People identyfie themselves into groups. Like familygroups, professional and hobby groups. One wery large group we easily identyfie ourselwes, and are expected to do so, is nations. Threre is nothing wrong about this. Different tribal and national groups have different cultures and that give more colour to the world. It is our differences and similarities to other people that make us who we are.

What is freightening though, is when nationalism is mixed whith racism.

Modern world was born from the colonialism. Basic idea in colonialism was that stronger military powers subjucated weaker ones to steal their resources. Of course this needed to be “morally” explained so that the thieves would not have to feel bad about the wrong they were doing to others. The religious explanation was that people were in debt from their conversion to the subjucators beliefs, and should be happy to give their posessions to their “saviours”. The idea that just being “civilazed” gives you not only the right to supress other people, but actually a responsibility to “take care” of their posessions, indicates that a person thinking this way is not civilazed at all. A civil person does not steal from or subjucate other people. The “sientific” explanation was that people of the more powerfull nation were somehow vindicated to be superior people in comparrison to the weaker nation. This thought went so far as to claim that people could be evaluated to be of different spiritual and mental capabilities by their racial type. In the end there was nothing sientific about this claim, but it lives still on in the minds of many people.

If you know how WWII ended and what happened to the ridiculous “superhuman arian race” of germans in that conflict, you should doubt anyone that claims one racial type to be superior to a nother. It is a lie that is easy to keep and make simple people happy whith, until the buble bursts.

The claim that either by racial or moral supremacy gives the right for one nation or person to treat a nother nation or person wrongly is in it self a crime. Crime against humanity as it goes… When a crime has been comitted and you are looking for the guilty party, use the Sherolock Holmes logic; criminal is most likely the one who gains most from the crime. In the case of racistic nationalism it is most often the businesman. In colonial times it was the businesmen who sold the slaves from conquered lands. The businesmen sold the weapons for the wars of conquest. They also erected plantases and mines where the people of the conquered lands had to work for little if any pay.

What has chaged since then? Still there are wars going on in the world that are fought simply for the posession of natural resources. Biggest winners in those wars are often the arms dealers. Wery often the soldiers for these wars have been taken thousands of kilometres from their own nations to wage war. They are told they are protecting their own people and nothing else lifts the national spirit better than that. Even today many nations  live on their native soil, under wich natural riches are stolen from them by their own work for the benefit of wery few (and often foreign) businesmen.

The businesmen also use the simple peoples fear of foreigners to their benefit. They claim that there is need for more workforce, and import workers from countries, where living is cheaper and people are poorer. This keeps the price of work low, especially so when it causes the native labour to hate the foreigners. When you are hated by people in a foreign country it is wery difficult to ask for proper wages… It is also wery interresting point, that businesmen might actually have the right to take so much from those who have so little because they are so clever that they know how to, because it is so closely related to racism (but this is a subject for a nother post).

There are also allways those who seek short passages to political power. One of the shortest, but also most immoral, routes is bigotry. It is often clad into the “noble” and “rigteous” dress of nationalism. People love to hate, and go easily tirbal. Is it more right that a member of my own nation gets the benefits my nation can offer than someone else in need? Even if that someone is more in need? Why? Because I share some kind of genetical tie to my countryman? What are the ethics in this?

Advertisements