Is Imperialism a derivative of Nationalism, or Vice versa?

Is Imperialism a derivative of Nationalism, or Vice versa?

Yes

But It's important to remember that not all territorial expansion is Imperialistic in nature and that it is possible to be Nationalistic without being Imperialist.

All Imperialists are Nationalists
Not all Nationalists and Imperialists
Not all Conquerors are Imperialists

You wouldn't say the Mongols were Imperialist for example

>B-but nationalism is a modern invention

It's always existed in some format. You would describe the Romans and the unified Greek states as Nationalist.

>american education

no. They are pretthy much the opposite

You could make an argument for that, but can you have a nationalistic state that wouldn't eventually turn into a imperialistic one

Would it be rational to believe a party that says they are on for Nationalism of their country and unifying their people. But wish for isolationalism or simply non imperialistic aggression

isolationism requires autarky

>but can you have a nationalistic state that wouldn't eventually turn into a imperialistic one
What do you mean with this?

A state that promotes its ability to achieve things such as a strong economy, lesser corruption and strong voice of its people, but without the promotion of taking over other lands and peoples.
Like we have that nationalistic country, but with the cooperation with NATO and the U.N

nationalism != imperialism

Nationalism per se does not involve agression. Sure, in nationalist societies, irredentist ideas are common.

Nationalism was created in opposition of Imperialism you dumbass. You could have spent 5 minutes googling this to figure that out.

>All Imperialists are Nationalists
Absolutely, absurdly, completely false. The Habsburgs are not a nation, the Hohenstaufens are not a nation, etc.

>Not all Nationalists are Imperialists
True.

>Not all Conquerors are Imperialists
False. As for irredentist "conquest", it is often ideologically legitimized by the term "reconquest". Empires however have no clear geographical or/and ethnic limits. In fact you could say no imperial project has succeeded (except the British one perhaps, today not as much based on territorial control than on financial, cultural and political control), since the universalist ideal in imperialism implies an ideal of planetary control.

>You wouldn't say the Mongols were Imperialist for example
You would, actually, though their imperialism was of a crude, nomadic type, and in a certain sense in its western expansion an indirect expression of Venetian imperialism, who, through its intelligence networks, used the Mongol hordes to erase its competitors in eastern Europe (Budapest for instance) and to maintain a monopoly on trade with China.

Imperialism comes in two forms, the nationalist type (colonial empires) and the pure imperialist type (Habsburg, Hohenstaufen etc.). Both forms have in common however a certain universalist dimension - even in its nationalist variety, imperialism focuses more on expanding the metaphysical values of a nation to the entire world than expanding the physical nation per se (with settler colonies being a notable exception, and even then they were often dumping grounds for undesirable elements so as to both enhance the quality of the metropolitan population and civilize the indigenous population - a win-win exchange).

Non-imperialistic, pure nationalism, however, does not "care" about the rest of the world, seeking instead to build and celebrate the physical nation on its home soil. The definition of the extent of the national home can be expandable however, in the case of irredentism.

>Is Imperialism a derivative of Nationalism
No. All imperialism is by definition cosmopolitan. It might privilege one nationality for a time, since nations become empires, but in the end, the core nation suffers miscegenation and dilution until it no longer resembles it's original form. Name any empire in history, and you will find the nation that originally controlled it was subverted from within over generations until the last dynasty bears little resemblance to the founding dynasty. This is why you find late Egyptian statues that look nubian, while the earlier ones look caucasoid. It's why Chinese civilization was Han, but became Mongol. It's why they call them Anglo-Saxons, not Anglos. Germany and France were originally one empire under Charlemagne, etc, etc.

Ultimately Yes.

Nationalism can be a major cause of imperialism, particularly when people view their nation as a great source of pride and power, they'll view others as 'inferior' and feel more justified in fighting them.

However, Nationalism can take a form where people will defend themselves or focus on maintaining their nation, their nationalism is geared inward for self-improvement or enacting social, economic and political changes within. Despite this, however, as time goes on and the nation develops more technological and economic power, it will gain imperialistic tendencies and attitudes inevitably.

You're flag leafs me to believe otherwise

Nationalism is by definition parochial.
Imperialism is by definition cosmopolitan.
This is the correct anser.
Make a note of it.

Yes, but that's not what I asked, you're telling me In a nationalistic country such as a rising nazi Germany, that here's no connection to their imperialistic advancements

As long as there are no outside forces threatening your nation's existence that would require you to invade pre-emptively to safeguard your independence, then yes. Russia could be considered nationalist under putin, and he has only invaded on pretenses of security or hegemony.

>they'll view others as 'inferior'
That is chauvinism

If you don't know what it means, ask this french here.Frenchs have a remarkable taste for this word...

>Despite this, however, as time goes on and the nation develops more technological and economic power, it will gain imperialistic tendencies and attitudes inevitably.

You're talking out your ass. A nation can prosper and become powerful and still coexist with weaker nations. This is only dependent on whether the nation is civilized or not.

Okay then. Nationalism as it first started cropping up was a rejection of Imperialism by the people of a nation state and their demands for popular sovereignty (the Greek war of Independence and the various other revolutions that took place in Europe).

A nation isnt a religion, it isnt a king, it isnt an empire, its a people, thats what they fought for.

But then other forms of natonalism started appearing. The nationalism you're describing is usually called Integral nationalism and is the type of nationalism you would have found at the height of Nazi Germany. Very statist, very militaristic.

So is there a connection between imperialism and nationalism? Depends on the particular strand of nationalism you're talking about.

>not discerning when a nation becomes an empire it must stop being a nation
Roman Republic was a Roman nation.
Roman Empire was the end of the Roman nation. Imperialism resembles nationalism in terms of patriotic expression, but the two are not the same. It's how imperialists trick nationalists into giving up their nation. Works every time.

Imperialism is why there are Africans and Mudslimes in every former European empire; Imperialism is manifestly the end of the nation, despite appealing to nationalistic patriotism along the way. It's why Neocohens love to push for Pax Americana, etc.

Republics good, Empires bad.

>In a nationalistic country such as a rising nazi Germany
Nazi germany was nazi, not nationalist. Nazism was a ideology based on nationalism, yes, but it was much more then that. Hitler destroyed the german nationalist party