So, it's almost Canada day---that flag-waving, fireworks-displaying, frenzy of patriotism.
The title refers to an Einstein quote: "Nationalism is an infantile disease." This is, obviously, a rather controversial position, being advocated by a man credited as one of the most intelligent human beings to have walked this earth, yet the wisdom in this quote is either ignored, forgotten, or if echoed by some disaffected youth sceptical of the value of nationalism, angrily dismissed.
Many may find the idea that being proud of "their country" is illogical to be inflammatory, but to them I ask a simple question---why be proud of something you made no decision about at birth, and that hardly qualifies as an accomplishment (being born or living within particular socially constructed borders)? What purpose(s) does this serve, and does such a purpose (or such purposes) make it desirable?
A common line is that "We are lucky to have the freedoms we do and should be grateful that we live in a country where we have these freedoms". Given that this has become a truism among many Western countries, it desperately needs to be examined closely.
What freedoms are being referred to, and where did they come from? Let's be clear that these freedoms did not simply fall from the sky, nor were they granted by compassionate or noble "founding fathers". Many of the freedoms we have today, from the current extent of freedom of speech, to racial equality and women's rights, have been gained by challenging the once"socially acceptable" line propagated by the socially and economically powerful. This is demostrated by the continued shortcomings in these aspects of our freedoms.
How, then, do we address shortcomings in freedoms gained at the national and international level? Do we trust Western leaders to address the shortcomings at home, while meanwhile imposing Western liberal democracy, supposedly in the interests of the people in other countries where it is being imposed? To avoid getting into a lengthy discussion on the failures of that idea for now, I'll simply assume anyone reading this sees what Western governments have done to "address" social problems in their states, and where imposition of a Western-style system has gotten states like Iraq and Afghanistan.
No, a continued struggle for genuine freedom involves recognition of whose interests the continued perpetuation of liberal-democratic states really upholds, and an international democratic struggle against these interests to build a better society in the interests of the average persons in the world, many of whom suffer greatly under the current system. In short, for societal progress, it is necessary to reject nationalism in favour of a democratic internationalism.
One final thing will be considered here. Do you believe that, as even liberals (at least in their rhetoric) argue, "All men (or more appropriately for now, people) are created equal", or do you believe that some are superior to others by virtue of nationality? If the latter, you lack an understanding of the socioeconomic conditions that led to current inequalities and cultural practices in the world. If the former, then I have one final point:
If all men are equal, why distinguish between nationalities? Claiming to recognize the equality of people of different nationalities, while arguing for this division, suggests an idea of "separate but equal". I don't mean to suggest that everyone who is 'proud of their country', but recognizes that they and their fellow citizens are not somehow superior by nature to citizens of other countries, is intentionally reasoning like a segregationist. In effect, though, the liberal idea does suggest "separate but equal" nations (hence all nations getting one vote in the U.N General Assembly, for instance), and the aim of that policy as applied to race some decades ago was clear, hence its rightful rejection by the civil rights movement. Such distinctions are socially constructed and only serve to divide the people, in the interests of a small group that is growing ever richer.
All this may seem disconnected from where I started off, but the point is simple---rather than joining in the coming frenzy of patriotism this weekend, please think it over, and join in a "frenzy" of international solidarity.
No comments:
Post a Comment