quote: Jethro Tull's music was banned from the airwaves of New Jersey classic-rock station WCHR-FM after frontman Ian Anderson, in an interview with the Asbury Park Press, criticized what he considers gratuitous displays of the American flag.
"I hate to see the American flag hanging out of every bloody station wagon, out of every SUV, every little Midwestern house in some residential area," Anderson was quoted as saying. "It's easy to confuse patriotism with nationalism. Flag waving ain't gonna do it."
So what, exactly, would YOU say is the difference between Patriotism and Nationalism? I'm interested to hear what others think on this....
quote: Main Entry: na·tion·al·ism : loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness 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
quote:Main Entry: pa·tri·ot·ism chiefly : love for or devotion to one's country
Okay -- so how are those different? Comments
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd think the difference is that patriotism is a pride, a caring for your nation. The definition of nationalism sound like...I don't know, national supremacy. Not just the love of country, but putting your country above all others.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But if you are a patriot -- if you love your country -- don't you normally think of your country as better than others? And put the interests of our country ahead of others because of our devotion to it?
Kinda like: If I marry someone, I naturally, because of my love and devotion, see this person as being better than all others (otherwise, I would have married someone better, right?)
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's how I define it. Patriotism is loyalty to and faith in the ideals that your country represents. In our case freedom, democracy, equal opportunity, civil liberties, justice, being a melting pot of customs and ideas, and rewarding merit. It means working to help your country attain those ideals, or get closer to them, rather than just being cynical and saying ideals are a load of manure and people and countries suck.
Nationalism means being unable to hear criticism of one's country, and being unable to see merit in anything outside one's country, and seeing one's own culture as being the standard by which all others are judged. It means thinking one's own culture should be exported forcefully to the rest of the world, as opposed to offering it to the world and letting them adopt what they like from it. It means not understanding or appreciating the cultural riches (and intellectual and spiritual riches too) that exist elsewhere.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Okay, I see your thinking here. And it makes a definate distinction. However, your wording makes it so Patriotism is ALL positive (idealistic) and Nationalism is All negative. I guess I don't see it as quite that black & white.
posted
That's how I see them. I sort of define patriotism as the good part of love-of-country and nationalism as the bad side. As for displaying flags, I see that as neutral. I don't tend to do it but I have no quarrel with those who do. I think families with people in the armed forces often do this, and it seems a nice tradition. I think until the last year I have never appreciated enough or thought about it enough how much people in the armed forces sacrifice so that the rest of us never have to live the way they do and see the things they see in the course of their jobs. I think it's a great and worthy thing.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In stating his views on respecting the flag, Ian Anderson demonstrates patriotism.
By banning the music of Jethro Tull, the radio station is exhibiting nationalism. What country is New Jersey in, again?
I am also sick of seeing cheap, ugly, worn-out replicas of our nations flag plastered all over everything. I cringe when I pass houses where the flag has fallen to touch the ground and stays there for weeks because the owner pays it no attention. People use it as substitute curtains, display it backwards, alter it's shape and colors, wear it, and let it get dirty and tattered. Our main street looks like a ratty motorcade.
Why do some people think it's too much effort to install a properly lighted flagpole or bracket?
Patriotism remembers the creator in pledging allegiance "under God." Nationalism evokes thoughts of media and political influence and commercialization.
Posts: 1379 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that when your country is the most powerful country on earth, you need to not put its interests ahead of everyone else's, but to take everyone's interests into account and act with justice and fairness. I think you need to act out higher laws than just the laws of your country. If you do that, it's ALWAYS in your best interest in the long term.
For instance, among the countries that are our worst enemies today, (I'm thinking Cuba, Iran, and so on), many of them are places where we upheld for a long time a terrible corrupt oppressive dictatorship. I think the legacy of that is still being felt. Yet at the time we acted in what we felt was our best short term interests. However, we are now paying the price for that. We did a terrible disservice to our long term interests at the time. This is ALWAYS true. It's always best to do what is right. This sums up my foreign policy. For particulars I will defer to those who make the study of such things their lives.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: think you need to act out higher laws than just the laws of your country
so, AK
In a way you're saying "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" (that's a Spockism) as far as looking at our national power - we should consider the whole world, not just what is best for our country....
(isn't that the running theme in Wyrms ?? ) (Had to bring OSC into it)
posted
But my husband is the best man around- because he has me
This reminds me of the pride argument. You can be grateful and pleased without obsessing on how much better you are than everyone else. You can enjoy your own kids without having to put down everyone else's. Colloquially, it is referred to as pride.
Dignity that is based on everyone else being worse than you actually takes everyone down a notch. If their unworthiness is based on your perception, you have to do less and less to maintain the illusion. So whether you are nationalist or patriotic does make a difference.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nationalism has been lumped in and redifined with the other bad "isms" of the late 19th and early 20th century. Colonialism, Imperialism, Nazism, Communism, etc. Some of these, by definition, can only be accomplished by oppressing people, which is bad.
It is possible to be colonial, without oppressing people, but the only way this can be done is by colonizing previously un-inhabited area. Of course this has not really been done within the last 1000 years, so the word is asociated with the bad variety of colonialism.
Likewise, it is possible to be nationalistic, I think, without oppressing, or even looking down on others. I would say that those who cheer on their own country's athletes in the olympics are feeling nationalistic, and that this is not a bad thing.
As far as the dictionary definition, it sounds fairly benign. It should be expected that our politicians act nationalistic.
quote: placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
This does not imply "at the expense of others" however. It must be noted that this is the same basic principle behind capitalism. Self interest is natural and moral.
Of course, all of this fits within the framework of civilization. One country can be nationalistic without destroying the culture of another. Just as in capitalism, there is a set of agreed upon rules which all individuals are expected to act within, there are such rules for nations(perhaps not so well defined though).
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: but it's not a premise I'm willing to grant.
Keep in mind, I qualify that with "not at the expense of others"
In the case of nations, how else would you expect a nation to act? Who else but itself will look out for its interests? Who else SHOULD look out for their interests? Nations that act without self interest, if there are any, are not helping their citizens or the citizens of any other nation.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This does not imply "at the expense of others" however.
Not always, no. But things don't have to necessarily cause some evil to be negative things. Driving drunk doesn't necessarily mean you are going go to crash. You can certainly drive drunk and arive safely. Nevertheless, though, driving drunk is wrong because it creates a risk.
I would argue that if nationalism is a bad thing, it would be bad along similar lines. It is not the case that nationalism necessarily causes bad effects always. But perhaps nationalism increases the risk of harming of others, as we often can't see the line between advancing our own interests and harming others' interests very well. And if that increase in risk outweighs the benefits nationalism provides, it may be a bad thing.
quote:Nations that act without self interest, if there are any, are not helping their citizens or the citizens of any other nation.
posted
Well, the very meaning of the term self interest should be enough. If a nation is acting without its own well-being in mind, it follows that events will not proceed according to what is best for its own people.
I understand your point about drunk driving. Certainly it is possible to go overboard with nationalism. However, by using the example of drunk driving you paint the picture of nationalism as something that is fundamentally bad. Driving drunk is not something that can reasonably be excused as okay. Having pride in one's country, or wanting one's own country to succeed can often be a positive thing.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
When talking about Nationalism and Patriotism, quite a few people get confused with the definitions. Patriotism can generally be defined as showing love of one's nation. But then, that's where definitions get mucky. What is a Nation? The French historian Ernest Renan proposes in his essay "What Is a Nation?" (Qu'est-ce qu'une nation?) that "A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which are in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. one is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one hs recieved in an undivided form... ...The nation, like the individual, is the culmination of a long past of endeavours, sacriface, and devotion..." What he’s saying is that a Nation isn’t just a country, or a state (government) it’s an embodied idea that a group of people have. “...the essence of a nation is that all individuals have many things in common, and also that they have forgotten many things.” In otherwords, the thing that holds nations together is what they have in common, be it their race, religion, or collective memory. In further defining nations and nationalism, we can also look at what Peter Alter says on the subject. “Current linguistic usage defines ‘nationalists’ as people whose actions or reasoning gives indiscriminate precedence to the interests of one nation (usually their own) over those of other nations, and who are prepared to disregard those others for the sacrosanct honour of their own nation.” Nationalism doesn’t have to be at the expense of others, Nationalism is just a nation’s sense of building their own national identity, and a nation’s way of promoting itself. One very important document that you have to look at when you’re trying to understand Nationalism, is the book Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson, which describes nationalism as it grew, in all of it’s stages. Nationalism can start from a group with a simular culture, in which the people, share a common language, or religion, or a common past, such as the French, or English, who are two modern nations who had common monarchies. The US who was together because the colonies had a common history, they fought together to remove the English Empire. And there were the monarchies that instated an official nationalism like the Russians, who the ruling oligarchy, even though was heridtarily European (and in fact spoke French), adopted the local Russian language and culture, and instated a national language, and a national culture (for with public education, they imposed that Russian be the only language taught). And then you go to countries like those in Africa in which they broke from the European Empires and became their own states by the political boundries that the Eurpoeans made, so you have countries such as the Sierra Leone,, Chad, Nigeria, that have no relation to their previous tribal territories, but completely based upon how Europe claimed them as colonies. And then you have nationalism grown from other oppression, such as China and Japan, who before were independent kingdoms with little dealings with Europe, but because of European imperialism (note Opium Wars) nationalism grew out of the hatrid and need to throw the Europeans out. Or in Japanese nationalism, it grew as a response to a fear of European imperialism (for Japan saw that Europe was in essance carving China up). And with Japanese nationalism, a lot of growth came...in forty years they started from a completely agricultural rice-growing community, into a completely modern industrial power that actually defeated an European power (against the Russians during the Russo-Japanese war). But then Japanese nationalism grew too far, and became ultra-nationalism, and they took over Korea, and colonized it, took Taiwan from China, instated a puppet government in Manchuria, the cause of the Pacific War. But now I’m going off on a tangent. In this way, the Merriam Webster definition is very good. In fact, it’s the definition my Nationalism course made. Nationalism in of itself is not a bad thing, in fact, it’s neccessary for nations to exists. But when nationalism is pushed too far and becomes ultra-nationalism (such as in the case of Japan and Germany during WWII), it becomes a very different and dangerous animal indeed. If you want good information on Nationalism and things relating to it, I suggest a few readings: The Nation-State as a Form of Political Organization, and What is Natinoalism? by Peter Alter (essays) What is A Nation? Ernest Renan (essay) Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson (book)
I also have a smattering of other documents on specifially nationalism in East Asia. If you’re want anything, you can email me (profile) and I’d be glad to help you get your hands on them. Satyagraha
Posts: 1986 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok on at least two of the last few topics I've entered on hatrack I've been roundly cussed for being overbearing, and I'll try to tone it down a little bit, but I have to disagree with this:
"A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which are in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle.... " "One lies in the past, one in the present. one is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one hs recieved in an undivided form... "
I don't like that ideology, and I don't think the dictionary will agree. There is, or should be, a word for what the essayist is writing of, but I think to say that it is 'nation' is overly abstract.
I agree with ana kata to some extent, but I think that the idea that nationalism is merely the negative of patriotism is overly simplistic,
quote: According to Merriam-Webster on-line:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Main Entry: na·tion·al·ism : loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Main Entry: pa·tri·ot·ism chiefly : love for or devotion to one's country --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay -- so how are those different? Comments
Alright, first what we have to realize is that the two words are a little like 'liberal' or 'conservative'(or objectively speaking, any word) they only mean what they are taken to mean. That being said, I think that the above definitions are typical to what you'll find in a good dictionary. In the wording, there are two marked differences. One is the word 'love' as opposed to 'loyalty'. Another is the word 'country' as opposed to nation.
In regard to the first issue: To some of us, possibly, love and loyalty are the basically the same thing: "you can't have one without the other". That's a valid perspective. There is, however, another perspective, because there are other definitions to those words as well. There is the perspective that you can have one without the other: that you can love someone without following or assisting them, and that you can follow or assist without love. This perspective is slightly narrow, because the definitions used are slightly narrow, but I think this is where ak's perspective comes from.
posted
In regard to the second issue, country vs. nation:
Again you can say reasonably that they're the same thing, but as with love and loyalty, we all know that 'country' has a yet broader connotation. The land. The land and everything in it. Patriotism, then, could mean commitment to abstract ideal, and then again, it could mean no such thing. It could simply mean that you love the land and its peoples(possibly human or animal) and therefore that you want what you think is best for them. So what it all boils down to is this. Patriotism has broader meanings. Using all defintions simultaneously, then, we can say that all nationalists are patriots but not all patriots are nationalists.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Ian Anderson. It is not necessary to have five or six flags (and I'm not exaggerating; I've seen cars with more than that) flying from one's vehicle to be a patriotic American.
Now, if someone chooses to fly a flag from their car antenna, that is a nice thing. But plastering one's vehicle or one's home with as many flags as possible feels very much to me like a statement that "I'm more patriotic than you are." And that is just childish, in my opinion.
Every year at the local Fourth of July celebration at the high school, they pass out little American flags to the people who attend the event. One year I was talking to some of the people in charge of this and I commented that it would be nice if, one year, they also handed out copies of the Constitution and Bill of Rights so that people could see what the flag stands for. They all looked at me like I'd suddenly grown a hammer and sickle in the center of my forehead.
There are people who don't want the people to know what the flag stands for; they just want them to worship it blindly. I think that is sad.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Again you can say reasonably that they're the same thing, but as with love and loyalty, we all know that 'country' has a yet broader connotation. The land. The land and everything in it. Patriotism, then, could mean commitment to abstract ideal, and then again, it could mean no such thing. It could simply mean that you love the land and its peoples(possibly human or animal) and therefore that you want what you think is best for them. So what it all boils down to is this. Patriotism has broader meanings. Using all defintions simultaneously, then, we can say that all nationalists are patriots but not all patriots are nationalists.
Then what is a nation? That is the accepted academic argument of what a nation entails, thusly things like the "Indian Nation" which, in itself is not a country is allowed. For it is the academics that make the definitions that are used. And a nation entails a sense of "us and them" it does not specify a certain area, it embodies a group of people, and you can be nationalist but not patriotic, anybody that furthers a specific national culture is considered nationalist, but not necessarily patriotic, but a patriot ipso facto is showing nationalist pride and furthering nationalism. What you're saying is not incorrect, but with slightly skewed definitions, academically speaking. Satyagraha
posted
"That is the accepted academic argument of what a nation entails, thusly things like the "Indian Nation" which, in itself is not a country is allowed."
Any Indian 'nation' in this country is not a nation because it is not a sovereign state, I think it is ridiculous to give it that name, and I do not see what you are getting at. fyi, if this was not already obvious, the term there used is archaic, because it comes from a time when there actually were American Indian nations.
"For it is the academics that make the definitions that are used."
Not last time I checked. It's the people who write the dictionaries.
quote:Any Indian 'nation' in this country is not a nation because it is not a sovereign state, I think it is ridiculous to give it that name, and I do not see what you are getting at.
A sorveign state is technically a nation-state.
quote: Any Indian 'nation' in this country is not a nation because it is not a sovereign state, I think it is ridiculous to give it that name, and I do not see what you are getting at. fyi, if this was not already obvious, the term there used is archaic, because it comes from a time when there actually were American Indian nations.
The term "Indian" is actually the current politically correct term to be used. Don't ask...it's a rather convivulated story.
quote:Not last time I checked. It's the people who write the dictionaries.
Actually, the terms that I use are the academically accepted terms used in intellegencia circles. I use them in my Nationalism course as well as my political science course.
Posts: 1986 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ink-tar-esting. So it's the age old struggle between the definitions of the public and the definitions of the elite... sometimes the elite have their good reasons for different definitions, other times they're just BSing.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you like the actual documents? These documents aren't just intellectual masturbation, these documents require a more extensive background in history and politics to be able to understand, and even though I'd like all people to be very well educated...it's impossible. If you'd like to look at them I have them all saved as scanned black and whites at
quote:Then you get Japanese and Korean cars with flags stickered to their bumpers. Did they support American industry?
Considering the way cars are made, perhaps they did. Half the stuff labeled "Made in America" is assembled in America from parts made in other countries, and I suspect the reverse is also true.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So it's the age old struggle between the definitions of the public and the definitions of the elite... sometimes the elite have their good reasons for different definitions, other times they're just BSing.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: are not citizens have put flags on their vehicles as well
I am not a Canadian citizen, I am an immigrant. I find that my permenant resident status allows me to stand up and call myself Canadian, display Canadian symbols and fly a Canadian flag.
Nationality isn't just about what it says on your little piece of paper.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
