So I figure that the best way to really start this thing is to define what nationalism actually is. I went online and checked out a bunch of different sites dealing with philosophy, sociology, history etc. All these sites seemed to point towards one person: Ernest Geller.

Ernest Geller was a cultural anthropologist known as "the most important scholar in the field of nationalism". In 1983, he wrote this book "Nations and Nationalism" which contains what is basically the Holy Grail definition of the term. I'm trying to get my hands on a copy, but until then I'll just explain.

First I have to explain the difference between nations and states. States are the pieces of land, including geographical borders, systems of government and postage offices. Nations are groups of people who share a common culture.  Proponents of nationalism believe that nations and states are a matched pair; neither one could or should have to exist without the other. This is, I guess, where people get the fear of immigrants ruining countries by being different.

More than that though, people became obsessed with the idea of nationalities; of belonging and being part of a nation. This makes sense, I guess. People have an innate desire to form and be part of groups, and what kind of group is as powerful or as impressive-sounding as an entire country? Geller hypothesizes (well, hypothesized, he's dead now) that there are two main ways that people view nationalities:

1. People are of the same nationality if they are of the same culture, with shared traditions, social mores and possibly ethnicities. This, I think, is the more stereotypical definition, the one used to justify acts and exclude outsiders.

2. People are of the same nationality if they recognise each other as being such. This opinion argues that nationalities are a social construct. When people have enough in common with each other, they will assume duties and rights towards their fellows, connecting them as a nation.

Geller was of the opinion that both arguments have merit, though neither is completely adequate. He actually goes on to say that definitions in the fields of social sciences are fluid and hard to define, especially when dealing with society and culture. He thought that academics shouldn't pay too much attention to definitions outside of what they need to understand their topics, as nothing they come up with will ever be 100% correct. Wow. An academic who resists the lure of pedantic loquaciousness in favour of getting on with his work. The sites were right; Geller was a pretty good guy to start off with.