American governments began wrapping themselves in the flag of protectors of freedom and democracy under more and more spurious circumstances. Meanwhile the Soviets claims of liberation from the chains of capitalism and oppression became harder to swallow during the post Stalin revelations of mass murders and famine.
Nationalism has a history in both countries as far back as their beginnings. Under the Tsars the Russian empire was just as expansionistic as the Soviets stretching their sphere of influence from the Balkans to the near east. In the U. S. it was first implemented as policy in 1810 with the Monroe Doctrine, which lay claim to the whole western hemisphere as being under American influence.
In both countries these policies continue unabated till this day. Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, and Cuba for the U.S. and Chechnya and Afghanistan for the Russians are all recent examples of hemispheric control exerted by both nations. Of course with the collapse of communism the influence of Russia has waned and that of America has increased.
The fall of communism combined with the death of Marshall Tito gave the world another fine example of nationalism in action. As Yugoslavia fell back into it’s divergent states majority ethic groups began to “cleanse” their territories of minority presences. Once again proving that nationalism knows no boundaries or is exclusive to any one race the cities and country sides of the former Yugoslavia became killing fields. Serbian killed Croatian, Croatian killed Muslim, Muslim killed Croatians and Serbians, Albanians and Macedonians killed each other and so on in a vicious circle of hate.
To claim moral superiority or believe that one way of life is superior to another is to pay disservice to the notion of diversity. How can one genuinely respect another’s beliefs if you feel inherently better then they are just because of an accident of birth? It’s one thing to take pride in who you are and what you believe in. It’s another altogether to think that yours is the only way.
This attitude has led to the extermination of whole nations of indigenous peoples throughout the world. Vibrant and living cultures that could have contributed thinkers and ideas were cut off because “they were not like us”. Through literal and cultural genocide our world is being homogenised to a point that will soon reach no return if we are not careful.
Look at Orwell’s definitions of nationalism and patriotism again. Think about the differences. Which do you think would contribute to a better world?
Article comments
1 - Victor Plenty
Patriotism need not be passive. The difference is in the goal of action. Nationalists tend to burn with envy, and seek to harm the other groups they hate just as frequently as they seek benefit for their own narrow group.
Patriotism can exist free of such envy, enabling people to gain greater advantages through mutually gainful alliances and cooperation with many other countries and peoples.
So even though I disagree with one of your statements, Gypsyman, I still support your main goal here. Moving beyond the extremes of nationalism is a necessity. Not only will it make all our lives better, but if we fail to achieve this we may not survive as a species.
To strengthen your efforts I suggest a couple of minor edits to your post. Gandhi is a frequently misspelled name, but my dictionary agrees with Wikipedia in placing the "h" in the last syllable, not the first. Also near the end of the fourth from last paragraph, the word "viscous" appears where you seem to mean "vicious."
But these are minor modifications to your thought-provoking and timely piece.
2 - Tan The Man
It's hard to place nationalism and patriotism in today's world nowadays. Money seems to be ahead of both as motivators. We're in Iraq because of GW's want to heighten his own legacy ahead of his father's. If you look at a heavily historical and cultural country like China, you can see money in everyone's eyes. How else can you explain the constant bulldozing of Beijing as the country prepares for world stardom at the 2008 Summer Olympics? You can put nationalism as a reason, but how can a few weeks of international media coverage overlook the discovery/preservation of ancient buildings and relics?
3 - gypsyman
Considering how much oil plays a role in today's nationalism maybe viscous was appropriate? Damn I hate that, being such a bad speller that spell check doesn't even work, thatnks I will correct that one!!!
The spelling of Ghandi that I used was what was offered up my Word of Microsoft when set to Canadian English, I want to try and stay consistant with my word usage so I'll stick with the spellings(when I get the right word)as they are given to me. But given the nature of who this person was I'll do some more research on the spelling and make a decision accordingly.
thanks for the comments and the save
4 - Mik
I have been studying various internet authors over the past week on the subject of nationalism vs. patriotism. It seems that most (including this one) have a pretty good grasp of the characteristics of each tendency. Most authors agree that both are a manifestation of pride in one's country, but that patriotism is benign while nationalism is destructive. We've already fleshed out enough examples of each one to know implicitly what we're talking about, but so far no one has really explained the psychology that underlies nationalism or patriotism and how a person gravitates toward one or the other. I ask you to bear with me while I share some thoughts on this.
If both nationalism and patriotism are based on national pride then we must explain what we mean by that. To this end I suggest that we look at the oldfashioned but very useful distinction between true pride and false pride, otherwise known as hubris. True pride is an understanding of one's own abilities and limitations and a love of self based on an internal awareness of that person's intrinsic value and "goodness". False pride is a manifestation of a person's lack of self-worth which that person attempts to compensate for by bragging, showing off, needing to compete and be "better than" the next person, putting down or intimidating others, all for the sake of filling the void left by their low self-esteem. I think you can see where I'm going with this... A person's self-identity is embedded in their membership in various groups. It starts with the family group, then extends to their neighborhood, their city, and their country. The fact that the person "belongs to" any of these groups becomes part of their self-identity. How that person is taught to feel and interact in their family environment will dictate all future feelings of belongingness in the larger groups. But what happpens when the child is neglected or abused or controlled in an authoritarian way is that the child does not develop healthy "true pride" but instead manifests false pride. Not only that, but their membership in each group provides a sense of security to compensate for their internal insecurity. So the person becomes dependent on the group out of fear of feeling insecure to the ultimate extent that their own life becomes meaningless outside of the group. Sound familiar? This is where nationalism can become like a drug that keeps people with low self-esteem feeling happy and secure in the knowledge that their country is "the best" or "the strongest" or at least "better than your country". So nationalism is based on false pride while patriotism is an expression of true pride, which starts with the person's own feelings of self-worth and extends to the groups of which they are a part. A person who has true pride does not need the group to provide him with a feeling of worthiness. In fact, this person can easily take an objective look at the group and criticize its actions at the risk even of being kicked out of the group. The person who can do this while still maintaining a bond with the group is a true patriot. This person also understands the intrinsic value of the other people and groups outside of his own. He does not need to prove his group's superiority over theirs because his self-esteem is not dependent on the success or failure of the group. Nationalism is simply the end result of false pride because nations are currently the biggest groups to which one can meaningfully belong. Perhaps in the future we'll have Earthists who discriminate against alien species... But it's important to understand the psychology here. It implies that it would be very difficult to talk someone out of their nationalist tendencies unlss you first address their feelings of worthlessness, insecurity, and self-degradation. I invite you to test this theory in real life and let me know what you think. Thanks.