Talk:Nationalism/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: National reference to justify offense

message: 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)
thread_title: "Nation-nationalism are confused with the State"

message: 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)
thread_title: "nation-state was born in Europe with the Treaty of Westphalia"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Chauvinism

message: 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)
thread_title: "examples of racism that could have been motivated through nationalism"

message: 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)
thread_title: Ultranationalism

message: 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)
thread_title:  Imagined Communities 

message: 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)
thread_title: "modern"

message: 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)
thread_title: "the definition of nationalism is misunderstood"

message: 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)
thread_title: Palestine

message: 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)
thread_title:  Islam and nationalism 

message: 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)
thread_title: Very interesting read

message: 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)
thread_title:  Zionism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Link to new article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Skinheads 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Post-2001 nationalism in the United States