Home > Reflections > On National Identity

On National Self Identity

SaxonShieldWall had “accused” me of not having a national self identity. I accept the accusation. I don't have a national self identity.
    And I have to confess I have a hard time understanding those that do: How can you identify with a group you didn't choose?

I asked SaxonShieldWall, “Who exactly are YOUR people? Those born within the same imaginary lines as you? Why? Did you choose them?”
    I should have guessed the answer.
    “The Saxons:-)” he replied.
    “And you love every single one of your Saxons?? You don't have any problems with them? You never travelled or met anyone else you liked? And where do you recognize your people, these Saxons, from? Do they have beaks? Do they have protruding ears? Do they smile nicer?”
    “Don't be silly :-)”
    “Don't be silly about what? Then what's the problem with "other" people? I prefer other people over my family I was born into.”
    I understand of course, sharing the same language, the same religion or even ethnicity may be factors to bring you together. But let alone a huge group defined only through an artificial construct of a border drawn by war or politics, my experience within online groups formed by schools graduated, or “Turkish living in Italy” or even groups as specific as “Turkish mothers living in Italy” does not mean anything, is not a criteria for sticking together.

What's natural about saying only whites can drink from some fountain?

During the conversation, SaxonShieldWall accused me “Destroying nations is disrespectful & an act of hatred.”
    “Nations... I don't know if you mean as race or nation-states. But both are disappearing anyway in the globalized world, I don't think there's anything you can do about it. It has nothing to do with disrespect & hatred, it's a natural process.”
    “The only way to create racial problems where they don't exist is by exploiting immigrants & using them to play divide and conquer,” SSW said. “It is the most subversive and unnatural thing in the world.”
    “Good point,” I replied. “So don't fall into their trap!”
    “Which trap? Blaming the immigrants? Or imagining this is a normal natural process?”
    “Divide & rule trap. What's not natural about a Turkish marrying a Kurdish? Or a French a Zimbabwean? Anything against nature for them to have sex or children? Anything that prohibits their having sex or having children?” I asked. “Races and nations you claim are being destroyed are destroyed because of inter-marriages not by movement of people!”
    SaxonShieldWall skipped my point and went on further attack; as you know, attack is the best defense :) For people who do not have their ideas grounded on firma terra.
    “What's natural about bringing people here from thousands of miles away and brainwashing everyone into thinking its normal?” SSW asked.
    “What bringing people? Nobody is bringing anybody. What's unnatural about one who is bombed or simply unsatisfied with life moving around to find a better life? What's natural about drawing imaginary lines grouping people who DID NOT CHOOSE to be together and putting guns & walls at those lines?
    Of course there is no answer to that question. So SSW did what people who feel trapped in a corner do.
    “This is too stupid. You will lose. The end,” he said.
    “What's too stupid, what will I lose?” I asked. “I believe you've already lost as you put an End because you couldn't answer my questions.”


I. Asimov

I came across a perfect short piece from Asimov. It's from “I. Asimov”:

“The Earth should not be cut up into hundreds of different sections, each inhabited by a self-defined segment of humanity that considers its own welfare and its own "national security" to be paramount above all other consideration.

I am all for cultural diversity and would be willing to see each recognizable group value its cultural heritage. I am a New York patriot, for instance, and if I lived in Los Angeles, I would love to get together with other New York expatriates and sing "Give My Regards to Broadway."

This sort of thing, however, should remain cultural and benign. I'm against it if it means that each group despises others and lusts to wipe them out. I'm against arming each little self-defined group with weapons with which to enforce its own prides and prejudices.

The Earth faces environmental problems right now that threaten the imminent destruction of civilization and the end of the planet as a livable world. Humanity cannot afford to waste its financial and emotional resources on endless, meaningless quarrels between each group and all others. there must be a sense of globalism in which the world unites to solve the real problems that face all groups alike.

Can that be done? The question is equivalent to: Can humanity survive?

I am not a Zionist, then, because I don't believe in nations, and because Zionism merely sets up one more nation to trouble the world. It sets up one more nation to have "rights" and "demands" and "national security" and to feel it must guard itself against its neighbors.

There are no nations! There is only humanity. And if we don't come to understand that right soon, there will be no nations, because there will be no humanity. ”

.