When the United States declared independence they stated that they found it self-evident that “all men are created equal”.
Likewise during the European Union anthem it is sung that “Alle Menschen
werden Brüder” [All men will become brothers]. I think most of us find these to
be fine ideals. Few indeed would be willing to state that we disagree. Yet
there’s a certain contradiction between the ideal and how we actually act in
ordinary life. But the contradiction is not only within us, it’s within those
who declare the ideal.
What was involved in the United States declaring
independence? What is it to become a country? It is, of course, many things,
but it is most clearly this. It is to state that the people within these
borders are special. When the United States was created they said that the
citizens of that country would be treated differently from the people of other
countries. The Government of the United
States has a special duty to its own citizens that it doesn’t have to the
citizens of any other country. This isn’t to say that the United States Government
will necessarily be nasty to foreigners, but until and unless these foreigners
become United States citizens they will not have the same rights as those citizens. The declaration
of independence therefore is also and precisely thereby a declaration of
discrimination. For one thing it turned people living in the UK from being
fellow citizens into foreigners.
The European Union may likewise have the ideal of
making all men brothers, but this ideal only goes so far as to include those
who are within the union. The rights that I have because the UK is a member of
the EU do not extend to Russians. They no doubt are not brothers. I do not wish
to be overly critical of the EU in using Schiller’s fine words for their anthem,
nor indeed do I think the declaration of independence is a less fine document
because its ideals involve a certain amount of self-contradiction. We may have the ideal, but few indeed of us want to see it fulfilled.
If everyone is created equal, if all men are brothers, why should we not be one world without borders? Wouldn’t that be a much better arrangement? No, and for a very simple reason. We are human beings. We have ideals, but mixed in with these is human nature.
If everyone is created equal, if all men are brothers, why should we not be one world without borders? Wouldn’t that be a much better arrangement? No, and for a very simple reason. We are human beings. We have ideals, but mixed in with these is human nature.
To be human is to prefer. The most basic unit of preference is a man and his wife. I prefer
this man above all others. His interests and what happens to him are more
important to me than what happens to a stranger in Glasgow. The next unit is
our family. Most of us care more for our siblings, our parents and our children
than anyone else. If I read about a tragedy in Edinburgh, it may move me. I may
feel great pity. I may even wish to help. But it is not the same as if there is
a tragedy in the family. The loss of a parent or anyone else who is close is
felt more strongly by a member of the family than by anyone else apart from
perhaps a very close friend. I have duties to close relations that I don’t have
to anyone else. All this means that I discriminate between family and non-family.
It doesn’t mean that I am nasty to anyone else. I have a duty to act morally to
everyone. But that duty is not the same as the one I have to my family.
In ancient times families came together to form
tribes or clans. Thousands of years ago nearly all Europeans and many other
people besides spoke more or less the same language. But gradually as we formed
groups in various different territories our languages tended to diverge. It was
above all language that created the map of Europe as we know it today. Tribes
that spoke a similar language coalesced into countries. This too is part of
human nature. Sometimes the boundaries between linguistic groups were rather
vague, sometimes the process of creating European countries was the result of
wars and population movements. But what it is to be a country is the end result of a process by
which people who have similar beliefs, who look like each other and who speak a
similar language come together in order to create a distinction between citizens
and non-citizens. The process of creating countries therefore also involves
discrimination. I have a duty towards the citizens of my own country that I do
not have towards people from other countries. Moreover, the process of creating
countries is the process of creating borders. These above all regulate who can
come into my country.
Why have borders at all rather than let all men who are created equal, all men who are my brothers live wherever they please. The reason
is that then we would not have countries at all. Well perhaps it would be
better if we didn’t have countries. Perhaps it would. But then we would have to
change human nature.
I have always taken the view that Utopian attempts
to change human nature should be resisted. They will fail and will cause great
suffering. This was the major fault with communism/socialism. It depends on
eradicating the selfishness of human nature and that can only be done with re-education
and the Gulag.
We are in essence as we were 40,000 years ago. In evolutionary terms this time-span is
trivial. You cannot legislate against human nature and if you try to impose a
regime that is contrary to human nature you will cause more problems than you
solve. We may admire the ideals of Schiller and the Americans who declared
their country to be independent, but we must not try to impose these ideals too
strictly. We are as we were. We are deeply tribal and there is no changing
this. Why should I feel patriotism? Why suppose that my country is better than
anyone else’s? This is all quite irrational and egotistical, but it is also part of my nature.
Why do I care more about a disaster in Birmingham, UK than Birmingham, Alabama? My country is an extension of my family. It is full of people who I think of as distantly related to me. These people’s ancestors fought wars together with my ancestors. This is why we commemorate these things together. These people are my kin. My country is the place where people like me live.
Why do I care more about a disaster in Birmingham, UK than Birmingham, Alabama? My country is an extension of my family. It is full of people who I think of as distantly related to me. These people’s ancestors fought wars together with my ancestors. This is why we commemorate these things together. These people are my kin. My country is the place where people like me live.
The attempts to bring Europeans together into a sort
of United States of Europe will always fail until and unless Europeans see each other as kin. At the moment they do not do so. Germans will give money
without limit to other Germans, but will not donate to Greeks. This is not a
moral failure of Germans. It is a moral failure of those who have tried to
impose a single currency on different peoples who do not think they have a duty
towards each other. The Euro and indeed the ideal of ever closer union are as
contrary to human nature as the ideal that all men should be brothers. Would
that this were not so, but there is no changing human nature anytime soon. If the European Union adopted a policy of everyone speaking the same language it might have a long term chance, but trying to get everyone to speak the same language would also be contrary to human nature. The Soviet Union, after all, even with a
common language split up because tribal difference was stronger than the
Russian language. People tend to retain their tribal loyalties even when ideology tells them not to.
Take the example of Poland. Polish people, who for
centuries lived divided and under foreign rule, now live in a country where
nearly everyone is Polish. They speak the same language, have similar religious
beliefs and customs. They are from the same tribe that at some point in the
distant past gradually split from the other Slavs and before that the other
Indo-Europeans. Poles are happy to be a part of the EU, but they would
rather their country remained more or less as it is. It is human nature for people
to want to live with their kin. Why else do we live with our families?
The European Union will also split up if Poles
feel they are going to be invaded again. They have been invaded enough. In the
end the same goes for all countries. Otherwise you simply don’t have a country.
I don’t support Scottish independence because I see
the UK as a family. The different tribes of ancient times merged
long ago, so that we now have a similar culture and language. This shared
history has created a shared people. I don’t want to discriminate against someone
from other parts of the UK because I recognise that we have fought together against
a common enemy on numerous occasions and we have loved each other so that we
are all mixed up together. I don’t want to create a border which says that I
have a special duty only to Scots. I feel that same duty to everyone in the UK.
But I agree with the Scottish nationalist in the following respect. I agree
that there ought to be countries. We are irreconcilably divided by the fact that my country is the UK while his is only Scotland. But we both believe in there being countries. But there are implications to this. It means
that we don’t in the end think that all men are created equal, nor do we think
that all men are brothers. I draw the line with the UK’s boundaries. The
Scottish nationalist draws it between Berwick and Gretna. But we each believe
in boundaries. The boundary is a limit. It's purpose is to keep someone out and to discriminate between someone who is a citizen and someone who is not.
Why are borders going up again all over Europe? Why
prevent people coming here if we are all equal, if we are all brothers. The
reason is simple. We are as we were when we formed ancient tribes. The ideal of
everyone in the world living together as equals falls at the fact that we want
to live with our kin. We are willing to accept people moving here. Our tribe can take in some new members from elsewhere. We also recognise our shared humanity, which means we are
willing to help. But there is a limit. Family comes first. In the end I hold this truth to be self evident. Germans want to live with Germans. Poles
want to live with Poles. Brits want to live with Brits. It is not wrong for them to wish to do so. On the contrary it is human nature.
If enough people from elsewhere come to a place, eventually you
cease to have the country you had. If you doubt this, have a look at East Prussia.
There are places from history like Königsberg and Tilsit that have
different names now. Napoleonic battles like Friedland and Eylau are no longer in Prussia, but in Russia.
After World War II there was rather a lot of immigration into East Prussia and
now when you wander around you can hardly guess that this place was once German
and had been so for hundreds of years. Sometimes on an old building you can
just make out a shop front in decaying Gothic letters. But mostly these have
all been erased as if they never were there.
This all happened because the Germans were unable to
defend their borders and because all men are not Brüder.