I think Walter Scott nicely summed up anybody who can't appreciate patriotism.

Do you know how nations began Denis?

Which nation? Tettletons chew each nation has a different history.

As for Walter Scott, he was wrong. A person does not need to identify himself with a nation in order to "live".

With what community do you replace the nation? Anyway without nationalism you don't have democracy or self-determination, so it's a trade-off.

Patriotism and nationalism are two different concepts. Patriotism is loyalty to the state, nationalism is loyalty to your ethnic group/national community. A Kurdish nationalist is no patriot to Turkey.

Militarism is of course, problematic. But it also created the modern welfare state. Bismarck created the original welfare state, and was explicitly based on a militarist rationale.

I had an interesting instructor of history who talked about the Medieval Trade Fairs in France that began at the end of the era of Viking raids around the turn of the millenium, circa 1000 AD.
The merchants from the various Italian commercial towns showed up in France with the goods they acquired from Muslim merchants in exchange for raw wool and cloth that Northern Europe produced. The exchange of Mediterranean wares for Northern European cloth became the most lucrative commerce in Europe. The merchants of the great commercial cities of Italy- Pisa/Milan/Genoa/Venice -organized themselves into cooperative "nations" at the trade fair according to their city of origin, and the practice spread.

The professors point, his name was Dr. Symcox (brilliant lecturer) was that the idea of nationhood sprang up among groups sharing commercial interests at these trade fairs.

It's fairly interesting to me that modern nations negotiate all sorts of trade agreements between them.

Of course there are other explanations for nationhood, and as you say each nation has its own history, but all these years later I still remember that enchanting line of analysis from Dr. Symcox.

But in context many historians and political scientists believe that Nationalism was born with the French Revolution although it is a raging debate

That enchanting line needs to explain why the trading ports like the Hanseatic ports did very little trade with the national or local markets and restricted themselves to long distance trade between themselves, and clearly weren't organized along national lines. Indeed early societies did everything they could to restrict markets and trade. The whole reason towns developed was to limit the penetration of markets to towns so they don't affect the countryside. Rules and rituals were set up to limit the number of days markets could be open. Trade was an international exchange between towns, and did nothing to develop nations.

Patriotism in some forms is both understandable and acceptable. It's jingoism and xenophobia, which can sometimes emerge from the same roots, that are the problems.

Having some sense of pride in the achievements of your country, or for that matter your province or your town, is perfectly ok. You can't help having some of your life "invested" as it were in the place you come from, or live in. Because you spend so much of your time there, your country/province/state/whatever plays a part in framing your experiences. It's part of the context in which your life takes place.

However, when that pride in your own place crosses the boundary into dislike, or even hatred, of *other* countries or provinces, and their people, not for any rational reason but simply because you've taught yourself that your country must be the best, so others should automatically be viewed with contempt... then there is a problem.

I think TC was talking about the origin of the word, rather than the origin of nationalism. But i wouldnt be surprised if he didnt see a difference

+1 jamie.
I think the problem with NOT being patriotic is this: if you love the people, the traditions, the culture, and the land you grew up around, you are probably going to be patriotic. Something will stir you about those things; you will rejoice when your nation does well, and it will sadden you when it does badly, or when it (and that way of life) is threatened.

Conversely, if you are not a patriot, you probably DON'T love the people around you, their way of life, culture, etc. And that raises the substantial question -- what people / culture DO you love? One might answer "the world!" but that's not really convincing. Love is specific, not general. You may, of course, love other nations' cultures ALSO, but you can be a patriot and do that. I am very fond of Ireland and the Irish, but I am still a very patriotic American. (Not that I love everything about the culture here -- _of course_ -- but I have a great sympathy for our way of life, our outlook, our history).

And anyway, I think there's something problematic and bad about not loving any people (in the collective sense) or culture. It is to be isolated, adrift by yourself. Can someone technically be a good person and be like that? Sure of course. In fact it certainly happens. Some people are raised in lots of places; some people just have wanderlust and love some specific things everywhere but lots of things nowhere. Some people are too attached to another world to love anything about this one.

But the point is, by and large, I think it is good if people love and appreciate the good about where they grew up or where they live, and patriotism will naturally flow from that.

As Jamie points out, this is quite another kettle of fish from hating some other culture or nation.

Really I have no problem with patriotism, it's just the fact that it often turns into xenophobia and exclusivist tendencies and thus nationalism. And when I say that it's a bane of civilization, I don't mean that history would be better off without nations but that it is about time that people get past nationalism while still appreciating the historical and cultural significance of nations.

You can't love your own group without excluding out-groups. That's pretty much impossible. Take fraternities or sports teams for example. The more exclusivist these groups are the more close-knit they feel. The whole reason America has little in the way of "culture" is because of it's very openness to immigration. That's why people can feel both "Irish" and "American" because America is not really a nation at all, it is only a state. So people can keep their national identities while expressing loyalty to the US so long as that loyalty doesn't conflict with their national loyalty. For example, who do you support in a soccer match between Ireland & the US?

I also think we're misusing the word nationalism here.

If you define nation as an imagined community, The United States, for the same reason you mentioned is not only a nation but a highly advanced nation. You suggest that Italians, Irish, Hispanics, African Americans fight and die for the US because of loyalty to the state?

In short, I agree with what your saying, but the fact that we dont share a culture doesn't mean we don't exhibit Nationalism, in fact, it suggests a very strong nationalism the way some see it.

"You suggest that Italians, Irish, Hispanics, African Americans fight and die for the US because of loyalty to the state?"

Yes, absolutely. That's why America is so obsessed with reverence to its political institutions, like the constitution and whatnot. You see very little of that in countries built on a national basis. You see much more in the way of ethno-national or religious customs instead.

in the end however, it helped me to see Nationalism/patriotism as a political tactic rather than an entity unto itself. The United States for example, does not have one overaching nationalism, nationalism is exploiting symbols to encourage unity and political/economic/military gain. The Nationalism of the Democrats is not the Same as the Nationalism of the republicans nor socialists, libertarians etc. To read more try David Waldstreichers "In the midst of perpetual fetes" it was a real eye opener for me.

then we just define nationalism in different ways, I see reverance toward such symbols as nationalism, you are looking more toward an ethno-nationalism which i dont see as necessary.

To the extent to which nationalism is displayed in America it is because there are certain groups who want to create an American nation, one based on its Anglo-Saxon cultural roots, or minority populations who want to create a national community within the US, such as the Chicanos in the Southwest or certain African American groups in the US South.

An article I found helpful is this one - > I used to instruct a capstone course on nationalism and used this fairly short article for the first lecture.

http://www.la.wayne.edu/polisci/kdk/comparative/SOURCES/barrington.htm

I think its pretty simple to appreciatte culture of both the place you live and wherever you're historically from without defining yourself with or pledging allegiance to any nation the way patriotism and and nationalism require. For instance my parents were born and raised in the USSR and then they moved to the US and I was born here. Considering the Cold War it's pretty much impossible to be unbiased if I had any sense of nationalism or patriotism for either the US or Russia. I can appreciate the history of both countries and I embrace both cultures and languages, but when it comes to the cold war I don't get defensive of one side or the other, I see that both sides were muddled up in a childish game of I'm right you're wrong and did horrible things and wasted a lot of time defending each others ideology all over the world while often disregarding those very same ideologies just to further their own perceived political interests.

And nationalism in the US is rampant. Their is a strong reverence for symbols like the flag, the constitution, declaration of independence, and somebody is blasted as unpatriotic for the slightest comment against America's foreign policy.

Denis, that last post shows exactly how you're confused. You don't have to "define yourself with or pledge allegiance to a nation" to be patriotic. For instance, I support our US troops overseas right now in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I don't support the reasons they were sent there in the first place. (Afg, yes, but not iraq.) I consider my self a patriot. And I can still appreciate the cultures and ideas of other nations too. I spent last year in the UK, and it was a good and valuable experience. Your problem is with associating the barest ideas of national pride with atrocities committed by fanatics and lunatics. Ie the jingoists and xenophobes.

And yet they'll root for the soccer team playing the US if it's their community of origin. Witness the large numbers of Mexican-Americans supporting Mexico (vociferously) during US-Mexico matches. They're not the only example. Many Italian-Americans supported Italy in the world cup when they played each other as well.

Look if you area patriot that means that you would fight and die for your country in a war regardless of the circumstances. Is that not true? If you say no, they I must be misunderstanding what loyalty means. A patriot holds his country slightly above the rest, I think thats unessecary. When talking about countries we are actually talking about the individuals within them, so why is it that we hold the individuals within one set of lines on a map higher than others. And if a country is not the individuals within the country but an idea, isn't that more reason to just get past it? What I'm pushing isn't unpatriotic its simply apatriotic

denis,
No, I do not think that being a patriot means that you say, "My country right or wrong." Indeed, I applaud your nuanced reading of the cold war (I might also disagree with parts of it, if details were fleshed out, but disagreeing with parts of it is not the same as disliking the nuance, nor your ability to say your country was wrong).

Patriotism, in my view, means rather loving your country and _wanting_ it to be right. I would fight and die for my country if it were involved in a sufficiently serious war _that was right_. If the war was wrong, I would lament it and do anything to avoid fighting in it, and to try to get the country to return to the better ideals it has sometimes striven for.

Yes, of course, nations are human and flawed, and all the way back to the founding (and at every time since) there have been some ideals held in this nation that were not good, and other good ideals that were not lived up to. But I can still want it to live up to them, and love that it tries. I can even think it is pretty special for trying as hard as it has, in some cases, where I think other countries might not have (but here we're getting into the subjective, obviously).

It's much like when you love a person, imho. You don't therefore dislike every other person -- you just don't feel the same about them. And you don't just give the person carte blanche to be a bad person: you lament all the more when they do something bad, and are all the prouder when they do something good.

I think it would be silly to say, "Can anyone defend love? Love makes people ignore the bad in other people. People love really bad people sometimes, and sometimes they favor the person they love unfairly over somebody else." All true sometimes, of course, but again, people are flawed and misuse things. So with patriotism.

And yes, of course people blame you for not being a patriot when you disagree with them politically. They'll also blame you for being a bad person, not caring about X Y or Z, etc. It's precisely because patriotism is good that this is an accusation worth making. Don't judge anything by what happens to it when political rhetoricians get it in their mouths.

Regards.

If nations are the ideas, which the US was unique in being; unlike every nation before, it was founded on ideas more than ethnicity, religion, or anything else. Ideas are what define us as human beings. Asking us to "get past" them is like asking us to sacrifice our humanity. And I personally find the thought of it insulting. Ideas nessecarily change over time, but that should make a nation defined by ideas all the more valuable. Also, the idea of "american exceptionalism" isn't that we are better than the rest of the world. It's that we are the exception to the rule that nations are formed by their race or religious ties. Now I have heard an argument that places the constitution as a religion, which would therefor nullify our exceptional nature, but I leave that idea to others as it is not my own.

I think you are mixing up ethnic pride with nationalism. I think the better example, is to look beyond soccer games and think about times where the US went to war with opposing nations. Japanese, Italians, and Germans fought against their ethnic homelands with few exceptions. Its one thing to root for your ethnic group (which makes you an inividual within a nation) but another thing to consider yourself that ethnic group over being an American. My opinion.

You're right that a great majority were patriots, but repression (Smith Act, internment) might skew the numbers a bit. I mean I know of relatives of my wife who plastered their car with American flags after 9-11 to avoid being pulled over. It had little to do with real sentiment or more to do with fear of repression.

My in-laws are of Middle Eastern origin, to clarify.

Imagine there's no countries... It's easy if you try