[QUOTE="Makhaidos"][QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]Right but it is a dying definition. When somebody uses the word gay now it is identifying something homosexual. Eventually the meaning will cease to exist.
sherman-tank1
Excellent. Socialism still currently means something entirely different from Nazism.It is a form of Socialism, just like Communism or Democratic Socialism.You must first define socialism. If taking the dictionary and academic definition, than Nazism has almost nothing to do with Socialism.
[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]It also led to the freedom of many countries from oppressive rulers, violently or not.
sherman-tank1
Nationalism can be a useful tool for a poor third-world country attempting to free itself from an oppressive imperial power (as we saw during the post-WWII decolonization era)... But what happens when wealthy powerful first-world nations use nationalism as a tool? Well, we've already seen the results with the World Wars, Cold War, "War on Terror", etc.
Like I said, it isn't all good. Hence the double edged sword. It is more dangerous than any man made weapon.It can be tied to almost every war in human history and is the reason for the creation of man made weapons.
Although the truth is, we are simply arguing semantics. Your conception of the word nationalism is simply the nature of what my conception of the term nationalism will lead to. I believe that the term nationalism means "identifying with a nation." You believe that the term nationalism has to do with the politics that occur when people "identify with their nation," in essence proto-fascism.
You fool. Did you even read what you linked? It 100% supports my conception of the word. In the article nationalism is implied to simply mean "adherence to a nation." Thus why they they mentioned the break up of Yugoslavia and and the Soviet bloc. These break ups did not occur because of nationalism as you understood it (proto-fascism) but simply as a term to describe "adherence to a nation." It also defines what a nation is, or did you skip that part in your haste to somehow prove me wrong?The fact that the author spends so much time defining what a nation is means they are building a narrative that supposes nationalism means "adherence" or identifying with a nation. Why would the author define "nation" if they conceptualized the term nationalism in the crude way you do, simply as a synonym of fascism, or more accurately proto-fascism.
[QUOTE="Endusticle"][QUOTE="Makhaidos"] Before I entered university, I never even heard the word. Then I graduated university knowing how to define a word based on its concept, not on Wikipedia definitions.Makhaidos
Cite me any academic journal that uses the word nationalism in the sense you understand it. http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472098985-intro.pdfYou fool. Did you even read what you linked? It 100% supports my conception of the word. In the article nationalism is implied to simply mean "adherence to a nation." Thus why they they mentioned the break up of Yugoslavia and and the Soviet bloc. These break ups did not occur because of nationalism as you understood it (proto-fascism) but simply as a term to describe "adherence to a nation."
And frankly I am tired of this constant bashing of Wikipedia by supposed internet intellectuals who think Wikipedia is the sum of the collective ignorance of the unwashed masses. Do you really think that the Wikipedia page on "Nationalism" was made by people who completely fabricated the definition of nationalism? Do you think I wrote it? Or can you admit that the fact is the existence of the Wiki page supporting my conception of the word means my conception at least has SOME basis in reality?
[QUOTE="Makhaidos"][QUOTE="Endusticle"][QUOTE="Makhaidos"] Yes, because academic circles are well-known for their widespread high regard for Wikipedia.Wikipedia is know for it's high regard for academic circles. Regardless, the term used in my education for "identifying with a nationality or nation" has been the term "nationalism." Although I remember understanding the word as you understand before I entered university. Before I entered university, I never even heard the word. Then I graduated university knowing how to define a word based on its concept, not on Wikipedia definitions.Cite me any academic journal that uses the word nationalism in the sense you understand it.
[QUOTE="Makhaidos"][QUOTE="Endusticle"][QUOTE="Makhaidos"]If you're only going by the loosest possible meaning of "nationalist," then no. Recognizing that nations do, in fact, exist doesn't lead to fascism. The real definition of nationalism, however, does.What you classify as the "real" definition of nationalism is the definition given in grade 10 history classes. Nationalism, within academic spheres, usually is a term to define the concept of "identifying with a nation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism Yes, because academic circles are well-known for their widespread high regard for Wikipedia.Wikipedia is know for it's high regard for academic circles. Regardless, the term used in my education for "identifying with a nationality or nation" has been the term "nationalism." Although I remember understanding the word as you understand before I entered university.
[QUOTE="Makhaidos"]If you're only going by the loosest possible meaning of "nationalist," then no. Recognizing that nations do, in fact, exist doesn't lead to fascism. The real definition of nationalism, however, does.What you classify as the "real" definition of nationalism is the definition given in grade 10 history classes. Nationalism, within academic spheres, usually is a term to define the concept of "identifying with a nation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
Log in to comment