@littlebitchbuckeye all of you words are patriotism. If patriotism and nationalism are exactly identical, why have both?
IMO, patriotism is a healthy affection for one's country. However, unlike nationalism, patriotism implies superiority which can lead increase the likelihood of conflict with other nations.
Let us face it, in the final analysis, how patriotism and nationalism are defined makes the terms acceptable or unhealthy.
Furthermore, those living in other nations also have strong feelings concerning patriotism and nationalism. Like it or not, we share the planet with others who have these same feelings, and this can lead to conflict.
Yep, hoot. Some of these words--especially the -isms--are suitcase words: different people put different ideas and connotations inside them. And they have meant different things at different times (see, e.g., conservatism and progressivism from other threads).Let us face it, in the final analysis, how patriotism and nationalism are defined makes the terms acceptable or unhealthy.
I don't think it's helpful to argue back and forth on the "true" definition of these terms, but instead tease out what each person means, how one values that, where it came from in their personal experience, etc.
However, unlike nationalism, patriotism implies superiority which can lead increase the likelihood of conflict with other nations.
hoot, did you get the patriotism and nationalism switched here?
De Gaul said, "Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."
Orwell said it was, "identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests".
I find nationalism to be patriotism run amok. Going to a game to cheer on your favorite team is patriotism. Back in the day of soccer hooligans, going to a game to beat up fans of other teams is nationalism (the Raiders had that kind of fan in Oakland).
Spoken like a true globalist…
I think at a fundamental level, “nationalism” and “patriotism” are positive attributes of a well rounded, productive, and satisfying nation/society. That’s not to say that all who claim to be patriots or nationalists are positive people. Millions are also racists, or bullies, or both. Those traits are not nationalistic or patriotic and are often the opposite.
Also of concern are those who specifically reject nationalism and patriotism for no reason other than it isn’t fashionable to think in those terms. Some like to see themselves as “independent “ from such mundane traits while others are conspicuous in their rejection for political purposes. Al Sharpton has already announced a rejection of America 250 observances for reasons that appear to me to be racial politics. I suppose those who showed up at his victimhood confab (Kelly, Harris, Newsom) wil follow suit making the 250 observance a divisive affair. Sad.
Agreed. We are human beings before we are a race, a gender or anything else. MLK Jr. understood as deeply as anyone. Sharpton’s no MLK and it is sad. A fair, level playing field is important to foster and maintain for all. That doesn’t require division. The USA created 250 years ago is the best hope for all people. Overlooking that is not looking at all. MLK always endeavored to unite.
The game of being an American requires professionalism to succeed. Some take shortcuts but most will fail if they don’t take their role in society seriously. The general direction of liberal politics these days is anything but real. Minorities can and do succeed but not by fighting the system. Sharpton et al are doing their constituents and congregations a disservice with the rhetoric they choose and the roles they model.
I define nationalism as patriotic pride, a desire to be self-governed, and the desire to put the interests of a nation's citizens first.
America's founding fathers were nationalists. So was Abraham Lincoln. So was Mahatma Gandhi. So is every fan at the Olympics and World Cup.
Does anybody have a problem with this concept
Yes, because you are confusing nationalism with statism/patriotism. They are not the same thing.
Many throw out the term "nationalist" and then complain about it. Why?
A state is a sovereign polity. A nation is a group of people with a shared ethnic/linguistic identity. The concept of nation-states was developed largely from intellectual discussions during and involved with the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years' War. In this paradigm, nations and states should be congruent. Which is to say, the Germans should be able to form a German state, the French a French state, the Egyptians an Egyptian state, and so forth (and yes, the Jews a Jewish state; this is the philosophical foundation for Zionism).
The problem is not understanding the difference. If your political loyalty is to the United States, you can be a patriot, you can feel very strong loyalty to the US government, you can want it to succeed, you can work for its benefit. That's all great. But none of it is nationalism. Nationalism is when your loyalty is to a cultural/ethnic/linguistic group rather than the state. In some cases, those loyalties are identical. But in most, they are not. Arab nationalism isn't loyal to Egypt, to Saudi Arabia, to Jordan, to Syria. It really calls for the consolidation of all Arab states into a single polity. There is no Spanish nationalism (though Franco tried), because the cultural divisions in the country are too varied and too strong. There is Basque nationalism and Catalan nationalism. Neither of those is loyal to the Spanish state. There is Scottish and Welsh nationalism in the UK. These are very peaceful versions of nationalism, but nationalism they are. The adherents have no great loyalty to the UK government, or, in most cases, even the Crown itself.
Then you get to racial and religious versions, which are the worst. There is White nationalism and Black nationalism. And there is Christian nationalism and, well, I already mentioned Zionism, which is effectively Jewish nationalism.
Nationalism is not patriotism. It is not loyalty to an already existing sovereign state. It is loyalty to a cultural group, and when the borders of the cultural group don't coincide perfectly with the borders of the state, the state loses.
The Westphalian system was prescriptive, not descriptive. It was never actually put into place on a large scale. The Germans were not unified. The UK was a collection of multiple nations (still called the "Home Nations" today). The French were not actually all French. Decades of Frankification degraded Alsatian, Occitan, Breton, Basque, and many other cultures and languages in favor of a culture that was never as wide as the French state itself, but was truly only the natural culture of the Ile-de-France, a small section of territory immediately surrounding Paris.
Nationalism and patriotism are very, very different things.
Thanks for that essay.
It’s interesting to examine our nation as used here:
that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
If we view culture very broadly, then it could include ideals, aspirations, founding principles, belief systems, other such concepts. As such, it seems there are levels of national culture. A sense of freedom is foundational I believe. Americans tend to share that. Then there are less shared levels, such as social, economic and political beliefs. Thus there are natural divisions in our nation. What seems to make our nation endure is foundational aspects shared by most.
In these divisive times, it might be wise to articulate and highlight those aspects.
I define nationalism as patriotic pride, a desire to be self-governed, and the desire to put the interests of a nation's citizens first.
America's founding fathers were nationalists. So was Abraham Lincoln. So was Mahatma Gandhi. So is every fan at the Olympics and World Cup.
Does anybody have a problem with this concept
I define nationalism as patriotic pride, a desire to be self-governed, and the desire to put the interests of a nation's citizens first.
America's founding fathers were nationalists. So was Abraham Lincoln. So was Mahatma Gandhi. So is every fan at the Olympics and World Cup.
Does anybody have a problem with this concept
Your definition of nationalism seems almost as if it was cut and made explicitly for your needs or predispositions. You have conflated patriotism, nationalism and stupidity, threw them all into a bowl of ignorance, and posted yet another dandy.
George Orwell said it best:
"Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."
Orwell's definition rested upon history. Yours appears to rest upon whatever tweet or Tik Tok video that pops up.
The founding fathers weren't nationalists. Half were Francophiles and the other half Anglophiles.
Shoving carrramrod into a locker since 2024.
I think at a fundamental level, “nationalism” and “patriotism” are positive attributes of a well rounded, productive, and satisfying nation/society. That’s not to say that all who claim to be patriots or nationalists are positive people. Millions are also racists, or bullies, or both. Those traits are not nationalistic or patriotic and are often the opposite.
Also of concern are those who specifically reject nationalism and patriotism for no reason other than it isn’t fashionable to think in those terms. Some like to see themselves as “independent “ from such mundane traits while others are conspicuous in their rejection for political purposes. Al Sharpton has already announced a rejection of America 250 observances for reasons that appear to me to be racial politics. I suppose those who showed up at his victimhood confab (Kelly, Harris, Newsom) wil follow suit making the 250 observance a divisive affair. Sad.
So Mark Kelly isn't a patriot?
It seems with you that anyone who disagrees with your line of thoughts isn't a patriot. I would suggest that any person who idly stands by and watches the grift occurring in the White House right now has zero patriotism. You were all over Hunter Biden, but the Jared Kushner, the trump sons and whomever else, have accomplished more grifting in a day than Hunter ever did in a lifetime. Where have you been to point this out?
Shoving carrramrod into a locker since 2024.
It seems with you that anyone who disagrees with your line of thoughts isn't a patriot. I would suggest that any person who idly stands by and watches the grift occurring in the White House right now has zero patriotism. You were all over Hunter Biden, but the Jared Kushner, the trump sons and whomever else, have accomplished more grifting in a day that Hunter ever did. Where have you been to point this out?
LOL. That's different.
I see what you did here.
If Mark Kelly continues with his Al Sharpton alliance and rejects America 250 because of sharpton’s view of racial history or because of who is in the White House, then yes. I think MLK would have advocated for inclusion not racial separation. Allying with MLK would be more patriotic.