I view nationalism as the "idee force" in the political, cultural, and economic life of the world's people, which also acts to organise peoples into nation-states. It provides the emotional incentive for the integration of multiple traditions, peoples, beliefs, etc., into a single entity, and in some cases to liberate peoples from foreign domination; or by exulting national traditions it can create the incentive for liberating the people from the corruption induced by alien cultural poisoning; finally it can be used to liberate the people from hostile internal forces which act as parasites with respect to the host nation. I believe nationalism is closely related to the need of self-determination of the life of large groups of people or ethnicities. Nationalism, considered in individual people, or from the side of subject, is primarily emotional, tribalistic, and irrational; collectively, however, it creates order, unity, cohesion, and everything aboved mentioned; thus from a materialist standpoint (i.e., focusing on the material results of nationalism, as opposed to the irrationality of it in the minds of individual people), it is rational and necessary. I think the material results of nationalism take precedence, and I see nationalism therefore as something which is overall rational and necessary.

why didn't you post this in the political section?

It is both political and philosophical.

hmm....i don't quite understand politics myself....but itz time like this i wish i didn't drop my Philosophy of Government courses....

you care for a more philosophical approach to defining why nationalism is good?

are you saying nationalism is ideal because 1) individuals have control over their own destinies, in a manner of materialism....while 2) this materialism alots for economic prosperity and thus a stable government?

"It provides the emotional incentive for the integration of multiple traditions, peoples, beliefs, etc., into a single entity, and in some cases to liberate peoples from foreign domination; or by exulting national traditions it can create the incentive for liberating the people from the corruption induced by alien cultural poisoning; finally it can be used to liberate the people from hostile internal forces which act as parasites with respect to the host nation."

i see.....

not to sound like a nazi, but wouldn't you consider that a country completely composed of like-minded ideals being far superior to that of individualism?

whatz more important.....the government's-nation.....or the people's-nation?

Yes.The two are not mutually exclusive.

i see....

yeah, philosophy i know....politics....goes way over my head....

Well said. I would have put it in more simple and direct terms.

The only thing I dispute is the nationalist feelings of the individual being irrational. Without those, the group nationalism is impossible.

Thats a very idealistic view of nationalism.

Nationalism based on a ethnic group and in ethnically diverse society works against the unity of a country's citizens. Even without that problem, it may create some order and unity in the national scale but it also works against unity and order in a international scale. You can also say that foreign cultural values are not always posionous and may even strengthen a nation if it is embraced by the public.

It has it's strengths and it's weaknesses depending on what type it is, how it is used and in what situation it's a part of. Much like everything else then.

Nationalism does not allow for a greater unity, it tends to cause fractures and issues.
People tend to look to where people originate from, nationally, and as such will often deevolve into an aggressive and somewhat tedious attitude based on those locations.

All in all, Nationalism is useful in some instances, but overall quite bad.

The first true 'nationalists,' those of the French Revolution, followed a path that nicely illustrates why nationalism can potentially be a force for good, and why it almost inevitably tends to end up as a force of chaos and misery.

In 1789 the people rose up because, simply put, they felt that they, the people of France, should be the ones who should decide their own fate. They took control of the country and for the first time realised that, above all else, they were Frenchmen, and they should work together for their common good rather than let the aristocrats push them around. They even sent out proclamations across Europe stating that they would support any other nation that chose to assert itself in the same way, because all men were brothers. So far so good.

Twenty-five years or so later the other European states finally defeat a French nation that had tried its very best to conquer Europe for itself. Foreign radicals who had initially welcomed French armies as liberators from their own aristocracies had been treated like dirt and ignored. French soldiers had behaved as occupiers rather than liberators. Why? Because they knew that they were Frenchmen, and others were not.

The lesson is that once people get their national identity into their heads, for whatever reason, it affects their thinking in other ways. The very same sense of nation that spurred the French to cast of their aristocracy sent them into wars of conquest under a military dictator who they all adored, and still do.

Since then nationalism has had a poor record. Both world wars were caused primarily by nationalism. Soviet expansionism and Maoism both owe far more to nationalism than they do to communism. Islamic fundamentalism is essentially the same beast, being far more concerned with kicking the foreign devils than following the Koran.

On the other hand we have just seen something very special happen in the Ukraine, so perhaps it isn't a completely lost cause.