Nationalism can be good when it is not enforced

Post Reply New Topic

According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, nationalism is "loyalty and devotion to a nation. [...]", which is not necessarily a horrible thing. Certainly there are well known examples of tyrants and dictators who forced nationalism, such as Hitler and Stalin in modern times. However, is it proper to conclude that because there have been abuses to nationalism that nationalism itself is bad? I think it is improper to conclude such based on association.

Is loyalty and devotion to ones country good to have just because you are born in that particular country? No, since you can't choose where you are born. In the womb, you basically can't make any decisions about any aspects of your life, where you are born is an aspect of your life so you can't decide where you are born. So, being loyal to ones country on the basis of it being your place of birth is improper. But are there other more valid reasons to have loyalty to ones place of birth? I think there are.

In America there is a particular freedom of speech which is often lacking in other countries, such as North Korea. Here is a basic test to see if you have freedom of speech in your country: go out into public and whine about how awful your country is. If you are allowed to speak without being arrested and possibly shot, you just might live in a country that allows freedom of speech. Does having freedom of speech, even if it has some limitations, make one nation better than a nation which actively censors and suppresses freedom of speech? Though it does depend on how much people value the ability to have a voice for themselves versus how much they want undesirable voices to be silenced, I think it would not be too much of a stretch to assert that any nation which allows its populace to have a voice is better than those that do not.

What about nations in which nationalism is enforced? Is having loyalty and devotion to such a country honorable, or much less, even remotely logical? I think that, though the rhetorically obvious answer is "no", it also depends on whether loyalty and devotion can truly be enforced. Loyalty can be fidelity and dependability to someone or something, and to that extent it can be enforced. But to the extent that loyalty is a choice based on the perception of probity, this cannot be enforced. Demanding loyalty and threatening consequences is an effective measure to actually remove the latter type of loyalty, even if the former type is present in appearance. So is having loyalty to a nation which enforces nationalism honorable? No, but it is wise, if one values their life, to provide such an appearance if one is unfortunate to live in such a nation. Is it logically possible to have the form of loyalty which is based on respect in such a country? I would say that it would depend upon if they have personally experienced what argumentum ad baculum feels like. If their government has provided an appeal to force to them directly, then I would say that it is impossible to have this form of loyalty. If they have not felt what it is liked to be threatened, then they may still live under the enchanted illusion of their government's propaganda.

But what about freedom of religion? Freedom of religion, allows people to express their beliefs and values in public. Sometimes this causes problems, such as when someone mixes "do not murder" with the enlightenment philosophy of "the greater good", and then an abortion clinic is exploded. And sometimes there are events like the bus bombings frequently done in Israel, or plane hijackings, or other acts of Qur'an influenced terrorism. But do these actions merit suppression of religion? No. And not just because there are "peaceful ones" or other such stuff, but because these actions are actually criminal actions and not just based on ones ideology. To punish all because of the few is what is called "going overboard". More to the point, it removes freedom from people.

What about freedom in general? Is freedom something to be valued? Freedom is something that is valued by all people even if it is only subconsciously. Nobody that I know likes to be silenced. Nobody I know likes to be told, "don't do this". Certainly there may be some people that I don't know who are masochistic enough to enjoy the feeling that being silenced often provides, but I do not know them personally. Is this an argument from ignorance? It can be considered such, but in terms of statistical sampling, assuming I have met, say, 10 random people and 1 of them enjoys to be told "Shut up or else!", then statistically (with a wide margin of error for such a small sample) approximately 1 out of 10 people may have such a form of emotional masochism. However, out of the thousands of people I've met, nobody seems to enjoy being silenced, or being told "don't do this", or having privileges taken away. So freedom is something that I perceive to be valued by everyone inherently.

But aside from my perception, is freedom something to be valued? According to Eleanor Roosevelt, "Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry is own weight, this is a frightening prospect." If it is true that freedom is inseparable from responsibility, then if freedom is removed then so is responsibility. If that is valid, then in order to have no responsibility for ones actions, one must have no freedom. So, there is a possibility of people who would prefer to have no responsibilities and perhaps even value irresponsibility higher than freedom. At least prior to when the deed is done and the contract signed. There could even be enjoyment of lack of freedom depending on what the individual values. But does the possibility of irresponsibility being valued higher than freedom mean that freedom is not to be valued? No, it just means that some people might be willing to trade one item for another based on which is more valuable to them. I think that freedom is still to be valued.

To return from the digression concerning the value of freedom, and returning to the main topic of nationalism, is it reasonable to have loyalty for one's own nation? It is not reasonable if the only reason is that you were born there. It is not emotionally possible if the loyalty is forced. But what about probity? If the nation you are a citizen of is worthy of respect, then is it reasonable to have respect for it? To give loyalty to a country based on its merits is, in my opinion, reasonable. It does depend on what each individual values as being worthy of respect, but I would say that any nation which allows its populace to have more freedom than others is better in that respect than the others which do not grant such freedom. Having loyalty for that type of country is not unreasonable. In consideration of this, nationalism itself is not bad. Nationalism can even be good in a nation where people have freedom, id est, where it is not enforced but, rather, earned.

Any system or lifestyle that is not enforced upon others who wish to opt out of it should always be allowed to take place.

I oppose socialism.
But lets say I live in a free market society and another community has their socialist system, anyone who would try to stop the socialists from living like they are living, is my enemy and I will be on the side of the socialists.
...Too bad socialists can't say the same for me and my people...

Socialism? No, this is the topic of Nationalism, which Merriam Webster's dictionary defines as loyalty or devotion to ones country. This is not about an economic or political system of governance, but rather it is about whether or not it is reasonable to have loyalty to and/or respect for one's own country.

I know I wrote this to be a bit long, but it is my attempt at writing an expository paper. The above was my rough draft.

The following is my completed paper,

What does it mean "when it is not enforced"? Does it mean a nation without rules of citizenship? There are obligations and duties and privileges of citizenship. What enforcement is involved in your question?

I will only be loyal to the land that feeds me --- sadly, the land I live in now has no farms.

What gives? Where should I claim as my homeland?

A clear inspection of the history of any nation, and especially the powerful ones will reveal, with probably no exceptions, that the country has a very mixed history and has performed very inexcusably on many occasions. Pride does not seem to me to be something that can be extended unconditionally. Most of us make the best of the situation and the best of us tries to improve it.

Hometown proud topic

One can be proud of one's roots as long as one realizes that such pride can never be static. Pride of place can evolve over time as changes occur. Enforced nationalism is nazism, or facism. History has shown us what eventually happens to such regimes.