To name a few obvious examples, Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat and the White Race are all of them objects of passionate nationalistic feeling: but their existence can be seriously questioned, and there is no definition of any one of them that would be universally accepted. It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less to one's own country, and it is not even strictly necessary that the units in which it deals should actually exist. Nationalism, in the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism. But here I must repeat what I said above, that I am only using the word ‘nationalism’ for lack of a better. Confronted with a phenomenon like Nazism, which we can observe from the outside, nearly all of us would say much the same things about it. "So long as it is applied merely to the more notorious and identifiable nationalist movements in Germany, Japan, and other countries, all this is obvious enough. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. What's the difference between patriotism and nationalism? Here's some of what George Orwell had to say about the distinction in his 1945 essay, "Notes on Nationalism." "Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism.
0 kommentar(er)
