Talk:American nationalism

Comments
Saying that the US won the the war might give the wrong idea since Canada (and at the time britain) also claim to have won it. Add to that the fact that many historians claim that there were no winner on either side and it might be better to say that the unitedstaters *felt* that they had won the war of 1812.--Marc pasquin 16:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

POV
The very existence of this article is a problem, in my view. But if we're going to have this article, it needs to include a lengthy discussion of patriotism. (Indeed, the article on patriotism should be merged into this one, or vice versa.) I think the best solution, though, is to eliminate this article altogether. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-24 10:25 (UTC)
 * This, to me, is not an article about patriotism, but about American Nationalism. The 2 are not the same concept. Nationalism is often similar to patriotism but other countries have their own patriots and nationalists so to label an article "patriotism" and talk about the history of American Patriotism would not make sense.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Patriotism vs Nationalism
A well-researched well-written article on American Nationalism, in which the author argues that Nationalism and Patriotism are essentially the same thing, can be found in the Foreign Policy journal(register for free to view). The author goes on to outline what he considers to be the central tenets and paradoxes within nationalism in the United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clare od (talk • contribs). Clare od 13:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Clare


 * A single article, no matter how "well researched" (that is subjective), is not sufficient to change the definitions of the words. A review of multiple definitions from multiple sources clearly indicates that nationalism and patriotism are not used as identical terms.  (Presumably, a "well researched" article would at least use a dictionary)

{http://www.Dictionary.com} gives 7 descriptions of nationalism:
 * 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.
 * 6. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.
 * 7. a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation.

The same source, however, gives just one definition for patriotism:
 * devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.

Although some of the definitions might allow for similar usage, clearly, nationalism also denotes more. Note the "excessive patriotism, chauvinism" definition or definition #5 which seems to indicate taking the interests of one's own nation above all others. To use an anology, the love of my children does not necessarilly imply distain for other children. It would seem necessary to have two different words for these positions.

Discussing nationalism in America is certainly a legitimate topic. But to redirect it from patriotism and claiming they are actually identical terms seems to deny the use of the terms in English. One can be patriotic without be nationalistic and, perhaps, even the other way around. These must be two different topics.74.93.87.210 14:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"Nation-state" status
Sure, the US is universally considered a "nation-state" in the commonly-used sense of "modern highly-organized state in the international system", but it's very unusual to consider the country a nation-state in the classical European sense; i.e. a state strongly identified with a particular ethnic group.--Pharos 09:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * no, the USA is certainly not a nation-state; it is about as multi-ethnic and multi-cultural as they come. dab (𒁳) 11:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The "European sense" is not the only possible sense. The United States is a nation state according to the concept of civic nationalism. 192.104.127.38 (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources and POV
This article has an astounding lack of sources and references. It also has a POV problem and doesn't separate established fact from theory and opinion. It is just original research. "Words such as "freedom" and "homeland" became commonplace in everyday conversation", oh brother. Contralya (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I think that if this article isn't drastically overhauled, it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.66.185 (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. Radical overhaul or delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.91.26.13 (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Keep it. Jonas Liljeström (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. Please give valid reasons for your thoughts when discussing.--Abusing (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's better...
The deletion discussion did not reach a consensus, so I removed all NPOV issues and many unverified claims. The article is significantly shorter, and still needs to be rewritten. I have removed the neutrality dispute template. If anyone feels there is still a problem, retag the artical and post your reasons here.--Abusing (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Off Its Mark?
Do I have the wrong definition of "americentrism" in my head, or is this article totally on the wrong track from the get-go? I will do some research before I say more.... and I could be wrong in my thinking already..... but I thought "americentrism" was a somewhat negative label, dealing with overzealous national ego, nearsighted world view....that sort of thing.

I'm a citizen of the US myself, so don't hit me if I sound rude! I AM going to research this subject before I say more..... itinerant_tuna (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I am understanding it better....

I clicked on a wiki-internal-link to read about 'americentrism' and I was REDIRECTED to 'Nationalism in the United States.' I didn't pay any attention whatsoever to the fact that I had been redirected.

BUT seriously - aren't they two TOTALLY different subjects - even OPPOSITES? Discuss?

itinerant_tuna (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard the term Americentrism before, but perhaps an interesting aspect would be any maps which depict the American hemisphere in the center. This is something often done to make a map more familiar, and while its not that common as far as I know in the USA, it is perhaps a reason for a literal meaning of the word Americentrism.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Americophile redirect?
Why does that term redirect to an article primarily about how Americans view themselves? We certainly wouldn't redirect anglophile to English nationalism. --MichiganCharms (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The original article for Americophile was nothing but a definition, and was transwikied to the Wiktionary and redirected to United States. It was redirected here two years later (December 2009). I'm surprised the it hasn't been recreated as an independent article since it's initial redirection...uh, anyway, you're completely right and I'll have it redirect back to United States.   S warm  ( Talk ) 05:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I didn't fix it after I wrote that comment, but it is now ✅   S warm  ( Talk ) 04:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Section regarding views overseas
In an article that discusses the nationalist strain of American history and contemporary society, it seems a bit off-topic to have a section dedicated to favorable views of the United States within other countries.

My understanding is that in discussing any aspect of a nation-state, it is assumed that the "nation" component (from which "nationalism" gets its name) consists of the people and territory that form the social and physical/geographic basis of the country, and the "state" consists of the various governmental institutions that regulate and direct political and public life and conduct foreign relations. As a citizen of a country other than the United States is by definition not a member of the American national community, it would seem as though favorable views of the United States held by citizens of a foreign country would be more properly described as "Americophilia" or some equivalent term. If one is not a member of the nation that the specific form of nationalism being discussed refers to, then they cannot properly be described as a nationalist for the nation in question, and so the inclusion of views of the US from abroad in an article about American nationalism would improperly blur the lines between the mutually exclusive categories of in-group veneration of one's own group and out-group admiration of one aspect or another of a society of which one is not a part.

I would scrap this section entirely, but I won't if I'm of a minority viewpoint here. Feedback would be appreciated one way or the other, so that I can gauge others' interpretations before I do anything about it. --Apjohns54 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly I'm not sure what to do with these sections. They were never great to begin with, and the more I edit this article the more I end up having to throw away after realizing they're either plagiarism, self-published sources, or original research (e.g. using a photo as a reference, or some random guy's personal blog, or copy-pasting paragraphs from the Economist...).  That said, there does need to be an article about this somewhere.  It seems noteworthy, as especially in the past, there was a lot of pro-Americanism abroad (e.g. post WWII, post-revolution...) it IS notable.  However, although I think nationalism can be extended outside of a nation's borders, I agree it does seem kind of off-topic here; in no way would I consider a favorable impression of Americans to be anything approaching pro-American nationalism.  Any idea what article it should be merged into?  Perhaps into any relevant American-Countrystan diplomacy articles?
 * -- Joren (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that "pro-americanism" or "Americophile" (like Anglophile) should have it's own article, but the content in this is not worth preserving and/or merging. Gallup US Approval ratings are more helpful than that. I'd say just remove it.  Swarm   X 10:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on American nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/harp/1122.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://thomasnastcartoons.com/selected-cartoons/uncle-sams-thanksgiving-dinner-two-coasts-two-perspectives/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

American National Proper Definition Source
See AnnaVonReitz.Com

She has clearly defined United States for America Nation, which I do not see in its proper entirety here.

All rights of non-prejudicial truth reserved,

Congregationalist Deacon John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3BF4:12A0:4C87:3CCD:FB90:BFF0 (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Political Commentators Under Trump Presidency Section
The following line is contained in the Trump Presidency section. ″

″During the Trump era, commonly identified American nationalist political commentators include Ann Coulter,[38] Alex Jones,[39] Laura Ingraham,[38] Michael Savage,[40] Tucker Carlson[41] and Mike Cernovich.[42]″

Is Alex Jones actually a political commentator? Surely, he is infamous, but does his name belong next to the others in the list? The cited article doesn't reffer to him as political commentator but a "far-right conspiracy theorist".

Does the list actually belong in the article at all ?

--2603:3024:1820:500:0:0:0:DFEF (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Berkeley Reader

Pro-American listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pro-American. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

In schooling.
Shouldn't there be a mention of the American teachers having students pledge their allegiance every school day? Wouldn't this sort of thing bring about the ideas of nationalism in youths? Tommy has a great username (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a discussion group. Material in our articles needs to be supported by citations from reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "It's recited in schools across the US every day by students standing stiffly with their hands over their hearts." Saying the Pledge of Allegiance every day would make any person think their country is better than others. That's Nationalism.
 * That's a citation in support of the fact that many students say the Pledge regularly, it's not support for your contention that doing so necessarily inculcates nationalism. Your conclusion is what needs to be cited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

False equivalence?
The second paragraph of this article is pretty weird. Why is Hans Kohn given the same level of importance as George Washington and the United State Congress? He's just some historian, not the literal founder or main political organ of the nation. See WP:FRINGE.Smefs (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)