On the difference between a people and a nation

One can hate what governments do without prejudice

So this note is going to get me into the kind of hot water that I normally avoid, being socially awkward and confrontation-avoiding as I am. I avoid making comments about gender and race, because I am not in those demographics that actually suffer because of the categories, and as most of us are, I am blind to my own privileges. Instead I try to support those who do suffer, at least in my voting if not my engagement with protests¹.

But things have happened lately. My faculty’s building at the university has been occupied by pro-Palestinian protesters for a couple of weeks now, and I accidentally walked into the demonstration while meeting a colleague just as they entered. I was mildly pleased that students were getting activist again, for I have bemoaned the fact that students are no longer interested in anything outside their own careers for decades. Some of the protesters were suspiciously mature, though…

But at the same time, I live in an area of Melbourne that is substantially Jewish (and Indian, but that’s not relevant here), and my partner works in a not-for-profit educational organisation that is funded in part by B’nai Berith. And however much I may hate the saying, at least four or five of my favourite colleagues and friends are either ethnically Jewish/Israeli or are practising conservative Jews. And I have very few friends, so that’s rather more significant than it might be if said by an extrovert.

So on the face of it, I have divided loyalties. Or, at least that is how it is seen in public discourse. In fact, I think my loyalties are to people. I don’t much care what their ethnicity or nation of origin is, what religion they practice or label as, or even what their politics are, so long as they meet the ordinary standards of decency. Now, this is a term that can be abused like everything else, so this is my dull and mild-mannered rant on the subject.

For a start, my mental template when I face a conflict or atrocity in the world is:

I support the ____ people, but I hate what the ____ institution has done in their name.

For example, I hate what nationalism is doing in many democratic nations such as the US or the UK (or Germany, Hungary, Greece, etc.) but I support the rights and welfare of the peoples of those nations. It’s a rather old fashioned way to approach this sort of thing, often dismissed as “old style liberalism” which is “dead”², but that’s what the nationalists want us to think. I never saw a proper critique of liberal democratic values that didn’t question-beggingly presuppose the pre-eminence of some nationalist or ideological theory. I am happy to be called “a social democratic liberal”.³

But for over 40 years or more, writers have attacked Islam in a fashion that can only be seen as a continuation of the Crusades. I see this as Islamophobia, although it is simply another ethnic bigotry. For at least 800 years, though, Jews in the West have been discriminated against and suffered under antisemitism⁴, so there’s that. What is a bleeding heart liberal to do?

For me, it isn’t about sides. I care about the well-being of Palestinians, Israelis, Iranians, and even Americans, but I have varying degrees of disapproval for the politicosocial institutions that “take action” on their behalf⁵. So I can support Palestinians but hate Hamas and the PIJ and Hezbolah. I can support Israelis (including Muslim Israelis) and their right to defend themselves but hate and reject the genocidal acts of the IDF in the present conflict. And I can do both of these without being Islamophobic or Antisemitic. I think…

The point is that generalisations can be an aid to thinking about large data sets, but they can implicitly bias our thinking, to the detriment of the subjects. People matter. Governments, groups, and economies matter only to the extent they affect actual real people. And one can appreciate the ideals of those groups (such as rights for Palestinians, safety of Jewish Israelis, and so forth) and understand how they came to them without either committing yourself to them, or accepting the ways they are used justify the actions of those in control of them.

There is no typical Palestinian, nor Muslim, nor Israeli, nor Jew, nor even Americans. This overgeneralisation is akin to the nineteenth century’s obsession with “national spirit” or “national character”. It is directly descended from the propaganda of military conflicts (those cunning Japanese, perfidious Albion, evil Jerries⁶). It is something those in power use to motivate or excuse atrocious behaviours for their own benefit. As the lawyers say, “who benefits? is the first question one should ask. And the second is “what is their motive?”.

I leave it to the reader to decide what the answers are. But we can often tell from the persistent outcomes. The policy of Israeli governments with two-thirds of a million settlers in other people’s lands indicates their recent motives and benefits. The policies of Israel’s neighbouring governments in 1967 and 1973 were plenty clear. But these are time specific, and do not necessarily project outside those times. Nor do they project to all the people under their sway. And no people should be killed en masse for the land they live upon.

And what is decency? Like all values, this is culturally relevant, but I think I can have a crack at outlining some more or less universal rules of decent behaviour. Don’t kill an entire population or culture would be one. Treat others as people first and representatives of a way of life second or less. Understand that liking different food, clothing and languages is not enough of a difference to relegate people to second class status. Nor is gender (whatever that is), race (whatever that is) or religion (whatever that is). And finally, do not set your own values, tastes, appearance and culture as the universal norm. … wait … umm.

References

Nycander, Svante. 2016. The History of Western Liberalism. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis : Uppsala University Library [distributor]. Available on web

1. Due to walking problems and decreasing stamina, mostly.

2. See Nycander 2017 for this history, especially chapter 11.

3. The term comes out of political movements of the 19th century that opposed absolutist regimes of precisely the kind that nationalists wish to re-establish. However, in economics and the United States the term has been bastardised beyond utility. It does not mean, and never has meant, socialism (although I am happy with most varieties of that), communism (less so that) or libertarianism (none of that!). Social liberalism is the notion that the only task of the state is to enrich the lives of all those who dwell under it. It is quite distinct from Laissez faire capitalism, which I abhor. Not all liberals are free-marketeers, not all free-marketeers are liberals if any.

4. Arguably it goes back to the last days of the Roman Empire in the west, but I think discrimination was not especially a Jewish thing at that time. Basically, anyone who did not accept the dominance of Rome was a Bad Guy. What counts as antisemitism is problematic. For some it involves social, political and economic discrimination as well as violence. For others it involves any kind of criticism based on Jewishness. For other, it is the religion (Luther’s tracts being a case in point).

5. Those who have read me for a while know I doubt that institutions can take action. Individuals using institutions certainly do.

6. Some generalisations of nation states, however, are warranted. For a start, America has behaved like an imperial power since at least the war with Mexico. Central and South America can attest to this. Likewise other national militaries and governments act in ways that call for generalities, but for specific times and actions.