Table of Contents

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.

Please enable JavaScript

Read Also: Questions and Answers

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.

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.