To What Extent should Governments Encourage Nationalistic Feelings Among their People? By Alicia Nesbitt
Nations have existed for as long as may be remembered. This is largely due to certain groups of people deciding that they, for one reason or another, are different from their fellow humans. Indeed, it is quite natural for one to identify themselves by their country. This pride is referred to as nationalism. In moderation, nationalism may bring about unity and open-mindedness. However, ultra-nationalism takes the national pride assumed by plain nationalism and turns it into arrogance and prejudice. Countries encourage nationalism for many reasons, including the guarantee of their people's loyalty. It is not hard to become too enraptured, however. Thus, nationalism breeds ultra-nationalism, and ultra-nationalism, in turn, breeds, among other things, conflict and prejudice. Therefore, one may safely say that national governments should take care when encouraging nationalism, indeed encourage it very little, if at all.
Main Entry: na·tion·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'nash-n&-"li-z&m, 'na-sh&-n&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1844
: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups(Merriam-Webster's Dictionary)
The above definition of nationalism seems innocent enough. In Against Nationalism, W.P. Cockshott says, "Nationalism is a form of state supporting ideology specific to capitalist society." This is true, and so one may believe that nationalism is largely benevolent. Are Anarchists against Nationalism also supports this, saying, "Nationalism was created to reinforce the state by providing it with the loyalty of a people of shared linguistic, ethnic, and cultural affinities." So why should governments not encourage this movement? The first reason is this: Nationalism is misleading. When presented correctly, it may look like a superior prospect, even a necessary one. However, as Dr. Johnson intoned within the pages of Emma Goldman's Patriotism, a Menace to Liberty, and later echoed by the author herself, "Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of scoundrels." Indeed, he is right. Later in his essay, Mr. Cockshott says:
To win people's support the state uses all sorts of symbols and myths. These are called national symbols or national traditions…Governments need nationalism to make people obey them. It tries to persuade them that they are doing something more important. This important thing is called the person's 'duty' to the nation.The national leaders are not, for the most part, sentimentalists, but they know that a good portion of their country is, and they use that to their advantage. If they can give extra meaning to something that would normally mean very little and, by telling their citizens that it represents their country, they may easily wield power with that once-worthless object.There is positive nationalism, but it is much less prevalent than its negative copy. As Mr. Reich states, "…failure to choose positive nationalism almost surly promotes its negative twin, because the losers are left vulnerable." As mentioned in Anarchists against Nationalism, "Nationalism is an extension of egotism and chauvinism that encompasses an arbitrary set of social "norms" and biological factors, and promotes them as the only permissible behaviour, culture and biology within a given region of the earth." It goes on to say, "Recently, a right-wing fascist movement known as the 3rd Positionists had used the strategy of using left-wing symbols and images while pushing a right-wing social agenda…to try to trick radicals into supporting their racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic ideals." Consequently, the reader can see how our own ideals may be used against us. Those in power or who want power may warp the perfectly good ideals put forth by nationalism and, if one is not careful, they may be sucked into the vortex of lies used so often by those in a position of authority. In Anarchism and Nationalism, it is believed that right-wing parties and left-wing parties are not as different as they claim to be, nor the left-wing parties as apposed to nationalism as they claim to be. In this document, it is said that "…a 'Left' party in power knows very well the usefulness of nationalism and indeed patriotism as a weapon of government" supporting, of course, the point made above. In addition, in claiming to give identity, nationalism proceeds to crush it. Stated in Are Anarchists against Nationalism is:
The state is a centralized body invested with power and a social monopoly of force. As such it pre-empts the autonomy of localities and people, and in the name of the "nation" crushes the living, breathing reality of "nations" (i.e. peoples and their cultures) with one law, one culture and one "official" history. Nationalism was created to reinforce the state by providing it with the loyalty of a people of shared linguistic, ethnic, and cultural affinities. And if these affinities do not exist, the state will create them by centralizing education in its own hands and imposing an "official" language…[N]ationalism in all its forms [is] harmful to the interests of those who make up a given nation and their cultural identities.In the same document, nationalism's division of power is uncovered. Nationalism "...delivers power to the local ruling classes as it relies on taking state power. As a result, nationalism can never deliver freedom to the working class." Nationalism empowers the rich and abases the poor, putting everyone in the same position that they had occupied before they achieved their independence.Nationalism has many shortcomings. It fosters feelings of national, racial, or ethical superiority. It covers injustice in the guise of patriotism. It cannot, in its extreme form, co-exist with equality. Too often, those who love their country achieve ultra-nationalism, and, in turn, express apathy and belittlement toward the rest of the world. The line, "White teeth, a ticket to meet God..." from Our Lady Peace's "Is Anybody Home?" implies that the assumption made by many people is that, unless you have one distinguishable feature--unless you are white, communist, left-handed, live in Ecuador, or have clean teeth--you are not chosen by God, and therefore will achieve little and amount to less. Those without the chosen quality are doomed to burn in the pits of Hell for their unfortunate circumstance--being born without this chosen quality. Absurd as this idea sounds, it is what many believe. This is a belief that would not exist without nationalism. To further support this point, Emma Goldman, in her essay, states the following:
...Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better...than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.In short, our inherited nationalism is a human flaw that we should fight against. Within, in fact, Canada herself, we have many diverse nationalities, and two prominent and different nations who largely oppose one another and look upon the other as a threat to their cultural heritage, therefore expressing hostile sentiments toward one another. Mr. Reich expresses this well, saying "Both [forms of nationalism] give priority to "us" inside the borders over "them" out there...[N]egative nationalism uses that commonality to exclude those who don't share it." Again, this is not to say that positive nationalism does not exist, only that it is rare. In Are Anarchists against Nationalism, Rudolf Rocker is quoted as saying, "The national flag covers every injustice, every unhumanity [sic], every lie, every outrage, every crime. The collective responsibility of the nation kills the sense of justice of the individual and brings man to the point where he overlooks injustice done; where, indeed, it may appear to him a meritorious act if committed in the interests of the nation." This is a logical point. Do we not murder other human beings when at war? Nationalism, as mentioned above, promotes racism, sexism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism. In addition, nationalism provides outlets for blame. When someone is different, it is easy to make people believe that they, being inferior, would naturally have more flaws, and therefore everything that goes wrong becomes their fault. Reich says, "Among economic insecurity's first scapegoats are always immigrants, foreigners, and ethnic minorities," a sentiment echoed in Anarchists against Nationalism in "...even revolutionary nationalism is reactionary and counter-revolutionary: it scapegoats a section of the population based on factors other than class, blaming them for real and imagined flaws." Moreover, Fredy Pearlman, in his essay, The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism, states, "The Chinese considered others barbarians; the Muslims and Catholics considered others unbelievers." While the term "unbeliever" is less harsh than "barbarian" is, they mean the same thing in theory. "Unbelievers" were treated in a more humane manner, at first, when it was believed that they could be "saved." However, if its bearer maintained that title, they would be persecuted for it--Eventually, as Pearlman emphasizes, "The fact that the plundered aliens were unbelievers became less important than the fact that they were not Dutchmen." Later, Mr. Pearlman asserts, "The shape of noses and the color of hair could also have been used to mobilize patriots--and later were...The shared traits were important, not because of their cultural, historical, or philosophical content, but because they were useful for organizing a police to protect the national property and for mobilizing an army to plunder the colonies." These statements fail to give one faith in nationalism. As stated in Anarchists against Nationalism, "Nationalism is an opportunistic way to prey on people's prejudices and stereotypes and fuse them into a social movement to achieve some goal." In summary, racism, genocide, and global oblivion would not exist if nationalism were abandoned for a more open-minded internationalism.
The inhabitants of the other spots reason in like manner, of course, with the result that, from early infancy, the mind of the child is poisoned with bloodcurdling stories about the Germans, the French...etc. When the child has reached manhood, he is thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the Lord himself to defend his country against the attack or invasion of any foreigner.International tension and rivalry would not occur if internationalism prevailed. Fredy Pearlman says, "World War I marked the end of one phase of the nationalizing process, the phase that had begun with the American and French revolutions." Through these revolutions, conflict arose. The American and French revolutions spurred other revolutions everywhere and, as two world powers, helped to influence the "Scramble for Africa" and such colonial pursuits. This created rivalry, which lead to tension, which gave way to war. If nationalism did not exist, there would have been no First World War, never mind a second. Pearlman goes on to say, "National Sovereignty and Genocide were--and still are--corollaries." He is, of course, correct. In order to achieve national sovereignty, a group of people must come together and decide that the best way to live is under their own rule. This group of people will have something in common, and will shun any who do not share that attribute, as was explored in the previous section. Pearlman also points out, "The idea that an understanding of the genocide, that a memory of the holocausts, can only lead people to want to dismantle the system, is erroneous. The continuing appeal of nationalism suggests that...an understanding of genocide has led people to mobilize genocidal armies, that the memory of holocausts has led people to perpetrate holocausts." Thus, we can see that nationalism does, indeed, encourage prejudice and persecution, and should therefore not be encouraged in and of itself. Pearlman also mentions that Mussolini, Mao Zedong, and Hitler took their strategies for national control from Lenin--who, in fact, controlled his country with nationalism. From this seemingly innocent ideal sprouted WWII and the worst death toll the world has ever seen. There is, therefore, little doubt that nationalism is often more harmful than it is helpful.
Nationalism also promotes conquest and war. From Joseph S. Nye, Jr.'s contribution to DiscoverySchool.com, we take the information that "nationalism...produces rivalry and tension between nations. Desires for national glory and military conquest may lead to war." Even today, developed "have" countries are fighting for control of the under-developed "have not" countries, if in a more subtle manner. Now that the "Scramble for Africa" is over, what we may call the "Scramble to Aid" has begun. It stands to reason that, should you aid in a less developed country's (LDC) development, you may have what would have been referred to in colonial times as a "Sphere of Influence" over them. You provide their aid, and with that aid, they purchase everything from your country so that it is not they who benefit most from the "aid". This is not so different from the colonial system in place over one hundred years ago, when Eastern Europe was controlled by the Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire. In the end, they were broken up into much smaller, ethnically based countries. In fact, the struggle of the smaller ethnic groups within these empires was partially to blame for the beginning of World War I, when Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Archduchess Sophie took a political visit to Sarajevo, the capital of the newly annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina. They were, of course, assassinated that day, at which point Austria-Hungary took the opportunity to declare war on Serbia.
Jumping to the Second World War, the reader may see that it, too, was caused by nationalism. Pearlman tells us that, "After the [Second World] war, many reasonable people would speak of the aims of the Axis as irrational and of Hitler as a lunatic. Yet the same reasonable people would consider men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson sane and rational, even though these men envisioned and began to enact the conquest of a vast continent, the deportation and extermination of the continent's population, at a time when such a project was much less feasible than the project of the Axis...The Nazis were, if anything, yet more scientifically-oriented than the Americans." Relating to what has already been said in the section about nationalism's negative drawbacks, Pearlman has thus commented concerning war and conquest: "Racism had initially been one among several methods of mobilizing colonial armies." This statement applies not only to the colonies, but also to the World Wars, first and second both. The World Wars were incited by prejudices on both sides, especially, but not limited to, the Axis side, with special emphasis on Germany in World War II. Their "integral nationalism" had their citizens believe that there was one superior race, which was based on hair, eye, and skin color.
By this time, the reader may be feeling somewhat disheartened by the negativity in this paper, but there is hope. Expressed in Anarchism and Nationalism, "The answer to imperialism is not national and reactionary regimes." but rather, as is assured in Anarchists against Nationalism, "Internationalism is the best weapon against nationalism!" Moreover, internationalism, if implemented as widely as nationalism is now, would repair our broken world. Also quoted in the same document, "Only internationalism will bring an end to racism, dictatorship, human strife, misery, & capitalist neoliberalism." Are Anarchists against Nationalism provides similar sentiments, saying "[N]ationalism, at root, is destructive and reactionary, whereas ethnic and cultural affinity is a source of community, social diversity and vitality. Such diversity is to be celebrated and allowed to express it [sic] itself on its own terms...Social evolution cannot be squeezed into the narrow, restricting borders of the nation state without harming the individuals whose lives make that social development happen in the first place."
For longer than time has been recorded, nations of one description or another have existed. Once, they were small hamlets. Then cities. Then people in many cities. They have grown now to encompass too many towns and cities to count, and it is high time for them to grow again. Nationalism is too restricting for the world we live in, too shallow. There is no mobility in a world such as this. Who you are is largely dependant on where you are born, but it does not have to be as such. Nationalism, as restricting and harmful to the many cultures within the bounds of any given country, as well as those without who are either ignored or hated, needs no more encouragement. We need to encourage internationalism rather that nationalism. As is declared by Emma Goldman, "When we have undermined the patriotic lie, we shall have cleared the path for that great structure wherein all nationalities shall be united into a universal brotherhood, a truly free society."
Download | Back to Monkey's Writing | Clam Chowder's Soup Bowl | Onward (Was Cassius the True Villain of Julius Caesar?)