On Colonialism and Nationalism

I have now lived in three different parts of the world where British influence has played a part in one way or another in nation-building. As I sat with my morning tea doing my usual scroll-through on Facebook, I was struck by the different levels of patriotism and national identity there is in each of these three parts of the world.

Before I write any further, let me throw out a couple disclaimers:
1) This post was not written with the intention of applauding or criticising one part of the world for being more nationalistic than another or vice versa. These are purely musings of sociological trends in each of these places.
2) This is also written for my own reflection, so only limited research has been done. This is NOT intended to be used for academic purposes.
3) The nationalistic voices addressed in this discussion is in reference only to a minority group, and is not a blanket statement of each society as a whole.

Colonisation
The fifteenth century saw the beginnings of European exploration that eventually led to the "founding" of colonies. The earliest of the three countries in question here to be colonised by the British is what we know today as the United States of America, dating back to 1607, where Jamestown was founded by the colonists of the London Company in Virginia. While the Brits remained the main colonial power in the New World, European interest continued, bringing a continual movement of migrants.

Fast forward about two hundred years, and we find treaties between the British and the natives in both Singapore and Aotearoa signed on the same day: 6 February (coincidentally, my birthday) in two different years: Singapore in 1819, and Aotearoa in 1840.

Three countries that while colonised by the Brits, continued to play hosts to migrants of other nations. Yet the voice of patriotism and national identity in Singapore and Aotearoa seem so much less obvious--even to the point of wondering if patriotism even exists in these parts--than in the United States. What's the difference? Allow me to make a few speculations.

The Two Centuries In Between
While the United States may not claim a spot amongst the older nations of the world like ones in Europe, the Middle East, or even India or China, the two hundred years between the "founding" of the US and the other two then-colonies would probably have played a part in the nationalism.

First, the world in the seventeenth century would have been a different place than in the nineteenth. Most significant events (for the purpose of this discussion) that took place in the two centuries in between would have been the industrial revolution, the fall of the Holy Roman Empire, the Enlightenment and the American revolution--all of which either put the British at a more advantageous position, or gave them something to think about what colonisation should look like.

Also noteworthy is that the American Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, years before the signing of the treaty with Singapore. Makes one wonder if Sir Stamford Raffles, the "founder of Modern Singapore" (as we have been taught to add to his title) had spent a few years thinking about what colonialism would need to look like now.

How this factors into the discussion on nationalism...
The "style" of colonialism was likely different in the two different eras, and one cannot help but wonder how much these "styles" in term affect national identity as each nation separated itself from the British.

The Natives
At this point, I'll admit that aside from the bits of research I've done here and there while writing this, most of my knowledge of American history came from the film, John Adams, as recommended by Jacquie Gross. Between that and the apparent need for Anglo-Saxon Americans to continually apologise to both the "Native Americans" and the African-Americans that I observed in my years in the US, I cannot help but wonder if the way the natives were treated were influential in the way nationalism plays out today. We'll get to the African-Americans (or more broadly categorised as "servants" for the purpose of this discussion) in a bit.

Since this was never intended to be an academic piece, I will not go into detail about the history of the natives in each of these three places. (And let's admit it, I may be nerdy enough to write this whole piece, but my attention span is also way too short to go into too much detail at one time.) What is worth noting is that "Native Americans" (I use this term loosely in recognition that they were natives before the land became known as America--and because there are so many different "native" tribes, the loose term will have to suffice for now.) today are now confined to specific parts of the country known as Reservations.

In contrast, the natives in Singapore, the Malays, are represented in parliament, and Malay is recognised as one of the two official languages ever since Singapore was declared independent in 1965. While I'm still trying to gain a better understanding of politics in Aotearoa, what I do know is that there is at least a Māori political party, the Treaty of Waitangi signed in 1840 has become an essential part of every day life, and there are at least conversations that still continue to happen concerning Māori land law--all while Aotearoa remains in the British Commonwealth.

How this factors into the discussion on nationalism...
If we tied this back to the "styles" of colonialism, it might lead one to speculate that perhaps in the days where the natives were pushed into confined territories, there was more pomp and circumstance to lead into the nationalism factor. In saying that, the Anglo-Saxons remain a dominant group in the US (at least at the time this is written--sociologists are beginning to forecast a shift in the coming years)--and the ones who represent the nationalistic voice.

In contrast, while the Chinese migrant majority in Singapore played a role in the ousting of the British in post World War II Southeast Asia, the main reason for their presence on the island-city in the first place was for economic benefit rather than for claiming a stake in the competition for power. For this reason, they understand the importance of recognising native rights, and national identity is formed around the need for racial harmony rather than around the celebration of liberty. And just in my humble opinion, the celebration of liberty tends to be more boisterous than when groups have grown up doing little dances of celebration around egg-shells. Even when the day comes when they are sure the egg-shells of racial harmony have fossilised enough to withstand the weight of big parties, the dance around egg-shells have been written into the history books of the island-city like the waltzes, the allemandes, and the polkas.

Similarly, when the Treaty of Waitangi continues to play a part in the daily ethics of life in Aotearoa even till today, there is little room left for either parties involved to stand up in boisterous pride without causing a scandal that one might have possibly violated the Treaty. National identity is then shaped by the common stories of all coming from different places, each allowing the other to roam in a small part of the land.

The Servants
When the colonists arrived in the New World, they brought along with them slaves from Africa. While the scandal of slavery continues to mark American politics today, that is not the point of this discussion. The point is that... it happened. Ok? Ok.

On the other hand, the Indian servants that were brought in to Singapore were given minor government official jobs, which allowed them to integrate into society.

How this factors into the discussion on nationalism...
The bringing in of slaves reflect an attitude of arrogance that, one might speculate, forms a part of the DNA that reappears generations later in a much milder version seen in the form of national pride. On the flip side, because there was never strong resentment against the British presence, there was minimal fear or tension that life for the Indians in post-colonial Singapore would be made terrible by the other racial groups. Again, national identity in Singapore was formed around the need for racial harmony.


The Road to Independence
This is probably the biggest factor in this discussion.

The American Declaration of Independence was put together as a sign of revolt against the taxation without representation policies in the British parliament at the time. The need for representation--or the need to be heard--probably played a significant role in the push for the Declaration, and whether it is a valid cause or not remains a discussion for another time. At the same time, there were other causes that were being fought for, for which the Declaration became a sign of freedom and liberty. National identity became shaped even more by the experience of victory and liberation from the things of old.

"Independence" in New Zealand came in the form of the British withdrawal of troops in 1870 when they realised that to invest any further in a costly overseas war which was likely to continue indefinitely. Five years after the Treaty was signed, hostilities began between the Māori and the Europeans. Though inferior in number, the Māori proved to be formidable foe. Again, the Treaty sits today at a place that shapes national identity than it could have otherwise have been.

On the other hand, independence in Singapore came more peacefully, but not without bloodshed. In post-World War II Southeast Asia, colonial masters could no longer be trusted. The colonies suffered greatly in the hands of the Japanese as their colonial masters had their own wars to fight in Europe. One strategic political move after another eventually led to the ousting of the Brits in 1963, when Singapore merged with Malaysia. Due to distrust and ideological differences, Singapore eventually became an independent country of her own--the national identity still shaped by fear of racial conflicts.

Ok, So What?
I first begun mulling over these things about a year ago when I first moved to Aotearoa and noticed the similarities between the "Native Americans" and the Maori. In the course of the last couple of months, my focus shifted slightly and a hypothesis was starting to take shape concerning the sense of nationalism in the US that I sometimes found to be a little overwhelming.

The main reason for my spending all this brain space geeking over this is because I've been wondering if part of the reason for American nationalism is because of the sociological tendency to swing between extremes. (Hence why this is reflective writing rather than academia.) My hypothesis had been that American nationalism had been greatly influenced by the push away from all things of "The Old Country"--the Metric System, the fancy short spelling, you know the likes--and swung to the other end of pride in all things new.

I first began to notice these tendencies to swing between extremes in my years in seminary as we discussed Spiritual Formation. Christians raised in conservative homes go off to varsities that open their minds to different ways of thinking and suddenly they swing completely left-wing. And we are familiar with the stories of, "Oh, I was a sinful man until I met Jesus and he changed my life. Now I spend my life telling others about his amazing love and talk about nothing else."

If my hypothesis about swinging between extremes even at the macro level is true, then it might probably become easier for me to be more forgiving as I watch the pendulums swing between the extremes. It's difficult enough to bring moderation in an individual--I know because I'm guilty--what more if it's a cultural/societal tendency as well?


This might be the first and last I'm writing about this because my brain just about exploded. I don't think I'll ever draw a concrete conclusion on this hypothesis. And I think I can be ok with that.

Sources: New Zealand in History, The History Place - American Revolution, Wikipedia

P.S. If you've followed this post till this point, congratulations. I salute you.
P.P.S. If you've noticed factual discrepancies in this discussion, please feel free to (politely) point them out. I really would like to understand more about the historical/political/sociological side of things.

Somewhat relatedly, I think Mr Chua, my history teacher from way back, would be proud of my essay-writing ability... But maybe not so much my research skills. Oops.