Alyousef 1

Bader Alyousef
Prof. Batty
English 113A
December 12, 2014
NATIONAL PREJUDICE BY OLIVER GOLD SMITH
In this book gold smith who is one of the best essay writers tries to criticize national chauvinism in
his essay national prejudice which was first printed in 1760. He sees himself as a member of the grand
society which comprehends the whole mankind. He tries to be patriotic without being chauvinistic. He tries
to tell the whole world that you have to love your country without hating natives of other countries which he
believes is possible. He uses a lot of specific words to describe different nationalist and their character for
example, how the French are polite and temperate, however the Dutch are frugal and industrious. He shows
us that he does not believe that time has come for us to judge about other peoples culture and belief.
Goldsmith tries to focus more on prejudice as a character defect and he tries to show how different culture
can relate with each other (Nordquist).
Oliver goldsmith believes that people should be of the world and that even a gentleman, is guilty of
rutting prejudice on people. He shows us how prejudice infects the mind and influences conduct and that one
of the best ways to fix it is by conversing with foreigners. He tries to show us at length how prejudice is all
around us and it goes on between different races, heritages, societies and classes. Oliver observes that not
only are the uneducated harboured by prejudice but also educated men of high rank also indulge in these
unreasonable preconceptions showing that they are common and of no special worth. He notes that those
who brag about their country and its good qualities are the ones with the fewest good personal qualities. In
this he illustrates metaphorically, the slender vine around the sturdy oak ....because it has not the strength
sufficient to support itself. (charell)
Through this essay you will come to understand that goldsmith tries to catch attention of the old
mature audience and that his intention is to change their mindset which is negative about foreigners .The
writer has also tried to become rhetoric in this essay which is presented in an informal style personal

experience, opinions from different people, prejudice and often what is regarded as a novel point of view
(Nordquist).
In addition to that, Goldsmith uses more argumentative techniques. He quotes an authority(ancient
philosopher)and tries to use definitions like gentlemen he also use analog, persuasion and metaphor which
are traditionally considered appeals to emotions. This pseudo gentleman classifies people by country. This
classification reflects his prejudice, thus one does not question the idea of equating country with. In a
paragraph he questions the finding behind the only faults in foreigners. Goldsmith contrasts his classification
with the pseudo-patriots and his own character with the pseudo-patriots. In one of the paragraphs Goldsmith
compares pseudo gentleman and patriot as slender vine clinging to a sturdy oak and the oak is the
nation. While the slender wine symbolizes the weak prejudiced gentleman who cannot stand on his own.
He continues to describe religion as a heavenly plant and superstition as a bastard sprouts which can
also be safely looped off. Just as superstition can be pruned from religion, prejudice can be pruned from
patriotism. As realised in part one of what the writer believes he continues being rhetoric by accusing
pseudo-patriots of falsely claiming that someone must be either chauvinistic or be a traitor.
According to Goldsmith, an ancient wise and learned philosopher believes that he/she is a citizen of
the world however people in our society believe that they are natives or members of a particular society.
This means that the educated in the society are harbored by a lot of prejudices and they indulge themselves
in unreasonable preconceptions. Goldsmith metaphorically says that the unnatural outgrowth of prejudice
from love is similar to the outgrowth of superstition from religion. The truth from this statement is that, it
is possible for one to love his/her country and to support it wholeheartedly without thinking about
individuals who are foreigners. Goldsmith asks the question; Is it not very possible that I may love my own
country, without hating the natives of other countries? the answer given by many people for this question is
yes and this will show to us how deeply people are prejudicial.

Works Cited
charell. national prejudice. 2014. october 2014
Nordquist, Richard. On National Prejudices, by Oliver Goldsmith. 2014. october 2014

What I revised
It is quite evident from Goldsmith book that, our society is full of prejudices and they are worth
being criticized because we live by the rule of law and no one is above the law. I have made additional
information on the styles of writing that was used by Goldsmith in explaining his point of argument. One of
the styles of writing used by Goldsmith is metaphors and it may seem the questions asked by Goldsmith are
rhetorical however the message contained in it is worth. I do conquer with Goldsmith that early philosophers
were not having any prejudices unlike our learned scholars who are inclined to societal prejudices. It was
wise for me to note this question that is asked by Goldsmith Is it not very possible that I may love my own
country, without hating the natives of other countries? This metaphor seems to be rhetorical but the truth is
that many people deeply love their countries and foreigners or natives of other countries are despised or are
given a lot of prejudices thus it is a prudent idea for people to understand that we live in a global village and
prejudices should be out of our minds.