“Among the ideas that the Middle East imported from the West, none has been more popular and durable than nationalism,” says Goldschmidt and Davidson in their Concise History of the Middle East. “Often called the religion of the modern world... we define nationalism as the desire of a large group of people to create or maintain a common statehood, to have their own rulers, laws, and other governmental institutions. This desired political community, or nation, is the object of that group's supreme loyalty.”
It might seem strange to American ears, but having a nation-state that governs according to the interests of its people is a relatively new phenomena in history. It started in Europe and toward the end of the 19th century began to reverberate around the world and into the Middle East. They go on to say: “[Middle Easterners] learned that bad governments did not have to be endured (indeed, many earlier Muslims had defied tyrannical rulers), that individuals had rights and freedoms that should be protected against official coercion, and that people could belong to political communities based on race, language, culture, and shared historical experience -in short they formed nations.”
But of course creating political borders of defined groups of people based on language, ethnicity, and culture can create a charged atmosphere that often tends toward uniformity and not diversity. It can tend toward exclusion and monolithic communities, not inclusive ones. So for example in South Asia, a place where Hindus and Muslims lived side by side for centuries, two new nations were created in 1947 (ostensibly to serve the unique interests of each people) and what happened? Immediate population exchange. Hindus left Pakistan. Muslims left India. The opposite of diversity, inclusion, and peaceful co-existence. A natural segregation based on race and especially religion became the real product of nationalism and its nation-creating solutions. The same happened at the creation of the modern nations of Greece and Turkey. Population exchange. There are dozens of similar cases, especially in Africa. The fact is that unless checked nation-states naturally create an atmosphere that tends toward homogeneous communities of the same race, culture, religion, and language.
Nevertheless, western European and North American countries have historically and quite uniquely maintained checks built into the political system that have kept much of these trends at bay. Of course America was created with these types of checks built right into the constitution (e.g. 1st and 15th amendments). But for many reasons the collective feelings have begun to shift. The migrant crisis for example has forced many in Europe to rethink why they should continue to allow influxes of diverse communities into their country. America even has a politician publicly promoting the exclusion of people based solely on their religion. And his popularity has not waned in its wake. The checks put in place are beginning to erode and I wonder if the natural trend will carry the West along the same trajectory of so many others.
But there is more to reflect on here. There is a value at the core of nationalism that is pulling these trends. And these two historians have defined it perfectly: “This desired political community, or nation, is the object of that group's supreme loyalty.” The key word is supreme. Individuals are to subordinate any other loyalties underneath their supreme loyalty to the nation. The trends mentioned above are simply symptoms of this underlying value. It still surprises me that such a vast swath of Christendom continues to live under this vision of loyalty and allegiance.
But of course creating political borders of defined groups of people based on language, ethnicity, and culture can create a charged atmosphere that often tends toward uniformity and not diversity. It can tend toward exclusion and monolithic communities, not inclusive ones. So for example in South Asia, a place where Hindus and Muslims lived side by side for centuries, two new nations were created in 1947 (ostensibly to serve the unique interests of each people) and what happened? Immediate population exchange. Hindus left Pakistan. Muslims left India. The opposite of diversity, inclusion, and peaceful co-existence. A natural segregation based on race and especially religion became the real product of nationalism and its nation-creating solutions. The same happened at the creation of the modern nations of Greece and Turkey. Population exchange. There are dozens of similar cases, especially in Africa. The fact is that unless checked nation-states naturally create an atmosphere that tends toward homogeneous communities of the same race, culture, religion, and language.
Nevertheless, western European and North American countries have historically and quite uniquely maintained checks built into the political system that have kept much of these trends at bay. Of course America was created with these types of checks built right into the constitution (e.g. 1st and 15th amendments). But for many reasons the collective feelings have begun to shift. The migrant crisis for example has forced many in Europe to rethink why they should continue to allow influxes of diverse communities into their country. America even has a politician publicly promoting the exclusion of people based solely on their religion. And his popularity has not waned in its wake. The checks put in place are beginning to erode and I wonder if the natural trend will carry the West along the same trajectory of so many others.
But there is more to reflect on here. There is a value at the core of nationalism that is pulling these trends. And these two historians have defined it perfectly: “This desired political community, or nation, is the object of that group's supreme loyalty.” The key word is supreme. Individuals are to subordinate any other loyalties underneath their supreme loyalty to the nation. The trends mentioned above are simply symptoms of this underlying value. It still surprises me that such a vast swath of Christendom continues to live under this vision of loyalty and allegiance.
No comments:
Post a Comment