Zinn on the Dangers of Nationalism
From an upcoming issue of The Progressive comes this piece by radical leftist Howard Zinn: The scourge of nationalism.
Sadly, I suspect that some of those who could benefit most from reading Zinn’s thought-provoking essay will be the first to dismiss it unread, based merely on who it is doing the speaking.
May 20th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
I couldn’t really read it either. He pointed out too much of what was wrong with America from a historical perspective and it just got tiresome. All I heard is, “nationalism is bad, blah blah blah people have died.”
Though I do agree. Nationalism is bad.
May 21st, 2005 at 8:52 am
Hm. In reading it over again more carefully than I did the first time, I see lots of examples of extremely fuzzy logic. Here are a few of the things that bug me on closer inspection:
* The would-be vigilantes guarding the US/Mexico border haven’t, as far as I’m aware, engaged in any mass murder yet.
* Nationalism, even in a big country with lots of WMD, doesn’t _automatically_ turn from harmless pride to an arrogant danger. At least, I can imagine a big country with lots of powerful weapons where citizens’ national pride was not necessarily arrogant. Maybe they could feel proud of a national commitment _not_ to use their weapons in wars of aggression. (I’m not saying there are any big, WMD-possessing countries that actually embody such pride; just that it seems possible.)
Anyway, reading through the rest of the stuff about the dangers of religion being linked up with military aggression, and Democrats as well as Republicans pursuing nationalistic wars (indeed, he doesn’t make the case, but I think one could argue that at least through the first half of the 20th century it was very much the Democrats who were pushing the use of US military might overseas, and Republicans who were dragging their feet), it just seems logically very weak.
As Steve said, yeah, the things being described are bad. It’s just not a very rigorous argument (at all) being advanced. Instead, it’s a lot of emotion-laden assertions, loosely tied (if that) to the underlying theme of how bad nationalism is.
I liked the piece on first reading because I agree with the position Zinn is arguing for. But what he offers isn’t much of a rational argument, and I was wrong to lament that people who don’t support that position would be the first to dismiss it based on who he was. In the future I guess I’ll tend to dismiss his writings based on who he is, too. Not becasue he’s wrong in the view he’s advocating (since, again, I pretty much agree with that view), but because he’s too fuzzy in his presentation of that view to be of much use in terms of rational debate.
May 24th, 2005 at 10:40 am
JBC, you levy claims of fuzzy logic with logic that is not only fuzzy, but specious and disingenuous as well. Zinn uses the “would-be vigilantes” as a striking example of one of the many ugly symptoms of nationalism. Zinn never implied or stated that these vigilantes were going to engage in mass murder. To draw that conclusion from the text is erroneous. You merely set up a straw man to take apart. Straw man: Nationalistic Vigilantes are mass murderers. Tear it down with: Obviously they have not committed any mass murder. I bet you think you’re pretty brilliant there.
However, you’re right, “nationalism doesn’t automatically turn from harmless pride to an arrogant danger.” How does it turn? If you read the essay, Zinn explains that we are taught how to be hypocritical denizens of the empire. And the point of the rest of his essay with historical examples is not merely to list atrocity after atrocity, but to demonstrate how those atrocities were ideologically and morally justified, whether it be by the Church, the Media, or the Government. If you can get past the numbers and not let them affect you, as Steve’s iron-clad heart did, then you would see how figures of authority and instititutions of power mangle the English language to manipulate public opinion. This is the greater point. It is not simply that nationalism is bad and lots of people died.
Of course, JBC, your rock solid logic to refute another one of your straw man claims where Zinn purportedly implies that “Nationalism… turns from harmless pride to an arrogant danger”, uses no historical examples but begins with the phrase “At least, I can imagine…” Imagine?! I can imagine Shangri-la and peace on earth too, but that doesn’t make either a reality. Which is precisely the point. You can only imagine a “big country with lots of powerful weapons where citizens’ national pride was not necessarily arrogant” because such a country in fact does NOT EXIST. On top of that, you go on to state that “Maybe they could feel proud of a national commitment _not_ to use their weapons in wars of aggression.” Listen to that. So we have an imaginary country where “MAYBE” they could feel proud yet still refrain from dropping the bomb. So let me get this straight. Zinn uses history and quotes and dates and facts and that’s “fuzzy logic”. You use imaginary countries that might embody some noble sentiment that “seems possible”. Zinn’s argument is nuanced and historically supported. Your argument floats in the ether of your armchair daydreaming. But Zinn uses fuzzy logic. Nigga please.
Steve, you hold the key: “I couldn’t really read it either.” Yeah, you just skimmed it and fired away. What’s your beef with the “historical perspective”? All those facts and figures. And names. And even dates! Oh my! Way too much info there, Howie. I want my MTV.
May 24th, 2005 at 11:03 am
Dude (or dudette): Lighten up. As I said several times, I basically agree with Zinn about the evils of nationalism. Steve said the same thing. What I’m objecting to here is Zinn’s choice of how to make the case against it.
I’m currently making a conscious effort to avoid making emotion-laden, logically weak arguments myself. And in looking over Zinn’s essay, after having initially liked it enough to link to it, I realized that it was, in fact, emotion-laden and logically weak. So, in my effort to live up to the standard I’m trying to hold myself to, I pointed that out.
He’s free to make arguments in that form. You’re free to like those arguments. I’m free to choose to disregard them in favor of arguments that hew closer to a standard of objective seeking after the truth, rather than impassioned advocacy on behalf of a particular position.
Zinn’s piece reminds me a bit of the Lila Lipscomb portion of Farenheit 9/11. Yes, I’m affected by the depiction of Mrs. Lipscomb’s tragic realization that Bush’s war has killed her son, and her switch from gung-ho red-America patriot to tearful protester getting in the face of Iraq-war defenders in front of the White House. It’s powerfully emotional stuff. It might even help change some peoples’ minds. But from a rational standpoint, it constitutes a fairly weak argument.
We all get to choose what we believe in and be passionate about. You choose to be passionate on behalf of Zinn’s approach to critiquing nationalism; good for you. I’m choosing to be passionate about something else: the search for objective truth in the face of people (including yourself) who are so strongly committed to a position that they’re willing to attack someone who actually _agrees_ with them merely for the crime of not agreeing with sufficient zeal.