Though Chatterjee, Anderson, Kelly and Kaplan were all looking at history from different cultural, historic and personal lenses, they agree that a nation must consist of people sharing certain traits. Each author believes that nations must be homogenous, but differ as to the degree. Anderson rightly points out the necessity for a shared political goal but fails to address the need for inner unity. A group of people who only share a political goal may very well achieve this goal, but as Yugoslavia showed – they will not form a stable nation-state. As Chatterjee rightly points out, a stable nation state requires a collective inner, cultural domain. In the recent (and debatably current) post-colonial era, nations must work to define themselves on an inner level. Often, as both authors address, the political goals …show more content…
Nations that fail to address this before realizing political goals, eventually realize that their new nation-state comprises of multiple nations – as in Yugoslavia’s case when each region wanted their own autonomy. In fact, we can see this process today in Tibet. The region of Tibet has long held a firm cultural and spiritual identity, one distinct from the rest of the Chinese country. For decades, many Tibetans have claimed their independence from the Chinese state. This region, like the disputed regions of Palestine, Crimea and more, demonstrate the power of a non-political identity. It binds people and allows them to realize their need for sovereignty. But for most nations, this need must be realized first by an elite and resourced group of people. Despite Kelly and Kaplan’s claims, for the majority of history, these were the only people capable of mobilizing a group large enough to be a “nation”. Though the nation, and the mechanisms of its formation, have changed drastically over the past few centuries, these fundamental tenants hold true, time and time
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.
Throughout the years, humans have constructed many unique civilizations; all which follow a distinct social, economic, and political structure. Even so, there is one characteristic that prevails among these societies, the concept of nationalism. In short, nationalism refers to the feelings people have when identifying with their nation. This simple notion possesses the ability to divide or unite collective groups, and has played an important role in many historical events.
All over the world and in history, countries and nations have expressed pride towards their nations through spirit and have unified together as one. Nationalism is the force behind the unification, strength, and cooperation of these nations. First, nationalism is a powerful force that helps to unite all different people into a single nation. It is also important for nations to use nationalism to claim justified independence from one another. Finally, nationalism can be taken too far if it is used unjustly or incorrectly. Nationalism is important and necessary for beneficial political changes, but can become harmful and unproductive when used for a country’s personal agenda and lust for power.
A synthesis essay should be organized so that others can understand the sources and evaluate your comprehension of them and their presentation of specific data, themes, etc.
Williamsburg: The College of William and Mary, 2007. Morgenthau. Politics Among Nations. 4 th. -. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967.
As harmful as ethnic nationalism can be, nationalism can be a force for good. Civic nationalism, as opposed to ethnic nationalism, successfully unites people not by race or ethnicity, but by similar values and ideals. For example, the United States of America was upon the common ideals of freedom and equality. According to one expert, “The United States accepted men of all kinds of descent as their alma mater, transforming them into a ‘new race of men’” (Kohn). The non-exclusivity of American nationalism is exactly what sets apart civic nationalism from ethnic nationalism.
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.
Television has affected every aspect of life in society, radically changing the way individuals live and interact with the world. However, change is not always for the better, especially the influence of television on political campaigns towards presidency. Since the 1960s, presidential elections in the United States were greatly impacted by television, yet the impact has not been positive. Television allowed the public to have more access to information and gained reassurance to which candidate they chose to vote for. However, the media failed to recognize the importance of elections. Candidates became image based rather than issue based using a “celebrity system” to concern the public with subjects regarding debates (Hart and Trice). Due to “hyperfamiliarity” television turned numerous people away from being interested in debates between candidates (Hart and Trice). Although television had the ability to reach a greater number of people than it did before the Nixon/Kennedy debate, it shortened the attention span of the public, which made the overall process of elections unfair, due to the emphasis on image rather than issue.
In my previous sections, I defined what a nation is, dictated what constitutes a good nation, and differentiated between ethnic and civic nationalism. In this section, I will advocate for the existence of civic nationalism in liberal society by demonstrating its merits. David Miller in his introduction to On Nationality dismisses the claim that nationalism is “some kind of elemental force outside of human control, like a tidal wave.” I agree with Miller that nationalism is not an unavoidable force, nationalism is not a plague that sweeps onto mankind, but a choice of belief. However, I will maintain the stance that the underlying cause of nationalism, known by many terms such as factionalism, tribalism, and in-group bias, is a natural force.
The most important value of nationalism to democracy lies in the fact that it has the capacity to unite individual citizens into a single entity with shared beliefs. Democracy requires a definition of demos or who are included in the game and who are not (Nodia 6). Wherever the boundaries of the playing field are in dispute, democratic institutions (such as participation, representation, or cooperation) simply cannot function. Thus, for democracy to o...
Despite the world being full of diverse people with varying accomplishments and skill sets, people oftentimes assume the qualities and traits of an individual based purely on the stereotypes set forth by society. Although these stereotypes are unavoidable, an individual can be liberated, empowered and ultimately overcome these stereotypes by obtaining an advanced education.
On a global scale leading up to today, it can be said that Nationalism is not the single most important driving force in the development of World Civilization. It has happened countless of times where a nation’s people and government turn nationalistic and war ensues.
This essay will describe the characteristics of the modern nation-state, explain how the United States fits the criteria of and functions as a modern nation-state, discuss the European Union as a transnational entity, analyze how nation-states and transnational entities engage in foreign policy to achieve their interests, and the consequences of this interaction for international politics. Some of the characteristics that make up a modern nation-state are: the population of the territory is united in the national identity and traditions, has an official language or languages and common descent, has an organized government, shall have independence and sovereign (self-ruled), and has a defined territory and/or borders. An example of a modern nation-state is Egypt. Egypt’s identity is closely tied to its location and its long history.
This creates debates about which factors scholars should focus on for any given form of nationalism. Should scholars take a primordialist approach and focus on kinship ties, myths of ancestry, and instinctual loyalty? Or, should scholars take a situationalist approach focus upon changing economic and political factors which influence the rational decisions of individuals? Or, should scholars study nationalism as an ideology and explain the role of the state as an ideological enforcer and the role nationalism plays in securing the insecure masses? In certain cases people may think it is adequate to take all of the separate theories into considerations, mixing primordialist ideas of instinctual loyalty and myths of homeland with constructivist ideas of constructed national identity. Others argue that it is necessary to not combine the three separate approaches but to study each one to attempt to figure out which one can provide the deeper understanding. This means that when analyzing nationalism, the frameworks for nationalism are always being compared and contrasted to figure out which one can offer a better and deeper understanding; alluding to nationalist theories having different utilities in separate situations. However, when discussions of nationalism mix primordialist ideas of instinctual loyalty, situationalist ideas of rational interest and constructivist ideas
In his book Imagined Communities, Anderson points out “some tentative suggestions” to the abstract concept of “nation, nationality, and nationalism.” Nation, according to Anderson, is “an imagined political community […] both inherently limited and sovereign.” A nation is imagined because all members cannot know about the existence of each other, but there is still something that connects their minds and souls together. For example, Vietnam 1000 years ago was a small and insignificant country. Yet its people were patriotic and unified through the shared experience that evoked emotion.