Essay about How Does Nationalism Shape China's International Relations?

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 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.

An anti-foreigner movement was organized in 1900, attacking foreigners across China, urging a multinational force to stop the movement. As expected, the boxers were easily defeated and China was once again forced to succumb to Westernization. However, the Chinese nationalism spread from the failure of this movement and Sun Yat-sen, a passionate spokesman, “organized the Revolutionary Alliance to rebuild China” on the “Three Principles of the People.” These principles included the ideas of nationalism, democracy and economic security for everyone. However, little progress was made and China quickly fell into chaos against the “twin evils” of warlord uprisings and foreign imperialism, collapsing the last Chinese dynasty. This set China to path of an eventual Chinese communist state, living up to Sun Yat-sen’s “Three Principles of the

Nationalism is the patriotic view of one's nations and to think the nations and or nation state is superior to another. The source given shows a viewpoint of someone who is vary patriotic almost showing a form of ultranationalism. This viewpoint presents the idea that one's identity should solely be formed by the nation they are apart of. Nationalism is not what should shape your whole identity. Areas of concern related to nationalism shaping identity is the conflict that occurs and animosity between two nations, inadequate amount of learning from other nations and forming the idea that your identity isn't only shaping by where you come from.

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.

“Nationalists see patriotism as a virtue; they think their country and its culture is worth preserving” Haidt claims. In agreement with Haidt, there are some nationalists who believe their country is the country and the masses should be following in its footsteps. They react rudely to new opinions and ideals because they worship their own ideals so much that it is their life. But there are also other nationalists who feel just as strongly, but are civil about

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

In the very late 1800’s and into the early 1900’s, terror struck northern China when a group of Chinese peasants known as “Boxer’s” began their historic rebellion against the spread of western and Japanese influence in China. They were attempting to drive all foreigners out and away from China, fearing that they would transform traditional ways of the Chinese culture. This event would prove to be a detriment to both the people of China, as well as the country of China as a whole, costing them large amounts of money, losing thousands of innocent people, and hurting their reputation. Not only was China affected by this issue, but countries including America, England, Russia, France, Italy, Austria, Hungary, the United Kingdom, and Japan were called for, and aided in China’s cry for help. This is important because China would later have to pay each these countries back for all of their help, which was not a cheap cost to pay. Importance of this event will be shown through the rise of the Boxer Rebellion along with what occurred during the rebellion, the many effects the rebellion had both the people of China, and as a country, and the non-justification of the Boxer Rebellion, despite it having such a large impact on China.

To face the challenge of imperialist encroachment by the West and Japan, the Nationalist Party (Guomindang or Kuomintang) and the Chinese Communist Party compete and work to modernize and reunify China.

For instance, the author investigates the theory of “cultural China” from Tu Wei-ming and discusses its contribution as well as restriction to the diasporic paradigm for studying Chineseness. On the one hand, the author appreciates Tu’s effort to challenge the former hegemonic structure of “center/periphery”, in which the center (mainland China) has undoubted priority and authority to define China and Chinese, by stressing the political possibility of diasporic and peripheral Chinese intellectuals (Ang 228-230). On the other hand, the author argues that since upmost concern of Tu still lies in the Mainland China, Tu actually underpins the hegemonic structure of China unconsciously by displacing the former center with a new center named “culture China”, which is regarded as a coercive incorporation or arrogant exclusion regardless of specificities of diasporic Chinese.

David Shambaugh’s book, China Goes Global: The Partial Power, joins existing scholarship that comments on the implications of China’s rise as a global power. Though many scholars would argue that China has been on the rise for several decades and is due to overtake the United States in several more, Shambaugh argues that this may not be the case. To prove this argument, Shambaugh has researched six dimensions of China’s recent emergence in a comprehensive study. These dimensions include China’s perceptual, diplomatic, governmental, economic, cultural, and military power. Based on his summation of these factors, Shambaugh concludes that China is a global actor without much global power.

Nationalism and democracy often are co-existent with each other at any time within the state. These interactions that they have with each other culminate in both benefits and problems for society, or sometimes produce a neutral reaction. This essay will explore these interactions that could either be beneficial, detrimental, or neutral in the ways that nationalism and democracy are intertwined within the state.

It is difficult to identify one’s nationality because understanding the concept of a nation is an abstruse procedure. Given that defining a nation is perplexing, and the characterization of a nation is imperative to define nationalism, it becomes a convoluted process to determine the meaning of nationalism. Furthermore, nationalism is a human construct, which makes it inconsistent across the world. Different individuals would have different views on the definition of nationalism. When the concept of nationalism is indefinite and obscure, it would inevitably lead to conflict amongst individuals within a nation and foreign to the nation due to a difference in opinion

Nationalism is an ideology that shapes actions and provides legitimatization for a state based on national identity (Smith, 1991, 18). National identity stems from shared characteristics, including ethnicity and a mass public culture (Smith, 1991, 14). Nationalism has been on the rise lately, as evidenced by the increased popularity of nationalist European political parties, posing a threat to global stability in the near future (Pappas, 2016, 27). Specifically, the polarization of nationalism causes this threat. An experiment found that there is some natural human tendency to form groups, creating a division between group members and those who do not belong to the group due to not sharing a common culture (McRaney, 2011, 2). The creation of in and out-groups forms solidarity between group members but the exclusion of others makes them outsiders and a potential threat, strengthening polarization (McRaney, 2011, 4). It is nationalism, more so than great power conflict or nuclear weapons, that poses the greatest threat to global stability because nationalism has increased recently and creates polarizing in and out-groups. In turn, this polarization increases the likelihood of war and isolationism, and is a strong motivation for a great power conflict or nuclear attack. Nationalism, particularly based on ethnicity, can lead to wars of expansion while polarization causes aggression between states. Moreover, nationalism’s focus on national self-interest can promote isolationism

The notions of ethnicity and nationalism have been used to discuss the formation of what is so called a nation-state. Many anthropologists (e.g. Eriksen, 1993) assert that ethnicity is a multifaceted product of ever-changing social relations and organisation. In a similar way, Eriksen (1993) discusses nationalism as a social cohesion defined by its relationship to the state. Echoing further dichotomy to the anthropologists’ interpretation, Brubaker (2004) also affirms the presence of “normative ambivalence and conceptual ambiguity” in the study of ethnicity and nationalism. What such debates suggest is therefore neither the definitions nor the relationship between ethnicity and nationalism has been straightforward. From an anthropological point of view, loyal individuals who share symbols, history and found a common expression among themselves claim an imagined concept of civic nationhood (Eriksen, 1993). On the other hand, a different form of nationalism can be traced from “vertical relationship” between ethnicities competing for power (ibid.). Nonetheless, nationalism exists as an abstract conception that involves ‘exclusion’ and ‘inclusion’ of inevitably changing identities (Eriksen, 1993; Smith, 1994 and Brubaker, 2004).