On the nature of nations and nationalism.

I think it is important to clear up some basic terminology, especially if I plan on having very many more posts of a political nature. This will deal with nationalism and its various related terms.

What is nationalism? It is a recent phenomenon (with roots in Europe in the Enlightenment period, if I remember correctly) that has spread throughout the world much like a systemic autoimmune disorder affects the entire body. Nationalism is the glorification of the "nation," a term which as been corrupted from a simple historical term useful for tracing tribal units and other people groups into some kind of mythical racial superentity. In the good old days, a nation was simply a group of people that shared similar linguistic roots. In the last few hundred years however it has shifted to be a genetic, cultural, racist term. Nationalism, then, is the promotion of the changed idea of nationhood into the most important defining characteristic of a state or of a people. For instance, a Turk is someone who is ethnically descended from Turkish ancestors, who speaks Turkish, who preferably lives in modern-day Turkey, and in many cases (though not exclusively) is a follower of Islam. A Greek is someone from modern Greece (or from formerly greek-speaking areas, such as Asia Minor, who was forced to move to Greece), with Greek ancestors, who speaks modern Greek, and who is a nominal member of the official Church of Greece. A Frenchman is a person who lives in France, who speaks French, who is either an enlightened atheist or a nominal Catholic, and who has French ancestors. A German is someone from modern-day Germany, with German ancestors, who speaks German, and who is either a nominal Lutheran (or German Prostestant or whatever they call it now) or a nominal Catholic.

The defining characteristic then becomes a sense of ethnic unity with one's fellows, with the assumption (though vigorously denied by all and sundry in the modern era) that one's specific ethnic background is somehow inherently superior (both in prowess and in moral worth) to all others (generally there is at least on specific ethnicity to which it is emphatically, even violently, opposed). Nationalism has resulted in the unification of Germany and of Italy, but it has also led to the dissolusion of a great many states. Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, modern Georgia, Serbia, etc. Nationalism is also responsible for warmongering and violence on a grand scale. Terrorism, world wars, and most especially genocides such as the Holocaust (against Jews, Gypsies, Russians, and others), the Armenian Genocide, ethnic cleansing in Darfur, and many others. All in all, nationalism is overwhelmingly a negative force, one which spawns violence, which leads to politics of the nation instead of politics of the ideal (dictatorship becomes much easier when one can appeal to nationalism, which incidentally prepares people mentally for the idea that one should sacrifice everything to promote the ascendency of the nation, making for very effective propoganda during times of war), and which promotes bigotry and racism instead of the meritocracy that directs all the most successful of states.

Compare this to how things used to be. Under the Hellenistic governments of the Macedonian Successors, Greek as a language was vital to effective administration. It brought with it naturally many elements of Greek culture and civilization, but ultimately it was not a racial or ethnic thing in any way. All that one needed to do in order to succeed was to learn Greek. An Ethiopian, a Persian, or a Jew would be equally able to rise to the highest of positions in the administration of one of the successors' empires simply by knowing Greek and being competent. Look too at the Romans, the world's paragon of meritocracy in premodern times. There are Isaurians (barbarians from the mountains of Asia Minor), Armenians, Thracians, Arabs, Italians, Greeks, and any number of other ethnicities that managed to rise to the highest office ever instituted among men: Emperor of the Roman Empire. Did their race or ethnicity, or even their native tongue matter at all? No! All that was required of them was that they learn Latin, and later Greek, and that they be competent (in many cases supremely so). If someone saw the opportunity and took it, he could rise from stableboy to Emperor in almost no time at all. Indeed, some of the best rulers in the entire history of the world were spawned by a line founded by one such stableboy. Look at Justin and Justinian, a pair of country hicks who were not even literate when they moved to Constantinople. The former rose to be commander of the imperial guard before becoming emperor, while the latter educated himself and became one of the greatest, most well known rulers in history. Indeed, if not for the plague that broke his empire's finances, he likely would be ranked above all others in his achievements. Would any of this have been possible if nationalism existed in its modern form at the time? Resoundingly no! Such outstanding people would have been relegated to second- or even third-class citizenship, if they were not unlucky enough to be killed off-hand in a spat of racial violence. Could Rome itself, as an empire, even have existed if nationalism were present? Again, no! Rebellion by local ethnic minorities, pogroms by local ethnic majorities, and general unrest due to nothing more than a desire to be ruled by a despot related to oneself instead of by an "other" would have torn it apart. Look at what happened to the Ottomans. They were one of the most cohesive, widely diverse states in the world until the rise of nationalism combined with inherent religious tensions (caused in no small part by oppressive anti-Christian policies enacted by various rulers) to destroy the country in a rapid series of rebellions. This was exacerbated by the rise of the Turkish nationalists, exemplified by the so-called Ataturk, who even now enjoys a near god-like reverence among his people.

Now to the United States of America. Is the US a nation? I hope not. Unfortunately, those who are most influential in shaping politics and the media in our country are trying constantly to turn us into one. We are at bottom a country, not a nation. We are unified not by a common ethnic, religious, or even linguistic unity (though English is overwhelmingly the most common tongue is use, and simple economics should dictate that those who hope to be successful on anything other than a purely local level learn at least basic speech and literacy with that language). Instead, we share a political ideal. Instead of promoting the nation over everything else, instead Americans value the rule of law and a sense of freedom and individual responsibility. Or at least, that was how things once were. During the world wars of the past century, and the polarizing Cold War, America began to see itself as something less, something more immediately obvious. People were told that they were a nation, and now most of them believe it. One can see the results in the way that our country acts, both domestically and in foreign relations. The US has become cavalier toward the sovereign rights of others states. It compromises on the highest law of the land, the Constitution itself, at every turn, simply in the name of making our nation great. People are expected to sacrifice everything, lives, property, but most especially liberty in order to promote the security and the glory of the nation. Look at the appeals about the state of education in our country. Instead of appealing to people's desire to improve the minds of their children, the pundits talk about competing with nations that have surpassed certain benchmarks. They speak of reclaiming our ascendency among the nations by improving our schools, with no mention made of improving the quality of life of our citizens for their own sake.

I don't know if I have explained myself well, but I hope that you come away with a sense of what our country, and indeed the world, has lost as a result of nationalism. It is a tool for division, a source of conflict and violence, and ultimately a means for despots and tyrants to sieze power in the name of greatness. Even the globalization movement uses nationalism well, for every instance of nationalistic conflict simply reinforces their arguments in favor of a single world government that would be above such petty differences. The problem is that it wouldn't be above it; rather, it would enable those in power to enforce their views on national differences. It would also make oppression easier. Want to keep "peace" in the Balkans? Station Greek troops in Turkey and Turkish groups in Greece. The so-called peacekeepers would be more than happy to maintain order at any cost, since they would hold the lives of those they were nominally protecting at less than the price of a bullet.

On foreign policy.

The United States of America are in a tough position, put there by the leaders of this country over the last century or more (primarily Wilson, FDR, and the Cold War presidents). What is our situation? We have soldiers scattered all across the world, we send money to people everywhere (in many cases to people on opposite sides of a single conflict), we rush to impose our will by means of economic sanctions (which tend only to hurt the masses of a country, while the elites take advantage of it to rail against us as the great enemy, thereby solidifying their control all the while enjoying an undisturbed standard of living at their citizens' expense) or by military intervention (Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, Iraq again, Lebanon, the list keeps getting longer), we simultaneously preach about civil rights and sovereignty while pushing the UN with its terrible record on both issues (indeed, the latter is considered the enemy by proponents of the UN, while the former is ignored whenever the UN finds it expedient to do so) and while treating many other countries as if they were little more than protectorates without any of the rights of sovereign states. This cavalier attitude toward the rest of the world is harmful both to us and to them. It allows dictators and tyrants to point to us as the enemy, fueling their propoganda and making their domination of their peoples both easier and more complete. It hurts us economically, as countries everywhere see us as exploiting them and therefore try their hardest to exploit us back, by means of everything from extensive subsidies to entire industries to easy access to dirt cheap labor in large quantities. There are countless other problems caused by the pattern of behavior set by our progressive internationalist leaders over the last century, with consequences that we are even still just beginning to feel (and more loom ever closer on the horizon, such as the growing military threat in China and nacent communism resurfacing in Russia's recent policies).

So what can be done about these things? Is it too late to correct the situation, or are we stuck with a bad hand and must simply play it through to the end? All that is really needed is this: a return to Constitutional government at home and a consequent return to the basic principles of limited government, personal freedom and responsibility, and fair and moral treatment of others (both domestically/personally and internationally). Simply applying the Golden Rule should make things much better very quickly. We want other countries to treat us as a free and sovereign state, so we ought to treat them in the same manner. No violating their borders, interfering with their internal politics, or supporting unpopular or dangerous regimes with vast sums of money. End all foreign subsidies and aid, thereby cutting the government's budget by an immense sum. Eliminate our overseas bases (with the possible exception of a handful of naval stations for convenient resupply of carrier groups), bringing our troops home from wherever they may be (be it Iraq or Germany). This would not only remove a lot of the onerous presence that so many people object to, it would also make our country vastly more secure against foreign military threats (after all, who would be dumb enough to invade the USA when its entire armed force is available to oppose them instead of being scattered to the four corners of the earth?). As for trade, eliminate the various so-called free trade agreements, which are anything but free. Instead, institute a fair trade policy, where our government matches whatever subsidies a foreign state puts on a particular industry by imposing tarrifs to match, while also matching whatever tarrifs other countries put on our goods (so those who pursue a protectionist policy wind up suffering from one themselves when they try to send goods to us). This in general should promote fair trade practices, by making subsidies useless and discouraging high tarrif barriers. Let the quality of American goods speak for itself on the market; if they aren't worthwhile, then they shouldn't succeed, but if they are then their own qualities should ensure their success. The UN and other international organizations are another matter. We have ambassadors and allow embassies on our soil for the express purpose of communicating with our fellow states. Why do we need an international body with its own power, its own agenda, and its own political sensibilities (most of which are at odds with American Constitutional government) to do a job that we already have the means to accomplish? Did the UN actually stop World War Three? I think not. Indeed, by getting us into Korea and countless other conflicts, it has pushed us closer to another general war than it ever pulled us away from one. NATO may have served a certain purpose during the height of the Cold War, but now what does it really do for us other than spread our troops around to defend and increasingly hostile Europe from monsters of their own making? Mutual defense alliances and treaty organizations are a very dangerous thing. All it takes is one member deciding to go to war and suddenly we find ourselves fighting overseas for who knows what reason. Not only is that an unsafe proposition, but it is patently illegal. The warmaking power is reserved exclusively for Congress (contrary to popular belief, being commander-in-chief does not allow the President to start wars unilaterally; instead, it only allows him to direct our armed forces after Congress declares war) and is not meant to be delegated to foreign powers that most likely do not have our best interests in mind.

In short, the best option of the United States to follow is that of careful neutrality, economic fairness, and diplomatic and military firmness without needless intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign countries. To those who object to such things as the genocide in Darfur, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, or human rights abuses in China, I answer that nothing is stopping them from taking action themselves. Whether they find an organization and donate to it, purchase arms and hire instructors to promote oppressed peoples' ability to defend themselves, or even volunteer to fight on behalf of the victimized, it is their choice and their freedom so to act. The General Government of the United States has neither the responsibility nor the lawful power to interfere, nor do other governments have any legitimate ability to do the same to us. Sovereignty and responsibility are not just for individuals, they are for states as well. Respecting those things in others and promoting them internally are the best policies available to people and to countries.

A strange conversation topic...

Here's something that you can always throw into a conversation if you are bored and want to shake things up a bit - if you were starving would you eat a mermaid? The same can be applied to centaurs, traditional fantasy dwarves/elves, and any other such creatures that in many ways seem human-like but are in fact not actually human. Another way of putting this would be to ask if one would be willing to eat any sapient non-uman creature. Here's my take:

It is natural for man to make use of the things around him to support and sustain himself and his fellows. However, this does not extend to making use of his fellow man in the same way as he would an animal. Yet what is it fundamentally that seperates man from beast? Contrary to the usual claim that it is reason, I would posit that it is in fact the existence of a soul. Animals lack souls, regardless of their capacity for reason (or lack thereof). Therefore, I think it would follow naturally that any creature, no matter its degree of sapiency, could legitimately be treated like any other animal insofar as man making use of it for his support and sustainance. Thus, it would not be morally reprehensible for one to eat a mermaid, an elf, a dwarf, or any other such fantastic entity. However, this hinges on the fact that such creatures are not related to humanity and therefore do not possess souls. Should it be otherwise, then it would indeed be a crime for one to eat such a creature.

On a related subject, what about creatures eating men? In my opinion the fundamental reason why maneaters are so feared and abhored across the world isn't actually because people fear being eaten. Rather, I believe that it is a crime against nature for animals to eat humans (for nature was established with the other way around being the norm). Thus people from nearly every culture of which I am aware consider maneaters to be abominations, and in the more primitive cultures they actually believe them to be demon possessed (of necessity, since untainted animals would never eat men).

Combining these two thought processes leads to an interesting quandary. Is it cannibalism for a man to eat a maneater? If a lion has begun to stalk humans at a bridge construction site, killing and eating them on a regular (and increasingly frequent) basis, then would it be immoral for the hunter that finally tracks down and kills the lion to eat it? After all, you are what you eat, or so the saying goes. Would that make it cannibalism (albeit indirect) for said lion to be served up for dinner at the victory feast celebrating its demise?

The main reason I bring these up at all is because I have found it to be an interesting way to modify the expected behavior patterns of the typical "paladin" style character in a role playing game. Though the paladin would still go out of his way to assist non-human entities in need of help, should they die (or should it be necessary to kill them for food) then the paladin would feel no moral compunctions regarding eating those entities. This can also go hand-in-hand with a sort of xenophobic paladin, one who believes that humans alone are superior to all other creatures. Treated correctly, I think that such a paladin could maintain a code of behavior largely consistent with the typical varieties of such, but with just enough differences to make for an interesting twist on the concept (with plenty of potential for the paladin's attitude to have an impact on the wider story).

I'll try to be a bit more serious in my next post, but for now, have fun pondering these few ideas.