As I began my research for this essay, it became clearly obvious that there is no consensus on the roots of nations. From Gellner to Smith, a million little points in time and space can be credited for the creation of a nation, which in itself carries various meanings and connotations. Believing that both modernists, who interpret nationalism as being associated with industrial economy and centralized authority, and primordialists, who argue nations are ancient and natural phenomena, make valid points, I have opted to adhere to Michael Mann’s explanation that the structure of nations ‘had multiple causes and stages cascading on top of each other in unexpected and unfortunate ways. They were contingent because different causal chains, each of which we can trace and explain quite well, came together in a way that we cannot explain in terms of either of them, yet which proved timely for the outcome’ (Mann 2012: 3). Nevertheless, despite the range of explanations for nationalism, one concept is reoccurring. Humans, either in their local, state or international societies, are driven by power, and those who have the ability to force their decisions upon others yield power. Regardless of the fact that colonialism and imperialism are no longer recognized as current practices, international society still exists under the umbrella of neo-colonial influences, of which globalization is a product of.
In this essay, I will explore the status of the nation and nationalism as it currently exists under neo-colonial influences. For long-term survival, human cultures, and therefore nations, have had to adapt to different environments and shifting conditions. Today’s technological growth has challenged nations to adjust at an ever-faster pace, unse...
... middle of paper ...
...each into the international community. This is evident in the types of nationalism I’ve explored, both new nationalism and cosmopolitanism. They are opposing views of what nationalism is or can become in the future, but both have qualities that allow smaller nations to continue their existence in the international society. I have inadvertently expressed my opinion that nations are structurally political and that it is in the interest of their leaders to appeal to their unique traditions in order to maintain their power. Either way, the choice between these two approaches rests on the hands of the nation and its relationship with the international society. Globalization does not hinder the existence of the nation but rather helps it establish a place in the structure of power in a world which is still dominated by politically and economically dominant super powers.
As the international shift towards nationalism and self-determination gained momentum in the years after World War II as a result to imperialism’s dangerous influence on the world during the war, decolonization becomes the inevitable truth for nations on both sides of the colonial relationship between an occupying country and a subjugated
Nationalism has been a potent force for change since the development of human civilization. However, opinion about the extent to which nationalism may be appropriately pursued is highly diverse, a factor that has led to immense tragedy and suffering in countless regions worldwide. While it is both appropriate and sometimes encouraged to take pride in being part of a nation, it is of the utmost importance that it is done without harming or subjugating people of another. Uniting a people by force and potentially eliminating or destroying those who may oppose it or not belong to it is unacceptable ethically, morally, and socially.
1. The three components of the American System were establishing a new protective tariff, starting a new transportation system and restoring the national bank. Henry Clay thought that each of these components would strengthen and unify the nation because he thought the American system would unite the nation’s economic resources because the south would grow food and raise animals that the north would eat and in return the south would by the manufactured goods the north made. A new transportation system would allow trade between the north and the south. Now America could finally become independent economically. And the tariff would help because during the War of 1812 British merchants brought a great deal of products to the United States and sold them at much lower prices than American made goods, so the tariff would raise the prices of the British goods so the American merchants could sell their products at a lower price.
“Nationalism(n.) - loyalty or devotion to a nation, especially an attitude, feeling, or belief characterize by a sense of national consciousness” (The War of 1812 and the Rise of Nationalism 1). Nationalism was a crucial part of America’s success during the War of 1812; nationalism was reflected in the post-war period through increased national pride, emphasis on national issues, increase in power and scope of the national government, and a growing sense of American identity (The War of 1812 and the Rise of Nationalism 1). The first to arise which was the driving force behind American victories against the British was nationalism. This nationalism was expressed in four ways; patriotism, political, economical and cultural. American patriotism
The aspects that nativism focuses on the change throughout time. Nativism is the extreme opposition of a minority based on the majority’s perception of the minority being foreign and endangering their way of life. (Hingham, 2002) Nativism is based on the fears that the majority population has. If we were able to look into the future it is reasonable to believe that issues that Americans hold dearest and seek to protect would be much more different than the ones that we care about currently. It is important then to keep in mind these fears are often focused on minority groups that very rarely have anything to do with the issue and more importantly a way to protect themselves. As we look at nativism’s progress through American history we will
It reflects many of his ideas and views of what he calls nationalism, which he defines as the tendency of ‘[…] identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.’ Nationalism has been present throughout history, and is even predominant in today’s world. He defines Nationalism not only includes alignment to a political entity, but also religion, race or ideas. Examples of such forms of nationalism could include Communism, Zionism, Catholicism and Pacifism. He argues that nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism, as he puts it, ‘[…] patriotism is of its nature defensive… Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power.’
World War I, also known as “The Great War”, was a global war that revolved mainly around Europe. It took place from 1914 to 1918. This was a very brutal war that caused many casualties. The soldiers who survived experienced severe trauma and mental discomfort. This trauma was a direct result of the violence and agony they experienced during the war. Motivation for this war was the idea of nationalism and the pride in one’s country. This war was the cause of disillusionment among many of the soldiers that were involved in it.
The rise of European nationalism in the 19th Century brought with it an overabundance amount of change that would definitively modify the course of history. The rise of nationalism in one country would rouse greater nationalism in another, which would in turn, motivate even greater nationalism in the first, progressively intensifying the cycle that eventually concluded in a World War. Nationalism as an ideology produced international competition which inspired absolute allegiance to an individual’s nation state. The ideology was fueled by industrial commerce and imperialistic developments which led to nation-states pursuits of outcompeting rival nations.
Nationalism has a long history although most scholarly research on Nationalism only began in the mid-twentieth century. Some scholars point to the French Revolution of 1789 as the birth of Nationalism. The French Revolution is seen...
The sociology of imperialism seeks to define this phenomenon as an atavism in the social structure, in the specific person, in their psychological habits, which thus triggers an emotional reaction. According to Joseph A. Schumpeter - "The word imperialism has been abused as a slogan to the point where it threatens to lose all meaning. For whenever the word imperialism is used, there is always the implication - whether sincere or not - of an aggressiveness" (Conklin & Fletcher, 1999, p. 44). The history behind this word has lead us to view the corruption and destruction it has caused at the hands of people with perhaps to much power. This statement goes with debate because like it or not history in essence; has shown us that nations have pursued war for the sake of winning and expansion for the sake of expansion, we ...
The definition of nationalism, according to Anderson, is an “imagined impersonal community, defined by common history and perceived by distinctiveness, that is believed to exercise the collective right to sovereign control over a given territory.” Over the last 200 years, the United States has grown larger and stronger with every change, and with that, the understanding of nationhood and nationalism in the US has changed within the constraints of this definition. In the beginning, nationhood was very different. It was elite driven. The united states was built on immigrants brought together with the idea of building a free nation. This could be described by the elite theory, which states that elites are aspiring to nationalism and lead the movements.
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.
Nationalism is the idea that a people who have much in common, such as language, culture and geographic proximity ought to organize in such a way that it creates a stable and enduring state. Nationalism is tied to patriotism, and it is the driving force behind the identity of a culture. Nationalism had many effects in Europe from 1815, The Congress of Vienna and beyond. In the following essay I will describe many of the consequences of nationalism on European identity, as well as some of the conflicts that it created.
The relationship between the role of the state and globalisation is a complex one. Globalisation, as defined by the Financial Times, is the ‘integration of economies, industries, markets, cultures and policy-making around the world.’ However this definition, and many others like it, must by default mean that as countries become more integrated the divisions between them blur. This would create a Pangaea like nation, where states are not separated, physically, economically or socially. The main argument in this essay will be whether states, (which are inherently divided by physical and economic boundaries) and the role they have to play in general society will be less relevant in an increasingly globalised world.
There is an undeniable fact that there has been a rise in globalization. It has become a hot topic amongst the field of international politics. With the rise of globalization, the sovereignty of the state is now being undermined. It has become an undisputed fact that the world has evolved to a new level of globalization, the transferring goods, information, ideas and services around the globe has changed at an unimaginable rate. With all that is going on, one would question how globalization has changed the system that is typically a collection of sovereign states. Do states still have the main source of power? What gives a state the right to rule a geographically defined region? It is believed by many that due to the introduction of international systems and increasing rate of globalization, the sovereignty of the state has been slowly eroded over time. My paper has two parts: First, it aims to take a close look at how globalization has changed the way the economy worked, specifically how it opened doors for multinational corporations to rise in power. Second, to answer the question, is it possible for it to exist today? And even so, should it?