THE DISADVANTAGES AND EVILS OF NATIONALISM

It is my opiion that nationalism is wrong and harmful.  I predicate this opinion upon the fact that it is the direct opposite of the world unity which I fervently believe is our only hope for survival and advancement.  I consider nationalism to be unsensible and illogical as well, because in serving as justification for the division of mankind into a multitude of groups, it is also the basis for the assortment of redundancies,  confusions, and needless conflicts that prevail worldwide.  It prevents people in various places from appreciating the similarities among them; and instead identifies, discredits, and exploits the differences.  Moreover, in a single borderless world, these differences as well would probably shortly fade, as peole come to realize that the differences between them are farless important or meaningful than the similarities among them.

There is a commonplace concept which we refer to as "cultures"--which constitute one aspect of the differences between groups of people.  These are not the differences that I speak about here.  For variations in the things we eat, our manner of dress, or the music we listen to, have never been a cause for war.  On the other hand, differences in political or economic issues have--and these are the differences that a single world order would obviate.

The first and most basic problem with nationalism is that its roots extend back to an ancient age, when it was necessary for groups of humans to band together in tribes for the sake of survival, regarding wild animals and other groups of similarly semi-civilized human beings.  We have, of course, by this time progressed to a point where this is no longer necessary.  We can control the wild creatures who still exist within our environment; and we are able to communicate, negotiate, and do business with one another, as a substitute for resort to brute force as a means of obtaining our safety, needs, and comfort. 

Nationalism perpetuates these early feelings and attitudes, causing us to continue to favor and support the group that we consider "our own"--which "group" may have happened to agglomerate via proximity, happenstance, habit, or conquest.  It also causes us to regard the members of other such groups as strangers, different from us, and potential enemies--when in fact many of these others may be more closely related to us, via earlier ties or genetics, than many of "our own" group.

Nationalism carried to its extreme can be observed when we study Germany during its formative years.  Friedrich Schlegel and Johann Fichte, early voices of German nationalism, considered the nation to be more important than the individual person.  To Schlegel, "the concept of nation requires that all its members should form as if it were only one indiviedual"; and Fichte declared that the citizenry of a country "must be ready even to die that it [the nation] may live." 

                                                      * * * * *

Nationalism is similar to "team spirit," whereby we consider our group to be superior to, or more deserving of victory or success than, other groups.  This has sometimes led to nations seeking to conquer and/or occupy the lands of neighboring nations.  An instance of this sort was a precursor to World War II, when the Japanese voiced and acted out an opinion of superiority to the Chinese and people of other parts of Southeast Asia.  Were there no borders, the events that precipitated this aspect of World War II could not have occurred.  For people from the place we call Japan would not have been prevented from simply pursuing business and habitation in the place we call China--and vice-versa.  Terms like "conquering" and "annexing" and "reclaiming" of one part of our world by people from another place would not be necessary, nor indeed possible.  (Of course, simply trespassing upon, or attempting to "steal," someone else's real estate would nevertheless be merely considered a crime--and dealt with as such by the world's law enforcement authorities.)

Nationalism also impels the people, or leaders, of a nation, as a corollary of the opinion that theirs is a superior nation, to attempt to dominate or colonize the people and lands of other nations or places.  And subsequently, if and when "independence" is eventually attained by a former colony, it often suffers through nationalistic "growing pains" of its own--including revolutions and insurgencies, on the part of one or more groups of persons living within this new country for control thereof; as well as occasional "splitting" of the new country into two or more yet newer separate countries, resulting from similar motivations which are based upon the selfsame "nationalism" as described above.

Nationalistic superiority complex has been carried to ridiculous extremes in the past.  For example, in 1914, following a brief dispute with Mexico, President Wilson demanded that Mexican President Huerta salute the American flag.  When he refused to do so (indicating similar nationalistic pride), the United States' Atlantic fleet was mobilized and sent to Mexican waters.  Thereupon, President Huerta saluted the American flag--and the near-war was over.  This silly scenario could have taken place between two teen-age gangs in the slums of a city.

The era preceding World War I has been described as being rife with "ingredients for war."  Among these ingrediants were the strong desires on the part of various ethnic groups to have their own countries; a race among the European countries to snatch up colonies; and alliances between these European countries--which kept changing and shifting for self-centered strategic reasons.  All of these episodes had nationalistic bases.  Of particular note was the agitationon the part of many among the Bosnians, Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes to have separate countries of their own.  Man's minds were said to be "poisoned" by "paroxysms of nationalism" (Garaty and Gay, The Columbia History of the World); and among the audience of that time was then-Corporal Adolf Hitler.

The next period, between World War I and World War II, has been described as being one which witnessed a rise of totalarianism with a further increase of nationalism.  It is implied that these phenomena caused the post-World War I era to be unfruitful as regards future world peace, and that they were in fact the causes which led to World War II.

In the years following this great catastrophe, the stakes grew larger and potentially more deadly.  During the Cold War period, two super-nationalist powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, confronted each other a number of times.  It has been estimated that the risk of breakout of thermonuclear warfare during that period rose on occasion to as high as fifty percent.  And when the Cold War ended, one of its points of contention--Germany--ceased to be a divided pawn in the chess game.  She was rapidly restored to unity and admitted into the process of a unifying Europe, perhaps in order to thwart the possibility of a resurrection of German nationalism.

                                                      * * * * *

A sysnonym that has been used for nationalism is "tribalism."  Nationalistic feeling transports us back  to a "golden age" of national myths and national heroes.  The Latin word "patria," meaning "fatherland," comes to mind--from which evolved the term "patriotism," which refers to loyalty to and pride in one's nation.

"National sentiment" is said to have arisen in England during the early part of the sixteenth century.  It is described as a set of common religious and political values held by the people of that place. 

Nationalism came to France during the eighteenth century, where it derived from dependence upon, and loyalty to, the King.  But it is said that its precursor, which was a "consciousness of being French," had existed for some centuries beforehand. 

Nationalism also arose in Russia in the eighteenth century, during the reigns of Peter I and Catherine II.  Being "Russian" was viewed as a badge of honor, of which one could never be stripped.  Stalin later expressed contempt for the divisions of mankind that nationalism created as belonging to an outdated mode of bourgeois society.

At its most fundamental basis, nationalism springs from identity.  Our identity is a product of our view of ourselves.  Thus, the identity that is nationalism arises out of what has been described as an "invisible force."  German nobleman Wilhelm von Humboldt expressed it for Germany as "German feeling and German spirit."

Viewed thusly, nationalism seems to consist of love, loyalty, and devotion for an entity or a community that does not exist independently--but is, rather, a community that we the citizens thereof imagine ourselves to be the ingredients of.  From this flows the conclusion, as stated by Peter Singer, that man possesses the ability to, and actually should, transport himself from living in the "imagined communities we know as nation-states," to residing within an "imagined community of the world." (Peter Singer, One World)

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has cirrectly pointed out that the concept of state sovereignty, which has prevailed in Europe since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, should not be honored, when it constitutes a shield for the carrying on of human rights abuses within a country--and that such abuses should be regarded and treated from a universal standpoint, as wrongs being committed upon mankind.  In his One World, Professor Singer concludes that mankind's problems are now "too intertwined" to be properly dealt with in a world of nation-states--wherein people's loyalties are primarily and near-exclusively devoted to their respective countries, when they should be directed to "the global Community." 

                                                   * * * * *

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT--HERE, OR VIA E-MAIL, AT oneworld@tampabay.rr.com