Nationalism- Not so Unifying After All?
Being an American Indian (American whose parents were born in India), I have been exposed to two largely differing cultures throughout my life. I have experienced the industrialized nature of the American Northeast, and the crowded, populous slums of New Delhi, India. I’ve lived in the crippling weather of the north, and seen the largely seasonal warm temperatures of eastern India. I have lived in the serenity of a society founded on the basis of Judeo-Christian ideals, and have encountered the flamboyance of a polytheistic Hindu community. Two differing cultures and customs, and two very different countries. Their commonalities include inspiring leaders of the past, a collection of nuclear weapons, but most importantly national pride.
It would be an assertion of ignorance to believe that only Indian and American communities have large displays of national pride. Most, if not all countries around the world feel some varying degree of intrinsic pride. However, a label for these feelings are not formally introduced to adolescents in the United States until the beginning of their high school career.
What is Nationalism?
Nationalism can be thought of as a political, social, and economic ideology and even movement meant for the promotion of national interest. In simpler terms, it is having pride for one’s country. A very common example would be the average American having patriotic sentiments towards the United States of America. Nationalism, although not formally made an actual word until the mid 1800’s, has been around in the world ever since the creation of civilizations. The Egyptians were a part of one of the first civilizations known to man, and were highly ethnocentric. They thought of their emperor or pharaoh as a living God, and they as his disciples. They used their divine status as a state to justify expansion, and treated the people under their conquest with very low amounts of respect. But they also used this pride to create architectural masterpieces such as the Great Pyramid of Giza. Two very different aspects of nationalism. And although it is evident of “nationalisms” history within humanity, its more recent manifestations is a hot topic of contention among politicians and historians alike.
The feelings of national pride believe to be a social expression of the innate psychological need to “belong” to a group. This predisposition causes young children to quickly identify and associate themselves as people of their country. However, a gaping question arises from this: how can something innate have so much conflict and debate surrounding its morality?
The Morality of Nationalism
First and foremost, it is not the intention of this piece to say that one’s pride for their country is immoral or unethical. Nor should it be misinterpreted to convey the message to stop loving one’s country. Rather to say that it is these feelings are easily manipulated by large figures and authority. It has been a frequently used strategy of politicians to attempt to enter the feelings and emotions of their listeners. In general, it is not an inherently bad idea, as how else are the people who represent us supposed to connect with us. However, the aspects of nationalism in which one believes that their country is the best, or that other countries and other cultures are inferior, are the reason of caution among many. These are the feelings which have been manipulated to justify totalitarian regimes, war crimes, discrimination, and a multitude of atrocious crimes against humanity.
Although seeming like hollow words, this has been a recurring pattern in the history of the world. In the early 1700’s the British East India Company starting setting up ports in Mughal ruling India to create trade. By 1757 the company, which was regulated by the government but also had its own army and ships, had began to conquer the country. Why? To make it a colony of the British empire, and then loot it of raw materials to be later used to fuel the British Industrial Revolution.
At first glance these actions seem to be purely economically motivated, however, over time the idea of British dominance became clear in India. They controlled their trade, attempted to convert the population into Christianity, and forced English- a foreign language-onto them. This was clearly not economics, rather the belief that Britain was superior to India. That to be a “good country” India would have to function the same way Britain did. In 1931, while England still imposed imperial control over India, these were Churchill’s comments on India’s independence: “Power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues, freebooters; all Indian leaders will be of low calibre & men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts”. Controversial words from a man with such stature and reputation as Churchill. His words here are a classic example of the narcissistic ideas that many influential political figures use or have used to indoctrinate the public of their country.
The alignment of personal goals to those of the country in order to satisfy an agenda is a well documented phenomenon in the history of politics, and is only amplified by the presence of an oppressive dictatorial authority or government. Adolf Hitler- frequently attributed as “the most hated man in history”- is a prime example of this very phenomenon.
The way in which Hitler rose to power is widely forgotten or goes unmentioned in today’s world. After an initial failure to gain power by rebellion, he was forced to rise through the ranks in a legal manner. How so? Hitler was an impeccable public speaker, naturally talented in swaying his audience. He was able to project his distorted views of German nationalism onto the public, his army, and even onto other nations. His whole concept of “final solution” in which he strived to systematically exterminate the Jewish population, was based off the idea the Jews were the ones who were impeding German excellence. Through the lens of nationalism Hitler was able to indoctrinate the German people into subscribing to his own personal anti-semitic and social darwinist values. By doing so allowed him to put into action his “final solution”, in the mass genocide we now know as the Holocaust- a nightmare in the history of humanity.
However, this is not just exclusive to Hitler. Joseph Stalin -another hated dictator- from the Soviet Union, sent millions of his own people to Gulags (labor camps for Russians in Siberia in which people rarely came back alive). How? He had his country convinced that those he exiled to Siberia were detrimental to his ideal communist society. In reality they were his political enemies, government officials, military officers, or anyone with anti-Stalin sentiments. In the name of national prosperity he is believed to be directly responsible for the deaths of between 1 -6 million Soviets, a number that cannot even be completely verified due to extremely limited records of the camps.
However, where does this all fit in? In terms of the current political use of nationalism, we can look right to our own country. Our own President ran on the slogan “Make America Great Again”. Before this angers right wing enthusiasts or delights left wing democrats, this is not a means to vilify our current President, but rather a non-partisan examination of the situation the United States is presented with today. As an American, there is the huge standard of American exceptionalism that has preceded this generation. The notion of “Make America Great Again” refers to a time period in which the United States was prosperous, and implies that in current time it is no longer so. When every proposition is promised to achieve exceptionalism, it is not an appeal to logic or ethics, but rather to one’s emotions. It is a trigger to one’s patriotic feelings that has shown to be easily exploited by influential figures. However, as a country we are been so embroiled in national pride that such attempts to garner support have been massively successful. Trump’s slogan is blunt, and therefore not much analysis is needed to understand his point of view. This does not mean however, that he is the first to run on these emotions. In fact it is far from it. In one way or the other almost every politician has used the idea that it is “for the better of America” to justify a decision. The problem is: at what cost? The decisions may help America, but what about other countries? Is it moral to make one country better by crippling another? And most importantly who is it really benefiting?
These are the questions that need to be asked in the current political climate, but unfortunately are not that prevalent. The abuse of nationalism in politics is an issue that affects the everyday lives of individuals not only in the US, but around the world. And yet despite this, it is rarely ever the main topic of coverage or conversation in today’s society.
So what next?
Globalization
Globalization just may be the idea that is the cure to the nationalistic illnesses that have plagued our current society. Globalization refers to the increase or decrease in the degree of Globalism expressed. Globalism, in its simplest terms, seeks to describe, explain, and explore inter-connections in the modern world. However, over the years, these terms have gotten quite the bad reputation, mostly due to their implementation as an economic system.
The idea of Globalism has been slandered and torn apart my modern media. It has been branded as the “rebirth of communism”, and characterized by its undermining of capitalism and collusion among governments. Critics argue that all it does it decrease GDP output and steal jobs away from countries. And as a response to such ideas, there have been massive movements away from globalism, most notably Brexit.
Brexit is the exit of Great Britain from the European Union- a political and economic union of 28 European countries. The exit would have many implications on the economy of Great Britain, but it has currently been justified by the idea that more jobs would be guaranteed to English citizens, greater security, and stronger borders. The issue is complex, but is undoubtedly an action against globalism. It preaches self-interest, but does not necessarily achieve it. In fact it is estimated that leaving the EU bloc would see the British economy perform anywhere from 4–9% worse than it had previously. This is worsened by the fact that large corporations stationed in London such as Airbus have been threatening to or planning to leave once England leaves the EU. And maybe worst of all is the closing off of migration from/to other EU countries. And although this may seem like a logical provision, it may have the worst effects.
The closing of the borders to opposing countries in the name of preserving one’s own country should be avoided. And although there are some circumstances involving security where it is necessary, the acceptance of differing cultures, ethnicities, religions, and peoples into a country is what will help reduce the manipulation of nationalistic ideals in politics. By being exposed to a diversity of ideas, one becomes more knowledgeable about new cultures, beliefs and point of views. The interaction between cultures creates another dimension of education that cannot be taught in a classroom.
But how exactly does this combat the abuse of nationalism?
Kofi Annan once said “Knowledge is power. Information is liberating. Education is the premise of progress, in every society, in every family”. By having a greater understanding of not just the people around you, but cultures, and religions around the world, it provides insightful thinking that cannot be inherited otherwise. By knowing more, one is less susceptible to be manipulated through emotions, as they see other viewpoints or other sides, and are not quick to believe subjective statements right off the bat. Globalism promotes knowledge, and only through knowledge can people prosper.
I call myself an American Indian, and I have for my whole life. It is the same way my neighbors call themselves Italian Americans or the people 3 houses down call themselves Chinese Americans. We all bear the identity of our “countries” and wear it with pride. It is not bad, immoral, or unethical. But it is also important to remember that in the end we are all nothing more than humans. And no country, border or ocean can ever change that. So why should we let it?
