đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș mikola-dziadok-me-and-nationalism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:39:34. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Me and nationalism Author: Mikola Dziadok Date: July 11th, 2017 Language: en Topics: nationalism, anti-nationalism, Belarus Source: Retrieved on 29th November 2020 from https://mikola.noblogs.org/?p=1269
Recently three comrades one by one have asked me to write a public post
about my attitude to nationalism and how it changed over time. If people
ask, I have to do it.
My attitude to nationalism? Itâs undoubtedly negative. There are two
main reasons for it. First of all, nationalism shifts the focus of human
solidarity from class to nation which is as a rule beneficial for the
elites only and often leads to outbursts of chauvinism, intolerance and
hatred. Secondly, nationalism doesnât offer answers to actual challenges
of modern times: the growth of inequality, devastation of the
environment, atomisation and alienation of individuals, etc. There are
other reasons, too, but these are the most important. Political
nationalism generally is antagonistic to anarchism as it strives for
polar aims.
At the same time I should admit that the national problem and national
liberation movements are important (somewhere even key) factors of
modern politics and we canât just dismiss them by saying that nations
are imaginary communities. National liberation movements grow in places
where a real national discrimination of people takes place: a
prohibition to have their identity, speak in their language, develop
their culture, have their schools, etc. The people as a whole and
individuals have their right to fight for all above-mentioned. Freedom
of cultural self-expression, choice of identity or lack of the latter is
one the main principles of anarchism. Take Kurds, for example, who are
now widely supported by anarchists all over the world. Would anyone
condemn them for the fact that after centuries of oppression they want
to be called Kurds and not be assimilated by Turkey/Syria/Iran?
The fight for cultural identity and against national discrimination can
be cased on political nationalism or stay rather far away from it (take
General Jewish Labour Bund or the Zapatists).
This is why I believe that while criticising nationalism we as
anarchists must offer critical (!) support to those national liberation
movements that donât proclaim explicitly reactionary ideas (islamism,
racism and the like).
What concerns Belarusian context, almost all my life as a political
activist I supported and am still supporting the fight to preserve the
Belarusian language, culture, to liberate Belarus from imperialist and
colonial oppression. I have considered myself a Belarusian, which is
probably quite natural for a person who was born and grew up in Belarus.
However, I never called myself a nationalist and all the support I
expressed to Belarusian national liberation issues was critical. Take,
for example, one of my 9-year old statements which is now causing
unhealthy excitement on the side of a few people (who at that time were
not even part of any movement)
,
Indeed, I consider the foundation of Belarusian Popular Republic one of
the key dates in our history. Indeed, in many ways it predetermined the
fact that we are Belarusians now and not Russians. Is March 25 a holiday
for me? At the moment itâs rather not. Firstly, while the date has some
positive aspects, it is still the day of creation a state. Secondly,
present-day political context (that the state is taking on board the
nationalist agenda as well as an attempt of several groups to push
nationalism into the anarchist movement) makes any attempt to call this
date a holiday politically short-sighted and dangerous. In 2008 the
context was totally different.
Conversely, I think any rational person understands that the words âLong
live Belarusâ doesnât necessarily make someone a nationalist, as well as
an anarchist avatar doesnât make someone an anarchist.
To sum it up, from the moment I became an anarchist, my position on
nationalist has almost not changed, staying the same as I described in
the first paragraphs. What was changing are only the form of expression
of my views, the symbols and statements that I considered acceptable.
And this is normal, since any words are understood in certain way
depending on a context in which they are said, and if I want to be
understood correctly, I adapt to the context.
The proof is on the surface: in the past my posts, mentioned above, were
understood in another way than now. I hope that people who are very much
interested in my ideas of 8 years ago will think a bit more before
judging them.