No. Nationalism is a stratifying agent of the bourgeoisie and anyone who believes in the concept leaves themselves open to manipulation by the ruling class and the state.
Yes but the rest can be consider Nationalism since it's the preservation of the people who lives in the country .
Preserve the people? What does that even mean?
I want the people of my country be proud of our Heroes who fight for Portugal and freedom .
Meaningless. The Portuguese reactionaries at the time fought for Portugal (in their eyes). Hitler thought he was fighting for Germany, the US government considers itself to be fighting for America.
since i respect every culture but i think my country has enough people and don't need anymore foreign be them White or Black .
We are all humans. Planet Earth belongs to all of it. I should therefore be able to walk and live on any part of it I choose. Who are you to say no?
It's OK for Africans to work to preserve "their" culture and so on but not for Europeans.
Nope, this is why we should oppose female circumcision. And when the African tribes us "it's part of our culture", we should tell them we don't care.
I agree with you because all nation have the right to self-determination .
Rights don't exist.
As someone from a country which has experienced an unprecedented level of cultural destruction over the last 25 years, I'll have to disagree. Over that period, the former Soviet Union has rejected many elements of its own cultural past, while idolizing Western culture and creating a primitive and shabby imitation of it through movies, music, and art.
Not necessarily a bad thing. If old and reactionary cultural practices are replaced by more progressive ones then I don't see the problem. Not that I'm saying all cultural change in the former USSR has been progressive, mind you.
It is the sum of a nation's collective historical traditions and experiences.
And how far back does the Russian nation extend? When did it begin? Why should you lay claims to "experiences" that people actually experienced hundreds of years ago?
It is folklore, music, dress, language, etc.
All ascribed their status by the bourgeoisie. When did the people of Russia choose their national anthem? How did they decided what their national dress would be? How did they decide what their national dish should be? When did the people of Russia unanimously decide what the Russian flag would be? People assume these things are "national customs" because the state propagates them as such. They are propaganda for the national myth.
The latter has experienced degradation in Russia recently as well, with thousands of new borrowed words, mostly from English, which are no better than the old Russian words, serving only to slowly wash out the richness of the Russian language.
Russian, like all languages, has always been influenced by other languages and is constantly evolving. English has loads of words from French, German, Latin, etc. Even Inuit ('anorak')! Doesn't make it any less "rich".
In the instance of tradition, I can agree that it can be a reactionary force, since it often promotes stupid and nonsensical behaviour and rules.
That's because most of them are invented and then propagated by the bourgeoisie as tradition.
It's when national pride is turned into xenophobia, hatred toward minorities, and exclusionary attitudes that it becomes a problem.
It's very purpose is to foster a sense of otherness and exclusiveness. Hence you see hatred towards others even with people who do not consider themselves nationalists but merely "patriots" (two sides of the same coin).
Otherwise it can be an acceptable, even beautiful thing.
Yes, providing you support retaining the bourgeoisie as the ruling class.
Perhaps my attitudes are rooted in the fact that Soviet Marxism was mixed with Russian conservativism, messianism and ancient Russian collectivist ideals, whereas Western Marxism is mixed with liberal ideas. Still, I cannot give them up.
Yes you can, it just takes a bit of time.
@ Loz's post above:
Yes there is, and the Russian nation state started forming in the 16th century or so.
Source: Nasha Velikaja Rodina, Moscow, 1948.
But bourgeois historians can still place the Russian nation as stretching back far further in time. Hence the Kingdom of Rus and Grand Duchy of Moscow are portrayed as early stages of the Russian nation (even though the people of these times would not have viewed themselves as such).
Quote:At the time
Yes, and that was progressive.
, yes it was. In order for capitalism to develop, the bourgeoisie needs to strengthen its control over the country and nationalism is merely a tool used in this much like the aristocracy used religion.