|
"Can there be any justification
for nationalism at this stage in the twentieth century? Isn't the very
idea just ill-disguised hate and therefore irredeemably tainted? Nationalism
has been the reason for the citizens of pretty well every country either
to have suffered oppression or to have inflicted it on others, and only
an optimist would think that the world has seen the last of the evils
perpetrated in its name." These were certainly the opinions of some
members of the Northern Friends Peace Board appointed as an editorial
group compiling their anthology Who am I? Who are You?. But others in
the team had different perspectives, and for them things were not so simple.
For them, their nationality is a deep and passionate feeling, inextricably
part of their sense of themselves.
For those for whom national
identity is an issue, some of the questions are stark. Who has power and
authority? Who can raise taxes? Who owns the land? Answers to such questions
lead many Scots and Welsh to feel a strong antipathy for "Britain"
when that concept is used to embody English (rather than Welsh or Scottish)
aspirations. If people feel their Welshness or their Scottishness - or
indeed their blackness - as one of their distinguishing marks, they do
not respond positively to pleas to sink that sense of themselves in "Britishness".
"We need to ponder our differences before we can ever agree on our
sameness", wrote Patricia Williams, 1997 Reith Lecturer.
Since producing the anthology (with 26 contributions from Friends and
others) the two referenda have taken place, in Scotland and in Wales.
The results of these reflect to some degree the varied strength of feelings
that we had discerned in relation to both these areas. For many Scots,
already with their own legal and education systems, there had been a powerful
sense of having been subject to insensitive Conservative Party (English
dominated) policies for the past eighteen years. One Friend has described
a 'culture of resistence to policies originating south of the border'.
Immediatelyprior to the Scottish referendum had been the death and funeral
of Diana, the princess of Wales, described in a re-written song as 'England's
Rose'. To many it seemed like just another example of how easy it is to
ignore those parts of Britain which are not forever England; perhaps for
poetic reasons in this case, but how many times can poetic license be
used as an excuse?
An apparent paradox we face today is that on the one hand we are moving
towards greater unity between nations, whilst on the other, many small
nations are seeking self-determination of one form or another. The European
Union, the Council of Europe, NATO - all are growing in membership. Environmental
concerns have given a new imperative to international co-operation, and
movements such as the International Campaign to Ban Landmines have created
a new model of working together for a common goal from all parts of the
planet. Another less well-known international network is the Unrepresented
Nations and Peoples Organisation (UNPO), now with more than 50 members.
Encouragingly this body has been seeking to expand awareness amongst its
members of the possibilities of non-violent change. Their efforts in this
direction reflect an awareness that a sense of being excluded from power
can very easily tip over into violence, whilst affirming a conviction
that there is another way. One could say that both in increased co-operation
between nation states and in moves to self-determination we see a trend
towards subsidiarity, with people wanting decisions taken at the most
appropriate level. But who is to judge what this level should be, and
what are the dangers inherent in these trends?
For us as Quakers, this is a question of how we live with diversity, affirming
and valuing that of God in all people, whilst recognizing their uniqueness.
If we believe in one human family, does this also mean that we accept
the 'homogenization' of culture that seems to go hand-in-hand with the
global market? As people aspiring to work for peace, we believe it is
vitally important to hear the anger and the hurt of those who have experienced
injustice, to accept its reality and acknowledge its legitimacy. When
feelings of national identity combine with a sense of injustice, powerful
forces are set in motion. We cannot wish them away just because they challenge
us. Although they can be excluding and destructive, they can also be liberating
and creative. Helen Steven wrote in Peace News, (November 1997), "Our
blindness and deafness could make the 21st Century a horror story of hatred;
or we may open our eyes to diversity and difference, begin to honour and
glory in it, and break into wonderful new visions."
We have sought, through compiling our anthology, to signal our belief
in the importance of listening to one-another. We want to encourage a
process in which all can voice their own hopes, aspirations and sense
of self, but also understand, acknowledge and respect the feelings, experiences
and culture of others. Peace-building cannot be left until a conflict
becomes violent.
We encourage Friends and others to take active steps in widening their
awareness of the importance of language, culture, religion and other experiences
in shaping their own and others identities and suggest the following questions
as starting points for discussion and action.
1) What can you find out from Friends in your own or in other parts of
Britain about how they feel about their national identity?
2) Which types of expression of national identity do you see as being
destructive, and which positive or creative?
3) What role might we (as Friends and as concerned people) play in promoting
a culture of peace in the process of political and constitutional change
in Britain in the years ahead?
4) What can we learn from this in our task of building a culture of peace
in other areas of our life and of the world?
Northern Friends Peace Board, "National Identity: Help or Hindrance to
Peace?"
http://www.gn.apc.org/nfpb/NATWREST.HTM
|
|
