Saturday, August 04, 2018

Nationalism Revisited

I have previously expressed the opinion that it was not nationalism that created WWII, but it was nationalism that won it.  The German attitude was more properly described as a tribalism or racialism, though they called it nationalism.  Jews, Slavs, or Roma who lived within the German nation were not considered part of Das Volk, but ethnic Germans who lived over the borders were considered part of the larger family.  Some nations, of Scandinavian, Frankish, or Anglo-Saxon descent were considered people to be ruled if they would not cooperate, but not exterminated. Hungarian and Romanian "nationalist" figures such as Antonescu were likewise protectors only of ethnic Romanians, not all within the borders. (This is unsurprising in Europe up until that time, because borders moved frequently, but language and ethnic heritage remained primary. It's just wrong to call it nationalism.)

In contrast, while the Allies had a lot of international cooperation, they ran largely on nationalist sentiment. Not only the Americans, who, as a mixed people had no choice except nationalism, but as the war progressed, the Soviet Union hunkered down into its constituent parts and Stalin made his appeals on behalf of Mother Russia, not the New Soviet Man. My thought has been that while nationalism has dangers and can be a false god, internationalism is a worse one. It might in theory be a better thing, and if we ever do become better humans I will change my vote. At the moment, however, I consider it an overreach. When we pretend to be better than we are we are in enormous danger, and those who are loyal to international enterprises smuggle in some much more primitive prejudices. They do not transcend nationalism, as they imagine, but replace it with something that aims higher but strikes lower.

That is an observation of the group mentality, not the individual.  I am fully prepared to accept that there are many people who do transcend nationalism on an individual basis. As Steve Sailer has pointed out, however, in the traditional concentric circles of loyalty humankind tends to use, they more often skip over ring rather than include.  There is more virtue to be signaled in loving those far away rather than neighbors. How much more noble to love illegal aliens at the expense of poor citizens!

I will have to revise my WWII picture however.  It still applies to Germans.  Yet my reading of Japanese history recently convinces me that nationalism was indeed their motive.  They did not find Koreans, Taiwanese, or Chinese racially inferior, but culturally so. Their attitude toward those in Vietnam, the Philippines, and the Pacific Islands was more tinged with a racialism.

I'm not sure how I incorporate this into the overall picture, but I have to start by wounding my old model. Any of you who have knowledge about Japanese and other Asian cultural and racial attitudes, please weigh in.

Cross-posted at Chicago Boyz


Donna B. said...

What have you been reading lately about Japanese history?

sykes.1 said...

Up until maybe the 60’s, nation was a near synonym for race. That was the plain, well-understood meaning when I was an undergraduate in the 60’s. The identification of nation with citizen of a state is a more recent meaning, and a significant change. In the 30’s and 40’s, the US was almost 90% White, and American nationalism was the national identity of the Whites. Blacks by and large have never accepted the legitimacy of White America and have never been part of the American nation.

Tom Bridgeland said...

Japanese definitely did and do consider Koreans and Chinese inferior, culturally if not genetically. Not sure about genetically. I did live there 15 years and married a Japanese, so I know a bit about the place.

RichardJohnson said...

Any of you who have knowledge about Japanese and other Asian cultural and racial attitudes, please weigh in.

My observations are based on university students from the PRC. VERY ethnocentric- hang out with Chinese, very rarely with other nationalities. This is especially so when compared with other foreign students- who have a wide variety of nationalities among their friends. Gweilo- foreign devil. But at the same time, a hometown classmate had a Chinese mother- Nationalist refugee on Taiwan who was the translator for the Navy officer she married- so not completely ethnocentric.

BTW, PRC Chinese DO NOT like blacks. No PC attitudes there at all.

Japanese are very group oriented. While they may be polite to a foreigner- gaijin- who has learned Japanese language and customs, that foreigner will always be considered an outsider.

Tom Grey said...

"They do not transcend nationalism, as they imagine, but replace it with something that aims higher but strikes lower"

This is well said, and applicable to many. Just as there is a "God shaped space" in people's hearts, there seems to be a "tribe shaped space". The nation state was a reasonable way to organize folk who speak different languages.

Now that I mention it, with thinking about how English is the "Lingua Franca" of the world, it strikes me that the vast majority of international globalists speak English, and perhaps a majority of them have English as their second language.