A patriot is someone who claims to love his country and is prepared to unquestioningly die for the foreign policy and foreign wars of its leaders. A nationalist is someone capable of considering abstract ideas of national interest.
THE VOICE OF REASON Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Why do Christians not follow the morality of the Bible? Because the Church itself does not follow Biblical principles and is only interes...
-
Key: CK = Claire Khaw CD = Claudia Dalgleish EB = Eddy Butler MC = Mark Collet TC = Tess Culnane CD on Facebook This past month... -
Beta males will never get female attention if it is OK for women to have premarital sex. If you want beta males to have a reasonable ...
31 comments:
That's a terrible distinction, especially as I'm a patriot who loves his country, but I don't own to the rest of the proposition as I'm capable of disagreeing with govt or majority sentiment, and I'm willing to consider and discuss abstract ideas etc. Whereas, nationalists often seem to have them pre-settled and think other people should adhere to them. That's my twopence worth.
Yes, it's a provocative distinction, but since 'patriot' is normally viewed positively while 'nationalist' is often seen negatively, I thought a different angle on this was worth considering.
In the ideal sense neither a patriot nor a nationalist owes his allegiance to the leader of his country, but to the country itself and its people and traditions. That was one of the distinguishing marks of the Third Reich. The object of the swearing of loyalty was changed from being the country to the fuehrer himself.
Americans, for example, swear an oath to the Constitution, not the Congress or the President.
Patriotism and nationalism should be separated, I think. I prefer localism and patriotism.
I bring this up because historically liberalism was nationalist and conservatism was localist. There are some examples however, like the German Empire.
Your definition of patriotism is entirely arbitrary and over-expanded. A patriot is simply a person that loves their country - nothing more nothing less.
I was talking about the context in which that term is used. Patriotism is always used in the context of war.
I think in some places it has been - Russia and China spring to mind. But that doesn't mean that patriotism and militarism (or jingoism) are synonymous in all places at all times.
I know people use words carelessly.
Your definition of 'nationalism' is equally 'at sea.'
There are people who call themselves nationalists, you know.
What if nationalists who are against neocon wars disagreed with people who call themselves patriots who wanted to fight neocon wars?
What if people who call themselves patriots prepared to fight any war because they support their country right or wrong disagreed with nationalists who questioned waging a war that they are arguing is against the national interest?
Would you prefer to be known as a patriot or a nationalist? I am a political philosopher promoting the political ideology of nationalism which I define as government in the national interest. Defining nationalism in this way makes our government more accountable because it allows us to ask whether a proposed government action is or isn't in the national interest.
As a moderate patriot, for Britain, Ireland, and Europe as much as England alone, I am also against 'neocon' wars. I don't like the term much though as most 'neocons' are extreme 'liberal/capitalist' and not true conservatives at all. Within 'nationalism' there are different strands, which you can see today and throughout history. One strand concentrates on 'self-determination' for a perceived ethnic group dominated by a more powerful neighbour, as in the case of Ireland, and more recently Scotland. Another strand of nationalism is clearly more expansionist and overtly militaristic. You would hardly stop at calling Nazi Germany merely 'patriotic,' even if some Germans were choosing to use the word themselves. And as I suggest above, it was the Russians fighting against expansionist German nationalism who characterised their desperate defence as 'patriotic.'
What is a "true Conservative"?
Are there only two "strands" in nationalism?
I am only suggesting that a nationalist should be someone capable of having a rational debate on what is or isn't in the national interest.
No, there are probably more than two, but the two I emphasised are pretty central.
I divide nationalism into ethno-nationalism and civic nationalism. To be honest, I was a little surprised at your statement of your two "strands".
Well I wouldn't demur from that limited definition (of two comments higher up!), and of course, a good few who describe themselves as nationalist will not be very rational. These terms are rather fluid and often not well understood, as I've been suggesting all along. At its simplest I would define a 'true' conservative as someone who wants to conserve the culture, ethnic balance, and political integrity, of their nation state. Most 'neocons' are also globalists, or they were as long as the US was in the driving seat. They've changed their tune a little of late, I think.
I'm well aware of the 'ethno/civic nationalsist' divide. It seems a fairly recent development and also a little crude, although its meaning is clear enough, I suppose.
I divide British ethno-nationalism into two strands: those who blame Jews (Patriotic Alternative) and those who blame Muslims (For Britain).
That's exactly the kind of crudity I refer to.
I don't think German or Nazi expansion necessarily was nationalistic. It might have been so when they were trying to incorporate German-speaking peoples into the Reich. But it wasn't so when they were trying to conquer Russia -- that was empire-building, just as other European nations did when they annexed bits of Africa and elsewhere -- imperialism rather than nationalism. I agree that nationalism can consist of nation-building, but it's not intrinsically warlike.
I don't blame Muslims for being Muslims, that's their (to me erroneous) choice, and I almost don't blame them for wanting to live here rather than in their own unfortunate countries. Nonetheless, they shouldn't be here.
Yes, but wouldn't you agree that 'empire building' almost always grows out of the soil of nationalism? I wouldn't see nationalism as necessarily inward looking, as you might say 'Little Englandism' would be.
Nationalism can be imperialistic eg "It is in the national interest of Nation A to take the territory of Nation B."
'Nationalisms' can differ I think. Mid 19th C. English 'national confidence' was not quite the same as the various manifestations of German nationalism.
Only if you take Germany and Italy as relatively recent examples. They formed into nations in the 19th century and became expansionist in the 20th century. But that was only because nations were expected to acquire empires. As Claire sometimes points out, Britain and France already had empires; Germany wanted its empire. There isn't much more to it than that.
Not to forget the Portuguese and Spanish, who more or less re-started European imperialism, 'in the modern era.' I would contend that there are certain differences between German imperialism under The Kaiser, who wanted to ape British overseas dominions, and Nazi expansionism into the east, and the intended 'Germanisation' of those territories.
FOREIGN POLICY BENEFITS OF SECULAR KORANISM
While Hitler thought he was acting in the German national interest in waging his imperial wars, his wars were not successful. The British thought they were acting in the national interest when they declared war on Germany twice in WW1 and WW2, but they were unsuccessful too.
From an Islamic standpoint, both their reasons for declaring war were unIslamic. With the benefit of hindsight, following Koranic principles of warfare would have been more in the British and German national interest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/war.shtml
Yes, there were ideological differences certainly, but sometimes when you look more closely you find resemblances too.
There's a tendency now to see Nazism as somehow distinct from everything else, but it grew out of European culture and wasn't seen as particularly unusual in the 1930s. The Kaiser invaded Russia too, of course.
Yes, I'd accept that. Perhaps there's no single 'truth' in the matter.
It is true that it was not in the national interest for either Britain and Germany to participate in WW1 or WW2. If they had followed Islamic principles of warfare, they would have promoted their national interest better.
It was certainly not in what *some* would consider the national interest then, or with hindsight. But that's the problem. It's rare that all people in one country agree on what is in that country's national interest, unless it is just basic self-defence.
Precisely. Neither individuals nor nations know what's good for themselves. Therefore God's rules should be followed instead. res ipsq loquitur.
Yes, it's a meaningless term really. It's in the 'national interest' to expand and increase the country's wealth. But if in the process you come a cropper -- like Napoleon or Hitler -- then that isn't in the national interest. One can't always predict the outcome of events.
You have to remain in existence as a nation to even have a national interest to consider.
Post a Comment