Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Patriotism or Nationalism?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Last Online
    Friday, December 30th, 2005 @ 07:06 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    398
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Patriotism or Nationalism?

    Patriotism or Nationalism?
    3 March 2005

    If one had to draw a distinction between the newer elements of right-wing thought, and the older, it might be that older elements are patriotic, where newer elements begin in nationalism - and continue onward. Interestingly, however, the most successful of the new political movements are a fusion of the best ideals of both left and right, unified under a concept of tradition - supposedly the inspiration of conventional right-wing politics. As this division is beginning to gain public attention, it makes sense to contrat patriotism and nationalism to find the point of divergence.

    Patriotism is a belief in one's country, a political unit known as the "nation-state" because it unites nation (tribe, race) and political state, meaning that a people are no longer defined by heritage and culture alone, but by the political and economic boundaries of their parent state. Since inclusiveness is the goal, not commonality of origin, patriotic politics is "empowering" in that it aims to find a place for everyone in the sociopolitical infrastructure of the nation; it is inherently opposed to nationalism, or "race-patriotism" as it was formerly called. For this reason, it operates upon the individual as a granular entity, as it requires the participation of individuals in order to build consensus, and there is no longstanding consensus, such as might be formed by a cultural entity, assumed.

    In order to appeal to the individual, nations use patriotic belief that commends the individual to consider their nation better than others for its attributes that appeal to the individual, usually broad implications such as "freedom" or "justice." Inherently, the nation-state must be a populist entity, as it requires the support of people among whom a consensus does not exist, thus nation-states are almost exclusively moral creations, in that they justify themselves through some absolute good considered better than that offered by other nations. Even those without "free" economies, or of a totalitarian nature, do this, as did the Soviet Union back when it was still the world's foremost Communist entity. Populations are urged to support a nation via this belief in moral right, and from that emerges patriotism.

    Accordingly, the nation-state thus strips itself of all identity except that of (a) political system and (b) economic system. For this reason, nation-states tend to welcome mass immigration, and have no restrictions on the freedom of individuals to engage in whatever practice or advocacy of whatever belief they find meaningful; since there is no consensus except for political and economic systems, everything that does not directly assault those is permissible. Since these systems are required to appeal to the individual, they tend to be populist and affirm "freedom" over all other goals, thus it is almost impossible to do anything which threatens these systems except to advocate a different economic system, or some kind of politics based on commonality and collective interest instead of the granular individual.

    When conservative movements support patriotism over nationalism, they are inherently against any determination of consensus, whether of heritage or overall political direction, as to do so would exclude some of the people in the system, and in consequence make individuals fear that their way of life, or preferences, or means of economic sustenance, would not be acceptable to that nation. Whether this happens in the first generation or succeeding ones is not important; it is inevitable either way, because political systems start from a germ of a thought and rapidly lead to its full form by the very nature of people developing depth to that concept. This is the same mechanism that fills out artistic movements, languages and cultures; one starts with a broad concept and over time defines all of its parts, much as builders put up a frame and then floors and walls within it.

    These are the boundaries of the definition of patriotism. Patriotic nations are ones that produce statements such as "they hate our freedom" or extolling the virtues of being free and able to earn wealth as a means of shouting down the Communist threat. They appeal to the individual responding only to self-interest, and seeking to gain power and wealth, and for that they seemed a viable option for many years. However, conservative movements are fundamentally at odd with these: how do you assert traditional values in a culture that is based on the consensus to have no consensus? For this reason, conservative politicians today appeal to the most polarized and delusional constituent base, generally those deluded by fundamentalism and paranoia, and address token issues without making major change in the system.

    One area where the dysfunction of patriotic nation-states is seen is in the environmental sector. It might seem obvious that any nation proud of itself would do its best to preserve its natural beauty, but that does not seem to be the case, as the most patriotic and "free" nation-states have done their best to invite in as many new people, especially of the unskilled labor class, as possible, and in consequence, have expanded recklessly - in addition to the damage done by unchecked industry. After all, if you are justifying your patriotism by having "freedom," that includes the freedom to build a McDonald's anywhere you want. It includes the ability to make however much profit you can from natural resources. Nowhere is there any kind of check or balance in the system to measure impact on the whole, as that would require consensus.

    Not surprisingly, today's patriotic conservatives polarize themselves against the environmental issue as a whole. This is not a claim about the environmental "movement," which is as dysfunctional as most political identities, but a measurement of conservative response to environmental interests. There has been virtually none, outside of token dedications of parks and periodic vague legislation that encourages "letter of law" compliance. Since we as citizens live in our world, and benefit from its natural health as well as the beauty of natural surroundings, it would be sensible for those interested in tradition to preserve and nurture our environment. They have not, because to do so would require disenfranchising someone who wants to make a buck off cutting down those trees or building a McDonald's in an irreplaceable ecosystem.

    Another area of conservative failure is finance, specifically, a willingness to participate in international finance that exports money from the country and leaves it in the hands of foreign investors or, worse, investors without a home country, who thus have allegiance to nothing and zero accountability with any government. Multinational corporations, international banking cartels, and foreign investing lobbies not only own a good portion of America, for example, but their interests are represented most strongly by conservative groups. If you cannot say no to anyone, you say yes to everyone, and thus what prevails is anarchy checked only by public image and an increasingly authoritarian police force. This is not a sensible future for Indo-Europeans.

    Dispensing with patriotism, let us look at nationalism. In contrast to patriotic belief, nationalistic belief is centered in tribe and culture, and thus inherently is based on commonality and collective interest. This does not take the collectivist extreme of Stalinism, nor the laissez faire extreme of America, but a path between the two where the individual is represented in the context of the interests of the whole. Insofar as the individual does not desire something destructive for the whole, "freedom" exists; however, because the system is based on consensus and the idea that a single ethnic and cultural group comprises the nation and always will, the system has the ability to have consensus and prohibit things that are destructive. Where patriotic systems limit freedoms by destroying things not recognized as being of value by the masses, nationalist systems impose restraints on destructive freedoms so that the masses do not dominate with selfish interests.

    Further, nationalist systems have historically been concerned with environmental issues for the reason outlined by the NSDAP in Germany with their slogan of "Blood and Soil": a nation is its people, but those people are tied to the land by tradition and desire for continuation of the people. Past and future are equally important when one considers environmental issues. Where patriotic governments have their hands tied for fear of limiting someone's "freedom" to tear down an ancient forest, nationalist governments recognize the importance of keeping that forest for everyone, including those who are not yet born. Since nationalist governments by definition exclude those who are not born into the ethnocultural group which inhabits the nation, there are no investors who, living elsewhere and seeing only numbers on a balance sheet, could care less if an ancient forest is destroyed.

    The same concept is applied to finance. Nationalist governments create a higher value than profit, and that value is the preservation of a people united by commonality. For this reason, they tend to withdraw from the international investment and banking racket, and attempt to become as self-sufficient as possible, with an emphasis on renewable sources of wealth, as opposed to the consumable ones that, once used up, will never exist again. This limits the financial flexibility of the citizen, and his or her ability to earn unchecked amounts of wealth, but in exchange offers economic security to the citizen by eliminating a constant stream of competing interests. It allows people to continue in the professions of their ancestors, and to work fewer hours in exchange for a decent wage. They are not subjected to the kind of insane competition that causes mass layoffs or outsourcing. This is beneficial for the culture, although patriotic investors might find it limits their "freedom."

    This difference, that of commonality-based versus facilitative/individualistic political systems, is essential toward understanding the future politics of both left and right. For some years now, many on both sides of the political divide have recognized that the partisan divisions of left and right are being used to keep up a show of political change, while the basic errors of our civilization -- and the course of its death march toward overpopulation, resource depletion, pollution and ethnic-cultural dilution -- remain unchecked. While the right and the left fight, and the voters cheer when the "best man" wins, the mechanism that operates behind the scenes is unchecked. For this reason, there is convergence on a third way, as those who care about the future more than a political "career" are interested in solving the problem, and they realize that partisan democracy distracts rather than focuses on the issue - and even worse, it creates the illusion that some change is occurring.

    Future political systems, recognizing the failure of conventional conservatism as well as the hijacking of liberalism by special interest groups, will hybridize left and right, taking from each the elements that target a goal: a consensus-based society which is willing to tell people they do not have certain "freedoms" that result in destructive acts. Currently, such an idea is politically unthinkable, as the patriotic crowd on the right will shout it down and the left will howl about individual empowerment. However, much like the difference between a patriotic right and a nationalistic right, this gap will be closed as people realize our future grows increasingly dim while we allow political mechanism to get in the way of collective objectives.

    VIJAY PROZAK

    http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2...05PatorNat.htm

  2. #2
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    5,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    94
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    752
    Thanked in
    414 Posts
    The Difference Between 'Patriotism' and 'Nationalism'

    Although treated as synonyms, there is a distinction. But it's more complicated than "'patriotism' good; 'nationalism' bad."

    Are these words synonymous? Is one an insult, and the other not? Can either of them mean different things to different people?

    One of the many difficulties inherent in creating a dictionary that accurately reflects the language of any large group of people is that these people may not all view certain words and values as equal. Nationalism and patriotism present us with an appropriately problematic pair with which to illustrate this. Are these words synonymous? Is one an insult, and the other not? Can either of them mean different things to different people?

    How does the speaker or writer define them?

    Let’s take a few minutes to go over the respective histories of these two words to see where and when they shared meaning and in what senses they have drifted apart.

    Patriotism is the older of the two words, with published written evidence dating back to the middle of the 17th century. Patriotism came from adding the suffix of -ism to the existing word patriot, which itself came into English from the French patriote, and may be traced back further to the Greek word patrios (“of one’s father”).

    There is hardly any judicious man but knoweth, that it was neither learning, piety, nor patriotism that perswaded any of that Nation to Presbytery….
    —C.N., Reasons Why the Supreme Authority of the Three Nations (for the time) is not in the Parliament, 1653

    There hath been in London, and repairing to it, for these many yeers together, a knot of Scotish bankers, collybists, or coinecoursers, of traffickers in Merchandise to and againe, and of men of other professions, who…hug all unto themselves; that, for no respect of vertue, honor, kinred, patriotism, or whatever else…whereof those quomodocunquizing clusterfists and rapacious varlets have given of late such cannibal-like proofs, by their inhumanity and obdurate carriage towards some (whose shoos-strings they are not worthy to unty) that were it not that a more able pen then mine, will assuredly not faile to jerk them on all sides….
    —Thomas Urquhart, Ekskybalauron, 1652

    (Quick side note: the Urquhart citation above serves two purposes, being both our earliest written evidence of the word patriotism and a fine excuse for drawing the reader’s attention to the beautifully splenetic turn of phrase “quomodocunquizing clusterfists.” These two words are archaic enough to only be defined in the Oxford English Dictionary, which informs us that the former is “that makes money in any possible way,” and the latter is “a ‘close-fisted’ or grasping fellow.” Should you ever find yourself in need of an insult that is not hackneyed and stale we wholeheartedly recommend quomodocunquizing clusterfist. End of side note.)

    We do not have any evidence of nationalism occurring until just before the 19th century, almost a hundred and fifty years after patriotism. And in its early use, from the end of the 18th century onward for a number of decades, nationalism appears to have been largely interchangeable with patriotism, with both words primarily being used to refer to a general love of one’s country.

    Nationalism must involve the consecrated devotion of a responsive citizenship, sound policies must have universal faith and unsound vagaries must have universal condemnation.
    —The Marion County News (Hamilton, AL), 1 Jan. 1820

    Modern France, instead of diminishing, has, if possible, encreased this nationalism. Removed from his oppression and atrocities, they see nothing but the magnificence, the success and the splendor of Bonaparte, and I assure you that every poor, ignorant, stupid Creole, when he hears of an achievement of this their Demi God, evinces a lively interest, an exultation as if some choice unlooked for gift of heaven had blessed his family.
    —Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia, PA), 11 Oct. 1811

    If there be not Conservatism, and Nationalism, and Patriotism enough in the North to rise up and overwhelm with numbers the spirit that points to the the election of anybody but Fremont (or of Fremont) as the prelude to civil war, we had better seek to save as much fratricidal blood as possible in a peaceable line of immediate separation.
    —New York Daily News, 1 Jul. 1856

    These two words may have shared a distinct sense in the 19th century, but they appear to have grown apart since. Or rather, it would be more accurate to say that only nationalism has grown apart, since the meaning of patriotism has remained largely unchanged. There are still obvious areas of overlap: we define patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country” and nationalism in part as “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But the definition of nationalism also includes “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism.

    A somewhat subtler difference between the two words may be found in their modifiers and the ideas to which each is connected. When we examine large bodies of recent text we see that patriotism is more often used in a general sense, often in conjunction with such words as bravery, valor, duty, and devotion. Nationalism, however, tends to find itself modified by specific movements, most frequently of a political bent.

    In one respect, the insanities of 1947 are reverberating now with growing Hindu nationalism in a professedly secular India.
    –Kashmir Monitor, 14 Aug. 2017

    Today, more than two decades into a democratic South Africa, Afrikaner nationalism has been severely diminished and along with it the standing of Afrikaans in the public sector.
    —The New Age (Johannesburg, South Africa), 2 May 2017

    Canadian Nationalism emerged 150 years ago, and has always been defended and protected not only by the spoken word but also, if required, by a dedicated military.
    —Rosie Sanchez, Prairie Post East (Swift Current, Sask.), 7 Jul 2017

    Founded in 2014—two years after Burma experienced religiously motivated riots largely targeting the Muslim minority—and now with sub-chapters across the country, Ma Ba Tha has become virtually synonymous with Buddhist nationalism.
    —Asia News Monitor (Bangkok), 7 Jul. 2017

    Over the last few years, however, a strong contender in the form of Tamil nationalism has emerged because Tamil Nadu got into river water disputes with all the neighbouring states and the neighbours did not seem to care much for Dravidian niceties although Telugus, Kannadigas and Malayalis are putatively Dravidian.
    —The Times of India (New Delhi), 4 Mar. 2017

    His defeat by Plaid Cymru’s Gwynfor Evans at Carmarthen in 1966 stemmed not from any upsurge in Welsh nationalism, but rather a sudden deterioration in the fortunes of Harold Wilson’s government.
    —The Telegraph (London, UK), 5 Apr. 2017

    So now that we’ve briefly looked over the history of patriotism and nationalism can we draw any firm conclusions about whether one or the other is pejorative? The answer is: it depends. It seems certain that, at least with nationalism, it may mean different things to different people. Of the six different kinds of X nationalism cited just above, it is likely that most people would find some politically questionable, and others not. Patriotism is rarely used in these contexts.

    In U.S. usage nationalism is now perhaps most frequently associated with white nationalism, and has considerably negative connotations.

    Some of us imagined that we dented the nationalism, hatred and racism that roiled the world in the first half of the 20th century.
    —Jeanette Friedman-Sieradski (letter to editor), The Times-Tribune (Scranton, PA), 12 Mar. 2017

    And while coded appeals to racism or nationalism aren’t new—two words: Southern strategy—overt calls to temporarily bar Muslims from entry to the United States or questioning a federal judge’s impartiality based on his Mexican heritage are new.
    —Jim Rutenberg, The New York Times, 8 Aug. 2016

    As a dictionary, we must weigh all matters of semantic and regional difference. Therefore we can offer no firm guidance as to whether or not nationalism qualifies as an insult across the board. We can, however, advocate for the revival of the tradition of insult with precision.
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/word...vs-nationalism

    Understanding Nationalism Versus Patriotism

    How do you feel about your relationship to your country, the United States, right now? Maybe you’re still reeling from Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton or his recent governmental appointments. Or maybe you’re feeling more patriotic than ever.

    Whatever way the recent presidential election has affected you, it has brought politics into the American spotlight. One of the questions receiving new attention lately? How men and women become nationalists.

    NATIONALISM BASICS

    By definition, nationalism occurs when people feel loyal to and proud of their country, feeling that their country is better and more important than others.

    Nationalism shouldn’t be confused with patriotism, however – though not everyone agrees. Some believe that nationalism and patriotism are interchangeable, but the term “patriotism” is preferred in the U.S., which views nationalism in a negative light. However, others claim that compared to patriots, nationalists:

    Assume that their country is the best, rather than one of the best with room for improvement.
    Believe that only the people within one’s country should be considered equals, rather than people all over the world.

    Only think of their country’s virtues rather than acknowledging its deficiencies.

    Debates also exist over whether nationalism is harmful or beneficial to a nation. George Orwell once famously said that nationalism is “the worst enemy of peace.” Yet Lloyd Kramer, author of “Nationalism in Europe and America” disagrees, saying that “when people feel committed to larger communities or interests or to ideas of human rights and political progress, for example, nationalism can contribute to a sense of hope about the future.”

    Basically, patriotism and nationalism have plenty in common. They both indicate a person’s relationship to their country. They both could be exhibited by men and women singing “God Bless America” at a baseball game or waving flags on the Fourth of July. Yet, patriotism tends to involve showing love for one’s country in a more passive manner while nationalism consists of showing love for one’s country in an active, political way.

    BECOMING A NATIONALIST

    So are those who possess such an immense passion for their homeland born with it or do they acquire it as they get older? Obviously, there’s no cookie-cutter formula, but one could assume that the answer lies seems to lie in nurture as opposed to nature.

    In the past, many assumed that children automatically assumed their parents’ political beliefs. However, a 2015 study revealed that parents affected their children’s politics in surprisingly different ways. Half of polled children either rejected or misidentified their parents’ party identification. However, the more politics was discussed in the home, the more likely children would identify – but not necessarily agree with – their parent’s political beliefs.

    Political beliefs and attitudes – including nationalism – are also impacted by a variety of other factors. For instance, one’s gender, religion, race and ethnicity and region of living reportedly all influence a person’s political sway.

    Why is that? Just imagine: If you grow up around cultured parents who instilled in you the importance of travel and worldly experience, you would likely carry these values throughout your life. If, on the other hand, you grow up in a tight-knit community of nationalists and attend a high school that constantly emphasizes those same beliefs, nationalism will probably remain a part of your political DNA.

    Extreme nationalism can also emerge from a place of fear and insecurity. As a result, nationalism not only emerges from our immediate surroundings, but also from the political, social and economic forces prevalent at the time.

    THE BOTTOM LINE

    With the recent election of Donald Trump, politics may seem to get more complex by the minute. When it comes to nationalism, politics isn’t any simpler. Nationalism is surrounded by controversy – from its definition to its relationship to patriotism to its positive or negative effects – and there is no “10-step-plan” that describes how people become nationalists. However, the data reported so far seems to show that nationalism isn’t just an individual belief system. Instead, nationalism emerges as a result of a person’s nearby personal and societal surroundings.
    https://www.entitymag.com/understand...us-patriotism/

    Would you agree that nowadays patriot = a PC/socially assceptable type of nationalism? Which would you call yoursef, if any? Where is your loyalty mostly, your people or your country? What about nation vs. government? Does nationalism/ist have a negative/pejorative connotation where you live? Is it associated with supremacy?

  3. #3
    Senior Member Aelfgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 18th, 2018 @ 11:27 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    8/16 English, 1/16 Scott. English, 3/16 Irish English, 4/16 Irish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalist / Eclectic
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    549
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    440
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    394
    Thanked in
    241 Posts
    Patriotism in Britain is mostly understood as flag-waving national pride and, yes, nationalism is more strongly connected with politics, especially race politics.

  4. #4
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Şoreiğar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    37 Minutes Ago @ 11:31 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Ancestry
    East Norwegian + distant Finnish
    Subrace
    Nordid + reduced CM
    Y-DNA
    I1a1
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    29
    Occupation
    Traditional Craftsman
    Politics
    Family, Nation & Nature
    Religion
    Heathen Worldview
    Posts
    2,258
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,112
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,260
    Thanked in
    611 Posts
    The way I see it, 'Patriotism' is about loyalty towards one's state, while 'Nationalism' is about loyalty towards one's ethnic group.

    Patriots don't see race or ethnicity as major issues, and won't have much of a problem with their People going extinct, as long as the flag and the state institutions remain the same. For Nationalists, the state is only a means to an end. The end being the preservation and well-being of their People.
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

  5. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Şoreiğar For This Useful Post:


  6. #5
    Sound methods Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    11 Hours Ago @ 12:53 AM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Politics
    Völkisch traditionalist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,149
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,468
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,524
    Thanked in
    1,097 Posts
    Nationalism is the desire to create a state for a people, a social network which is stateless, and after having obtained a state, to safeguard its existence for the cause of the nation. Membership in such a social network is based on historical commonality. But a nationalism without an ethnic component is just multiculturalism with more flags and can never be genuine nationalism, as the word itself points to shared blood ties. Hence only ethnonationalism is actual and full nationalism, in spite of all the rebranding.

    Patriotism is loyalty to the state and its institutions and the country the central authority represents. Paying your taxes is an act of patriotism, for example.
    “Remember that all worlds draw to an end and that noble death is a treasure which no-one is too poor to buy.” - C. S. Lewis, The Last Battle

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chlodovech For This Useful Post:


  8. #6
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    5 Days Ago @ 06:57 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    45
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,881
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,176
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,277
    Thanked in
    543 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Chlodovech View Post
    Patriotism is loyalty to the state and its institutions and the country the central authority represents. Paying your taxes is an act of patriotism, for example.
    Looking at today's "institutions" and what they do with that money, patriotism can even be said to constitute treason to the Nation (the Volk).

    Ethnonationalism, and with it policies to maintain and further the ethnicity of the nation, are the only way to produce what the leftists dream of: social peace. It can only exist within a homogenous nation, where social (because ethnic and cultural) cohesion is a given and not questioned, where systems of mutual sociality/solidarity can be implemented and maintained, where a common shared vision and common effort to realise the vision are not becoming a burden on the individual because they - as an outflow of the national culture and people - are just a reflection of the interests of the individual on a greater scale.

    The Volk makes the nation. All political organisation must serve the interests of the Volk. This view was held by the Kaiser (ich bin der erste Diener meines Staates, humbling himself under the common interest of his newly won Nation) and Nationalsocialism.

    In contrast to this stands fascism, which holds that the state makes the citizen, that in fact the state has the right to mold its citizens to their likings. Mussolini was obsessed with futurism, and he had almost, for this vision, trashed 2000 year old statues and city wells and who knows whatever else he had trashed, unrooting Italy even further from its roots. Luckily, Italy always was poor, so his visions remained sketches. Fascist Italy, while having a racial component somewhere inbetween their idea, did not mind foreigners. It also had a strong corporatist outlook, with a centralised (state) organisation, which, if left unchecked to develop further, becomes almost indistinguishable from communism, which is only state corporatism.

    It is indeed true that Nationalism only took form in the 19th century within the broader Romantic Movement. While it's usually used to refer to a "nostalgia for Rome" (hence the name) and mainly an artist movement, this was in fact only one of many branches within the movement. The Romantic era brought a large-scale collection of folk tales, legends, dialects, a broad interest in local, but also wider culture and customs and a boom in philosophy and an obsession with education, specially language education, all fueling an "awakening" of the self-awareness of being a people with a shared culture. From this would the idea of Blut und Boden flow naturally, and given the empire-structure of most of Europe, which though was crumbling, also a boom for various ideas how to re-organise politically. Nationalism was fueled with the political need to (pre-)serve the cultures and peoples right from the start.

    This need still exists today, the tolerance within the old empires (think Austria-Hungary, it also governed Serbia without ever creating a multiracial mess) is gone, so (ethno)Nationalism remains the only viable political idea.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to velvet For This Useful Post:


  10. #7
    Proffessional Hickerbilly
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    SpearBrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    American of German decent
    Ancestry
    Bavaria/Switzerland
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Central
    Gender
    Age
    53
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Kunstschmiede
    Politics
    Self-Reliance
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    4,573
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,794
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,310
    Thanked in
    608 Posts
    I think at least here in the US nationalism and patriotism became separated because of the failure to define what was meant by "We the People". At the time those things were written people took the fact for granted all people were of European decent.
    Life is like a fire hydrant- sometimes you help people put out their fires, but most of the time you just get peed on by every dog in the neighborhood.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to SpearBrave For This Useful Post:


  12. #8
    Senior Member Aelfgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 18th, 2018 @ 11:27 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    8/16 English, 1/16 Scott. English, 3/16 Irish English, 4/16 Irish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalist / Eclectic
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    549
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    440
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    394
    Thanked in
    241 Posts
    I don't see how we can have a nation of people without a geographical home - the blut without the boden. And don't underestimate the power of cultural identity e.g. Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland - genetically they are virtually identical but there has not been much marriage between them.

    In England, being English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish really amounts to the spoken accent of the person. And I imagine if an American of German ancestry went to live in Germany he would always be considered an American because of the way he spoke, whereas the person with a German father and French mother who had grown up in Germany would be treated as fully German. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    I'm not downplaying the importance of ancestral identity, just pointing out the social reality of cultural factors. A high % of common ancestry combined with a common basic culture in a well defined area will naturally produce the strongest patriotism.

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aelfgar For This Useful Post:


  14. #9
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Siebenbürgerin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Transylvanian Saxon
    Subrace
    Alpinid/Baltid
    State
    Transylvania Transylvania
    Location
    Hermannstadt
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Ethno-Cultural
    Religion
    Lutheran
    Posts
    2,736
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    216
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    414
    Thanked in
    204 Posts
    Patriotism has a little bit negative connotations nowadays because the word was overused during the communistic era. For example "patriotic work" was working in the fields to support the state economy. It was a compulsory part in schools and kindergartens. In general, everything that was done in favor of the state was named "patriotic".

    In my view, nationalism is loyalty to one's nation, which isn't necessarily the state. A nation can exist without a state, as is exemplified by the stateless nations. Some peoples have existed without a state for a long time. It's not an ideal, of course, but it's possible.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Siebenbürgerin For This Useful Post:


  16. #10
    Senior Member Herr Rentz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    7 Hours Ago @ 04:13 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Emmingen, Baden-Württemburg
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Baden-Wuerttemberg Baden-Wuerttemberg
    Location
    US
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Taurus
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Retail Sales Management
    Politics
    Nationalsozialist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    630
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    410
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    660
    Thanked in
    326 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Chlodovech View Post
    Nationalism is the desire to create a state for a people, a social network which is stateless, and after having obtained a state, to safeguard its existence for the cause of the nation. Membership in such a social network is based on historical commonality. But a nationalism without an ethnic component is just multiculturalism with more flags and can never be genuine nationalism, as the word itself points to shared blood ties. Hence only ethnonationalism is actual and full nationalism, in spite of all the rebranding.

    Patriotism is loyalty to the state and its institutions and the country the central authority represents. Paying your taxes is an act of patriotism, for example.
    Both of those combined sounds a lot like National Socialism.
    American by birth, made of parts from Emmingen, Baden-Württemberg.

    Der Familie Rentz seit 1535 - Meine Ehre heißt Treue

    Das Leben ist zu kurz, um billiges Bier zu trinken!


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Economic Patriotism in a Downturn
    By Dagna in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Saturday, February 7th, 2009, 09:29 PM
  2. ‘Don’t Teach Children Patriotism’
    By Aeternitas in forum England
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Saturday, August 16th, 2008, 01:01 AM
  3. Manifestations of Patriotism in Your Country
    By Siebenbürgerin in forum Visual Arts & Aesthetics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: Saturday, July 26th, 2008, 04:36 AM
  4. Orwell and Patriotism
    By Taras Bulba in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Friday, December 8th, 2006, 08:31 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •