“Can there be any justification for nationalism at this stage in the twentieth century? Isn't the very idea just ill-disguised hate and therefore irredeemably tainted? Nationalism has been the reason for the citizens of pretty well every country either to have suffered oppression or to have inflicted it on others, and only an optimist would think that the world has seen the last of the evils perpetrated in its name.” . These were certainly the opinions of some members of the Northern Friends Peace Board appointed as an editorial group compiling their anthology Who am I? Who are You?. But others in the team had different perspectives, and for them things were not so simple. For them, their nationality is a deep and passionate feeling, inextricably part of their sense of themselves.
For those for whom national identity is an issue, some of the questions are stark. Who has power and authority? Who can raise taxes? Who owns the land? Answers to such questions lead many Scots and Welsh to feel a strong antipathy for "Britain" when that concept is used to embody English (rather than Welsh or Scottish) aspirations. If people feel their Welshness or their Scottishness - or indeed their blackness - as one of their distinguishing marks, they do not respond positively to pleas to sink that sense of themselves in "Britishness". 'We need to ponder our differences before we can ever agree on our sameness', wrote Patricia Williams, 1997 Reith Lecturer.
Since producing the anthology (with 26 contributions from Friends and others) the two referenda have taken place, in Scotland and in Wales. The results of these reflect to some degree the varied strength of feelings that we had discerned in relation to both these areas. For many Scots, already with their own legal and education systems, there had been a powerful sense of having been subject to insensitive Conservative Party (English dominated) policies for the past eighteen years. One Friend has described a 'culture of resistence to policies originating south of the border'. Immediately
prior to the Scottish referendum had been the death and funeral of Diana, the princess of Wales, described in a re-written song as 'England's Rose'. To many it seemed like just another example of how easy it is to ignore those parts of Britain which are not forever England; perhaps for poetic reasons in this case, but how many times can poetic license be used as an excuse?
An apparent paradox we face today is that on the one hand we are moving towards greater unity between nations, whilst on the other, many small nations are seeking self-determination of one form or another. The European Union, the Council of Europe, NATO - all are growing in membership. Environmental concerns have given a new imperative to international co-operation, and movements such as the International Campaign to Ban Landmines have created a new model of working together for a common goal from all parts of the planet. Another less well-known international network is the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation (UNPO), now with more than 50 members. Encouragingly this body has been seeking to expand awareness amongst its members of the possibilities of non-violent change. Their efforts in this direction reflect an awareness that a sense of being excluded from power can very easily tip over into violence, whilst affirming a conviction that there is another way. One could say that both in increased co-operation between nation states and in moves to self-determination we see a trend towards subsidiarity, with people wanting decisions taken at the most appropriate level. But who is to judge what this level should be, and what are the dangers inherent in these trends?
For us as Quakers, this is a question of how we live with diversity, affirming and valuing that of God in all people, whilst recognising their uniqueness. If we believe in one human family, does this also mean that we accept the 'homogenisation' of culture that seems to go hand-in-hand with the global market? As people aspiring to work for peace, we believe it is vitally important to hear the anger and the hurt of those who have experienced injustice, to accept its reality and acknowledge its legitimacy. When feelings of national identity combine with a sense of injustice, powerful forces are set in motion. We cannot wish them away just because they challenge us. Although they can be excluding and destructive, they can also be liberating and creative. Helen Steven wrote in Peace News, (November 1997), “Our blindness and deafness could make the 21st Century a horror story of hatred; or we may open our eyes to diversity and difference, begin to honour and glory in it, and break into wonderful new visions.”
We have sought, through compiling our anthology, to signal our belief in the importance of listening to one-another. We want to encourage a process in which all can voice their own hopes, aspirations and sense of self, but also understand, acknowledge and respect the feelings, experiences and culture of others. Peace-building cannot be left until a conflict becomes violent.
We encourage Friends and others to take active steps in widening their awareness of the importance of language, culture, religion and other experiences in shaping their own and others identities and suggest the following questions as starting points for discussion and action.
1) What can you find out from f/Friends in your own or in other parts of Britain about how they feel about their national identity?
2) Which types of expression of national identity do you see as being destructive, and which positive or creative?
3) What role might we (as Friends and as concerned people) play in promoting a culture of peace in the the process of political and constitutional change in Britain in the years ahead?
4) What can we learn from this in our task of building a culture of peace in other areas of our life and of the world?
