- Primordial and Political Nationalism: Most of Western
writing on the subject of nationalism is a product of the
20th century. Very little was written on this topic outside
of the West, except for what was written about Asian countries
from a Western perspective. Western writing has proposed
realistic, material, utilitarian, primarily non-emotional
causes of nationalism that have little to do with ethnic
factors. Some examples are: 1. The model of internal imperialism,
which is based in Max Weber's theory regarding the economically
and industrially deprived periphery. 2. The model of nationalism
as a utilitarian system that a person either does or doesn't
adopt depending on how well it serves his interests, which
is led by the society's elites and not by all the members
of the group that is to be declared a nation. 3. The model
of ability and economic interest as primary factors in the
formation of a nation. According to this model, a nation
is formed only if the group possesses the necessary economic
capability, and the establishment of a distinct nation is
in the group's interest. 4. The model of discrimination
and discontentment that follows from Max Weber's system.
According to this model, a group will establish a separate
national framework only if overcome by feelings of group
discrimination. The German Max Weber who wrote in the beginning
of the 21st century considered the roots of nationalism
to be economic. He initiated a German national discussion
that promoted German imperialism and disassociated itself
from the issue of democracy. Ernest Gelner, another notable
writer on this subject, who wrote in the US in a later period
than Weber, based his theory on economic forces that stemmed
from modernization and from the development of industry
on the basis of a democratic society with a modern advanced
culture. He considered discrimination a necessary impetus
in the formation of a nation. A later star in the study
of nationalism who completed yet also opposed Gelner's theories,
was Benedict Anderson. Anderson claimed that the printing
industry played a primary role in promoting nationalism
by creating a uniform written language that was widely distributed
and that unified similar dialects and languages into one
language. The industry's goal was to increase its profits
by widening the distribution of its printed materials. At
the same time, it managed to create a single entity out
of wider communities that were united by virtue of common
language, common literature, similar ways of thinking, common
likes, dislikes, fears, and objects of disdain, thereby
facilitating the creation of larger national entities, which
constituted the basis for the establishment of large modern
states with populations in the millions. According to Gelner's
theory, private business and industrial business interests
created modern states. Anderson proposed the opposite theory
of the modern state as the stimulus, which established advanced
industries. According to this theory, the large and developed
source of manpower that is essential for industrial growth
can only be supplied by a modern state that has the means
of establishing public school systems that offer a sufficiently
high education to prepare people for these jobs. Therefore,
the modern state supported industry and enabled the development
of capitalistic industrial interests in the modern world.
In this way, of course, the state itself became modernized,
and was compensated with modern industry, that led the state
to become modern and successful. All these political thinkers,
as a rule, do not base the nationalism they have witnessed
on ethnic-historical-emotional-or primordial sources - which
will be referred to here as 'deep-rooted nationalism'. Deep-rooted
nationalism can sustain itself even without economic and
political interests and forces. The other form of nationalism
will be termed here - 'political nationalism' since it comes
about according to the interests of the state that seeks
to strengthen its sense of nationalism. In the absence of
a deep-rooted nationalism that corresponds to the basic
framework of the state, the state promotes a sense of nationalism,
whether directly or indirectly, whether as a bureaucratic
act or whether by academics, writers, poets, and the like,
all acting from different motivations, and not always with
the awareness that they are helping create a nation that
coincides with the civilian population in the state. Taking
Israel as an example: 1. From the outset, the state was
declared a Jewish state, a state for the Jewish people.
2. Representatives of the Zionist movement, the Jewish nation's
national movement in the diaspora, and representatives of
the Jewish settlement in the land in which the state of
Israel was established, a population of people of Jewish
descent living in the territory of the State, declared the
establishment of the State of Israel in Israel's Declaration
of Independence. 3. The state was established through the
efforts of the Zionist settlers, the Zionists, and members
of the Jewish nation's national movement. 4. The Jewish
nation is an entity that lives in the consciousness of anyone
born to Jewish parents, through the blood relation that
has existed over thousands of years. 5. The Jewish people
share a common distinct religion, a long history, a separate
culture, an ancient tongue, and territorial aspirations
to live in their ancient homeland (an aspiration that for
many years was expressed only in prayer and no practical
steps were taken to implement). This ancient homeland is
located in the place that the State of Israel was established.
6. This state is inhabited also by Arabs who have lived
there hundreds of years, and who began to experience a national
awakening as the Palestinian people. These Arabs, along
with neighboring Arab countries fought against the establishment
of the Jewish state, while the Jews fought for its establishment.
7. Approximately 50 years after the establishment of the
State of Israel, debate has ensued over whether an 'Israeli
nation' exists that is composed of the citizens of the State
of Israel (political nationalism), or whether two nationalities
- deep-rooted ones, based on ethnic-religious ties (deep-rooted
or primordial nationalism) exist in Israel. Those who claim
and advocate a political nationalism cite the American-French
idea of Israel being 'a country of all its citizens'. It
should be recalled that both the French people and the American
people are 'synthetically formed' nations, which strengthen
their respective States. It thus emerges that the nationalism
in all American countries is a political nationalism, with
the exception of countries - like Mexico - which are united
by some ancient tradition (in Mexico - Indian tradition).
Further on, the question will be discussed certainly with
regard to Mexico, of whether an approach that unites not
only people with Indian blood but also those with Spanish
blood is true deep-rooted nationalism, or in fact political
nationalism disguised as deep-rooted. In the context of
this question it will be possible to identify - with regard
certainly to specific Latin American countries - which type
of political nationalism exists, and what factors led to
it - discrimination, economic interest, domestic imperialism,
or some other factor not previously suggested. This book
will evaluate the nature of the nationalism in Latin America
and also attempt to predict what lies in Latin America's
future. US Nationalism : This subject will only be dealt
with briefly, since the focus here is Latin America, and
the US is mainly discussed in order to contrast it to Latin
America. 1. The English colonists in America had a need
to create a distinctive identity that would distinguish
them from the English in Britain. 2. Religion posed a problem
for them, so they established the American civil religion.
3. The question of who should be included within the nation
was a difficult one, which was ultimately resolved by the
exclusion of the Indians and inclusion (particularly following
the Civil War) of the Blacks. 4. They lacked a shared national
experience - The War of Independence provided this factor.
5. They required shared traditions and legacies - and so
legends developed around the writing of the constitution
and the Philadelphia convention, the birthdays of great
American leader became national holidays, Christmas became
an American holiday, the national flag and American Independence
day were stressed, and traditional parades were held. 6.
English was chosen as the national language. 7. The Americans
sought a unifying spiritual idea, one that was derived from
English thought but had a distinctly American style. The
democratic-political structure of government and legal institutions
played an important role in this, and individualism and
liberalism were advanced as aspects of the unique American
spirit. The puritanical notion of a chosen land - America
- and of a chosen nation - the American people - as well
of a spiritual mission - of America's role as the champion
of civil rights throughout the world (from which followed
its support for the establishment of the UN, the Korean
and Vietnam war, and American involvement in Somalia and
Bosnia) were all reinforced. These ideals, combined with
Protestant influence and emphasis on reading and knowing
the Bible, formed the basis for the development of Black
spiritualistic music, and for basic support for: the State
of Israel - as the tie between the American 'Chosen nation'
founded in the spirit of the Bible, and the original Biblical
Chosen nation, the Jewish people, and for the Jewish people's
return to their 'promised land' (that paralleled America
as a promised land). It is these ideas that lie behind Anglo-American
support for Israel, and not material or political interests.
This last issue is the source of the differences between
American government policies towards Israel and Western
European ones. Western Europeans did not need to form a
new nationalism, since they already had one. The question
of whether what is being spoken of is separate French, German,
Italian, Dutch, and Belgian nationalities, each around 200
years old, or of a 2000-year old unified culture and tradition
(as emerges from the economic and political unification
of Western Europe) is not within the scope of this book,
though in general in relates to the broader discussion of
political nationalism vs. deep-rooted nationalism. Canadian
Nationalism : Strong Catholic influence existed in Canada,
in comparison to the US. Therefore, the political approach
that developed there was more consistent with French-Catholic
hierarchy and loyalty to the British crown. Canada also
developed around a certain conservatism and belief in the
divine source of group rights and liberties (in contrast
to the individual rights and individualism promoted in the
US) that prompted groups to seek to preserve their distinct
traditions (French Canadians in Quebec even sought to distance
themselves from French activities in France that went against
their religion). There is a theory (that will not be examined
at length here) that does not seem implausible that Canada
is an alliance of two religions, Protestantism and Catholicism.
The school system is built religiously, as a dualistic separate
system, in which each of the two religions has a separate
educational system for itself. The Anglo-American belief
in separation of Church and State was not accepted in Canada.
Thus, while in the US, parents of a Catholic child attending
a Catholic school must pay full private school tuition,
in Canada such schooling would be paid for by the State.
An element of fundamentalism, of religiosity, therefore,
exists in Canada - an element that didn't develop as a means
of creating a distinct Canadian national identity, but which
does define Canadian nationality and is one of its components.
The form of government between provinces is also a product
of the same alliance of religions, and it too serves as
a natural, genuine aspect of Canadian tradition. The connection
to the British monarchy, and the idea of a government appointed
by the British king or queen - though by the recommendation
of the Canadian government - also plays a role. The distinctiveness
from the US is also a fundamental one, part of the Canadian
national tradition. Fundamental to the process of nationalism
is the act of distancing the arising national entity from
some external body. An enemy nation will inspire the greatest
instincts for natural disassociation and national distinctiveness,
yet any foreign entity can suffice. The British nation was
formed in this manner, with the French king being a historic
enemy from whom the British felt estranged since he was
Catholic. Though the US did not represent an enemy nation
to the Canadians, Canadians did feel a sense of superiority
to their Anglo-American neighbors. Mexican Nationalism:
Mexican nation was formed approximately 70 years ago as
a fusion of Indian and modern traditions. Their conception
of death has Indian and Spanish roots, while their legends
of creation are Aztec and their stories of bullfights, Spanish.
The institution of patronage has its roots in Spain, though
its fine points are derived from conquest and the conqueror's
feelings of superiority and from ethnic differences. Intermarriage
in Mexico is part of Mexican heritage. It was neither brought
from Spain, nor in existence among the Aztecs, but it is
rather a fundamentally Mexican phenomenon that developed
in Mexico - not in order to create a distinctive Mexican
national identity but because it is truly Mexican. Therefore,
the legend of the maiden from Guadalope Is not an Indian
story that was adopted by the Mexicans, since the Mexicans
on a whole have Indian blood. The fact that there aren't
distinct races and ethnic groups in Mexico proves that their
ethnic nationalism developed authentically. It still remains
to be determined definitively, though, whether their nationalism
is deep-rooted or political, since even though deep-rooted
nationalism generally develops naturally and political nationalism
is artificial and imposed, there is another factor that
must be considered - that of age. Deep-rooted nationalism
is generally particularly connected to an ancient civilization.
A relatively new trend does not generally carry enough weight
to have an effect on nationalism - a phenomenon linked to
history. A nation would not be defined by a passing fad.
Certainly a custom that is shared by a community, which
has existed for a length of time that is not measurable
by historical units of time, cannot be considered as defining
a nation, for nationalism is essentially a historical term
that can be quantified and measured - when the time comes
- by the court of history. For example: the Germanic tribes
that reached France and Germany, in their migrations and
in the process of their settlement, do not appear to be,
from a historical perspective, nations or peoples. They
served a function in the process of forming a nation. Though
they all originated in the same place, those who settled
in France are known as Frenchmen while those who settled
in Germany are known as Germans. Regarding the historical
dimension that is essential for the test of nationalism,
it is even reasonable, as mentioned above, to view the French
and Germans as members of a common nationality, along with
the Dutch, Belgians, British, Italians, and Spanish, since
from a historical perspective they resemble family members
who have quarreled, but who share a common culture. After
all the wars between them, including two 'world wars' that
truly seem more like domestic wars of Christian White man
than international wars, the European nations reached the
conclusion that all their internal quarrels lack relevance.
Thus, it can be said that the many wars fought between the
English and French, like those between the French and Germans
were not expunged by the conciliation but by the conclusion
that the wars lack relevance. According to this understanding,
we will see that a Mexican nation exists, but that it is
likely though far from certain, that it will be absorbed
by an Pan-Latin American nation, the realization of a deep-rooted
nationalism that can unite countries above the heads of
their heads of State. Venezuelan Nationalism: ilar to the
US, it was not the culture of the Venezuelan natives that
influenced the dominant culture in the country, but rather
the European culture of the immigrants. Of course there
are several differences between the US and Venezuela: 1.
Europeans who came to Venezuela from Spain did not feel
superior to immigrants who came from other European countries,
and new immigrants felt no obligation to adopt any new cultural
practices other than language. It is possible to attribute
this to the fact that the Spanish culture of the immigrants
was not elitist, and the immigrants who arrived in the 1940's
and later were perceived as skilled professionals of high
social stature. 2. There are no racial groups in Venezuela
that are considered innately lower class (Indians, Blacks).
3. As a result of the Spanish culture's lack of domination,
and the economic boom that resulted from the discovery of
oil, it was quite natural for the Venezuelans to adopt aspects
of non-European cultures, and thus an 'international' culture
rapidly began to infiltrate Venezuela, a culture that seemed
consistent with the modernization that had so captivated
Venezuelans. The first conclusion that follows is that an
overwhelmingly natural process is taking place by which
Venezuela adopts aspects that are a blend of cultural influences.
This is a process that is unique though it its substance
lacks uniqueness - since it adopts practices from varying
sources, while mixing and blurring their roots. Considering
Venezuela's connection to and solidarity with other Latin
American countries, the question arises whether this diversity
doesn't define the Pan-Latin American nation, a nation that
is in the process of being formed. This is a topic that
has far more questions than answers. Brazilian Nationalism:
Brazilian nationalism is now approaching its 120th birthday
(from the time of the liberation of its slaves), making
it older than Mexican nationalism, and closer in age to
Anglo-American nationalism. The fact that Portuguese is
the official language in Brazil, as opposed to Spanish,
and that from the time of Napoleon, Brazil was not a colony
but an independent country are other factors that distinguish
Brazil from other Latin American nations. Brazil, again
in contrast to other Latin American countries was not first
settled with the goal of spreading Catholicism throughout
the world. Its size, in terms of geographical dimensions
and population are two other distinguishing qualities, all
of which form a basis for building a nation. Brazil's population
is made up of Whites, who are the majority, and Blacks.
Intermingling of the races is not ideologically mandated,
but it is a reality. Patronage, a strong Spanish tradition,
is a well-developed institution in Brazil. Brazilians are
overwhelmingly pessimistic regarding the economic situation,
and lacking in confidence that democracy will benefit them
in this regard. They have little faith in the future, and
except for carnivals and soccer, there is little that inspires
strong feelings of unity. It is difficult to build a nation
without an elevation of the spirit, inspiration, or a feeling
of ascendancy, uniqueness, or mission. All these are lacking
- for the most part - in Brazil. No individual or group
possesses a sense of strength. The government is hierarchic
as is common in Latin America, and there is no hope that
the government or any other body has the ability to provide
salvation. The small percentage of workers that belong to
a professional union is a reflection of the lack of societal
faith that exists in Brazil. Therefore, despite the distinctiveness
of the Brazilian people, no process of nation building has
occurred. Brazilians are essentially citizens without a
great deal of hope, and without a clear future, even though
the central government has managed to reasonably stabilize
the economy and there is no societal breakdown like in Argentina.
A clear picture of the situation in Brazil has yet to be
drawn, but any conclusive determinations will be left to
the conclusion of the discussion of nationalism in Latin
America at the end of this chapter. Argentinean Nationalism:
Argentina is a tale of class struggles and political conflict.
The army has played a significant role in this story, enabling
a minority to rule over the country for long periods of
time. The collectivism that in other Latin American countries
assumed a gentle form of currying favor with the central
government, served in Argentina a basis for an internal
rift. The population is almost entirely of European origin,
the majority from Spain, and some from Italy. The absence
of any obvious characteristic distinguishing one group from
another, and thereby justifying hierarchic superiority has
had a destructive influence, creating a hostile competitive
atmosphere. The military too has adopted an aggressive confrontational
approach, and the number of people secretly abducted and
murdered by the army has only deepened the internal rift
- not only between citizens, but also between the citizens
and the army. Nationalism is a sense of unity. To the extent
it exists in Argentina, it does not manifest itself in a
positive constructive manner, but rather in demonstrations
of violence and superiority on the part of those who consider
themselves the elite towards other classes who do not accept
their authority or superiority. The hierarchic structure
of Argentina was thrown into confusion by policies adopted
by President Menem, a Peronist who acted against the interest
of the Peronist professional unions, who had voted him into
office. He did so because of his connection to big businesses
and his hopes to use them to pull Argentina out of a 60-year
economic crisis - that had resulted from a sectoral government
practices - both with landowners and the anti-Peronist labor
movement. While Menem's willingness to break with the tradition
of serving the interests of the sector that has offered
him political support is commendable, his policies which
were based on economic benefit rather than sectoral interest
are more consistent with an Anglo-American approach than
with a Latin American one. This fact was at the root of
the last economic crisis, though plenty of economic crises
took places under governments following the more traditionally
Latin American approach. Apparently, no system can succeed
when there is societal discord and division. When a society
is sick, its economy is doomed to failure, regardless of
whether its central government is following objectively
'sound' economic principles or whether it is acting in the
interest of one sector and with utter disregard for the
interests of the general economy. It emerges that the true
problem in Argentina is social, rather than economic. Before
a state can be run, a society must be run or built. Social
leadership must firstly consider the social obstacles and
demonstrate leadership in tackling them. The leadership
must invest energy in inculcating the younger generation
with the value of societal unity in a society that is fundamentally
egalitarian, or with steering hierarchic values in a Latin
American society towards charity to those who are considered
inferior, as is done in Chinese society. Such generosity
is compatible with Latin American values, as is reflected
in Mexican and Brazilian efforts to free their slaves -
but it has faded in recent generations particularly in Argentina.
Thus Argentina is ailing since it is a nation is in the
process of fragmentation rather than unification. What Characterizes
Latin American Nationalism? So many Western, African and
other countries are endeavoring to establish their own nations
- not capriciously - but because feelings of nationalism
are a country's source of strength, without which it is
destined to disintegrate. Western Europe's efforts to unite,
therefore, are a clear indication that the nationalistic
sense in each of the individual Western European nations
is in the process of crumbling or at least weak. Western
Europe is seeking to revitalize itself by creating a political
nationalism that can take the place of a non-existent deep-rooted
nationalism. 1. A serious problem exists both with the imperialist
borders that separate the African states and those that
divide the Arab states. These states were not formed on
the basis of deep-rooted social (primordial) differences,
yet the states are very cautious not to open any Pandora's
box by breaching any of these borders. This pretense is
maintained because it is in the common interest of all the
governments. This same pretense is maintained in Latin America
and is reinforced by the many interconnected interests that
exist within each state. Even the media is recruited in
order to deeply implant this rootless, political nationalism.
2. There is an opposing side that must be considered also.
It has been demonstrated here that the story of the Mexican
people is not a fa?ade, a popular invention, but a true
story. The emancipation of the slaves in Brazil was a real
event, not a fabrication thought up in order to create a
nation where one did not exist. Yet even though nationalism
is an abstract reality, a matter of faith, nearly almost
every Venezuelan citizen will emphatically affirm the existence
of a Venezuelan nation. His answer will be less clear-cut
if asked his feelings about Latin Americanism, and about
his connection to Latin America. There were political thinkers
who shared Simone Bolivar's perceptions regarding the unity
of all Latin Americans. It is important to emphasize before
taking this discussion any further that nationalism is a
subjective conception that can not be established according
to objective concrete facts [that is why there is no point
in arguing that the Palestinian nation does not truly exist,
since the very claim for its existence was made as the anti-thesis
to an exclusive Jewish nationalism. The only relevant question
is how do the 'Palestinian people' view themselves and feel?].
Yet, in addition to the determining subjective side, there
is an objective reality that can be examined as a portent
of what lies ahead? In regard to Western Europe, for example,
certain objective facts indicated that unification was likely,
just as the ties between Bush and Putin are likely to be
the foundation of an alliance that is part of the nation
of White Christian man, and not simply the relations of
two former enemies trying to reconcile. A careful reading
of the world map, an analysis of potential common US-Russian
enemies or factors that will threaten their economic supremacy,
combined with an assessment of the ethnic-religious history
that plays such a significant role in building nationalism,
will demonstrate the great likelihood, or even certainty
of such a possibility. The same question applies with relation
to Latin America, after comparing certain basic Anglo American
fundamental concepts to Latin American ones - is it possible,
and even very likely that Latin America is already in the
midst of the establishment of one united nation. When the
US declared its independence, there were thirteen colonies
that established a confederacy between them, or in other
words perceived themselves as thirteen independent political
entities, which shared one congress. The colonies had their
differences and their separate interests. Some were more
puritanical than others, some supported slavery while others
opposed it - yet it was possible to ascertain at the time
that their unification was not only possible but certain.
It is the institutions of patronage, corporatism, hierarchy,
and a society built on personal commitments and trust and
an estrangement from the English conception of democracy
based on parties that do not necessarily act according to
self-interest, the willingness to use the army to topple
a democratic government in a time of crisis, and the preference
for a presidential form of government- all in combination
with the special mixes of Indians and Blacks and interracial
marriages that do not contradict the feelings of hierarchy
- all these aspects and more that create the uniquely Latin
American rhythm that any outsider would have trouble comprehending
but that will be the basis for a unified Latin American
nation. In addition, however, to the objective reality,
there is the matter of internal national strength and ability
to endure in times of trouble and turmoil. This internal
strength is related to how deeply-rooted feelings of solidarity
with the State are, and to what lengths the citizens of
the State will go in order to contribute to the State over
and above their civic duties - to what extent they are 'rooted
citizens with a national consciousness and readiness to
give to their country over and above what is demanded by
law. An additional assessment that must be made is how well
the citizens of the country have proven themselves in the
past. Cuba, for example, showed great strength in standing
up to the US, and in standing firm even when Russia withheld
aid in the early 90's creating such an economic crisis that
there wasn't even gasoline for cars to run on and they were
compelled to start riding bicycles instead of automobiles
and to adopt a system of food rationing of fewer than 2000
calories per person. Other Latin American countries have
not held up as well as Cuba. While most maintained stability
so long as the government had the means to provide a certain
minimal standard of living to most of its citizens, as soon
as economic problems arose that were far less severe than
those Cuba endured, internal terror, uprisings, and riots
erupted. In Cuba, in contrast, the people stood loyally
behind their charismatic leader, Fidel Castro.What Differences
Are There Between US Nationalism and Latin American Nationalism?
Both nationalities are political ones, and both nations
are composed of all the citizens in their respective countries.
While a certain degree of 'discrimination' takes place in
both countries, the Anglo-American seeks to deny the existence
of bigotry in his country, while the Latin American feels
no compulsion to do so. It is likely, however, that this
situation will change if and when the Latin American countries
unify into one nation. The conditions for inclusion in a
particular nation will not be based on political borders,
since the nation will not be the outgrowth of a certain
country or countries, but of a culture, a tradition, a uniquely
Latin American approach to social interaction, a common
history, language, and religion. Since Latin Americanism
will be rooted in fundamental traits, rather than political
interests, there won't be a need for a system of separation
of Church and State. Since Latin American culture derived
so much from Catholicism, Catholicism will naturally become
the dominant religion. The shared history is one of similar
circumstances and realities that ultimately led to the establishment
of military regimes, which were backed by the US because
they suited her political global interests and her economic
interests (the critical factor as always in shaping American
policy). In general, nationalism that is based in deep-rooted
fundamentals (ethnicity, integration of ethnic groups, a
long shared history, significant events that constituted
pivotal national experiences) is generally also connected
in some way to religion. This is true in India, where in
conjunction with the formation of a deep-rooted rather than
political nationalism, the Congress party that supported
political nationalism ceded control of the government to
the Nationalist Hindi party. This nationality -initially
a relatively small minority in India - attracted other cultural
groups, which spoke languages other than Hindi - a fact
that set them apart for a long period of time from those
who were Hindi both in religion and language. A growing
number of groups joined the new Hindi nation, many of which
spoke different languages, but all of which shared the basic
Hindi religion. As a result of these developments, the Hindi
religion forms the very backbone of the Nationalist Hindi
nation, though it did not attain official status. Thus the
new ever-growing Hindi nation includes within it even Muslims,
as Ashutosh Varshney depicts in his essays. All this seems
to reflect that a unified Latin American nation is a realistic,
likely possibility. It will be a nation rooted in Latin
American values, culture, history, and customs. Any citizen
of a Latin American country that does not share all these
will continue to be a citizen of his country, but he will
not belong to the Latin American nation. Most Latin American
citizens, will in fact though feel connected to the Latin
American people. Since nationalism exists in the minds of
those who feel connected to it and is not dependent on the
objective conditions that simply serve as basis for projections
regarding the likelihood of the formation of a nation, Latin
American governments will not need to make any official
declarations in order to make the Latin American nation
a reality. No treaties between countries or formal accords
will be necessary. All that is needed is that the feelings
and thoughts of the people and their very way of life will
turn this deep-rooted national sentiment into a living breathing
reality. These beliefs must be rooted both in fundamental
similarities and a pressing reality - in the form of a common
enemy or civil war (like the US in its Civil War, and Western
Europe and the World Wars, if it manages to unite). It is
of course possible that political nationalism in Latin America
will prove to be a bitter disappointment and result in a
social crisis, like that taking place in Argentina, or in
feelings of rootlessness and utter pessimism, like those
felt in Brazil, that bring abject poverty and the dissolution
of the family structure. While in the past the solution
to such hopeless situations in Latin America was revolution
and military regimes, this option no longer exists. It seems
likely, if not inevitable, that out of the ruins, a new
nation will arise that will unite the forces, informally
at first, and ultimately in a formal political manner. There
is a difference between a political (artificially constructed)
nationalism and a deep-rooted (primordial) one. Though it
is natural and anticipated that when an all-inclusive Latin
American nation comes into being, initially there will be
conventions, conferences, and even various academic institutions
that will promote this nationalism, ultimately, a more formal
stage, such as the one described by Simone Bolivar, will
be reached.
