Had to respond to a Colombian news video I was sent this morning, that said nationalism is caused by xenophobia. Un, I don’t think so! Not necessarily.
Early this morning, I received a Messenger text from a Mexican missionary, serving in an Asian country. The person sent me a Colombian news report on trends in the decade of 2020. The reporter said there are trends which are heading toward a collision and are augmenting tensions in the world, because they are contrary to one another. Then she proceeded to spend most of the report on the two contrary trends of nationalism and globalism, and explained what she saw as the dangers of each position.
She said globalism was leading toward a one-world government, where certain elites would dominate, and would force the rest of the world into their mold. She said this would take away our freedom as individuals. Globalists are trying to bring about their agenda by economic forces, squeezing out the middle class, creating a greater division between the very rich and the very poor, and actually using hunger and poverty to accomplish their goals.
I agree with this evaluation, but see many other dangers as well. It seems to me God emphasizes the individual more than the state, and it also seems to me that while there are advantages to large states, there are also disadvantages.
For some centuries, for example, there have been Europeans who wanted to unite all the countries of Europe for greater economic and military power. And yet, as this has been largely achieved through the EU, it has resulted in many unforeseen problems. There are many cracks in its foundation, and many think a further breakup is coming. At least, that is a trend, what with the Brexit vote and the differences between a powerful Germany or France and a weaker Italy or Greece, and a Central Europe with its distinctions as well. It seems to me each people need to work out their own system. Larger units don’t always produce larger results.
Speaking of that, I sometimes wonder if the same might be true of the United States. We are more and more divided nowadays, and though there is a lot of advantage in being united in terms of economic and military power, there seem to also be many disadvantages. We simply are not all in agreement as to what kind of country we want to be going forward, and I sometimes wonder if the solution might be decentralization, so that smaller groups, maybe the individual states, maybe some other type of entity, could determine their own vision for going forward. For example, if San Francisco or Silicon Valley wants to allow open borders, universal healthcare, thinks climate change is the existential threat of our times, etc., maybe they should separate and live accordingly, while leaving the rest of us to take a different course? But I digress…
Returning to the Colombian news report, the reporter also addressed what she saw as the dangers of nationalism. Naturally, Donald Trump was seen as the epitome of a nationalist, and was shown as a sort of dangerous extremist who only cares about his own country.
According to the report, the danger of nationalism is that it leads to xenophobia, fear of outsiders, and the resultant closed borders and anti-immigrant stance xenophobia naturally produces. The reporter said this would undo the positive influence of global trade among free nations, and would stunt everyone’s growth and progress. I typed a comment in Spanish beneath the YouTube video, but had to write something about it in English as well.
Why does every opponent of nationalism seem to conflate it with xenophobia and point to a person like Hitler as the epitome of nationalism? I really don’t see these things as being necessarily connected at all, and wonder why others do.
Because there are pathological behaviors or ways of thinking among those of any given philosophy, that doesn’t mean all who adhere to them have those pathologies! If one mother killed her children, that doesn’t mean motherhood is dangerous and evil! If one father was abusive, we don’t have to equate fatherhood with abuse, and warn people against all fathers!
Most things in life have positive and negative aspects, don’t they? Most have healthy or unhealthy aspects to them. Food is necessary and wonderful, but when consumed to excess, it’s unhealthy. That doesn’t mean we oppose eating!
Surely nationalism is the same way, in that there are both healthy and unhealthy or pathological expressions of it? Because there was an Adolph Hitler who was a nationalist, surely we don’t have to equate the two?
To me, nationalism is like self-image. Everyone has a self-image, and it’s important to have a healthy one. A person has to know their life is important and valuable. They have to believe they have something to contribute to the world. Having such an image is healthy. It’s not good to think of oneself as worthless.
On the other hand, of course, it’s also unhealthy to have an inflated self-image, such that a person feels superior to all others and as a result mistreats them in some way. What’s needed is a balanced view.
In the same way, loving one’s own country and seeking its health and prosperity doesn’t have to mean we hate those of other countries or wish to do them harm. One simply doesn’t have to follow the other at all!
Again, I would point to self-image and pursuing self-interest as an illustration of this. What’s best for any society is that all people in it have healthy self-images, and seek to do the very best they can for themselves. As each pursues this kind of course, everyone finds themselves living better. We’re all better off when everyone is doing well. If some among us don’t have what they need, they actually threaten the rest.
Another analogy might be a company or business. Surely businesses do best when all their employees share a common vision and common values, and when they all strive to make their company the best it can be? Does that mean necessarily that they hate other businesses or wish them ill?
Similarly, to call nationalism necessarily xenophobic is faulty thinking! It’s not xenophobic to protect your own turf and want the best for it. The citizens of each country are responsible to seek what’s best there. When everyone considers themselves “citizens of the world,” no one is truly a citizen of any country, no one will be committed to their country’s best future.
Here in the US, as in Northern and Western Europe, we have developed a system over hundreds of years that has succeeded very well, so we’ve been able to develop a social safety net for our citizens. But it won’t take care of the whole world! For that reason, we seek to control immigration. The system simply cannot handle an unrestricted influx of people from all over the world.
Where I live there’s a small bridge with a sign on it that says “10 ton limit.” Did the engineers who designed that bridge hate truckers or hate certain types of trucks? Uh, no – the bridge just won’t handle more weight! Surely nobody would say that was hateful, racist, or “weigh-ta-phobic”?
Yet when millions of us, including our current president, try to limit or change detrimental immigration policies for our wellbeing, we’re called xenophobic or racist! It’s simply bad philosophy, bad thinking!
In my opinion, this South American reporter has accepted a very false narrative about nationalism and about the United States in particular. It’s a narrative our own elites in the media and academia are constantly promoting as well, that any of us who want to control our borders or promote the wellbeing of the US are xenophobic or racist. We hate brown people because we love America. This is an absurd charge!
Many call our president racist, in spite of the fact there’s simply no evidence of this at all. And the thing is, by calling him racist, they’re calling millions of us who voted for him racist, simply because we wanted sensible policies. I for one am tired of these unfounded, false, and erroneous accusations!