Nationalism vs Patriotism (Nationalism Vs Patriotism)


Said1
#1
Is patriotism different from nationalism, or just nationalism in it's infancy?

This is a topic I carried over from another board, just curious about the opinioins of others.
 
I think not
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

There is a difference in nationalism and patritotism, sometimes it even becomes difficult to see any difference at all. It all depends where ones loyalty is. Both can be loyal to ones country, but the object of their affection differs.
Nationalism is loyal to a countrys institutions and its trappings while patriotism defines ones loyalty to a countrys principles and ideals. When times are good, you cannot distinguish the two, but when times become fiery, you see both carefully go in opposite directions.
I cannot speak for Canadians (obviously), but if I were to try and give an example of nationalism and patriotism I would can do so by the new vote that will on the Senate floor after Independance Day. Nationalists oppose flag burning because they love it and what to protect it, patriotism on the other hand supports flag burning because the flag represents American ideals and principles.
Fine line don't you think? Perhaps. But nonetheless, under no circumstances does nationalism or patriotism have any love for any government. Governments come and go. As long as your country remains based on the ideals on which they were founded, then you have every reason to love your country.
The current US administration is by no means representative of what the founding fathers had in mind ovewr 200 years ago, but the essence remains and neither Bush nor anyone else can take it away.

Quote has been trimmed
Covered that here, too lazy to think this morning
 
jimmoyer
#3
Well spoken, ITN.

Most excellent.
 
Said1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Quote: Originally Posted by I think notThere is a difference in nationalism and patritotism, sometimes it even becomes difficult to see any difference at all. It all depends where ones loyalty is. Both can be loyal to ones country, but the object of their affection differs.Nationalism is loyal to a countrys institutions and its trappings while patriotism defines ones loyalty to a countrys principles and ideals. When times are good, you cannot distinguish the two, but when times become fiery, you see both carefully go in opposite directions.I cannot speak for Canadians (obviously), but if I were to try and give an example of nationalism and patriotism I would can do so by the new vote that will on the Senate floor after Independance Day. Nationalists oppose flag burning because they love it and what to protect it, patriotism on the other hand supports flag burning because the flag represents American ideals and principles.Fine line don't you think? Perhaps. But nonetheless, under no circumstances does nationalism or patriotism have any love for any government. Governments come and go. As long as your country remains based on the ideals on which they were founded, then you have every reason to love your country.The current US administration is by no means representative of what the founding fathers had in mind ovewr 200 years ago, but the...

Quote has been trimmed
Thanks for posting that. Although I don't totally agree, I don't plan to challenge your post (nice how I throw that in, eh? ). I think I clocked the most internet time ever fighting about it for the last two days at another board.

Here's another question. Is neoconservatism really nationalsim?
 
I think not
#5
You will have to give a definition of neoconservatism as it is loosely tossed around all the time.
 
Calberty
#6
The concepts are difficult to disentangle. What is a 'nation' in 2006? Is it a language? historical? racial?, legal?, geographic? etc. collectivity? Most Quebecers, even federalists, are Quebec nationalists. A Stony native might see has 'nation' as Blackfoot.

The American providing an definition above is myopic as usual. Unable to disentangle himself from puting subjective filters on examples.
 
Said1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

You will have to give a definition of neoconservatism as it is loosely tossed around all the time.

Sure, make ME work.

I think this is a pretty good op-ed peice. Not a definition pre se, but a good description.

What is a Neocon
 
jimmoyer
#8
Well, although I liked the fireworks of debating
with the recent liberal exodus, I grew tired and bored
of this epithet, neo-con, liberally thrown around like
it was the last word on the truth.

It might be that the liberals explain the use of the
word NEO-CON the best, however.

Me ?

I don't care about the word, or what it means.

What I'm energized over is how the Republican
President and Congress lost touch with basic
conservative principles.

There are a few rotting planks in the Republican
platform, planks that the conservatives always
championed:

1. Fiscal sanity. Debt reduction. Some proximity
to balanced budgets.

2. Pork Barrel. The Republicans are spending
like there is no tommorrow, provincially providing
for their constituents with no thought to the nation
as a whole. Sure, the compromise of "I'll scratch your
back if you scratch mine" is what makes the world
go round, until you reach a point where you're
hurting the nation as a whole.

3. Border control. Yes, this is a nation of immigrants
and that is what gives this country energy. But
we really need to do immigration policy in a less
helter skelter haphazard way. And I'll go read
Robert Frost's poetry on Neighbors and Fences.

4. Getting government out of our private lives.

I recoil at bureaucracy snooping and rounding up
people without charge and being so inept at
doing their homework and followup. I recoil at
the fact Congress will step into the private lives
of parents fighting a son-in-law over their daughter.
I recoil at government entering our private lives.


But forgive me for the thread drift, here.

Neocons ?

I'd say it is whatever the liberals say it is.

And part of that definition involves a conservative
that goes too far into the affairs of another
country.
 
I think not
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Calberty

The concepts are difficult to disentangle. What is a 'nation' in 2006? Is it a language? historical? racial?, legal?, geographic? etc. collectivity? Most Quebecers, even federalists, are Quebec nationalists. A Stony native might see has 'nation' as Blackfoot.

The American providing an definition above is myopic as usual. Unable to disentangle himself from puting subjective filters on examples.

It hasn't changed since 2005, it is a group of people governed within certain political boundaries, at least thats the broad definition of it, which I believe Said1 inferred.

I suppose you can draw lines of what constitutes a nation by the color of one's hair, but then again we drift from myopia and move towards confusion. Philosophers
 
Said1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

Well, although I liked the fireworks of debating
with the recent liberal exodus, I grew tired and bored
of this epithet, neo-con, liberally thrown around like
it was the last word on the truth.

It might be that the liberals explain the use of the
word NEO-CON the best, however.

Me ?

I don't care about the word, or what it means.

But forgive me for the thread drift, here.

Neocons ?

I'd say it is whatever the liberals say it is.

And part of that definition involves a conservative
that goes too far into the affairs of another
country.

No, it's ok, I'm not overly concered with the defintion either. Plus, I think don't really care if threads take a different course than originally intended.

My point in asking was based on a self-proclaimed neocon, who claimed that neoconservatism was really "good-nationalism". Although I agreed to a point, however, in the end, I found the concept quite funny. From a historical perspective, I don't think there is such a thing as "good-nationalism", it's just a snappy new term someone made up in order to erase any negative connotations associated with traditional concepts and ideas that are normally attributed to Nationalism as a ideology.
 
Calberty
#11
What you call 'drift' is a rational view of human societies that understands collectives are more complicated than borders and flags. Americans like simple answers of 'black and white' and 'good versus evil', etc. Myopic, simplistic views of the world lead to disasaters such as the Americans turning Iraq into 'Iraqinam'. What is the nation? Iraq? Kurds? Sunnis? Islam? Arab?
 
jimmoyer
#12
Well this idea of nationalism and patriotism have
gotten some heavy knocks for a long time, and
a lot of the criticism is just.

But.

As this world seeks unity and peace and the
abolition of war, we run dangerously into another
paradox along the lines of, BE CAREFUL FOR WHAT
YOU WISH.

I'd rather have nation states defending themselves
and the interests of their own people, than one
world government or some potent version of the UN
that has too much power.

And I do hope some differences in culture remain.

I don't want ONE-WORLD-MIND-THINK.

It's funny how depending on the issue, liberals
support diversity, and on a different issue, conservatives
support diversity.

Depends on the issue.

And so nationalism is diversity
on this planet, allowing for different
ideas to incubate along different paths.
 
Said1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

[

It hasn't changed since 2005, it is a group of people governed within certain political boundaries, at least thats the broad definition of it, which I believe Said1 inferred.

I'm referring to the nation-state (I can't even think of an official nation-state at the momemt.....more coffee anyone???) or nationalist minded states such as Italy or France (for example) and other provinces and territories such as Quebec.
 
Said1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer


And so nationalism is diversity
on this planet, allowing for different
ideas to incubate along different paths.

Nationalism has never supported diversity or multiculturalism.
 
Vanni Fucci
#15
As neoconservativism had its beginnings in the US Rebublican Party, I'll offer a definition of neoconservativism in the United States:

Neoconservativism in the United States

...and for purposes of comparison:

Neoconservativism in Canada

One important distinction to note is that while neoconservative ideology is a form of right-wing radicalism, it is not exclusive to right wing political parties, as evidenced by Bob Rae's NDP government which was an example of the application of neoconservative fiscal policy, the failure of which has been invoked by other neoconservative supporters as evidence of the failure of social democracy.

Quite laughable if you ask me...but then I'm not from Ontario...

However, it is the Conservative Party of Canada that has fully embraced neoconservativism in its platform and policies, and I have it on good authority that certain members of the CPC have been sent to Virginia to attend a Republican College, where they learn how to get elected, because that's all Republicans are really good at.

And for all of those neocons out there that whine that I call them such, I have this to say:

Suck it up sister, it was your choice to support the neocon bastards!!

As to the original question, I tend to think that nationalism has a far more Hegelian application than patriotism in that those that invoke nationalism do so to illicit a response, whereas patriotism can be practiced just for the sake of being a patriot and having pride in one's country's achievements.
 
Calberty
#16
As far as 'patriotism' I always like a comment of one older Polish fellow. Whenever he hear's a country's anthem...regardless of what country it might be from ...what he hear's in his head is:

"Deutschland, Deutschland, uber alles'.
 
FiveParadox
#17
Patriotism and Nationalism in Canada

In my opinion, patriotism is probably inherent to most nations on Earth, Canada and the United States inclusive. It is, as given by Dictionary.com, one's devotion and love to one's country. Then again, when some people become "too" patriotic, problems can arise; take the United States for example, where in some chatrooms and forums, it is considered "patriotic" to despite persons of the Islamic faith as "enemies of the people" (this is probably an extreme minority of people, mind you).

Whereas nationalism can be one of many things: (a) a devotion to the culture and interests of one's own nation; (b) an assertion that nations should act independently of one another, rather than engaging in any sort of international co-operation; and (b) an aspiration for independence where one is currently under some sort of foreign domination. While this can sometimes come hand-in-hand with patriotism, this is not necessarily the case.

In its lesser-core interpretations, nationalism is an extremely good thing. Everyone should be interested in their country's own culture, and in its interests; this does not necessarily mean that a country needs to have only one culture, however. For example, I would submit that Canada has many cultures. Their co-operation toward a common goal and toward common interests, however, links them into a sort of secular "Canadian culture." Since international co-operation is an important part of Canadian policy and strategy abroad, one who rejects that particular part of nationalism may become less nationalist, but simultaneously more patriotic.

By way of continuing with my example of Canada, Canadians who are devoted to this country are patriotic. Those who also support the idea of secular multiculturalism within Canada, while supporting international co-operation, are nationalist only to the degree where it is considered a "good thing." In my opinion, that is how one can strike the balance between the two.

The Difference Between the Two

Generally speaking, patriotism can be practiced in quite positive ways through various avenues; being involved in one's system of governance in whatever role, for example, would be patriotic. Standing and singing with one's national anthem would be patriotic. Learning about one's system of governance and the issues important to one's country, as happens a great deal of the time here on the Canadian Content forums, is patriotic.

Nationalism, however, often requires explicit action, particular with the more hardcore assertions of nationalism. For example, as I have seen a great deal from some citizens of countries like the United States, some believe that their nation should act unilaterally on the world stage without regard for the opinions of other nations — this is extreme nationalism, and can lead to international resentment of one's country. It is particularly important with nationalism that one strike a balance between being genuinely concerned for the interests of one's nation, and becoming an obnoxious and pushy voice with the international community.

Edit Corrected a typo.
 
jimmoyer
#18
jimmoyer wrote:
--------------------------------------
And so nationalism is diversity
on this planet, allowing for different
ideas to incubate along different paths.
-----------------------------------------------

Said1 responded:

Nationalism has never supported diversity or multiculturalism.

--------------------------------------------------


My response:

Nationalism often doesn't support diversity
within its own borders.

What I am saying is that each nation in its own
incubation provides a diversity TO this planet.

In a world without borders, without nation-states,
---in a world with one authority, you will see
a one-group mindthink.

This is far into the future, say maybe 2000 years
from now.

When all the rules change.
When everything we discuss now is a dim, misunderstood
memory, when we give up what we adore because
of the urgency of new problems.


By the way, Calberty, that comment of the old Polish guy
on "uber alles" really gets to the pit of the matter. LOL !
 
Vanni Fucci
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

LOL !!

Vanni Fucci, hard as nails, as always.

But don't let that make you mistake Virginia.

The moderates and conservatives elected two liberal governors twice in a row, rejecting the Republican
Party's excesses.

I've nothing at all against Virginia, Jim, as I'm sure it is a beautiful state filled with a beautiful and vibrant people. I merely stated that is where the college is located...I can't remember what city though...
 
jimmoyer
#20
Sorry,I accidently deleted my own post to which
Vanni responded.

Herewith:

LOL !!

Vanni Fucci, hard as nails, as always.

But don't let that make you mistake Virginia, just
because you have it on good word about a Republican
college training politicians to win elections.

The moderates and conservatives elected two liberal governors twice in a row, rejecting the Republican
Party's excesses.

The debate here is about building up the State
of Virginia's infrastructure of education and
transportation. It is not about listening to some commercial about a policeman's widow saying our recently elected Governor would even give Hitler a pass.

Risking stereotyping your enemy is a flaw.
 
Vanni Fucci
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

By the way, Calberty, that comment of the old Polish guy on "uber alles" really gets to the pit of the matter. LOL !

Does it?

Considering that the words were first written nearly a hundred years before Germany invaded Poland, I fail to see the relevance...
 
jimmoyer
#22
By the way, Vanni, your reference to Hegel
is priceless.

No history course is complete without the Hegelian
view of Dialectical Materialism, and the idea of
the dialectic of Thesis gives rise to an Anti-Thesis
which then combines to a Synthesis which then
becomes the new Thesis which then spawns the
whole cycle over again.

Which is why Police States creates Terrorism
and why Terrorism creates Police States and this
symbiosis of why a mountain needs a Valley and
a Thesis gives rise to the rebel Anti-thesis
gives you an extra Taoism dimension to every debate.
 
Vanni Fucci
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

Which is why Police States creates Terrorism
and why Terrorism creates Police States and this
symbiosis of why a mountain needs a Valley
and
a Thesis gives rise to the rebel Anti-thesis
gives you an extra Taoism dimension to every debate.

I hope you're not inferring that the dialectic applies to naturally occurring phenomenon, Jimmy...
 
jimmoyer
#24
It is all organic, if it doesn't happen now, it will
happen later.

If you don't have a Bush now, you'll have someone
like him later.

We are, as your insurance company would be glad
to inform you, a percentage of a statistical bell curve.

It gets weirder than that,
but none of this thinking should ever eclipse
the absoluteness of moral rights and wrongs.

By the way, Vanni was that "old" Polish
guy from Koenigsburg ?

 
Said1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci


Suck it up sister, it was your choice to support the neocon bastards!!

I hope this was NOT directed at me.

Quote:

As to the original question, I tend to think that nationalism has a far more Hegelian application than patriotism in that those that invoke nationalism do so to illicit a response, whereas patriotism can be practiced just for the sake of being a patriot and having pride in one's country's achievements.

Not so much a response, as an attitude, IMHO. Although the response is often required when a nation's territory is threatened.
 
Curiosity
#26
The topic is excellent, the posts are as well, and I cannot add anything here but an offering I made on another forum this morning.

The exercise in semantics is way too personal - it is like trying to describe love and all its variations on the one basic gut theme we all recognize. There are huge differences and none at all depending upon the person and the year and hour of his/her life.

I only trust "the concept of" patriotism and national pride from a particular source these days. His name is Danjel Boot - a Captain in the National Guard who has been in Iraq over a year - newly married, almost has his Ph.D. (which is why he was in the Guard to help with his schooling). He has captured a year of experiences in his excellent writing. I have encouraged him to publish an expanded work of his blog when he is home which will be soon.

When I opened his blog this morning I had a shock...but my post tells it all. I hope some of you will take the time to read the most recent post "In Memory Of"...

Thunder6 is about to return home, but the killings continue and one DevilDog has not been lucky enough to board that final transport - he'll have a special journey home.

http://thunder6.typepad.com/365_arab...in_memory.html

This morning I couldn't access Thunder's site - he hasn't been posting much lately because they are busy with insurgent ground attacks. I nearly lost it thinking it was him. He has been my connection to Iraq - his words have given me and so many of his fans a journey into hell so we know what hell is...what war is....and what human love is...even in the midst of hell.

The title of his last post is "In Memory" and it wouldn't open. I hadn't realized how this guy's writing has affected me over the past year - reading his daily work in Iraq and what it is like eating sand every day watching your front and back both...and losing friends...and being afraid to get close...and still getting close...

I guess attachments run deep when one is staring death in the face every day and mere mortals try to outwit that inevitable fate we all meet.

Well Done Thunder6.....I salute you and all your brothers and sisters in battle.


I believe Patriotism and Nationalism to be what the bearer wishes them to be - even to be abused as some see fit. Because the "backbone" of either word allows such rights.

I hope we never lose them.
 
Vanni Fucci
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

It is all organic, if it doesn't happen now, it will
happen later.

Thesis, antithesis and synthesis all are choices made and/or choices denied...

Choices are not made by any force in nature...

The yang does not choose to compliment the ying...

It is for the thesis, not the synthesis that the bastards must be held accountable...

As to your comment on Koenigsburg, or Królewiec if you will, you'll have to clarify just what the hell you're getting at...
 
I think not
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci

As to your comment on Koenigsburg, or Królewiec if you will, you'll have to clarify just what the hell you're getting at...

See that WC, it's not only me
 
Curiosity
#29
LOLOLOL ITN....

Owee that hurt my ribs hahaha...
 
Vanni Fucci
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Said1

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci


Suck it up sister, it was your choice to support the neocon bastards!!

I hope this was NOT directed at me.

No, it was directed at Jay, actually... :P

I don't think I've ever actually called you a neocon, although at times I may have thought it...

Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci

As to the original question, I tend to think that nationalism has a far more Hegelian application than patriotism in that those that invoke nationalism do so to illicit a response, whereas patriotism can be practiced just for the sake of being a patriot and having pride in one's country's achievements.

Not so much a response, as an attitude, IMHO. Although the response is often required when a nation's territory is threatened.

I think attitude is a big part of the response to which I was referring, but it could also manifest itself in the form of ones actions or system of beliefs...and people are so damn gullible, they're willing to believe anything...
 

Similar Threads

122
Canada has very little patriotism...
by westmanguy | Apr 16th, 2007
4
Nationalism Bad for America
by I think not | Jul 7th, 2006
25
Patriotism for Canada Day
by Aitrus | Jul 5th, 2005
no new posts