Colin Thubron might be our best living travel writer. (If he isn’t, please tell me who is better.) I recently finished a book he wrote on travels in Mongolia, Eastern Russia and Manchuria (mostly following the course of the Amur River.) I was struck by the highly negative attitude of many people toward foreigners, and the positive feelings toward some of the worst people in all of human history—including Genghis Khan (in Mongolia), Stalin (in Russia), and Mao (in China.) The Russians that Thubron met disliked the Chinese, and vice versa.
One thing I noticed is that this hatred is being exacerbated by nationalistic propaganda that demonizes foreigners. At one point Thubron interviewed a Russian who worked in the oilfields of eastern Siberia:
“Half the time you don’t notice, and the propaganda seeps into you. When I was working for the Canadians in Chukotka, I realized that I was starting to resent them and getting angry, and I wondered why. I never watch our television — it’s too boring — but up in Chukotka there was nothing else to do, and I realized that I was being brainwashed by watching, and starting to dislike Westerners.” He grins at me, as if I wasn’t one. “So I checked myself and went back to normal.”
I have a pretty low opinion of authoritarian nationalists such as Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. But after reading some of the interviews in Thubron’s book, I’m almost tempted to say how lucky we are that Russia and China are led by such enlightened cosmopolitan globalists, rather than the “man on the street” in these two giant countries. Some of the views expressed were pretty appalling.
Authoritarian nationalists often try to rewrite history in order to justify their hold on power, or to justify the invasion of a neighboring country. The newest issue of The Economist has one such example:
Russian history rich in shameful dates, many of them marking show trials and mass executions—or liquidations, as they were then called. December 28th, 2021, should be added to the calendar. On that day Russia’s supreme court “liquidated” Memorial, the country’s most vital post-Soviet civic institution, dedicated to the memory of Stalinist repression and the defence of human rights.
The same is occurring in China. Just ten years ago, a Chinese citizen could criticize the Cultural Revolution (1966-76). Now that subject is taboo in China.
With the dramatic rise in nationalism during the 21st century, we can expect to see an increase in xenophobia, especially among residents of the great powers. This dehumanization of foreigners makes war more likely.
PS. I was interested in the fact that Thubron described northern Manchuria as being much more prosperous than southern Siberia, right across the border. Of course that’s a subjective evaluation that may reflect dynamism (i.e. growth rates) more than levels of GDP/person. In addition, eastern Russia is relatively depressed, but then so is Manchuria. In any case, most estimates show Russia’s GDP/person to be much higher than China’s in PPP terms (and about the same in dollar terms.)
READER COMMENTS
Alex Mazur
Jan 3 2022 at 4:22pm
As if it takes any effort to find people in the United States with appalling views. Concerning Russia, not China (a country I know relatively little about), the greatest Russian poet, Pushkin, wrote in 1836:
He was, naturally, incorrect then, and such attitudes are wrong now. It is the very government that bans Memorials, spews anti-Western propaganda, and promotes belligerent nationalism. To the extent to which these attitudes are more common among “men on the street”, it is important to remember three facts:
The vast majority of people care very little about things happening beyond the country’s borders. This makes them more likely to repeat hateful propaganda clichés, but you must bear in mind that these attitudes are not held very deeply. In a democratic system, a globalist politician will not be burdened too much by the nationalist attitudes of someone who doesn’t care too much about the world beyond the country’s borders.
Unlike the man on the street, the government’s nationalism is checked by reality. In particular, it has to contend with heavy lobbyism by the elite, which is always and everywhere more cosmopolitan than the general public.
Expanding on the previous topic, the real alternative to the existing governments in China and Russia are not men on the street but members of these countries’ rather more cosmopolitan elites.
Anecdotally, blind acceptance of nationalist propaganda is only ubiquitous as long as it is cheap. When in 2015, the Russian government imposed restrictions on tourism to Turkey, a popular destination, over Ankara’s downing of a Russian jet in Syria, wide swathes of the public in Russia were quite dissatisfied. The military might and national prestige are only popular as long as they do not interfere with a vacation at an all-inclusive hotel in Antalya Province.
Scott Sumner
Jan 3 2022 at 7:06pm
Well I certainly wasn’t defending the governments of those countries—indeed I believe they are the source of much of the problem.
You said:
“As if it takes any effort to find people in the United States with appalling views.”
Yes, you can now find intellectuals in America that are promoting nationalism:
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Nationalism-Rich-Lowry/dp/0062839640
Mactoul
Jan 3 2022 at 11:32pm
How are positive views of Stalin or Mao reflective of nationalism?
They aren’t nationalists at all but communists. Stalin wasn’t even a Russian.
Jens
Jan 4 2022 at 2:11am
Stalin introduced the “socialism in one country” idea. And Putin said about Lenin that he detonated a nuclear bomb under the Russian house, while he rarely says negative things about Stalin.
Regarding the reference to Stalin being a Georgian: modern nation-states were actually created precisely to overcome conflicts between ethnicities and lineages. However, they often do so at the expense of and in opposition to other internal and external enemies. The more interesting question is why this sometimes works (e.g. USA, Germany) and sometimes not.
Jon Murphy
Jan 4 2022 at 10:43am
Nationalism and communism are not mutually exclusive. You can have cosmopolitan communists and nationalist communists (just like one can have cosmopolitan liberals and nationalist liberals, etc).
I think you’ll find that doesn’t really matter. Nationalism is about people, not borders. Example: Hitler was Austrian but promoted Ayran nationalism. Part of the reason the Balkans are so volatile is because there are many nationalities jammed into political borders. Even look toward the US: there are many nationalists who argue that only certain groups are “real” Americans regardless of what their citizenship may say.
MarkW
Jan 4 2022 at 3:11pm
They aren’t nationalists at all but communists. Stalin wasn’t even a Russian.
The point isn’t that Stalin or Mao themselves were nationalists, but rather that many citizens will – out of a sense of nationalist pride – defend even past leaders who were the mass murderers of millions of their own citizens.
Phil H
Jan 4 2022 at 9:05am
“northern Manchuria as being much more prosperous than southern Siberia”
Perhaps because Manchuria is just a lot more densely populated? It was once a major industrial center for China, whereas Siberia has always just been a backwater, as I understand it.
Anders
Jan 4 2022 at 1:18pm
Having worked in many parts of the world, including totalitarian states in Eurasia, the current hype about racism in the West is downright bizarre. Just a few examples:
My collegue arrived in Amman, and his taxi driver asked him where he was from. He said Germany. The driver: Wow, Germany – we love Germany. We here hate Jews too.
Teaching government officials in Zimbabwe, we got into the topic of business climate and the importance of investor security and fiscal stability. One of them threw a tantrum about how “you people” always preach this to serve our colonial ambitions. I asked whom he meant by that term. The answer? Well you, white people, and the IMF.
Speaking to an entrepreneur in Kyrgyzstan producing pylons for railway overhead lines and a highly succesful beneficiary of newfound freedom, he, after a few obligatory shots (an undercounted cost of doing business) lapsed into a eulogy in honour of Stalin. After I lightly suggested his rule might have had some downsides, he blithely dismissed them as collateral damage on the road to the modernisation that Central Asia sorely needed.
This is what I noticed in situations where people had incentives to be polite and diplomatic, and speaking only to people in the elite. In other words, the tip of the iceberg.
Scott Sumner
Jan 4 2022 at 5:47pm
I’ve noticed similar comments when I travel.
Lizard Man
Jan 4 2022 at 3:27pm
Given how much of Russian GDP comes from oil and gas, it seems plausible to me that median wages would be higher in China than in Russia. I have never been to Russia, but I wouldn’t be surprised if China has better public infrastructure as well, which would make life there better in ways not well quantified by GDP.
Scott Sumner
Jan 4 2022 at 5:47pm
That makes sense.
Sven
Jan 5 2022 at 12:24pm
First we should understand the nation state paradigm before going into the examination of nationalism. How nation states emerged at first place is the critical question that should be asked to explain nationalism. The fundamental cause for the emergence of nation states is actually capitalism. When capitalism first emerged in Italy, national policies were beginning to mature gradually in those political entities. Since capitalism gives us the opportunity to grow total output, those countries were starting to maximise their income. Before that there were dynasties that were collecting taxes from their subjects to sustain their expenses.
Capitalism changed the dynamics fundamentally. Some countries have become prosperous, wealthy, and powerful while others struggle and try to catch up forerunners. While capitalism grows output infinitely, at the same time it creates inequality and divergence by its nature. Therefore, countries who are not successful as the ones who are at the top feel themselves as losers. Rich and powerful countries exploit and humiliate the weak ones. Thus poor and weak ones become nationalistic as a result of a reactionary attitude. This pattern has been seen repeatedly throughout history and the present. Then the rulers of those nationalistic countries exploit the masses with prolonged nationalistic propaganda. And those countries remain in a steady-state nationalism paradigm after some time. They can’t go back to a normal situation again. This is the course of events that explain nationalism phenomenon.
Comments are closed.