There's more to Nationalism than meets the eye!

[vela]

The concepts of nationalism and/or nation have a lot of definitions that range from the very simplistic to the extremely complicated.

I invite you all to dedicate this thread to share our ideas and reflections on the subject. Undoubtedly, we will find many ramifications that intersect or converge with many other topics that are commonly discussed on this board, like religion, racism, war, etc., but if we try to make all our comments revolve around the initial concept of nation I'm sure we can all get something valuable out of it.

I found the following quote:

Nationalism has as a central political demand the establishment of a state on a territory, exclusive of other states on that territory, populated by a group formed by involuntary membership of an inclusive category, usually 'descendants of past inhabitants of the territory'.

What I find most interesting about the quote above is that about the involuntary membership of an inclusive category. Is something similar to that common belief expressed by many that "no one gets to choose his/her own parents". What do you think?

The following "nationalism resources" page contains a lot of interesting links that could help as primer to this discussion. Or do a search of you own!
web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/plana.html

[Dodona Underground]

vela said:

Just in case you have missed it, here's the link to that new thread on nationalism. Do you think I'm onto something when talking about troublesome identity problems and other type of socio-political-economic problems?

dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=philosophy&action=display&thread=1105326791

I think that you raise some good points. I'm still reading your link. I hope that this doesn't become a sort of pity party for new-worlders like you and me. It'd be interesting to see what Asians, Africans and Europeans think and how their "older" identities differ from ours.

Annunaki might have something interesting to say about immigrating from one part of the old world to another.

[vela]

From a quick glance at some of the links on the “nationalism resources” page, it is clear that there is no single world culture that can claim exclusivity to this social phenomenon of nationalism. Instead of listing all the regions and cultures of the world with their peculiar version of nationalism, maybe we should start searching for a place where we don’t find one.

The fact that the page owner, Paul Treanor, is a European himself could mean that he has a somewhat slanted view about all this. But the page seems to have many links and an extensive assortment of points of view from around the world which gives it, at least at first impression, some resemblance of objectivity and fairness.

Well, as you know, true objectivity is really hard to come by these days, and I don’t pretend to be the champion of it either. But we’re not trying to say that this nationalism is good or that is bad. Let’s try first to see it and understand it for what it is, then we can draw our own conclusions.

For example, one of the inferences from the “nationalist catechism” is the following:

There is no human who does not belong to a nation.


This sounds like a valid statement from an objective perspective. But I’m more interested in the subjective side, that is, the perception and awareness that grows, builds and changes within the consciousness of each individual, which determines and shapes the way he sees and interprets and reacts to the world around him. After all, when a newborn comes into this world he is like a “tabla rassa”, ready to be inscribed and molded into whatever his parents, his teachers, his environment, etc. and the simultaneous convergence of all this influences happens to be.

So I think this is not a one way street. We can go from the general to the particular or vice versa, but we’re riding the same horse. Or in other words, we’re before a thousand-headed monster that eludes an easy definition.

[eufrenio]

Nationalism is an ideology, a social construct, used as a weapon by the rulers to control the masses.
It´s an old trick, common both on the Right and on the Left. Think Charles de Gaulle or Mao.
Patriotism on the other hand is the natural feeling of belonging to a certain nation. It´s arguably a specialized form of ethnocentrism. As such, it is harmless and indispensable to a coherent society.

[vela]

eufrenio said:

Nationalism is an ideology, a social construct, used as a weapon by the rulers to control the masses.
It´s an old trick, common both on the Right and on the Left. Think Charles de Gaulle or Mao.
Patriotism on the other hand is the natural feeling of belonging to a certain nation. It´s arguably a specialized form of ethnocentrism. As such, it is harmless and indispensable to a coherent society.

This distinction that you made between nationalism and patriotism is most important. Some people might think that these words are synonyms but they are not.

I would add that real patriotism stems naturally from the inside of each individual; is the indissoluble link to the land where you were born, like an "astrological sign".

Nationalism, on the other hand, is inculcated from the outside by external sources. There lies the risk, when nationalism becomes distorted and perverted for obscure purposes, like mass domination or war.

[Faelcind]

I agree with Eufrenio almost to the letter on this. I find it especially distrubting as trend here in the USA a nation founded on the principle that all men are created equall, and yet people do not extend that principle to people outside of this nation.

[nordicyouth]

How naiive. Faelcind, live some more of your life and you'll realize that the 'rules don't apply equally to everybody.' A quote from where I work.

In fact, it was not until I began working that I realized why 'our' hierachical system is the way it is. Most people aren't up to the task (whatever it may be), and in any event, don't care - how can they not be dominated and/or looked down upon?

[vela]

Faelcind said:

I agree with Eufrenio almost to the letter on this. I find it especially distrubting as trend here in the USA a nation founded on the principle that all men are created equall, and yet people do not extend that principle to people outside of this nation.

Maybe when the founding fathers wrote that "all men are created equal" couldn't have anticipated what would happen in our times. Or maybe it was just a figure of speech. It can be accepted as a philosophical concept that initially all men are created equal, just like the seeds from a fruit all are created equal. But then some seeds are planted in rocky soil, others in sandy soil and some in fertile soil. Surely, not all seeds will develop their full potential. Right?

Like it or not, and as I&R writes, it is true that practically all societies are based on the hierarchical system. However, even if some people are not up to the task, whatever it may be, we should instead be satisfied and grateful of our good fortune and brains. There's no need to dominate when you can lead. There's no need to look down upon others when you can simply look at them. (Unless your sense of superiority is based in humiliating the downtrodden)