The Tragedy of Nationalism

[Time for change]

Many years ago I wrote an essay for my college freshman English class in which I advocated for a world government. My reasons were simple. Like most Americans and other people, I believe in the rule of law. We need local, state, and federal laws to protect us against those who would do us harm and to provide the foundation for financial and other systems that provide us the opportunity to prosper and lead decent lives.

Like most liberals, I believe that our current laws are heavily weighted in favor of the wealthy and powerful, at the expense of the poor and the middle class – the result of the simple fact that the wealthy and powerful have a disproportionate and unfair influence on our electoral process. But that doesn’t alter my belief in the rule of law – rather it merely indicates to me the need to work for better laws.

The need for a world government, in my view, is entirely analogous to our need for local, state, and federal laws. In the absence of any sort of international law, the strong are free to prey upon the weak and to commit any atrocity they desire in their efforts to do that – sort of like the United States of America does under the administration of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

If we need laws and governments within our nation to protect us and to provide for the common good, then why shouldn’t we have them to accomplish the same purposes between nations?


The goals of the United Nations Charter and barriers to their attainment

Of course the idea for my college freshman essay wasn’t exactly original. With the signing of the United Nations Charter in 1945, international law took a quantum leap forward and sowed the seeds for some sort of world government. The purpose for establishing the United Nations is well worth recounting because we would live in a much better and happier world to the extent that its purposes are realized:

To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind

To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small

To establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained

To promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom

One of the biggest barriers to the realization of the goals of the United Nations Charter has been the weakness of its enforcement powers. Though there are many who would love to see a world government with enforcement powers sufficient to realize the goals stated in the United Nations Charter, creating such a government would be an enormously complicated and difficult task. As the Founding Fathers of the United States of America recognized, it takes a great deal of thought and work to create a government that has sufficient powers to provide security and promote the general welfare, and at the same time contain sufficient checks and balances to avoid the emergence of tyranny.

A major impediment to the establishment of such a government is nationalism. Nationalism has several characteristics, and one of those characteristics is the desire of a group of people to be free of the influence of other peoples. That is obviously a common desire, as indicated by the existence of nearly 200 nation states in the world today. But when that desire prevents the establishment of a world wide system to prevent war, incorporate human rights and international justice into the rule of law, and promote freedom and social progress for humankind – as sought in the United Nations Charter – then that is a major problem in my opinion.


Relatively benign nationalism – the desires of oppressed minorities for self-determination

Perhaps the most benign and justified form of nationalism is where an oppressed minority group wishes to break free of its oppressors to create an independent entity. That form of nationalism is captured by the Wikipedia statement that nationalism “can also refer to a doctrine or political movement that holds that a nation – usually defined in terms of ethnicity or culture – has the right to constitute an independent or autonomous political community based on a shared history and common destiny.” Such sentiments constitute the basis upon which the United States of America and numerous other nations – perhaps most of today’s nations – were created.

That reminds me of an argument I had with my parents a long time ago. My parents were second generation Jewish-Americans, and they identified strongly with being “Jewish”, even though they never practiced the religion. One day I was shocked and dismayed to hear my dad casually mention to me that he hoped I would someday marry a Jewish woman. I was dismayed to hear my dad advocate to me the use of what I perceived as racist considerations in making one of the most important decisions of my life. And I was shocked to hear that from my liberal dad who had never before shown any signs of racism.

In retrospect, what I failed to consider at the time was the fact that my dad’s comment was a reaction against his experiences of oppression. My parents, unlike me, had experienced a good deal of anti-Semitism directed against them in their lives; and their parents, as Russian and Polish Jews, had experienced a good deal worse. It seems to me that that a nationalistic attitude is more justified when it comes from an oppressed minority.


Ugly forms of nationalism

But not all manifestations of nationalism are that benign. It has been said that “Nationalism, in its broadest sense, is a devotion to one's own nation and its interests over those of all other nations.” At the individual level such an attitude would sound somewhat egocentric, to say the least: “A devotion to oneself and one’s interests above those of all other people.” So why should it be considered acceptable at the national level?

There are numerous reasons why people exhibit this kind of nationalistic sentiment. I can think of a few:

False pride
It is terribly depressing to me that so many of our politicians today, especially Republican politicians, have such a knee-jerk response to any criticism of their country. Their first response is to castigate any person who dares to criticize the actions of their country’s leaders, without giving the slightest consideration to the possibility that the criticism may be justified. They usually don’t even bother to address the criticism because they consider criticism to be beyond contempt. Indeed, it goes without saying that any criticism of our country’s actions are unwarranted because… well, because our country is always right.

A prominent example of that kind of idiotic thinking was the barrage of criticism that Senator Richard Durbin had to face when he dared to expose the abysmal manner in which we treat our prisoners in George Bush’s so-called “War on Terror”. Senator Durbin’s revelations came directly from an FBI report:

On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for eighteen to twenty-four hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold… On another occasion, the air conditioner had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion…. with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor...

Durbin then provided his own opinion on the matter:

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in the gulags, or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings….

It is not too late. I hope we will learn from history. I hope we will change course. The president could declare the United States will apply the Geneva Conventions to the war on terrorism. He could declare, as he should, that the United States will not, under any circumstances, subject any detainee to torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The administration could give all detainees a meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention before a neutral decision maker.

Such a change of course would dramatically improve our image and it would make us safer. I hope this administration will choose that course. If they do not, Congress must step in.

The scathing attacks against Durbin for his courageous act were contemptible. The ignoring of the atrocities that he exposed was even more contemptible. What justifies the kind of blind faith in one’s country that impels people to defend it against any and all criticism, no matter how valid the criticism is? I can’t say it any better than Austin Cline has in this article:

Nationalism is, then, at its most basic a sense of pride in one's nation, but in what way is such pride actually justified? Pride makes sense when it is attached to one's own accomplishments, but not to the accomplishments of others — at least not when a person has had little or not impact upon those accomplishments. Pride in a local sports team, to cite one example, is normally a false pride that serves as a substitute for pride in real achievements.

Or, to put it even more bluntly and unkindly:

Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.

Militarism
Then there is a more practical aspect to nationalism. There are many powerful people in our country and elsewhere for whom war is a very profitable business. Hence President Eisenhower’s warning to the American people in his farewell address to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” And hence the belief of many people today that one of the primary motivations for war throughout history has been private profit.

How do a nation’s leaders convince young men and women to risk their limbs, lives, and future by fighting in a war? The typical way they do it is through appeals to nationalism. Yes, they call it “patriotism” rather than nationalism. But more often than not nationalism would be the more accurate word (more about that later).

And let us never forget that appeals to nationalism are one of the favorite tricks of fascist dictatorships.

Racism
It seems to me that racism and nationalism are so inexorably linked that they are virtually the same thing. Indeed, many wars have pitted one race against another – and when such wars are fought, racism often provides not only a major motive behind the war itself but also an excuse to treat the opposition especially cruelly.

One might think that in a nation such as the United States of America, which is composed of so many different races in such large numbers, that racism and nationalism would necessarily be divorced from each other. But that is hardly the case.

Consider the Iraq War, for example. Why is it that our politicians and our corporate news media, whether or not they defend our continuing occupation of Iraq, never see fit to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died because of that war or the fact that the Iraqis deeply resent our occupation of their country and in overwhelming numbers want us to leave?


The relationship between patriotism and nationalism

More often than not, a nation’s leaders and its ordinary citizens alike represent or disguise their nationalism as “patriotism”, in order to justify it. Today’s Republican Party makes great use of that ploy. If a Democrat criticizes the Bush administration’s policies, or even votes against them, the Republicans attack him or her as being “unpatriotic”. The validity of the criticism need not even be considered, since they would have us believe that it is “unpatriotic” to criticize our president in time of war under any circumstance. Since George Bush has declared us to be in a state of perpetual war, that would mean that from now until the end of eternity it will be unpatriotic to criticize our president, no matter how incompetent or ill-intentioned (unless our President is a Democrat of course).

But there is a huge difference between patriotism and nationalism. In fact, in many ways they are opposites.

Perhaps the most fundamental difference is that patriotism seeks to identify what is wrong with one’s country so as to make it better, whereas nationalism (or false patriotism) seeks to blindly argue that one’s country is right no matter what it does (I can’t find the link for that, but here’s something close). The former serves to make one’s country better, whereas the latter serves to makes one’s country worse by ignoring its faults.

A related difference between the two is that patriotism is based on love of one’s country, whereas nationalism tends to be based more on hatred of one’s perceived enemies. What does it mean to say that patriotism is based on love of one’s country? A country can be said to consist of its people and its principles.

Love of one’s fellow countrypersons would mean fighting for policies that help ordinary people to live decent lives – i.e. to claim the rights proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence. The Republican Party, the Party of the nationalists, is much more interested in helping the wealthy and the powerful by such actions as fighting for their “right” to avoid paying any taxes whatsoever even on inheritances of billions of dollars, fighting for the right of powerful pharmaceutical companies to make huge profits without even having to negotiate prices, and fighting for the rights of credit card companies to use predatory lending practices to cheat the poor.

Most important, a patriotic American would believe it important to defend the principles on which his/her country was founded, as manifested in its Constitution and in its Declaration of Independence. The Republican Party nationalists, on the other hand, wave the flag at every opportunity, blindly praise their country while castigating those who dare to criticize it, and yet they couldn’t care less about the principles on which their country is based. Instead, Republican leaders promise to protect their followers using methods that destroy our Constitution, and their followers follow along like sheep, believing themselves to be patriotic in doing so, while not thinking much at all about how their leaders are destroying the fabric of their nation.

In short, I fear that there are far too many nationalists in our country today. If more Americans don’t come to care for the principles that have the potential to make our country great, and instead are willing to throw those principles out the window while proclaiming the greatness of their country, the great American experiment will come to a disastrous end before too long.

[Odin2005]

1. Nationalism is one of the greatist scourges of mankind.

The late British historian Arnold J. Toynbee, writing on the eve of WW2, went as far as saying that nationalism (or "worship of a mythical collective self" to use his own words) and the associated militarism was the cause of the disintegration of most civilizations that ever existed.

[Time for change]

3. Certainly the Bush/Cheney/Neocon version of it is

I did read Toynbee's book about the rise and fall of civilizations. It was very interesting, though also difficult to read and fully understand. It was many years ago, but what you say does sound somewhat familiar.

[pampango]

9. I would have expected the majority of DU to agree with you about the uselessness

of nationalism.

However, with the recent issues of the immigration bill and the proposed North American Union, I have seen many, many posts opposing any loss of American sovereignty and any compromising of American jobs and wages at the hands of noncitizens. Perhaps it is admirable that so many feel a sense of community and shared identity with their fellow Americans, but they seem to do so at the expense of the rest of the world.

[Odin2005]

11. Don't get me wrong, I am opposed to Illegal immigration.

It has nothing to do with Nationalism, but with economics on both sides of the border. The American elites are using illegal immigration as a source of cheap labor that depresses wages. The Mexican elites are using it as a "safety valve" that allows them to ignore improving the economic situation in Mexico. So illegal immigration is both screwing us and Mexico for the benefit of the Corporatist elites. We need to work on getting wages across the world to go UP, not let corporatist propaganda allow the corporatists to drive wages DOWN in the name of "competitiveness." Just because I am opposed to Nationalism doesn't mean I am opposed to the Nation-State as an institution. Unless the majority of people start supporting a global government the nation-state is the best tool we have for protecting Liberal Democracy from Corporatism.

[pampango]

13. I thought that might be the case.

Nationalism - bad; nation-state - good, because it protects me from the cheap labor horde driven by the Mexican elites.

I, for one, do support a global government and any positive steps in that direction. The nation-state is no more useful to me than nationalism is. We are all in this together.

[Mnemosyne]

2. Excellent post! Thanks TfC. KnR! n/t

[Time for change]

4. Thank you vickiss -- I get so sick and tired of these flag waving

nationalists who call themselves patriots and berate anyone who doesn't support their right wing agenda as "unpatriotic".

It's gotten to the point where every time I see an American flag on a car bumper the first thing I think is "Oh no, another Bush voter". More often than not, further observation of the bumper will prove me right about that.

[Mnemosyne]

5. They sure like to wave those flags, don't they? But

when I am out and about I see most have no clue about proper flag code. I saw three houses in a row with shredded flags just a flapping in the breeze; I see them at night and in the rain and snow. There is flag underwear and other clothing, napkins and paper plates; how hypocritical - feces on a flag. And they claim to love it?!?! Piece of fabric, made in China.

The distinction you make between Nationalism and true Patriotism is dead on. Patriots actually care about the country, the Nationalists only give lip service and grandiose show.

I had an idiot whip into my driveway a couple weeks ago and start screaming and cursing me for my sign; Impeach, Support Our Troops, Impeach. He was obviously drunk and couldn't call me the c word enough. He claimed his kid is "over there' and I am a communist that doesn't know what supporting our troops means, blah, blah, blah. I have three loved ones over there and yelled back if he supported the troops he'd want them home rather than fighting and dying for lies and corporations. He was still screaming at me driving down the road, telling me to "just wait".

Being a disabled woman living alone, it frightened me and I almost took the sign down; then I got really pissed and added another sign, 'Freedom of Speech'.

Nationalists = ignorant assholes. Chosen ignorance is deeply disturbing.

Again; a most excellent post TfC. :applause:

:hi:

[Time for change]

6. Geez, you really have to wonder about people like that

I'd really love to sit down with a bunch of people like that (with police guards, of course) and question them in depth about what they're thinking. My firm guess is that they know almost nothing about the facts behind the wars they support -- they simply support them out of blind faith in their country. And they consider that to be a supreme compliment.

My hat off to you for having the courage to confront that ignorant asshole and to put up another sign. :applause:

It sounds like perhaps you should call the police and let them know about this (hopefully the policeman you would call wouldn't be a Bushbot), as it sounds like at the very least there was an implied threat in his actions.

I hope you didn't do anything to jeapardize your safety too much.

[Time for change]

7. Nationalism, militarism, conservatism, and authoritarianism

The German historian Heinrich von Treitschke on the links between nationalism, militarism, conservatism and authoritarianism:

http://www.wfu.edu/~watts/w10_racism.html

Treitschke acclaimed militarism, authoritarianism, and war as the path to German greatness. His views struck a responsive chord among many Germans who feared socialism and dmocracy and yearned for the day when Germany would be recognized as the world's most powerful nation.

And from that line of thinking arose Hitler.

[warren pease]

8. On nations and states...

As I learned it in college, there's a fundamental difference between nations and states, although the terms are often used interchangeably. A nation is a group of people whose common history, culture and self-identity binds them together, regardless of geography. A state is simply political divisions represented as lines on a map. For example, the Kurds live in at least three countries -- Iraq, Turkey and Iran -- and have no real allegiance to any of them. They do, however, have a strong allegiance to each other, which makes them a nation rather than a member of a state.

I think all this has relevance to your post because I would submit that the US is currently a state, not a nation. Nationalism is used to whip the populace into supporting whatever militaristic, xenophobic, imperialist or "free trade" piece of mindless excess the corporate elites and their employees in the white house decide will make them the most money in the shortest period of time.

But it's a phony kind of nationalism in that it has more to do with support for a particular regime or set of ideologies than it does love of country. If it had the slightest thing to do with the latter -- as defined by the Declaration and codified by the Constitution and Bill of Rights -- they'd be posting their outrage with BushCo here on DU instead of mis-spelling and mangling the language while committing the murder of logic on Free Republic.

Plus, nationalism alienates at least as many people as it attracts -- at least those who haven't completely abandoned their duty as skeptics regarding the fundamental nonsense spun as the official story.

So nationalism in this case is actually highly polarizing, producing limited short-term consensus for the outrage du jour, but also adding another element of contention to the organizing principles of dissent, and producing further scorn and disgust for iconic institutions like the courts, the educational system or the obscenity of spending countless billions on "defense" to enrich the makers of ever-more-efficient killing machinery.

Nationalism as manifested currently in the US is, I think, more accurately called "state-ism." There are those who fly the flag out of identification with the American creation myth, but they seem significantly outnumbered by those who fly the flag to self-identify as Bushists or pro-war or anti-immigrant or anti-gay or pro-religious nut cases or (insert your favorite wingnut position here).

And many of these are people who accept the controlling power of a warrior state because it validates their personal commitment to violence and aggression. BushCo is the perfect prop for these people, filled as it is by violent liars who ignore the rule of law, dismiss the concept of justice as archaic, are willing to torture people and thumb their collective noses at the entire appalled world community, gleefully embrace corporate imperialism performed by military proxy, and continue the grand American tradition of indiscriminatingly slaughtering little disposable brown people simply because they're things in the way.

And one more thing: I have much more in common with people I've met in Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Mexico, Costa Rica and Argentina than I'll ever have in common with the archetypal American redneck -- dull, bigoted, quick to shoot, slow to comprehend, Bushbot consciousness, anti-environmentalist, humor dependent on what Rush told him that day... This guy might as well live on the moon (and wish he did) in terms of my identifying with him as part of my nation.

So does that make me a German, Costa Rican, Canadian, Italian or... ? If I use the cohesiveness of nationalism as the yardstick, then that's a reasonable argument. Am I an American? Not if that means I have to be glad that I breathe the same air as that redneck mentioned above.

And not if that means I'm a state-ist whose nationalism is superseded by allegiance to a government that represents lines on a map. But I am an American if that means holding government to its obligation to the nation: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Anyway, great opening post and thank you for taking the time to write it.


wp

[Odin2005]

12. The US is a state based on ideals and principles rather then blood.

The wingnut so-called "patriots" are really just militarists and racists.

[warren pease]

15. "The US is a state based on ideals and principles rather then blood." ??

Ask the 15 million or so indigenous North Americans the Europeans murdered so they could steal an entire continent. Ask the millions of slaves, kidnapped from their homes, chained in slave ships so crowded and filthy that many died en route to "the promised land." Ask the Mexicans, who had about half their country stolen from them under threat of US military invasion in the great Texas land grab that included California, Arizona, New Mexico and parts of Utah and Nevada. Ask the victims of "manifest destiny," who were murdered, imprisoned or sent to detention camps (now called "reservations") in the most inhospitable parts of the country so that white people could steal the best land available. Ask the Filipinos who endured nearly 50 years of US sponsored genocide because they happened to be sitting in a strategic part of the Pacific.

Ask Arbenz, Allende, Sukarno, Mossadegh, Lumumba and Velasco -- to name a few who have had the sheer audacity to lead movements of national liberation and were deposed or murdered by CIA-trained right wing counter-revolutionaries acting solely to protect corporate America's "vital interests" -- which is to say, the infrastructure by which corporate America makes its money, shielded by the doctrine that America, and only America, reserves to itself the right to visit the fires of hell on any entity – nation, state, tribe, union – that threatens to divert a single penny from its proper place in corporate America's pockets.

So when Arbenz in Guatemala starting talking about land redistribution and fair wages for agricultural workers and possibly nationalizing American-owned agribusiness, The United Fruit Company went sniveling to its pals in the Eisenhower administration and, presto, no more Arbenz. Instead, Guatemalans were sentenced to a dictatorship composed of the usual collection of right-wing generals and led by the fascist Carlos Castillo Armas.

The ideals and principles are embodied in the Declaration and include the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Blood's another matter.

The blood of indigenous Americans had been flowing for nearly 300 years when that was written, and slavery had been a vital bulwark of the economy for at least 200, so there was a lot to make up for. But almost as soon as the ink was dry, the US resumed its traditional purge, displacement or genocide against non-whites -- except black Africans, who were needed to do the South's shit work.

So I disagree that the state is based on ideals and principles rather than blood. The American creation myth is based on ideals and principles, most of which have never actually been put into practice, while those that are generally disappear at the first sign of external threat or domestic insurrection. The American reality is somewhat at odds with the creation myth. If you don't think so, consider that you in fact have the right of free speech, at least so far, but if you try to exercise it by protesting a Cheney appearance, you'll never get within six blocks of the vile bastard because you'll be herded by robocops into a "free speech zone." And never mind that the entire country used to be a free speech zone.


wp

[Time for change]

16. I make a big distinction between the "ideals" of our nation

as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution, versus the extent to which our nation has lived up to those ideals. I describe that problem in much more detail in this post, "Wake up America!: Why Americans Need to Acknowledge the Gap between their Ideals and their Actions":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x865591

Edited to say that when I wrote this post I mistakenly thought that your post that I was responding to was in response to my latest post, rather than to Odin2005's post -- as my post had some things in common with Odin's.

In any event, perhaps Odin2005 was thinking along similar lines as what I expressed in the above noted OP of mine. :)

[warren pease]

19. Just read the post you cited and...

.. I assume you're familiar with Howard Zinn's histories written from the point of view of the screwees rather than the screwers? In any case, your post from the other thread is dead on and squares perfectly with one of my central theses about what it takes to be happy and well-adjusted in America -- absent heavy drinking or serious drug abuse.

In short, you have to kill your critical thinking processes, believe only the official history of the great white US father intervening only on the side of freedom and justice and only when absolutely necessary to protect a given country's people from some manufactured devil, believe that there is no class war in America... And a whole constellation of pure nonsense fobbed of on people from the time they're in grade school and on through college, with a few notable exceptions.

The gap between the American myth and the American reality is so huge that ignoring it requires either pure idiocy, historical ignorance or epic hypocrisy -- all at levels that are nearly off the charts. But thanks to our awful educational system, bias against intellect, pop culture celebrity intoxication and irrelevant mass media, there's no shortage of idiocy, ignorance and hypocrisy. Mix in a little ole time religion and it's open season on rationality.

Anyway, just wanted to reply to your posts of yesterday. I have to sleep sometime, and also had to take time out to watch the Giants lose yet again...


Best,

wp

[Time for change]

22. Thank you warren -- about being happy and well adjusted

I have come to believe that killing trying to believe what other people want you to believe or trying to stifle my critical thinking processes in order to accomplish that would make me miserable -- and not only me, but I'll bet that it makes anyone miserable in certain respects. It's the easy way out, but in the long run I doubt that it does anyone any good. Whenever I start to fall into that trap I start becoming depressed, which makes me realize that I'd better quit it.

That's one reason that I like DU so much. Sure, there are DUers who fly off the handle and who are difficult to deal with. But few of them will criticize people for critical thinking.

[Odin2005]

24. I beleive no historical myths and am a big fan of Zinn

People rarely live up to thier ideals, that is a fact of life. No state, no civilization, has ever lived up to it's ideals; that doesn't mean those ideals are not something we should continue to aspire to.

[warren pease]

25. Agreed re living up to ideals...

The thing that constantly pisses me off about the US is the hypocrisy and "doublethink" involved in, say, seeing blatant evidence of US aggression against a non-threat like Iraq, hearing during the months and years after the invasion that the various excuses given for that invasion are all lies, knowing that more than 3,500 US troops -- who we profess to support with our little flags and ribbon decals -- have been killed for these lies, knowing (if they look beyond TV news) that more than 650,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since "shock and awe" began, women and children comprising a significant percentage of that number, knowing that the whole thing's about control of oil reserves and projecting massive US military power into the region... Knowing all this and still refusing to accept that the US creation myth, in which the US always acts out of benign motives and never fires the first shot, has a few holes in it.

As you read Zinn and, I assume, others who advocate an alternative view of US history from the official US happy face version taught from Kindergarten through college, you know that this country has engaged in one horrendous bloodbath after another to make the world safe for American hegemony and American corporate interests.

Of course no state or nation ever lives up to all elements of its ideals. If they did, the USSR would have become a true workers' paradise rather than a security state dungeon. But some do better than others, and I submit the US isn't on that list.

And even that's OK, sort of, if only our "leaders" would get off their damn pedestals, stop claiming the moral high ground, quit excusing every manifestation of US imperialism as a battle in the "war on (fill in your favorite pest)," and get out of the business of condemning human rights violations in other countries when we're now the world's most prolific torturer, as well as its most despised and dangerous rogue state.

That's what really makes me crazy about all the neo-nationalism, statism or uber-patriotism -- whatever you choose to call it -- represented by those little flag lapel pins and warbling of God Bless America during the seventh inning stretch.

Ideals are great; trying to live up to them is also great; practicing self-delusion in an effort to block out the disparity between ideals and reality is pure hypocrisy and should be beneath anyone's dignity. Unfortunately, dignity is apparently in short supply around here these days.


wp

[Odin2005]

26. Most Great Powers have engaged in one horrible bloodbath after another.

The sins of the US needs to be put in historical context in comparison with all other great powers, not alone as some unique example of Man's inhumanity to Man.

[warren pease]

27. Which is why I don't value living in a "great power"

On the whole, I'd rather be in Vancouver BC. I like Canada for a number of reasons, among them the fact that they have absolutely no ambitions of world dominance -- and couldn't pull it off even if they tried. Same for most European social democracies, and places like New Zealand and, in fact, most of the world with the probable exceptions of China, a possibly resurgent Russia and our own sweet land of liberty.

In addition to living the lie of ideals unmet, great powers require insane amounts of money to keep the war machine fed. Money that other countries use for the benefit of their citizens -- health care, education, housing assistance, early retirement with lifetime pensions, and so on.

If the US was sincere about the role of government being to promote "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," it would de-fund the Pentagon, stop making billionaires out of the death merchants, and devote some of that money to programs such as those mentioned above.

But again, we're trapped by two ideologies that combine to diminish the lives of the citizenry: quasi-religious devotion to unregulated capitalism (except when the corporate welfare queens need a taxpayer-funded bailout), and the military requirements of a great power, which bleeds us all dry and provides nothing but illusory defense in return.

So you can have the great power syndrome. I'll take Vancouver, if only they'd take me.


wp


edited for tpyos

[Odin2005]

23. Exactly.

This is why I get annoyed by people who start ranting off how evil the US, or even all of Western Civilization, is just because we are fallible humans and thus generally fail to live up to our ideals and principles. Those people seem to be the same ones who pull out relativist BS when ever a Westerner criticizes barbaric practices in other societies.

[Time for change]

14. I believe in the "ideals" of the American nation

as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence; and I believe in the legal foundation for our nation as stipulated in our Constitution.

I very much agree with almost everything you said here, with one perhaps not very important exception: I think it is accurate to say that the plague that afflicts this country is indeed nationalism, rather than statism. Nationalism is meant to appeal to the emotions -- or perhaps more specifically to the idea that the nation (people) in question are different or superior to others and therefore should not have to think of them as equals or as fully human. I believe that most of the nationalism in this country is fueled by that sense of superiority, which makes those people feel good about themselves.

Of course, in our country it's not all that easy to distinguish nationalism from statism, since the geographic boundaries almost entirely coincide, unlike with the Kurds, for example. So I think it's accurate to say that for people in this country nationalism (via the emotions) is more of a factor than statism, whereas for many of our leaders (Cheney being perhaps the best example) it is cold calculated statism that is the bigger factor -- though they would never put it in such terms.

I think people would do well to think about the question you raise regarding national identity. What makes us an American? Those who parade their so-called "patriotism" and beat the drums for war ought to think about that and try to verbalize it. I believe that most of them simply believe themselves to be superior to other people. But on what basis? Genetically? Just because they were born here? I doubt that all but a few have barely given it a thought.

[warren pease]

18. I think we agree, and it's just a matter of semantics...

I think your "nationalism" is almost identical to my "statism." You ascribe pretty much the same characteristics and problems to nationalism as I do to statism. As you say, "most of the nationalism in this country is fueled by that sense of superiority, which makes those people feel good about themselves."

And if I had expressed myself that well in my own post, I would have said pretty much the same thing, except that the statism part intrudes when nationalism is corrupted to subordinate love of country to love of a particular set of political ideologies and the government that best represents those ideologies.

In this case, BushCo drew all the closet fascists like a magnet, and gave them license to express their most reprehensible character traits under the guise of patriotism. And I would argue (although not very strenuously) that such a climate represents statism more accurately than nationalism, which I still naively equate with using the Declaration and Bill of Rights as guiding principles, rather than the Turner Diaries.

Anyway, I appreciate the distinction but doubt we disagree much beyond semantic (or possibly Webster's 10th).


wp

[warren pease]

20. And further...

It's too late to edit the previous post, but I should have added to it...

I think the situation now is statism all dressed up in the trappings of nationalism, but it's not for the kinds of people who are ideologically hard-wired to question authority. We don't get to participate in the nationalist obsession because the flag and all the standard trappings of nationalism have been hijacked by the statists on the right. The 4th will be a nauseating celebration of statism and militarism, again draped in the cloak of nationalism.

You don't see this crap much in Portland, which is kind of like San Francisco in its leftward tilt and disdain for traditional institutions and doctrinal orthodoxy. But Portland is full of educated, thinking, questioning people who reflexively interpret anything BushCo says or does as seriously harmful to the republic.

But I realize this is a minority position not shared by much of the rest of the country. I had the extreme lousy luck to be in Houston on July 4, 1776. The bicentennial was in full swing and reminded me of nothing so much as Orwell's two minutes of hate. The celebration was dominated by the kind of American boosterism that requires a despised group of economically distressed, socially unacceptable non-whites to validate *true* Americans as they revel in their own superior status. I had hair nearly down to my navel, which made things even more interesting. As soon as the car was fixed, I got the hell out of there and considered myself lucky to have avoided being beaten senseless by a crowd of drunken "patriots."

Anyway, that's just off topic rambling. Just wanted to clarify the nationalism/statism construct and try to further explain a probably unnecessary case of academic hair-splitting.

You say tomato, I say tomahto... Either one would make a deeply satisfying splat when striking Cheney's most deserving forehead.


wp

[Time for change]

21. Yes, I agree

No doubt our agreement on these issues far outweigh our differences, which as you say appear to be only semantic.

This is a very complicated issue, and I doubt that the semantics are terribly consistent throughout the literature on nationalism, statism, etc.

I read a book on nationalism (which I believe was the full name of the title) several years ago, and I found it very confusing.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

28. This is a brilliant piece of writing...

kickity kick :kick:

[Larry Ogg]

10. One of the darkest examples of nationalism that came to my mind was

the reaction to the infamous Ward Burton essay after 911, ware he had the audacity to proclaim they hated us not for our freedom but rather because of our foreign policy. The political lynching that plaid out in our corporately owned unfair and unbalanced mainstream media was an example of fanning the flames of nationalism at its worst, nationalism that would squelch the debate over other possibilities and objective reasoning…

What is so disturbing is the ease at which our barbaric foreign policy has for the most part remained concealed under a veil of deceit and darkness, as the majority of people still naively believe they hate us for our freedom, our they just don’t care one way ore the other. But the economic royals (robber barons and war mongers) continue to fan the flames of nationalism, to cover up their crimes against humanity; they fan the flames of nationalism as they loot and plunder the resources and treasures of the world for the benefit of the few, and they fan the flames of nationalism that push desperate people to the ultimate extremes of hostility and sacrifice.

It is sad that the consequences of our foreign policy; a system that has nothing but contempt for democracy amongst weaker nations and people, a system created by corrupt and corporately owned political leaders, a system that puts the profits of the few above the rights of the many, a system with consequences that came home to roost on 911, a system with consequences that are still to come… A system that if not unchanged will leave few survivors…

I would like to add one more observation. The greatest benefit I get from coming to DU is the articles, essays and OP’s posted by you Time for change… But often I find myself bewildered by the lack of attention many of you OP’s receive hear on DU, and I feel that it’s because of just what this OP is about, “The Tragedy of Nationalism”. Many democrats here at DU don’t want to know or face up to political wrong doings or follies ware democrats were involved. America’s dark history has been bipartisan. But I believe history is important no mater how painful because it gives one the ability of knowing how it will be repeated, but if enough people know the history they might be able to change the future and stop history from repeating. I think your work and contribution to this cause is most admirable, I just wish more people would read it…

Larry

[Time for change]

17. Thank you so much Larry

I really appreciate the compliment.

I have mixed feelings about the things you talk about here. I'm sure that almost everyone wishes that their posts were read more than they are, and I'm no exception to that. But on the other hand, most of the time I feel honored that as many people read them as they do. And many of my posts are read quite widely -- which gives me incentive to keep on trying to do better.

I think that one of the major issues with regard to what you talk about here is that the DU was specifically formed as a reaction against George Bush, and in fact DU's birth day is January 20, 2000, the day that Bush was inaugurated. This is right from the DU web site, regarding the principle purpose of DU:

This website exists so our members and guests are assured that there are many others across the country who share their outrage at the unilateral, arrogant, and extreme right-wing approach taken by George W. Bush and his team, the conservative Republicans in Congress, and the five conservative partisans on the Supreme Court.

So, given that, it's not surprising that there would be more interest in the current state of affairs than in history, and a burning desire to expose the crimes of this administration, with less interest in digging into the past crimes of our nation.

Nevertheless, there are many DUers, including you and me, who have a very strong interest in history and strongly believe that a deep understanding of history is essential to improving our future.