GOOD AND BAD

Wairarapa Times-Age, 18 April 1940, Page 3

GOOD AND BAD

CIRCUMSTANCES ALTER CASES. The popular distinction between “good” and “bad” nationalism, or between “pacific” or "aggressive" nationalism, should be treated with great caution, says a study of "Nationalism” published by the Royal Institute of international Affairs. Nationalism, as a form of group feeling invoked to justify coercion, is always potentially "bad" and “aggressive." The alleged difference between "pacific” and “aggressive" nationalism is attributable, not to any inherent difference either in the character or in the intensity of the feeling, but to a difference in the internal or external circumstances of the nation. It is not the character of the group loyalty, but the situation of the group at any given time, which determines the complexion of its nationalism. Tlie nationalism of nations which are either content in tile main with tilings as they are or are too weak to hope to achieve any improve-j men! by their own strength is "pacific," that of dissatisfied nations strong enough to aspire to modify the status | quo to their own advantage is "ag-1 gressive." Or. again, the nationalism of those nations whose internal unity is ensured by long tradition and prosperity at home is likely to be more moderate than that of nations whose unity is of recent, origin, artificially imposed, or threatened by unfavourable economic conditions. This analysis has an important bearing on the present situation in Europe. It suggests that the violent transformation of the moderate spirit of nationalism in the totalitarian States contains a serious warning 'for tlje democratic States of Western Europe; that the moderate spirit which lhe nationalism of these States has hitherto displayed has been duo, not to any innate virtue. but to their highly favourable internal and external circumstances.