the idea of nationalism is fairly new. perhaps no more than 220 years old.
the rise of nationalism a couple of centuries ago led to the major european
conflicts in the second half of the 19th century and to major world wars
and numerous ideological conflagrations in the 20th.
but today a spanish judge can place a chilean dictator under house arrest
in great britian. a belgian court can find 2 rwandan nuns guilty of crimes
against humanity. there are countless international bodies that almost every
western, and growing body of eastern states, are now members of. a consensus
about basic human and political rights is growing, whose definition is dominated
by the west, much to the impotent consternation of non-democratic regimes who
have begun to hedge or recede further into the margins.
it seems we are drifting away, albeit slowly, from sacrosant national boundaries
and the idea of mutually exclusive ethnic differences to a universal notion of a
common people. this isn't true of all nations and peoples ofcourse, but we are
inching in a direction unseen in recorded human history, and we are doing this
not by force of sword or gun but of intellectual and ideological persuasion,
technological advancements, and in the form of real aid to nations racked by
conflicts or natural disasters.
so if we are more concerned, more involved, more willing to send aid to quell
a disturbace or remedy a famine, if we feel an international consensus of right
and wrong needs to prevail, and if technology brings us closer, bluring boundaries
further, what purpose does nationalism still hold ?
the rise of nationalism a couple of centuries ago led to the major european
conflicts in the second half of the 19th century and to major world wars
and numerous ideological conflagrations in the 20th.
but today a spanish judge can place a chilean dictator under house arrest
in great britian. a belgian court can find 2 rwandan nuns guilty of crimes
against humanity. there are countless international bodies that almost every
western, and growing body of eastern states, are now members of. a consensus
about basic human and political rights is growing, whose definition is dominated
by the west, much to the impotent consternation of non-democratic regimes who
have begun to hedge or recede further into the margins.
it seems we are drifting away, albeit slowly, from sacrosant national boundaries
and the idea of mutually exclusive ethnic differences to a universal notion of a
common people. this isn't true of all nations and peoples ofcourse, but we are
inching in a direction unseen in recorded human history, and we are doing this
not by force of sword or gun but of intellectual and ideological persuasion,
technological advancements, and in the form of real aid to nations racked by
conflicts or natural disasters.
so if we are more concerned, more involved, more willing to send aid to quell
a disturbace or remedy a famine, if we feel an international consensus of right
and wrong needs to prevail, and if technology brings us closer, bluring boundaries
further, what purpose does nationalism still hold ?
Facebook
Twitter