Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Yes, you can be a patriot in a nation-state... Patriotism is (originally) simply loyalty to the fatherland (rather than, say, to your religious affiliation, local noble, national or ethnic group).

There was a big nationalist/patriot spat in Europe in the mid-19th century, when the liberals started stirring up nationalist sentiments in order to cause trouble for the various monarchies of the time (whose borders were defined prior to the invention of modern nationalism, and therefore did not well accommodate it).

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed May 6th, 2009 at 04:28:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I guess the modern take on the matter is something like this.

Patriot: I love my country.

Nationalist: I hate those fucking foreigners.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed May 6th, 2009 at 04:56:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Which is why the BNP plays on the patriot language.  It brings positive associations which hide a racist agenda.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed May 6th, 2009 at 05:01:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Starvid:
I guess the modern take on the matter is something like this.

Patriot: I love my country.

Nationalist: I hate those fucking foreigners.

nice précis!

also, patriotism can be a quiet, unflamboyant sentiment, surfacing during peaks of ritualised behaviour, such as military funerals, flag waving and half-masting, anthems etc.

nationalism is always in your face pissed and mean right from the get go, except when it's sugar coated, like this BNP crapaganda, everyone knows what they want... a justification for a hatefest. stick a suit and tie on it, but underneath it's all about bovver and dustups.... testosterone, briefly forgetting one's own plight in surrendered thrall to the the sick blamegame.

the rabid right in the usa are playing the droids like violins, it stands to reason that it works (somewhat) for griffin and his evil ilk this side of the pond too.

barf...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed May 6th, 2009 at 06:22:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The second one would more precisely be "chauvinist" or just "xenophobe".

I don't think there is a qualitative difference between the subjects of "patriot" and "nationalist". The difference tends to be in the eye of the beholder. As in, "I am a patriot, you are a nationalist" -- but even that is not universal, some people do apply "nationalist" for themselves and without negative associations.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu May 21st, 2009 at 04:18:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm a patriot, you're a nationalist, he's a xenophobe.

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 21st, 2009 at 04:28:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Better: I'm a patriot, you're a nationalist, he's a terrorist/insurgent/hooligan.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu May 21st, 2009 at 05:11:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The "nation" and the "country" are not quite the same, although nationalists have been doing their best to conflate the difference.

You can be a nationalist without being a patriot, and a patriot without being a nationalist. In point of fact, I would argue that the two are mutually exclusive: Nationalism is inherently a movement that seeks to fracture the state into numerous sub-groups, each of which aggressively defends its own privilege. Viewed in that light, it becomes hard to see how a good nationalist can also be a good patriot.

Of course, with that definition of patriotism, a jingoist cannot be a patriot either, because jingoism does not serve the interests of his country...

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu May 21st, 2009 at 04:49:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The "nation" and the "country" are not quite the same

Well duh: one is an officially recognised territorial unit, the other is a group of people that may or may not have an officially recognised territorial unit that "belongs to them".

You can be a nationalist without being a patriot, and a patriot without being a nationalist.

Yes on the first, but no on the second. Anyone who views him/herself as a patriot can be seen by someone else as a nationalist.

Nationalism is inherently a movement that seeks to fracture the state into numerous sub-groups

Nope. Even the separatist ones only until they do get their own country -- then that nationalism will turn on even smaller separatisms within its territory. See the history of the Balkans. At the other end, nationalisms may have imperial ambitions, either by conquest (Nazis, Chinese assimilation by settlement) or the theorising of wider senses of nation (Panslavism, Pan-Germanism, French nationalism, India).

Of course, with that definition of patriotism, a jingoist cannot be a patriot either, because jingoism does not serve the interests of his country...

So, you do sense that the patriot-nationalist distinction (which, BTW, is more common in Western Europe and the USA than further East) is a form of No True Scotsman...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu May 21st, 2009 at 05:00:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, you do sense that the patriot-nationalist distinction (which, BTW, is more common in Western Europe and the USA than further East) is a form of No True Scotsman...

Partly. I was being a little bit facetious. But I do think that that there is merit in distinguishing between the two concepts, in the same way and to the same extent that I think there is merit in distinguishing between liberalism and conservatism: Most of the time they are functionally identical, but they have different underpinnings and some subtle differences in operation.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu May 21st, 2009 at 05:22:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Liberalism and conservatism are functionally identical only in the present age and a Western context.

As for the concepts of patriot and nationalist, I can readily see a difference in the specific case of a separatist movement not yet with a recognised state, and I see usefulness of recognising people wanting to separate positive and negative connotations of collective identities. In fact, that enhances the problem with the No True Scotsman nature. Even if you take the US version in its purest idea-based form, patriots believing in the ideals of Democracy, Freedom and the Rights of (Wo)Man can be made to bring destruction to people who never asked for them to come in far-away Asian countries...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu May 21st, 2009 at 06:12:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course, one could argue that as long as the country and the nation are not one and the same, the borders are wrong and should be changed.

Thankfully we have the EU now, so one one needs to worry about borders anymore. If you're the grandchild of some Prussian aristocrat who lost everything in 1945 you can stop smouldering about Willy Brandt and the Oder-Neisse line and just move to Poland and buy back the ancestral manor from the current owners.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sat May 23rd, 2009 at 07:37:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
for me, patriotism is a loyalty to ideals that unites a country, regardless of individual differences.

Those ideals, for Americans at least, are enshrined and reified in a social contract that we call the Constitution, and which is based off of the Rights of Man.

Nationalism is based off a loyalty to ethnicity, territory, and language in common to a group (the Latin "natio" or Volk) rather than abstract ideals for human beings in general.  Nationalism by contrast is exclusive to Patriotism as inclusive.  At least in Enlightenment thought.

So I disagree that it is simply loyalty to the fatherland.  I was searching for the reference and could not find it, but Benjamin Franklin even said he wasn't loyal to any country, not even America, but rather the ideals it represented.

The mid 19th century was enough time to corrupt the thought of the 18th century Enlightenment thought, which has certainly happened and sadly the most in the US - the great experiment.

"Schiller sprach zu Goethe, Steck in dem Arsch die Flöte! Goethe sagte zu Schiller, Mein Arsch ist kein Triller!"

by Jeffersonian Democrat (rzg6f@virginia.edu) on Wed May 6th, 2009 at 05:23:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, that's because the US is built on ideas, not on blood. * As far as I know there are only two other states that have that weird foundation, namely the Soviet Union and France.

Ideas-based identity is dangerous as it gives its citizens an evangelical world view, be it la mission civilicatrice, world communism or Market Democracy (tm).

Blood based societies are often less aggresive, at least as long as they aren't, well, nationalists instead of just patriots. Then they tend to be of the kill'em all and take their stuff-school.

Blood patriots=safe, ideas patriots=dangerous. As it is easier to get the ideas patriots into foreign adventures in this day and age.

* Of course, it's never as clean cut as that, as the US has its WASP's, the Soviet had Russian imperialism, and the French had, well, France.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed May 6th, 2009 at 05:32:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Good try, but no cigar. You're forgetting Manifest Destiny and the way the US killed the North American Indians and took their stuff in the 19th century.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 6th, 2009 at 05:43:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I did say it wasn't clear cut.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed May 6th, 2009 at 05:53:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's either ideals and idealism or Blut und Ehre.  Or a Kantian or Hegelian combination.

However France is really the first nation-state; when one looks at borders, demographics, and language.  The French revolution was pretty homogenous.  All of Europe was, especially in demographic maps - except the Balkans, the Balkans look like a polka dotted skirt.

French Republicans!  This is why the aristocrats patronized the German Romantics to write against Napoleon through folklore to propagandize the peasants to fight against their interests when Napoleon was setting up republics, especially in the Rhineland.  Their influence thankfully ended in the rubble of Berlin in 1945.  But Heinrich Heine was ranting about this

But that was supposedly the Great Experiment of the Enlightenment in the US, the beauty was that it was not a nation-state but rather a country made up of several nations.

I am not trying to defend anything here, which is reality today.  I just want to point out what the original purpose was and what a patriot meant.

Obviously, that failed when we had the first Constitutional Convention and they compromised on slavery, our original sin - the fruit of the tree so to speak.  Then it was even easier to sin further with the genocide of the Native Americans afterwards.

But yes, I agree, the Bolsheviks were indeed cosmopolitan in that they wanted a world-wide movement rather than a local national movement.

"Schiller sprach zu Goethe, Steck in dem Arsch die Flöte! Goethe sagte zu Schiller, Mein Arsch ist kein Triller!"

by Jeffersonian Democrat (rzg6f@virginia.edu) on Wed May 6th, 2009 at 05:57:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
However France is really the first nation-state; when one looks at borders, demographics, and language.  The French revolution was pretty homogenous.

Yes and no... It is debatable whether the French nation even existed at the time, at least in any for m that would be recognisable today...

All of Europe was, especially in demographic maps - except the Balkans, the Balkans look like a polka dotted skirt.

And Austria-Hungary. Unless, of course, you count those as "Balkans."

And the Netherlands. And Belgium. And pretty much everywhere on the edges of what would later become Germany.

The point here is not that the border revisions were huge. They weren't, by any stretch of the imagination. The point is that they were often extremely vicious and de-stabilising.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed May 6th, 2009 at 06:06:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
However France is really the first nation-state; when one looks at borders, demographics, and language.

That's correct in my view. The assimilation process started at the end of the 100 Years War, with the absolutist kings applying it already when pushing their borders West towards the Rhine. Still, it wasn't finished until WWI... or maybe not until the loss of Algeria (which was legally part of Metropolitan France).

The French revolution was pretty homogenous.

Nope, that's quite far from the truth.

The French Revolution was primarily a Paris thing, but France was so centralised that that was enough. There was a pretty nasty civil war Southwest of Paris: the Vendée uprising. The educational and official language measures of the French Revolution did much to create a French cultural unity at the same time it triggered other nationalisms in resistance (especially Pangermanism) when applied Europe-wide under Napoleon. Even then, the Italian/French/local identities in Provence, Savoy and the upper Po basin didn't sort themselves out for a century. (Or more, if you watch Fernandel's border guard identity crisis comedy in La legge è legge.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu May 21st, 2009 at 05:21:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
(cont.)

pretty homogenous.  All of Europe was, especially in demographic maps - except the Balkans look like a polka dotted skirt

Nah, the rest of the Habsburg Empire looked like a polka dotted skirt (in some areas it still does), not to speak of the hazy German-Polish and Polish-Russian (resp. Belorussian/Ukrainian/etc.) borders. Those were 'sorted out' with WWII and mass deportations afterwards. All apparent ethnic homogeneity was created with blood and deportations and assimilation, maybe except for Iceland.

the aristocrats patronized the German Romantics to write against Napoleon through folklore to propagandize the peasants to fight against their interests when Napoleon was setting up republics, especially in the Rhineland

How much was it the aristocrats' doing? After all, the nationalists tended to be liberals, which got them in conflict with aristocrats by default -- not to mention pure power interests in keeping their local power vs. pan-German calls (something the nationalists would decry very effectively as "provincialism").

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu May 21st, 2009 at 06:20:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
blood and deportations and assimilation
Otherwise known as "nation-building"...

How much was it the aristocrats' doing?
My feeling is that the aristocrats often were a cosmopolitan anti-national force. Married into other noble families in other nations, split loyalties and so one, and maybe most importantly, the national idea was mainly pushed by the royal (ie central) power as a means of controlling and weakening the aristocrats and strengthening itself. At least here in Ultima Thule.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Sat May 23rd, 2009 at 07:42:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
propagandize the peasants to fight against their interests when Napoleon was setting up republics, especially in the Rhineland

Or rather, setting up puppet states to consolidate his empire. You should realise that Napoleon's propaganda was for his time like Bush's for ours.

But yes, I agree, the Bolsheviks were indeed cosmopolitan in that they wanted a world-wide movement rather than a local national movement.

That's not fully correct, and this happens to be the subject of a diary I planned years ago but which couldn't get itself written.

World Revolution was a basic communist concept; and internationalism was a key point in the original split between Social Democrats and communists/socialists. But the Bolsheviks in Russia gave up on World Revolution pretty fast after the Revolution. They even felt the need to underpin this deviation from classical Marxism ideologically, e.g. the possibility of "socialism in one country". Thereafter, relations with communists elsewhere became foreign policy, that is, they were in the service of a country's interests.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu May 21st, 2009 at 06:29:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
hmmm, tribal logic was the norm for tens of thousands of years, as it is today in rural afghanistan. i support my unit, right or wrong. it's only comparatively recently that we have evolved substituting ideas for what was as normal as the sun coming up every morning. it was a radical change for sure, still far too radical for some!

the next step will be making them good ideas...

:)

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed May 6th, 2009 at 06:30:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
i should add that the military uses this tribal psychology to reinforce group bonds and morale, the cog-diss comes when the poor grunts try and believe they're not just there for smash-and-grab, but for some holy cause or other.

cf 'honour', 'liberty', the american way' etc

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed May 6th, 2009 at 06:34:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Er, yes and no.

Even the "blood"-based countries are built on ideas: only the idea is one concerning a supposed blood shared uniformly within and not shared beyond the borders. Behind all the talk of shared blood, the reality is always a genetic diversity, a diversity that exists locally and that has continuous patterns geographically that don't exactly correspond to borders. But nationalism tries to cover actual variation either by attempting cultural assimilation, or by attempting secession (depending on where you draw the limits of Your People).

The distinction between "blood"-based and "idea"-based national identities is blurred further if you consider countries beyond the USA and (most of) Europe. For, basically all post-colonial states and all post-imperial states show rather strong ethnic, language, cultural diversity. Some of these, like say Nigeria, are purely the products of colonial border drawing. Others, like India, are the products of domestically created unity myths.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu May 21st, 2009 at 04:49:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't agree. Blood based states are in one way natural (and with natural or normal I don't imply that it is in itself something good: lions naturally eat other lions offspring).

How so? The natural state of being of man is the (small) tribe. That's what our mind and social behaviour developed: we are related, know and trust each other, the other tribes are enemies, or at least dangerous. Then agriculture arrived, tribes grew to villages, cities, and regions and with the advent of better bureaucracy, rudimentary mass media, faster transportation and the 19th century push for centralism made possible by these advances, the tribe had grown to encompass an entire country. The nation state was born, and in spite of the predictions of many academic scribblers, it is still strong. Probably because it feels so... natural, because it activates the feeling and relationships with which we have coevolved for tens of thousands of years.

Or something like that.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sat May 23rd, 2009 at 07:49:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jeffersonian Democrat:
patriotism is a loyalty to ideals that unites a country, regardless of individual differences.

The UK's ideals are hating wogs and pakis and towelheads and - er - British bulldog, Winston, we won the war, rule Britannia, St George's cross out of the window and down the pub.

Actually I doubt that many US 'patriots' are any more sophisticated than that in practice. Wave the stars and stripes and off they go on a crusade. (Or a tirade.)

The point is that ideals don't need to be complicated. And they certainly don't need to make sense.

All you really need for patriotism is a sense of identity and participation and the possibility of pride - which could be a positive force, but is easily subverted. The BNP are perfectly positioned to exploit the fact that the other parties have almost eliminated bottom-up participation.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 6th, 2009 at 07:53:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well that may be Englands, but i think the Welsh and Scots would take exception to that UK characterisation.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed May 6th, 2009 at 09:40:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Patria is a Latin word cognate with the Greek πατρίς (patris), both of which derive from the word for "father", typically translated into English as "fatherland."

nā- (Latin) is a stem (e.g. nā⋅scī, nā⋅tal, nā⋅tion) meaning born

Both words have long --consider rhetoric of Greek and Roman empires preceding the 18th century literary movement-- been used to denote the place of birth as have respective translations of Gr. and L. "race" in epic poetry.

My impression is that connotations some people associate with "nation" and "nation-state" today  developed with administrative distinctions of "homeland" and dependent subjects. iirc, the imposition of "nation-state" to designate sovereign territories in UN documentation was a hot topic not so long ago.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Thu May 7th, 2009 at 02:57:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
for me, patriotism is a loyalty to ideals that unites a country, regardless of individual differences.

Ideals that unite -- that's only the US version of patriotism (also the French); a form of nationalism where the (or rather, one) myth of unity is a (myth of) an assemblage of ideals. Loyalty to a country (or wished-for country of a separatist or uniting nationalism) doesn't depend on the particulars of that country's unity myth.

You also shouldn't confuse your own idea of patriotism with that of all other Americans. There are (still) plenty of believers in a White America, even more in an English-speaking America.

Benjamin Franklin even said he wasn't loyal to any country, not even America, but rather the ideals it represented

Did he say that as a definition of "patriotism"? Maybe not. At any rate, you shouldn't confuse a particular version of the patriotism of one particular country with the general term.

The mid 19th century was enough time to corrupt the thought of the 18th century Enlightenment thought, which has certainly happened and sadly the most in the US - the great experiment.

In my view, the system of Enlightement ideals got 'corrupted' due to its own imperfection -- the concepts of patriotism and nation included.

The Enlightement sought to replace the King with the People as the source of power and legitimacy over a State. The problem is, without a king, what defines the People and the territory of the State? Some US Founding Fathers may have thought that their country is based solely on ideas, but the Civil War showed that some subsets of the People have different ideas about who else is in their own group of People; not to mention the territorial expansion by arms West and Southwest.

In Europe, the same conflicts over defining the People and the territory of the State usually 'ended' with ethnic cleansings and wars to secede or redraw borders otherwise.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu May 21st, 2009 at 04:35:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Enlightement sought to replace the King with the People as the source of power and legitimacy over a State. The problem is, without a king, what defines the People and the territory of the State? Some US Founding Fathers may have thought that their country is based solely on ideas, but the Civil War showed that some subsets of the People have different ideas about who else is in their own group of People; not to mention the territorial expansion by arms West and Southwest.

In the version of history I was taught, patriotism wasn't really an enlightenment idea. It was more the name that the people who resisted the rise of nationalism gave themselves.

That may be a local Danish peculiarity, but in our case, the patriots defined the country as the land that happened to be under the sovereignty of the Crown at this particular point in time. Why it was under the sovereignty of the Crown and how it had gotten that way didn't really matter.

Of course, the Danish case is peculiar in the sense that the nationalists wanted to both move the borders outwards and inwards: Schleswig-Holstein was kinda sorta a part of Denmark, but not quite, and they wanted to split it in two, let Denmark annex Schleswig and send Holstein on its way (and/or keep ruling it as a colony).

That created some rather - ah - peculiar political constellations.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu May 21st, 2009 at 04:59:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hm, interesting. Royalist patriots vs. nationalists, that does appear peculiarly Danish, at least in that historicised form.

I would say that both concepts, "patriot" and "nation", well pre-date Enlightement, but the Enlightement changed both. You'll find "PRO PATRIA" inscriptions on the tombs of both 17th-18th-century Habsburg generals and revolutionaries who fought their 19th-century successors. While the "nation" used to be the aristocratic class that had its autonomy under (some) European kings.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu May 21st, 2009 at 05:10:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I tried to find what you refer to, and this is the best I found:

The Pharisees of Patriotism | Heretical Ideas Magazine

There is a great apocryphal conversation between Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine, where Franklin allegedly said to Paine that "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." In other words, a love of freedom and the American Revolutionary ideals is something that ought to transcend mere nationalism. The best part about this alleged conversation, though, is Paine's response.

"Where liberty dwells not," he said. "There is mine."

In other words, Thomas Paine believed that he should fight for liberty, everywhere.

The essay the quote is from, BTW, is also topical.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu May 21st, 2009 at 07:07:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series