The Myth of Nationalism

This topic sprung to mind after I read Howard Zinn's piece about the scourge of nationalism in the latest issue of The Progressive. Here's the Wikipedia definition of NATIONALISM: An ethno-political ideology that sustains the concept of a nation-identity for an exclusive group of people. It is the discrete or implied doctrine which holds the preservation and independence of its distinct identity, in all its aspects, and the "glory and wellbeing" of the nation as core aspects of its fundamental ethos.

Ever since the incipient concept of nation-state (by extension, nationalism) was first brought to being after the signing of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, it has been nothing but a destructive force that has wrought untold deaths and misery throughout its history. Countless wars, battles, massacres, and genocides have been perpetrated all in the name of nationalism. And for what? Defending empty meaningless symbols and perceived traditions that supposedly make up the uniting force that binds us all? Nationalism, as it stands, allows the formation of an "in-group" and excludes the rest. Another chief requirement of nationalism is the creation of the "Other," to which the nationalist group can juxtapose itself against. To rally people under the nationalist banner, they will have to be made to believe that their existence is being mortally threaten; thus, the concocting of the "Other" to act as the bogeyman to scare the wits out of these people. Who is this "Other," anyway? Anybody who falls outside the "in-group," that is. Does any of this sound familiar? Hitler did it in Nazi Germany, Mussolini did it in Italy, Franco did it in Spain, Milosevic did it in Yugoslavia, and these are just the most prominent--and extreme--examples in recent history. Very bloody examples indeed. Just ask the six millions Jews and the rest of the untermenschens who were exterminated in Auschwitz, Treblinka and other concentration camps.

No doubt that nationalism, in its capacity to unite previously disparate people, did play an important role in anti-colonial struggles and in liberating people from the yoke of subjugation. Through the idea of nationalism that people like Mahatma Ghandi, Jose Rizal, Chandra Subhas Bose, Ahmad Boestamam, Burhanuddin al-Helmy, Ishak Haji Muhammad, Soekarno, Hatta, Ho Chi Minh (Nguyen Ai Quoc and dozens of his other nom de guerre), Kwame Nkrumah, Nelson Mandela, Patrice Lumumba, Ahmed Ben Bella and other anti-colonial leaders were able to form united, encompassing and sustainable movements to withstand against and prevail over the Western imperial juggernauts. However, nationalism should not be the end in itself; it should be used as a springboard to a much greater purpose: the respect for all humankind and that all is equal, irregardless of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender or sexual persuasion (am I missing anyone here?).

Anyway, there are plenty of academic books out there that deal specifically with the topic of nationalism, especially the ones that attempt to deconstruct the idea through the post-modern/post-structural theoretical framework. Chiefly among these academic works is the highly illuminating book "Imagined Communities" by Benedict Anderson. If I have an all-time favorite books list, this book has to be on it. Here's a quote from Ben Anderson: "Only face-to-face contact can sustain community: nations are in some sense an illusion." Or to put it in a more grotesque medical context, here's a quote from Albert Einstein: "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."