Going beyond the dictionary definitions of Nationalism, how does it present itself in every day life? Is it through language, customs, costume, actions, pride?
The US has had instances of nationalism. Manifest destiny is surely one example. But did Nationalism initiate and spur the various entrepreneurial advances made in Central America and Hawaii during the late 19th century?
Or is entrepreneurship a part of Nationalism?
Interesting, Bob. Does that mean that Nationalism doesn’t exist? Is that what Guerard meant?
Was xenophobia a part of the entrepreneurial enterprises at the turn of the 20th century? I don’t think so. Let’s try to examine some more recent history, now that so much time has past. Look at Russia, Poland, and Czechoslovakia in the 1920s and 30s. Jews had settled in Russia and Poland for generations before then. Catherine the Great, Tsarina, set up areas where only Jews could live–ghettos, if you will. Poland’s Jews had been around long enough to develop their own language, Yiddish. In Czechoslovakia, it was the Sudeten Deutsche–Germans from an area of Southern Germany who had settled in Czechoslovakia before there were even borders between the two countries. Germany hated its Jews from before the 14th century.
These are all examples of xenophobia, to me.
Actions against these people were all done in the name of Nationalism. And there are examples today in France against the ME Muslim immigrants; in Singapore against the Filipino immigrants. Xenophobia under the cloak of Nationalism.
But I’m more interested in how Nationalism is exhibited, because Nationalism is a two-way street. The US has a lot of Latino immigrants, documented or not, spread out all over. Most are concentrated in the SW, I believe. They’re proud of the country of their origin, maintain its language and customs, and celebrate their holidays as they would in their native countries. US citizens counteract this display of Latin Nationalism with displays of US Nationalism, most especially the argument that, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”
More subtly, is what I encountered here in a forum about Nietzsche. The poster, who lives in Germany, maintains that German is the language of science and philosophy. He implies there are ‘taboos’ that keep US Americans from admitting the dominance of German philosophers and scientists over the ages. I believe that’s his German Nationalism showing.
This is the basis for my OP and my question, “How does Nationalism present itself in every day life?”
Really, just what is Nationalism?
No, it means that Guerard meant that Nationalism is militant hatred. Patriotism is the contrasting position, being reasonable.
Xenophobia is an unreasonable fear or hatred of “the other”, either because it is foreign or strange to people. It may have been reasonable in a violent world lacking any kind of order, but a society that has come as far as Europe in the 14th Century can be expected to live by its own ideology, which was primarily biblical. The foreigner or stranger needn’t be a danger, unless we perceive some danger. In the case of the Jews it was a church bigotry that made Jews the murderers of God’s Son, and which led to varying restrictions on Jews, which they apparently were able to cope with and even prosper on, given half a chance.
The bigotry then, was widespread and the book, “Constantine’s Sword” is a very interesting read on the subject. The European Christians, all the way up to the 20th Century, were able to keep the hypocrisy until the Shoah, when Germany efficiency made destruction an industry, and the world finally had to stop the madness. The problem is really, that the bigotry and hypocrisy was and is even in those allied forces against Hitler widespread. As you say, they are examples of xenophobia.
I think that you mean xenophobia under the cloak of patriotism.
The question of integration is the question whether people who enjoy the benefits of a country, are prepared to contribute to the values that have provided those benefits. People who tend to promote their own cultures have a tendency to refuse to integrate, which suggests that they are not staying. If someone is only visiting, no one expects him or her to integrate, but if they want citizenship, then it is reasonable to expect an allegiance to the values of that country.
It doesn’t mean that they have to give up the good things of their country, but it does mean that conflicting values require a decision for the one or the other. I understand that many people become citizens of other countries because there is a regime in their own country, which is violent towards people of their opinions. That is why we need to differentiate between people who want to take citizenship and those who are merely waiting to return to their own country.
I’m not German, although I’ve lived here for nearly 40 years. German is a language that makes philosophy and science speak “the common tongue”. I found that books I found difficult reading in my own language were easier in German (admittedly, I am fluent in German) and that goes for almost any subject. Admittedly, there are other sides to language, like Shakespeare or other English language literature in German in not something I enjoy, but I can underline the statement of the person you were speaking of.
It isn’t nationalism because it isn’t unreasonable, nor is it fear that he is expressing, but it is a fact that German speaking (often Jewish) philosophers and scientists have dominated in the past.
Nationalism expresses itself in all kinds of xenophobia, when it is a question of nationality.
When you do it, it’s patriotism. When they do it, it’s nationalism. The two words exist purely for rhetoricians to make the exact same behaviors seem good or evil depending on the ends of the rhetorician.
Look at Bob’s definition- nationalism is when patriotism becomes evil, prejudiced, etc. Well, when is that? It’s when the person doing the evaluating disagrees with it.
What is xenophobia? Irrational hatred and fear of the other. Who calls themselves a xenophobe? Nobody, ever. So what is ‘Xenophobia’? It’s a thing you call other people, based on your presumptions about their hidden mental states. Practically, when you want to disparage somebody’s position, you declare that they are a xenophobe- you call their motivations into question, 99% without just grounds.
That may be the way you do it, but as you can see above, I actuaally showed lizbethrose that the person she felt could be nationalistic had a valid point and showed that he wasn’t being unreasonable, nor was it fear that he was expressing. Those are valid identifiers for whether someone is being a patriot or a nationalist - or xenophobic. Perhaps you should look here: rightdiagnosis.com/x/xenophobia/symptoms.htm
Otherwise there were multiple points that showed a differentiated perspective and no black or white discussion, so why bring it up?
Before one can even get to defining “nationalism”, one must first define what a “nation” is. In everyday language, most people use the term “nation” as a synonym for “state” (by which I mean an internationally recognized territorial entity, not in the sense of a U.S. state). But “nation” and “state” are not coterminous, at least not according to political scientists. Thus, the question of whether the United States is a “nation” is a topic ripe for debate, just as it would be for most, if not all, states. Is Spain, for example, a “nation”, even though significant portions of the people living within what is considered Spain reject that view (I’m thinking primarily of the Catalonia)? How about Italy, where there are increasing rumblings about Venice and the surrounding areas wanting to break away?
I think Uccisore has a very valid point. “Nationalism” and “patriotism” are words that can be used all sorts of ways, depending on the particular objectives of the people making use of them.
It isn’t a question of how people can use the word nationalism, but what it is. If we don’t have an agreement on that, we will never understand each other. Lizbethrose wanted to know, beyond the dictionary meaning, what Nationalism is. In the dictionary Nationalism is:
The quote given above from Guerard is an observation at the beginning of the 20th century, of a “passionate xenophobia“ which went on ultimately to the Holocaust on the Jews, but also of other minority groups within that century. History has shown that his use of the word nationalism as an excessive patriotism or chauvinism was warranted and that it still is, perhaps even more so, since ethnic groups within the Soviet Union, or Yugoslavia, for example, have begun protecting an assumed affiliation to one group of people and showing animosity towards others.
A nation was originally (1250–1300 from Middle English < Latin nātiōn- (stem of nātiō ) birth, tribe, equivalent to nāt ( us ) (past participle of nāscī to be born) + -iōn- -ion ) the affiliation to the people and place in which you are born. With the cultural development of society, it was also about what values and ethics you represented, when you were abroad. I am a representative of England (or Great Britain) and I feel that I behave in that way – although values and culture in my place of birth has changed radically, and leave me asking whether I am also akin to a time traveller. With time, however, I have also become a representative of modern German values, without actually calling myself a German.
I would be a nationalist if I started showing signs of xenophobia, for whatever reasons, or disesteem other nations as inferior. We come to notice certain national traits, but we shouldn’t take them too seriously, since they restrict the possibility of seeing exceptions to the rule. That has been the problem with racist ideas about people from underdeveloped countries, who were assumed to be inferior to European or Western people, because they lacked the background. It turns out that they are just as able to bring forth scientists and doctors, as western nations were – sometimes even under abject conditions.
I think they’re words with subtly different meanings. But, you’re correct when you say “…first define what a “nation” is.” Is a nation a group of people in a tribe such as various ‘tribal nations’ in a given area? Is a nation the territory that’s home to a majority of people linked by language, religion, and/or culture? Is a nation a political entity, wherein living in an area have agreed to be regulated under one general set of laws? I’m not sure there’s a really definitive answer.
Certainly, the US can’t be described as an ethno-nation; e.i., a huge tribe of people; nor are we really ‘linked’ by anything other than language and ‘custom.’ Our customs and culture come from other ‘nations’ since we’re a Nation of Immigrants. Does that make the US solely a civil nation? (I’m not talking about manners, here. 
)
Before I can talk about my perception of the differences between patriotism and nationalism, I’m going to have to switch from typing as I think to Word–that’s going to have to be tomorrow.
In the meantime, I’d really like to know what you think comprises a ‘nation.’
Bob, do you consider yourself an ex-pat or an ex-nat?
Gimme a break, Bob. The symptoms listed there for xenophobia are just a generic list you'll see for any phobia on the same site... They also have nothing to do with how people actually use the word. When you accuse somebody of being xenophobic, you're not commenting about their shortness of breath. Do you really think all the Nazi leadership and so on experienced these symptoms when confronted with Jews and Gypsies and so on?
And anyway, it's not an attack on you, it's just a simple observation that these words are too politically immersed to have any rigorous meaning.
What I was showing you is that xenophobia isn’t a cuss-word but a diagnosis and symptomatic of the people who fear foreign influences or what they deem to be “strange”. You don’t accuse people of being xenophobic, that would be a diagnosis, hopefully from people who are qualified to do so. Note that I differentiated between people who are patriots, nationalists or xenophobic and didn’t bunch them together.
The Nazi-Leadership were another kettle of fish, who promoted xenophobia for their means, although their prime target was the Jews and they used different means (e.g. accusations about the Jews collaborating in setting up of the Treaty of Versailles after WWI) to get people angry at Jews, who already were on a sticky wicket. But there were the numerous victims, like the Gypsies you mentioned, who were murdered for just being different. In a country and time when everybody is behaving xenophobic, fear has a different appearence, and so it was when racism caused a holocaust. Remember, soldiers who have been decorated for bravery have often said that they had wet themselves (and worse) - so fear has many apparitions.
You really have to differentiate on this kind of behaviour. It is very often very different deep down than it appears on the surface and even the brute is often behaving out of a conviction that the victim he is slugging is in some way dangerous to his way of life. The Nationalist (of the type mentioned in the quote) is fearful of the influence of the foreign or strange - perhaps even rightly so. Nationalists are ultra conservative, trying to protect their heritage at all costs. But it cannot be a fanatical militant hatred in a cultivated country where civil order is mandatory.
If you've spent any time in political discussion, it's clearly both at the very least, and the former a great deal more often than the latter. Again, I don't know what your website demonstrates- all they seemed to have done was copy/paste the same list of symptoms into every word with the 'phobia' suffix. Yes, I imagine there are some people out there that get sweaty palms and butterflies when they encounter somebody with a funny hat or an unknown accent, but when we're talking about xenophobia and nationalism, are we really talking about [i]them?[/i] If by 'xenophobia' you seriously only mean people who have a mental disorder where they react to foreigners like I react to needles, then fine- just know that I have[i] never[/i] heard the word actually used in that context, and it's not for lack of listening.
Now see, case in point. Nationalism and patriotism (granting that they are different for the sake of argument)I get, but how do you promote a phobia? Can radio broadcasts and moving speeches really give people a phobia, of say spiders, open spaces, or Jews? I don’t think so, and if you don’t think so, it seems you’re using “Xenophobia” as an ideological criticism and not a diagnosis already.
I don't disagree with any of the above, except to say that it really does look like you are using xenophobia in the way you defined nationalism - as a dangerous, bad ideology, not a medical condition. As you defined xenophobia, I don't think we have much evidence that many Nazis or people in Nazi Germany were xenophobic.
I translate:
The poster, who lives in US, maintains - in order to hide her nationalsim - that a foreign person is „nationalistic“. She implies there are „taboos“ that keep foreigners, especially male foreigners, from admitting the dominance of US nationalism, feminism, and imperialism over one age named US-Dollar-Empire. I believe that’s her US Nationalism showing - and also her try to hide it.
I believe that Lizbethrose is nationalistic and tries to hide her nationalism behind a presumpted nationalism of anyone and everyone - except herself. (Cp. Uccisore’s post here and Bob’s post here and here).
The poster she mentioned is not guilty for her ignorance of nation, of nationalism, of history, of language, of speech (and it is very ridiculous, that she with English as her mother tongue doesn’t know the difference between „language“ and „speech“), of Nietzsche, of Nietzsche’s sister, of anything and everything.
According to Lizbethros there are currently still three nations / states / countries with nationalistic, imperialistic, fascistic names:
1.) „United States of America“;
2.) „Great Britain“;
3.) „Israel“.
Have you ever been to school? Or is there no school in your country? Have you never heard what „America“ means? America is NOT a nation, NOT a state, but merely TWO CONTINENTS. According to Lizbethrose the claim of being „United States of America“ is a megalomanian nationalism and a megalomanian imperialism. Two isms! I am agaist any ism!
What does „Great“ in the name „Great Britain“ really mean? According to Lizbethrose the claim of being „Great Britain“ is a megalomanian nationalism and a megalomanian imperialism. Two isms! I am agaist any ism!
What does the name „Israel“ really mean? According to Lizbethrose the claim of being „Israel“ is a fascistic nationalism because the ancient Israel was eliminated in the year 133. So according to Lizbethrose that claim is fascism and nationalism. Two isms. I am agaist any ism!
Many names of nations / states / countries were not given by themselves, but by their neighbours, though the names of the three nations I mentioned were given by themselves. In the most cases names of nations / states / countries were given by their neighbours. For example: The Germans do not call themselves Germans and their nation / state / country Germany - they call themselves Deutsche and their nation / state / country Deutschland, but the neighbours call them Germans, Allemands, or Saxons, but not Deutsche, and their nation / state / country Germany, Allemagne, or Sachsa, but not Deutschland (exceptions are younger small neighbours, e.g. the Dutch, who became independent from Germany as the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation (Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation - cp. Deutscher, thus not German Nation) in the year 1648 by the Peace of Westphalia. Arminius, who lived when Augustus (Octavian) as the follower of Caesar ruled in Rome, and other Germans didn’t call themselves Germans.
Arminius did NOT defend a nation, or even a nationalistic idea, Arminius defended culture and fighted civilisation, Arminius defended freedom and fighted slavery.
If you want to know what nationalism really is, Germany is not the most typical example; all other nations / states / countries in Europe have being been more nationalistic than Germany. I don’t say that primarily in order to defend my nation / state / country, but I say it primarily as historian.
Even Lizbethrose has to accept the truth and the facts. It is the truth, a fact that German scientists and philosophers have dominated in the past, and the Jewish percentage in German science and philosophy has always been about 1%, and the Jewsih population in Germany has always been about 0.5% (= ½%).
All this can be checked in books of libraries and in other sources.
According to „Hegels Dialektik“ nationalism as „Thesis“ leads to anti-nationalism as „Antithesis“, and both lead to globalism as „Synthesis“. Thus globalism doesn’t mean there is no more nationalism in it, but globalism even lifts nationalism on a higher level by denying anti-nationalism. So nationalism, anti-nationalism, and globalism are civilised barbarisms, and currently the danger comes mostly from globalism - of course in global dimensions!
I am against all isms at all because I am against ideologies at all. Thus I am also against civilised barbarism. Civilised barbarisms are for example nationalism, anti-nationalism, and globalism. I am a…istic, defendig a-…ism, fighting all isms. That is because of my strongly pronounced sense of freedom, especially the freedom of thinking and speaking. I defend freedom and fight slavery, as Arminius did in ancient times.
Not often Jewish because that is very relative: In Germany the Jewish population was only 0.5%, that is merely ½%, but the Jewish percentage in German science and philosophy was 1%.
Amongst thousand German scientist of the past you find about nine Jewish ones, and amongst thousand German philosophers of the past you find about ten Jewish ones.
Thus: When she does it, she calls it „patriotism“ or „feminism“; when they do it, she calls it „nationalism“ (incl. „nationalsocialism“ / „anti-semitism“) or „anti-feminism“.
Perhaps she can not tolerate that because of her nationalism and xenophobism.
It’s not about statistics but about known people … And there are enough of them, as you probably know, so I’ll save myself the trouble of listing them.
Greece celebrates its Independence Day on March 25. Greece won its independence from Turkey and the Ottoman Empire after many years of war led by Greek Nationalists. This is one definition of nation/nationalist/nationalism. The Ottoman Empire is another definition of ‘nation’–a people united under one religion, Islam, intent on spreading their religion through force and the forceful conquest of territory. The Spanish conquistadors and, later on, the French Jesuits, used religion to conquer nations–in this use of the word, the Incas, Aztecs, Cree, Iroquois, Seminoles, Arapaho, Navajo, and so on and so forth, all define nations.
The people who live in the United States of America are in a bit of a quandary when it comes to identity.
I’d like to talk about the difference between nationalism and patriotism. Both ‘-isms’ imply a ‘nation.’ Definitions of ‘nation’ are needed before the ‘-ism’ label can be applied. It seems to me that part of the difference is in the actions of both. Both will ‘fight’ for their countries, but, perhaps, for different reasons. It could be that a nationalist will fight for his/her country, right or wrong, while a patriot will fight for his/her country out of their love for the country, even though they recognize the country isn’t perfect. A patriot, imm, fights for the ideals their countries symbolize (in their minds,) rather than for the ‘country/territory,’ itself–unless the territory is attacked by another territory trying to conquer and force change.
The two ‘-isms’ are very intertwined, psychologically, which makes their definitions difficult to isolate distinctively.
I repeat, bob, are you an ex-pat or an ex-nat?
Arminius,
Oh my, my, my, my, my.
I asked a question in this thread about nationalism, referencing some of your responses in the Nietzsche thread to which we both contributed. I received responses, most especially this from bob:
(That was a response to you, but he said the same thing to me.) I accepted that response and am trying to move on to a discussion of Nationalism vs. Patriotism and how both are so often not understood as distinct.
If you want to make this thread one of attack and counter attack, then may I suggest you move your comments out of this thread and into one of your own? I’ll try to reply to you there.
Danke.
Arminius,
Oh my, my, my, my, my.
I asked a question in this thread about nationalism, referencing your replies to me in the Nietzsche thread to which we both contributed. I received responses, most especially this from bob:
(That was a response to you, but he said the same thing to me.) I accepted that response and am trying to move on to a discussion of Nationalism vs. Patriotism and how both are so often not understood as distinct.
If you want to make this thread one of attack and counter attack, then may I suggest you move your comments out of this thread and into one of your own? I’ll try to reply to you there.
Danke.