>--- Yoshie Furuhashi <critical.montages at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>[WS:] While I agree with the above, you seem to go
>much further than mere debunking of the US propaganda.
> You seem to be suggesting that Iranian nationalism
>(and Third World nationalism in general) is somehow
>preferable to the US nationalism (aka "imperialism")
>or Israeli nationalism (aka "zionism"). And that is
>what I, and I believe others on this list, find
>disingenuous.
>
>If we reject nationlism in principle, then US
>"imperialism" or Isareli "zionism" is no better or
>worse than Iranian nationalism, everything else being
>equal. So why defending Iranian nationalism as
>something "better" than other nationalisms?
>
>
>
Well theoretically you may have some point in the abstract about the
nature of nationalism and its close cousin nativism but on a less meta
plane this does not make much sense. Both the US and Israel have used
the siren call of nationalism to support imperial expansion. If the US
simply used nationalism as a rallying call to shore up legitimacy for
its ruling class' within the putative boundaries of the US it would be
one thing but US nationalism is used to legitimate direct and indirect
imperial control of those outside its borders. In this sense, US
nationalism is worse than Iranian nationalism. The object of Iranian
nationalism is Iran not, say Canada, whereas the object of US
nationalism is Iraq and at times seems like Iran too. Hence Iranian
nationalism is about national liberation whereas US nationalism is about
foriegn subjugation.
>Of course, everything else is not being equal, and
>most rational people would agree that the US or
>Israeli nationalism offers a far better protection of
>human rights, the rule of law, and democractic
>governance than the Islamist variety. Therefore, most
>rational people would prefer to live under the US or
>Israeli nationalism than under the Islamist variety.
>But that is a matter of personal preference, I
>suppose.
>
>
>
It is not a problem only of personal preference. Israelis prefer the
Israeli system because it affords democratic rights, the rule of law,
and human rights protection to citizens of Israel. It provides the
opposite to the people in the occupied territories and thus in the
occupied territories Hamas provides more of these public goods then the
occupying Israeli army. Ditto can be said for the US. And there is
some irony that Iran looks like a bastion of law, order, security and
human rights compared to its neighbour Iraq. Indeed one might venture
that if the US were to actually afford others the same public goods it
provides its own citizens that US democracy would be a stronger pole of
attraction. But viewed from those who *actually* live under the direct
occupation of the US system, eg. afghanis and Iraqis, and those who live
under brutal governments supported by Washington, eg. Saudis,
Jordanians, Egyptians etc. the US system looks quite corrupt and its
promises hollow. So perhaps people of the world would prefer the US
system but these are not the choices on offer or their experience of the
outcomes generated by US nationalism. When an American sees the
American flag he or she may well think of security, the rule of law,
democracy and the litany but when many foreigners see the same US flag
fluttering in the breeze they see the exact opposite and recoil in
fear. And it is this last point that most Americans just don't get.
Travis Fast