A Critical Discussion on Nationality as a Point of Conflict

Ken Ecarma


When the production of material goods is monopolized in the hands of the few,
conflict is inevitable. The few (haves) in trying to assert ownership and
dominance it seeks to divide the many (have-nots) through various social
constructs including nationality. Since they are the ruling class - they can control
the mental production of ideas, and through education they can easily impose
upon the people concepts such as nationality and the illusion of a national
culture. They still play the old tune of divide and rule warfare strategy. This
arrangement hinders the "revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system by the
proletariat". Men and women, mostly workers identify themselves to have
common nationalities and fight against fellow workers of other countries
especially during wars. Historically, the question has led to the creation of
divisions in the theoretical minefield, one example is the Zimmerwald Left headed
by Vladimir Lenin who sought to seize the opportunity of the First World War to
convert it as a class war, but this was met with violent reactions from those who
are disillusioned with blinded nationalism. The war between two opposing
nationalism do not resolve existing conflicts - because at the end of every war
which is by the way a capitalist venture in arms trade - the enlisted worker as a
soldier remains to be poor and cannot claim ownership in the spoils of war. They
may be exalted as heroes but at the end of the day they go back to their families
still uncertain about their future. At the end of the day they are still faced with the
conflict, the struggle between the classes wrapped in the veneer of justice. It is
justice that keeps the capitalist in his oppression of the workers through the
exploitation of surplus value out from their labor.
In our analysis let us use the history of the emergence of the Filipino nationality.
During the Spanish colonial period, only people of Spanish descent are called
Filipinos. In short, only the rich could be called Filipinos and the poor native man
is referred to as indio. It was only during the revolution when Filipino nationalism
is embraced even by poor "indios", but this was imposed upon us by ilustrados
who took the leadership of the revolution. These ilustrados were educated in
Europe with bourgeois ideas. They capitalized on the people's positive reception
towards the concept of Filipino nationalism and made use of which to rally the
masses in support of the revolution they took away from Bonifacio. In the end
when the haze of smoke of the revolution disappeared from thin air, their
intention became clear - they want independence so that they will lead the
country; gain an upper-hand in the exploitation of resources including people.
They used the same tactic when America at first expressed its intention of
invading the country. They recalled the revolutionaries but at the end they
danced Uncle Sam's beat of assimilation, trance by the rhythm of selfhood and
commonwealth. Recent historical accounts manifested the same strategy - the
EDSA revolution included. They rallied the people in support of a replacement to
a dictator who is nothing but just another faction of the ruling class - same evil
only with a different face.
However, the ruling class in their execution of all the things mentioned above,
they are not conscious of it, nor they collectively plan about it. They operate on
the idea of survival of the fittest and justice. By default they perform the role
patterned after the values of institutions such as justice. The primary institution
responsible for the regulation of a structural functional society is the state. Most
states were formed as the product of an emerging nationality; some were formed
prior to the formation of a national identity. We will reserve our discussion on the
difference of the two later in this article.
States impose various social values such as justice which according to
contemporary Marxists is a remedial virtue. The state is the instrument o
oppression used by the ruling class. Its existence is an admission that there is
irreconcilability of classes. And in order to avoid emergence of revolutions, states
were formed to address the need to stop the inevitable from happening. They
use different machineries to impose dominance - such as the police force, the
law, the military and even the Church.
The formation of the state is even problematic. We have two arrangements
above: a nationality then a state emerging almost simultaneously and the
second: a state then a nationality.
Our point of interest lies in the second arrangement. Let us use the example of
the Rwandan genocide in the 1990's. Ethnic cleansing and violence is spurred by
the differences between Tutsis and Hutus. These are two ethnicities. Upon the
arrival of the European colonizers, still with the intention of divide and rule, they
put to one territory: in this case Rwanda both ethnic groups resulting to conflict.
Another case study would be the long standing armed struggle of the
Bangsamoro people in Mindanao of the Philippines. The root of this is religious
differences between the Christian north and the Muslim south. The south
composed of Muslim people demands independence from the Manila
government. This problem has been present even during the Spanish colonial
period. They refused to be Christianized and so colonizers were met with fierce
opposition from the datus and their soldiers especially during that time, the
Sultanate of Sulu still holds much influence and power over the people in
Mindanao. However the territory was included in the so called Philippine islands,
bought entirely by the United States of America as strengthened by the Treaty of
Paris. The Bangsamoro and the natives (lumads) of Mindanao suddenly found
themselves being called Filipinos and subjected to the laws of the new nation.
The various conflicts created by nationalities and the countless quest for
independence left the world permanently damaged and its people disconnected.
We have to embrace internationalism - the idea of a one world, one people and
one struggle against the decadence of the current system. Nationalism still has to
be retained but only in the condition that it will be used to foster global
cooperation and solidarity among nations. This is the world culture - nations that
achieved victory in its revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system must help
other nations in championing their struggle. Gone are the days of competition
among nations. Cooperation seals the revolutionary fervor among peoples and it
sustains their drive towards victory.
What is Nationalism in the globalized world?
With the increasing integration of the world, is nationality still a relevant concept?
All the more. The essence of globalization is not cooperation and integration
rather it is established on greed - the exploitation of resources and the new form
it takes as an offspring of colonialism. Let us remember that the history of
globalization is anchored on imperialism. It was at the time when USA as a newly
industrialized nation came in late to share the concessions among European
nations in the division of China. They proposed the Open Door Policy which gave
them the freedom to enter China's market across territories controlled by foreign
powers. Nationality in the globalized sense has become utilized to define
alliances and differences.
Filipinos being an ally to the United States of America serves as the source of
cheap raw materials and resources, at the same time the dumping ground of
surplus goods. US Imperialism impinges on the old feudal mode of production.
They take advantage of the cheap labor and resources of our country. They keep
a number of people poor and unemployed to keep the wage as low as possible.
The role of inferior nationalities is to maintain the feasibility of globalization and
the peoples of oppressed nations have become sacrificial lambs to the altar
of greed.