The Failure and Falsehood of Nationalism
Hello, to the Traditional Nationalist American. I ask you, what do you define to be the unifying trait–the common cohesive that binds a people–what institutional norm, from collective recognition, will grant immunity from initial hostility? As agreement supplies safety, through which medium will one realize acceptance, and then impose restrictions to those opposed or opposite in social requirements?
The function of a homogeneous patriotic virtue in every citizen is evident: an identity beyond any one person is promising of cooperation, but only if the prerequisites are vapid of meticulous indoctrination which abbreviate the interactions and inclusion of a broad census. Factional sensitivity of preference has been an ever invasive practice when discussing universal right and wrong.
My question arises, not because I doubt a constant morality contained by each person to effectively bond all, but as a result of the subjective restraints by ideological hegemony that establishes a clear and focused correctness, which ultimately exiles so many to an erroneous existence. And of those excluded, abrasive characters, poisonously threatening to a specific code of conduct and survival, how many are encompassed as enemies?
If the intention is to band a country together, I suggest there be an expanse of the properties valued. Otherwise, the purpose is failed. Unification does not translate to assimilation, nor adhering to the special interests of a single group that attests to a perfect testimony of proper personalities.
True Nationalism should not be of dominating origins where there is the enforcement of those pertaining to a certain essence that, in many ways, is impossible for the unlike to achieve; rather, the formula must be to conjure all observing and reactionary persons as an ally so no domestic individual is a threat.
Traditional Nationalist Americans: this current tactic, redrafted from the past, is so flawed and backwards, for there are standards made by, and only for a few people to suit, which then nullifies the possibility of the end goal that Nationalism desires: unity.
True Nationalism would not work to eradicate differences, but to override seeing each as defining separations, and the common trait all citizens are to contain is acceptance of varying personal aspects from race and sexuality, to culture and religion. The American ground I stand on, the soil I see as enriched, the very kind from which I have flourished, a variety of vessels are successful in institutional participation.
Personas need no stake to grow straight, set by the reigning officials of a previous date. There is no rate one must mimic–no vector one must follow. I, rather we, do not allow incompatible conformity caused by the arrogance of a sector of a species whose theories are a fallacy when concerning an approved apparatus.
The Traditional Nationalists see diversity as a blemish. We see beauty marks, unique identifiers–not red flags. We do not tag the un-identical as dangerous. We do not target masses of citizens as dismissive solely for possessing a difference.
To elaborate on excruciating consequences of failed Nationalism, I would like to share current evidence of the suffocating division, in hopes of disclosing the destruction behind an ideology that proclaims success is to section off human beings who do not align with what an institution glorifies.
My friend, a fellow ODU student, must tear down the glory that is his flag of pride and hide it within a pillowcase when his parents come back for retrieval, for he can only dream of one day being open. What a nightmare it must be to live in a shadow that begrudges iridescence. No one is confused if you, the Traditional Nationalist American, cannot comprehend that love must always win.
Another companion, a student as well, declares that her struggles of being an African-American were much too common to distinguish specific events, and that in itself is haunting, but she further goes on to discuss how she was constantly depicted as a spectacle for being the, “black friend.”
This scenario is not one where her majority-white community is praising her complexion, which is truthfully blessed with melanin–no; she was being used as an object, a scapegoat to the viewing world that her white “friends” were not racist because they had her, but how horrid is it that individuals must dangle their one member which makes the group not completely void of diversity?
That is not inclusion. That is a false portrayal to the vast spectrum of citizens that everyone may be a part in the Nationalist ideal, all while socially abusing the presence of a young, black woman with limitless potential as an inanimate accessory with the purpose to prove that, what was once an all-white group, is not completely racist.
So, to all Traditional Nationalists who only point out minorities to convey innocence, remember that bigotry is also strategically utilizing a human being as a pawn for political gain and not understanding that it is just as problematic. No one is riotous if it is you, the Traditional Nationalist American, who wars on to deny that black lives matter.
Lastly, and may I say, the saddest of examples I have observed: the demonetization of Islam by, just as religious, Christians. To begin, no war should ever be raged over faith, as it is a concept that will never be answered, declaring a winner, if any, until death, and I am shocked that monotheistic religions promote conflict over how to worship the exact same God.
The broad scene could solely stand as evidence against the atrocity that Traditional Nationalism will create between individuals that could–if not for an institution deciding what is correct–unite, but an anecdotal example is most needed. As I strolled through the Nation’s forum, I saw many faces of varying ethnicity and cultures, yet there was the constant euphoria of being in the presence of a tangible symbol of freedom.
A woman, who I wish I spoke to, was proud to charter her children around Capitol Hill, and even happier to cloak herself in her religion with the elegance of a hijab. As we intersected, I grinned, hoping my expression, just as the bright Dome of the Capitol, may shine in her mind, cemented her experience as wondrous, yet my smile was quickly smothered with the surrounding scowls of passersby.
I worried. Why did that occur? Could it be that cloth connected to what she peacefully worships signifies to others that there is radicalism, yet that very opinion is irrational, so who is really the extremist? Why is her attire seen as arbitrary? The negative reaction to her public presentation of specific morality affirms that many Americans, even standing on the grounds of democracy, are prejudice.
Stunned by the observation, and stagnated by the lack of response from the women as if the incident was inevitable, all I could think was: no one is a terrorist if you, the Traditional Nationalist American, ceases tolerance.
A mind is sovereign, but our freedoms have been usurped, so again, you, the Traditional Nationalist American, what is your image of America? Too many times, there is the tendency of institutionalized racism to save the skin of specific kind, and I commit these crimes of absolute criticism, but will you withhold judgement because I’m privileged enough to be white?
Why are you blind to your delusion of democracy, yet scout to sustain the maintenance of superiority? Do not tell me that you uphold American creed when it is your greed that gives reason to why we still continue the progression towards a recession of fatal lessons that countless, carelessly corroded equity though genocidal oppression. Where is your confession to the reinstatement of white supremacy?
Your state stands behind the sadistic values of the past that last to stain the ground on which we all stand. Donald Trump, and your Traditional Nationalist posse, if your faction–your Klan–plans to infectiously invade our home, we have no other option than to deploy the duty of the private power as a suture and abolish any government procedure that desires a divided future.