Nations and the idea of nationalism

Could you explain nationalism?

Other urls found in this thread:

web.archive.org/web/20110827065548/http://www.cooper.edu/humanities/core/hss3/e_renan.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

My country is the best and your country sucks

That's chauvinism you fucking idiot

I'm so sick of you people. Sit and watch if you have nothing to offer yourselves.

Pride in the work of your forefathers.

Us > them

Turns out we cant help it. At the end of the day id rather have a guy from indiana get a job than a guy from india. Nothing against Indians, their women have huge titties and their food is bretty good.

I advocate a soft nationalism. Something like the banter you see on pol and int is actually good and healthy imo. But the very responsible fear is that an increase in nationalism will lead to war between modern countries, which no one wants to see. I think this is unlikely though.

Fuck global citizens.

>But the very responsible fear is that an increase in nationalism will lead to war between modern countries, which no one wants to see. I think this is unlikely though.
There's no evidence of this happening however.

WWI was caused by monarchs and imperial governments, and WWII was caused by Communism and German Economic Autism.

>Waaaah, Marx said nationalism is late deep early soft dialectical imperial cishetero canine spongiform capitalism, why aren't you paying attention to my outdated pseudointellectual pophistory?!
If you don't want to contribute then shut the fuck up.

You can call it what you want, most people who call themselves nationalists have that mindset or atleast when it comes to history.

Gee, it's almost as if the English language had synonyms or something.

Could you please explain what your concept is and/or explain why they are wrong?

Curious

web.archive.org/web/20110827065548/http://www.cooper.edu/humanities/core/hss3/e_renan.html

And? Does that change the fixed and clear definition of the word?

>Chauvinism explicitly means what you're referring to
>Nationalism also covers meanings which you don't intend

Stop the newspeak you fuck

>I'm going to use the word that less accurately represents the concept I am discussing

You are either deliberately ignorant or deliberately trying to persuade your audience an obfuscated definition of the term "nationalism"

Words changes meaning over time, especially when it comes to ideologies

Nothing wrong with a bit of nationalism. It's of the same branch as patriotism. People these days need to calm down a bit about the subject.

>a patriotic britfag

>especially when it comes to ideologies

No, it does not. Ideologies are usually fixed things. While definitions can drift for usual words, we will be in constant need of axiomatic and brief naming conventions of ideologies which are unchanged in character.

Fascism should mean what it meant at its conception

Nationalism should mean what it meant at its conception

Communism should mean what it meant at its conception

Et cetera

The ideology is the same. The concept is fixed. If you change the definition of the word, you change your aim, not what you targeted initially.

You're free to believe that fascism means anything right of centre. But that fascism will not be the fascism of the 30s.

Anybody five IQ points higher than you can penetrate the deception.

Humans are social creatures and since primordial times it is the ability to function within a collective that allowed us to survive. Certain evolutionary behaviour traits helped us, e.g. the fact that we learn to identify with the group, attribute its successes to ourselves even if we only played a tiny part. Nationalism simply appeals to this primordial group instinct and applies it to a larger collective. The reason why nationalism didn't emerge before the modern period is likely because people had a poorer understanding of the greater world surrounding them as their lives were more microcosmic. The printing press, standardisation of language, better education and the work of ideologues that came up with foundation myths and other narratives enhancing the national awareness as well as more political participation of the middle class then resulted in nationalism.

...

So german nationalism played no role in ww2 is what youre saying?

Damn it I'm not clever enough to make a coherent point on this topic any more. I'll just plagiarize George Orwell

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

You are using definitive subversion to undermine your enemies. That, or you're regurgitating something that has been regurgitated in a long line of memetic transfer started by somebody that sees definitive subversion as a means to an end.

>Dude Nazis lmao! Aren't those guys literally hitler? EVIL! EVIL! EVIL! What I simplistically percieve to have caused le nazism is anathema!

You are such a fucking simpleton.

The nation is a broader counterpart of the idea of family. You may think your family sucks, but you're still a part of it and you'd act to defend and care for the rest of its members. Also, families have some stupid, meaningless traditions, but you still participate in them because it helps you connect and form bonds with them rather than being an isolated unhappy autist.

The alternatives to nationalism basically foresake any connection between a person and those around them, meaning the psychopath becomes the ideal state of humanity. The ideology may assert the importance of continuing to be generous anyway, but that generosity can't really be compelled among all human beings, so "generosity" will actually have to be enforced with violence.

Nice. You've convinced me. German feelings of national embarrassment at the hands of their Milenia old rivals, as well as the military pride that comes from viewing prussia as your cultural ancestors, while also living in a country thats only about a century old, and thus a new idea (uniting the german people ahem) had nothing to do with the rise of Hitler. Got it.
He probably captured Austria for strategic advantage over his Italian allies and the Austrian people were overwhemingly supportive of joining the German empire because it was good for the economy. Makes total sense you "fucking simpleton"

>German feelings of national embarrassment

Ding ding ding

What you define as "nationalism" was a farce to justify revanchism. Without revanchism or a Germany that was not entirely crippled WW2 would not have occured. Revanchism and nationalism are distinct notions.

Congratulations!

And how exactly does this explain their treatment of (((non germans))) living within the country, or the decision to try to conquer Russian.

The whole war was about creating labens realm in east europe to put the land mass of germany on par with usa.

If hitler only wanted Danzig, he could have gotten fucking Danzig.

Nationalism is just advanced tribalism, which in inherently ingrained in humans due to both social conditioning and of the natural benefits it provides.

At the most basic level, people organize themselves into an "us" (everyone like the individual in question) and "them" (everyone unlike the individual) mindset. This is not because of any malicious desire to see the "them" fall, but rather to promote the "us", and thus sustain the survival of the individual. By supporting "us", we're ensuring the environment around us becomes more conducive to the ideas and beliefs of "us", so that the individual can also prosper and benefit from this arrangement.

Nationalism is simply a subset of this tribal behavior, creating the nation-state as the basis for "us" vs "them". It's not the only subset (family, religion, ideology, or any number of other concepts can substitute for it) of this behavior, but it's one of the more common ones of our time. The nation is currently being used for this purpose as it includes a large, broad category of people that can promote themselves over another vs a more inclusive criteria such as small region or specific set of beliefs. As time continues, without external "them", nationalism could very well break down to regionalism all the way down to family bonds.

I'd say in modern times, the rise of backlash against the group is due to extreme alienation caused to its constituent members. People feel they don't belong to a group and reject any ties towards it, causing them to need to stand on their own as an individual. This behavior leads to a backlash against all ties to groups and collectives, leading the individual to despise what they feel they cannot be a part of and seek to destroy the bonds others share in order to bring about a level playing field for themselves.

If I were to hazard a guess as to why this phenomenon is occurring, I would say the destruction of traditional extended or nuclear family structures which provided the bedrock of collective behavior for the individual and the diminishing role of religious practice within society as a whole has brought about widespread social alienation. Other institutions have sought to replace them, but have either been self-defeating or insufficient.

This seems pretty correct, but it should be realized that Christianity and Islam were prototypes of this shit, replacing traditional religion and mythology with a global message and diminished importance of traditions. It's rather ironic that a lot of nationalists these days believe in them; those things are proto-liberalism.

"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for [our] children."
et voila
nationalism summed up in 14 easy to remember words

>their treatment of (((non germans))) living within the country

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth

>or the decision to try to conquer Russian

Revanchism blended with convenient racial myths.

>The whole war was about creating labens realm in east europe

Wrong. It was also meant to be a comeback to the powers that trounced Germany in WW1

Everyone ITT is wrong.

Nationalism is the belief that a nation(a group of people who share history, culture and language) should live in a single state(nation-state) ruled by the people for the people.

Simple as that.

It evolved in Europe after the enlightenment french revolution, before which Europe was dominated by feudalism, where land and people regardless of nation were bound to a man of noble birth, and was especially strong in nations that were divided into petty feudal statelets(like germany or italy) and in nations that were subjugated by a foreign nation(like the greeks and the polish)

it's unrelated to tribalism(at least not directly) as the old tribes of europe were destroyed by the roman conquests, barbarian migrations and feudalism, and also because tribes didn't necessarily believe in political unity, in ancient times tribes warred among themselves and never wanted unity, be they greeks or celts or latins or any other ancient tribe

We are the chosen race and other people should serve us

>My country is the best and your country sucks
That's patrotism

Nationalism is about the people, while patriotism is about the country/land

>enlightenment french revolution
enlightenment AND french revolution*

>Tribalism means literal pre-roman clans

whatever, tribalism isn't even an ideology

And how can men die better
Than facing fearful odds
For ashes of his father
And the temples of his Gods

Identity politics but for ethnicities.

Patriotism is when one holds good of nation and possibly state as one of many important, more or less equal, values.
Nationalism is when nation itself becomes superior value placed above any other.

It has nothing to do with feudalism which was system of economic organisation.

>Ideologies are usually fixed things.

What an ultra moron you are.

I'd name tribalism as simply the human tendency to group together into a structure, "tribe" being the term used for a particular group. At the most basic, people tend to unite and protect each other for arbitrary reasons, and the only way to really reconcile that with any form of logic is that we protect people of the in-group (the tribe) against the out-group. It's similar to when you see a big brother pick on his younger sibling yet protects the sibling against any outside disruption. He might agree more with those outside his tribe, but he'll manage the internal politics of his own tribe before allowing a foreigner to do so.

In the same way, for example, Americans might hate each other, but when faced with external pressure, most will band together to fight against an outside force before siding with them instead, even if they would further their interests against the rest of their tribe.

And caring about the future of your children.

In the middle ages and early modern period a polity was centered around the god ordained patrimony of the king. A polity was based not on the people but on the land that the people lived on which was owned by the king, who through the land owned the people. In the Spring of Nations revolutionary period in 1848 the people of Europe rose up to put an end to this old social order and replace it with one where The People of a state would be the basis and not the King. After this point states were "National" entities and not "Patrimonial" ones.