Nationalism As Civil And Ethnic Divides

Nationalism can be traced to the nineteenth century, European peoples came to identify strongly with communities they called nations. Members of a nation considered themselves a distinctive people that spoke a common language, observed common customs, inherited common cultural conditions, held common values, and shared common

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 was formed with the idea that a nation is made up of people who are joined together by common language, customs, cultures and history. It held the belief that one should be loyal to the people of their nation, not a king or empire. Nationalists believed that people of a single nationality should unite under a single government. The concept of Nationalism emerged in the French Revolution and was spread to the rest of Europe by Napoleon’s conquests.

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.

To me these all back up my thesis and give a very clear reason of why nationllism is the biggest reason why. I also hope that it will either help persuade you this way or gives you more knowledge of why this is the

Nationalism is an important aspect of national pride and identity for countries around the world. For example, Canada takes pride in its cultural identity, one that is claimed to be different from other ‘Western’ more ‘industrialized’ nations, such as countries in Europe, and the United States. Even though Canada currently has a national identity that differs greatly from that of other more established countries, history has dictated the way in which a particular national identity exists today. In Canada, Samuel De Champlain and the French established colonies that created a cultural clash between the French Europeans, and First-Nations Canadians within the country. However, this notion of French Canadian Nationalism isn’t necessarily embraced by all of the Canadian Population. This paper seeks to analyze important pieces of Canadian History that have contributed to a broken concept of what constitutes Canadian nationalism, with an emphasis on how historic events prevent and affect coherent Canadian Nationalism in modern society. Through the analysis of the notions and histories associated with ‘First-Nations Nationalism’, ‘Quebecois Nationalism’, and a broader ‘Anti-American’ identity embraced by many Canadians, this paper seeks to locate common ground within the culturally diverse Canadian population in order to progress toward a singular coherent

Nationalism is way of thinking both political and socially to create a community united by: history, ethnicity, religions, common culture, and language. Numerous effects occurred while establishing a Nationalist community, some effects were a long term impact on Nationalism, and other was short term impacts on Nationalism.

As the main source of national identity, nationalism “makes [people] feel connected not only to one another but also to the homeland itself” (Jusdanis 28). In the case of the American founding, when the delegates from respective states met to construct a more perfect union, they did not identify themselves as Virginians or New Yorkers. Instead, they defined themselves as “we the people of the United States” as it appears in the Preamble to the US constitution. The shared interest in liberty and freedom as well as the attachment to the land of their fathers made it possible for the vast population of the thirteen states to think of itself as a unified body despite their internal ethnic and cultural divide. By identifying themselves as a member of certain group, people will form a society with certain shared value, which ultimately can become the political units for a democratic government. Nationalism is essential for creating a cohesive political community.

Anderson recognizes the difficulty that arises from attempting to define nation, nationality and nationalism. Despite its influence on modern life Anderson’s aim in this essay is to prove that nationalism is a created by “cultural artefacts”. He proposes that a nation is an “imagined political community”. This imagined community does not require face to face interactions between its members. Anderson then goes on to discuss what he terms the “cultural roots” of which these ideologies stemmed from. He says the dwindling down of religious beliefs was responsible for the creation of nationalism and the concept of a nation. My interpretation of this is that because the unifier that previously existed (religion) was “ebbing” a new unifier needed to be put into place, thus the concept of nationalism was created. He points out

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

It is suggested that nations are an imagined concept and they are made up of people who belong to a certain religion. In some cases religion undermines nationalism, for example in Islamic culture, Islam could be argued to a group of people united by a faith in religious values. Muslims are united only by a faith in their religious concepts irrespective of aspects such as race or language, which in a sense suggests that Islam is anti-national as it undermines the idea of nationalism as the only force that binds groups of people together. To contradict this notion, Hindu nationalism can be used as an example as they are not constrained to believe that one religion formulated their sense of nationalism they believe that it is more than a sense

However, nationalism does not have one single definition, its meaning has evolved as society changes and modernises. Nationalism can “...refer to any behaviour designed to restore, maintain, or advance public images of that national community” (Gries, 2005:9). By the mid-1960s there were two main proposals to understanding nationalism. “In the first, nationalism was an aspect of national history, a sentiment associated with the nation...In the second approach, nationalism was a modern, irrational doctrine which could acquire sufficient power...to generate nationalists sentiments and even nation states” (Gellner, 2008:xx). Nationalism is defined differently by different schools of thought and theorists.

After Suharto ended his long dictatorial reign in 1998 there was a substantial increase in religious and ethnic conflict in Indonesia. Author Jacques Bertrand claims religious and ethnic conflict defined Indonesia’s national model. This resulted in three critical junctures during Suharto’s retirement of his sovereign rule. The three critical junctures defined Indonesia’s “terms of citizenship, and give meaning to the structure and procedures of an institution” (Bertrand, 20). When Suharto left as dictator, major political and social changes consumed Indonesia, which threatened the Indonesian realm. The people of Indonesia struggled to define their sense of nationalism.