Let me start by saying that in no way shape or form am I an expert in the matter, so feel free to argue anything I state. That being said let’s get into it; the President has called himself a Nationalist, and the American people mad at him, and at each other. But, what does it mean to be a Nationalist? What is Nationalism? Is it pride in one’s country, or is it racism? Unfortunately, there is an astounding amount of nuance that will be brought up in addressing the definition of Nationalism.

​

There are two things we must address and those are the concept of the Nation and the difference between Civic Nationalism and Ethno-Nationalism. The concept of the Nation is a group of people who have a shared language, culture, history, and at times territorial lands.

​

Now that we have defined nation, let us talk about Nationalism. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Nationalism in the following manner: “Advocacy of or support for the interest of one’s own nation, especially to the exclusion of or detriment of the interest of other nations. Also: the advocacy of or support for national independence or self-determination.” Note both definitions, for they are equally important to understanding this issue.

​

Now let us address the different types of Nationalism: Civic and Ethnic. Civic-Nationalism lets the National Identity rest on common allegiance to a state (government or country) and its laws. Participation in the nation is tied to citizenship. In Ethno-Nationalism, the national identity is created by a historical ethnic root, as if the blood of the people was tied to the land.

​

So, is it bad to be a Nationalist? Is the President evil for calling himself this? No, not inherently, but dpending on what kind of a Nationalism he believes in, problems can arise.

​

For example, the United States is naturally biased toward Civic-Nationalism; as a Federal Republic, our laws protect and give rights to citizens regardless of their National Identity. For example, an Irish and an Italian family in New York City are both Americans citizens due to the laws in our country, regardless of their ancestral, cultural, and linguistic differences. It is this notion that made the immigrant nation, that anyone can be an American regardless of the feuds of the past. But many Americans do have a level of ethno-nationalism; they are proud of their heritage, and this is okay, as long as you do not condemn the nations of others as inferior.  

​

However, in Europe, many countries have practiced Ethno-Nationalism for millennia. For example, when I say “France” or “Spain,” your imagination paints a picture of people that have a unique culture, language, history, and even architecture that differ from each other. It’s all very romanticized, and it is done that way on purpose. You see the idea of the nation is so powerful they can create both peace that makes a society stable and war that is waged against others.

​

Ultimately, the reason why people are concerned with the President’s remarks is due to the fact that the term ‘nationalist’ often carries a negative connotation in America. Often, people associate the term to white-nationalists, people who are extreme ethno-nationalist and put European identity, regardless of identities, above Non-European nationalities in the U.S. Whether the President is a Civic or Ethno-nationalist is a distinction I cannot and will not make in this article; you decide for yourself.

​

Regardless, the problem with Ethno-nationalism in the U.S. is that, at an extreme far past cultural pride, it can create rifts in the Civic National identity and stability of society by creating preferential privileges for certain people and discriminatory ethnic minorities. For example, the American South of the 1940’s and 1960’s that created a segregated society that put one people over another. Yet, despite all this, nationalism can be used as a force of good. It can be used to call of the representation of an oppressed minority group, and it can be used to create the foundations of new nation-states around the world.