infringing upon their desired food source they fought until one group was driven off. When they discovered how to plant crops and domesticate livestock they settled down. The very nature of agriculture required that they set boundaries and that they establish a form of government to regulate resources like water. As their groups prospered and grew they took their excess population and set up new villages. Agriculture enabled them to settle an area with a higher population density and to occupy a larger area. Eventually they became a tribe and the tribe acquired attributes of a family/kin group. The technology of agriculture spread and soon tribes began impinging upon each other. Not having a common law conflict was inevitable and eventually tribes began annexing other tribes until eventually the aggregate tribes became a nation. The nation also acquired attributes of the kin/family group.

Our ability to form a tran-national entity that replaces the nation ultimately depoends upon our ability to form a common law.

[Blaupanzer]

Dr. Strangelove, both of the paragraphs in your post reflect truths accepted by the general population. However, the former does NOT explain the origins of nationalism as a motivating force in society.

The latter paragraph is a potential solution to some of the problems created by nationalism. However, a "trans-national" entity is a lot easier to postulate than to create. "Common law" is not the major issue in forming and asserting control thru the suggested entity. However, it will be an issue faced by the new controller.

[onodera]

Zaku, the USA were built by unpatriotic people who didn't like the country of their birth.

[Kidlicious]

I think the difference between patriotism and nationalism is that with nationalism people in other countries are your enemies. So a a lot of people who claim to be patriotic are actually nationalistic because they believe in the superiority of their nation and it's right to subject and attack other nations.

[Cort Haus]

Our ability to form a tran-national entity that replaces the nation ultimately depoends upon our ability to form a common law.

That "trans-national entity" as a concept can be at least as dangerous as nationalism. A shorter word for it might be "empire".

In that context, resisting empire might involve a defensive nationalism which would be positive, taken from the standpoint that imperialism is a negative thing.

Another word for this might be 'sovereignty', a concept under attack in recent decades from strident humanitarian interventionists who see regime change as solving problems rather than creating them. However, the concept was originally derived from the need to protect countries against big powerful imperialists seeking to take them over.

I would argue that this sovereignty is the nearest thing to a "useful theory of nationalism" that I can think of.

Hope this helps, Vet . I'll waive my fee on this occassion.

[Elok]

Actually, before we start on useful theories of "nationalism," maybe we should get useful, or at least fixed, definitions of the term to work with. I'd say we go with what Wikipedia says about it, but I just checked and their article is in some kind of sociology-speak gibberish.

[Cort Haus]

Yes, the last thing we need here is sociological gibberish.

[Kitschum]

I think at a very basic level I feel at home in my home country and I like that. I feel proud when people from there win things at sport. I also liked reading about our glorious history when I was younger. Now I just don't have the time. I have endless petty complaints about our government and how my fellow citizens act. That is my personal nationalism and I would consider it very moderate.

About media and disconnect, that definitely and painfully exists. A lot of people here are nationalist, more or less than I am but usually more. The media is run by people like me at best, and at worst young idealistic hacks who hate their country (and parents). Yes, the mainstream media appears to cover the whole spectrum of mild discomfort to viruelnt self-hating rage when it comes to your own coutnry and its values and traditions. But yes the raging nationalists are mostly missing. The darkies-out variety is completely absent on Tv and in newspapers, but very prolific on the internet for example.

This all ties into and feeds cynical and populist politics, and severe distrust of any mainstream media. I am not just talking of separate parties, but also of the degeneration of the traditional political parties. Recent immigration has ****ed us over good, that is true, and the lack of recognition or even debate i any widely read/seen public arena is part of this. Is this what the thread si driving at. Otherwise I don't know.

[RoboCon]

Hello there! I see you are discussing nationalism. Perhaps I can be of assistance.

Saddam Hussein hates America for Grenada posed an imminent thread to our security, 9-11 bodies, UAW, Marion Barry, blue. Our resident Obama mouthpiece would see men marrying their pets before the freedom of the Iraqi people. Special event or have experience in all local authorities to request or decision of this global hunger additional single Muzzie / Cairo park to buy it for rapists. 9-11 changed everything. Chappaquiddick was FDR's crowning blow.