Talk:Nationalism/Archive 1

National reference to justify offense

Someone should incorporate this quote into this article or the 'nation' article.

"Language offten obscures truthh. More than is ordinaryily realized, our eyes are blinded to the facts . . . by tricks of the tongue. When one uses the simple monosyyllable “France” one thinks of France as a unit, an entity. When to avoid awkward repetition we use a personal pronoun in referring to a country—when for example we say “France sent her troops to conquer Tunis”—we impute not only unity but personality to the country. The very words conceal the facts and make international relations a glamorous drama in which personalized nations are the actors, and all too easily we forget the flesh-and-blood men and women who are the true actors. How different it would be if we had no such word as “France,” and had to say instead—thirty-eight million men, women and children of very diversified interests and beliefs, inhabiting 218,000 square miles of territory! Then we should more accurately describe the Tunis expedition in some such way as this: “A few of these thirty-eight million persons sent thirty thousand others to conquer Tunis.” This way of putting the fact immediately suggests a question, or rather a series of questions. Who are the “few”? Why did they send the thirty thousand to Tunis? And why did these obey?" --Parker Thomas Moon, Imperialism and World Politics (New York: Macmillan, 1928)

It exposes the use of a national title to assert universal will of the people. Moon seem to be critiquing nationalism. If this belongs somewhere else, use it! --70.17.152.155 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism

I can't believe fsa that there is such a long article on nationalism with a pretty long section on critiques of nationalism, and yet no mention of anarchism in the article or on the talk page. I added a short bit about anarchism in the critique section, but it really needs to be expanded because it is very general right now and deserves more mention. I get uncomforatble speaking for anarchist as a whole, so perhaps someone else should finish that part.

"Nation-nationalism are confused with the State"

In the article and in the discussion it is puzzling that contributors do not find it useful to distinguish between Nationalism (an ideology), a Nation (the objectification of a particular Nationalist ideology) and the State - how communities, national or other (civil, religious), organize themselves. Looking at current practice is confusing because practice is always in some grey area in between or, rather, a mix of different theoretical categories and explanations and their human expression in real-world politics. Also deducting theory from practical observation is somewhat dubious, from a purely scientific methodology perspective. Citing positive and supportive examples to one's views is irrelevant, for the test of an idea is how practice contradicts it, not affirms it.

The result of these misgivings is that this article is seriouls flawed in that it cannot discover and expose the puprose or objective of Nationalism. --Modi 09:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Associating the concept of race with the body politic"

Nationalism is a political ideology developed in 18th and 19th centuries associating the concept of race with the body politic (the state) in a "nation". Since the late 19th century, it has been the dominant paradigm.

What exactly does this mean? Saying that nationalism "associat[es] the concept of race with the body politic in a 'nation'" does not clearly explain what nationalism is. Nationalism per se does not necessarily have anything to do with race, or so I thought--or, if it does, this needs to be explained very clearly. What it means to call nationalism "the dominant paradigm" is also very unclear.

I'd just try to improve the article but, frankly, I don't feel I have a very firm grasp on the concept myself. --LMS

I would rather say that in history, for example in Nazi Germany, the word nationalism has been misused to cover up racism. -- Tsja

You're right; I was conflating civic nationalism (Rousseau) and ethnic nationalism (Johann Herder). However, distinguishing between them may be false as well; see [1] for a counterpoint. Race and nationalism are historically linked concepts that both arose in the late 18th/19th centuries. I've actually had some (minimal) academic involvement in nationalism. If you give me a chance, I'll continue trying to make these entries more clear. I would appreciate it if people stopped just deleting huge swaths of work, though. I'm not trying to advance any extreme ideology. --TheCunctator

"The state derives political legitimacy in some way from its population"

I think the current article does not accurately reflect what nationalism is, at least as I understand the term:

Nationalism is a political ideology developed in the 18th and 19th centuries that in which the state derives political legitimacy in some way from its population, as opposed to divine right, for example.

It would follow from this that a democratic world government, which derived its political legitimacy from free elections, would be nationalist. But AFAIK a democratic world state would be the antithesis of nationalism. -- Simon J Kissane Not at all; the concept of the constitutional democracy is a form of civic nationalism. Nationalism is just the ideology of nations; the United States, France, etc., are nations. Unfortunately ethnic conflict and separatist movements are pretty much inevitable wherever you have nations, unless they're a perfect civic nation, which many argue is impossible--and those problems are known as nationalist problems. Thus the vernacular use of nationalism, with its attendant connotations of ethnic conflict. You're conflating ethnic nationalism with nationalism. See the references, etc. Look up "social contract". A democratic world government would be the ultimate civic nation. In some sense it could also be thought of as the ultimate ethnic nation as well (where the common ethnicity is the human race). --TheCunctator

Ethnic conflicts and separatist movements are inevitable wherever you have nations denying the right to equality to other nations. A rich humanity cannot be composed of anything but all human cultures, i.e., all ethnic groups being given a chance to contribute to the culture of the human specie in their own way. I think reading the definition of ethnicity can clarify the difference between wishing for all nations to have a sovereign State of their own and wanting all members of a given race to be packed together in the same State because the other "races" are considered "weaker". I don't see how two concepts could be further away from each other despite both being associated in one way or another to nationalism. -- Mathieugp 22:04, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I was conflating ethnic nationalism and civil nationalism. I was not aware of civil nationalism before. But I think a world government still wouldn't even be civil nationalism. To quote from the Internet Modern History Sourcebook:

the very nature of nationalism requires that boundaries be drawn. Unless these boundaries are purely civic, successful nationalism, in many cases produced a situation in which substantial groups of outsiders were left within "nation-states".

A world state would entail no boundaries, be they civic or ethnic. There would be no non-citizens. As you say, "nationalism is just the ideology of nations", but a world state would be the end to nations as an independent existence. Hence I still say that the article is wrong where it says "Nationalism is a political ideology developed in the 18th and 19th centuries that in which the state derives political legitimacy in some way from its population, as opposed to divine right, for example" -- a democratic world state would fit that definition, but it would not be nationalist. -- Simon J Kissane

Internationalism? :-)

Population -> imagined community

I changed "population" in the opening definition to "imagined community" because the nation is seldom isomorphic with the population living within state boundaries. After the French revolution, there was debate over whether Jews (many of whom had roots in France that pre-date the French) belonged to the French nation. Bismarck and other German conservatives excluded Jews from the German nation (with horrible consequences several decades later). Conversely, Germans outside of German borders are considered members of the German nation. Similarly, Jews living outside of Israel, although they do not have Israeli citizenship (they do not belong to the state), are considered members of the Jewish nation, and Arabs born in Israel are not considered members of that nation. Indeed, one could go so far as to say that the notion of nation developed to provide a basis of state legitimacyor identity that is explicitly other than "population" SR

This sounds wrong:

the state derives political legitimacy in some way from an imagined community

What's with the "imagined community" thing? I never heard that before. --Ed Poor

Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism is the title of an influential book on nationalism written by Benedict Anderson. See here: http://www.nationalismproject.org/what.htm Click on Benedict Anderson in the menu pane.

1898 Spanish-American War

So "Ethnic nationalist conflicts" includes "1898 -- Spanish-American War"? On reading the article devoted to that war, one only sees one Empire getting the spoils of the other. The "ethnic conflict" would be the philipine civil war against the USA invaders that ensued til 1914. And so and so for Cuba etc.

 Perique

Agreed--JinFX HuangDi 1968 09:36, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Palestinian matters

"Palestinian nationalism is associated with Islam."

Palestinian nationalism, like all Arab nationalisms, is a secular movement. Islamic liberation movements in Palestine can be more accurately described as pan-Islamic rather than nationalist. I've replaced it with "Indian nationalism is associated with Hinduism."

1987-91 -- First Palestinian Intifada

2000-01 -- Second Palestinian Intifada

The Intifada is not a completely nationalist conflict (in some ways, it was anti-nationalist). It was also driven by religion and democracy.

--druid

"nation-building by the United States in the 1960s"

The article states:

the failure of "nation-building" by the United States in the 1960s

Pardon my ignorance, but what massive nation-building project did the United States have in the 1960s? Is this a reference to Vietnam? I'm not sure how a reference to Vietnam ends up in the first paragraph of "nationalism".

-- Daniel Quinlan

"nation-state was born in Europe with the Treaty of Westphalia"

The article states: The nation-state was born in Europe with the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which is fairly reasonable, but maybe too much anyway. What about the Reformation, and what about the dissolution of the Kalmar Union? Both occured more than 100 years before. Johan Magnus

It is hard to edit an article that begins this way. How about Philip IV of France or Tudor England at the latest? (A popular sense of "Englishness" actually developed during the 14th century and was defined, as nationalism always is, by its enemy, in that case France.) A good Wikipedia article is always a report never an essay: this one is a soapbox. Can't do anything with it. Wetman 19:17, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This nonsensical statement has now been removed. It confused two common beliefs, the Treaty of Westphalia as the origin of the state system, and the 19th century European origin of the nation state. The new version attempts to separate the two issues for clarity, although history is not always so neat.Ruzmanci 6 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)

Chauvinism

Some uninformed fools really mix up chauvinism with nationalism. These idiots have no idea what they are talking about. - 212.137.33.208 14:02, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have made it clearer that it isn't a fact that nationalism is like chauvinism (this wasn't strictly neccesary, because they both draw from the same general thoughts, and so are linked, which is what the article said, but I should give the benefit of the doubt to the other side). I started from the older version because chauvinism wasn't an important part of the article anyways and didn't deserve a whole discussion (rebutal to the assertations added, rebutal to rebutal, etc.) Paullusmagnus 14:16, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"examples of racism that could have been motivated through nationalism"

I don't know enough about the subject to really comment or change the paragraph starting "However there are other examples of racism that could have been motivated through nationalism exist, including" which seems a little non-npov to me. If I'm off base, then I'm sorry for wasting your time :) Dysprosia 07:57, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I moved and rewrote this section, it is now just under the sub-head on extremism. The new version distinguishes racial nationalism from racist attitudes, which often appear in national movements. It also separates colonialism. The relationship of ethnic cleansing to nationalist principles (one people one nation one territory) is clarified. Two of the examples are deleted, not because they had nothing to do with racism, but because there is no explanation of what they are supposed to illustrate, in an article on nationalism. That is a problem with the list of historical events as well, they have been added at random, so it seems.Ruzmanci 8 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)

Ultranationalism

Why does ultranationalism redirects to nationalism when both have different definitions in the dictionary? See Ultranationalism at Dictionary.com and Nationalism at Dictionary.com. I think it is really important not to mislead people into associating two opposing ideas: favorable sentiment towards one's own culture and superiority complex vis-a-vis other cultures. Also, some of the discussions on nationalism here seem to completely ignore the actual meaning of the word nation as clearly stated in Wikipedia. -- Mathieup

Just for the record, Ultra-nationalism has since been made into its own article, though it is still a stub. --Joy [shallot] 18:25, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Internationalism

I am not sure if nationalism is in opposition to internationalism. That makes absolutely no sense. How can "seeking greater ties between nations and peoples" be in opposition with nationalism? Unless I am misreading, the definition of internationalism seem to recognize the existence of nations and in fact wish for these entities to be more aware of each other, to better communicate and respect each others. Aren't internationalism and nationalism complementary? Doesn't "inter" mean "between". I think this not correct. What do you think? -- Mathieugp 16:08, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I expect there are different kinds of internationalism. Some forms of internationalism emphasize the nation in internationalism, while others would see it as a way of breaking down national barriers and building a community that transcends national identification. It seems to me that certain forms of internationalism, such as socialist internationalism, globalization, or European federalism are very much opposed to nationalism, since nationalists place a priority on national self determination, free from other national groups. -- Peregrine981 17:02, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you that we cannot generalize about all "flavors" of internationalism. That is precisely why I do not believe it is correct to have “(in contrast to internationalism …)” because for a lot of people who identify as internationalists, the recognition of all national identities as valuable components of humanity is part of the equation.

The way I see it, nationalists come in different shapes depending on which nation they identify to and which type of nationalism they claim they support. The understanding of what nationalism is differs a great deal between French and German cultures for example. It also differs a lot between those tagged “left-wing” or “right-wing”. For the majority of the people who live in a free nation-state today, the issue is practically non-existent. There really is no need to be nationalist for them since brave people secured the independence of their nation a long time ago. Nationalism in this context is looked at suspiciously, sometimes for good reasons. For others, nationalism is seen as a way to secure the future of the language and/or culture they feel is threatened inside the political body in which they are a minority (ie, deprived from real political power).

I don't really understand why you grouped socialist internationalism, globalization, and European federalism in a category in which all oppose nationalism though.

All members of the European union are independent nation-states that have agreed to create a supranational order where they administer things they have in common. They contribute about 3% of their national budget to the activities of this government. All States contributing to this union are sovereign, and not only did they keep their national identity, their language and their culture, they have begun accepting other nationalisms or regionalisms (France with Corsica and Brittany, Spain with the Basques etc). The priorities of France, Italy, Germany and others are still national, but they accept that they are not the only nation on the earth and must cooperate wherever it makes sense. What has been unified is essentially the international policy of all these national groups, without melting all identities into a single one. Rather, every one is now comfortable being European all the while being German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Corsican or Basque. That's the best example of international cooperation this planet has seen in a long time.

As for socialist internationalism, well from what I read, it does not oppose nationalism, rather the excesses of it which are chauvinism and ultranationalism.

Now when we are talking about purely economic globalization of markets as envisioned by certain influential circles (or rather multinationals), we can clearly say that in this case, national identities are seen as barriers that should be broken down. For a number of mostly valid reasons, a good amount of people from a variety of (sometimes conflicting) political movements do not put globalization under "type of internationalism" but more under "type of imperialism". I do think it is important not to mislead people. If certain forms of internationalism are opposed to nationalism, they deserve their own category. ;-) -- Mathieugp 21:44, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think that we agree on the main point, that internationalism can mean many different things, so the initial use of it as opposed to nationalism is not necessarily correct.

As to the European federalism, I would say that it is definetely opposed to nationalism. The idea of a federal Europe would subordinate the powers of nation states to a greater entity. The EU is not federal, but many in the organization would like it to be a federal structure. Socialist internationalism, in my understanding, believed that the workers of the world had more in common with each other than the upper classes in their own nations, and therefore believed that national identity was of secondary importance. Any rate, you're probably quite right that these points need to be elaborated in the articles on nationalism and internationalism. Peregrine981 19:29, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that some of the proponents of a true European federalism have voiced against nationalism. I think we should not forget that nationalism is still perceived very negatively in Europe, where the national sentiments of millions of people was used to start imperialist wars and justify hateful crimes. There is also the easy association a lot of people make between nationalism and racism. I am not really an expert on this, but my understanding is that federalism is supported mostly in Germany, where the issue of national pride is not anything close to what it is in the neighbouring countries. I think a great number of Germans thinks national socialism whenever they hear the word nationalism for a number of obvious historical and cultural reasons. In France, it is out of the question for pretty much all major political parties. However, opinions can change. I think generally everyone in Europe supports the idea that traditional nation-states are a thing of the past, as success of the current European Union prooves, but I personally doubt that there will ever be a majority favorable to a dissolution of all national identites.

It's actually quite complex. Some of the strongest proponents of more power for Brussels (i.e. a Europe of the regions) are actually local nationalists. Welsh, Basque, and Catlan nationalists tend to be extremely pro-Europe.

Roadrunner 16:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As for socialist internationalism, you are right. A lot of socialists consider the interests of all workers to be above national interests (which makes sense when you think about it). However, I do not believe they support the idea of suppressing all national sentiments to acheive greater solidarity between peoples. These socialist voices are probably just trying to emphasize the need not to let exaggerated national pride come in the way of the collective interests of all humans. Hopefully, through discussion, we will be able to get a real NPOV for these articles. Nice exchanging with you. :-) -- Mathieugp 20:26, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The distinction here is between internationalism and cosmopolitanism. That is now added to the new 'Critique' section. I added a clarification to the article on Internationalism as well, which already explained the relationship nationalism to internationalism.Ruzmanci 8 July 2005 11:37 (UTC)

Imagined Communities

It seems as if there should be some consideration of Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities, in which he states that the definition of the nation is "an imagined political community" and that "Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-conciousness: it invents nations where they do not exist," (6). Thus, nations are not natural occurences of human collectives but instead percieved communities of people.

By all means, the idea of imagined communities deserves some space in the article.Peregrine981 14:04, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"modern"

Made some changes. One thing that you have to be careful about is using the term "modern" to mean recent. Modern has some other meanings (see modernism) Benedict Anderson's work is actually post-modern.

Roadrunner 16:27, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"the definition of nationalism is misunderstood"

NPOV'ed the statement that "the definition of nationalism is misunderstood." I doubt that the people who that statement is directed at believe that they are misunderstanding the term.

Roadrunner 16:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Palestine

Can we talk about Palestinian nationalism in this article, or link to Palestinian nationalism?

If we do, does that come under the heading of ethnic nationalism? That is, are "Palestinians" a distinct ethnic group? Or are they just "whoever calls himself a Palestinian"? --Uncle Ed 15:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is not for this article to decide who is a Palestian. I added, as an example, the comment that Israeli and Palestinian propagandists dispute each others claims. All nationalists treat self-identification as criteria for a nation, but never as sole criteria. Objectively, both Israeli and Palestine nationalism are both ethnic nationalisms, excluding the religious Zionists who claim that God gave them the land - that is a religious claim. However, they don't much believe in objectivity about each other, which is one reason why it is so hard to keep this article clear of propaganda.Ruzmanci 6 July 2005 13:15 (UTC)

Islam and nationalism

The statement "Islam is fiercely opposed to any notion of Nationalism" appears totlly wrong to me. What Islam does not accept, is the nationalism of civil nation-states, based on a secular nationalism. However, islam fiercely advocates the primacy, in political rights and other perspectives, of the islamic nation, the community of all muslims, he 'Ummah'. In this islamic nation, all civil laws are subordinate to the Quran, the Hadiths and as such, to the rules laid down in the Shariak, including the islamic personal law. At the same time, one observes that in most islamic states -states where islam has the majority- there isa significant discrimination of all non-muslim citizens. E.g. even in Turkey, that pretends to adhere to all principles of the democratoc state of law -prior condition for eventual tighter relations with the European Union- thousands of imams are paid as civil servants, while at the same time, no single non-islamic cleric is paid by the state. Worse, the state even organises, contols and finances sending out Turkish imams to preach in mosques all over the EU, most often reachers who don't understand nor master, nor recognise the official languag, nor the law in those states. At the same time, state-paid imams officially consacrate polygamous mariages -in total contradiction with the equality of sexes, .... To conclude: islam appears to me a prime example of fierce nationalism.--Rudi Dierick 15:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is certainly necessary to include the relationship between Islam and nationalism in this article, because some of the most vehement rejection of nationalism comes from within Islam. The proper place for that is a new section on opposition to nationalism or Criticisms of Nationalism. At present this is missing from the article. There are some comments just under the definition of religious nationalism, but this sentence is so propagandistic that I sugest deleting it... 'This feeling of communal consciousness is emphasised by the awareness that a Muslim's daily prayers are shared with others as the sun sweeps across the globe, and during the holy month of Ramadan when worldwide Muslims fast and give charity together, and culminates in the sacred Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca in which muslim men and women of all cultures, colours, and backgrounds come together.' That does not contribute any insight into nationalism or the Islamic critique of nationalism. Ruzmanci 7 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)

Very interesting read

I came across this very interesting read on the Croation Studies website. I'd say this is one of the most enlightened (and enlightening) dicussion on the subject of nationalism I have found on the Internet. I recommend it to all Wikipedians who contributed or want to contribute to Nationalism :

Croatian Nationalism And The Croatian National Movement (1966-1972) In Anglo-American Publications - A Critical Assessment

--User:Mathieugp, 18:08, 30 Nov 2004

While that article basically has a point, it's also written from a nationalist standpoint and gets a bit too argumentative as it goes on, and misses on corroboration on several occasions. This can be attributed to the political circumstances of the time — it was written in 1989. So, anyway, that's the caveat emptor... --Joy [shallot] 19:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Communism & Nationalism

"Extremist political movements such as fascism and communism are usually marked by a strong combination of ethnic nationalism"

This is not true. It would be better if it said, "...fascism and Stalinism are usually marked by a..." Where in Marxist theory does he talk of ethnic nationalism? It is important to distinguish between orthodox Marxism/Communism, and the betrayal of this doctrine by Stalin. --User:Mattkidd12, 19:56, 1 Dec 2004

I put communism in because invariably nationalism is a characteristic in mainstream communist states, not only Stalinist states - this happened in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Cambodia and China.

• The Soviet Union is already covered in the article - though the Space Race and nuclear arms buildup occurred after Stalin was dead and Stalinism was discredited. The nuclear weapons stockpile was held up as the triumph of communist and Russian technology over captalist and American technology.
• The Vietnam War was characterised on the North Vietnamese side by strong nationalist flavour, which led to the extermination of 2/3s of the Montagnards, and persecution of the ethnic Chinese, leading to a border war with China.
• Yugoslavian communism was based upon strong Serbian nationalism, leading to that country's violent breakup.
• Cambodia's rule by the Khmer Rouge was based on a strong Khmer nationalist basis with dire repercussions for the Chinese, Hmong and Vietnamese minorities - which then led to the invasion by communist Vietnam in order to safeguard the Vietnamese minority, and then a Vietnamese nationalist vision of a united Indo-China.
• China encouraged and still encourages Han migration to areas such as Tibet and Xinjiang, areas not traditionally Han. Dissent in Tibet
• The Sino-Soviet Split occurred largely because of nationalist rivalry over which country was was going to lead world communism.
• And finally in most communist countries, ethnic minorities are viewed as a "fifth column" of counterrevolutionaries with numerous examples of these minorities being violently liquidated.

Only one of the countries listed above is an examples of a Stalinist state - all were or are communist states showing extreme nationalist tendencies.

As a side note, the argument can be made that fascism and communism aren't alone when it comes to examples of extreme nationlism - Britain, France and the United States among other democratic countries have at times shown extreme nationalist tendencies.

--kudz75 23:57, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying, but its wrong to call any of these "communist states". I suppose it depends on how you define Stalinism. If you define it as a variant of Marxism, a strong, centralized and authoritarian state, where a one-party totalitarian regime is imposed, then all of these countries can be defined as Stalinist. A "communist state" is a contradiction in terms, because if there was communism, there wouldn't be a state. I agree that Ho Chi Minh etc were more nationalist than Marxist, but I still think its wrong to call Communism (the ideology) nationalist, because it's clear that Marx, Engels, and even Lenin were strongly anti-nationalist. Class is important to them, not nationality. Hence, "workers of the world unite".

Communism and Democracy are impossible fancies,neither is a good generalization to use, nationalism is something else; it would be best to say peoples who identify themselves apart from their peers tend to have strong nationalism --JinFX HuangDi 1968 09:28, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Also, this frankly annoys me:

• The Soviet Union is already covered in the article - though the Space Race and nuclear arms buildup occurred after Stalin was dead and Stalinism was discredited. The nuclear weapons stockpile was held up as the triumph of communist and Russian technology over captalist and American technology.

It's irrelevant to the discussion. Moreover, most of the time, the US stockpile was larger than the Soviet one. To top this off, the US was alone of the two powers regarding the scaring their population into thinking they were in danger of being attacked by the other. If this point of yours is to be an argument, you need to toss right-wing capitalism into the mix with fascism and commuism. --TVPR 09:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So when the Soviet Union installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, the US was lying to its population when it said they might launch them? Hell, Castro and Guevara were quite adamant that Khrushchev nuke us. Or would you have applauded them if they did so, TVPR, or should I call you "Anti-Imperialist Comrade"? Did you ever actually TRAVEL to the Soviet Union? How could someone post something so ignorant of history?

Zionism

Couldn't we add Zionism to a form of nationalism? After all, its aim is to create a nation-state for Jews...therefore nationalism?

Very strong point, O unsigned one. Seconded.--TVPR 09:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zionism is nationalism, but not a category of nationalism. The category is diaspora nationalism, and Zionism is an example.Ruzmanci 6 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)

KAch

Kach is not the same as Kahane Hai (although I'd understand why you might think that). They are in fact two separate groups. I have therefore removed the '(Kahane Hai)' that stood after the 'Kach'

Link to new article

I just created an article called Historiography and nationalism and would appreciate comments, criticism, revision, and possible amplification by the editors here. Zora 09:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro rewritten

The intro has been rewritten, but most of the terms and links from the older version have been included. The new version explains the difference betwwen nationalism in general, and specific nationalisms. That was mising in the older version. Also, it emphasises the historical importance of the nation state. Much of the article needs a rewrite, it is very unclear in places, and the examples are not well chosen.

Ruzmanci 5 July 2005 13:36 (UTC)

Some other sections have been rewritten. A new heading 'Issue in nationalism theory' was added, it incorporates some of the existing text. It adds a distinction between important schools of nationalism theory - though only schematic. Nationalism theory merits a spearate article. I undid the revert for these additions. The user gave no reason why they should be deleted. The section on the evolution of nationalism has a new intro.

Ruzmanci 6 July 2005 12:40 (UTC)

Commonalites and famous nationalists

The section on commonalities of nationalism belongs in the intro to the section of forms of nationalism. Besides, the current text is largely concerned with showing that the USA is a nation state. It is, but that is not disputed outside the US anyway. (So far as I know, this dispute is related to immigration policy debates in the US).

The list of names is an unsystematic ragbag. There are a lot of nationalists in the world, but should this article include all their names? Unless anyone objects I will cut it back to these categories: early thinkers (eg Fichte, Herder), 19th century theorists and movement leaders (eg Mazzini, O'Connell), 20th century national-liberation leaders (eg Collins, Ghandi), and recent examples of self-identified 'nationalist' politicans.

Ruzmanci 6 July 2005 12:54 (UTC)

What makes nationalism so attractive?

I moved this sub-section to the 'evolution of nationalism section. The present text does not say very much, so I suggest it should be deleted. There is a major issue with the psychology and attraction of nationalism, but the present article is already overloaded. Suggestion: a separate article on the psychology of nationalism. Ruzmanci 6 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)

Psychology of nationalism

I merged the comments on the attractiveness of nationalism and national pride, under this sub-heading. I deleted this confusing sentence: In Germany the soil for nationalism was prepared by a sequence of a period with exceeding pride followed by a period of defeat and devastation. The rest of that comment on Germany is not very clear either. I suggest this sub-section is deleted, unless somebody can improve it, or start a new article on the psychology of nationalism.Ruzmanci 7 July 2005 09:12 (UTC)

Things to distinguish

There are a few things that need to be distinguished.

1. Most fundamentally, we must distinguish nationalism itself and what has been done by various individuals and groups in the name of nationalism.

2. In trying to distinguish what nationalism is in substance, we have no choice but to consider the fact that the words nation and nationalism are not used to convey the same meaning by everyone. I think that is an understatement.

3. It is important to consider the reality that various people attempt to position nationalism as either a left-wing or a right-wing ideology, generally with the intention of discrediting it. This really makes it difficult to make sense of what nationalism is and as a result quantity of normally reasonable people are completely in the dark when comes the time to discuss their opinions on nationalism.

4. There are very few studies and analysis of the worldwide phenomenon of nationalism that can be considered reasonably objective and serious scholarly works on the topic are very recent.

--

Now, in order for this article to become useful, we need to structure it so as to allow the complexity of the topic to be covered in full. This will be difficult. I am currently thinking of a way to better shape the article before we start expanding on the paragraphs. I will propose it in this talk page and let everyone tell me what they think.

-- Mathieugp 7 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

The article is being cleaned up. I suggested deleting some sub-headings which contribute very little. After the article is cleaner and more comprehensible, it will be more apparent if it needs a new structure.

That's fine by me. -- Mathieugp 7 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)

It is not possible to distinguish things which have been done 'in the name of nationalism' from things which are 'truly nationalist'. There is no objective criterion for that. Besides, it would end up as an apology for nationalist atrocities. The words nation and nationalism are indeed not used in the same meaning by everyone, that is why the article must explain so much about the distinctions between types of nationalism.Ruzmanci 7 July 2005 18:11 (UTC)

I did not write that that we should distinguish "things which have been done 'in the name of nationalism' from things which are 'truly nationalist'", I wrote that we should distinguish "nationalism itself' and what has been done by various individuals and groups in the name of nationalism". I did not mean that this article should not cover the reality that strong nations have numerous times been governed by individuals who needed to beat up other nations to feel proud of themselves. Crimes commited "for the well-being of the nation" should definitely be covered in full so readers can judge for themselves what's the difference between a nationalism that derails and one that stays on track without hurting its neighbours. :-) -- Mathieugp]] 7 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)

Chinese cultural nationalism~?

I cleaned up and shortened the definition of cultural nationalism. The existing version included Chinese nationalism as an example, I left that in but removed this propagandistic comment; The Qing dynasty's willingness to adapt to Chinese customs shows the supremacy of the mainstream Chinese culture. Can anyone add a more substantial comment on the nature of Chinese nationalism, and if it is indeed cultural.Ruzmanci 7 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)

Article cleaned up

The article has now been substantially cleaned up, although there is soem work to be done. A 'Critiques' section has been added, but it is still too short. Duplications have been removed or merged. In the comments above I suggested that several paragraphs and statements be deleted. The section Psychology of nationalism is a merge of two seemingly random comments that were added to the article.

The list of historical events could go to a separate page, but the present version is not worth the trouble. The list of names was better, it was categorised and moved to its own page. The glowing comment on Islam could be pruned, and merged with the critique section. Ruzmanci 8 July 2005 11:47 (UTC)

Skinheads

Someone, possibly Richard Barrett himself, has added a link to Richard Barrett's book and a website which might also belong to Richard Barrett. Plus an attempt to equate all skinheads with a nationalist movement, which is inaccurate. Some skinheads are right-wingers, some are nationalists in the classic sense, but so are millions of other people. There are thousands of far bigger and far more influential nationalist movements, which don't get a mention at this page. Can anyone give a reason why an article on a major global ideology should devote attention to a non-existent international 'skinhead movement'.

I added a neutral text on skinheads who self-identify as nationalists. The whole point is that they are often no more 'nationalist' than the rest of the population, it is usually a euphemism for something else. This article now contains links to the white nationalism, white supremacy and skinhead articles. That is enough, given that there is a mountain of information and links on other relevant matters, that could go here.Ruzmanci 20:43, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Post-2001 nationalism in the United States

The September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States led to a wave of nationlist expression, unparalled since the Germans in the Second World War.

Hmm... interesting choice of comparisons. Expressions of nationalist sentiment seems a dubious subject for analogizing across the decades, if you ask me, but I do wonder why Germany circa the 1940s happens to be the benchmark used here. How is this substantiated, exactly? — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 14:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this section should be deleted or moved to another node. It's not relevant to the general topic of Nationalism. It also has bias. 66.245.214.143 22:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, it is technically a product of Patriotism, not Nationalism. W.Ross 06:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

--70.17.152.155 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Oliver Handerson

It's more of a mix of Jingoism. Do you really call French-bashing, name calling, and partisan politics a part of "patriotism"?--PatCheng 03:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Billig (banal nationalism), this definitely is also a type of nationalism. But the paragraph does not belong here. It's one example of nationalism. Why not talk about Ukranian nationalism? Or Chinese nationalism? Fossa 03:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)