Historian Howard Zinn has this article in The Progressive magazine in which he recounts the American obsession with the idea of nationalism and how it manifests itself in American foreign policy
On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.
Is the expression of nationalism, in itself, necessarily an undesirable urge? Not if seen in its proper context. After all, the desire to define a group's identity and live under some form of societal organization gave birth to the idea of the nation-state and, hundreds of years later, led to mass de-colonisation and independence for hundreds of millions of people around the world - particularly in the period immediately following World War I and leading to a trend which accelerated during the years after World War II.
Zinn doesn't condemn the kind of 'benign' nationalism that exists in smaller countries lacking the technological wherewithal or the pernicious desire towards expansionism. He doesn't explicitly state it but agrees that if nationalism is the celebration of a common culture, shared history, and similar experiences or of traditions, language, and ethnicity, he wouldn't offer too many objections to this definition of an imagined community. In countries where this wasn't an evolutionary process, and which came into being without the pre-requisite conditions for the creation of a nation-state, the results have been disastrous. The old Soviet Union comes to mind - a country that disintegrated perhaps because it became a state before it became a nation.
In the United States, given its size and propensity towards expansionism since its early years, Zinn sees a strain in the American character that he feels no pride in and finds a country full of contradictions. From the early English settlers in this country to the years when Manifest Destiny was all the rage in the mid-19th century to our present ill-advised adventure in Iraq, Zinn sees an American desire to dominate other peoples in direct contrast to its professed aims of 'liberty,' 'democracy,' and 'freedom.'
Several years ago, I wrote this diary - Is the United States Imperialist? - which didn't get much attention. So, I'll quote myself
From Thucydides to Machiavelli to Bismarck to Winston Churchill to Charles de Gaulle to George Kennan on down, historians, theorists, and politicians have offered real lessons and, importantly, caution flags to our leaders. It has become a cliche to suggest that the United States has never been and never will be an imperialist nation -- damaging historical evidence to the contrary. Our kids are taught that from an early age. It is ingrained in our bones. And too many of our leaders have often perpetuated this myth by painting our global actions in the best possible light. We never seek to dominate and exploit other nations. We are Americans, they tell us, and not a hegemonic power conniving to stifle other cultures. Our role is to assist, enlighten, reform, and lift up other nations. It is indeed our 'Manifest Destiny.'
In the period of the Great Depression and during the years in which this country was involved in the Second World War, leaders like President Franklin Roosevelt mobilized the entire country and this successful mobilization of men, women, material, and minds allowed the United States and its allies to ultimately prevail over the dark threat of Fascism. Even during the decades-long Cold War from 1946-1991, leaders of both political parties appealed to the American people to join hands in an ideological struggle against an external threat and rallied this country to 'contain' Communism. Contentious as that policy was domestically - and often carried to extremes during periods such as the McCarthy Era in the 1940's and 1950's - it was largely free of excessive religious rhetoric. Today, Zinn reserves his harshest words for the likes of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for their distinctly non-secularist foreign policies
How many times have we heard President Bush tell the troops that if they die, if they return without arms or legs, or blinded, it is for "liberty," for "democracy"?
And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence. Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign trail in 2004 that God speaks through him.
We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.
We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.
In the George Bush Years - particularly since that fateful day on September 11, 2001 - discussions of American nationalism in a complicit media have frequently degenerated into arguments over whether this country is more superior in its way of life when compared to others. A natural extension of this xenophobia and the policies that flow from this attitude is brilliantly captured in this article by Hendrik Hertzberg in the current edition of the New Yorker magazine.
It is the emergence of this kind of 'virulent' nationalism that compelled someone like Keith Olbermann earlier this week before he offered his special comment last night to quote Oliver Cromwell in sending a message to the Bush Administration
You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
On this July 4th day, where we find this sham of administration openly flouting the rule of law and true to form, attempting to, though failing miserably to stifle dissent - an idea, coincidentally, central to the very basis of this country's foundation - Howard Zinn offers a cautionary note of restraint and self-reflection. Excessive or 'ultra' nationalism, he reminds us over and over again, can be quite dangerous to a country's long-term democratic health.
If I can summarize Zinn's important message, it would be this: it is useful, now and then, for every country to take a good look at itself in the mirror.
(crossposted at Truth & Progress, My Left Wing, and Progressive Historians)
