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.