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

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.

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

I'm only talking about American identity here, but in any case I think it's helpful in a society to have a common set of values. When we get fractured off into our own racial or ethnic identities there can certainly be conflict between groups and that conflict can turn much, much more vicious without that backdrop of a broader identity that ties us all in.

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

This is true (speaking for myself).

Maybe nationalism is a manifestation of a society's ego. Is a fractured ego better than narcissism?

We're just accustomed to the fallout of excessive nationalism and have little experience with the absence of it, like late 19th Century Germany and Russia. Both fell apart in a bad way later on.

Probably because countries around the world tend to be conceived of as nation states, not as race states. — baker

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.

The question is: why is one good and the other bad? — SophistiCat

I don't think anyone is saying that nationalism is always good, only that it can be good. Racism is always bad and stupid. American nationalism can be associated with one's values which one can choose to an extent.

As an American, I can consider other US citizens either "good" or "bad" Americans and this isn't an inherently problematic practice. A fascist, for instance, is definitely not a good American. Nor is a 'burn it all down and start from year 0' anarchist. A good American is tolerant but strong.

I think a healthy form of nationalism or national identity can emerge from common values; an unhealthy form would be reflexively demonizing outsiders.

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.

I’m not sure how “western culture” can be construed as “white supremacy”. Europe, like Africa, Asia, North America, was never some melting-pot where everyone who had similar skin-tones carried a common culture into the future. The nations were often at war and sought to annihilate each other, even if by all outward appearances some of the soldiers looked alike.

Though it may have taken much time and bloodshed, “western culture” did much to overcome racism, slavery, discrimination, etc. as it did to spread it. The ability to criticize the past, learn from the mistakes and self-correct is one of the boons of being a part of it.

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. A nationalist can concede that someone like you of a different nation could be part of their nation but happens not to be, whereas a racist does not recognize you of a different race as "someone" in the way they recognize themself as such, so the question of inclusion doesn't even arise. So, sure there's the common denominator of the 'us v them' dynamic but that dynamic is not fully explanatory of the underlying phenomenon. Nationalists can express mutual, if grudging, respect. The other can be another like me. A racist can't do that. Racism transforms 'us v them' necessarily into 'us v (inferior) them' and with great efficiency. Not saying here that nationalists can't or don't sometimes view those of other countries in a similar way to how racists view other races, but there is no necessary overlap in the most morally pernicious form of prejudice there.

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

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.

"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

It is much easier to understand people killing each other when they look different. I remember when the British and the Irish were being quite violent and killing each other, and in other places, the same thing was happening, and wondering how in the world do all these people see each other was different? Protestants and Catholics killed each other, Christians and Muslims kill each other, Jews and Muslims kill each other, and Sunni and Shia kill each other. Packs of dogs and primate groups fight against each other to defend territory for their own pack or group. I think behaving as other animals is natural, and that it takes special effort to get us to go against our nature and accept "those people" as one of us.

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

Do you mean like today's war of the sexes? Not only have people of color become super sensitive to discrimination and past injustices, but women, in general, seem to be having the same experience as people of color opposing the oppression they experienced. We have learned to use the word "she" where we always used the word "he". On TV and in my community I see women everywhere and wonder where the men have gone, what jobs are they doing because they are not as visible as they once were?

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

You missed one of the most important divisions, the religious divisions. When everyone had many gods, it may have been easier to get along with people with different gods? But when we get down to one god and this god has favorites and is a war god, then we get people who fight for this god's "power and glory". We get really crazy notions believing this god wants what we want and we can take it from those people who do not know God but have a false god. The US has freedom of religion by law because Christians of different denominations were persecuting and killing each other. Today we just say those Christians who have a different interpretation of the Bible are not really Christians. :lol:

Our brains are far more limited than we want to believe, and we need to identify with small groups to combat the problem of being alone in the crowd and unsure of our identity, worth, and position. This is why we have so many churches. The smaller groups fulfill our need to belong to a small group. In the past, we had many fraternities and social groups that fulfilled this need.

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?

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.

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

I am not sure about that. Race boundaries aren't so clear-cut (which is why there is no true race science, only pseudo-science); ethnic boundaries - even less so. National identification, in theory, is much easier: either you are a citizen or you are not; either you are from here or you are not. There are, of course, edge cases, but they are fewer.

In practice, of course, race, ethnicity, religion and nationality are often entangled in a messy way. A minority race, ethnicity or religion can make you an outsider in your own country, even to the point that your loyalties are suspect. In extreme cases, e.g. Rohingya in Burma/Myanmar, you can be denied citizenship.

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. (And even if you succeed in nominally transitioning from one group to another, e.g. by immigrating, it is still a question of whether you will ever fully identify with your new group and be fully accepted by it.)

Well, first of all, there are different forms of nationalism, some of which are as morally undesirable as racism. What all forms of nationalism have in common though is self-subjugation (to varying degrees) to the "big" other on the basis of a quasi-familial identity. Country is mother/father; we are children and like good children must sacrifice our individual interests for the greater (national) good etc. The nation as supreme moral guardian in return imbues its flock with a sacred and distinct essence that places it above and outside other nations and their flocks. Though racism shares the idea of a distinct essence, its orientation is not self-subjugatory but subjugatory from the get-go. If we could distil the purely aggressive aspect of nationalism and give individuals ownership of it in an absolute sense, we'd have something akin to racism (on the latter point, note that a nationalist has to earn their salt as part of the nation [through self-subjugation], and those who do not are internal enemies that can be entirely alien regardless of their citizenship, whereas whiteness and inclusion in the race is a fait accompli from birth).

So, yes, while in practical terms things are not black and white (no pun intended!), racism is in essence more pernicious than nationalism in that as a category it's (theoretically):

1) hard (immutable from birth); and therefore 2) exclusionary (in an absolute sense); 3) necessarily subjugatory, with its victims being immediately identifiable (in theory).

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

That's part of it, but I agree with this too:

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

And I also agree with this:

In practice, of course, race, ethnicity, religion and nationality are often entangled in a messy way. — SophistiCat

but, as mentioned, I think racism is more aggressive, more absolutely exclusionary and necessarily subjugatory (there's no escaping the logic that the superior race should dominate the inferior one). That's not even to mention the inherent denial of full human diginity to the other at the most fundamental level.

Anyhow, to me the question isn't really why MAGA is more acceptable to us than the KKK. The fact that it is is just a social phenomenon. It's a lot easier to be a nationalist (now) than a racist; there's a million reasons for that and it may change. And even from a purely moral point of view, this is true:

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

But given all that, racism is still the deeper moral insult imo in part for the reasons I've outlined above.

What unites these identification categories is that belonging is, by and large, not up to you. — SophistiCat

Belonging is never up to 'you', it's always a social matter. 'We, the empowered' make the decision to include or exclude you.

We have seen of late that one can be stripped of one's nationality at the whim of the government. As I have mentioned elsewhere, if Hitler says you are a Jew, there will be no argument, no contradiction available by recourse to mere fact. And of course the same goes for race; the one drop rule makes it nothing to do with skin colour or any kind of appearance, and everything to do with social construction.

Here's an iconoclasm: there's nothing personal about identity.

I invite everyone to join the unenlightened ones by allowing that realisation
to bite their bums into non-existence.

But given all that, racism is still the deeper moral insult imo in part for the reasons I've outlined above. — Baden

I think your apologetics are weak, and do not answer the counter-examples in the op.

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

In practice the Irish in Britain, and the Italians in America have suffered exactly the same moral insult - if you want to call lynching a moral insult.

Patriotism is openly lauded on this thread as a 'good thing'. But as I have already noted, it unifies by dividing, and actually consists of deliberate planned unfair practices. Buying local is an environmental good, but buying national is operating an informal cartel. One cannot promote one group without demoting another. One cannot have One ought not have, and it is immoral to have, a global economy run by cartels.

Speaking of which, have y'all noticed how the Western economies have been supported undermined by the Chinese purchase of government debt. This keeps consumption high because the currency is strong, and also makes Chinese goods cheaper, undermining Western manufacturing. Perhaps when y'all start to notice that you are on the losing end of patriotism, you might be more inclined to see it as problematic.

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

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.

Well, first of all, there are different forms of nationalism, some of which are as morally undesirable as racism. — Baden

And some aren't, e.g. the "nationalist" community in N.Ireland is composed of those who have historically opposed British colonialism and oppression. Are they the moral equivalent of racists? Those who marched for their civil rights and were mown down by the British army for doing so? No. Your analysis, at best, lacks nuance.

(Also, I'd like to hear your take on the Scottish and Welsh nationalists.)

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

.

1) Ideology... Saying, "Yay, USA!!" is really supporting the ideology of the country's (supposed) ideals. Equality under the law, freedoms of speech/assembly/press, multiculturalism (on the left), etc.

2) Cultural identity. Race talk is purely identity through biology. Nationalism is identity with a whole range of cultural factors or set of institutions.

What I find funny, is how nations form. In Europe, it was layers and layers of tribes taking over tribes. Do Germans "really" belong in Germany? Who did their hordes of Germanic tribes steal from? Britain is a mix of celts, anglo-saxon-jute-specific Germanic tribes, viking invadors and local neolithic people that hated all the newcomers probably :).

Then you have South America, US, Australia, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, etc. etc.. What "nation" did they form? Um, look at the history.. Essentially all colonized for the glory of gold. When they couldn't find that, the systematic destruction of the inhabitants, and then the systematic enslavement of other inhabitants to start plantations, or simply the wiping out of natives, bringing families from the home country and starting a new settlement, as if no one lived there. That's your "nation".

So tell me this, who the fuck deserves to live anywhere and call it "their" nation? Any UN definitions are a joke and ad hoc made up too.. Not advocating that or might makes right.

I like how all these rights and injustices are only "fixed" after the fact. It is only once a nation already has their institutions going for a long time, and the injustices are in the rear view mirror that it can be discussed. Their country is legitimate because the imperial wars happened in the past. Thus its justified. All of it is bullshit.

But then isn't it even imperialistic to think of things in terms of "injustices"? That's a very Western idea too. There can be any number of justifications for why one tribe feels that a certain "place" is theirs. Most people didn't just stay in one place and call foul to the aggressors for being "imperialistic". Again, that is Western ideas probably developing around 18th century.

Prior to the Americas/colonizations of 16th century, empires formed from smaller tribes coalescing and forming larger unions.. sometimes breaking apart and being taken over by other tribes who formed their own unions, etc. Colonization's model was different in terms of the tribes already had a sense of union prior to the invasion of other empires and tribes that were not as united. If they were united (Aztec/Incas) they didn't have the technology to withstand, so really it's the asymmetry and the amount of unification already in place in Europe that makes the difference in these cases.

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

A drunk driver who kills is not a murderer, but that doesn't make drunk driving acceptable. Some instances of nationalism are much less damaging than others, and an impotent yearning for a non-existent nation is likely to be a less damaging one. Likewise the racism of a tramp is of little consequence, but the racism of a high court judge is very harmful. Let's nuancify all round and measure whose identity is more and less divisive than another's. But I haven't done it much thus far, because I haven't established the first principle, that identities are always divisive and to that extent violent both psychologically and socially.

Perhaps we cannot avoid identification completely, perhaps we cannot even avoid the more toxic forms; thus conflict sociology, in which N.I. is the paradigm case where the alignment of identities leads to social conflict - whereas unaligned identities leads to internalised psychological conflict and social peace. To explain a little: the alignment in N.I. is such that political loyalty is strongly correlated with religion, and with class, and with place of residence, and place of work. If the fault-lines of these various identities were not aligned, most people would find themselves united on some issues and opposed on others, and then external conflict would nearly always be damaging to their own cause on another issue. Social peace and compromise would result.

So... Irish nationalists = drunks and tramps? Correction, we all are. :lol:

I haven't intended to make a positive case for nationalism, only to point to some moral distinctions I see. Which is why I'd happily shake Nicola Sturgeon's hand, whereas even a tramp racist wouldn't get the time of day from me.

Having said that, your line concerning identities I am largely onboard with even though I don't see a realistic way out of that any more than I do of violence itself.

Belonging is never up to 'you', it's always a social matter. — unenlightened

Only if we are talking about social belonging, and even then it's true only of some groups, some of the time, but not all groups all of the time.

But I was talking about belonging to a category, not necessarily a social one. One can be a thief by virtue of stealing. One can be a kind person by virtue of having a kind character. (Now, some will argue that what character you have is not really up to you, but that's a different argument that I won't address here.) These are examples where being who you are is up to your decisions or your character. Appraising people by placing them in such categories is fairly uncontroversial. To complete the pattern, contrast that with categories that have little or no dependence on one's decisions or character, and you will find most of the things that you and I hold as unsuitable for judging a person's worth in that list: race, ethnicity, gender, age, health, disability, sexual orientation - and yes, nationality.

One can be a thief by virtue of stealing. — SophistiCat

Well strictly, one can only steal something if 'we' agree it belongs to someone else. 'We' have very detailed rules about this.

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

Sure. But Identity is not simply being the person you are, though, it is making the identification of who you are. "I am one of the kind ones, not one of the unkind ones" is the speech act of claiming the identity of kind person. "Sophisticat is one of the kind ones." is the speech act of assigning the kind person identity. This is what I mean by saying it is always social. Identity is always reflexive and relational; always a status claimed and/or assigned, and contested and/or uncontested. That I am 5ft. 10ins. is a fact about me and an identity I have previously claimed, and it has been assigned me by the passport authority. I would be the same height even if no measurement had ever been made, but I would have no height identity.

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

Is it easily acceptable?

It's actually telling that people who are critical to the idea of the nation (or nation state) being this common collective entity for us and when referring to people who uphold their country and it's people, talk about nationalism and nationalists and avoid the term patriotism. And of course the better term for the nationalism they refer to would be classic chauvinism or jingoism.

Loving your country, culture and people doesn't mean you would have to hate other countries and their people and cultures. Yet likely all those who do hate say that they are just patriots. And that's the problem.

Loving your country, culture and people doesn't mean you would have to hate other countries and their people and cultures. — ssu

It doesn't of course. No more does loving a white woman prevent one from loving a black woman. But if you will consider what is being said about identification as distinct from being and doing, and if you will take a look at the history of nations and their conflicts, that will save me from repeating myself, and allow us a sensible discussion.

19th Century nationalism was about the nation state, that people sharing a common language, culture and perhaps religion would be the ideal state. When you still had Empires around with their inherent problems, it was quite sensible. Race as the dividing factor actually was far too broad in Europe, just look at for example the Nordic countries. I haven't heard of read from the Swedes (who were quite racist back then) referring to Norwegians being of a different race.

Race has had a far bigger importance in the Americas.

Nationalism becomes a thing when theres dispute over territory and the territory matters to people.

Nationalism becomes a thing when theres dispute over territory and the territory matters to people. — schopenhauer1

Typically it becomes an issue when the nation state is formed. There are ample examples from history about this.

Then one basically has to create a national identity. This is the time when the elite, be it political, economic or cultural, typically feel that nationalism is important. If the country has huge problems, poor economy, severe wealth inequality, widespread unemployment, lack of social cohesion, then that nationalism can morph into something extremely ugly. Once the identity of the nation state is widespread among the people, the idea falls into the category of things taken for granted and viewed only negatively.

Far too many academic people think that as a national identity is created/invented, this means that it is totally artificial and easily replaceable and malleable. I don't think this is the case: the collective history of a group of people isn't something artificial and fabricated by an elite.

And of course, one has to remember what happens when people do not feel they have a common identity or the "people" ought not to have an independent "homeland": then one result is that the group assimilates to another and the culture dies.