mondoblog

Nationalism and Patriotism - mutually exclusive?

Albert Einstein said that nationalism was an infantile disease, 'the measles of mankind'.
Charles de Gaulle said 'Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism is when hate for people other than your own comes first.'

Coming from the west of Scotland, I have grown up hearing about nationalism and sectarianism in Ireland and Scotland. But these words and the sentiments they throw up can be seen everywhere. In Scotland, if you fly a British flag, you are seen as anti-Irish, anti-Catholic, and pro-BNP. If you fly an Irish flag, you are looked upon as anti-Protestant, and pro-IRA. In the USA, however, flying the Stars and Stripes is done with pride. I travelled through 21 different states and was astounded by the prevalence of flags flying anywhere and everywhere.

This weekend I saw a(nother) silent protest for the rights of the 'sans papiers'. The immigrants who have no paper saying that they have a right to be here. To take refuge here. Whether it be from violence, from famine, to follow a dream of being better off. Also this weekend in China, scores of people were killed as a result of violence between Muslim Uighurs and Han Chinese settlers as they become more and more numerous in the province of Xinjiang.

These situations are all very different; one is about conditioning, one about a minority migrating to try to find a better life for themselves, and one a question of a province breaking away and becoming independent. But at the same time, they are very similar. They call into question patriotism, nationalism, and living with our fellow man.

Obviously, our views on patriotism and nationalism and inclusion are influenced greatly by the circumstances we grow up in. Usually, it's by what parents teach their children, or peer groups influencing youthful minds. But recently, I think a lot comes from people, and governments especially, trying in fact to be too inclusive, so much so that they end up being exclusive in the other direction. There are parts of the UK where the government gives preferential treatment to immigrants. Fortunately, the kind of violence shown to the indigenous Chinese people by their Uighur cohabitants is not as prominent, but locals that protest about the preferential treatment the immigrants are shown are labelled as racist. Politicians are becoming afraid to stop acting in such a way because they are afraid of being branded as racist themselves.

With the sans-papiers and the immigrants in the UK, it is a question of being integrated into the society. It is all very well for the locals to be open to helping others in need, and to try to make them feel welcome, giving everyone the same basic rights, but is this what the immigrants want? There are so many cases of people demanding equal rights, but then refusing to respect the laws and standards of the countries they move to.

But to claim that one way of life or one set of standards is superior to another is to pay disservice to the notion of diversity. We cannot truly accept immigrants and respect their ways of life if we feel inherently better than they are, purely because we happened to be born in such and such a place and they weren't so lucky. It is one thing to take pride in your country and what you believe in. It is another altogether to think that yours is the only way, showing disrespect to those who are different.

What am I trying to say here? That immigrants are given too much already, and that we should no longer accept them? Not at all. In fact, on the contrary. I am all for migration. In a very crude evaluation, my economic instincts make me inclined to cry 'The more the better! Labour is a resource, bring them in by the dozen!' However, history has shown us that people don't like this, and it makes them nationalistic. This has led to whole nations and peoples being annihilated. Vibrant cultures wiped out. Diverse thinkers exterminated. Religious hate fueled. Where will it lead? A homogenised world? With the strongest most populous culture the winner?

The solution is not evident, how can we ensure people can live where they want, how they want, and together? Is it possible? I find it a sad thought that we can put a man on the moon and clone living creatures, but when it comes to playing nicely together, so many of us still put me and my nation in front of us and our planet.

Comments

Critical point

I think your last paragraph says it all. Yes, we can land on the moon but we cannot work together to avoid, or at least fix, climate change, infectious disease or conflict. Some would say it's a genetic problem — I tend to agree. Hence the need to superimpose a massive dose of education and cultural shifting. If we don't massively recondition the human species we will continue to act tribally instead of acting globally. Yes Marshal McLuhan was right in calling it the global village. The problem is that he said it too soon. The global village is not what we have, it's what we need. For now, we have a global megalopolis with lots of neighbourhoods, gangs and boundaries of all sorts. A true village has none of those, it works together. Getting there? Unfortunately we either need a massive disaster of worldwide scale or we need a forced and consistent shift towards better values. Sorry to say, but as long as our societies are based on national boundaries, religions and material wealth, it won't happen.

Log in or create a user account to comment.

Powered by eZ Publish™ CMS Open Source Web Content Management. Copyright © 1999-2010 eZ Systems AS (except where otherwise noted). All rights reserved.