The following website Panel says Chinese spies threaten U.S. economy carried the latest annual report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

Of all the accusations against China in the report, I find this particularly interesting: The report described China's tight control over information distribution as allowing the Chinese government “to manage and manipulate the perceptions of the Chinese people, often promoting nationalism and xenophobia.”

The accusation implies that nationalism is bad if not a deadly sin in the eyes of Westerners.

After reading the report, I feel that "nationalism" is an interesting topic for this forum. In particular, the following questions can serve as starting points for the discussion:

1. Is nationalism not regarded as a good value but evil in the Western World? If so, what's wrong with nationalism?

2. Are Westerners not nationalistic or patriotic at all?

3. Did nationalism exist in the history of Western nations? If so, give examples.

4. Is the above accustion in the report against China justified?

5. There seems to be a phobia in the West over the so-called "Chinese nationalism"? Why?

6. Is it true that nationalism never existed in China centuries ago but is a recent phenomenon created by the Communist government?

"nationalism - the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations."

As with many things on the surface nationalism doesn't appear to be innocuous. Placing one's own national interests frist seems to be a good idea but the problems arise when one's own national interests are detrimental to the interests of other nations. We have seen this in US foreign policies where interventionism based upon nationalism has lead to the support of tyrannical dictators (the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" philiosophy), support for terrorist rebel groups (when we disapprove of another nation's government), and the outright invasions of other nations to acquire their national assets (e.g. the Iraq War).

The US is often cited for its hypocracy when dealing with other nations because of its nationalistic policies. For example, we endorse the rights and liberties of Americans but do not extend those same rights and liberties to others. We lock up people without trial or even criminal charges because "they are foreigners" and not Americans. We authorize extra-judical executions. It is okay to torture "foreigners" because they aren't Americans.

Of course such actions are rightfully condemned by others.

A nation, any nation, must consider its actions within the context of the world. No nation stands alone and nationalism denies this fact. It places one's own national interests beyond considerations of the impacts of national actions.

By way of analogy let us consider a business deal. In a good business deal both parties benefit. Using the criteria of nationalism one side would benefit and the other would suffer

. Is nationalism not regarded as a good value but evil in the Western World? If so, what's wrong with nationalism?

Not in America, it is seen as good to be patriotic.

2. Are Westerners not nationalistic or patriotic at all?

Maybe socialist Europeans, Americans are.

3. Did nationalism exist in the history of Western nations? If so, give examples.

The nation state as we know it was invented by Europe, so yes Nationalism did exist

4. Is the above accustion in the report against China justified?

China is not just nationalistic, but ethnocentric. Despite that I don't believe it is justified

5. There seems to be a phobia in the West over the so-called "Chinese nationalism"? Why?

Not Chinese "nationalism", Japanese are "nationalistic" and so are Koreans but we are not threatened by that. We are threatened by Chinese military and economic power and the fact that unlike S.Korea or Japan they are not dependent on us for their security and do not agree with us most of the time on matters of politics.

6. Is it true that nationalism never existed in China centuries ago but is a recent phenomenon created by the Communist government?

[quote]Nationalism could not have exist in China because China was not a nation-state until the early 1900's, what existed in China was ethnocentrism, hence the term "hanjian" (traitor to Han people). China was a empire and the majority ethnicity were Han. That is not the same as "nationalism" in the modern Western sense.

I think the communist government did not "invent" Chinese nationalism but they promoted it the same way the Japanese under Meiji did and the S.Koreans did after the Korean war to help focus the people on the sacrifices it would take to develop and not on pure personal gain. To not be focused on the countries upliftment made you a type of "traitor" it is a powerful mobilizing force, but dangerous because often nations use it (not just CHina) to create enemies to focus the people's anger toward to take pressure off their own internal political/economic failings.

I disagree. America is a hugely patriotic nation. The Patriot Act aside, wherever you go in the US, it seems a US flag is always flapping somewhere in your line of vision. The US government is always on about they have to stand strong as a nation. Though confidence in the government has no doubt deteriorated, I think there's still an underlying sense of nationalism in America- it's like they all want to kick Bush out. There also seems to be a strong desire to do what's best for troops in Iraq, whatever that may be.

I'd say the key difference between western nationalism and Asian nationalism is the willingness of the people (I'm obviously generalizing here). It seems that in the west, feelings of nationalism are harbored willingly while in countries like China and North Korea, people don't really have a choice. The fact that the Chinese government crushes any form of dissent demonstrates it's desire for unity, which translates into nationalism albeit a forced and unnatural version of it.

I think the accusation against the Chinese government puts more emphasis on the manipulation of people rather than the promotion of nationalism- It's not the notion of nationalism that the west has a problem with, rather the aggressive and oppressive means by which it is enforced. I don't think the west likes the idea of a government which doesn't harbor the friendliest feelings towards the west, telling its citizens what to think.

I can only speak for Europe.
Say nationalism and we think of WWI. So yes nationalism has a rather negative tone here.

"Nationalism" is an accusation you find within Europe as well.



Read up the history of Europe from the the last decades of the 19th century and the first two decades of the 20th century. That would be a pretty extensive answer why one could consider nationalism to be potentially bad.

Nationalism is something different than patriotism. Dont mix those terms together.
It depends on the country, in Germany for example the answer would be pretty much: no
In other countries it might be different. But as long as the patriotism doesnt get out of control in form of blind nationalism we are still on the safe side.

Of course. Nations formed in the last few centuries. As major examples the unification of Germany and Italy can be named. Countries like the UK and France have already been unified for longer but also their the state transformed more into a nation state than before.

I know not much about China in this regard so I can't make a judgement

I dont think so. Never actually heard about such a fear so far at all.

Good question.
I lack knowledge about it. How much did the former Chinese populations identify them rather with a common nation then with their own province?

I only know that China as it is today is more a multiethnic nation. I am not sure on what it bases. In America, the most prominent example of a multiethnic nation its the constitution that holds the nation together. In European nations its more the common language, culture and history.

What is it in China? I mean the Han Chinese are the large majority, but there are many other substantial minorities as well. What do they all believe in that leads to the formation of a common nation?

I espouse the cause of Scottish Nationalism purely because I want my country to leave the United Kingdom and self-govern.
I been almost vilified by posters here on occasion because they view nationalism as something base.
Yet the same posters will shout their patriotism for their own country at the top of their voices.
Listening to those people, it is difficult to see where the line is drawn between nationlism and patriotism.
The national front movements have given nationalism a bad name because they have displayed racism and bigotry and many negative qualities.
This makes it difficult for the rest of us, who are not interested in exclusion, but only in securing independence.

Well, maybe I am patriotic to some extend, I consider that a bad habit of mine. But the day I should become nationalist, please hit me in the face.

Whoever would hit Slart in the face is a bad person indeed.
But you know what I'm talking about Slarti? Nationalism does have very negative connotations.

Well thanks for the compliment Viv.

Indeed Nationalism has very bad connotations. And its because of what nationalism has caused already.

In my opinion it has served however an important purpose as well of course. It went hand in hand with democratisation movements for example and it succeeded to let the feudal organisation behind, which was a major progress because it decreased the numbers of borders and obstacles for people to get around among others.

But this all was established on exagerating differences. A nation is always also to some extend an illusion. To maintain the illusion trenches to those that are too similar otherwise have to be extended. Thats a basic principal of every nationalism. There is a "we" and "them" and it has a high priority to make clear that those two are different from each other.

Of course the WWI propaganda showed the peak of those attempts, by turning Germans into neanderthals and on the other side Britons and French into decadent snobs that live on the cost of the rest of the world.
But the basic principle of alienation is common to all sorts of nationalism. Simply because there has to be a clear "we" and "they". Nationalism normally does not like grey zones, especially if everything should be grey and not black or white.

Westerners do not like others to be nationalistic, but they are very ethnocentric and nationalistic themselves. Though, you cannot say that every individual EuroAmericans are nationalistic. Some westerners are not really nationalistic.

In general, westerners are very nationalistic, but they do not admit it. Nationalism reminds them of Germany and Japan, so it has negative implications. Westerners call their own nationalistic sentiments patriotic, but call other people's nationalistic sentiments nationalism.

Yes, they are. My experience says that western Europeans are less nationalistic. Americans are very nationalistic. Eastern Europeans are very racist.

No, it is not justified. Modern Chinese nationalism started from Repbulic of China after Qing Dynasty. It combined traditional Sinocentrism and modern western nationalism. PR China is incapable of generating or creating Nationalistic sentiments among Chinese, but it can stop suppressing, and release the long-suppressed Nationalistic sentiments out from Chinese people.

Westerners want to maintain their hegemony over the world. They are afraid of any country that they failed to impose their western values and western systems upon.

In ancient times, it is called Sinocentrism. 华夷体系