[Kayakeenemeds]

Today ive been pondering the effects and reality of nationalism in multi ethnic and multi cultural societies...it seems to me that in such nation states nationalism coupled with romanticism ideologies can and have become a monster that dwells close to racism and discrimination towards minority groups within the nation states...

i wonder if anyone have an example of nationalism in such a society that is not based on discriminatory romanticism?

in my own country (Norway) i see that Saami and other minority groups are not included in the national romantic ideology of the norwegian farmer who is pure norwegian and hard working ect..

[Plulpangepler]

Nationalism is a negative ideology, and excluding, I prefer positive concepts, like patriotism.

[doolarsva]

Nationalism is a negative ideology, and excluding, I prefer positive concepts, like patriotism.

Why is nationalism bad?

[preptarra]

Why is nationalism bad?

I wouldnt say good or bad, it just does not speak to me and has never done.
Nationalism is a form of tribalism and as such is not based on ideas or identities, but on biological factors. Patriotism is more complex and its more constructive to me. You need effort to be a patriot, its demanding, while nationalism is a passive defence (in my understanding). I prefer identification coming from a choice than from a must, as its deeper, stronger and more human.

[Menierofe]

I wouldnt say good or bad, it just does not speak to me and has never done.
Nationalism is a form of tribalism and as such is not based on ideas or identities, but on biological factors. Patriotism is more complex and its more constructive to me. You need effort to be a patriot, its demanding, while nationalism is a passive defence (in my understanding). I prefer identification coming from a choice than from a must, as its deeper, stronger and more human.

its not necessarily based on biology, it can also be based on other commonalities, but yes it is excluding..

[tigoCeree]

its not necessarily based on biology, it can also be based on other commonalities, but yes it is excluding..

I believe most nationalists use criteria of blood so it is biological. For nationalists, term 'patriotism' is not enough for these reasons basically.

[minowz]

I believe most nationalists use criteria of blood so it is biological. For nationalists, term 'patriotism' is not enough for these reasons basically.

well in Turkey it is not based on blood, but rather on language and in China i think it might be based on culture rather then blood, although i fear i might have a lacking understanding of Chinese nationalism as iknow Han Chinese is the dominant ethnic group whom they use to "colonise" other parts of china such as Xianjin and Tibet ect......

[cenRealliat]

Yes I agree however turkish 'modern nationalism' is a bit different animal , I dont know about China though, you could list Amerika here or Brasil too, as modern non-biological forms of nationalism, but again, its quite artificial terms. If we start calling 'nationalism' any forms of identification (blood, language, identity, citizenship) how shall we call concept of identity based on blood then?

[GoveMoony]

Yes I agree however turkish 'modern nationalism' is a bit different animal , I dont know about China though, you could list Amerika here or Brasil too, as modern non-biological forms of nationalism, but again, its quite artificial terms. If we start calling 'nationalism' any forms of identification (blood, language, identity, citizenship) how shall we call concept of identity based on blood then?

i didnt know identity was bound by blood, how would you see an adopted person in another country then its origin? would they form their identity based on blood?

[9Goarveboofe]

Yes I agree however turkish 'modern nationalism' is a bit different animal , I dont know about China though, you could list Amerika here or Brasil too, as modern non-biological forms of nationalism, but again, its quite artificial terms. If we start calling 'nationalism' any forms of identification (blood, language, identity, citizenship) how shall we call concept of identity based on blood then?

You should probably find another term to differ them. European nationalism is by "blood" or at least by phenotype as well as language and culture. Same is true of many types of Asian nationalism like Han Chinese, although China itself is a multi-cultural nation.

By contrast, nationalism of USA and Brazil is closer to Turkish nationalism, more about culture and language, less about ancestry or phenotype.

[Blelidupgerie]

i didnt know identity was bound by blood, how would you see an adopted person in another country then its origin? would they form their identity based on blood?

there are always exceptions, anway I am talking about practical understanding of the term, historically concept of 'nation' has no one clear definition, but nowadays in 'old world' its about ethnical relation.

---------- Post added 2011-08-10 at 20:19 ----------

You should probably find another term to differ them. European nationalism is by "blood" or at least by phenotype as well as language and culture. Same is true of many types of Asian nationalism like Han Chinese, although China itself is a multi-cultural nation.

By contrast, nationalism of USA and Brazil is closer to Turkish nationalism, more about culture and language, less about ancestry or phenotype.

Agreed.
I believe most people define nationalism in wider context.

[cemDrymnVem]

there are always exceptions, anway I am talking about practical understanding of the term, historically concept of 'nation' has no one clear definition, but nowadays in 'old world' its about ethnical relation.

well it depends, i dont know if that is true for Switzerland? its a good reason for why nationalism rose first in europe, or to put it better, theer are many reasons for why it was successful there, while in the larger empires: Russia, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman ect it had disastrous effects, this has allot to do with homogeneity in both blood and culture ect..

[bmwservis]

Nationalism is a negative ideology, and excluding, I prefer positive concepts, like patriotism.

LOL how exactly is patriotism a positive ideology ? :

"Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels."-- Doc Johnson (Samuel Johnson)

"A patriot is a fool in ev’ry age." – Alexander Pope.

" Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts, as a last resource, pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and glad to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority." – Arthur Schopenhauer

Here is an interesting piece on Patriotism that is not terse like the above :

On Patriotism
Examining the Firmware of War

Date

May 23, 2011

Patriotism is everywhere thought to be a virtue rather than a mental disorder. I don’t get it.

If I told the Rotarians or an American Legion hall that “John is a patriot,” all would approve greatly of John. If I told them that patriotism was nothing more than the loyalty to each other of dogs in a pack, they would lynch me. Patriotism, they believe, is a Good Thing.

Of course the Japanese pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor were patriots, as were the German soldiers who murdered millions in the Second World War. The men who brought down the towers in New York were patriots, though of a religious sort. Do we admire their patriotism?

Of course not. When we say “John is a patriot,” we mean “John is a reliable member of our dog pack,” nothing more. The pack instinct seems more ancient, and certainly stronger, than morality or any form of human decency. Thus, once the pack—citizenry, I meant to say—have been properly roused to a pitch of patriotism, they will, under cover of the most diaphanous pretexts, rape Nanking, bomb Hiroshima, kill the Jews or, if they are Jews, Palestinians. We are animals of the pack. We don’t admire patriotism. We admire loyalty to ourselves.

The pack dominates humanity. Observe that the behavior of urban gangs—the Vice Lords, Mara Salvatrucha, Los Locos Intocables, Crips, Bloods—precisely mirrors that of more formally recognized gangs, which are called “countries.” Gangs, like countries, are intensely territorial with recognized borders fiercely defended. The soldiers of gangs, like those of countries, have uniforms, usually clothing of particular colors, and they “throw signs”—make the patterns of fingers indicating their gang—and wear their hats sideways in different directions to indicate to whom their patriotism is plighted. They have generals, councils of war, and ranks paralleling the colonels and majors of national packs. They fight each other endlessly, as do countries, for territory, for control of markets, or because someone insulted someone. It makes no sense—it would be more reasonable for example to divide the market for drugs instead of killing each other—but they do it because of the pack instinct.

Packery dominates society. Across the country high schools form basketball packs and do battle on the court, while cheerleaders jump and twirl, preferably in short skirts (here we have the other major instinct) to maintain patriotic fervor in the onlookers. Cities with NFL franchises hire bulky felons from around the country to bump forcefully into the parallel felons of other cities, arousing warlike sentiments among their respective fellow dogs.

Fans. Fans.

Such is their footballian enthusiasm that they will sometimes burn their own cities in delight at victory or disturbance at loss. Without the pack instinct, football would hardly matter to them at all.

It’s everywhere. The Olympics, the World Cup, racial groups, political parties—Crips and Bloods, all.

Part of patriotism is nationalism, the political expression of having given up to the pack all independence of thought.
Patriotism is of course incompatible with morality. This is more explicit in the soldier, a patriot who agrees to kill anyone he is told to kill by the various alpha-dogs—President, Fuehrer, emperor, Duce, generals.

Is this not literally true? An adolescent enlists, never having heard of Ruritania, which is perhaps on the other side of the earth. A year later, having learned to manage the Gatlings on a helicopter gunship, he is told that Ruritania is A Grave Threat. Never having seen a Ruritanian, being unable to spell the place, not knowing where it is (you would be amazed how many veterans of Viet Nam do not know where it is) he is soon killing Ruritanians. He will shortly hate them intensely as vermin, scuttling cockroaches, rice-propelled paddy maggots, gooks, or sand niggers.

The military calls the pack instinct “unit cohesion,” and fosters it to the point that soldiers often have more loyalty to the military than to the national pack. Thus it is easy to get them to fire on their own citizens. It has not happened in the United States since perhaps Kent State, but in the past the soldiery were often used to kill striking workers. All you have to do is to get the troops to think of the murderees as another group.

If you talk to patriots, particularly to the military variety, they will usually be outraged at having their morality questioned. Here we encounter moral compartmentation, very much a characteristic of the pack. If you have several dogs, as we do, you will note that they are friendly and affectionate with the family and tussle playfully among themselves—but bark furiously at strangers and, unless they are very domesticated, will attack unknown dogs cooperatively and kill them.

Similarly the colonel next door will be honest, won’t kick your cat or steal your silverware. Sshould some natural disaster occur, work strenuously to save lives, at the risk of his own if need be. Yet he will consciencelessly cluster-bomb downtown Baghdad, and pride himself on having done so. A different pack, you see. It is all right to attack strange dogs.

The pack instinct, age old, limbic, atavistic, gonadal, precludes any sympathy for the suffereings of outsiders. If Dog pack A attacks intruding dog pack B to defend its territory, its members can’t afford to think, “Gosh, I’m really hurting this guy. Maybe I should stop.” You don’t defend territory by sharing it. Thus if you tell a patriot that his bombs are burning alive thousands of children, or that the embargo on Iraq killed half a million kids by dysentery because they couldn’t get chlorine to sterilize water, he won’t care. He can’t.

The same instinct governs thought about atrocities committed in wartime. In every war, every army (correctly) accuses the other side of committing atrocities. Atrocities are what armies do. Such is the elevating power of morality that soldiers feel constrained to lie about them. But patriots just don’t care. Psychologists speak of demonization and affecting numbing and such, but it’s really just that the tortured, raped, butchered and burned are members of the other pack.

I need a drink.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Patriotism.shtml

[AdipexAdipex]

there are always exceptions, anway I am talking about practical understanding of the term, historically concept of 'nation' has no one clear definition, but nowadays in 'old world' its about ethnical relation.

because the concept of the nation is subjective for the people who form a nation, and while many nations do have similar concepts, all of them pay different degrees of attention to these elements (language, religion, ancestry etc)

well it depends, i dont know if that is true for Switzerland? its a good reason for why nationalism rose first in europe, or to put it better, theer are many reasons for why it was successful there, while in the larger empires: Russia, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman ect it had disastrous effects, this has allot to do with homogeneity in both blood and culture ect..

well, ottoman empire failed not due to the rise of nationalism, but because it was an islamic country based on the exploitation of the christians.
it was the way the empire was and the events that took place which caused the rise of nationalism and not the opposite.

[ImmitsRom]

LOL how exactly is patriotism a positive ideology ? :

I chose patriotism over nationalism in this very context.

Obviously, it varies, in Belgium or Switzerland they have different languages, in Brasil different races etc, and like it has been mentioned, idea of nationalism depends of the very nation, however as I can see, it has rather tendency inwards than outwards, which means people (nationalist) tend to identify usually with a smaller than larger group. In Belgium you have ongoing tension between Wallons and Flamands, in UK all: English, Scotts, Welsh and Irish always stress their nations and laugh off concept of british nation, Ireland itself is another thing (northern ireland), Basques in Spain (and catalonians to lesser extend), collapse of Yugoslavia (very failed attempt to create an artificial nation), separation of Czech and Slovakia, collapse of Soviet Union, ethnical tensions on edge Hungary/Slovakia/Romania, there are a few examples of how nationalists perceive nation.
Obviously, you have nations like Amerika, turkey, or even France or Germany, who are not ethnically homogenous, but it is or a/very ancient mix or/ quite artifical , like in Amerika and Brasil so many people still have 'national' identoty, like Irish american or polish american etc.

---------- Post added 2011-08-10 at 20:55 ----------

anyway, the subject was: examples on non-excluding nationalism, not based on romanticised myth?

[CealialactBek]

LOL how exactly is patriotism a positive ideology ? :

"Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels."-- Doc Johnson (Samuel Johnson)

"A patriot is a fool in ev’ry age." – Alexander Pope.

" Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts, as a last resource, pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and glad to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority." – Arthur Schopenhauer

Here is an interesting piece on Patriotism that is not terse like the above :

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Patriotism.shtml

i agree with schopenhauer but i strongly dissagree with the guy who wrote the article.

all these concepts like the concept of a nation have been developed with time, the concepts came from reality and not reality from the concepts, and they are usefull because they serve a purpose.
its not the nature of the concepts that is faulty (even if it can be) , its the nature of the average man who was and will allways be a sheep, and sheeps need to be in a pack.
because the real question is, "which is the best kind/type of pack?"

[Pheddytrourry]

well, ottoman empire failed not due to the rise of nationalism, but because it was an islamic country based on the exploitation of the christians.
it was the way the empire was and the events that took place which caused the rise of nationalism and not the opposite.

Nationalism in the Ottoman empire as in the Austro-Hungarian empire, who basically split the Balkans between them (and Russia), both suffered the same fate when nationalism rose in the ethnic diverse population, it would be wrong to blame it on religious adherence, its much more complicated then that, its a mixture of local "elites" wanting more power for themselves and a peasant population who saw more liberties in nationalism, which usually lead to the former to exploit the power of the latter to overthrow the imperial power.. in truth the true winners in nationalism is not the peasants, but the middle class and the elite who became free..the peasants who coupled nationalism with socialism usually became disappointed when they saw the true outcome of their struggle benefit the few after the rise of nation states..

i think allot of people today really have a bad idea about how nationalism rose and what ideas the majority of its followers actually had about nationalism...they think nationalism is the same as it is in many countries today, which is nonsense...

[hiedeemom]

Nationalism in the Ottoman empire as in the Austro-Hungarian empire, who basically split the Balkans between them (and Russia), both suffered the same fate when nationalism rose in the ethnic diverse population, it would be wrong to blame it on religious adherence, its much more complicated then that, its a mixture of local "elites" wanting more power for themselves and a peasant population who saw more liberties in nationalism, which usually lead to the former to exploit the power of the latter to overthrow the imperial power.. in truth the true winners in nationalism is not the peasants, but the middle class and the elite who became free..the peasants who coupled nationalism with socialism usually became disappointed when they saw the true outcome of their struggle benefit the few after the rise of nation states..

i think allot of people today really have a bad idea about how nationalism rose and what ideas the majority of its followers actually had about nationalism...they think nationalism is the same as it is in many countries today, which is nonsense...

the ottoman empire was an islamic empire, the austro-hungarian wasn't
i do not really know what happened in the austro-hungarian empire, never studied it and i still see no reason to do so, but i do know about the ottoman and its nothing like you describe.

as for nationalism, you are generalising too much and that is a mistake, not all countries had the same corse and not all countries had the same conditions.

[UncoonsKala]

the ottoman empire was an islamic empire, the austro-hungarian wasn't
i do not really know what happened in the austro-hungarian empire, never studied it and i still see no reason to do so, but i do know about the ottoman and its nothing like you describe.

as for nationalism, you are generalising too much and that is a mistake, not all countries had the same corse and not all countries had the same conditions.

yes i realize that i generalize, but its the only way to make my point about religion not being the reason for nationalism, although it is likely part of it, but had it been solely on religious terms we would not have seen so many states rise in the Balkans as then we would have seen one ore more Christian states build around religion, but that is not what happened, we saw states rise along ethnic lines as with most other european countries....

it would be historical incorrect to say that the Ottoman empire was radically different from the Austro-Hungarian or Russian empires in its treatment of non-dominant ethnic groups..thus you have two empires with their base in Christianity and one in Islam, but the outcome is the same in terms of ethnic tension... i would advice you to study Austro-Hungarian and Russian history of the Balkans, especially pre-WW1 and its involvement in making WW1 happen...

please read some more on the subject if you are to comment on my answer..

[T5qYkHWQ]

There are as many 'nationalisms' as many 'nations', however pragmatic approach is to consider what and how it is approached today in a common perception. Whenever you say 'norwegian nationalists' or 'russian nationalists' or 'german nationalists' you have in mind approximately the same image of peple believing in similar values. None of them will rather support this concept of multiethnical society, they will be against immigrants, more or less openly antisemitic, antiarabic etc.
People who believe in ideas like citizenship or multiculti dont start or dont join nationalist parties.