Against God and Country

Just to be clear here: I don't want to hurt anyone with my writing. My purpose of writing this text (and blog overall) isn't to provoke controversy – what I'm doing is rambling, provoking thinking in (at times) starkly different ways. And yes, this is one of those times – as the title might read-out.

To me, human identity is like an onion, or like a russian matryoshka doll (a doll inside a doll -thingy) if that's more to your liking. At the core is the smallest possible identity, the person itself. On the very next layer is the family-identity; in other words, the togetherness you feel with your brothers/sisters and mother(s)/father(s). Next comes your togetherness with your kinship (cousins, aunts, grandparents...) or perhaps some of the most intimate friendships. On and on these layers go, piling on the previous ones – togetherness with the people in the region you live in, with people you go or do not go to church with e.c. On and on, layer after layer.

Finally the onion is ready. All those layers shape your identity in some way, some more so than others. The outer the circle, the more people it holds in. That onion (or a doll, if you wish) is you. I have my own onion and so does everyone else.

All the layers – the different kinds of togetherness' – I've listed above seem natural to me: it's natural to feel togetherness (which seems to be my word of the day) with your family, kin, friends and people you meet or share something concrete (like similar taste in music, literature... anything, really, which separates you from others) with. And I think they are natural ways to create the ”me-ness” of oneself.

But I see two layers – which would eventually show-up in everyone's onion – to be un-natural, artificial. Tell me, does this sound familiar: they are based on vague or unidentified dogmas; they hold some kind of holy icons; they have sanctified individuals; they include some sort of holy scripture which lays foundations to all who are part of this... thing; tendency to violent behaviour; xenophobia and/or misogyny; social acceptance/disapproval on base of your support or the lack of it to this... thing – just to name a few.

I know what you're thinking: just another bible-bashing atheist. Perhaps, but I'm not going to dig into that today – some other time, maybe. Religion is the first, yes, but what about the other? It's a bit more tricky, isn't it? Well, I gotta give you some credit, I used a lot of religion-colored words.

Nationalism, my friend.

Think about (just to take a common example for everyone) american nationalism, which usually is very much like religious fundamentalism. Ask yourself (aloud, if you want) a difficult question which very few people outside small but international academic circles haven't asked: what is it based on? There is the holy scripture (The Constitution and The Declaration of Independence), but that isn't the foundation of being an American – it's rather the foundation of the USA, the state itself, not the national identity of the people living in it. Sanctified individuals (saints, in other words): Lincoln, Washington (such a remarkable fellow that there is a state and a major city named after him), Jefferson among many others – still, their existance don't lay the basis of being an American, rather they paved a way for it, if you want to say so. Tendency to violent behaviour? Do I need to comment on – sorry to tell you so – american imperialism? Xenophobia – well, isn't a national identity sort of based around that idea? The funniest (I have a rather dark sense of humor, I admit) is that nationalism, just like religion, is extremely socially acceptable – infact, you'd get your ass beaten if you wouldn't declare to be a ”patriot” (what is that – a militant defender of one's nation – if the whole concept of nationalism is this hard to define?).

So there we are: a vague dogma, holy scriptures, saints, violency, xenophobia (in the case of Christanity this comes out usually as misogyny) and the social pressure to accept this whole social construction. And, to me at least, that's what it is: a social construction, built on purpose – and not trying to sound like a conspiracy-theory lunatic here – to keep the subjects (”citizens” in modern terms) under control. In a way it's a very useful tool: you don't have to have massive police forces to keep the subjects at bay, because they believe in the unidentified being of State (which itself cannot do wrong, but the ”people in power” can – what a paradox, don't you think?). It's all very rational, I'll give it that.

This what it all comes down to: what is this togetherness with people you'll never meet, share nothing in common and who hold very different values than you, based on? In other words: what is that single thing that includes all Americans (just as an example; could be Finnish, Swedish, Ethiopian, Japanese... anything!) but excludes all non-Americans?

History? No, since there are millions of people who consider themselves ”American” and whose ancestors weren't born in the same place/state/kingdom. In other words, they don't ”share the same history” (how could anyone own history, that's completely other thing) with these people.

Language? Please, give me a break! All ”Americans” don't speak English as their mothertongue – or at all, to be precise.

Residency? Certanly there are lots of ”Americans” who at this very moment live outside nation's borders? By the way, have they already shipped all the troops out of Irak or – hell! - Germany?

Citizenship? Being an ”American” isn't same as being a citizen of the US of A, although it certanly is a big part of it. What about those millions of people who have two passports – do they have two different national identities? Weren't the whole point to find a feature on all ”Americans” which excluded all ”non-Americans”?

This list could go on forever but that's not the point I'm trying to make. What is the point, then? It all boils down to this simple, rather amazed realization, that there is no-one – none that I've heard of, at least – in the public attacking nationalism. Some – few, hated and not very famous – individuals attack patriotism (rightfully so), but no public speaker that I've heard of attacks nationalism, the foundation of all wars in the world (ofcourse, let's give religion some credit – it certainly deserves it) since the late 18^th Century (The French Revolution, to be more precise).

There are several out-spoken atheists who attack the counterpart and co-operative of nationalism, but let's rewind the clock 20, 50 or 100 years back and there are fewer and fewer of them. 100 years ago Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens (may he rest in peace) would've been burnt at the stake. Well, not literally, but you get the point. People have grown since then, they have accepted the rational choice of not believing in religious dogma – eventhough other religious dogmas are usually out of this tolerance-zone.

Other than most notably the lately deceased Eric Hobsbawm and some others (some, but suprisingly few) have attacked nationalism in academic circles – let alone in public discourse. There is no word for non-nationalist. So, if I may, I'd like to make up a word, right here and right now; also, I'd like to declare myself to be that sort of a person. The word ”atheist” is a combination – in a way – of two words: ”a-” and ”theist”. "Theist" is a person who believes in some higher deity; "a-" is the denial of the word that follows it (much like ”un-” or ”non-” e.c).

Here it is, ladies and gentlemen, my own word, the term for all the world to behold: apatriot.

Since ”patriot” is a person who – sometimes violently (in verbal or physical form) – supports his/her nation and supports it in every turn, I'd like to classify myself as a person who is the denial of these values.

I am an apatriot and damn proud of it.

A very short summary for those who were too lazy to read the whole rambling: Human identity is laid like an onion: layers on layers of some classification of ”me”. Most of these layers are natural, but two seem to me very artifical: religion and nationalism. After bashing nationalism I conclude that I'm an apatriot.

Further reading: There are quite a number of studies of nationalism out there, but the one I'm familiar with is Hobsbawm's ”Nations And Nationalism”.