There are Two Types of Nationalism, and They’re Nothing Alike
Nationalism has gotten quite a bad rap over the last few decades, and not without reason. As an idea, it has been the precursor to numerable horrific atrocities, such as the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. I was inspired to write this piece after I read a piece in the Irish Times, written by an UIster Unionist on their thoughts about the prospect of a united Ireland. Overall, it was, what I would call, a “safe” piece, with no strong opinions expressed one way or the other. In fact all that I really gleaned about the author’s view of the topic was that she was fine with the current Irish flag and that she favoured “Danny Boy” as the new national anthem. However, what struck me was the following:
“Fintan O’Toole has written many articles in The Irish Times on the virulent rise of English nationalism, but nationalism is on the rise in Scotland and in Ireland. The idea of saying one nationalism is much more acceptable than another seems risible as it’s all just nationalism, although the resentments fuelling it vary.”
Here, I think the author is making a fundamental error. Some forms of nationalism ARE much more acceptable than others, and this is because “Nationalism” refers to two very different concepts.
Firstly, we have what people usually think of when referring to nationalism, an extreme form of patriotism where you believe that your country’s interests should be put before the interests of all others, even if it is to the detriment of other nations. But more than that, it involves a competitive aspect where these nationalists desire their country to prove it is the greatest by asserting its power and influence over others. It inherently desires domination of others through imperial colonies or, more common in modern times, the projection of de facto power throughout the world by establishing friendly puppet regimes abroad (looking at you, America!). Often these nationalists have a very specific view of what their nation should look like, and on the extreme end, it’s just thinly veiled racism. But this form of nationalism doesn’t need to be racist to be problematic, there’s plenty of what I would call “liberal nationalists”, who are all for invading other countries because they believe it’s in the best interest of the country they are attacking. Consider how often Americans talk about how they are bringing “freedom and democracy” to the nations they invade, believing that the American system is the best in the world, and the rest of the world must be made to embrace it. Regardless of how noble the intentions of these people are, it inevitably results in disastrous wars causing hundreds of thousands of casualties.
It is this first form of nationalism that caused the rise of Adolf Hitler, who wished to bring Germany back to a place of power following the humiliation of the First World War. It also drove the British Empire to conquer a quarter of the world, the Young Turks to cleanse Anatolia of ethnic minorities in preparation for the creation of a Turkish nation and American Exceptionalism, which demanded that the USA stretch “from sea to shining sea” driving natives off their land and bringing war with several countries, such as Canada, Mexico, the UK and Spain. The rise of this form of nationalism and its consequences are well documented, and stand as a warning to all of us. Unfortunately, we are still dealing with this nationalism, and its power has increased sharply during the Great Recession.
Then there is the second form of nationalism, which is simply the desire of a people to have their own nation free of the influence of other, usually larger and more powerful, nations. This form of nationalism is not rooted in the desire to dominate others, or the misguided belief that their nation is somehow special or above others. In many cases, this type of nationalism can be referred to as “separatism”, and this is indeed the case for Kurdish, Catalan and Scottish nationalists. Separatism is where a people or nationality are part of a larger nation and wish to separate from this entity and run their own affairs. Often this is due to current or historic oppression of these people, as is the case for Kurds, and arguably Scots. In other cases it is due to the belief that this smaller nationality would be better off running themselves. But this type of nationalism is not always separatist in nature, and it can be about reclaiming land where a large part of the nationalities people live, as is the case with Irish nationalism and in Armenia.
What this essentially boils down to is that the second type of nationalism is a nationalism of the oppressed, and the first is a nationalism of the oppressor. The first nationalism calls for dominating and oppressing others, while the second calls for an end to this oppression. In man y cases both these nationalisms will directly challenge each other, where the nationalism of the oppressed meets the nationalism of the oppressor. This happened a lot with the British Empire where colonies and annexed territories desired independence, and British nationalists demanded holding onto empire for the sake of power and national pride.
Going back to the Irish Times article, Irish nationalism is a nationalism of the oppressed, driven by over 800 years of British oppression and mismanagement, resulting in the suppression of the Irish culture, language and customs and the deaths and displacement of millions. And this oppression, while no longer near as prevalent, has not gone away. Up until the 1990s, Northern Ireland was engaged in a bitter civil war where paramilitaries and state security forces murdered the Irish at will. Then there’s the internment without trial, used exclusively on Irish Catholics suspected of IRA membership for years. Even now, Unionists still refuse to acknowledge the Irish language and are vehemently opposed to an Irish Language Act. British nationalism, on the other hand, is xenophobic at best and racist at worst. Look at the British National Party, fortunately who’s support has floundered, which were an all-out fascist party. Or look to Brexit, where arguments constantly revolved around preventing immigration.
Painting all nationalists with the same brush is not only wrong, but harmful. Any blanket condemnation of nationalism is necessarily dismissing the concerns of large swathes of oppressed people throughout the world. And while nationalism of the oppressor must be condemned, it must be remembered that there are two types of nationalism, and they couldn’t be more unlike each other.
References:
