Patriotism is proud of a country’s virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country’s virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.
The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war.
In the first place, it is obvious that not only is wealth concentrated in our times but an immense power and despotic economic dictatorship is consolidated in the hands of a few, who often are not owners but only the trustees and managing directors of invested funds which they administer according to their own arbitrary will and pleasure. This dictatorship is being most forcibly exercised by those who, since they hold the money and completely control it, control credit also and rule the lending of money. Hence they regulate the flow, so to speak, of the life-blood whereby the entire economic system lives, and have so firmly in their grasp the soul, as it were, of economic life that no one can breathe against their will. This concentration of power and might, the characteristic mark, as it were, of contemporary economic life, is the fruit that the unlimited freedom of struggle among competitors has of its own nature produced, and which lets only the strongest survive; and this is often the same as saying, those who fight the most violently, those who give least heed to their conscience. This accumulation of might and of power generates in turn three kinds of conflict. First, there is the struggle for economic supremacy itself; then there is the bitter fight to gain supremacy over the State in order to use in economic struggles its resources and authority; finally there is conflict between States themselves, not only because countries employ their power and shape their policies to promote every economic advantage of their citizens, but also because they seek to decide political controversies that arise among nations through the use of their economic supremacy and strength. [ Quadragesimo Anno (“On the Restructuring of the Social Order”), §109.] The ultimate consequences of the individualist spirit in economic life are those which you yourselves, Venerable Brethren and Beloved Children, see and deplore: Free competition has destroyed itself; economic dictatorship has supplanted the free market; unbridled ambition for power has likewise succeeded greed for gain; all economic life has become tragically hard, inexorable, and cruel. To these are to be added the grave evils that have resulted from an intermingling and shameful confusion of the functions and duties of public authority with those of the economic sphere — such as, one of the worst, the virtual degradation of the majesty of the State, which although it ought to sit on high like a queen and supreme arbitress, free from all partiality and intent upon the one common good and justice, is become a slave, surrendered and delivered to the passions and greed of men. And as to international relations, two different streams have issued from the one fountain-head: On the one hand, economic nationalism or even economic imperialism; on the other, a no less deadly and accursed internationalism of finance or international imperialism whose country is where profit is. [ Quadragesimo Anno (“On the Restructuring of the Social Order”), §§105-109, 1931.]
By "nationalism" I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled "good" or "bad." … By "patriotism" I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseperable from the desire for power.
The second party was directly opposed to the first; one extreme, as always happens, was met by representatives of the other. The members of this party were those who had demanded an advance from Vilna into Poland and freedom from all prearranged plans. Besides being advocates of bold action, this section also represented nationalism, which made them still more one-sided in the dispute. They were Russians: Bagration, Ermolov (who was beginning to come to the front), and others. At that time a famous joke of Ermolov's was being circulated, that as a great favor he had petitioned the Emperor to make him a German. The men of that party, remembering Suvorov, said that what one had to do was not to reason, or stick pins into maps, but to fight, beat the enemy, keep him out of Russia, and not let the army get discouraged.
Our best destiny, as planetary cohabitants, is the development of what has been called "species consciousness" — something over and above nationalisms, blocs, religions, ethnicities … I have been trying to apply such a consciousness, and such a sensibility. Thinking of the victims, the perpetrators, and the near future, I felt species grief, then species shame, then species fear.
In leisurely manner the meeting gathered momentum. A delegate from the Russian troops on the Macedonian front spoke bitterly of their situation. “We suffer there more from the friendship of our ‘Allies’ than from the enemy,” he said. Representatives of the Tenth and Twelfth Armies, just arrived in hot haste, reported, “We support you with all our strength!” A peasant-soldier protested against the release of “the traitor Socialists, Mazlov and Salazkin”; as for the Executive Committee of the Peasants’ Soviets, it should be arrested _en masse!_Here was real revolutionary talk.... A deputy from the Russian Army in Persia declared he was instructed to demand all power to the Soviets.... A Ukrainean officer, speaking in his native tongue: “There is no nationalism in this crisis.... _Da zdravstvuyet_ the proletarian dictatorship of all lands!” Such a deluge of high and hot thoughts that surely Russia would never again be dumb!
His proposals undoubtedly roused an extraordinary enthusiasm, and though he almost completely failed to win to his cause the classes, he rallied the masses with sensational success. He unexpectedly gained the accession of many Jews by race who were indifferent to the religious aspect of Judaism, but he quite failed to convince the leaders of Jewish thought, who from first to last remained (with such conspicuous exceptions as Nordau and Zangwill) deaf to his pleading. The orthodox were at first cool because they had always dreamed of a nationalism inspired by messianic ideals, while the liberals had long come to dissociate those universalistic ideals from all national limitations. Herzl, however, succeeded in assembling several congresses at Basel (beginning in 1897), and at these congresses were enacted remarkable scenes of enthusiasm for the cause and devotion to its leader. At all these assemblies the same ideal was formulated: "the establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine." Herzl's personal charm was irresistible. Among his political opponents he had some close personal friends. His sincerity, his eloquence, his tact, his devotion, his power, were recognized on all hands. He spent his whole strength in the furtherance of his ideas. Diplomatic interviews, exhausting journeys, impressive mass meetings, brilliant literary propaganda--all these methods were employed by him to the utmost limit of self-denial. In 1901 he was received by the sultan; the pope and many European statesmen gave him audiences. The British government was ready to grant land for an autonomous settlement in East Africa. This last scheme was fatal to Herzl's peace of mind. Even as a temporary measure, the choice of an extra-Palestinian site for the Jewish state was bitterly opposed by many Zionists; others (with whom Herzl appears to have sympathized) thought that as Palestine was, at all events momentarily, inaccessible, it was expedient to form a settlement elsewhere. Herzl's health had been failing and he did not long survive the initiation of the somewhat embittered "territorial" controversy. He died in the summer of 1904, amid the consternation of supporters and the deep grief of opponents of his Zionistic aims. Entry: HERZL
HERZL, THEODOR (1860-1904), founder of modern political Zionism (q.v.), was born in Budapest on the 2nd of May 1860, and died at Edlach on the 3rd of July 1904. The greater part of his career was associated with Vienna, where he acquired high repute as a literary journalist. He was also a dramatist, and apart from his prominence as a Jewish Nationalist would have found a niche in the temple of fame. All his other claims to renown, however, sink into insignificance when compared with his work as the reviver of Jewish hopes for a restoration to political autonomy. Herzl was stirred by sympathy for the misery of Jews under persecution, but he was even more powerfully moved by the difficulties experienced under conditions of assimilation. Modern anti-Semitism, he felt, was both like and unlike the medieval. The old physical attacks on the Jews continued in Russia, but there was added the reluctance of several national groups in Europe to admit the Jews to social equality. Herzl believed that the humanitarian hopes which inspired men at the end of the 18th and during the larger part of the 19th centuries had failed. The walls of the ghettos had been cast down, but the Jews could find no entry into the comity of nations. The new nationalism of 1848 did not deprive the Jews of political rights, but it denied them both the amenities of friendly intercourse and the opportunity of distinction in the university, the army and the professions. Many Jews questioned this diagnosis, and refused to see in the new anti-Semitism (q.v.) which spread over Europe in 1881 any more than a temporary reaction against the cosmopolitanism of the French Revolution. In 1896 Herzl published his famous pamphlet "Der Judenstaat." Holding that the only alternatives for the Jews were complete merging by intermarriage or self-preservation by a national re-union, he boldly advocated the second course. He did not at first insist on Palestine as the new Jewish home, nor did he attach himself to religious sentiment. The expectation of a Messianic restoration to the Holy Land has always been strong, if often latent, in the Jewish consciousness. But Herzl approached the subject entirely on its secular side, and his solution was economic and political rather than sentimental. He was a strong advocate for the complete separation of Church and State. The influence of Herzl's pamphlet, the progress of the movement he initiated, the subsequent modifications of his plans, are told at length in the article ZIONISM. Entry: HERZL
The only other country in Europe in which a legalized anti-Semitism exists is Rumania. The conditions are very similar to those which obtain in Russia, with the important difference that Rumania is a constitutional country, and that the Jewish persecutions are the work of the elected deputies of the nation. Like the _Bourgeois Gentilhomme_ who wrote prose all his life without knowing it, the Rumanians practised the nationalist doctrines of the Hegelian anti-Semites unconsciously long before they were formulated in Germany. In the old days of Turkish domination the lot of the Rumanian Jews was not conspicuously unhappy. It was only when the nation began to be emancipated, and the struggle in the East assumed the form of a crusade against Islam that the Jews were persecuted. Rumanian politicians preached a nationalism limited exclusively to indigenous Christians, and they were strongly supported by all who felt the commercial competition of the Jews. Thus, although the Jews had been settled in the land for many centuries, they were by law declared aliens. This was done in defiance of the treaty of Paris of 1856 and the convention of 1858 which declared all Rumans to be equal before the law. Under the influence of this distinction the Jews became persecuted, and sanguinary riots were of frequent occurrence. The realization of a Jewish question led to legislation imposing disabilities on the Jews. In 1878 the congress of Berlin agreed to recognize the independence of Rumania on condition that all religious disabilities were removed. Rumania agreed to this condition, but ultimately persuaded the powers to allow her to carry out the emancipation of the Jews gradually. Persecutions, however, continued, and in 1902 they led to a great exodus of Jews. The United States addressed a strong remonstrance to the Rumanian government, but the condition of the Jews was in no way improved. Their emancipation was in 1908 as far off as ever, and their disabilities heavier than those of their brethren in Russia. For this state of things the example of the anti-Semites in Germany, Russia, Austria and France was largely to blame, since it had justified the intolerance of the Rumans. Owing, also, to the fact that of late years Rumania had become a sort of _annexe_ of the Triple Alliance, it was found impossible to induce the signatories of the treaty of Berlin to take action to compel the state to fulfil its obligations under that treaty. Entry: A
_Austrian and French Supremacy: 1718-1814._--Austrian influence predominated throughout Croatia-Slavonia during most of the 18th century, although Slavonia was constitutionally regarded as belonging to Hungary. Despite Magyar protests the misleading name "Croatia" was popularly and even in official documents applied to the whole country, including the purely Slavonian provinces of Virovitica, Pozega and Syrmia. From 1767 to 1777 Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia were collectively named Illyria, and governed from Vienna, but each of these divisions was subsequently declared a separate kingdom, with a separate administration, while the military frontier remained under military rule. In 1776 the Croatian seaboard, which had previously been under the same administration as the rest of the Austrian coast, was annexed to Croatia, but three years later Fiume was declared an integral part of Hungary. These administrative changes, and especially the brief existence of united "Illyria," stimulated the dormant nationalism of the Croats and their jealousy of the Magyars. In 1809 Austria was forced to surrender to Napoleon a large part of Croatia, with Dalmatia, Istria, Carinthia, Carniola, Görz and Gradisca. These territories received the name of the Illyrian Provinces, and remained under French rule until 1813. All the Croats capable of service were enrolled under the French flag; their country was divided for administrative purposes into _Croatie civile_ and _Croatie militaire_. In 1814 Dalmatia was incorporated in Austria, while Istria, Carinthia, Carniola, Görz and Gradisca became the Illyrian kingdom of Austria, and retained their united government until 1849. Croatia and Slavonia were declared appanages of the Hungarian crown--_partes adnexae_, or subject provinces, according to the Magyars; _regna socia_, or allied kingdoms, according to their own view. Each phrase afterwards became the watchword of a political party: neither is accurate. The Croats preserved their local autonomy, the use of their language for official purposes, their elected diet and other ancient institutions, but Hungarian control was represented by the ban. Entry: CROATIA
BELLAMY, EDWARD (1850-1898), American author and social reformer, was born at Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts, on the 25th of March 1850. He studied for a time at Union College, Schenectady, New York, and in Germany; was admitted to the bar in 1871; but soon engaged in newspaper work, first as an associate editor of the _Springfield Union_, Mass., and then as an editorial writer for the _New York Evening Post_. After publishing three novelettes (_Six to One, Dr Heidenhoff's Process_ and _Miss Ludington's Sister_), pleasantly written and showing some inventiveness in situation, but attracting no special notice, in 1888 he caught the public attention with _Looking Backward, 2000-1887_. in which he set forth ideas of co-operative or semi-socialistic life in village or city communities. The book was widely circulated in America and Europe, and was translated into several foreign languages. It was at first judged merely as a romance, but was soon accepted as a statement of the deliberate wishes and methods of its author, who devoted the remainder of his life as editor, author, lecturer and politician, to the promotion of the communistic theories of _Looking Backward_, which he called "nationalism"; a Nationalist party (the main points of whose immediate programme, according to Bellamy, were embodied in the platform of the People's party of 1892) was organized, but obtained no political hold. In 1897 Bellamy published _Equality_, a sequel to _Looking Backward_. He died at Chicopee Falls on the 22nd of May 1898. Entry: BELLAMY
Broad generalizations are difficult to frame, hard to establish and liable to be misleading; some generalizations relating to the features of the American cotton industry taken as a whole the author is tempted to venture nevertheless. The characteristics of labour have already been incidentally commented upon. We have also noticed that the bulk of the work done is of a rough and simple character. In spite of American nationalism and the prevalence of protective sentiments it is said that there is still a prejudice in the United States against home-made fine cotton goods.[57] "The product of the American system is a cloth which is, on the whole, distinctly inferior in appearance, 'feel' and finish to that produced by the Lancashire system. To equal a Lancashire cloth in these respects an American cloth must not only be made of better cotton, but must contain more of it--perhaps 5% more. To this rule of inferiority there are, it is needless to say, exceptions, notably some of the American drills made for the China market. But the American home market, which absorbs nearly the whole of the product of American looms, is less exacting in these matters than the markets in which Lancashire cloths are sold."[58] It follows that the average counts spun in the United States are lower than in England, though they have been rising somewhat. Another feature of American spinning as compared with English is the high proportion of ring-frames to mules. In New England between 1890 and 1900 mule-spindles advanced by 100,000 and ring-spindles by nearly 2,000,000: in the South mule-spindles increased only from 108,500 to 180,500, while to the ring-frames 2,700,000 were added. To the general rule Rhode Island is the sole exception; here mule-spindles have increased and ring-spindles decreased; but in Rhode Island much of the fine spinning--for instance that for hosiery--is congregated.[59] One explanation of the preponderance of ring-spinning is to be found in the character of American fabrics. Again most of the operatives are not of a kind likely to acquire great excellence at mule-spinning. To the Americans we largely owe the ring-frame, because their encouragement helped it through the difficult period when its defects were serious, though it appears to have been discovered independently in both countries. Entry: A
The Tokugawa era (1603-1867), which popularized the drama, had other memorable effects upon Japanese literature. Yedo, the shogun's capital, displaced Kioto as the centre of literary activity. Its population of more than a million, including all sorts and conditions of men--notably wealthy merchants and mechanics--constituted a new audience to which authors had to address themselves; and an unparalleled development of mental activity necessitated wholesale drafts upon the Chinese vocabulary. To this may be attributed the appearance of a group of men known as _kangakusha_ (Chinese scholars). The most celebrated among them were: Fujiwara Seikwa (1560-1619), who introduced his countrymen to the philosophy of Chu-Hi; Hayashi Rasan (1583-1657), who wrote 170 treatises on scholastic and moral subjects; Kaibara Ekken (1630-1714), teacher of a fine system of ethics; Arai Hakuseki (1657-1725), historian, philosopher, statesman and financier: and Muro Kiuso, the second great exponent of Chu-Hi's philosophy. "Japan owes a profound debt of gratitude to the _kangakusha_ of that time. For their day and country they were emphatically the salt of earth." But naturally not all were believers in the same philosophy. The fervour of the followers of Chu-Hi (the orthodox school) could not fail to provoke opposition. Thus some arose who declared allegiance to the idealistic intuitionalism of Wang Yang-ming, and others advocated direct study of the works of Confucius and Mencius. Connected with this rejection of Chu-Hi were such eminent names as those of Ito Junsai (1627-1718), Ito Togai (1617-1736), Ogyu Sorai (1666-1728) and Dazai Shuntai (1679-1747). These Chinese scholars made no secret of their contempt for Buddhism, and in their turn they were held in aversion by the Buddhists and the Japanese scholars (_wagakusha_), so that the second half of the 18th century was a time of perpetual wrangling and controversy. The worshippers at the shrine of Chinese philosophy evoked a reactionary spirit of nationalism, just as the excessive worship of Occidental civilization was destined to do in the 19th century. Entry: JAPANESE
The novelists to a certain extent created their own method like the great dramatists, but such rigid prejudices or conventions as they found already in possession they respected without demur. Both Dickens and Thackeray write as if they were almost entirely innocent of the existence of sexual vice. As artists and thinkers they were both formless. But the enormous self-complacency of the England of their time, assisted alike by the part played by the nation from 1793 to 1815, evangelicalism, free trade (which was originally a system of super-nationalism) and later, evolution, generated in them a great benignity and a strong determination towards a liberal and humanitarian philosophy. Despite, however, the diffuseness of the envelope and the limitations of horizon referred to, the unbookish and almost unlettered genius of Charles Dickens (1812-1870), the son of a poor lower middle-class clerk, almost entirely self-educated, has asserted for itself the foremost place in the literary history of the period. Dickens broke every rule, rioted in absurdity and bathed in extravagance. But everything he wrote was received with an almost frantic joy by those who recognized his creations as deifications of themselves, his scenery as drawn by one of the quickest and intensest observers that ever lived, and his drollery as an accumulated dividend from the treasury of human laughter. Dickens's mannerisms were severe, but his geniality as a writer broke down every obstruction, reduced Jeffrey to tears and Sydney Smith to helpless laughter. Entry: VI
In the earlier years of the reign the influence of Earl Godwine was predominant, though not unopposed. His daughter Edith or Eadgyth became Edward's queen in 1045. But the king's personal tastes inclined much more to foreigners than to Englishmen, and he fell more and more into the hands of favourites from beyond the sea. Between Godwine, representing the spirit of nationalism, and these favourites (especially their leader Robert of Jumièges, successively bishop of London and archbishop of Canterbury) there was war to the knife. In 1046 Magnus, king of Norway, who had succeeded Hardicanute in Denmark and claimed to succeed him in England as well, threatened an invasion, but the necessity of defending Denmark against his rival Sweyn Estrithson prevented him from carrying it into effect. In 1049, Godwine's son Sweyn, who had been outlawed for the seduction of the abbess of Leominster, returned and demanded his restoration. This was refused and Sweyn returned into exile, but not before he had with foulest treachery murdered his young kinsman Beorn. He was, however, inlawed next year. The influence of Godwine, already shaken, received a severe blow in 1051 in the appointment of Robert of Jumièges to the archbishopric of Canterbury, and the same year saw the triumph of the foreigners for the moment complete. Edward, indignant at the resistance offered by the men of Dover to the insolence of his brother-in-law Eustace of Boulogne and his French followers, ordered Godwine to punish the town. Godwine refused. The king at the prompting of the archbishop then summoned a meeting of the witan, at which the old charge against Godwine of complicity in the murder of the Ætheling Alfred was to be revived. About the same time came news of a fresh outrage by the foreigners. Godwine gathered his forces and demanded redress, while the earls Leofric of Mercia and Siward of Northumbria hastened to the side of the king. Civil war seemed imminent, but at length a compromise was effected by which the matter was referred to a meeting of the witan to be held at London. At the appointed time Godwine presented himself at Southwark. But his followers were rapidly deserting him, nor would the king give hostages for his security. Alarmed for his safety, he fled to Flanders, while his son Harold went to Ireland. But their exile was brief. The tale of Godwine excited universal sympathy, for it was realized that he represented the cause of national independence. Encouraged by assurances from England, he sailed thither, and joining forces with Harold sailed along the south coast and up the Thames. The king would have resisted but found no support. Yielding to circumstances, he allowed himself to be reconciled, and Godwine and his house were restored to their old position. The queen at the same time was brought back from the monastery of Wherwell, whither she had been despatched after her father's flight. The foreigners had already ignominiously fled the country, and henceforth the influence of Godwine, and, after his death, of Harold, was supreme. In 1063 Harold made a great expedition into Wales, in which he crushed the power of King Gruffyd, who was killed by his own people. But despite his prowess and his power, he was the minister of the king rather than his personal favourite. This latter position belonged to his younger brother Tostig, who on the death of Siward in 1055 was appointed earl of Northumbria. Here his severity and arbitrary temper rendered him intensely unpopular, and in 1065 his subjects broke into revolt. They elected Morkere as their earl, then marching south demanded Tostig's banishment. Edward desired to crush the revolt by force of arms, but he was overborne and forced to submit. The election of Morkere was recognized, and Tostig went into exile. Intensely mortified at this humiliation, the king fell sick, and henceforth his health failed rapidly. He was unable to gratify his intense desire to be present at the consecration of his new abbey of Westminster, the foundation of which had been the chief interest of his closing years, and on the 5th of January 1066 he died. Entry: EDWARD