Nationalizing has nothing to do with nationalism.

Nationalizing: transferring (a major branch of industry or commerce) from private to state ownership or control.

Nationalism is an ideology and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference, that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity, and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power. It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity.

Was President Lincoln a nationalist?

What I don't understand, is how a word has been hi-jacked so badly over the last 40-50 years so that it has nearly become a synonym for rascist.  It's sad.

The media using "white nationalist" enough times.

LOL are you really going to act like you didn't have to be shown the difference between nationalizing and nationalism, and act like I'm the one without a clue?

Yes their are twisted so-called nationalists like Chavez who do things all wrong, like nationalizing. He does not encapsulate nationalism.

I don't care about your heritage.  I care about America and American values.

Dyed in the wool. He's dead as in he died by he was also a dyed in the wool nationalist.

Woohoo! I got to correct Cincinnatus!!!

Flawless Victory!

But for what purpose?  So that no American may ever claim to be a nationalist, or labeled a nationalist, without a cloud of evil intent following them around?

I mean every country has nationalism.  Italy has nationalism, Poland has nationalism.  They care about Italian and Polish people.  We should care about Americans but we don't.

We can't survive as a country without some sort of nationalism because at the rate we are going "Americans" are defined simply by a a piece of paper.  The immigrants don't have the same values.  Its obvious.

Just ask the Mexican who was asking what they thought of his heritage.  What do expect me to say?  Immigrants come here and wave their own flag.  They expect us to accommodate them.  I work with lots of Chinese.  They aren't Americans either.  They are Chinese living in America because it is to their economic advantage.

You can tell that the media has gotten a hold on this term.  People here cannot agree to a definition of the term in order to even debate the merits or lack thereof.

It seems that many cannot see the term nationalist without considering racial or ethnic considerations.

Over the years, I've seen terms like "White Nationalist," "Black Nationalist" etc.  The functional aspect of those terms is the racial component in front of the term with the notion that the racial homogeneous aspect would be the unifying factor.  It is a valid notion, but it is far too limiting.

I'd argue that any group of people regardless of ethnic origin may be nationalist.

According to Merriam-Webster, nationalism is defined as:

-Loyalty and devotion to a nation

-A sense of national consciousness

-Exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups .

Not a single word in any of that references "race."  It says a nation.  The USA is a "nation" full of many races.

To go a little further, Encyclopedia Britannica describes nationalism as an "ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests."

Again, nothing regarding race.

I've seen posts here that state that we are not using the "Historical" definition of nationalism.  According to whom?  Even in this country, we have VERY different definitions of words according to different regions. Hell... right now, just being White, Male, Christian, and Hetrosexual is considered automatically the definition of being an oppressor (see Cultural Marxism.)

According to what I would call credible sources cited above, I have no fault in the definition of nationalism, and I see no ill in being considered a nationalist.  If you have a different definition of nationalism, perhaps you should lobby those credible sources to reflect your definition.

I used to consider myself a nationalist.  In some aspects, I still am.  However, I naively believed that there was enough "American" cultural and unity that we could be cohesively a functional entity.  I don't feel that anymore.  The reality is that there are such wide divergences in vision and opinion of what it means to be "American" that no cohesive common ground can be found.  At this point, the strongest tie that binds us together is air conditioning.

I still advocate that we MUST put the interests of our nation above the interest of other nations.  However, these days, I am more of a tribalist.  I know my tribe.  They know me.  They share my values, and my vision.  I know what to expect of them, and they me.

I guess that old saying "All politics is local" has deeper roots than just policy.  For me, I will place the interests of my local community-- specifically those I interact with above anything else.   I have given up on the idea that we can maintain identity and purpose beyond that.

You have probably heard and read about the 11-13 million illegals...for decades.

I don't believe that number so I guessed 30-50 million.

Recently some conservative woman published a book on this subject and I heard her mention 30 million illegals.  I will have to find the source.

You probably also heard in the last week that in some places, 40-60% of households speak other than English at home.  That is not good and if true, probably supports my 30-50 million illegals estimate.

I suspect that supposed groups like the KKK, Aryan nation and similar are just small outliers in out population.

Commie socialist Democrats are real and in your face now.

Anti-fa should be labeled a terrorist organization and responded to accordingly.

If you define a nation as people, rather than land, it does not much of a leap to stratify "people" along various racial and other classifications.  "My people" quickly becomes people of the same race, religion, etc.

Antifa needs to be treated like the KKK was. Don't give them that cachet  of being "official" terrorists.  Infiltrate so many feds into it that you have undercover FBI agents arresting undercover ATF and Department of Agriculture agents.

POPCORN DAMMIT!

Not really.   I was reacting to commie liberals who denigrated the term and specifically Trump saying that he was a nationalist.

Liberals are bad for a country/nation. They divide and use class warfare to achieve and retain power.

They have destroyed the black family with their Great Society programs and no one talks about it and the steps needed to reverse the trend.

That's exactly right.  A nation is by definition its people.  You get rid of the people you don't have the nation.  You have something else.

I asked that question because I thought you might give examples like the one you did.
(Regarding OUR domestic communists) I asked for examples of nationalist policies they would impose (and you gave me . . . . . . . wait for it . . . . . . . nationalizing. And you're not wrong, that is what they would do, but these would not be nationalistic. They would be STATIST.

Never said it was. I said it's our politicians' DUTY to be nationalists. It's their JOB.

What does heritage have to do with nationality?

Are you a citizen? Do you put this country above all others?

Some call that nationalism.

My view is that the US is unique in that regard in that we have a less homogeneous population than many other countries.

It appears that too many European countries re being invaded by people who adhere to the muslim ideology.

The muslim ideology is incompatible with Western nations/cultures and this recent invasion may destroy many of these countries from within.

.

Lol and so do some Hispanic Americans. The first time I saw the way I’ve seen Hispanic guys treat black guys openly, and nonchalantly, made me drop my jaw.

Get over yourself.

Nationalism is an ideology and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people)[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity,[2] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).[1][3] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity—based on shared social characteristics such as culture, language, religion, politics, and belief in a shared singular history[4][5][page needed]—and to promote national unity or solidarity.[1] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture, and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements.[6] It also encourages pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism.[7][page needed] Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies, such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (socialist nationalism) for example.[2]

Using this simple definition, those who are anti-nationalism are anti-nation.  You can't support the people of a country by replacing them with other people.  Especially if the "new" people are completely different than those they are replacing.

Let's not kid ourselves.  We aren't a nation any more.  We were 100 years ago and we mostly were about 30 years ago.  But now it just isn't the same.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

It begs an interesting question.  Imagine we could replace each non-productive person with a highly productive person from another country (imagine the proverbial "welfare queen" replaced by a doctor or engineer).  The benefits to the "nation" would be huge, if you define nation as those remaining or if you define nation as the country itself.  If you include in the definition of nation those non-productive persons shipped off, then arguably the relative harm is greater than the relative benefit.

Is a "nation" only its currently existing people?  Or is it all people yet to be, including our children and future people allowed to immigrate?

And if "nation" is just currently existing people, who happen by luck of birth to reside here, do they really deserve it?  Particularly if they have done nothing productive to further the nation or earn their place.

"Nation" has different definitions depending on the context. Lots of words are like that.

History does have examples in which "Nationalism" refers to movements in which a people wish to separate off from another country. But History also has at least one example where "Nationalism" referred to a movement intended to *UNITE* multiple peoples.... German Nationalism which gave birth to a Unified Germany during the Napoleonic wars.

The idea that "Nation" can only ever refer to an Ethnicity or Race... would be problematic when one considers all the instances in which "Nation" is used to describe various agencies, and organizations which are obviously not racial in nature.

What Race or Ethnicity was the National Highway System built for?
What Race or Ethnicity does the National Rifle Association represent?
What Race or Ethnicity does the National Health Service in the UK serve?

In these contexts, "National" (and the root word 'Nation') refer to a given territorial area, where a people with a shared history inhabit.

lol

Communists have been fomenting wars of “national liberation” for as long as they’ve been around. It’s what they do.

They don’t stir up Patriotism, they stir up Nationalism.

Communist shave always been obsessed with nationalism as a key social development step toward Communism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism_and_the_National_Question

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_delimitation_in_the_Soviet_Union

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_national_liberation

To suggest that a "Nation" is only the people who compose it in the present is to assume that the "nation" is a static entity fixed in a particular time. It is not and can not be. It, like a human, is a dynamic and evolving thing. The founders would probably find many things to object to throughout our country's history. Even things we think of as right and proper history the way it is supposed to be. I know George Washington was a tyrant in suppressing the whiskey rebellion and attaching the yoke of taxation to the citizenry's neck but how do you think he would feel about McArthur putting the army's boots to the bonus army's ass, the national guard shooting unarmed hippies at Kent State or how the VA treats veterans now? Nations evolve. If we do it right, we keep close to our founder's intent (that constitution thing) and life better for those future members of our nation who have yet to make their appearance. Personally I think we have a bit of a duty to them that way. I don't want my future grandkid soldier getting shit paper as a bonus for his diligence in keeping his boot on the citizenry's neck.

It hasn't been hijacked. It is not a synonym for racism, but in its original form, as most aptly applied during the brief imperialistic effort of America, it had racial elements. Its meaning in America extends deep into the early 19th century, and in some instances, beyond.

My initial draft was longer, but I chose to abbreviate it to an aphorism because I thought it would generate better discussion, as it did.  Aphorism != mathematically proven truth.

As many already posted the definitions, you'll see that they are close enough to apply similarly to the original post.  If you're arguing semantics, yawn.  If you're arguing the historicity of the terms, that is an interesting tangent topic, but I don't see how it relates directly to the original post, unless we're assuming that there is no such thing as an American nation.

Agreed

I’m geographically Hispanic with DNA test backing it up. I am a nationalist. I define what that means to me. It means America first.

The globalist here trying to make it a racial thing are unpatriotic in my opinion.

It is 'American nationalism,' a nationalism for all of America being put first in priority before any external peoples, and nothing more and nothing less.

Those with a globalist agenda or with an anti-American agenda will often try to conflate it with a racist agenda which it is not in the slightest. It has absolutely nothing to do with race in this context.

It is simply American nationalism in a time when we desperately need American nationalism in opposition to Globalist harm to America.

Certain domestic enemies and also certain known global groups, clubs, etc with their greatest allegiances to the global group  don't like American nationalism very much and so will go to great lengths pushing propaganda against it.

Can you actually have a nation when half of that nation wishes the other half was gone?  Or when half of the nation hates the nation and actively work against its interests?

Why cant a nation have a specific ethnic - racial group tied to it that make up its identity? Countries in Europe or Asia have a very distinct ethnic/racial make up that also encompass sub ethnic groups. Ireland for example has been made up by a specific ethnic/racial/culture group unique to it, the same way Japan would be. The Americas are unique in that it was created by various ethnic/racial/culture groups to where it would be hard to or impossible tie a specific ethnic/racial/culture group to its national identity.

With today's immigration and such, when it comes to places like Europe, i will maintain that some Somali or Arab moving to Germany learning the language and adapting culture etc. is nothing more than a Somali or Arab with a German passport, same with some Irish or Russian man moving to Vietnam and Korea.

My direct experience and observation is just the opposite, being that today the world is smaller than ever before.  A person from another country is vastly more likely to understand and be useful to their host country than they would have been 50 years ago.

For all we know, that same Irishman has been posting on arfcom for 10 years under a pseudonym with a Minnesota state flag and understands the Constitution and concepts of American freedom better than your left wing neighbor could ever hope to.  They’ve also been trained in medicine/engineering/finance using the same texts as American schools and reading the same professional journals online.

It all points to “nationalism” becoming less relevant than ever before.  An optimal scenario is one where an American oilfield worker can move to Saudi and earn a living when we go through a cyclical downturn.  That same worker can then move to the Canadian oil fields when Saudi turns, and come back to the US when demand is strong here.  The same can be said for the investment banker who works in NY, London, Dubai, and Luxembourg. The less friction the better when it comes to both personal success and the world economy.

I say this as someone who currently lives in another country and count at least 12 nationalities on my team, each of whom was hand selected based strictly on skills and merit and each of whom cost a premium to hire.

The people you want making up your “nation” are the best, brightest, most motivated and hard working, regardless of where they come from.

no

Yep.

ITT, we have self proclaimed geniuses arguing semantics by cherry picking meaningful history to them.

Has there ever been a communist leader who was NOT a nationalist???

I can't think of any.

Lenin and Stalin were Inter-Nationalists, in that the purpose of the Communist revolution was to promote international communism rather than elevate a single country.  The many different countries/nations were absorbed into the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics," which was not a single nation so much as an empire ruled by the Communist Party.  As an example, Stalin wasn't even Russian.