Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "Italian Fascism vs Italian Racism" video.
-
I think one of the biggest issues people often have is they fail to understand what Nationalism even is. A Nation is an Identity, not lines on a map. It can mean almost anything under the sun when you break it down. Why do you think almost every Community thrives to make flags to represent themselves? Because they've created a Nation. They've not created the Nation State that they live under, they're often hostile toward the Nation State. But they've created their own nation within an already existing Larger Nation. The Nation State system has been confused with Nationalism, and many people actually think Nationalism is exclusively racist or Statist. Which isn't really true. A lot of Nations have no "State." But the Nation exist. Many Nations existed as slaves of other larger States, and throughout most of European history there were no Nation States, the Nation existed under the surface ruled by Monarchs and Lords who often had little in common with the people's they ruled. Why today is the era of the Nation State is because most of those Communities formed their own "States" often built around some kind of similar Identity, ie Nations, Nation States. But this happened after the fall of Monarchism, so their National Identity was the glue used and at times failed when forming their new "States" again hence Nation States.
In this context, the Working Class is an Identity, it is a Nation. As TIK has explained many times, it actually makes Marxist Nationalist who mascaraed as Internationalist. Because Marxist don't understand what a Nation even is. You see this with a lot of Leftist today who are obsessed with Pride Flags, they literally created their own Nations, their own Identities, and proudly go around parading it in front of other people's faces. They're Nationalist even if they refuse to admit it.
Nationalism in short is a very gray, murky word when you really break down what it means to be a "Nation." The American Nation for example wasn't built around Ethnic or Racial Lines. American Nationalism as little to do with Race, though some white supremacist, and black supremacist will argue otherwise from opposing camps. Nationalism doesn't = Racism in short, but Nationalism can equal Racism. Today many consider Nationalism and Racism to be the same thing which is just so blatantly wrong that it openly shows those who think that, literally fail to comprehend what a Nation even is.
36
-
@orclover2353 That would make sense if Stateless Nations didn't exist, but Stateless Nations do exist.
Friesians for example have no State, yet are a Nation. Native Americans have Reservations, with some political autonomy, but they're US Government Reserves. Yet Native Americans refer to themselves as Nations, even those that do not live on Reserves.
Prior to Israel, Jews also didn't have land, a border on a map. Yet they viewed themselves as a Nation. The whole Zionist movement was so they could establish a Nation State for their Nation as they were a Nation without territory in a world of rising Nation States, in their eyes, if everyone else is allowed to create a Nation State, they wanted one as well.
Sorry but you're blatantly wrong is the concept of Nations and Nationalism. Tribalism is literally just a synonym. You can find this contradiction literally by just looking up Definitions for "Nation."
Examples below:
"a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status"
" a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government"
See how they refer to a Nation can have one or more Nationality and be a Nation. Basically both definitions us Nation, National or Nationality as meaning two different things. Land/Territory when they say Nation and a "People" when they say Nationality. But why do you call a "People" a Nationality? Because they're a Nation. Around the bad logic goes.
This is why people fail to understand what Nation means, because they can not even make a Definition of Nation without even contradicting themselves.
Basically to sum it up Nation and State or two different words. Nation State = a Nation with a State. A Nation without a state, wouldn't have territory, so Nation = Land/territory is stupid. So a Nation must equal "A People."
9
-
@orclover2353 Again, many can not properly define nation, as the two examples I presented. I didn't present them as proof of a Proper Definition, as they're definitions that contradict themselves.
Meanwhile you literally just posted a Definition which uses part of the definition of a State, and merged it with the concept of a Nation. They just avoided using Nationality within the definition, likely because whoever wrote it realized that contradiction so they avoided it. But by doing so they failed to even define a Nation. But defined a Nation State but only calling it a Nation.
First paragraph from Wiki on "Nation."
"A nation is a large type of social organization where a collective identity has emerged from a combination of shared features across a given population, such as language, history, ethnicity, culture, territory and/or society. What constitutes a nation can vary widely, as some nations are constructed around ethnicity (see ethnic nationalism) while others are bound by political constitutions (see civic nationalism and multiculturalism).[1] A nation is generally more overtly political than an ethnic group.[2][3] A nation has also been defined as a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity and particular interests.[4]"
"Nation State"
"A nation-state is a political unit where the state, a centralized political organization ruling over a population within a territory, and the nation, a community based on a common identity, are congruent.[1][2][3][4] It is a more precise concept than "country", since a country does not need to have a predominant national or ethnic group."
Ironically what you posted matches Nation State, not Nation.
Again as I said, many dictionaries sadly have been written by people who don't understand what a Nation is, and often mix Nation up with State. They view Nation and State as Synonyms. When Nation isn't a Synonym of State, never really has been. It might be in some circles, but only because they don't understand what Nation means.
6
-
@giovannimuciacia2428 Honestly you're in over your head. The whole argument has been whether Nations REQUIRE Territory to be called a Nation, not that it "CANNOT" occupy territory. So this " "nation" being used to indicate a group of people tied by something that is not a shared language, history, territory, religion and race. " Statement of yours isn't even relevant.
At the very least for god sakes read Jack David's "Ethnicity, Culture, and "The Past" which is an essay. He defines the difference between an Ethnicity and a Nation quite well.
Anthony Smith's The Origin of Nations literally considers a Nation as "..as a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity and particular interests." Which is fun when I hear Marxist say they're Class Conscious.
Again, the reason you think Nation means what you think it means is because you're mixing up Nation with "State." That a Nation requires territory to be a Nation, which it has never required. Otherwise a Nation State would be oxymoronic. A State is a Politically Organized Community which occupies and governs territory. A Nation state is when a "NATION" is that Politically Organized Community that runs the STATE. The last definition you posted LITERALLY says that as plain as day.
For example. If Nation = Ethnicity which it doesn't but "CAN" then the USA wouldn't be a Nation. If Nation = an Ethnicity, which it doesn't, then Russia, wouldn't be a Nation as she is also a massive multi ethnic Empire. Nation CAN mean an Ethnicity but not exclusively. So sharing a Common Language, territory, or what not can mean a Nation but not exclusively.
USA is a Nation built on an Idea, and the Idea, that Identity is the Nation, not a skin color, language, or ethnicity. Hence CIVIC NATIONALISM. I really don't understand how I can pound this concept into your head.
6
-
6
-
@giovannimuciacia2428 "that is an internationally recognized political entity which borders coincide for the most part with a single nation. a nation is a group of individuals (...), a state is a political entity (...), a nation state is just a type of state"
At least you're able to finally get it right. If you read the wording clearly anyways. It's there.
"borders coincide for the most part with a single nation" "With" not, on, in or for the most part referring to something that can not be defined as territory. The Nation is the People, as it states later "a nation is a group of individuals." The "State" is what is the territory. Nation State is a State built around a "Nation."
Also about Dictionary. I post two definitions, you posted one. Mine contradicted themselves, both of them had contradictions within them. ie if you read them closely they say Nation = a People, and later = Territory/Land, but in two different contexts. ie Nationality = People but Nation = Territory. But in actuality Nation = People and Nationality is used to describe different peoples often within Nations. Ukraine having multiple Nationalities. Saying Nation = Territory is well not true.
Meanwhile the one you posted felt like a joke as it basically left nationality out of it entirely to avoid being a contradiction, as someone with a close eye would see it as one if it did.
Dictionaries are not perfect mind you. Definitely now days which they seem to be changed on a whim. You forget that often multiple people are involved when changing a definition or adding to one, those people have to come to a consensus, often they can not agree, so compromises are made. Like how Corporations have been getting added to the definition of Capitalism. Some places don't include it while others do include it.
So even among multiple different Dictionaries or colleges, they do not always have consensus, and god for bid if someone uses Google Definitions, which do change on a whim.
4
-
@giovannimuciacia2428 Jesus christ. Yes we are humans, we have legs, we don't live in the sea so we walk on dirt. Dirt is land, but land doesn't define a Nation we just live on it. Also you're using examples of Ethnic Nations exclusively. Ethnic Nations are not the only Nations.
19th Century Nationalist would love you so much. Just as the Plutonians on Rick & Morty loved Jerry. Because how you described the American Nation. Those who believe in manifest destiny would be holding you up in a chair right now.
"nothing of what you said addresses my point" Because you actually don't have a point and are too stupid to realize it. Land isn't a requirement, never has been. A People's can be uprooted and moved and they'd still be a people. The land they live on holds no real relevance. Just the Identity holds all relevance. You can take all their land away, and they wouldn't just stop existing as a people.
Again you picked specific examples. How about Judaism? One of the biggest examples of the 20th Century. Prior to Israel would you call them a Nation? Even though internationally they organized, had their own congress, and would hold political discussions about the direction of their people. Even though they had no real land/territory to call their own?
They are a Nation. They ended up getting land, but even then a vast majority of their people still live around the world, but view themselves as a community. They're also not really an ethnicity in a classical sense as well, as they're Arab, European and even African, with decadents of many different ethnicities. Best way of describing them is they're a Religious Nation, a close knitted one that cares about the well being of their own.
1