Ernest Renan, in his classic essay “What is a Nation”, excluded religion, race, material interests, language, military necessity and even geography as suitable answers to his question. As an alternative, he argues, “a nation is a spiritual principle, the outcome of the profound complications of history” (quoted in Mehta, 1999, p. 187). In Ernest’s remark, more than anything else, the ‘spiritual principle’ included a specific outlook toward a shared history. In this case, a nation is fundamentally founded on the possession of memories and a shared past. This is evident, as I have observed, in the Baloch nationalist movement in Pakistan, where the Baloch justify their distinctive national character by their history, which distinct them from the …show more content…
Unlike Anderson, he uses the term ‘nationalism’ to associate it with the negative displays of national violence or chauvinism. Neither of them imagines nationalism as a positive force to create historical change. Gramsci, however, sees nationalism as an important part of agency, because he is concerned about hegemony in a fundamentally nationalist context (Jones, 2007). Gellner in the theoretical section of his book, he attempts to use it in a natural manner. For him, nationalism is “primarily a political principle which holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent” (Gellner, 2008, p.1). The resemblance between a form of self-rule and the group of people that identifies itself as the nation, is the evidence to nationalism, but this aim does not suggest that ‘the nation’ is ‘preordained’ and exists as a cohesive unit, nor should it mean that the political unit it seeks is certainly one to form a state. This is generally due to the fact that a nation is as much a result of nationalist endeavor as it is its object (Harris, 2009). Gellner uses the term, ‘selfless nationalism’, which he means by that its members are entitled to have their own nation. The dichotomy of nationalism first and nation later is an essential one for Gellner, as he states that it is impossible for a nation to exist without being preceded by a nationalist movement (Gellner, …show more content…
Nationalism can make a group fight fiercely for establishing its own sovereignty and could lead it to rule, that in itself does not reveal which of these nationalisms is ought to rule. Ultimately, the number of distinctive cultures and potential nationalisms are going to extinct, or become assimilated in the sea of the nation-state (Gellner, 2008, pp. 42-43). For Gellner, it is irrational to hold nationalism responsible for being forceful in homogenizing a people through its agencies which is under the command of nationalist movements. Instead, it is the typical prerequisite for nationalism as an educated, culturally standardized, exchange-capable and transportable population is what modern industrial states must have to operate successfully. In the light of the above, the main weakness of nationalism is that only a very small fraction of nationalisms attain their goals (Gellner, 2008, pp.
Nationalism has been extremely important and influential in shaping the modern world we see today, causing revolutions, rebellions and the constant reshaping of world maps continuing even today. Its appeal is something that I don’t believe will diminish in the future. Many theologians and political commentators alike agree that Nationalism has perhaps been one of the most prominent political ideologies of the modern world “No single political doctrine has played a more prominent role in shaping the face of the modern world than nationalism” 1, and doesn’t look like ceasing to be as influential anytime
Nationalism inspires a pride within a group of people that ignites change and strengthens unity. It is what keeps heritages and cultures of nations alive. But what happens when the people advocating Nationalism are trapped within a nation in which they do not desire to be? The Pan-Slavic movement in Eastern Europe in the early 20th Century created a tension between Austria-Hungary and Serbia that culminated in
I believe in Source A the common or similar view on Nationalism is how Nationalism can lead to Ultranationalism. In Both sources, Patriotism is viewed in a positive manner while nationalism is portrayed in a negative manner. Sydney J. Harris viewed patriotism as “proud of your country for what it does” and viewed nationalism as “proud of your country no matter what it does”. Charles de Gaulle viewed nationalism as “When hate for people other than your own comes first”. These nationalism views are ideal to Adolph Hilters. For example; Hitler had a mindset and believed Germany deserved what they were fighting for despite the fact that millions of lives were lost. He didn't have a limit as to what was wrong or right but did it all believing
Nationalism is a powerful force that can unite people working towards a common goal, but when it is taken to the extreme it can cause major disharmony in society, evident in the numerous genocides during the Age of Imperialism, the Fascist party's rise to power, and the Japanese’s unwillingness to surrender during World War II. Nationalism is dangerous, because it warps the minds of the individuals in the organization, creates prejudice and discrimination, and can be easily manipulated into a weapon against humanity.
If anyone in the United States were asked, "What is the best part about living in this country?," most people would answer "equality". The United States is built on and known for the equality among its citizens and is often referred to as the 'melting pot'. After reading Jonathan Kozol's, The Shame of the Nation, equality is nonexistent within the schools he has gone to, and has been employed through. With his travels, expert testimony and personal stories gathered from the people within the community and schools, he shows the exact opposite of equality. Minority schools being his main focus, he discusses the inequalities these students endure and truly opens up your eyes to just how awful these minority schools have it. Jonathan Kozol is successful in his writing of The Shame of the Nation, and makes himself a voice for these minority schools that are denied of their voices.
Nationalism is a sense of strong pride and loyalty of ones nation over other nations. This is different from past
Nationalism has played a crucial role in world history over the past centuries. It continues to do so today. For many, nationalism is indelibly associated with some of the worst aspects of modern history, such as the destructive confidence of the Napoleon’s army and the murderous pride of Nazi Germany. Large numbers of people, descent in their hearts, have carried out unbelievable atrocities for no better reason than their nation required them to. Authoritarian and totalitarian regime have crushed dissent, eliminated opposition, and trampled on civil liberties in the name of the nation.
Today, the scourge of nationalism continues to infect humanity. Without doubt, in some circles, nationalism is hotly debated. For most people, however, the concept of nationalism is rarely questioned. In fact, it 's a foregone conclusion that people should love the nation in which they reside. Some people even take great pride in the fact that they were arbitrarily born in a specific geographical location. Unfortunately, like religion or capitalism, nationalism is alive and well in the 21st century.
Nationalism can be described as a mix, multidimensional morally developed or created concept involving a shared common identification with one's Nation. It is more on politically motivated towards working and maintaining self-governance, or full sovereignty, working towards to a specific land or a territory of historical significance to the group such as land and its belongings. In simple Nationalism is a nation command and lead itself, free from foreign influence, it is the concept of self-rule. Nationalism is further formed towards maintaining and developing a Sovereignty based on shared features such as religion, language, race, culture, or either political goals or a belief in a customary ancestry. So its pride towards nation's achievements, and the concept in world history has shown positive and negative impact, moreover in a political dimension it leads either unification or disintegration.
Nationalism is a widely debated ideology that differs based on the historian’s definition. For example, Benedict Anderson attempts to define nationalism as "an imagined political community [that is] imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign"(Anderson, pg 6). Anderson also believes the main causes of nationalism can be
The United States of America is, “a nation of immigrants” as John F. Kennedy called it. Apart from the Native American ancestry, all others trace their culture back to somewhere else (Soerens, M. 2013). In my opinion, the U.S has increasing rate of immigrants, than any other country. It is also successful in providing facilities like education, employment and various career opportunities for global immigrants even today.
Nationalism has become one of the most powerful uniting-and occasionally separating-powers of the modern age. Throughout history, there were numerous countries that exemplified both sides of this classic European belief. However, as time has passed, this pride and promotion of one’s country has developed far beyond the scope of Europe. Nationalist feelings fester in all parts of the globe now, and with that comes more complicated expressions of the sentiment, as well as carefully crafted governments that exist for the sole support of nationalist fervor.
Before a discourse of the specified topic can be laid out, definitions of a few terms must be distinguished. Firstly, nationalism and patriotism are two distinctly different concepts that are often used interchangeably to represent a similar school of thought. By no means, are they mutually exclusive or unrelated ideologies, but nationalism and patriotism differ in their approaches to expressing love for one’s country, respectively. These definitions can be best understood on the shoulders of essayist and drama critic, Sydney J. Harris, “The Difference Between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility while the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to a war (Harris, 1953).” While the latter definition may be a bit extreme, the general impression is still applicable. An understanding of the dichotomy between nationalism and patriotism, and how
Nationalism at its core is the support of a country. The goal of a country is to have some sort of resonance within the individuals that reside there that call themselves citizens. If the citizens don’t feel any connection with their country, they may move to find one that they feel closer too. Once found, they may support the country over others, defend it within conversations of politics or just find groups that have the same ideals they do about the country. This papers purpose is to illustrate the pros of nationalism as well as its cons.
According to Rourke (2008) the most important way people have identified themselves politically for five centuries is through nationalism (p. 102). Nations are formed when people who “share demographic and cultural similarities [who identify themselves] as a group distinct from other groups and want to control themselves politically” (p. 103) band together in a national political identity which has “a soul, a spiritual quality” (Rourke, 2008, p. 103). Feelings of nationalism can be very intense and difficult to put aside because of this. For the concept of globalization to continue to spread and grow nationalistic feelings must be tempered with cosmopolitan ideals.