You are a nationalist.

That's precisely what I pointed out as the issue. Assigning anything else than citizenship to being part of a state is ideology. Nothing defines 'membership' of a state other than your passport. Of which one can have more than one.

This view differentiates you from a nationalist. Which is my point.
 
Nationalism might be ideology, but I wouldn't say that it's an ideology. Else, we find ourselves claiming that Bolivar, Mussolini and Ho Chi Minh were all fundamentally of one mind, which seems a stretch.
 
Nationalism might be ideology, but I wouldn't say that it's an ideology. Else, we find ourselves claiming that Bolivar, Mussolini and Ho Chi Minh were all fundamentally of one mind, which seems a stretch.

Uh, what? This seems a pretty ridiculously all-or-nothing stance to take. Nationalism is an ideology - that doesn't mean every nationalist is 'fundamentally of one mind.'
 
Uh, what? This seems a pretty ridiculously all-or-nothing stance to take. Nationalism is an ideology - that doesn't mean every nationalist is 'fundamentally of one mind.'
"Ideology" implies a shared set of ideals, that the people who participate in the ideology are in fundamental agreement over a basic set of principles, even if they might diverge on the details or implications. I don't think nationalism amounts to that, because it doesn't necessarily imply anything more than a belief that states and nations should align, and while that may be an ideological claim, it could also be a simply practical one, based simply on a belief that states are more stable and efficient when they are "national". At most, it implies a belief that nations are actually-existing entities, or that if people behave as if they are actually-existing it is appropriate to treat them as such.

Nationalism is better understood as a response to the question of sovereignty rather than as a world-view in and of if itself. It doesn't supply answers so much as it is an answer, if that makes sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom