Nationalism was proclaimed dead several times during the present century:

- after the first world war, when the last empires of Europe, the Austrian and the Turkish, were broken up into self~determined nations, and no deprived nationalists remained, except the Zionists;

- after the Bolshevik coup d'etat, when it was said that the bourgeoisie's struggles for self-determination were henceforth superseded by struggles of workingmen, who had no country;

- after the military defeat of Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany, when the genocidal corollaries of nationalism had been exhibited for all to see, when it was thought that nationalism as creed and as practice was permanently discredited.

Yet forty years after the military defeat of Fascists and National Socialists, we can see that nationalism did not only survive but was born again, underwent a revival. Nationalism has been revived not only by the so-called right, but also and primarily by the so-called left. After the national socialist war, nationalism ceased to be confined to conservatives, became the creed and practice of revolutionaries, and proved itself to be the only revolutionary creed that actually worked.

Leftist or revolutionary nationalists insist that their nationalism has nothing in common with the nationalism of fascists and national socialists, that theirs is a nationalism of the oppressed, that it offers personal as well as cultural liberation. The claims of the revolutionary nationalists have been broadcast to the world by the two oldest continuing hierarchic institutions surviving into our times: the Chinese State and, more recently, the Catholic Church. Currently nationalism is being touted as a strategy, science and theology of liberation, as a fulfillment of the Enlightenment's dictum that knowledge is power, as a proven answer to the question What Is to be Done.

To challenge these claims, and to see them in a context, I have to ask what nationalism is - not only the new revolutionary nationalism but also the old conservative one. I cannot start by defining the term, because nationalism is not a word with a static definition; it is a term that covers a sequence of different historical experiences. I'll start by giving a brief sketch of some of those experiences.

According to a common (and manipulable) misconception, imperialism is relatively recent, consists of the colonization of the entire world, and is the last stage of capitalism. This diagnosis points to a specific cure: nationalism is offered as the antidote to imperialism; wars of national liberation are said to break up the capitalist empire.

This diagnosis serves a purpose, but it does not describe any event or situation. We come closer to the truth when we stand this conception on its head and say that imperialism was the first stage of capitalism, that the world was subsequently colonized by nation-states, and that nationalism is the dominant, the current, and (hdpefully) the last stage of capitalism. The facts of the case were not discovered yesterday; they are as familiar as the misconception that denies them.

It has been convenient, for various good reasons, to forget that, until recent centuries, the dominant powers of Eurasia were not nation-states but empires. A Celestial Empire ruled by the Ming dynasty, an Islamic Empire ruled by the Ottoman dynasty and a Catholic Empire ruled by the Hapsburg dynasty vied with each other for possession of the known world. Of the three, the Catholics were not the first imperialists but the last. The Celestial Empire of the Mings ruled over most of eastern Asia and had dispatched vast commercial fleets overseas a century before sea-borne Catholics invaded Mexico.

The celebrants of the Catholic feat forget that, between 1420 and 1430, Chinese imperial bureaucrat Cheng Ho commanded naval expeditions of 70,000 men and sailed, not only to nearby Malaya, Indonesia and Ceylon, but as far from home ports as the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and Africa. The celebrants of Catholic conquistadores also belittle the imperial feats of the Ottomans, who conquered all but the westernmost provinces of the former Roman Empire, ruled over North Africa, Arabia, the Middle East and half of Europe,

7

controlled the Mediterranean and hammered on the gates of Vienna. The imperial Catholics set out westward, beyond the boundaries of the known world, in order to escape from encirclement.

Familyism has endured across many eras and shown a remarkable resiliency. It is well documented that both the left and right have used and abused the sacred power of family, and cloaked unspeakable misdeeds under the justification of "family". Indeed , some post-modern thinkers have questioned the very concept of family, and argued it simply represents a successful, enduring and manipulative construct of the existing power structure. ..

and as for quebec nationalism - i would argue it falls into the latter category.

I have to admit I pulled out my copy of blood and belonging last week for a bed time read - what with all the talk about it recently.

i think we need a strong civic nationalist and federalist LIKE ignatieff in the house ( i can do without him per se). same with deborah coyne. too bad she is running against a class act like layton.

trudeauvian federalism is dead in the liberal party and non existent in the others.

[ 11 December 2005: Message edited by: rubberbandman ]

And why should I give a shit about a country that is founded on a holocaust. Why should I subject my uniqueness and self-interest to some abstract concept of nationhood.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
The analogy doesn't compute looney. To begin with, the fetish on the family syndrom really only began with the dawn of civilization. Back when things were communal, the idea of the family was more or less informal. The "family" ,much like the nation is founded on slavery and brutality to begin with. So good riddence to both of them. There are family structures that are bad, and there are ideas of organiztion that are bad. The point is to get to the root of these bad ideas and leave them behind.

And why should I give a shit about a country that is founded on a holocaust. Why should I subject my uniqueness and self-interest to some abstract concept of nationhood.

And I'm not sure I should even adress the halarious abstractions of the rubberdude. The whole idea of the nation is made to justify people becoming subjectified citizens. Canada is no different then the other shitholes.

---