Like any large social movements, nationalism has its benefits but may also be a dangerous weapon. It's rather a powerful tool with which to unite people under one banner, a people acting as one who can be wielded in virtually any direction that sometimes appears fit.
Nationalism can be considered a positive thing, as easily proven by how Filipinos, fired by its ideals, been successful in kicking out the Spanish, the Japanese, and the Us citizens. So necessary was nationalism that Rizal and his technology saw the necessity to invent it to unite inhabitants of varied islands who did not until then think of themselves as owned by one "nation". As historians have correctly pointed out, the concept "Filipino" - like so a great many other nationwide identities worldwide - has been a modern man-made technology constructed for useful purposes.
In that, throughout the world, colonized peoples increased against their colonial experts inspired by a collective desire to be free, nationalism has been a force once and for all. To the scope that today, challenges against modern forms of colonialism still attract from its well, nationalism remains a potent push for emancipation. By dispelling the misconception that some people are intrinsically superior; by making those who find themselves presumed inferior to question their perpetual subordination; by compelling us to turn to those who are part in our thought community as equals and for that reason deserving of solidarity and esteem; by convincing us that collectively as a collective we can achieve goals we can't normally achieve on our own; for all these reasons good nationalism may bring out the best in us.
There can be an inherent threat in endeavoring to "homogenize" the human population. We just are not built for that. Our unique ethnicities and life-style are worth preserving, and any tendency towards tearing down all the wall space in the name of world peacefulness is actually fascism in a dressed up form, parading itself off as worldwide nationalism, having the intent of the good of all at heart.
Nationalism, like private property possession, is an inherent drive in human culture, however, not necessarily a poor one. The Vietnamese turmoil initially started out of the nationalistic activity. Communism took over as the generating power for Vietnamese self-reliance early on. If nationalism got maintained a dominant role, the Vietnam Battle would have considered a decidedly different way (there was a good chance China wouldn't have recognized their struggle for self-reliance. )
A healthy medication dosage of positive nationalism can relieve these anxieties by softening the burdens of economic change. If they feel especially connected to their compatriots, people who gain from change tend to be more willing to support strong security nets, career programs, and educational systems that help alleviate the responsibility on those who otherwise would fall considerably behind. Socially, nationalism motivates visitors to fight against the hazards to a culture, and permits them to hang together when met with a crisis, like an invasion or a natural disaster. And the generosity of the winners in turn allows the country as a whole to better accept the consequences of free trade, open up capital markets, plus more liberal immigration. Nationalism also serves to unite a country: whether it be in sport or commercial pride.
A society with a whole lot of positive nationalism is more likely to be tolerant and available toward the rest of the world because its people have learned the practices of good citizenship and cultural justice. Dictators and demagogues, on the other side, flourish where social capital is an issue. Individuals who feel little responsibility toward one another will transform against minorities in their midst and outsiders across their borders, in return for claims of glory or comforting fictions of superiority.
Positive nationalism is that when our people are better off they're more inclined and better able to enhance the world's physical condition. But inability to choose positive nationalism almost surely stimulates its negative twin- 'bad' nationalism, i. e. nationalism fueled with racism and chauvinism which can express worst implications. Negative nationalism assumes that the globe is a zero-sum game where our increases come at another nation's charge, and theirs come at ours.
George Orwell said that nationalism is "the habit of let's assume that humans can be grouped like insects and that whole blocks of thousands and thousands or tens of thousands of individuals can be confidently labeled 'good' or 'bad'. " This hints that by signing up to nationalism, or love of one's country, is in turn subscribing to the fact that a culture is superior to another: good and bad. He goes on to help make the differentiation between "nationalism" and "patriotism. " Patriotism, Orwell states, is harmless. It really is a love of indigenous culture, and the patriot does not have any need to impose that culture on others.
European colonists, persuaded that they brought god's light with them to the New World, decimated an uncounted amount of Indians. The Nazis, thinking they to be the superior race, exterminated over six million Jews. Turkish nationalists annihilated on the million Armenians. Zionists, believing they to be god's own people, have wiped out thousands who are actually living in land they lay claim to have obtained from god. The list continues on. Indonesian nationalism justified the taking of West Papua and Timor. Thai nationalists have made sure that Patani Malays will haven't any country of their own.
Nationalism has been mobilized to justify the carrying on colonization of the Moro people and the indigenous individuals in Mindanao. It's been manipulated by those seeking an ideological cover with which to cover their vested passions in the mantle of the "nation, " providing those that they entice to kill for the coffee lover a flag with which to pay their coffins.
This kind of nationalism has been the first refuge of politicians eager to stoke prejudice in trade for votes; of those threatened with getting rid of a portion with their vast fiefdoms; of these whose careers rely upon defending the status quo; of those like Teodoro Locsin whose justification for keeping Moros colonized reminds us of the Spaniards' - that indios are barbarians and not capable of self-government; and the ones, even in the left, who'll do anything just to frustrate the "principal opponents" even if this means turning their backside on those whose flexibility they declare to advance. Add to these those who, while knowing the historical injustice determined against Moros, nevertheless insist upon providing them with no other recourse but to participate the "Filipino family" - /who would like to be part of a family where your brothers seek to wipe out you and chuck you out of your house!
Bad nationalism is of course not the conserve of the dominating power: patients too - as the case of Zionists or, for example, of Filipinos show - may easily become aggressors. Among Moros, opportunistic nationalism is also the refuge of these Moro elites who are just wanting to take over the lands grabbed by Filipino landlords so as to replace them in oppressing the Moro masses. The god these elites may assert to be praying to may be of a new name; however the servants that they will coerce into kneeling before them will be the same people. Distorting Aung San Suu Kyi, they will use the freedom they seek to deprive others of theirs.
In that nationalism forces us to see those who do not participate in our "nation" - or who do not wish to belong despite us looking these to - as "others"; for the reason that it imbues in those who do belong a meant essence that grades them from and often makes them feel more advanced than those who don't; for the reason that it becomes a justification for depriving those who don't belong of whatever we state for ourselves - their own land and their own flexibility; in that it denies our common mankind and replaces solidarity with hatred; for each one of these reasons, nationalism can be a very bad thing.
'Bad' or an excessive amount of nationalism can lead to the ill of blind allegiance to the state, where decisions are accepted because the basic principle of "just subsequent orders" surpasses the individual's responsibility to judge and make principled decisions in battle, business, and negotiation.
Nationalism in competitive politics justifies an limitless list of abuses of liberty and civil protection under the law. That's why we all have been so annoyed about Bush's "War on Terror" jive. It is also why Italians are annoyed about Berlusconi's cooptation and mistreatment of his countries mass media. And it's really why we have to be equally upset about Putin's actions in Russia that have included, in all probability, murder and attempted murder - even of the leader of a neighboring country.
Nationalism causes people to view anything not the same as their country's way to do things as a terrible thing. For instance, because the USA hasn't experienced public healthcare, and other countries do, the "nationalists" are automatically against change, even when it is reasonable.
A healthy economy requires a degree of natural trust among people. That is sometimes called home bias. In a market, home bias subsidizes a feeling of trust that greases the wheels of commerce, resulting in greater prosperity. Nations with too strong a nationwide personality, though, will tend to become economically insular. Japan, for example, is notoriously protectionist scheduled to home bias, and this has an extremely unfavorable effect on the efficiency of their overall economy. At its most severe, excessive unquestioning belief in the country itself can lead to police says and politics purges, which themselves have a tendency to destroy the amount of intrinsic sociable trust necessary to a healthy overall economy.
Nationalism applied to economics can also lead to wars over resources that could have been more efficiently bought and sold for than conquered. Germany's invasion of Russia was mainly encouraged by the Nationalist/Autarkic view that trade was insecure and only through conquest could Germany assure access to needed resources. Japan had a similar purpose for his or her invasions of neighboring countries.
Nationalism is inherently divisive since it highlights differences between individuals, emphasizing an individual's identification with their own nation. The idea is also potentially oppressive because it submerges individual personality within a countrywide whole, and provides elites or political market leaders' potential opportunities to control or control the masses. Much of the early opposition to nationalism was related to its geopolitical ideal of a separate state for every nation. The traditional nationalist actions of the 19th hundred years rejected the very presence of the multi-ethnic empires in Europe. Even in that early stage, however, there was an ideological critique of nationalism. That has progressed into several varieties of anti-nationalism under western culture.
In the liberal politics tradition there is certainly wide-spread criticism of 'nationalism' as a dangerous drive and a cause of conflict and battle between nation-states. Nationalism has often been exploited to encourage people to partake in the nations' issues. Such for example The Two World Wars, where nationalism was a key component of propaganda material. Liberals do not generally dispute the lifestyle of the nation-states.
Ultra-nationalism is a more extreme form of nationalism that can result in fascism, authoritarism and tight control over activities within the country that supposedly will threaten the country if kept unchecked. It can lead to reduction or stoppage of immigration, expulsion, oppression, demagoguery, mental aspects, discussion of presumed real or dreamed enemies, menace to success, crack-down, limit of trade through tariffs, restricted control over businesses and development, militarism, populism, propaganda and essentially "us versus them" frame of mind. Ultra-nationalism ultimately can lead to conflict within a state, as well as between areas, and in its extreme form contributes to battle, secession, or genocide.
Negative nationalists prey most directly on folks who are losing ground financially and socially. The recent resurgence of negative nationalism in Austria, France, and Switzerland is particularly evident among blue-collar manufacturing workers and young men who have the economic ground moving from under them. The unsightly violence against ethnic Chinese language in Indonesia through the currency crisis there was also rooted in economic fears. People whose livelihoods are in risk find it reassuring to be given specific targets for their frustrations.
Among monetary insecurity's first scapegoats are always immigrants, foreigners, and cultural minorities.
There is without doubt that nationalism has been the most important ideological make of the twentieth hundred years. Through its success, it greatly undermined that other revolutionary concept of the 19th hundred years, socialism. Clearly, nationwide consciousness is a much more important affect on people than international class-consciousness. Nationalism has also developed through both centuries. What was originally "romantic nationalism, " arguing for the self-determination of individuals, became "racist nationalism, " setting one's own people above all others, or at least one's closest neighbors. Certainly both have coexisted, and still do, but with "ethnic cleansing" having become a home term, nationalism at the trouble of others, somewhat than along with others, seem to be to be getting the headlines.
It would make a fascinating review to see whether this change has any relation to the actual fact that nationalism has also become a mass movements since its original performances. Perhaps nationalism becomes truly popular only when it begins asserting its superiority over others. Nationalism, by its innocent and discrete personal, can indeed be good. But we should be skeptical about that can gain from it and into what form it could be molded.
