National Prejudices

Oliver Goldsmith

Introduction
In this essay, Goldsmith talks about prejudices which people have
about other people from other countries. They consider their nation
good in every respect and think that other nations are not as great as
theirs. People no longer consider themselves general inhabitants of
the globe, or members of that grand society which comprehends the
whole humankind.

Outline of National Prejudice

Oliver Goldsmith’s essay “National Prejudice” is the writer’s own

personal opinion regarding the people of Europe. This essay is about
the stereotypes that we have towards people from other countries.
Prejudice is an unreasonable and unjust feeling that has grown in us
over a period of time. To some extent, every common man has a bias.

As the writer is one of the wanderers of Europe, he was given the

opportunity to observe closely the characters of the Europeans.
Suddenly, he reached a group of half a dozen gentlemen who were
making a hot political dispute. They were equally divided, expressing
their feelings. Each group was trying to convince the writer to support
and share the conversation. He had been engaged in one of the
companies. They talked about the different characters of a number of
nations in Europe. One of the gentlemen of England showed his
prejudice over the people of other nations. He said the Dutch were a
bunch of greedy wretches, the French were flatterers, the Germans
were drunkards, and the beastly gluttons, the Spaniards were proud,
haughty and rude tyrants but in all other aspects, English were brave,
generous, merciful and virtuous.
Almost all the participants agreed with the opinion, but when the
writer was asked to express his feelings, he gave them more impartial
judgment. He said that the Dutch were more frugal and industrious,
the French were more temperate and polite, the Germans were hard
and patient in labour and fatigue, the Spaniards were sober and
peaceful, but the English were at the same time rash, headstrong and
impetuous. When the writer made such a judgment among his friends,
they began to see him with a jealous eye. Then the writer came to
know that it was in vain to contend with men full of national
prejudices. So he went back home thinking about the absurd and
ridiculous nature of national prejudice.

To the writer, Philosophers regard a man of any country as “a citizen

of the world.” They globalize all and have no regional bias, unlike the
narrow-minded English gentlemen, who only thought about the
particular country or small society.

The writer says national bias is infecting our minds and affecting our
behaviour. It makes us obscene, disgusting, and proud of ourselves.
We will love our nation but without prejudice towards other
countries’ people. He says that the essence of faith is just like
superstition and excitement. So we should be the world’s people, not
the resident of a single nation or small community. He prefers the
term “a world citizen” to that of an Englishman, a Frenchman, a
German, a Spaniard, a European or so on.

Summary

The essay is about the narrator‘s encounter with some elderly people
and a conversation about nationalism. He starts off by stating that he
was drinking at a bar and was drawn into a conversation held by a
group of elderly men about political affairs when one of the men
stated that the English were better than the Dutch, the Germans, the
French, and the Spaniards. He praised the English for their bravery,
generosity, mercy and other virtues. When asked for an opinion, the
narrator decided not to talk as he was sure to contradict that
statement while the rest of the group agreed with the man. When
directly asked, the narrator had to speak his thoughts reluctantly. He
could not make such a broad statement about the characteristics of
the other European nations unless he has made the tour of Europe
and examined the manners of these several nations with great care
and accuracy.

The narrator goes on to say that perhaps a more impartial judge would
not hesitate to affirm that the Dutch were more frugal and
industrious, the French more temperate and polite, the Germans
more hardy and patient of labour and the Spaniards more sober and
composed than the English who undoubtedly were brave and
generous, but at the same time rash, headstrong, and impetuous and
too apt to elated with prosperity, and to despond in adversity. He
quotes a philosopher who says that we should not be “countrymen”
but we should be “citizens of the world” meaning we should view
ourselves as inhabitants of the world and not of a certain part of it.

If these prejudices prevail among the meanest and lowest of the

people, they might be excused because they get few opportunities of
correcting them by reading, travelling, or conversing with foreigners.
But the misfortune is that they infect the minds, and influence the
conduct, even of our gentlemen. The mark of a gentleman is that he
should be free from national and other prejudices. There are some
who are most apt to boast of national merit. It is just like a vine which
twists around a sturdy oak, for no other reason in the world because
it has not strength sufficient to support itself.

The essay concludes with saying that, it is okay to be proud of one’s

own land and country but that should not stop us from thinking
outside the box. Narrowing our minds won‘t make anything useful.
Instead, try to be a citizen of the whole world without the need to hate
others.
Detailed Summary
1. I spend most of my time in coffee houses, pubs, and similar
locations.
2. There I can observe a great number of people and their different
characters.
3. People are more interesting than art or nature.
4. I once participated in a discussion of the national characters of
European peoples.
5. One person contrasted the excellence of the English, with the
various defects of other peoples.
6. I usually keep my opinion to myself, but when I am asked I speak
the truth.
7. Only a tour of Europe would allow one to judge the manners of
different peoples. Perhaps then one would find positive
characteristics in them, and perhaps negative ones in the
English.
8. The patriot expressed surprise at me living in a country I did not
love, and I was called an enemy of the government.
9. An ancient philosopher was ones asked what country he
belonged. He answered to be a citizen of the world. This is one
of the greatest sayings ever.
10. Nowadays people are more and more identifying with a
local people and society.
11. Few consider themselves primarily members of humanity.
12. One could excuse prejudice among the unlearned and
untraveled. But prejudices flourish also among those of wealth
and noble birth.
13. A true gentleman would be without prejudice, national or
otherwise.
14. Those praising the quality of their nation most are usually
those who have the least qualities themselves.
15. One can love a country without falling into national
prejudices.
 16. Love of country can devolve into prejudice, just as religion
can devolve into superstition. But there is no necessity to it.
17. Only without national prejudice can the love of a country
truly flourish.
18. I love my country, but do not hate other peoples.
19. I can be brave and defend law and liberty, without
believing others to be cowards.
20. And if there were a necessary connection, I would prefer
to be a citizen of the world, not an Englishman or European.

Analyzing Oliver Goldsmith, ”On National Prejudices”

Oliver Goldsmith shows that he is very formal in his style of writing,
very educated in his word choice. He seems to use ”I” quite
frequently in his writing, perhaps to convey a personal struggle.
This writing style is very reminiscent of old English literature. But
then he makes us think on abstract ideas, due to such sentences
as,” which, to a person of contemplative turn, is a much higher
entertainment than a view of all the curiosities of art or nature.”
The paragraph development is developed sequentially as he takes
us step after step of building thoughts after thoughts in a logical
fashion. The word choice is smart and complex, definitely not your
common or traditional type words of communicating in this day of
age. In analyzing the sentences used by Mr. Goldsmith, one can
see that they are long and filled with commas or pauses to make
us think. Goldsmith incorporates metaphors in his writing to give
a sense of how the french, German, and the Spaniards actually
behave. His tone is very candid and somber because his
paragraphs are made of long sentences with commas that can be
translated into pauses, so he seems to be lecturing a story of some
sort. The words that are used here are very complicated words
indeed, words such as,”elated” and ”beastly gluttons” are words
that are clearly intended for an older mature audience. In the last
paragraph he uses an aporia in the first sentence which says,”Is it
 not very possible that I may love my own country, without hating
the natives of other countries?”, and this seems to engage the
reader as he again tries to make us think about the natives and the
country. I decided to go with this essay since I am not familiar with
Oliver Goldsmith’s work. He is clearly academically trained and is
good at arranging words.

Theme/Message
In this essay first published in the British Magazine in August 1760,
Goldsmith argues that it is possible to love one’s own country
“without hating the natives of other countries”. It is good that people
have good opinions about their own countries, but at the same time,
they should not think in negative terms about the people of other
countries. We should not pass judgments about others without
meeting these people. We can understand others only when we live
with them. We come to know through the author that there is no
doubt that The English who are brave and generous, is at the same
time rash, headstrong, and impetuous; too elated with prosperity and
to despond in adversity, On the other hand, the Dutch are more frugal
and industrious, the French more temperate and polite, the Germans
more hardy and patient of labour and fatigue, and the Spaniards
soberer and composed than the English. People should not think at
the national level but should think at the global level. They should
consider themselves citizens of the world.

Questions and Answers

Q. How does the writer spend his time while he travels? Give reasons
for his choice.
Ans. The writer is a traveller at his heart. While he travels, he loves
spending his time in coffee houses, pubs and other public places
because these places give him ample opportunity to observe people.
He loves to spend most of his time studying the cultures and the
people of the different regions which he visited. He says that humans
are more fascinating than art and nature. He used the opportunity of
his travels to enrich his experience with people from all over the
world. This helped him gain more content to write about in his books.

Q. What we’re the views expressed by the Englishman? Did the writer
share his views?
Ans. The Englishman said that Dutch were greedy, French were
sycophants, Germans were beastly gluttons, Spanish were tyrants but
English were bold and kind. The writer didn’t agree with him because,
to him, all these views were prejudicial.

Q. What are the virtues and faults that the writer finds in the English?
Do you think this is an expression of prejudice? Why? Why not?

Ans. The writer said that English were brave and generous but at the
same time, they were rash, headstrong and impetuous also. This is not
an expression of prejudice rather a genuine one because he sincerely
talks about both virtues as well as faults of the English.

Q. Why did the other gentleman begin to feel jealous of the writer?
Ans. The other gentleman began to feel jealous of the writer because
he could not digest his honesty. He could not digest the bitter truths
spoken by the writer. He thought that he was an invert enemy of
England. He thought that the writer did not have a moral right to be
called a citizen of England. He thought that he was the enemy of
government also.

Q. Why did the gentleman condemn the writer’s attitude as

unpatriotic?
Ans. The other man condemned the writer’s attitude as unpatriotic
because, according to him, anyone who doesn’t hateful remarks about
the natives of other countries is unpatriotic. They thought that the
writer was not patriotic because he made an impartial comment about
his country and as well about other countries which they could not
digest as it was against their jingoistic view.
Q. Why did the writer go off to his room?
Ans. The writer went off to his room because he thought it is useless
to continue to argue with the narrow-minded and prejudiced people.
Q. What is the evil effect of national prejudices?
Ans. The evil effect of national prejudices is that they divide, distance
and separate people. They give birth to unreasonable hate, enmity
and hostility. They act as a stumbling block in the way of international
peace, global love and mutual progress.
Q. What are the qualities of a gentleman?
Ans. A gentleman is well-read, well-travelled and well-experienced.
Social status and money do not make a person gentleman. He is free
from all prejudices. An exemption of prejudice is a characteristic mark
of a gentleman. He loves his own country without hating the natives
of other countries. He never makes prejudicial remarks about other
countries.

Long Answer Questions

Q. What is the author’s attitude towards national prejudices? Discuss.

OR
What does the writer want to say about the curse of national
prejudices? Do you see any reason in his arguments?
Ans. For Goldsmith, national prejudices are a curse. They enable a man
to sing songs of greatness and glory of his country and run down the
other countries of the world. He thinks that his nation is the best in
the world.
The writer refers to the proud Englishman who suffered from the
curse of national prejudices. For that Englishman the Dutch were
greedy, the French a set of flatterers, the German drunkards and the
Spaniards proud and cruel. He thought that the English were the best
of all. Little did the Englishman know that the Dutch were economical,
the French more polite, the Germans more hardy and the Spaniards
more serious than the English. The Englishman was also ignorant that
the English were no gods, they were rash, obstinate and impatient.
The writer says that the national prejudices are not essential for the
growth of the patriotism. Love of one’s country does not teach hatred
for other countries.
National prejudices are the signs of a vulgar mind. They must be giving
up at all costs. National prejudices have bred a superiority complex in
many countries of the world. They look upon themselves as the roof
and crown of all. This attitude has played havoc with numberless
precious lives in different countries of the world. National prejudices
sow the seeds of discord. They don’t let people feel that ” no men are
foreign and no countries strange. ”
The writer has beautifully advocated the cause of international
understanding in the essay. National prejudices serve as barriers to
the free flow of human thought. They create unnecessary hurdles
between the nations of the world. People think only in terms of their
own country and not in terms of mankind. For them, a part is greater
than the whole. They don’t regard themselves as the citizens of the
world.
Q. What does Goldsmith mean by “jealous eye” with which the
speaker says the company regarded him in paragraph 5.
Ans. By “jealous eye, Goldsmith means his fellow companions are
jealous that there may be someone who is truly loyal to his/her
country. His companions don’t feel this way. “…how some people
could have the conscience to live in a country which they did not love,
and enjoy the protection of a government, to which in their hearts
they were inveterate enemies.” The patriotic gentlemen is supposed
to be one loyal to his country and one who respects the actions of his
government. In this case, thw two are actually well-known enemies.
Q. What relationship does Oliver Goldsmith find between national
prejudice and patriotism?

Ans. Olive Goldsmith says that national prejudice is not the natural
and necessary growth of love for our country. It is wrong to think that
national prejudice cannot be ended without denting our patriotic
feelings. National prejudice is not the natural and necessary growth of
our patriotic feelings.
Superstition and communalism are also the growth of religion. But it
is wrong to say that they are necessary growth of religion. These are
undesirable parts of religion. Instead of giving any benefit to religion,
superstition and communalism are injurious to religion. They are
actually the base or illegitimate branches of the plant of religion.
Superstition and communalism can be very easily cut off from the
plant of religion. Such a cutting off will not do any damage to the plant
of religion. As a matter of fact, the plant of religion will have a
healthier growth if it was freed from superstition and communalism.
It is possible to love one’s own country without hating other countries.
One can defend the law and liberty of one’s own country without
hating the rest of the world. The writer can prefer to be a citizen of
the world. He would not like to call himself a citizen of this country or
that. He calls upon the reader not to hate people belonging to other
countries.
Q. What do you think Goldsmith’s attitude is toward his country?
Ans. Goldsmith’s attitude toward his country is not the most loyal as
he is not jingoistic. He has an open mind, or free spirit and feels he is
a citizen of the world, not to just one particular race of people or
country. He is not bashful. He has a disagreement regarding the
prejudices many people have and is influenced by some of these
attitudes. This can be backed up by the following quote: It is not very
possible that I may love my own country, with out hating the natives
of other countries.”

Q. How does Goldsmith’s use of the word “prejudices” differ from the
way we use it today?
Ans. Goldsmith relates prejudice to nationality whereas we relate
prejudice to race. In paragraph 2 Goldsmith makes a remark towards
the French, “…a set of flattering sycophants.” We as a society relate
prejudice to skin colour, not by race alone.

Q. What is the theme of the essay “National Prejudices”?

The lesson titled ” National Prejudices” has a beautiful theme. It is
relevant to our times. Modern people have almost turned the world
into a virtual hell with prejudices. Every one has narrowed himself to
a particular nation, caste, creed, or religion. Everyone can see Hindus,
Sikhs, Muslim, Indians, Pakistanis etc but none is broadminded
enough to see hungry, naked poor, oppressed or subjugated humans.
We all humans are biologically identical. We all need love, peace and
harmony. Therefore, we should not divide one another based on
nationality, colour, religion, or sect. We should respect one another’s
feelings, beliefs and cultures but we should prioritise humanity and
global citizenship. We may belong to a particular region geographically
but emotionally we should belong to the whole world. Any human
being’s pain and joy should be our pain and joy. We should fight with
our hand, tongue and heart against those who divide us on the
grounds of nationality, caste, colour or religion. We should not forget
that all religions were sent for humanity and humanity was not sent
for any religion. The best religions of the world teach universal love,
global equality and international fraternity. In short, all great minds
including the author himself always prefer humanity to everything
else.

Message

It is possible to love one’s country without hating the people of other

countries. The narrator also says that he prefers the title “a citizen of
the world” to “a citizen of a particular country”. He says that humanity
comes before and nationality or mentality.