It makes sense to have some allegiance and affinity to the territory in which you reside, the languages, history and institutions of the people who reside there. These are meaningful things in the world which contribute to any life.
It makes no sense to have allegiance or affinity to a race, which is devoid of such content. — NOS4A2
On what basis are you separating out the national identity stuff from the racial, ethnic and ideological stuff? What makes national identity less suspicious and dangerous than those? — fdrake
But it is more a challenge to the Neo-Marxist, Postmodern destroyers of freedom that run this site. (Yes, Baden this means you.) Turns out they are all bourgeois lickspittles of capitalism after all. — unenlightened
Probably because countries around the world tend to be conceived of as nation states, not as race states. — baker
The question is: why is one good and the other bad? — SophistiCat
Is that really true though? White supremacists would certainly disagree and say that being "white", however we want to define that precisely, is very much associated with a specific history, culture and institutions. That's after all why they keep using the term "western culture" in place of "white supremacy".
We easily dismiss this mode of making sense of the world as a transparent veil for racism. But we don't seem to apply that same scrutiny to nationalism.
It's also interesting to note that one might argue that both the concept of the nation and the concept of human races in it's modern form developed around the same time frame - the period when Europe transformed from a collection of fragmented kingdoms into nation states, which then started to colonise the globe.
What do you think about the recent push to promote black-owned products and businesses? Does that blur the distinction at all? What do you make of a proud black man who strives to support his "people?" — BitconnectCarlos
"Make America Great again" - good.
"Make white people Great again" - bad.
Why is it that nationality talk and Nationalism in particular is so easily acceptable, and race talk and Racism is so difficult and unacceptable?
For the philosopher, it is obvious that they have the same status as social constructs - imposed arbitrary classifications of humanity by humanity.
For the historian, they are pretty much the same thing. From the National Socialists of Hitler, to the famous signs in the UK of my youth "No Blacks, No Irish, no Dogs", to the incident in New Orleans my attention was drawn to recently. And more or less every violent massacre in the world ever.
So why is Nationalism still tolerated and even lauded? Why is the British flag allowed to be be waved all over the place, but the Nazi flag not so much? (Feel free to substitute your own local good and bad flags here.) — unenlightened
The ideal is absolute non-discrimination based upon race, but if a group becomes oppressed, it makes sense to self promote to overcome that oppression. That is, if one side cheats and that side also controls the refereeing, I don't see how you can condemn the oppressed for not self-sacrificing by being the only ones to adhere to the non-discriminatory ideal. — Hanover
It's also interesting to note that one argue that both the concept of the nation and the concept of human races in it's modern form developed around the same time frame - the period when Europe transformed from a collection of fragmented kingdoms into nation states, which then started to colonise the globe. — Echarmion
Because "races" are notionally physical demarcations, racism involves an an instant process of stigmatization and potential dehumanization based on arbitrary and immutable characteristics in a way that nationalism doesn't. — Baden
Am I right in thinking that the major distinction you're drawing between national identity and race is that, ultimately, national identity is a contingent property of a person and race is a necessary one? — fdrake
I think that holds when hewing close to the categories as they're theorised, or on their own terms, but in terms of their observed function - precisely who counts as Aryan, white, black, depends on the political weather. The essentialist ontology of race is time varying in practice. — fdrake
In practice, of course, race, ethnicity, religion and nationality are often entangled in a messy way. — SophistiCat
What unites these identification categories is that belonging is, by and large, not up to you. It cannot be credited to or blamed on your character or your decisions. We are born into these categories, and changing them is difficult, if not impossible. — SophistiCat
What unites these identification categories is that belonging is, by and large, not up to you. — SophistiCat
But given all that, racism is still the deeper moral insult imo in part for the reasons I've outlined above. — Baden
For the historian, they are pretty much the same thing. From the National Socialists of Hitler, to the famous signs in the UK of my youth "No Blacks, No Irish, no Dogs", to the incident in New Orleans my attention was drawn to recently. — unenlightened
Like I said: nation states are the default, as such, they are neutral. Fretting about nationalism (insofar as it has to do with nation states) is like fretting that the sun rises in the East.Still not answering the question. Yes, countries are not races and nationalism is not the same as racism, but we knew that already. The question is: why is one good and the other bad?
You could say: "just because," and leave it at that, and that would be a legitimate answer. But then you have nothing more to say on the topic. If you think you do have something to say, then you need to tell us what it is that makes racism objectionable and nationalism unobjectionable - other than them not being the same, that is. — SophistiCat
.Why is it that nationality talk and Nationalism in particular is so easily acceptable, and race talk and Racism is so difficult and unacceptable? — unenlightened
By the way, the "nationalist" community in N.I. is composed of those who historically opposed British colonialism and oppression. Are they the moral equivalent of racists? No. Your analysis, at best, lacks nuance. — Baden
Belonging is never up to 'you', it's always a social matter. — unenlightened
One can be a thief by virtue of stealing. — SophistiCat
One can be a kind person by virtue of having a kind character. — SophistiCat
These are examples where being who you are is up to your decisions or your character. — SophistiCat
Is it easily acceptable?Why is it that nationality talk and Nationalism in particular is so easily acceptable, and race talk and Racism is so difficult and unacceptable? — unenlightened
Loving your country, culture and people doesn't mean you would have to hate other countries and their people and cultures. — ssu
Typically it becomes an issue when the nation state is formed. There are ample examples from history about this.Nationalism becomes a thing when theres dispute over territory and the territory matters to people. — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.