Right, could you like, cite anything to explain where you got this understanding? I can tell you can’t, because that second paragraph is imperialism, not nationalism, ultra or otherwise. You’d only make that mistake if you were just vibe-defining this, so I wonder why you felt the need to do this at all.
Nationalism isn’t just “when a place borders,” it is a specific set of relations and politics where ownership over land and access to the resources of that land is privileged through the arbitrary restriction to a naturalized (as in, imagined to be intrinsically and inevitably guaranteed power) group of people and dispossessed from an exploited or colonized group of people. It emerged in the late-eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a way to rationalize settler-colonial hierarchies and unify disparate groups of European peoples in the imperial peripheries and metropole around manufactured cultural commonalities like language or heritage. I’m sure you’re aware of German Wars of Unification and their subsequent consequences. New Brunswick and Saskatchewan don’t have obviously similar material conditons besides that they are on the same continent and have similar ways of life forced onto them by a settler-colonial, liberal capitalist state. Settlers in both of those provinces do imagine a common national identity, which is “Canadian,” but that is something intentionally constructed by the state. And no, it isn’t “arguably” bad, unless you’re about to try and argue that the genocide and dispossession of indigenous peoples is only relatively wrong.
Imperialism is the subordination of other groups of people by a privileged group of people within a metropole or core to facilitate the extraction of resources back to that metropole through economic, political, or military coercion. Though it certainly may involve nationalism, as EuroAmerican imperialism does today, it is a distinct set of politics that does not require the same relations as nationalism as it refers to specifically the subordination of external groups of peoples and their lands to the benefit of the privileged, imperialistic group. Canada and the US began as settler-colpnial states on the eastern half of the continent now called North America, and both have expanded westward as part of imperialistic campaigns against indigenous peoples so secure access to the land for their settlers and therefore the transference of resources and power to the benefit of the metropole. Both foster national identities, but those identities are actually subsequent developments of their imperialism and function more to maintain control of those holdings by the metropoles than it was a means to facilitate that expansion.
These things are often cooperative, but they are by no means one thing. Israel is indeed a settler-colonial state occupying Palestine, but it’s one founded on nationalism by the creation of an arbitrary, “unified” Jewish ethnic identity (that also excludes black and African Jewish peoples) and relies on that to exist. Their expansionist and fascistic (which is found in that crisis narrative you reference as the “need” to eradicate potential threating groups) politics are indeed an example of the interrelation between nationalism and imperialism, but are not fundamentally different than Canadian and USAmerican nationalisms and imperialisms just by merit of being “more” violent, and therefore does not constitute some comic-book power up of those politics.
The only reason to distinguish it in the way you and the other commenter has is to misinform and exceptionalize Israel’s settler-colonial genocide of Palestinians and salvage some national identity for equally genocidal states like those in Europe and North America (whom cooperate with Israel for this very reason).
Fucking stop talking about shit you don’t know about, ffs with people on here.
Right, could you like, cite anything to explain where you got this understanding? I can tell you can’t, because that second paragraph is imperialism, not nationalism, ultra or otherwise. You’d only make that mistake if you were just vibe-defining this, so I wonder why you felt the need to do this at all.
Nationalism isn’t just “when a place borders,” it is a specific set of relations and politics where ownership over land and access to the resources of that land is privileged through the arbitrary restriction to a naturalized (as in, imagined to be intrinsically and inevitably guaranteed power) group of people and dispossessed from an exploited or colonized group of people. It emerged in the late-eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a way to rationalize settler-colonial hierarchies and unify disparate groups of European peoples in the imperial peripheries and metropole around manufactured cultural commonalities like language or heritage. I’m sure you’re aware of German Wars of Unification and their subsequent consequences. New Brunswick and Saskatchewan don’t have obviously similar material conditons besides that they are on the same continent and have similar ways of life forced onto them by a settler-colonial, liberal capitalist state. Settlers in both of those provinces do imagine a common national identity, which is “Canadian,” but that is something intentionally constructed by the state. And no, it isn’t “arguably” bad, unless you’re about to try and argue that the genocide and dispossession of indigenous peoples is only relatively wrong.
Imperialism is the subordination of other groups of people by a privileged group of people within a metropole or core to facilitate the extraction of resources back to that metropole through economic, political, or military coercion. Though it certainly may involve nationalism, as EuroAmerican imperialism does today, it is a distinct set of politics that does not require the same relations as nationalism as it refers to specifically the subordination of external groups of peoples and their lands to the benefit of the privileged, imperialistic group. Canada and the US began as settler-colpnial states on the eastern half of the continent now called North America, and both have expanded westward as part of imperialistic campaigns against indigenous peoples so secure access to the land for their settlers and therefore the transference of resources and power to the benefit of the metropole. Both foster national identities, but those identities are actually subsequent developments of their imperialism and function more to maintain control of those holdings by the metropoles than it was a means to facilitate that expansion.
These things are often cooperative, but they are by no means one thing. Israel is indeed a settler-colonial state occupying Palestine, but it’s one founded on nationalism by the creation of an arbitrary, “unified” Jewish ethnic identity (that also excludes black and African Jewish peoples) and relies on that to exist. Their expansionist and fascistic (which is found in that crisis narrative you reference as the “need” to eradicate potential threating groups) politics are indeed an example of the interrelation between nationalism and imperialism, but are not fundamentally different than Canadian and USAmerican nationalisms and imperialisms just by merit of being “more” violent, and therefore does not constitute some comic-book power up of those politics.
The only reason to distinguish it in the way you and the other commenter has is to misinform and exceptionalize Israel’s settler-colonial genocide of Palestinians and salvage some national identity for equally genocidal states like those in Europe and North America (whom cooperate with Israel for this very reason).
Fucking stop talking about shit you don’t know about, ffs with people on here.
Lenin.
Jesus fucking Christ, if you want to be a Marxist, you have to fucking read.