Most over-rated modern-day dogma

[grumbler]

Define nationalism.

I would argue that it is the belief that groups of people (defined variously by language, religion, folklore, or several of these attributes) share a common destiny, and so should work together to achieve it.  Generally it manifests itself as the desire to create a nation-state, as JR notes, but one can find examples (German nationalists in AH, for example) where it didn't.

[The Brain]

Define nationalism.

I would argue that it is the belief that groups of people (defined variously by language, religion, folklore, or several of these attributes) share a common destiny, and so should work together to achieve it.  Generally it manifests itself as the desire to create a nation-state, as JR notes, but one can find examples (German nationalists in AH, for example) where it didn't.

This definition is a lot closer to what I understand nationalism to mean than the Gellner definition.

In Sweden you can certainly see it at least as early as the 15th century.

[Razgovory]

sure, sometimes people take those isms beyond reasonableness also, It's easy to get caught up in ideals of any kind, and to put all your stock in them. Moderation in all things is my motto (that I try and fail to follow, but I try)

Ah, moderationism.  Apparently this is a real word.

[Josquius]

Disagree. Nationalism is a fringe movement, which is why parties like the BNP aren't in government - in fact, they aren't even in Parliament!

That's extreme nationalism.  Regular nationalism is just the idea of nationality as the primary identifier.
Most people these days just take it for granted that in the few hundred square miles around here is their country, their people, and over there be another country. So many people don't realise that this isn't the way things have always been and that not too long ago more important was the city you came from for instance, not whichever king was lord over it.

[Neil]

Nationalism.
In today's world its just silly.

It was silly in any world.

Wrong.

[Razgovory]

I think Nationalism is alive and well in Europe.  BNP isn't very strong, but the SNP does okay.

[Slargos]

Nationalism isn't dead yet, I think it's getting better.

[The Minsky Moment]

Define nationalism.

I would argue that it is the belief that groups of people (defined variously by language, religion, folklore, or several of these attributes) share a common destiny, and so should work together to achieve it.  Generally it manifests itself as the desire to create a nation-state, as JR notes, but one can find examples (German nationalists in AH, for example) where it didn't.

This definition is a lot closer to what I understand nationalism to mean than the Gellner definition.

But it is far too broad.  Under this definition you could e.g. talk about "Gothic nationalism" (based on common folklore) or "Roman nationalism" (based on common use of Latin) or "Catholic nationalism" (based on religion).  All these groups had some sort of belief in common destiny and common action.

[The Brain]

*shrug* And in my mind nationalists can be comfortable with ruling subject peoples. For instance I think that the British, French or German colonial empires were very much compatible with British, French or German nationalism.

[Martinus]

Hmmm, not sure I understand the question.

I think humans have a natural tendency to divide their world up into their tribe and the other tribe(s). I think these constructs are generally pretty artificial - if your question is do I believe that there exists some "natural" construct that exists outside what humans create, certainly not. But I suspect maybe that isn't really what you are asking....?

So all issues of identity are "artificial" in that they are made up by people?  I don't disagree with that, though I don't see the utility of the adjective "artificial" if it is all artificial.  If it was a throwaway word and not intended to convey any important distinction, then I don't have an issue at all.

Could we say they are "natural" to people who espouse them but become "artificial" to people who transcend them? They are a bit like Kohlberg's morality ladder steps - there is little doubt that higher steps are ethically and utilitarian-ly superior to the preceding ones, and people who are at a given level perceive it as natural and good - but people who are on a higher level see it as artificial and ultimately flawed.

Since morality is, in a sense, a constant progress in extending the boundaries of "us", the analogy to the Kohlberg system is pretty apt, imo.

[grumbler]

But it is far too broad.  Under this definition you could e.g. talk about "Gothic nationalism" (based on common folklore) or "Roman nationalism" (based on common use of Latin) or "Catholic nationalism" (based on religion).  All these groups had some sort of belief in common destiny and common action.

Circular reasoning.  If the Romans couldn't be nationalistic because nationalism by definition doesn't include the Romans, then, sure, the Romans weren't nationalistic.  But I think that the Romans were not nationalistic for reasons other than that we have decided to define nationalism as explicitly excluding them.

[citizen k]

The term "social justice" when plain ol' justice would suffice.

[The Brain]

The term "social justice" when plain ol' justice would suffice.

What's the dogma? That social justice is a kind of justice?

[Martinus]

Define nationalism.

I would argue that it is the belief that groups of people (defined variously by language, religion, folklore, or several of these attributes) share a common destiny, and so should work together to achieve it.  Generally it manifests itself as the desire to create a nation-state, as JR notes, but one can find examples (German nationalists in AH, for example) where it didn't.

I would also add that an element of the ideology of nationalism is that the interplay between nations is a zero-sum game. I think this is what essentially differentiates it from patriotism.

[MadImmortalMan]

The term "social justice" when plain ol' justice would suffice.

What's the dogma? That social justice is a kind of justice?

Yep