Ethnonationalism Endures
Standing before the Siegessaule, the Victory Column that commemorates Prussia’s triumphs over Denmark, Austria and France in the wars that birthed the Second Reich, Barack Obama declared himself a “citizen of the world” and spoke of “a world that stands as one.”
Globalists rejoiced. And the election of this son of a white teenager from Kansas and a black academic from Kenya is said to have ushered us into the new “post-racial” age.
Are we deluding ourselves? Worldwide, the mightiest force of the 20th century, ethnonationalism — that creator and destroyer of nations and empires; that enduring drive of peoples for a nation-state where their faith and culture is dominant and their race or tribe is supreme — seems more manifest than ever.
“Vote Reflects Racial Divide” ran the banner in the Washington Times over Tuesday’s story datelined, “Santa Cruz, Bolivia.” It began:
“The Bolivian vote to approve a new constitution backed by leftist President Evo Morales reflected racial divisions between the nation’s Indian majority and those with European ancestry.”
Provinces where mestizo and Europeans predominate voted down the constitution. But it carried with huge majorities the Indian tribes of the western highlands, for this constitution is about group rights.
In 2005, Morales came to office resolved to redistribute wealth and power away from Europeans to his own Aymara tribe and other “indigenous peoples” he contends were robbed by the Europeans who began to arrive 500 years ago, in the time of Columbus.
Pizarro’s victory over the Incan Empire is to be overturned.
According to Article 190 of the new constitution, Bolivia’s 36 Indian areas are authorized to “exercise their jurisdictional functions through their own principles, values, culture, norms and procedures.”
Tribal law is to become provincial law, and national law.
Gov. Mario Cossio of Tarija, which voted no, says the new constitution will create a “totalitarian regime,” controlled through an “ethnically based bureaucracy.” To which Morales replies, “Original Bolivians who have been here for a thousand years are many but poor. Recently arrived Bolivians are few but rich.”
Bolivia is Balkanizing, dividing up and being divided on the lines of tribe, race and class. And, hailed by Hugo Chavez, Morales’ Bolivia is not the only place where the claims of ethnicity, tribe and race are conquering the forces of universalism and globalism.
After a disputed election in Kenya, the Kikyu were subjected to ethnic cleansing and massacres by Luo. In Zimbabwe, white farmers are being dispossessed due to their ancestry.
In Sri Lanka, the Tamil rebellion against the ruling Sinhalese — to create a Tamil nation, a war that has cost tens of thousands of lives — appears lost, for now.
In Vladimir Putin’s time, Russians have crushed Chechens, confronted Estonians over Russian military graves and war memorials, collided with Ukrainians over the Crimea and bloodied up the Georgians.
Beijing crushes the Uighurs who want their own East Turkestan and Tibetans who seek autonomy, flooding both lands with Han Chinese.
In Europe, populist anti-immigrant parties, alarmed at a loss of national identities, are striding toward respectability and power. The Vlaams Belang, seeking independence for Flanders, is the biggest party in the Belgian parliament. The Peoples Party and Freedom Party are now Austria’s second and third most popular. The Swiss People’s Party of Christoph Blocher is the largest in Bern. In France, the National Front humiliated the government this week, winning over half the vote in a suburb of Marseilles.
All are unabashedly ethnonationalist. Writes British diplomat Sir Christopher Meyer, “It is useless to say that nationalism and ethnic tribalism have no place in the international relations of the 21st century.”
Meanwhile, global institutions, the United Nations, IMF and European Union, have lost their luster. Czechs — whose president, Vaclav Klaus, regards the EU as a prison house of nations — hold the EU presidency. When the financial crisis hit, Irish, Brits and Germans rushed to bail out their own banks, as did Americans, who rescued Ford, Chrysler and GM, leaving Toyota, Hyundai and Honda twisting in the wind.
This is economic nationalism.
Inside Ehud Olmert’s cabinet, a rising star is Avigdor Lieberman. What Lieberman’s “merry men” advocate, writes the American Prospect, is “ethnic cleansing: As the creepy name (which translates into ‘Our Home Is Israel’) suggests, Yisrael Beiteinu believes the million-plus Arab citizens of Israel must be expelled.”
Barack won the African-American vote 97 percent to 3 percent over John McCain, and 90 percent to 10 percent over Hillary Clinton in the later primaries. McCain ran stronger than George W. Bush only in Appalachia, the laager of the Scots-Irish.
In Jerry Z. Muller’s “Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism,” in Foreign Affairs, his thesis is summarized:
“Americans generally belittle the role of ethnic nationalism in politics. But … it corresponds to some enduring propensities of the human spirit. It is galvanized by modernization, and … it will drive global politics for generations to come. Once ethnic nationalism has captured the imagination of groups in a multiethnic society, ethnic disaggregation or partition is often the least bad answer.”
Disaggregation or partition, the man said.
Are we really in a post-racial America, or is our multicultural multiethnic America, too, destined for Balkanization and break-up?
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
I note that among European nations without a strong ethnic/nationalist party is Germany. The Germans are paralyzed by guilt, and so are we. This is a pretty paradox. Both the aggressor and the savior of WWII are adrift in self doubt.
Thomas, how come you know so much about Germany? Anyway, you nailed it.
Thom Meehan wrote:
“I note that among European nations without a strong ethnic/nationalist party is Germany. … Both the aggressor and the savior of WWII are adrift in self doubt.”
Interesting parallel but I’m a little confused at what you’re getting at, Thom. You’re obviously hinting at the idea that WWII is somehow or somewhat responsible for it, but then note that Germany is just one of the European nations “among” others that lack a strong ethnic/nationalist party. But of course “among” those other countries there’s lots—both European and otherwise too—that lack same as well.
Plus then there’s the question of whether the U.S. has *ever* really had a very strong “ethnic/nationalist” party, or at least ever had one in the modern (post WWI) era. Seems to me that’s kind of questionable, which then goes to your statement that we are “adrift in self-doubt.”
If so we’ve been drifting for a long time now and not doing all that badly by it at least as compared to many other countries/regions where they *have* had strong ethnic/nationalistic movements, no?
Cheers,
Mr. Harrell, Thanks for the complement. I’m interested in European History in general and British and German History in particular. As with anyone who is serious about History I read origional source material rather than popular histories.
TomB, I did say it was a paradox. I didn’t say I had the answer. My suspicion is that countries like France and Holland could see themselves as victims of History rather than perpetrators. In this way they may feel more empowered to defend their traditions.
If I have to guess, I think that the De-Nazification program carried out by American leftists after the war infected the West German state and people with our own Liberal decadent mind set. This could explain why both victor and vanquished share a certain self loathing. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote about this. He noted that we attempting to purge Germany of National Socialism by teaching them Socialism. So the result is, among other things, a populace who embrace the social welfare state while rejecting their own national character and tradition.
Finally, as PB states, nationalist parties are springing up everywhere in Europe except Germany and perhaps the UK. The history of the US is full of nationalist sentiment that became at one time or another the policy of one of the two major parties. It’s only since WWII that the America First sensibility was relegated to the shadows.
It would have been nice to see a mention of the Iranians or the various Islamic forces that want to establish a world wide caliphate. Ah well, maybe next time.
Bill P., Islam is a religion not an ethic group. If you were to convert, the looniest Mullah would have to accept you as a bother, as for that matter, would any Christian if you were to be baptized.
Iran under the late Shah was allied with Israel, as was the old Persian Empire under Cyrus The Great who is a hero in the Torah, right? It was the Greco-Roman world your ancestors couldn’t abide.
the looniest Mullah would have to accept you as a bother
Freudian typo.
“If I have to guess, I think that the De-Nazification program carried out by American leftists after the war…”
Actually in practice there was no de-Nazification to speak off. The Nazis were far too useful to be discarded. The real de-Nazification happened in the 1960s and 1970s when a post war generation came of age in the age of radicalism and rebelled against the “conspiracy of silence in every German home”.
Thomas O. Meehan wrote:
“So the result is, among other things, a populace who embrace the social welfare state while rejecting their own national character and tradition.”
Well thank you for your additional comments Thom.
I wonder a bit about what seems to be your thesis though that a country with a strong ethno-national identity (or “national character and identity” as you put it), is really “rejecting” same when it embraces the social welfare state.
That is, doesn’t it often seem that it has been precisely those countries that *have* had a strong ethno-national identity that have also then most enthusiastically embraced the social welfare state? And isn’t that just somewhat logical? I.e. where people in a country see themselves as relatively unified, one people, one family, one tribe or etc., that it’s only natural that they would be more supportive of social welfare measures to take care of one another?
Indeed in terms of modern, post-WWII developments and trends one of the first countries I at least think of in this regard is the post-war Germany you mention, but then there’s also post-war France, then the Nordic countries, and etc., etc. and so on.
In short seems to me that countries with strong ethnic/nationalist identities may just be precisely the ones where social welfare ideas are most favorably received. After all even looking back farther if any one man and any one country might be said to have fathered the modern social welfare state it’s Bismarck and Germany, right? Fairly strong ethno-nationalistic figures it seems to me.
Cheers,
The Hebrews also loved Alexander the Great, indeed the name “Alex” most likely only survives since they used it. The Persians were a tad less keen, recalling him as the “Horned Devil King”.
But yes, Germany is a sterling example of a contrasting example: the far-right is falling to pieces presently while the hard-left are storming ahead. More countries should be like that, and the New Anti-Capitalist Party of France (shortly to be given an official, new and hopefully a lot less terrible name) seems promising.
Personally I continue to have faith in our new technology as a uniter, although whether it can overcome the grim picture presented here is still up in the air. I still find it highly significant that I just hit CRTL&Tab while using MSN Plus and skip from someone on the other side of the city to someone on the other side of the planet (I have a few Australian e-friends) at equal speed. That has to count for something culturally speaking. Distance is only ever really measured in length of correspondence, which is rapidly sliding towards nil…
Dennis. Typo? What typo?
Charlie. I have to differ with you regarding there being no De- Nazification. Perhaps we’re confusing the removal of persons from jobs with what we now would call reeducation. The Allied Control Council that enacted the “Entnazifizierung” was impeded by the very widespread Nazi practice of subsuming all organs of civil society under their own banner and making participation contingent on taking oaths. Given this it was hard to find people in public life who haden’t taken an oath to the Fuhrer of some kind.
What I’m taking about is the systematic re-engineering of things like the school curriculum, compulsory indoctrination in democratic government, The rewriting of charters and laws to reflect social democracy. The advisors and later implementors of such programs were generally German Socialists or Social Democrats who put their stamp on this new non-judgemental social order.
My point is quite simple. The National Socialist mind set, apart from all the murderous military tendencies, is still a communitarian, conformist, Socialist mind set. Just like liberalism in our society, it reduces the individual to a molecule, and breaks down organic affiliations and pride. People with such mid sets are easily shamed and manipulated.
James. I was surprised to note that the Jews did in fact seem to welcome Alexander the Great, even as he overthrew their Persian protector state. He seems to have entered the scene with a gentle hand. All the trouble between Greeks and Jews follow with actual Greek influence.
Oooops! Of course I meant to write “Brother” instead of “Bother.” Dyslexia strikes again.
James, I think Alexander in various forms became a common name in several languages. Did the Jews adopt the name as well? That would be interesting.
“The Hebrews also loved Alexander the Great, indeed the name “Alex” most likely only survives since they used it.”
Wow, so all the Greeks I know, the Scottish kings, Popes, Tzars, etc, used it because of the Jews or because they were Jews. Come on. What a misstatement.
All the trouble between Greeks and Jews follow with actual Greek influence.
Perhaps it comes from being a hardcore Hellaphile and an admirer of the prepuce, but I always thought that the wrong side won that dispute…
Which annoyingly places me as holding the same position as Christopher Hitchens, but such things will happen, now and again.
James, I think Alexander in various forms became a common name in several languages. Did the Jews adopt the name as well? That would be interesting.
So I was informed by someone who knows much of these matters.
“The Hebrews also loved Alexander the Great, indeed the name “Alex” most likely only survives since they used it.”
Wow, so all the Greeks I know, the Scottish kings, Popes, Tzars, etc, used it because of the Jews or because they were Jews. Come on. What a misstatement.
Oh, I might be wrong.
But a large number of Hebrew names are in usage today across the Anglosphere, most likely as heritage of the Old Testament getting accumulated along with the Gospels and New Testament books. Although there is precedent for Greek names spreading out (Zoe, for instance) it isn’t so common (Xylokarabes, for instance, is one which I’m very sad never caught on). So I wouldn’t be so dismissive, if I were you. Unless you don’t know anybody called Jacob who isn’t a Jew…
Dear James,
How many Jews are named Alex today? Very Few. How many Greeks are named Jacob? My nephew, named Iakavos, Greek for Jacob.
Again, getting in the weeds here, but let me suffice in saying there is little reason to believe that Jews were responsible for spreading the name Alexander. In fact, there was a rejection of Hellenism in some parts during the Macabees. Alexander was obviously not an Old Testament name. If you wanted a name to give a future leader or “A protector fo Mankind” you couldn’t go wrong with Alex.
My final two cents. Enjoyed the dialogue.
Did Gm deserve the bailout? You Ask me I would say NO.. why? When Honda and Toyota were out inventing new cars, GM was busy boasting about its pride and Showing off its hungry hungry Daughter the Hummer