TH DISADVANTAGES AND EVILS OF NATIONALISM

Nationalism is often a manufactured or fabricated concept.  Terms like "ancestral territory" and "common history" are frequently resorted to as justification for the invasion or annexation of a place by an aggressor.  There are often profound differences between the ":common" attributes among a group of people within a politically bordered place; and the elements that are said to constitute "national identity" have frequently been constructed after the fact.  If I wish to be a leader, I must find, or, more accurately, create--a horde to lead.  And I must instill a sense of devotion and loyalty to the members of my group.  Thus, politicians seeking to bolster a less than substantial civic entity may need to foster or encourage a measure of nationalism where it did not previously so clearly exiat.  This is particularly prevalent, in recent times, in places that have been lately decolonized.

Further, unfortunate states of affairs, such as inequality or poverty, can spur movements by the disadvantaged, which frequently adopt a nationalist character, as the indigenous underprivileged majority are whipped into a frenzy of hostility against the minority of more privileged relative newcomers, and/or other more prosperous nations.  An example of this was the epidemic of movements that took place in Latin America during the 1930s, following the Great Depression.  Creating blame for existing abject conditions upon North America and Europe, South American leaders resorted to nationalist fervor to garner popular support for themselves, and disdain for their neighbors to the North and across the Atlantic.

                                              * * * * *

Nationalism is usually an exponent of, and accompanied by strong support among the populace for, a concept referred to earlier called "sovereignty."  Sovereignty requires and entails a belief that the state has the power to make the ultimate decisions in human affairs.  Thus, as an example of its  potency, during the period marked by the First World War, the sovereign national governments of Austria, France, Germany, and Russia were supported by millions of citizenswho were willing to fight and die, and actually did so, for their respective nations and their sovereign leaders.

Furthermore, the nation and its aforesaid sovereign leadership frequently require and demand absolute unquestioning loyalty and support.  For example, Russian nationalism has long been described as unaccountably authoritarian in nature.  And German nationalism during the 1930s was even more so; as evidenced by Adolf Hitler's spicing his declared expectations concerning loyalty to the "Fatherland" with a warning that "treason toward the nation shall...be stamped out with ruthless barbarity." 

                                                * * * * *

Nationalism has been responsible for a great many instances of cruelty and harm to others.  As a basic "given," it should be reaffirmed that, as I am sure we all believe, the value of a human life does not vary according to his or her nationality.  This would warrant a conclusion that any actions which render undue advantage or harm to any human being for reasons connected with his or her nationality--or, it would follow, for any purpose having a basis in nationalism--are wrong and improper.  Thus it was wrong when, in 1933, Nazi Interior Minister Frick directed Germany's schools to teach "race science"; and to "constantly emphasize...that the infiltration of the German people with alien blood, especially Jewish and Negro blood, must be prevented."  And it was wrong when, in the same year, a large number of "un-German" books were burnt in front of Berlin University; while students were counseled to let the fire "also burn into your hearts love of the Fatherland."  And it was even more wrong, in 1937, for a German court to remove children from the custody of their parents because of said parents' refusal to teach them Nazi ideology.  In the court's opinion the judges stressed parents' obligation to educate their children "in the fashion that the nation and state expect."

It was wrong and unjust when, during the same year (i.e., 1937), the government of Mexico summarily nationalized 350,000 acres of land that had been legally leased by Standard Oil.  The wrongs that constitute nationalizations (of the interests or property of other persons by national governments) become even more improper when the motivation behind such takings can be termed "ethno-nationalism" (i.e., when such takings are directed at foreign persons or entities because they happen to be considered members of a market-dominant minority who happen to be lawfully residing and/or doing business within that nation-state).

Numerous other wrongs and harms are committed in the name of the nation as well.  For example, it was tragically wrong when, in 1951, an Iranian nationalist who disagreed with his country's pro-western trade policies, stepped out of a crowd to shoot and kill his country's Premier Razmara.  And it was wrong when ethnic hatreds cloaked in nationalist demands unleashed violent conflicts in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s, and in parts of the former Soviet Union thereafter.

It is fundamentally wrong, as Professor Martin Reeese of Cambridge points out, in his work, Our Final Hour, when nationalism causes the governments of numerous nations to waste wealth and talent upon efforts to "keep up with the Jonses"--the "Jonses" being the other countries involved in numerous ceaseless and senseless races.  As an illustration, Professor Reese laments the fact that America's moon landing program expended much money and risked lives for what turned out to be but "a transient episode, motivated primarily by the urge to 'beat the Russians.' "

Furthermore, it is particularly wrong for nations that are blessed with wealth, or stability, or both, to stand idly by in self-satisfaction, concerned only for their own national affairs, while chaos rages on within their less fortunate neighboring states.  To quote Professor Peter Singer of Princeton, their failure to adopt and react in the fashion of a global ethical viewpoint is not only morally wrong, but has now become a danger to their own security as well. (Peter Singer, Our Final Hour).

                                                     * * * * *

It appears nevertheless that nationalism is on the wane in several places.  Some gratifying evidence of this is to be observed in contemporary Western Europe, where partiotism no longer invites hostility; where national frontiers are no longer fought over; and where natural feelings of enmity between nations seem to have all but vanished.  Hopefully, this trend will spread, and broaden into a worldwide state of affairs.

Our contemporary states of develoopment in economics, communications, and technology are acting as "antidotes" to nationalism, by "shrinking" the globe, and bringing people and institutions more closely and frequently into contact with one another.  Man's progress to date has thus brought us to a condition wherein nationalistic talk and gestures have become "out of place" among many knowledgeable people.  I pray that a unified world will one day replace nationalism altogether, and permit mankind to finally embark upon an unencumbered journey to accomplishment, peace, and happiness. 

                                                      * * * * *