I’ve received some comments recently on both YouTube and Yahoo! concerning my characterization of patriots and nationalists.  Some people have gone as far as accusing me of confusing or conflating the two, despite my generally cautious employment of both terms.  I have also been called stupid, irrational, utopian, liberal, commie, fascist, neo-con, delusional and various combinations of those terms.  This usually occurs when I call someone a nationalist, and he objects, saying, “No, I’m not a nationalist.  I’m a patriot!”  I think the issue warrants a brief bit of exploration.

As with any analysis of words, let’s start by turning to our friend the dictionary.  Merriam-Webster defines patriotism as:

“…love for or devotion to one’s country….”

Random House 2009 defines it as:

“…devoted love, support, and defense of one’s country; national loyalty.”

As for nationalism, Merriam-Webster says:

“…loyalty and devotion to a nation  ; especially : 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….”

In turn, Random House offers the following:

“1. national spirit or aspirations. ; 2. devotion and loyalty to one’s own nation; patriotism. ; 3.  excessive patriotism; chauvinism. ; 4. the desire for national advancement or independence. ; 5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one’s own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.”

So it’s clear that there is a significant degree of overlap between the two.

In gathering my thoughts on all of this, I quickly scanned the blogosphere for other articles on this subject and came across several.  The majority view, at least according to what I looked at, seems to be that patriotism is love of country coupled with tolerance and a recognition of shortcomings, whereas nationalism is love of country regardless of what the country does.  Of course, a 2001 article by Joseph Sobran seems to state the opposite, even though I don’t believe he intended to.  He asserts, “Patriotism is like family love. You love your family just for being your family, not for being ‘the greatest family on earth….’“  Then he goes on to say, “While patriotism is a form of affection, nationalism, it has often been said, is grounded in resentment and rivalry; it’s often defined by its enemies and traitors, real or supposed. It is militant by nature, and its typical style is belligerent. Patriotism, by contrast, is peaceful until forced to fight.”

So maybe Sobran doesn’t oppose the majority view, but his “family love” metaphor is a bit confusing.  I would say that loving one’s country for the sheer hell of it is more nationalistic than patriotic.  It would make more sense to me to love a nation on the basis of its great attributes, as opposed to loving it on the comparatively shallow basis of being born on a patch of dirt within the imaginary lines we call national borders.

In any case, much of the rigamarole seems to revolve around people arbitrarily assigning what they consider positive traits to patriotism, while assigning what they consider negative traits to nationalism.  One blog I read, “The Mahablog: Making the World Safe for Liberalism,” asserts the following: “Righties are not patriots, but nationalists. And I’m arguing that one of the basic differences between a patriot and a nationalist is that patriots value responsibility.“  For a dissenting opinion, one need only peruse the forums of Free Republic, wherein there is no shortage of vitriolic rhetoric from self-styled conservatives against anyone they perceive as a liberal.

Given such confusing, often contradictory accounts of what comprises patriotism and nationalism, it’s no wonder that someone such as myself, who eschews both, has a hard time differentiating.  If someone takes my guitar off of a venue’s stage and tries to walk out the door with it, in all likelihood I will call that person a thief.  Upon being confronted, he might protest by saying, “No, I’m not a thief.  I’m a spontaneous borrower.”  That might very well be the case, but I have no way to know that.  All I know is that he tried to take my guitar without my permission.

Likewise, if someone insists that I must accept being enslaved by the ruling elite, by way of a system this person considers ideal for whatever reason, then I will probably call him a nationalist.  He might then object by saying, “I’m not a nationalist.  I’m a patriot.”  That might very well be the case, but I have no way to know that.  All I know is that he is trying to force his preferred system on me at gunpoint, implied or otherwise.

So in a sea of arbitrary delineation, here is my own arbitrary delineation.  All nationalists are patriots.  Some patriots are nationalists.  I draw the line between those who recognize and accede to my desire to secede on an individual level from their system whether they agree with my preference or not, and those who insist that I may not secede or vow to oppose my secession with violence.  The former are patriots; the latter are nationalists.

Dirt poor Africans hijacked an American merchant vessel as it was attempting to deliver a shipment of food to even poorer Africans.  The attempt failed, but the attackers managed to kidnap the ship’s captain and set off in a lifeboat, which soon ran out of fuel.  A five-day standoff ensued, and the drama ended with one pirate surrendering and U.S. Navy snipers taking down the other three.  Those were the only casualties, and the unharmed captain was taken aboard the U.S.S. Bainbridge.

I’m glad it’s over, and I’m glad the captain and his fellows weathered the ordeal safely.  However, what has been painfully obvious to me since the whole thing began is how simple prevention should have been.  Three words:

Arm the crew.

Imagine a handful of pirates scaling the sides of a ship manned by sailors with automatic weapons.  It’s not a pretty sight that I have in mind, at least not if you’re opposed to the idea of thieves and kidnappers turned into chum.  As usual, this solution isn’t even on the radar of the various governments who have repeatedly proven inept (surprise!) at putting a stop to this shit.

“Armed citizens???  Why, the inhumanity!”

Arrrrgh, matey, let’s just continue to roll the dice with the mental stability of these aggressors.  Yeah.  There’s a great idea.