Yes. Not technically I guess, but they share many traits.<br />
"The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" by Eric Hoffer -http://amzn.to/WHwxr3
Oh good I'm not the only one who has an intellectual curiousity. Good pick by the way.
That looks like a neat read.
It is, it's also real short, I don't think it's over two hundred pages.
It's a manifestation of the same impulse. Religion, politics, economics and the belief in the necessity of some sort of "state" all began at the same time roughly nine to ten thousand years ago. <br />
They are deeply interconnected. If one "fails", or becomes so dysfunctional as to be useless, the rest will suffer. That is, everyone in that society will suffer as a result
Yes indeed, that is modern nationalism. Strictly speaking, nationalism is nothing more than the emotional impulse to "validate" ones attachment to what is essentially a legal construct, The State. contained within the state are the treaties and military alliances that define intercourse among nations. Also included, of course, are the economic parameters of influence, who gets to do business where, how extensively they will be allowed to do so and with whom, specifically, they shall be allowed to trade.
Military spheres of influence tend to follow colonial lines for European countries like France and England. Even Italy, in countries like Ethiopia.
The U.S. hasn't completely recovered from it's "need to contain communism" in its choice of allies, or completely rid itself of the illusion that we have a "right" to interfere in Central and South America.
If you wish to define "nationalism" strictly, as it is interpreted in the 21st century, then you really cannot go much further back than the 18th century.
If by "nationalism" you mean "love of country" you can go back to what is commonly regarded as the dawn of civilization.
Good heavens, they don't let you indent your paragraphs in a reply here. How odd.
No, nationalism is a political ideology. they may share similar goals, traits, and tactics, but ultimately they are dissimilar.
You don't worship the nation, pray to the nation, nor is the leader seen as a god. All are necessary to be a religion.
Yet it is NOT a religion.
But both exist, generally speaking, for the same reason, they are mechanisms of social control. Until the 19th century, "Church and State" were inseparable. The U.S. was a exception. France "officially" separated it's government and the Catholic Church in the 18th century but the Churches influence remained strong and undeniable.
For most of the Christian world, separation is mainly a matter of degree, but the dividing lines are clear. In the Islamic world, the church IS the state. There is no equivalent to that in western history.
Never go full retard.
If not, it is a mass psychosis
He or she has the option to choose, or even be consider to be both nationalitites