Is there a difference between Patriotism and Nationalism?

A nation can be defined by other shared identities, not just ethnicity. Rome stretched across the entire Mediterranean and included hundreds of different ethnicites, but if they were citizens, they were "Roman".

Sure, a black, white, yellow etc majority can happen, but where is the line drawn? Whites for whites, or germans for germans, or bavarians for bavarians?

Patriotism is loyalty to one's government/state

Nationalism is loyalty to one's people/ethnicity

Nationalists advocate that all people identifying with the dominant ethnicity of the state should be part of the state (i.e. Crimea must be part of the Russian state because ethnic Russians live there)

Patriotism does not argue for ethnic borders to align to the people living within their state, English/Scottish/Welsh people are patriotic in the sense that they are proud to be a part of Great Britain, but do not demand that the ethnically English/Scottish/Welsh people of the United States must be brought in under British rule in order to further that pride.

nationalism is patriotism turned into patriautism

One goes for the country and culture connected to it and the other goes for people living there.

Patriotism is also more right-wing and traditional, while nationalism more modern and compatible with leftism.

>A nation can be defined by other shared identities, not just ethnicity.
Meanwhile, in Nation-states
>REEEE WHY WONT IMMIGRANTS ASSIMILATE!!!!

>Roman Empire
>A Nation.
Rome wasn't a nation. 2 hints:
>A City State
>With an empire.

So if the US was a true Nationalist country, it'd be full of Anglos?

No it'd be full of Spanish people

Patriotism is a way to control a nation , nationalism is the undying love for a nation.

No

Time to get freed the fuck out of..

A patriot loves his country despite the people who live there.
A nationalist loves his people despite the countries they inhabit.

Patriotism is about loving your country and even its leaders - Roman empire and Habsburg monarchy had patriots. Whereas nationalists love a group of people, for example you can be a Basque nationalist even though a Basque country doesn't exist.

Patriotism would simply mean loyalty to your homeland. That homeland doesn't need to be a nation - Mucius Scaevola was a patriot, as was Horatius, but Rome wasn't a nation. The homrleland doesn't need to be the entire state or nation, either. It could be the local community. That means that patriotism can be opposed to nationalism, as was with the French peasantry fighting to keep their local dialect and authonomy in the midst of the French revolution's centralization. They did not seek independence or negate their belonging to the French nation (if they did both, it could be considered nationalism), but they stood by their local community and its traditions, which shows their patriotism toward it.
Nationalism is the idea that the nation is the main subject in politics, from which follows that each nation should be given its state (nation-state). That doctrine is still visible now, in the right of national sovereignty. Nationalism also has a centralizing aspect to it - the centralization of a nation's language and culture which means the destruction of local particularities. That makes it much a product of the 19th century, even though the awareness of nations streches back in history indefinitely - it was certainly known back in ancient Greece, which called itself Hellas.

>if they did both, it could be considered nationalism
I made a mistake here. It still could not be nationalism, since it would not be based on the nation being the main subject of politics or the idea of national sovereignty and self-determination. It wiuld just be based on the will to secede.

Patriotism is ancient, as is awareness of the nation, but nationalism is a uniquely 19th century phenomenon.

What a delightfully four-channy expression, captivating an essence of truth from tragically but nevertheless fittingly the wrong point of view.

Patriotism is a relation between a person and a community. Doesn't matter what sort of community really, but the fact that modernity removed "intermediate powers" like all sorts of bishoprics, duchies, guilds, etc. means that most identify with a state that's (usually but not necessarily) a nation state.

Nationalism is a political doctrine based on the right of self determination possessed by a political unity of people - a nation. This unity becomes the sovereign and creates a state, along with its laws,etc. The conditions for constituting a nation are inherently political as well, and are often manipulated by all sorts of powers. But biological ethnicity hasn't always been a deciding criterion. The first nationalistic/liberal revolutions like the French and the American based nationality more on the criterion of shared culture and values - in fact a lot of the early heroes of those revolutions were people from all around the world who came to take part in them, while a lot of people sharing the same American or French ethnic roots were excluded from the nation on the basis of their royalism, etc. It was only the German idealists who applied a, well, more idealistic notion of nationality, that was later coupled with early interest in biology and evolution to create the "ethnic" nations of today.

An empire isn't a nation, and the term of nation appeared during the XIXth century

patriotism is just nationalism but without all the baggage that comes with the word nationalism

When the Romans used the word "natio" it definitely had an ethnic connotation

Nowadays Patriotism is the softer, liberal-left approved version of national and civic pride which people can express without being too icky for them

I think America is a strange and awful Frankenstein of a country. While the rest of the world is united in their own seperate countries by ethnicity, language, etc, America is a horrifying melting-pot of immigrants where all of the 56s are supposedly united by the ideals of Freedom, Liberty, and more.
Therefore, the rules of nationalism don't (or shouldn't) apply to America, as any American nationalism would(/should) be idealogical instead of ethnic, linguistic, cultural, etc

Patriotism is love for your homeland but able to accept criticism while nationalism is inherently racist (like WWII Germany and Japan) and considers your race as superior to all others.

Patriotism is to love one's own nation. Nationalism is to be bound by duty to it. A free man is a patriot. A nationalist is a slave.

>Patriotism is love for your homeland but able to accept criticism while nationalism is inherently racist (like WWII Germany and Japan) and considers your race as superior to all others.

>Patriotism is to love one's own nation. Nationalism is to be bound by duty to it. A free man is a patriot. A nationalist is a slave.

Liberalism and Nationalism have the same roots. Just because Fascism/Imperialism are also nationalist ideologies, it does no mean all of them are as violent.Same with Marxism, Communism only being a branch of it, not the entirety

/thread

Patriotism is a general love for ones homeland. Nationalism is a political ideology that strives to create a nation state as a geo-political entity inhabited by a strictly defined nation (usually defined through cultural and/or ethnic properties).

The two things don't necessarily overlap.

An inhabitant of the Austro-Hungarian Empire may have hated his country because he was a nationalist and would rather be part of a German, Hungarian, Czech, etc. nation state rather than part of a multi-national Empire.

here is another "four-channy expression": you're a faggot

>The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war.

-Sydney J. Harris

This.

Historically, Nationalism has been mostly a movement of oppressed minorities.

Kurds in Turkey are nationalist. So are Palestinians.

Nationalism mostly gets dangerous when it has a quasi-imperialistic mission, e.g. like Nazi Germany did in its goal to gain Lebensraum. But this is actually not the norm. Most nationalism clearly defines its borders (which may clash with other nations - e.g. looking at Germany and France who both claimed Lothringen/Lorraine) and clearly defines who belong and who don't, which will at most be harsh on local minorities. But nationalism is rarely expansionist. Empires like Soviet Russia, which essentially claim all the world as their territory, are much more dangerous.

you just have to add 'ultra' to nationalist and you're good to go with the jingoism

Patriotism is the "No" vote in the Scottish independence referendum

Nationalism is the "Yes" vote

That's all there is to it. Ignore /pol/ trying to infuse their own agenda into this. Nationalism isn't specifically a left or right thing in the real world.

That's funny because for first hundred years or so, Americans believed they were different because the defining feature of the nation was that it was founded in the premise of liberty, not ethnicity.

Going by raw definition, patriotism is loving your country. Nationalism is placing your country above all others.

The former's relatively harmless, the latter is less so.

PATRIOTISM IS LOVE FOR NATIONSTATE, AND DEVOTION TO ITS INSTITUTIONS.

NATIONALISM IS LOVE FOR NATION, AND FOR FOLK.

PATRIOTISM IS CONFORMISTIC; NATIONALISM IS REVOLUTIONARY.

I don't know if this directly relates, but it really makes you think:

"... the only rational patriotism is loyalty to the nation all the time, loyalty to the government only when it deserves it."

Pic related.

>Roman
>A nation
Romans were literally mongrels from day 1.
They didn't have enough wymin so kidnaped and raped Sabine wymin, mingled with etruscans and other ancient italian tribes.
Romans at first considered only people who live/descend from just city of rome to be roman, until they decided to make all of Italy "Roman"
Then they tried to divide and assimilate conquered people into roman culture, creating Romano-x cultures like Romano-Gallic, Romano-Punic etc.
After that, they just gave up and made all people living in the empire a Roman Citizen...
All of this while linguistic was divided between higher Latin, vulgar Latin, Greek(as a lingua franca), other native languages.

There was nothing National about Romans. It was an empire which wanted to assimilate all of its citizens.