Does Nationalism promote Racism ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Does Nationalism promote Racism ?

[DrStrangelove]

Yes, basically. Nationalism promotes the idealistic notion that the 'nation' (a cultural group that usually defined by the ethnic, religious, and racial make-up of the majority population within the borders of a state) is something to be valued, and to take pride in. As such, they see various out groups that deviate from the homogenous make up of the nation as threats towards it. Racism usually goes hand in hand with nationalism.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I have always thought it was more the other way around: that racism promoted nationalism because that is all I ever hear from the White Nationalists.

"Need for a [---] state so it will be free of [---] people" ....but I would say that both do promote each other to a heavy degree.

[Left Leanings]

I would say that it definitely does.

The best illustration is to be in the fucked-up nazi groups like the British National Party. They now claim to be 'respectable', and a moderate, 'nationalist' party. But their words and actions and betray them. They are Nazis, pure and simple.

The only way forward for a better world and life for all is internationalism. All the little peeps are in it together.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I agree.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Those are essentially the same social phenomenons. People find fraternity with other people belonging to the same arbitrary division of society bourgeois order has forced them into, rather than finding fraternity with their real natural ally. The difference between the two is paper thin.

[harte.beest]

Nationalism normally refers to racist organizations. White supremacists usually call themselves white nationalists but there are also left-wing nationalists.

Ghandi freed India from british imperialism, and Nelson Mandela ended the over 40 year apartheid, both are considered to be left-wing Nationalists, as well as Fidel Castro, I don't think any of them would be considered racists

[l'Enfermé]

There are non-racist nationalists and non-nationalist racists, the two are entirely different things but of course there is a close relationship between them. Most nationalists are not racists.

[danyboy27]

There are non-racist nationalists and non-nationalist racists, the two are entirely different things but of course there is a close relationship between them. Most nationalists are not racists.

Most Nationalist are Xenophobe.
there are various degree of Xenophobia of course, but you cant really be nationalist without having prejudice toward folks who dont ''belong''.

[wsg1991]

Imperialism prompt Racism , white supremacy and it's variants are result of White occupying ''inferior populations'' . stuff like spreading democracy , or bringing culture and civilization to savages as french and British Imperialist are used to say to justify their occupation to other countries , from such justifications Racism , Ethnic superiority emerges .

[RedCloud]

Mm... Not necessarily.
Maybe in a general sense it can, but ultimately I don't believe it does.

[Cythreill]

Those are essentially the same social phenomenons. People find fraternity with other people belonging to the same arbitrary division of society bourgeois order has forced them into, rather than finding fraternity with their real natural ally. The difference between the two is paper thin.

Yes. Let's blame the bourgeoisie. Racism never existed anywhere that did not have a ruling capitalist class.

[Che a chara]

There are non-racist nationalists and non-nationalist racists, the two are entirely different things but of course there is a close relationship between them. Most nationalists are not racists.

I would say this is true in the sense of Irish nationalism and republicanism in Ireland/Occupied 6 Counties, especially the mainstream and even those of anti-GFA and dissident republican persuasion.

Most, if not all the of the groups that are politically involved in the fight for Irish national liberation and national self-determination are pro-immigrant and are actively involved in anti-fascism and campaigning for LGBT and minority rights.

[Che a chara]

An interesting article by the Institute of Race Relations and report by Pedlars of Hate:

THE TRUTH ABOUT FAR-RIGHT VIOLENCE

‘We hope those politicians who respond to the economic crisis by offering nationalism or ultra-patriotism as a palliative will think again,’ said Liz Fekete, the author of the report. ‘In the 1930s, Jews were accused of having a “decadent culture” which was unpatriotic and cosmopolitan. Today, those nostalgic for a racially pure society use “multiculturalism” as a synonym or shorthand for cosmopolitanism, and this is another reason why those politicians who find a scapegoat for society’s ills in the multicultural society should think before they speak.’

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well first of all it's important to examine nationalism in terms of it's relationship to a ruling class; a capitalist ruling class since the concept of the nation is a modern one. Is the nationalism in question a tool of a ruling group trying to unite its subjects and convince them that the aims of the rulers and those of the ruled are the same? Or is it a nationalism of a group targeted by rulers trying to unite in order to present a front against their group-oppression? Is it the nationalism of the oppressor or the oppressed? Irish or English nationalism; US black or US white nationalism?

If it is nationalism of the oppressor, then it is often racist (in the sense of being prejudicial as well as a system and order in society) but not always. The concept of "the nation" can be a common language or religion or culture or any number of things. But it is always at least jingoistic and xenophobic since it both seeks to unite the population behind their rule and often unite the population in order to be pit against another population which is then demonized in an "us verses them" way.

Nationalism as a reaction to oppression is less often racist (in the sense of being bigoted, not systemic since that would be impossible) but can have superiority or pride forms of prejudice involved. The more effective of these kinds of nationalist movements usually don't have even bigotry as a major factor because in order to get to that stage, a movement has probably sought and built some allies from outside "the nation". Irish and US Black nationalism are examples of this - as both national movements developed they began to see the need for solidarity with other oppressed nationalist struggles. But nationalism of this kind is also always mixed and confused because the basis of the politics is not rooted in class.

[Baseball]

Well first of all it's important to examine nationalism in terms of it's relationship to a ruling class; a capitalist ruling class since the concept of the nation is a modern one. Is the nationalism in question a tool of a ruling group trying to unite its subjects and convince them that the aims of the rulers and those of the ruled are the same? Or is it a nationalism of a group targeted by rulers trying to unite in order to present a front against their group-oppression? Is it the nationalism of the oppressor or the oppressed? Irish or English nationalism; US black or US white nationalism?

If it is nationalism of the oppressor, then it is often racist (in the sense of being prejudicial as well as a system and order in society) but not always. The concept of "the nation" can be a common language or religion or culture or any number of things. But it is always at least jingoistic and xenophobic since it both seeks to unite the population behind their rule and often unite the population in order to be pit against another population which is then demonized in an "us verses them" way.

Nationalism as a reaction to oppression is less often racist (in the sense of being bigoted, not systemic since that would be impossible) but can have superiority or pride forms of prejudice involved. The more effective of these kinds of nationalist movements usually don't have even bigotry as a major factor because in order to get to that stage, a movement has probably sought and built some allies from outside "the nation". Irish and US Black nationalism are examples of this - as both national movements developed they began to see the need for solidarity with other oppressed nationalist struggles. But nationalism of this kind is also always mixed and confused because the basis of the politics is not rooted in class.

The distinction made is not quite as clear cut. The National Socialists of Germany argued that the Germans had been oppressed for centuries by the great powers, and of the Jews. One can certainly ridicule the claims of the nazis on that score, but t doesn't really solve any problem. Most accepting this line of thinking would write the nazis as the former, whereas they would have identified themselves as the latter. Eye of the beholder.
But both are wrong.

[Book O'Dead]

Does Nationalism promote Racism ?

Not necessarily, but it does promote divisions among the working classes which to me is as bad as racism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The distinction made is not quite as clear cut. The National Socialists of Germany argued that the Germans had been oppressed for centuries by the great powers, and of the Jews.

They could argue that but there is no material basis for this claim.

One can certainly ridicule the claims of the nazis on that score, but t doesn't really solve any problem.

Most accepting this line of thinking would write the nazis as the former, whereas they would have identified themselves as the latter. Eye of the beholder.
But both are wrong.

Both are wrong? You mean jews weren't subject to oppression in Europe in the 20s or 30s!!? What about the Germans? They were subject to the post-war restrictions, but was that because the French and English hate beer and pretzels or because Germany was a huge economic threat and a potential military threat that they wanted to keep hobbled?

That's why it's useless to evaluate something based on what people claim. All racists tend to claim that they are defending their heritage or people or whatnot, but again, it's the relationship to the actual material circumstances in society that matter, not what people say.

The Democratic party of reconstruction in the US, claimed "black domination" was oppressing whites in the South - was that really happening? Is there material support for that? Or does "black domination" mean blacks got equal votes and were no longer sub-citizens?

[seventeethdecember2016]

Honestly, it varies from whom you consider part of a nation. Mussolini thought that Italians could also be Jewish, but then he changed his mind with the influence of Hitler.

There are some genuine Nationalists in Europe, and even America, that believe you can be a multicultural society under one national identity.

[Sea]

Honestly, it varies from whom you consider part of a nation. Mussolini thought that Italians could also be Jewish, but then he changed his mind with the influence of Hitler.

There are some genuine Nationalists in Europe, and even America, that believe you can be a multicultural society under one national identity.

Though racism and nationalism aren't prerequisites of one another, they can promote each other, if for no other reason than that the same frame of mind sits behind the idea of national superiority and racial superiority alike.