Notes on Nationalism (1945)

> All of these facts are grossly obvious if one’s emotions do not happen to be involved: but to the kind of person named in each case they are also intolerable, and so they have to be denied, and false theories constructed upon their denial.

Note that TFA clearly distinguishes between patriotism/partisanship, and what it labels as nationalism, which is (even —or maybe especially— in cases where the "nation" is not objectively definable?) so excessive as to cause the valence of an argument with respect to the "nation" to become more important than its actual plausibility.

I think the phenomenon that Orwell describes would be called tribalism today.

This is a bit of a strawman. You can take anything down (or build it up) if you get to define it. I'd define "nationalism" as a desire to preserve the culture/history/religion/race of your own country, rather than becoming an amorphous monocultural/ahistorical/agnostic/miscegenated economic zone that is indistinguishable from every other one. See! I can play the same game.

I'm an American who loves Japanese culture. I am thrilled by any "nationalist" development there, since it will--hopefully--keep them Japanese, instead of becoming "America East." If they think my culture/history/religion/race sucks, fantastic. Diversity is our strength!