August 15, 2008
-
Patriotism and Nationality vs World Fellowship
How do you think such such concepts as patriotism and nationality will fare as this dramatic trend toward world fellowship continues?
The idea of a single unified world culture has been a dream for millennia - mostly in the dreams of would-be world conquerors: Alexander the Great went farthest first - and bemoaned the fact that he had no more worlds to conquer (even though his conquest was cut short by his home-sick Greek soldiers). Sometimes the "World view" included only the civilized world, as in the case of China's "First Emperor" (He's the one with all those terra-cotta soldiers around his tomb).
Rome was more conquest- minded and was careful to integrate the new territories by giving the inhabitants Roman Citizenship after they agreed to adopt Roman "civilization"
Some Religions (notably the Christian and Muslim) preached the brotherhood of man and accepted all believers equally - but you had to believe.There were some attempts during the last 150 years or so to develop multi-national, multi-cultural unions. One of the first in Europe was the agreement to regulate and police the Danube River, another was the International Postal Union, which still exists and is the reason you can buy postage in your country and send your letter anyplace in the world.
Woodrow Wilson's dream of a "League of Nations" became a toothless reality in the 1920's though it did some good work in the areas of refugees and world health. World War II led to the creation of the first really serious attempt at developing some kind of world-wide political and social entity that would bring all of the world's cultures and governments together under one "world roof" with the creation of the United Nations which now has as members virtually all the nations of the world, and has led to world-wide agreement on a number of issues - such as a sort of vague agreement on what constitutes "human rights"
The beginning of a serious trend toward "world culture" was not political however, rather it was (and is) economic.
In 1949 I walked into a grass-thatched hut and bought a coke out of a kerosene-powered refrigerator. This was at Tanjong Penang on the island of BinTan - a fairly out-of-the-way part of an obscure new nation. I was not surprised, nor was I surprised that the proprietor spoke a little pigeon-english.Arthur Clarke thought up the concept of the communications satellite in the 1940's, the first was launched less than two decades later and the world really began to become a "world village". With the development of the internet and the World Wide Web there was an enormous rise in the exchange of ideas and realization that we were all actually "In the Same Boat".
Vested political, religious, and economic interests have attempted to encourage the persistence of ethnocentricity, nationalism, and religious intolerance in many parts of the world - the Balkans, China, and the Arab world have been leaders in those struggles, but I think it's a losing fight. The world is changing and the changes are not reversible.
Where does this leave the love of our individual countries we call Patriotism? Can we be both patriotic and think of ourselves as citizens of the World? Of course we can. There is really no conflict unless we try to impose our rule on other countries and cultures.
Comments (29)
Surprise, surprise.
You're linked
Ciao.
No, i think not.
If i think to patriotism i think to the attitude of the citizens to protect the Nation, against any other Nation, thanks to a feeling of belonging to that Nation.
Which means that one cannot have a feeling of equality with the citizens of any other Nations outside.
Patriotism, in my opinion is a negative attitude because it creates difference among peoples. Intending to consider people belonging to one's nation somehow better than the ones not belonging, just because of that nationality.
Somehow similar to racism.
Different thing is culture. Respecting everybody's cultures, within certain limits, does not mean to negate one's own culture. I am Italian and i am pleasantly tied to Italian culture although i have no problem to respect American culture.
Trying to impose the moral principles of a particular culture is actually what patriotism does.
Dario's point is a very good one and clearly states a major problem in the rapid acceptance of "World Citizenship".
Let me make an analogy here: Psychologists have pretty much agreed that a prejudiced ethnocentric personality is developed in early life and starts with the idea that to win acceptance of parents and family members the child must identify with the family by adopting an " Us against everyone else" sort of attitude and focusing the "everyone else" concept with an easily identifiable group - one the parents have identified as inferior or dangerous.
When a nation or religious group does this it becomes very difficult for citizens and members to overcome their prejudices and suspicions. When this attitude is overcome it is almost always due to close contact with individuals of the other groups and a slow acceptance of their worth as fellow humans. It is my contention that this is happening world-wide and the relative acceptance of other cultures is speeding up.
Is it possible to love your family or nation or religion or culture without rejecting all others?
Please let me contest your analogy.
You are trying to support patriotism with the fact that since it has an analogy with the relationship between parents/children, and being that a natural attitude, prooved by psychologists, then it must be a good feeling.
First of all i believe that pretty much everything you can call "culture" and pretty much everything is derived by it, is an attempt of humans to go against natural attitudes. For example, upon an evolutive point of view, for adult males, trying to have sexual relationship with the biggest number of females, using also violence in order to obtain the goal is a very natural predisposition. Nevertheless it is also considered an immoral attitude by any culture i know about, and it is fodbidden by the laws of any nation i know. Including ours.
And anyway, the fact that make us believe the natural attitude of love between parent and child a tender and positive feeling has nothing to do with the love for a nation, which has nothing natural except maybe for an istinctive need of belonging to a "pack". I mean, a nation considered as a pack could be considered a natural need. What i find absolutely innatural is the constraint of the nation within the border of the political State.
And this concept of political borders is actually what defines a generic "feeling of belonging to a group" as "patriotism".
Patriotism could not be actually called with that name if there were no political borders to protect against other "packs".
Is it possible to love my family without rejecting all others? Depends what you really mean of rejecting. I can love my family as actually "my-family" without rejecting the fact that you love your family as "your-family". What i cannot do is to love another family as "my-family" if i already have one "my-family" to love. I'll never love your mother like mine just because she is a "mother" too, but i can admit that you love your mother with a feeling similar to the one i use to love mine.
Same thing for the Nation or culture, if we consider Nation the group of people belonging to the same culture rooted in the territory they live, and culture the set of beliefs of those people.
About religion... mmmh... i don't know... religion is a set of fake beliefs invented by politics to keep population under their domain.... i wish there was no feeling of belonging to a religion nowhere in the world. The fact that there instead is is due to the millenarian imposition.
Obviously i am not thinking about those funny jokes like people that just change religion every now and then or some new religions as Scientology. That's just pornography. I was speaking about some metaphisical beliefs that strictly belong to a culture.
What i really think is not possible is to confuse patriotism to belonging to our history. Or, in other words, the confusion between Nation and State. That is a terrible confusion that i believe is one of the main origin of pretty much all the wars ever fought in the world.
I'm amused at Dario's distinction between Nation and State. By Nation I think he means culture (as a distinct social group) and giving the history of Modern Italy - a State made up of many smaller states within the last couple of hundred years with cultures having little in common except language(s) derived basically from ancient latin and a vague rememberance of ancient Rome (Itself a multi-national state).
Despite this multi-national background, I think most Italians identify pretty strongly with their country and feel a good deal of patriotism - a feeling Mussolini certainly played upon during his reign. Is this feeling bad? I don't think so. The argument could be made that patriotism is the backbone of civilization - not a manifestation of baser human nature.
Dammit, i wrote a big thing about Nation and State, but my damn computer has the bad habit to lock every now and then, and i lost everything.
I'll try to write the same things, i hope more concisely.
In my family there are two dogs. One of them (Mr. Bentley) is very protective towards the pack (the pack members are me, my wife, Maddie - the other dog - and him).
If the postman comes with some mails in his hands to deliver, Mr. Bentley barks, and if the postman comes too close he tends to attack.
If instead it happens that my wife comes home with some envelopes in her hands, Mr. Bentley does not bark at all, instead he starts to jump here and there, and when my wife comes close he lays on his back and let her scratch his belly licking her hand.
Looks like Mr. Bentley can make a difference between the postman and my wife!
Why? Because there is a feeling of... let's say... solidarity with the individues belonging to the pack. The world, for Mr. Bentley, is divided in two: friends inside the pack and enemies outside.
Same thing for humans. Humanity is grouped in smaller groups of people depending on how people use to feel belonging to those groups.
For example i feel belonging to the group of my family, because i have a big complicity with my wife, when we gossip about the neighbors, or we laugh for the last attack of Mr. Bentley to the postman. For sure i would never chat the same gossips with those neighbors and will never laugh with the scared postman about Mr. Bentley behavior.
Another feeling of belonging i feel towards my Nation. When i say "pizza" all the authentic italian people would think about the same thing. And it's not a matter of knowledge, because you are not italian, and although i think you know what a pizza is, i also know that for you it tastes different. Because you don't have the same cultural background that makes you appreciate the pizza experience in the same way an italian does.
Maybe you like pizza, and i would be glad when it happens you come over here, to go with you to a real pizzeria and have a good pizza. The environment will be the right one, the smells the right one, the climate, the noise, the stink of burnt of the wood oven... everything would be perfect to experience the real dinner at a pizzeria, but still you won't be able, because you have different cultural roots.
Actually the border of the State is not a matter of the Nation, because a Nation would be a Nation also if there is a migration, or if the territory they live is not accepted by the international communities. I am thinking for example to the Touareg, which don't have any territory, or the Eskimo people which live in a territory but they don't accept any political border. On the other hands there are citizens of states that do not belong to a Nation. For example the USA is not properly a Nation, because people living in USA don't have common roots.
Italy was a Nation even before there was an Italian State. I'm sure you know Italian history, and you know that the unification of Italy is kind of recent. Nevertheless the feeling of the citizens of all the little (indipendent and always fighting each other) states that were in the territory of Italian peninsula to belong to the same Nation was very strong. Even if the languages were very different. Much before there was the Roman empire, and also in those times people living in Italy would feel as a Nation not to be confused with the "barbarians" living in the rest of the empire territory.
Nowadays that feeling of belonging to a Nation is slowly disappearing in Italy because of migrations (mostly from poor countries). As hopefully integration with foreign immigrants will be accepted as a cultural fact by all Italians, as sadly the idea of Nation will progressively disappear. A price to pay for globalization, i guess.
A State, instead is a territory limited by precise borders inside which the power of a government can organize the societies of who live (and has the citizenship) within those borders. Never mind if those citizens belong to the same Nation or even if they belong to any nation at all.
If by chance it happens that a Nation lives in a State and there is no citizen in that State not belonging to that Nation, it means that the territory of that State belongs to the Nation itself. If somebody else invades the territory, then, it would be considered by the citizens of that state an attack to the Nation itself. The feeling of protection of the border, so, coincide to the feeling of protection of the people that belong to the same Nation, or, in other words, the defense of the own culture. That is patriotism. Just like when Mr. Bentley tries to bite the postman. It would be justified if the postman actually was an enemy that tried to attack the pack.
If instead the State does not coincide to the territory of the Nation, the feeling of belonging would be vacuum. I mean, yes, you, Dick, as American can also feel a feeling of belonging to the USA, but being that the citizens of that State (or the Federation of the States) do not share anything in their culture except the fact that they actually are citizens of the same State, that means that any protection against the possible intruder would be justified because of an attack of the rules of the state, and not on the own culture. And the protection against that attack would not be technically be called partiotism.
I think nowadays there is no Nation that coincide to the territory of a State, so patriotism is some feeling that has no meaning anymore.
Mmmmh... i forgot... i just wanted to add that these definitions of State and Nation is not only an artificious one by me!
Dario's clarification and distinction of State (a political entity with territory and boundaries) and Nation -( a group with a common basic value system and cultural background) is interesting especially in his suggestion that National allegiance does not change but remains identifiable within the state. As an American, I cannot accept this.
America and many of the other countries of the Western Hemisphere are living examples of how Nationality can in fact, change. The United States is perhaps the most outstanding example of the growth of a common culture from disparate parts. The first settlers in the US were mostly from England and were Protestants - but this soon changed. Within a century settlers from other Northern European states and gradually from Southern and Central Europe, Africa, Latin America, Asia - just about everywhere - filled the US and made it the multi-national, multi-racial State it is today.
The US definitely does have and share a common Basic Value and cultural (National) identity today. Perhaps we are an example of what the world is becoming. The US is currently the third most populous state in the world and unlike the other two (China and India) is certainly much more racially and culturally diverse, as the vast majority of its citizens have ancestral roots in other cultures. The Indians and Chinese who have immigrated to the US begin to lose their national identity and become more and more "Americanized" within a couple of generations.
Incidentally I never realized how good a pizza could taste until I visited Italy and had some real pizza
I guess i touched an undiscovered nerv (that's a common way to say in Italian, i don't know if there is an equivalent in English!)
Dick, i was not saying that American people is somehow inferior to Italians because USA is not a Nation.
And i am very sorry if you believe it.
You cannot accept what, exactly? That the American People doesn't have a millenarian unique cultural origin? If you really cannot accept it, we can just stop discussing, because it looks to me obvious that, for example, the oldest cultural history a single American can ever support is 1492, if we exclude Native Americans.
Please note that the juridical definition of Nationality (if there is one, in the USA, i don't know), has nothing to do with the linguistical definition of Nation.
And actually i am not even saying that the typically american attitude to welcome as friend and neighbor anybody with different origin, different culture, different language and different color of skin is a negative attitude. Not at all, i think for example this is a subject Italians have to learn a lot from Americans, while over here i can only parcially justify some xenophoby for the fact that immigration begun just few years ago, and only from poor countries.
But, allow me to say that it's not a matter of definitions. You don't accept the definition of "Nation"? okay, let's call it with some other expression.... uhm.... let's say.... "Omogeneous-people-with-common-ancestral-cultural-roots", okay? Okay.
Americans are not an Omogeneous-people-with-common-ancestral-cultural-roots, while Italians, let's say since a couple of millennia till the cultural mess the immigrations are doing in this territory, actually were an Omogeneous-people-with-common-ancestral-cultural-roots.
But, anyway, we were not even speaking about Omogeneous-peoples-with-common-ancestral-cultural-roots even. We were speaking about Patriotism, isn't it?
So, what's patriotism, in your opinion?
I can say that in mine it's not for sure the attitude to defend economical power of a nation by mean of war fought outside the borders of the State. That's called mmmmh... I don't know, in English... "Army"?!? For sure it's not called Partiotism.
In my opinion Patriotism is the attitude to defend the common values belonging to an Omogeneous-people-with-common-ancestral-cultural-roots.
If you accept this definition, it's clear that Americans, not being an Omogeneous-people-with-common-ancestral-cultural-roots, they cannot have a Patriotic feeling.
So, if Politics tries to use the power of controling Patriotism in order to obtain a military force to serve the acheivement of a goal in America, well, i think it is kind of tricking Americans.
In other words, maybe the American soldiers went to the middle east really believing to defend Amercian culture. But i believe that there is actually nothing to defend, because there is not an American culture.
Wait, wait, wait... i am not saying that Americans are uncultured. I am saying that there is not a common ancestral cultural root in which all the Americans find their own personal roots. So, there is not a culture that unifies that wonderful but unhomogeneous People that is "The Americans".
No, if soldiers in the Middle East are honest they have to admit that they are there to defend something else than the Omogeneous-people-with-common-ancestral-cultural-roots they belong to.
By the way... see... i am Italian and i think i have an own culture that finds its roots in the millenarian common origin of my People. Nevertheless i can easily immigrate to the USA (there is not even any bureauchratic problem, since i am married with an American citizen).
I already know that if i ever immigrate in USA and i go to live next to your house, you will welcome me and consider me and my family, Mr. Bentley included, as American citizens (and pets). Well... let's say i expect it. And you will consider me just like an American, belonging to the same American People you belong to.
So, if the soldiers are in the Middle east to defend you as an element of the American People, you will consider them over there to defend also myself and Mr. Bentley, as other elements of the same American People.
Even though i still won't forget that my cultural roots are, and will ever be, linked to the millenarian culture of Italian People.
oh.. i'm almost forgetting the funny conclusion of my message
I didn't know you like pizza. And yes, i know that everybody can appreciate the difference between Italian and American pizza, although i am not sure that every American would prefer the Italian one...
I am happy you like Italian pizza more better, but still i believe that your experience of eating an Italian pizza in Italy is not complete, because you are not, and you will never be Italian. Not even if you will eventually become an Italian citizen.
Yet does nationalism sponsor a feeling that a nation is more important than a human? What is a nation besides an idea. To say that a nation is more important then an individual is to fly in the face of the individualism that this country cherishes.
Dario - I also like Paella and lutefisk (well, maybe like is going too far in the case of the fish). We are doomed to disagree on the area of cultural identity. After all cultures change over time - even Italian culture (I'm using culture in place of Nationality - I used to teach Sociology and that's the term we sociologists mostly use). Also each nation/state sort of starts over as outside forces cause re-interpretation and sometimes change of the Basic Value system. All distinct cultures have a set of Basic Values which are the basic building blocks of the mores and folkways of the culture. Modern, and even medieval Italy's Basic Values were and are not the same as those of the Romans, though you are right, there is a connection (as there is also from other modern European cultures and even American culture).
Sadly, many of those American soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are convinced that they are somehow protecting the U.S. but I think, as with most armies, they fight primarily for their unit and fellow soldiers and because of discipline. Patriotism could be called an American Basic Value however, and it may apply in those cases. Patria - love of homeland is an Italian concept isn't it?
Pilgrim - Fortunately or Unfortunately, patriotism does sponsor the idea that it's a good thing to give up your life for your country if you're called to do so.
I see this as unfortunate. No human life is less valuable then the advancement of a particular nation. Could you not view nations as simple evolved forms of primitive tribes?
Of course the modern world cultures have their roots in primitive tribes and act much the same way to influence their members. It's really not much of a step to go from tribal identity to National identity - the national cultures are just more complicated and many of the folkways and mores have been stripped down to basics in order to provide interpretation for the diverse situations a very large culture must deal with. One of these "stripped down" mores is that of Patriotism - the modern equivalent of tribal solidarity in the face of a hostile world. Would a tribe member occasionally sacrifice himself for the good of his family, friends, and neighbors? Certainly - especially if this call was reenforced by his religion. Patriotism is what we now call such willingness to sacrifice yourself for the good of your country in the most extreme example.
What would happen to a culture where such was not the case?
If individuals ever figure this out then they'll realize that patriotism is very foolish.
A better question is how long can a culture that espouses the importance of an individual exist while asking for that individual to sacrifice their importance for an abstract concept such as a nation.
Dick. I didn't say that fighting to defend one's State is wrong. That's not the subject of my comment.
But it's undoubto that american soldiers are fighting to defend their State, and not their Nation. Or, in other words, they are defending the freedom of American citizens (or they believe to do so), and not the American culture. They are not fighting for the Patria. You know what? Because there is no US Patria. Or, if you want to call it Patria anyway, US patria is not based on common roots. Because American citizens don't have common roots.
Italian culture, as any other culture, evolves, and nowadays it evolves too quickly for my personal taste. But that's a fact of life, you cannot stop culture evolving. And anyway i believe it's a small price we have to pay for communance with other human beings. In other words, as i feel myself the individue Dario, as i feel myself part of my family, i feel more the belonging to the human race than the one to my Patria. So, if i would die for the humanity, i would never take in consideration to die for Italy. Which means, at the end, that the feeling of Patria is progressively disappearing in Italy, or, in other words, the national identity, made of those common roots of the people, are not so clear as they were in the past.
Dario I think you are talking about culture and not a nation. If tomorrow Italy would split in two there would still be Italian culture, but there would be no more Italy, the nation, as we now know it.
Dario uses the word Nation to describe what Sociologists call Culture. A reminder about how we each receive our cultural indoctrination might be useful. It starts with our family when we are infants - they inculcate the primary Basic Values of their culture, but these values are modified in early childhood as the chid falls more and more into the culture of his peers - his playmates and classmates (Here's where the second great social institution- Education - begins its influence).
Dario is right, the U.S. has no common generations-long absolute value system. Each set of immigrants brings in its own interpretations of the Basic Value set, however, as they interact together, a common shared set of value interpretations arises and this is what makes up the current American Basic Value system
This is a simple set. Here they are listed four ways. the first column is that most often accepted by Sociologists. Some of you may recognize the third and fourth.
Basic values:
Equality
Liberty
Justice
Industry
Individualism
Freedom
Rationality
Equality
Respect for others
Reverent/Tradition (?)
Liberty/Freedom
Justice
Individual worth
Industry
Rationality
Honesty
Friendliness
Bravery
Cleanliness
Equality
Respect for others
Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
Reverent
All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with the right to Life, Liberty, and the Prusuit of Happiness.
But is what Dario is writing about nationalism or culture identification?
As I understand him, Dario uses Nation to describe those members of a state who have a common cultural background of long standing.
Then according to that idea Dario is claiming that the U.S. is not a nation.
Sorry if i took so long to answer.
Uhm.... i think that the definition of Nation is exactly what i quoted.
Maybe not in English, i take it back now, but in Italian a "Nazione" is a "Stato" with an "Organizzazione Politica" that belongs to a "Popolo" identified to the "Cittadini" that live in that "Stato"....
For who doesn't speak any italian i try to translate with my miserable English:
in Italian, a NATION is a STATE with a POLITICAL ORGANIZATION that belongs to a PEOPLE identified by the CITIZENS that live in the STATE (over here i am using the words i wrote in uppercase upon the official meaning of the correspondant Italian words in the official Italian language, proovable searching whichever Italian dictionary).
The trick is the definition of the word "Popolo" (=(ONE) PEOPLE).
You cannot take somebody in Canada, somebody in South Africa, somebody in China, somebody in the USA, somebody in Italy, put them together in a territory let's say in Australia and say that they are a "Popolo" (=(ONE) PEOPLE). They are just some "Gente" (=(SOME) PEOPLE) grouped together and put in a territory. That solution, upon the italian meaning of "Nazione" doesn't make a "Nazione" at all, because those "Gente" is not a "Popolo" (i hope in here it's no need to remind the linguistical difference in English of the word People as a singular, and People as the plural of the word Person, two completely different concepts unfortunately identified by the same word).
A People (or, better, a "Popolo") is a set of people which particular culture come from common roots. Italians, as a People (or as a "Popolo", or "Nazione") are Italians not because they live in the borders of the Italian State (or "Stato"), but because they feel Italians, joined to other Italians by common roots. I can understand that one that doesn't have common roots within the group of people he lives with maybe cannot understand this simple and clear concept, but that's what it is.
To answer to PilgrimOfTruth, if one day eventually Italy (the Italian "Stato") will be splitted in two, Italians will still feel common roots with each other, both who lives in Italy1 and who lives in Italy2. In the same way, if eventually Italy will be joined to... say... France, ItalFrancs citizens living in ItalFrancLand State will feel belonging to Italian "Nazione"/"Popolo" if they have roots in Italian "Nazione"/"Popolo", they will instead feel belonging to French "Nazione"/"Popolo" if they have roots in French "Nazione"/"Popolo".
In other words, although a "Nazione" is the application to a not better defined territory of a "Popolo", which is a set of "Gente" that share the same cultural roots since millennia, The political borders of a "Stato" that define the limits doesn't necessarily define the boundaries in which a "Popolo", or, better, a "Nazione" is limited.
I am sorry, but under this definition of "Nazione" (which is the official definition, in Italian language), USA is not a "Nazione".
Still to answer to PilgrimOfTruth, i believe that if one day.... let's say Mexico will be annexed to USA, you will eventually feel them as sharing the same Thing that you call "Nation" (obviously something else than the italian "Nazione") with those Mexican. If instead... let's say California will be splitted from the rest of the USA, you won't consider Californian citizens as sharing the same Thing you call Nation. Because USA, with or without Mexico, with or without California, is not a "Nazione", and Americans (eventually plus Mexicans and/or minus Californians) are not a "Popolo". I hope now i was more clear.
Said that, i think i touched an uncovered nerv (that's the literal translation of an Italian common way to say) saying the USA is not a Nation (actually what i meant is that USA is not a "Nazione", i am sorry if i was not clear).
Nevertheless we were not speaking about Nation or "Nazione", we were speaking about patriotism, isn't it?
I think i was enough clear explaining my idea of patriotism like the feeling that pushes to fight, and eventually die in order to defend the People (or "Popolo", which, i remind you, is a set of people sharing the same cultural roots) one belongs to.
Personally i don't like patriotism, because, although i feel belonging to a "Popolo", and although i live in a "Nazione", i strongly believe that morality is individual. And it is individual also if incidentally it is very similar to the other individual moralities of other people i see around me (it's obvious it is very similar, because morality comes from cultural roots, and those cultural roots are the same, being that i am part of a "Popolo" that lives in a "Nazione").
In other words i believe that although i would judge good or bad something in a very similar way other people belonging to the same "Nazione" would judge, i still want the authority to judge what is good or bad to me by myself, without anybody judging for me. So, i would never fight for something that somebody imposes me, never mind if i also would eventually consider good that something.
Just a last thing i would add... Now i am not sure of anything, and I don't know if Nationalism means the same concept of the italian word "Nazionalismo", but if it does, well, that's completely out of theme, and it diesn't have a big lot to share with "Culture Identification" (if that means "identificazione culturale").
I do believe Dario that yes the definitions of Nazione and Nation are different.
I have always thought of nations as an advanced form of tribes where humans live in territories and claim exclusive rights to resources.
The idea that members of a nation have to feel a common background and share a common culture is not what I consider to be a nation nor is it a pretext for patriotism. African Americans can have patriotism as can Chinese Americans but their ideas of cultural identity would be somewhat different. And they would still be a citizen of the same nation.
Actually, here in the U.S. the concept is both useful and used - especially when referring to Native Americans. They are officially thought of as the "Navaho Nation", the "Seminole Nation", etc. and thus refer to themselves. Interestingly enough, historically most of these tribe/nations were quite willing to assimilate others into their nation in a variety of ways - taking special pains to indoctrinate them into their culture.
Is there such a thing an " American" Culture?
Uhm... "Navajo Nation"?... "Seminole Nation"?... so, is the meaning of the word "Nation" the same as the Italian "Nazione", as i defined it for you? or still i didn't understand the meaning?
Navajos/Seminoles are not American citizens? So they belong to American Nation? Can somebody belong contemporarily to two different Nations? If you change the borders of Navaho territory they won't be called Navajo Nation?!?!? Uhm....
Reading the last two comments it looks to me that the definitions you guys implicitly give to that word is contraddictory... uhm... right the opposite, i think... so, if i was confused, now i believe English language is so complex to understand for a small brains like mine that i have to accept the idea to be confused for the rest of my life.
Unless somebody of you (or maybe both?!?) is wrong...
Anyway, i insist on the fact that i didn't really care in my messages, about the meaning of "Nation". I mentioned it giving (mistake!!!) the same meaning of Italian "Nazione", but the meaning was the one i was using to define the meaning of another word, which is Patriotism.
Can somebody be patriotic in a... uhm.... Thing as USA is (i don't wanna use the word "Nation" anymore, and i begin to think that "State" is a frightening concept, to my miserable English)?
In here i use the example of USA because, i hope you both agree that it is a bounch of people belonging to different cultures, and, for that reason, they cannot share a cultural identity defined by common historical cultural roots. So, in a place like that Patriotism can actually be defined like that? A sort of feeling that pushes who can fight to protect the People identified by a common culture coming from common historical common root?
In other words, just to use a stupid metaphore, if you go to an institute of blind people wouldn't you find any strange them wasting energy turing on the lights when it's dark and off in the moring when the sun rises? I would.
Anyway, you can also call Patriotism the feeling of duty to defend the border of the State (you are much better than me in English Language, and anyway i am not gonna complain if you also give the definition you want to the words i am using). But, if it is like that, what's the difference between "Patriotism" and "Military Service". Are those expressions synonyms?
I prefer to think that thanks to Patriotism Navajo people get angry when Seminole people insult them, because there is a feeling to belonging to Navajo Nation, although all Navajo people have the US passport and are actually citizens of the USA.
I don't like patriotism, as i said, but i believe there IS actually something other than a piece of paper with one's photo that identify the beureauchratic citizenship, also if i believe that there are a lot of people that don't feel anything like that, and maybe need something like a passport to feel theirselves belonging to something.
And that feeling is due to cultural roots.
Dario is right English is tricky and the word nation is used many different times to imply different things and this is confusing. For example the movie Fast Food Nation looks at the culture of fast food in the U.S. Yet to have patriotism I still hold that the nation one loves is the more conventional idea of a country and the same is for nationalism.
Yet there are examples such as the French patriots during WWII in which case these patriots belonged to an idea of a nation and a culture.
I don't think though that you can say America does not have a culture especially when American culture has influenced much of the modern world.
Pilgrim... if you read better my comments, i have never said that America does not have a culture.
Actually when you say that America does or does not have a culture i believe that you refer not to America as a Thing, but to America as the set of Americans, being that "having a culture" is an attribute appliable only to humans and maybe primates, not to Things like America is.
So, i have never said that Americans don't have a culture.
What i said is that Americans don't have common cultural roots, which is, in my definition, the necessary thing that a People must have to allow its people to have patriotism feeling.
Nationalism instead is something else (unless there is another mistake by me in the English interpretation). Nationalism is the will of the People belonging to a Nazione (allow my Italian definition to this Italian word, which i hope is clear enough) to elevate itself to the dominator of the State even though there are other people belonging to the same State that do not belong to the same People. And that goes pretty much always to racism. I make an example for you, if you don't mind.
German people, in the beginning of last century, identifying theirselves as a People (Popolo, Nazione), so seeing theirselves as a group of people that share common cultural roots, thanks to Nationalism (Nazionalismo) feeling, pushed by Nazist party propaganda (sorry Dick if i simplify a lot, but it's just an example!), elevated theirselves as the real owner of German Territory, which means that other peoples that didn't belong to that etnic group (or, in oher words, common roots) (for example the German Jews), were not allowed to share the same territory with the same right of theirselves.
Under a Nationalistic philosophy German people felt authorized to do whatever they wanted with Jews, because in their opinion it was not their right to stay over there, sharing the same territory.
That is Nationalism, and it doesn't have anything good in my opinion, although some other people could eventually say that German Nazism, or Italian Fascism, or other Nationalistic movements, real or just propaganded, eventually did something good to the Nation, or the State, or simply to the territory.
I bet upon your personal dictionary (or any official English one) Nationalism has a completely different meaning.
Trying a connection between Nationalism and Patriotism, what i could only say is that if a patriotic group is also Nationalistic it could be really dangerous, for obvious reasons.
Just for fun, let's consider how people receive their cultural/national/ethnic/racial/etc identity.
Are they born with some kind of Jungian set of basic racial memories and beliefs, or does each of us develop our basic identity according to how we are reared?
If our families have many different cultural backgrounds, as Dario rightly suggests, how can we ever develop a common "American" cultural identity strong enough to be called patriotic. History shows that Americans certainly have such beliefs - apparently forged in one of the bloodiest wars any nation has ever fought (The U.S. Civil War: 1861-65)
Many other nations have failed to realize this, to their sorrow. As a young man, I visited Italy, Germany, and Japan right after World War II . They were all three devastated - mostly rubble heaps. In Japan, for example, the Japanese officials charged with negotiating the surrender could not find, in all of Japan, one airplane capable of making the flight from southern Japan to the northern Philippines to meet with American officials.
Remember, The U.S. responded to a declaration of war from those powers, who had apparently assumed that lacking the ethnic cohesion they had, would choose to negotiate rather than fight.
Does America still have such common patriotic identity or has it faded as America has become even more racially and culturally diverse?
Really appreciate you sharing this blog article.Thanks Again. Really Great.