I already acknowledged plastic nationalism.
This entire side of the globe are considered an ex-settler colony nations. Is this just about US European settlers and the Indians, or are Mexicans really just Spaniards, Brazilians are really just Portuguese, Canidans really just French and Brittish, and so on?
Basically yep.
That's just silly.
You mean you disagree with me?
Okay then, wont be so dismissive. The concept of nationalism began in England in the early 1700s with people identifying with a country, and began as rooted in patriotism, then the American and French revolutions of the 1700s further promoted the first sociological understanding of nationalism to be both patriotism and political autonomy. The term originates in German romanticism and the person who originated the term nationalism, defined it in terms of language, placing importance on political nationality, and patriotism. Two sociological schools of thought later developed, one which maintains nationalism can only exist in modern society by means of unity through political rule and economic structure, and the other based in unity through ethnic evolution by means of group survival and environmental influence. If one were to defer to the evolutionary based philosophy of nationalism which pre-dates modern society, then it must also be accepted it stands to reason there is no longer any such thing as genuine nationalism, because the advent of modern political rule and economics defeats the concept, thus the evolutionary concept of nationalism has evolved into racial separatism and xenophobia, with maybe the exception of existing clan groups type nations. If going to poo poo social sciences, it's only fair to poo poo both schools of thought because neither outdates the other, and those very schools of thought are the origin of terms like civic nationalism and racial nationalism, which are concepts which also neither outdate each other.
Am disappointed for no response. Sometimes purposely leave myself open to valid contradiction out of curiosity for what people might say, so will instead sigh and contradict myself. It's sometimes hard to know what people are really trying to say without drawing conclusions. The reason for being dismissive and calling that response silly, is because it wasn't the response to be expected. If one is to adhere to a ethnic nationalism based theology, then it makes complete sense to say there is no such thing as US nationalist, but also makes sense to say there is no such thing as Brittish nationalist or French nationalist, and so on, but rather European decedents in the US are members of the white nation, with disregard to civic ideas of modern boundaries or country of origin. By that same token, one could easily say all forms of ethnic nationalism are alive and well in the US. White nationalism is the only ethnic nationalism shunned to be lacking in nobility, so it's difficult to know if bluntness has been avoided, an idea is simply being convoluted, or if completely misunderstanding what's being said.
Do you want to talk about this from a personal feelings perspective?
No? Jack's personal feelings on nationalism are very interesting and certainly not too touchy feely to cause discomfort to discuss. Though you would have to go first for bringing up the topic of my feelings.
