Reddit mentions: The best nationalism books

I'm familiar with this popular understanding of what nationalism is but I'm saying it doesn't really line up with scholarship on the ideology and it's history. Read Nationalism by Anthony D. Smith or Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson in order to get a basic introduction to the subject as they're usually among the standard college textbooks used in relevant courses. I've said this elsewhere in the thread but nationalism at it's most base level is a belief in the existence of nations, nation states and the concept of self-determination. A nation is an amorphous political concept that can be based on a large number of things from a perception of shared ethnicity to shared geography to shared history. The basis for the creation of a nation is known as national identity. Practically every country in the 21st century , professes a national identity and when a country does this it is known as a nation state (the wikipedia article for this concept is fairly narrow as it focuses on states that tie national identity to ethnicity and all but ignores civic nationalism and to some extent left wing nationalism )

The United States is a nation state as, like most every other modern country, it has a national identity. The key however is in defining what American national identity is. Trump and many of his followers likely understand American national identity to be rooted in whiteness and Christianity while most other Americans understand American national identity as being rooted in a form of civic (not ethnic) nationalism which embodies a shared sense of republican (not the political party but the system of government) ideals and essential freedoms. This is bolstered by a shared national culture that manifests itself in things like Thanksgiving which is based on and celebrates a national myth and was established with the express purpose of fostering a common national culture. Celebrating Thanksgiving is literally participation in American national identity and therefore an expression of American nationalism.

Nationalism is further reinforced by national symbols for example flags and national anthems. The concept of every nation (not only nation-states but stateless nations like the Ainu as well) having a flag is something something that emerged concurrently with the notion of nationalism because the newly emerging nations needed symbols to tie their identities to. Thus displaying any kind of flag associated with a nation (state or otherwise) is a display of nationalist sentiment.

With that out of the way let's go back to the Olympics. I stated that the modern Olympic games themselves were founded upon nationalism and the belief that athletic competition offered a healthy outlet for duking out national rivalries as an alternative to conflict. That is why the Olympics themselves are an orgy of national symbolism from the Parade of Nations, the fact that athletes represent their nations at all instead of themselves, the playing of national anthems at medal ceremonies, etc. etc. With all that in mind rooting for your nation's athletes at the Olympics is an expression of nationalist sentiment. But don't take my word for it! Here's a couple of articles I was able to find on the subject after a two second Google search since I don't feel like digging up old academic articles. Hell, here's the perspective of a Communist (i.e. someone who actually rejects nationalism since they believe in the dismantling of all states and national identities).

Nationalism in and of itself has absolutely nothing to do with blind loyalty to a particular government although chauvinistic nationalism does indeed manifest itself that way. In fact nationalism isn't contingent on the existence of a nation-state or government and doesn't even necessarily advocate for one. Just look at the history of Black nationalism in the USA of which only a few strands (known as Black Separatism) advocated the creation of an African American state.

As far as patriotism goes it's a tricky question but while not every display of patriotism is nationalism the vast majority are as they acknowledge the existence of or loyalty to a nation or nation-state and more often than not incorporate national symbols such as flags. Remember that a nation is not solely the government but the amorphous political body of individuals who share some common identity so when professing to "love a nation" someone could just as easily be talking about the people as opposed to the government.

I agree that a universal human characteristic is to operate in groups, and therefore to regulate group membership. In general, before the modern period, group identity was smaller and more locally based. Religion was one way for people to think of themselves as belonging to the same imagined community as distant, unknowable people, but local identities and loyalties would have been more important.

One of the really important developments in making possible nations is printing and the rise of newspapers and other print media. For one thing, these standardize language to a certain extent, allowing people who once would have had mutually unintelligible dialects to communicate with a common grapholect. More generally, it puts into contact distant people, and makes it possible to imagine a "we" that encompasses people and places that you will never know, never see. Once you can begin to image that kind of "we," it is possible to begin constructing a history of that we, an origin story, a set of characteristics which that we is said to share, and a "they" who are not "we"--perhaps even precisely the opposite of "we." That, then, is how modern nations get made, in a nutshell.

Check out Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities. It's a really influential book, because one of the most important trends in historiography in the last few decades is the recognition that nations are not timeless, ahistorical, or natural, and the subsequent historical investigation of the creation of idea of the nation. (And amazon.com claims you can get a copy for a penny. Totally worth it.)

Edit: I'm sure an ancient historian or two will point out that Roman identity was quite extensive geographically, and one could likely make some interesting comparisons between Roman identity and modern national identity. The account I've given is largely one that takes places in modern Europe. It will be interesting to see how scholars of the ancient world or other parts of the world critique this--what we might call--model of nationalism.

> How is the Republican Party still this cucked even after Trump won in 2016?
>
> Trump won because he realized the Democrats and the media were always going to call the Republicans racist sexist bigot homophobe Nazis, and he told them to go fuck themselves.

Do you ever watch Michael Malice?

Malice tells a great story about the moment that he knew that Trump would win. Basically he watched Trump brag about his dick on TV, and nobody cared. At that moment, he realized the rules had changed.

"In this current environment right now, we have a bunch of candidates who are languishing at 2% and 3% in terms of popularity, and you have a person like Donald Trump coming out of nowhere and he's number two in the Republican field when he's not even really a Republican. It's because this guy knows how to weild popular culture. The reason why Sarah Palin was so popular for such a long period of time, and why the left has attacked her so mercilessly -- and even those on the right have attacked her so mercilessly, is because she understands popular culture, and she weilds it well, and many in the Beltway, including conservatives, are threatened by her.

The person who knows how to play the media, who knows how to talk over the media, that knows how to weild the media, is the one who's going to win. Barack Obama understood that perfectly well in 2008; that's how come he won."

> I'm familiar with this popular understanding of what nationalism is but I'm saying it doesn't really line up with scholarship on the ideology and it's history. Read Nationalism by Anthony D. Smith or Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson in order to get a basic introduction to the subject as they're usually among the standard college textbooks used in relevant courses. I've said this elsewhere in the thread but nationalism at it's most base level is a belief in the existence of nations, nation states and the concept of self-determination. A nation is an amorphous political concept that can be based on a large number of things from a perception of shared ethnicity to shared geography to shared history. The basis for the creation of a nation is known as national identity. Practically every country in the 21st century , professes a national identity and when a country does this it is known as a nation state (the wikipedia article for this concept is fairly narrow as it focuses on states that tie national identity to ethnicity and all but ignores civic nationalism and to some extent left wing nationalism )

None of this is about how the word is used in a socio-political sense though. And there is a very good argument that the popular view is the current correct view of the word's meaning.

> The United States is a nation state as...

I agree with most of your 2nd paragraph, but I would argue that for most people it's an expression of American Patriotism.

> Nationalism is further reinforced by national symbols ... ...Thus displaying any kind of flag associated with a nation (state or otherwise) is a display of nationalist sentiment.

Or patriotic sentiment.

> With that out of the way let's go back to the Olympics. I stated that the modern Olympic games themselves were founded upon nationalism and the belief that athletic competition offered a healthy outlet for duking out national rivalries as an alternative to conflict.

Agree.

> hat is why the Olympics themselves are an orgy of national symbolism from the Parade of Nations, the fact that athletes represent their nations at all instead of themselves, the playing of national anthems at medal ceremonies, etc. etc.

Agree

> With all that in mind rooting for your nation's athletes at the Olympics is an expression of nationalist sentiment.

Disagree. Most people who participate in and watch the Olympics are more than ready to acknowledge when their country isn't the best at something, and when other countries do well. That's Patriotism when they root for their team under those circumstances.

> Here's a couple of articles I was able to find on the subject after a two second Google search since I don't feel like digging up old academic articles. Hell, here's the perspective of a Communist (i.e. someone who actually rejects nationalism since they believe in the dismantling of all states and national identities).

All three are opinion pieces. The Vox one is actually talking about patriotism, but has fallen into the Nationalism/patriotism 'synonym trap'. Communist countries officially reject nationalism, but in practice are just as nationalistic as every other country.

> Nationalism in and of itself has absolutely nothing to do with blind loyalty to a particular government although chauvinistic nationalism does indeed manifest itself that way.

Not completely blind, but it does encourage unhealthy behaviors towards others. That behavior isn't implied in patriotism.

> In fact nationalism isn't contingent on the existence of a nation-state

Correct. Post WWI there was a lot of nationalism from ethnic and cultural groups that hadn't had their own country in centuries. However, gaining a country was their goal. A good example actually is post-colonial Africa.

> government and doesn't even necessarily advocate for one.

Actually, they always do eventually.

> Just look at the history of Black nationalism in the USA of which only a few strands (known as Black Separatism) advocated the creation of an African American state.

One would argue that the factions not advocating for separate statehood were actually patriots.

​

It's reassuring to me that you are out there. Please dear god do your best to show your friends the truth. I didn't stand up for what I believed in when I was your age and fell into the bitter Marxist ideology and it set my career back years (Im 31 now).

If you aren't aware of Dennis Prager yet, please check out his book Still the Best Hope. Also check out Andrew Breitbart's book Righteous Indignation. They are so important.

And since you also seem to be interested in conspiracy, make sure you know all about WILLIAM COOPER! He wrote the conspiracy bible BEHOLD A PALE HORSE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdPhOnfwfXc&t=160s

Fik en pæn skjorte

Lidt udstyr til mine Philips Hue lamper.

En fleecetrøje og merinould t-shirt(skal trekke i Canada+Alaska næste år)

Parfumer(køber aldrig selv, får en til jul jeg bruger i løbet af året)

4 bøger:

• Who are We? Af Samuel P. Huntington: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0684866692?colid=2MGWIKBLRG8S7&coliid=I31PUN8MJAVUP5&ref_=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl
  
  
• The Dark Net: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dark-Net-Jamie-Bartlett/dp/0099592029/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1451066125&sr=1-1&keywords=dark+net
  
  
• Way of Forgetting, Ways of Remembering: Japan in the Modern World - http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1595589376?colid=2MGWIKBLRG8S7&coliid=I3HCLQA7JKJVYT&ref_=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl
  
  
• Tambora: The Eruption That Changed the World - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tambora-Eruption-That-Changed-World/dp/0691168628/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1451066145&sr=1-1&keywords=tambora
  
  
  
  Den sidste bog måtte jeg have efter at have læst lidt om Tambora:
  
  >An explosive eruption like Tambora releases huge amount of energy. A rough estimate for the 1815 event is ~1.4 x 1020 joules of energy were released across the few days of eruption. One ton of TNT releases ~4.2 x 109 joules, so this eruption was 33 billion tons of TNT. That’s 2.2 million Little Boys (the first atomic bomb). The US uses about 1.17 x 1020 joules of power each year (at least in 2007), so Tambora, in the span of a few days, released about the same amount of energy as the consumption of the entire United States in one year (or ~ 1/4 of the entire world’s annual energy consumption!) If you want to compare it to other geologic events, the 2004 Indonesian earthquake that generated the Boxing Day tsunami releases ~110 petajoules of energy (1015 joules). That still leaves Tambora ~1200 times more powerful than that M9.3 earthquake.
  
  http://www.wired.com/2015/04/tambora-1815-just-big-eruption/

OK, I'm gonna go full Murica' here so be warned.


There's many different forms of nationalism. The ones that are being referred to in relation to this conversation is civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism.


The US developed to adopt a form known as civic nationalism (at least so today in modern times) where it is simply the love of your country. It is grounded on the principle of a union of many different people. We are a very young country and we're a "new" group of people called Americans. We don't have the same millenniums of history that much of the rest of the world have. All we really have are each other and a symbol to stand behind that binds us together. So while Europeans are bound by ethnicity - a single place, a single culture, a single identity, a single group of people; we are who are from many ethnicities and places all around the world are bound by the idea of multiculturalism. There is no overwhelming single major ethnicity in America and that flag represent the many people from all all over the world that now inhabits the U.S. This is a nation of immigrants - there are only a select few that can truly call themselves non-immigrant and those are of course the natives that had been here long before European settlers arrived. So what do you do when you have all these different people from all walks of life in a single place? What can you do so that there won't conflict between us due to our differences? You give them something to stand behind - symbol of some sorts, and that is the Star Spangled Banner.


Civic nationalism (or American Nationalism as you referred to it in your question) doesn't carry the same amount of potential danger of that ethnic nationalism has. Europeans have always been embroiled in ethnic nationalism and in many cases, still are today and yes this has cause two world wars that killed tens of millions of people. As we learned from history some of the underlying causes was sense of superiority can cause territorial expansion, subjugation of "inferior groups of people" (Imperial Japan) or even flat out genocide (Nazi Germany). That is why when Europeans look at us, they feel creeped out and uncomfortable because they had a bad history of nationalism, while most of us on the other hand, don't really quite understand nationalism like they do. To them we are just simply indoctrinating little kids into fascism. Or that we're committing idolatry, as in we are worshiping some sort of an idol. And you kinda have to understand where they're coming from because the reasons why they feel that way towards us are legitimate because ... Well yeah, ethnic nationalism has indeed lead to some pretty horrible events.


That being said, civic nationalism too does carry it's own dangers as well, examples of which includes our awful treatment of the native Americans or perhaps further away from home like in the Philippines. It is especially dangerous when someone interprets it the wrong way as well because it can easily become fascism instead. Also, that's not to say that America doesn't have a portion of our population who are also embroiled in ethnic nationalism as well and have certain racist viewpoints. And of course, yes, we sure we do brag about how great we are with a smug sense of superiority quite often.


Regardless, the pledge of allegiance is a way to instill a sense of patriotism and cohesion among Americans because it's not meant to divide but to unite everyone within standing republic, a single nation that is indivisible that believes in the principles of liberty and justice for all.


Most people stopped reciting the pledge by the time they're a high school freshman anyways, and most of the hate are by people who aren't necessarily against the pledge, but wants the "under god" part removed as it doesn't really reflect the multiculturalism of America and that it's simply something that is left over from the cold war. Those who wants to do away with it completely are the same ones that think similarly to those like the Europeans who compare it to the Nazi salute (which I don't blame them because it does seem like so depending on the perspective).


My personal (and bias) perspective of this issue as an immigrant to this country is that... yes, it did integrate me into the American society. It helped me assimilated into a place foreign to me and eased me into my new home. So I guess you can say it was indoctrination, but i also would say that it's not necessarily a bad thing either. It worked as it intended to as it was meant to instill as sense of patriotism. So long as it remains to be the "right kind" of civic nationalism that we have right now, I don't see much harm in it at all. Once it becomes a "we are superior to these people and they should all die" mentality, then that's when you raise the red flags. However, I don't see that happening at all during this day and age.

edit: I highly suggest Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism by Michael Ignatieff, I read it a while back at my campus library and the source for the info above. Or if you're not too big into reading then here's a wiki overview

Dogmas & Dreams gives a great handle of all the different political ideologies by all the greats. (From Liberalism and Conservatism (in the classic and modern senses) to Fascism to Environmentalism, etc etc etc)

http://www.amazon.com/Dogmas-Dreams-Reader-Political-Ideologies/dp/1568029985

Edit to mention: these are original sources. Instead of reading someone's interpretation of Locke or Marx, you are reading the actual words of Locke and Marx. There is a bit at the beginning of each section to set things up though. And I believe there's a supplement text for further understanding if you'd like.

But that's just theory. Really depends on what aspect of Poli Sci you want to learn more about. It's a good deal more specialized than you may think.

B.R. Myers (author of this book and this book) would argue that North Korea is much closer to being a fascist state than a communist one. It successfully co-opted communist imagery and rhetoric, but Juche is a sham ideology devoid of content, and references to Marxism-Leninism are now more or less absent from North Korean rhetoric and founding documents. Juche exists to cover up the country's right-wing nature, including veneration of a "parent" leader who is believed to have supernatural powers (Myers would argue this is directly borrowed from fascist imperial Japan), ethnocentrism (the reverence of the Korean people as morally pure but needing a strong leader to protect them), erratic, belligerent military posturing aimed at projecting an image of strength to their citizens, and so on. The fascist state has survived, it seems, by convincing the world that it is not fascist at all.

I would be interested to know from other North Korea experts whether Myers' thesis is generally accepted.

In terms of preexisting islands, there are plenty of places which wouldn't mind selling the land to you (in the same way you could buy a small island in, say, the Great Lakes)...but giving up sovereignty would be another matter entirely. And in the history of "micronations", even if you were able to manage that, you very likely wouldn't be afforded the same protections other nations have if and when the former owners decide for whatever reason to renege on the deal and take the land back by force. In terms of man-made islands, the UN passed a resolution a few decades ago to the effect that any landmass, natural or man-made, which has not already claimed by a recognized sovereign nation, and is in international waters, would automatically default to the jurisdiction of the nearest sovereign country. Since the concept I linked to above wouldn't technically be a LANDmass, the people behind it reasoned they'd be exempt from said resolution. Here's a couple of related books, if you're interested:
http://www.amazon.com/Micronations-General-Reference-John-Ryan/dp/1741047307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254563140&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/How-Start-Your-Own-Country/dp/1581605242/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254563185&sr=1-1

Wow. there's a lot to unpack there. Lots of anger. You know what'd be awesome? Links. As is your post looks like a psycho rant on a post that's been posted 3 times.

This is how you do it:
People call Trump Hitler (your words, not mine, I'd just call him Fascist). Because he marginalizes free press. He also lies a lot and calls himself a nationalist. There's also articles and books written on this (and even updated!).

While it's certainly a smear (Trump is just almost a fascist). It still holds a lot more validity than this rant.

One thing that you didn't mention that I think is crucially important is that the North Sea oil fields did not start to become heavily exploited (and provide large streams of the revenue to the British government) until the 1980's, due to the major increases in price as a result of the oil embargos and advances in extractive technology.

This is important because the perception in places such as the previously mentioned North and Scotland is that Thatcher's government squandered the windfall of the North Sea by using the revenue on middle class tax cuts and current spending (notably privatization of industries and busting of the unions) rather than social spending or, more critically, investing some of it into an oil fund. The price of oil hit reached historic highs in the early 1980's, and the window of opportunity for establishing a significant fund was largely lost by the time Thatcher left office.

This is still important today, as many Scots especially see the same paradigm reflected in the government of the UK today (Scottish wealth being spent by the government in London in a manner that is politically unpopular in Scotland). The Scottish government even published a study on what a oil fund established using North Sea revenues would have looked like.

Sources:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/07/28112701/0

http://www.versobooks.com/books/1613-never-let-a-serious-crisis-go-to-waste

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/thatcher-and-north-sea-oil-%E2%80%93-failure-invest-britain%E2%80%99s-future

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scotlands-Choices-Referendum-Happens-Afterwards/dp/0748669876

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/north-sea-oil-money-uk-norwegians-fund

Try one of Bobbio's books, Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. I think his definition is pretty universal in nature, since it doesn't focus on the specific political positions themselves, but how those positions are shaped by what you think society should be or strive for (such as "being in favor of hierarchization").

Please start your education early with the books that they will never introduce you to!! Here's a good start:

• Rich Dad, Poor Dad
  
• The Art of the Deal
  
• Still the Best Hope
  
• Righteous Indignation
  
  With this knowledge, no liberal will be able to fuck with you!

https://www.amazon.com/Left-Right-Significance-Political-Distinction/dp/0226062465

Em resumo: esquerda valoriza igualdade acima da liberdade; direita a liberdade acima da igualdade.

Direita aceita a hierarquia como natural e inevitável. Esquerda aceita a restrição imposta pela sociedade como natural e inevitável.

Mas essa definição dele tem seus críticos, naturalmente.

Hmm. You might want to start with Eric Hoffer's The True Believer (1951), on fanaticism and mass movements. It's short and accessible.

After that, maybe a book on the emotional power of nationalism -- William Pfaff, The Wrath of Nations (1993).

Finally, a book that just came out: Pankaj Mishra, The Age of Anger.

Almost all of them in Catalan, very few in Spanish (why do so many people in reddit use this silly "Castilian" name?) or English.

• La rebelión catalana, by Antonio Baños.
  
• Cup, by David Fernández, about the political party.
  
• What's up with Catalonia, by Liz Castro.
  
• Many grains of sand, by Liz Castro.
  
• La hora del adiós, by Xavier Sala i Martí.

Where Zimbabwe is concerned might be a bit harder. Few in depth studies have been done into the conflict, but, this book is a relatively easy to read primer on the subject. It is hard to find though. Note that it is also pretty dated but does cover all of the basics with the groups who were fighting against the white-led Rhodesian government.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0006DGUMS/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I1X1974R8ZNIDJ&colid=32KPXKTREJ27Q

Actually it was:

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, November 4, 2019

R.R. Reno, Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism and the Future of the West, Gateway Editions, 2019, 208 pp., $23.33 (Hardcover), $12.99 (Kindle)

Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism, and the Future of the West is typical of many conservative books. It analyzes the disease, but is afraid of the cure.

This book will answer pretty much all of your question.

Better ask Jonas Nilsson that.

https://www.amazon.com/Anarcho-Fascism-Nature-Reborn-Jonas-Nilsson-ebook/dp/B075LWK4ZV

If you want arguments in English for Québec independance, I suggest this blog: http://whyquebecneedsindependence.blogspot.ca/

Also, if you can find this book at your Library written by Jacques Parizeau in 2010, you will have the best arguing in favor of Québec independance: https://www.amazon.ca/Independent-Quebec-Past-Present-Future/dp/0981240569/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1468344101&sr=8-8&keywords=jacques+Parizeau

YES to all of this! Another fascinating read is Alan O'Day's Irish Face of English Nationalism which may be hard to come by but many libraries will have it.

Let's see

Googles Palaestra Media

From their website, a guy named Jonas Nilsson seems to be in charge. Let's Google him and- oh, yeah. Would you look at that?

Don't forget the book: http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1581605242

an exquisite meme

Ive gotta get out of here

Malice is kicking off his book tour w/ this appearance. Book drops tomorrow.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Right-Journey-American-Politics/dp/1250154669

I believe he mentioned that he'll have guest hosts on Night Shade this week (Dave Style, JoNo, Geno, Bill)

He's says it often in 2019. He just released a book on the New Right.

>But the OP's point is that it isn't anymore.

I was responding to your point that the rightmost wing is persuing changes towards the past, as I don't see evidence of that.

I've read a good chapter in this book which goes into the differences between civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism.

I list Titoists as the exceptional tankies due to lack of major food shortage, and the fact that he was a worker for most of his "career".

E por isso que eu gosto que o pessoal se exponha tentando falar de politica.
Os termos direita(right-wing) e esquerda(left-wing) são conhecidos mundialmente, muitos livros foram escritos no tema em todo lugar, durante anos. E Hitler é da direita. Mas o cara pode se encolher no cantinho dele, ignorar o mundo, e achar que o MEC ta conspirando.
Vai ler alguma coisa que presta, vai

WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE, you will destroy any Left-cuck argument he ever makes to you.

Wait, your saying it's americas fault these other countries don't have more resources? It couldn't be their oppressive governments or something within their own doing? It's the evil Americans came and sucked up all there resources. America has done more good for the world than any other nation ever. Have we had mistakes sure but the good outweighs the bad. If you disagree tell me one country that has done more good? You need to read this book: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0061985139/ref=aw_wl_ov_dp_1_3?colid=2YZ3KS2EME2SN&coliid=I3NQCXTYGP23TC

So sick of us blaming America for the problems in the world. Blaming America is the ultimate cop out.