Is all nationalism evil/racism?

In this thread about Israeli settlements kea made the following statement:

whilst positing the POV that Zionism is racism. As a read of that thread and my responses would show, I strongly disagree with that assessment and POV. But given the contemporaneous threads about White nationalism (I do not link mainly because I’ve stayed out of them myself) I wonder if such a position deserves a broader discussion.

Nationalism can be racist. (I will only imagine how the White nationalists illustrate that point in those threads that I have avoided … and hope that I don’t have to leave the room here.) Nationalism certainly posits that particular people are “of us” and that others are, well, “other”. And that “we” need to look out for “our” own interests. (I become mindful of Vonnegut’s granfaloons.) But I do not believe that it is intrinsicall evil or racist. I believe instead that it is an unavoidable part of our human condition.

Is it “an infantile disease” as suggested by Einstein? Certainly it is as endemic as was measles back in the day. What thinks you?

I agree that it’s an integral part of the human condition, and that the whole “us vs. them” mentality goes all the way down to the family level, so I don’t think you’ll ever be able to get rid of it.

But what you can get rid of, or at least work on, is the “Those others are evil” mentality, as opposed to the simple, “Those others are different”.

Well, first you have to define nationalism, which means first you have to define who comprises your nation, whcih means you have to define what your nation is.

I took an entire grad seminar on this topic…check out Benedict Anderson’s *Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. * Lots of good food for thought there.

Probably not but it is easily abused. Nationalism is a sort of “super tribalism” or clan loyalty. I suspect it is there because those of us who grouped together and were leery of strangers way back when were more successful in keeping others out of our hunting grounds and had a better survival rate by far than the individualists.

I agree with Eva Luna - it all depends on your definition of “nationalism”.

I tend to take the view of the late Ernest Gellner, whose Nations and Nationalism is one of the key texts in the academic study of nationalism. To horrendously oversimplify his definition, it is that a nation is a (large) group of people who think they’re a nation, and that nationalism is simply the belief that the nation and the state should be coterminous.

Now, I do not see how there is anything intrinsically evil or racist about nationalism viewed in this light. There may be people who also add imperialism or xenophobia to their brand of nationalism - often referred to as “hypernationalism” - but defining the entire philosophy by those views is like defining Christianity by the Phelps/ Falwell fringe.

Good Nationalism: Let’s build up our country and defend it from attackers and improve the lives of our citizens.

Bad Nationalism: Let’s start looking at our population and decide who is and is not a “real” citizen.

So no one will argue that nationalism is evil. How about the means “by which we decide who our nation is”?

How about French Canadian separtists? The Chechneyans?

Either acceptable nationalism?

I find Bryan’s distinction to be insufficient. All nation-groups decide who and who isn’t a member. What crosses the line?

When not being a member is viewed as a de facto criminal offense.

“Nationalism” is a pretty neutral concept. I liken it to “pride”. Some pride can keep you from looking like a slob, but too much pride makes you act like an idiot. It’s entirely a matter of degree.

The Quebec seperatists (with whom I have some experience) do not use violence as a casual instrument of policy, but in fact are trying to find some legal framework (some say loophole) that would allow them to declare Quebec independent. They’re fairly tolerable and I (a staunch federalist) do not live in fear of them. I’d be hard-pressed to call them evil.

I always understood nationalism to mean the idea that one’s nation is superior to all others, and wanting to stamp out all elements from other nations in your nation.

The idea that “Britannia rules the waves”, “Deutschland uber alles!” etc, would be nationalism.

It isn’t a “bad” thing, per se, but it’s usually pretty narrow-minded.

I posit that nationalism even in its most benevolent forms is at least at risk of being evil. I expanded quite thoroughly on my view in this respect in a thread called “The upsides of Nationalsim?” a few months ago. Wherein I attempt to argue a pet thesis of mine, namely:

Nationalism promotes distrust, fosters supremacist delusions and leads to isolation. One is bad for international cooperation, the second destabilizes the world and the third is culturally, economically and socially speaking a dead end.

Sparc

I’ve understood that chauvinism is a better term to describe that attitude. From the link:

Thus, one may be a nationalist, but not a chauvinist.

sparc,
So here I am unawares that this has been discussed so well in the past! Nice little thread you had going there. Sorry I had missed it at the time.

Whether or not one dates “nationalism” to The Peace of Westphalia or 1842 or whenever, the general tendency has been unavoidable in the human condition. As your usually more radical brother, ethic, put it-

So sure, it has the potential for evil … but the distrust is a realistic appraisal of others looking out for themselves, the self supremecy delusions a common foible among humans both within and without nation, and the isolationism is not intrinisic to nationalism - as was pointed out in that thread, the leading bodies of international cooperation were founded on nationalistic platforms.

So what distinguishes acceptable nationalism from that which leads the way to multilateral ruin (the road to evil)?

BTW, add “chauvinism” to your definition list!