Nationalism. A poor show.

Nationalism impoverishes everyone, and in every way. Economically, politically, culturally, morally

It does this economically, by closing minds and borders. Two examples. Scotland right now. See the table. A deficit of 12% to GDP. I think as a direct result of the uncertainty around the continuing almost-religious drive for “Independence”. This results directly in loss of investment; flowing from uncertainty – with Scotland facing bankruptcy on the first day. The second example is Nazi Germany – where Hitler’s persecution led to the emigration of those Jewish scientists who’s inventiveness created an explosion of growth elsewhere, for instance in the USA.

Morally? Certainly populists create and use an “enemy” in order to keep themselves in power. Whether the enemy is the Ukraine (Russia), England (Scotland), Brussels (England), Palestine (Israel) is not the point. This is an appeal to our animal instincts and to fear. This seems to me to be morally indefensible. It’s certainly not Kantian (do good, for the sake of doing good), nor is it “do as you would be done to”, nor Christian – “love thy neighbour as thyself”. It only benefits politicians who use this to gain and remain in power.

.. and consider the political consequences of nationalism – here in my own geography. Brexit has separated us from friends in Europe. We “took back control”, but the question is – “to do what?” The SNP has replaced Labour in the UK parliament. The result has been the creation of two one-party states. Conservative rule in the United Kingdom, SNP in Scotland. The result has been division and intolerance throughout these islands. If the SNP are now in decline – hooray. Perhaps we may see a socialist government throughout the whole of this land, and a route back to sense and sensibility (fairness). I hope so.

Lastly, nationalism brings with it cultural desertification.Where is the continuity of Russian literature, music, dance in the febrile atmosphere of supposed national defence against those “aggressors” – the Ukrainians? Where is the cultural dividend from Brexit; and – for heavens sake – what would be the consequence of a bankrupt tartan-wrapped Scottish Nation? Not so much Burns and Burnt-out. And the shame of it is Scotland helped forge other British and international traditions. The Scottish Enlightenment. British Chartists meeting on Glasgow Green. Keir Hardie and International Socialism. Outward- facing toward a brotherhood of man.

Nationalism. In any form, brings with it poverty. Reject it, I beg you.

Nationalism. A Poor Show.

National Boundaries

We define by creating boundaries; where we place them. (That is you, this is me); what kind they are (a kissing gate or a prison wall). Most important, though. is what they are made out of. The foundations of  Nationalism are laid on enmity. Yes, there can be other building materials  – ideals, even love. How often though does aspiration end in vitriol?

A friend put to me on Saturday that it is possible for nationalism to be a force for good. He cited the British resistance to Nazis. He won me over, but to the possibility,, not the reality.

Boundaries are existential; or at least to our experience of “being”. We have to feel an “other” in order to sense our “self”, this is because all experience is relative. We live inside the uni-verse (the one thing), and so have no absolute external measure, no yardstick or objectivity. It is only by differentiating and re-integrating that we create reality.

Boundaries make things real; but they also separate. Each from each. Technically a form of  good nationalism could come about through a specific kind of boundary. If nationals could stay open and inclusive, by having semi permeable social cell-walls, then well and good. But…

The problem is that “nation” is so often a short-hand for racial grouping. Indeed why else call a community a “nation”? And race memories are there in our unconscious lurking as Archetypes. Irrational and enormously, darkly,  potent. The perfidious English to the French, the Lord Snooty English to the Scots, the chippy Scots to the English. In our collective unconscious our neighbour is the enemy who raided in the night, raped and stole our livelihood.

.. And so – enter mass manipulation by politicians and other self interested parties ( corporations for instance).  We have our psychic buttons, all they have to do is to to push them; and they can’t help it. The end (their end) soon justifies their means. Where community is defined by nation, then you have the cybernats’ outrageous vilification of the “English”, and the Daily Mail whipping up a response (which helped the Tories back to power  last month). Roll up the Bosch, the Hun and the Frogs. Come on in to the EU debate. How much pent up grievance does it then take to move us to internment camps and war. No, this really isn’t hysteria. In the early 1930’s Germany was an pluralistic and active democracy. It only took ten years…

Acceptable Nationalism?

Can nationalism ever be more than a dirty word? An inward looking concept – fuelled by the identity with a particular group, and by the exclusion and minimisation of “the other”?

I was struck in reading The Hare with the Amber Eyes by the fragility of an accepting and tolerant society. The Austrian Empire up to Franz Joseph seems to have thrived on acceptance and tolerance, or many races – including the jews. And yet. The Nazi Putsch changed everything – in a heartbeat. The same could probably be applied to the Wehrmacht through to 1933.

Nationalism certainly has the potential to release an infectious plague of ugly emotions from the Pandora’s box of a tolerant pluralistic society. What are the balancing reasons for turning that key and letting fly those negative divisive emotions? They should necessarily be overwhelmingly powerful.

The thing is, living here in Scotland I just don’t see them.

Perhaps I’m confused or overly fearful, or maybe just missing something.

What was the quote – jingoism the last bastion or refuge of the scoundrel?