Category: Nationalism

Nationalism is claimed to be one of the main causes of World War I. This article provides a critical analysis of the causal relationships between nationalism and World War I in different countries. The author found that the war was encouraged by elites and supported by the masses, but it did not emerge due to the rise of nationalism. He suggested that in most countries except for Germany and Japan, nationalism insignificantly impacted World War I as this correlation was weak worldwide (Mann, n.d.). Instead, the war mobilized populations and thus increased nationalism.

Reference

Mann, Michael. (n.d.) The Role of Nationalism in the Two World Wars. Web.

Both nationalism and imperialism were major forces that drove the alliances toward the war. The Pan-Slavic movement itself was not created specifically by Russia to achieve its political goals. It was originally coined by various Slavic intellectuals, and at the beginning of the XX century, Frantiaek Palacký invited various historians and other scientists to visit a congress in Prague dedicated to Pan-Slavism (Livezeanu & von Klimó, 2017). In this case, supporters of Pan-Slavism wanted to transform the monarchy into a federation so that minorities (such as Slovaks, for example) could feel protected and create a counterweight to nationalism that was rising in Germany. During that time, Pan-Slavism received not so much support. However, it was used by Russia to support Slavic nationalists who demanded independence from Austro-Hungarian Empire or even rooted for the union between Southern Slavs (including Balkan Slavs).

It should be noted, however, that Russia used this nationalistic wave to support its plans of gaining control over the Turkish Straits, and in case of Serbias actions threatened Russias national interests, it was ready to abandon its Pan-Slavic rhetoric (McMeekin, 2011). The German-speaking states, such as Germany and Austro-Hungary, presented a counterpart to Russia; furthermore, these states also heavily relied on nationalism to achieve economic, military, and technological power. German nationalism was built upon Prussian authoritarianism and could be characterized as highly conservative and even anti-liberal (Vermeiren, 2016).

Austria-Hungary had more difficulties with nationalistic movements as it was multiethnic, which could result in revolution and riots rather than unification as it happened in Germany. Austria-Hungarys primary aims were to counter the nationalism that arose in Serbia and was supported by Russia, as well as ensure that it has colonies or lands in the Balkan (this aim later led to the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina). At the same time, as the Pan-Slavic movement and nationalism grew rapidly in Serbia, Austria-Hungary realized that it was becoming a major threat to the Empire. The assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serb was a perfect excuse for Austria-Hungary to start a war on Serbia and prevent the Slavic nationalism from spreading (McMeekin, 2011).

As Vermeiren (2016) points out, the alliance system itself also played an important role in starting the First World War. The Triple Alliance that consisted of Italy, Germany, and Austro-Hungary was created in 1882 to counter potential attacks of Russia and Great Britain. At the same time, Russia concerns were the same about Germany, but it would not be able to fight the Triple Alliance alone (McMeekin, 2011). In 1902, the Triple Entente (Russia, France, Great Britain) were created as a counterforce to the Alliance. After the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, Serbia turned to Russia for support, which eventually dragged its alliances into the war, as well as those of Austria-Hungary, since by forming the alliances countries formally agreed they would support each other in military actions (Vermeiren, 2016).

The United States and World War I

The decision of the United States to stay neutral between 1914-1917 could be explained by the fact that the American nation is a nation of immigrants. Since it largely consisted of immigrants from various European countries, Woodrow Wilson feared that in their support of native countries, immigrants could spark a partisan war in the USA. However, many of the immigrants still supported their lands in the war, and some even wanted to return to their native countries to serve in the military (Rauchensteiner, 2014). Since the USA has always been a melting pot of ethnicities, it was risky for the country to enter the war since its population consisted of individuals who once were citizens of both alliances. Wilson continued trading relationships with the Alliance and the Entente, but these relationships began to worsen rapidly as Germany tried to isolate Great Britain from deliveries and mined territories in the sea, which sunk or damaged several American ships.

One of the most famous cases that led to increased tension between Germany and the USA was the destruction of Lusitania, a ship owned by Great Britain that was destroyed (without any warning) by a German U-boat. There were 128 Americans on the board of this ship, which seriously affected the foreign relations between America and Germany. However, at this point, the USA had not yet entered the war as Germany apologized for the attack (Rauchensteiner, 2014). Despite this apology, Germany continued to sink American ships that traveled to Europe, which ultimately resulted in Wilsons decision to enter the war. It was supported by the Senate.

The war was actively advertised to American citizens; the Committee on Public Information (CPI) established by the President was responsible for spreading propaganda and waking interest and patriotic feelings in Americans so that they would decide to be recruited (State of Delaware, 2018). The Selective Service Act was passed in 1917, on May 18; more than 2 million men were recruited by the end of the WWI (State of Delaware, 2018). An important contribution by the USA was the establishment of the Red Cross, which helped European and American soldiers in the field. Americans were asked and encouraged to volunteer in and donate money to the Red Cross. Furthermore, the Red Cross also helped civilians who suffered from the war.

The American role in the First World War was important as the USA helped counter Germany in the battles of ChateauThierry and Belleau Wood, as well as the Second Battle of the Marne (all of them occurred in 1918) (Rauchensteiner, 2014). The MeuseArgonne offensive is considered to be one of the most important battles in the First World War as it had paved the path to the wars end. Furthermore, in 1918 Wilson crafted his famous Fourteen Points that he suggested to use to prevent other major wars like the First World War. Although Germany supported these points, the forces of the Entente were barely interested in them as their main aim was to regain the lands and resources they had lost; the Entente agreed to accept them if Germany would pay reparations (which severely exhausted the countrys economic and finances).

The Treaty of Versailles was ineffective because of the following reasons: it did not consider Germanys opinion and the country itself almost did not contribute to it; France was interested in dividing Germany so that it would not be able to attack France; the USA and the UK did not support Frances aims as they understood the threat of a new war that French occupation of Germany could spark. The USA also did not agree to ratify the treaty, and the treaty itself raised right-wing movements in Germany. Wilsons suggestion to create an organization that would prevent large-scale wars from happening again was the basis for the creation of the League of Nations. Ironically, as the Senate refused to adopt the Treaty, the USA never became a part of the League of Nations (Our Documents, 2018). During the 1920s and 1930s, the country was focused mostly on its domestic issues and problems (the 1920s are characterized as the years of prosperity), which prevented it from noticing that a new power (the National Socialist German Workers Party) was rising in Europe. Wilson believed that the USA should have been a member of the League of Nations because it could prevent or at least mitigate the threat that Germany soon became to other nations.

References

Livezeanu, I., & von Klimó, Á. (2017). The Routledge history of East Central Europe since 1700. London, England: Taylor & Francis.

McMeekin, S. (2011). The Russian origins of the First World War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Our Documents. (2018). President Woodrow Wilsons 14 points (1918).

Rauchensteiner, M. (2014). The First World War and the end of the Habsburg monarchy, 1914-1918. Vienna, Austria: Böhlau Verlag Wien.

State of Delaware. (2018). The U.S. during World War I. Web.

Vermeiren, J. (2016). The First World War and German national identity: The dual alliance at war. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

World War I is the greatest event that affected the world at the beginning of the 20^th century. This paper will reveal some of its triggers and identify how the USA was engaged in the war. In particular, attention will be paid to the major forces that led to the outbreak of World War I. The focus will also be made on the decision to remain neutral and Americas role in the outcome of this event.

Nationalism, Imperialism, and Militarism

World War I was triggered by numerous causes, and nationalism is one of them. It is mainly perceived as a sense of pride experienced by a nation (Llewellyn, 2017). Nationalism was observed in Italy and Germany before World War I, as some delegates who gathered at the Congress of Vienna revealed that they wanted to create a new Europe that would not include these countries. In the 19th century, the Pan-Slav movement started promoting a sense of Slav unity. Intellectuals focused on national identity and emphasized similarities between Slavic countries, which separated them from the rest of the world. German states were bound due to a similar movement that was backed by German militarism.

Imperialism presupposes the willingness of a country to become superior to others. In this way, it can enhance its power and wealth. This concept facilitated the development of World War I, as it was observed in all European countries and it encouraged them to have the fight to take over each other. Such actions were supported by militarism. According to it, the use of force is the best way to solve issues among nations. As a result, armies grew, as well as the powers needed to participate in wars.

Finally, the Alliance System affected the worlds situation and triggered the war. It made rivaling countries start battles. As a result, the number of participants in the war increased, and it became more difficult to develop a compromise that would appeal to everyone. Hence, the competition between nations exhilarated.

The USA in World War I

At the beginning of World War I, the USA tried to be neutral. However, when its ships started to be attacked by the German navy and sank, the country realized that its economy and safety are affected significantly (Proctor, 2017). Initially, the country was focused on the desire to improve its economy. Thus, it was not interested in the possibility to participate in World War I and resolve global problems. The USA dealt with human rights and unemployment and citizens supported this decision.

The USA did not want to become a part of World War I since it realized that all its achievements associated with the improvement of local situation and enhancement of well-being would be wasted. The country wished to remain impartial and friendly towards others. It expected its population to be loyal and follow the developed plan. Neutrality was seen as the tool for saving the US achievements obtained due to its hard work.

Moreover, it is significant to consider the fact that the USA was created when the representatives of various nations united into one. They represented different races and ethnicities, which meant that they could hardly be treated as friends or enemies of some countries engaged in World War I. In this way, neutrality made the USA develop its nationalism. This idea was immediately distributed by the media. Politicians and the representatives of government institutions promoted togetherness. In this way, the participation of the USA in World War I would divide its populations and affect national stability.

Americas Entrance into the War and Its Contribution

At the beginning of the 20th century, the British ocean liner on which numerous Americans were present was attacked by Germans. The USA realized that German submarines could threaten its population but decided to remain neutral regardless of this event because Americans were hurt indirectly. Wilson stated that the USA valued its peace more and that military response would not be the best option, considering its consequences. As a result, American delegates came to Germany, asking its authorities not to attack ships anymore. However, this request was not satisfied. Soon, Germany started destroying all ships in the foreign waters, attacking Americans as well (Proctor, 2017). These actions made the President address Congress with the intention to declare war against Germany. He emphasized that this country refused to end unrestricted submarine warfare. Moreover, it tried to develop an alliance with Mexico to fight against the USA. Along with the submarine attacks, the Zimmermann telegram motivated Americans to become engaged in World War I (Proctor, 2017).

It is important to recognize American contribution even before its official engagement in the war. For instance, it supported the Entente powers. The country supplied them with military forces, financial resources, and industrial necessities. As the USA entered the war, Germany started great attacks that resulted in the US response. The country gathered numerous military troops and used tanks along with other countries. As a result, Germany lost the greatest part of its army and surrendered.

The Treaty of Versailles and the role of President Woodrow Wilson

The Treaty of Versailles was formulated at the end of World War I. According to it, peaceful relationships between Germany and other participants of the war were ensured (Ross, 2015). The main goal of this treaty was to make certain that future peace will not be ruined. In order to make this initiative even more effective, the League of Nations was created (Ross, 2015). However, the USA was not included because it waited for Congress clarifications. The statements of this document did not appeal to Congress, so the USA had never joined the League of Nations. In particular, it was stated that the country could provide too much power. Even though this organization included numerous participants, it failed to meet its goal. As a result, the peaceful situation in the world was ruined, and World War II started.

Wilson was the president of the USA at the discussed period of time. He wanted to ensure that the country did not participate in World War I due to the harmful influences and consequences of this event. However, those occurrences that were observed during World War I made him alter his position. As a result, he initiated the war against Germany. Having had no desire to be engaged in military affairs, the president started them because of the unrestricted submarine welfare. Wilson contributed to the development of the USA significantly because he controlled the economy of the country. In addition to that, he supported the army effectively. When World War I ended, the president went to France as he was interested in the Treaty of Versailles. Wilson believed in democracy and wanted to ensure that World War II would not happen.

Conclusion

Thus, it can be concluded that the development of nationalism, imperialism, and militarism in the most powerful countries triggered the first critical conflicts between them. Under the leadership of Wilson, the USA did its best to focus on its personal development and remain neutral during World War I. However, Germanys actions provoked the USA, and it entered the war. Over the course of time, the involved countries managed to overcome this issue, but a peaceful environment did not last for a long time.

References

Llewellyn, J. (2017). Nationalism as a cause of World War I. Web.

Proctor, T. (2017). World War I: A short history (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Ross, S. (2015). World War I. London, UK: Britannica.

The culture of a nation has many faces. Each of the culture has its own thoughts, faiths and beliefs which help setting up norms for the systematic movement of the society. The concept of nationalism is also an output of such cultures. There are different meanings of nationalism for different people of the society because of the variety in the culture around the world. For some nationalism is a religious concept whereas for some it is a belief and thought process on the bottom such as language, geographical location or traditions. However, the meaning of the collaborative society or nation and identification of each members of society as tribe remains the same in the cases. Moreover, sometimes different viewpoints of two culture creates a battle among different sections of the society. The same has happened to the concept of nationalism where in those who feels that the nationalism provides too much liberty to the society which could stuck the societal balance in the country. These thoughts are primarily focused in the unity of the society using revenge actions or suppressing the revolutionary voice for protecting the peace and leadership. In the given essay a comparison has been made between the theory of some of the significant nationalist movements and personal with the antinational personals. Hence the difference in the thoughts and the opinion has been critically analyzed to ascertain in the logical argument made by them.

In 18th century across the world specifically in the Europe had most showing the concept of nationalism. The arrival of the French revolution and fall of monarch in the France had made a significant impact on the Europe regarding the benefit of the organized public opinion. However, there remained one section of the society which does not believed in this approach of gathering and forming a public opinion which later termed as anti-nationalism. Politicians, public figures and philosopher have used fundamental concepts in spreading their voices to the commons. The believers in nationalism such Gottlieb Fichte, a German philosopher has quoted “that people are bonded together with the language they speak.” Another, laurate Lord Ampthill specified that nationalism is the method which could help “the society in protecting their interest by maintaining their national rights” to which is exactly the opposite of the opinion of the Count Czernin. According to the Czernin, a ruler is selected by “god itself and one should not question on the decisions of the crown.” He demanded that people must not be pushed to reason with the crown and dictatorship should be cherished by them even if it means losing their rights. From both the opinions it is quite clear that nationalism advocates civil rights and protection whereas anti nationalism doesn’t take into account the rights of the common public. The logic behind the advocates of nationalism is that the masters of their own interest whereas their mates feel that the rulers are the masters of the peoples interest.

On the other hand it can be observed in the Carlsbad Decrees of 1819 with respect to the French historian Ernst Renan. The university law states that “the professors have to follow certain code of conduct which discourage them in expressing themselves to the students and the press law stops the freedom of the publication of press releases and pamphlets.” However, the nationalism supporter Ernst Renan strongly advocates “a nation as a soul and suggest that man is not a slave of race, his language, religion or not to anyone.” Man must express his thoughts without any restrictions misuse of it by its nation. The objective behind such decrees are that the society must behave as the government of the country wants them to be since it would create peace and in the country and would help in combination of the citizens whereas the objective behind Renan’s belief is to make a world wherein every person could attached with each other on the basis of spiritual beliefs and the faith. The basic logic behind such anti-nationalism laws would be that giving excess freedom to express would harm the citizens and control the development of the nation whereas the nationalist believes that the people should be guided by their soul’s not just rules.

These studies provide a common understanding of the political, social and cultural aspects of the modern Europe and the world. The essay explains the need of the nationalism which was identified by the philosophers and the common citizen’s to displace the monarch. However, the study also helps in understanding the conflicting relation between the Russia and United States of America since the teachings are exactly opposite to each other. Further, many new countries around the globe got inspired by the concept of nationalism such as India, Pakistan, and other Asian countries in the 20th century is an output the spread of the nationalism in the Europe. The introduction of motherland or fatherland and adoption of fundamental rights for the protection of the interests of the common public are some of the most vital gains due to the rise in the nationalism in the Europe and the modern world.

At last it can be concluded that the world has lots of different ideologies and there are lots of preachers of such ideologies. The essay helps in understanding the thoughts of the various influential peacemaker and laws regarding the nationalism and anti-nationalism. The essence of the essay is nationalism provides a suitable condition for the individuals to express their opinions and helps in the blending of the national as a whole. Further, the essay enlightens the gains form the rise of the nationalism in the modern Europe and across the globe such as fundamental rights and many others.

Bibliography

1. Count Czernin, quoted in Europe 1783-1914, William Simpson & Martin Jones, eds. (London: Routledge, 2015), 381.
2. Doyle, William. The Oxford history of the French revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
3. Ernst Renan, quoted in Europe 1783-1914, William Simpson & Martin Jones, eds. (London: Routledge, 2015), 152.
4. Gottlieb Fichte, quoted in Europe 1783-1914, William Simpson & Martin Jones, eds. (London: Routledge, 2015), 142.
5. Hammond, Glen Paul. Nationalism and Anti-Nationalism: A Matter of Perception. politicalanimalmagazine.com. https://www.politicalanimalmagazine.com/2018/12/14/nationalism-and-anti-nationalism-a-matter-of-perception/ (Accessed 18 June 19)
6. Kingston, Jeff. Nationalism in Asia: A History Since 1945. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2016.
7. Lord Ampthill, quoted in Europe 1783-1914, William Simpson & Martin Jones, eds. (London: Routledge, 2015), 282.
8. Ravitch Norman. Nationalism and Anti-Nationalism. paw.princeton.edu. https://paw.princeton.edu/inbox/nationalism-and-anti-nationalism (Accessed 18 June 19)
9. The Carlsbad Decrees, quoted in Europe 1783-1914, William Simpson & Martin Jones, eds (London: Routledge, 2015), 171.

Nationalism can be described as the commitment to the interests or culture of one country. Nationalism can be expressed in a small way, such as the celebration of individual culture or something much larger, such as the French Revolution. Nationalism appears in both positive and negative forms. Ultranationalism is a more aggressive form of nationalism that can be seen as disruptive. Ultranationalistic decisions were made to solve certain problems throughout history, such as scapegoating, internments, and genocides. When a certain event happens, such as war, racism can turn the spirit of nationalism into a dangerous form of extreme nationalism. Ultra-nationalism has a devastating effect on individuals because it can result in hatred towards others, mass killings and racism. Individuals should embrace nationalism only until discrimination or violence is involved, and also when human rights are violated.

It can also be seen throughout history that genocide has also been induced by ultra-nationalism. There had been a tragic event in 1994, and that would have been the genocide of Rwanda. The two groups that were involved in this are the Tutsi and Hutu groups. The Tutsi and Hutu had animosity between them and deeply desired to kill each other. Their ultra-nationalistic views helped to build up their resentment towards each other. This event led to the planned assassination of the Hutu on their president. They were able to use this as an excuse to destroy the Tutsis. The Hutus blamed the Tutsis for killing their president and went on a rampage which conducted the mass killing of Tutsis. The Rwandan Genocide is an example of ultranationalistic ideas from leaders planted into the minds of other individuals. The Rwandan Genocide was hatred between two different nations, the Hutus and the Tutsis. Due to the leader convincing others to kill, led to the death of approximately 800,000 individuals which took place in 1994.

Ultra Nationalism led to the death of millions of Jewish people. They had their rights and lives taken away because of one man who had an ultranationalistic idea. Hitler’s ultranationalistic views towards Jewish people led the Germans to believe that they were the enemy. Adolf Hitler achieved this by scapegoating the Jewish people. Jewish people, because they were an isolated minority, became popular targets of scapegoating. The anti-Semitic views helped convince Germany that the Jewish people were the root cause of their economic downfall. Jewish people faced economic discrimination by being forced out of government, university, law, medical and school positions. The Jewish businesses were boycotted and later seized. Jews were seen as handicapped in the eyes of ultranationalism Germans. Later, the Jews were deported from all German-occupied countries and were isolated from the rest of the population. Germany believed they had a problem and found an unethical and dangerous solution that ended up helping the start of World War II. Another form of genocide due to the ultranationalistic idea of a leader was the Holocaust. During World WarII Adolf Hitler convinced Germany as a nation that the Jewish people needed to be exterminated. This ended up with the death of more than 6,000,000 Jewish people.

During World War I and II, Canada pursued its national interest in security by creating internment camps. Individuals with a German, Japanese, or Italian background were sent to internment camps across Canada. Although Canada, as a nation, felt it was right to place individuals with a certain ethnic background in the camps, it still violated their human rights. The individuals inside the camps broke no laws, but still had all of their possessions taken away, and were stripped of their rights. The victims of the camps lost their livelihood after they were released, due to their properties and possessions being taken away. This was Isaac Abraham an ultranationalistic solution to Canada’s problem regarding their security of the nation. The result of Canada’s ultranationalistic decision left a permanent scar on the history of the country. Throughout history, there have been many cases of genocide due to the ultranationalistic views of certain individuals and nations. Genocide is a tragedy of humankind and is a threat that continues to this very day. Certain individuals or political figures were able to convince the nation that it was okay to murder, as long as it was for their cause. Ultranationalistic views of certain people can cause the death of millions. The genocides that took place were the result of ultranationalism, which left a scar on the world.

The ultra-nationalistic responses of a country to certain issues can not only breach one’s right as a human being but can also trigger racism-related murder. No matter the amount of power and control a nation has, it should never impose its ultranationalistic views on others. The consequences of ultranationalistic solutions to certain problems can result in the death of millions. A nation’s self-interest does not matter when the lives or rights of humans are at risk. Individuals should never be put in a situation where their nation causes them to violate the human rights of innocent people. Ultranationalism is an extreme nationalism that promotes the interests of one state or people, above all others, or simply extreme devotion to one nation.

Historical Development of Nationalism in Europe

Everyone has pride in their own nation. One’s nation is where they choose to live and holds an abundance of important family history. Nationalism is the identification with one’s own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations (Webster dictionaries online, 2019). It is an idea that is very relevant in Europe and impacts lives in various ways. Nationalism holds negative and positive connotations to it; in that it has implemented positive effects while also promoted negative effects. The positives to nationalism are unity of the country, equality of citizens, preservation of the traditional culture and progression with the economy.

Historical Development of Nationalism in Europe

Especially in Europe, this advocacy has been around for centuries mainly starting at the end of the 18th century, and in the beginning of the 19th century. Nationalism in Europe started in Central Europe then moved to Eastern and Southeastern Europe. Central Europe nations are Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, Switzerland, Serbia, Romania, and Slovenia. Eastern Europe is made of Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, and Slovakia, as well as the republics of Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine. In the era of nationalism there was the idea that each nationality should form its own state and that these states would be exclusive to their nationalities alone. The Roman Empire actually set the standards with its ability to survive a lengthy amount of time unified; it was the most substantial and expansive political structure in western civilization. From then on, it was seen that education is possible through individual mother tongues, not of other civilizations. Especially with industrialization within communities, separate nations could use inner nation independence in forming strong unified economies.

Positive Aspects of Nationalism: Unity and Economic Progress

Nationalism and national identity have been around for a long time; They can be traced back to ages of the Spanish unification under catholic monarchs, Joan of ARC Shakespeare, and more. It is a prevalent topic that has been in European debates for a few decades and still relevant today; “National identification is a multidimensional-ethnic, legal, territorial, economic, political concept united by the nationalist ideology into a potent vision of human identity and community” (Smith, 1992). Europe as a whole has its own nationalistic image. It can be said that Europe is a family of cultures rather than a singular culture. Within all the cities and countries there is extreme cultural differences that would make it very difficult to say just one culture for the whole continent. Within this family of cultures, the lack of serious geographical barriers and the geopolitical space between the massive bodies of water are some qualities that are shared among the countries. Additionally, for the most part Europe is Christian. Eastern Europe is orthodoxy and Western Europe is catholic and protestant. That is not to say that everyone is of that religion in those regions, but the foundation religion of that region. Furthermore, Europe countries have an overlap of traditions, heritages, political democracy, Roman law, and institutions. It is basically a cultural cross fertilization with a strong foundation of history that connects them all (Smith, 1992). The unity of this continent came from a long time-span and historical past that happened within the time frame. European unity is vitally important to prevent a recurrence of wars within the continent and secure a flourishing future for the people of Europe.

The European Union: A Manifestation of Nationalism

The European Union today is a merging between 28 European countries that align in politics and economics. The union started merely to unify the economy solely. They all use the euro, which is the European currency. With time, it has developed into a joint organization dealing with environmental issues, health problems, security, migration, justice, and trade policies. For half a century, there has been peace, prosperity, and stability for the most part. The Union has allowed living standards to increase and provided lots of freedom to its citizens allowing them to study and work in any country in the union. This happened through the abolition of border controls. It is mandatory for the citizens of the EU, the European Union, to be treated equally in every EU country and given the same benefits as security, tax purposes and employment (The EU in brief). Furthermore, the European Union puts strong emphasis into implementing transparency and democracy in its governing institutions.

Nationalism’s Role in Political Transformation and Equality

Nationalistic trends affected European politics in numerous ways but specifically in the removal of dictatorships and the creation of equality. In the old ages, Europe was mainly composed of monarchs, and governments based off of authoritarianism and inequality. Individual leaders seeked power and went about gaining it with violence and injustice. France and England led the way to the changing of political power. With the Tudors in England, there was a strong pursuit for an efficient political government and with France as well, under Louis XI and Francis I (Kohn, 2019). The revision of the judicial and administrative systems began to be challenged and ultimately within the nations a rising class of professional administrators took over the power of the board of executives in the King’s court. Furthermore, the French revolution was an iconic period for the effects of nationalism on the government system as it brought equality among the citizens. The people of France seized the government and destroyed the absolute control they were under. Thus, the French revolution gave life to the idea of equality, liberty and fraternity. This then spread to the other European countries later on. Their nationalism is important to the universal idea of a future of freedom and equality; versus the days of inequality and authoritarianism that was present within the political systems of Europe. Centralized bureaucracy replaced and terminated medieval ways of government.

Economic and Social Tensions Arising from Nationalism

Stability within communities is essential to a strong nation. Through nationalism, the goal is to unify, endow distinctive individuality and allow for freedom and autonomy. This is caused by strengthening the economy of the nation which can be done in multiple ways. Current day, there are countless international companies and new ways to communicate globally. Rapid growth of transnational companies with budgets, technologies, communication networks and skill levels far outstripping those of all but the largest and most powerful of contemporary national states (Smith, 1992). Additionally, rise and fall of large power blocs based on one or other military superpower and forming military political network of client states in an increasingly interdependent international system of states. More so, vast increase in the scale, efficiency, density and power of the means of communication, from transport to the mass media, from telecommunications to computerized information and transmission. With the accelerated process of globalization and technology use, countries can use marketing to their advantage to promote their nations uniqueness and establish the distinct culture they appear to have. It additionally aids in countries having power to change perceptions of nations identity. A specific example of this is France and Germany changing perceptions of each other through symbols, exchange programs, and subsidizing academic studies of common history. The media for changing their image is through popular music, videos, attire, and food. A significant affecter on a nation’s economy is tourism. Tourism brings in a lot of money with tourist sites, iconic locations, and souvenirs. People want to see countries that have strong nationalism. The countries with a strong sense of unity entice foreigners to visit and see the hype of the nation that is so highly talked about. When it comes to societies that in some measure share similar backgrounds and have long been neighbors, there is something in it. Economic and cultural convergence jointly diminish ethnic hostilities: late industrial man, like his immediate predecessor, early industrial man, still finds his identity in a literate culture rather than anything else, but his literate culture no longer differs quite so much from that of his ethnic neighbor (Gellner, n.d.). Due to nationalism and unity, there seems to be less aggression between nations which is a positive effect. Lastly with the economy, the industrialization in Europe allows for a transformation in the government economic system that is good for the countries itself, but not for the surrounding countries. It provides tension and competition amongst the neighboring nations.

Additionally, nationalism in Europe brought about social tensions. With it being a lot more prominent after the fall of communism, post-communism led to liberal democracy and nationalism in Europe. Communism led to the nationalist feelings; ethnic groups felt strong loyalty to their regions and taking extra interest in what’s best for their nation. Within communist programs urbanization, mass education, increased literacy, industrialization and more were supported, and these led to national awareness which a major component in nationalism. Nationalism gave everyone an official ethnicity and unity that did not support individualism. People were not able to choose their nationality and were descents of whatever their family history was. After the fall of communism, people wanted unity, stability, and ‘familiar norms in an attempt to maximize predictability in an uncertain world’ (Mole, 2016). In social aspects, heterosexuality was very normal, and the norms people conformed to. This really affected the LGBTQ community, especially in Latvia and Serbia. Since the beginning, human beings had roles they were expected to fulfill in society. Communities were patriarchal and men were expected to rule and marry women to produce heirs for their community. Homosexuality goes against that structure; it was not the norm, so it promoted individualism, which is not conforming with the way of the nation. Additionally, a homosexual would not produce heirs which is very important to the society. A view taken to extremes by former Polish President Lech Kaczynski, who argued that ‘widespread homosexuality would lead to the disappearance of the human race’ (Mole, n.d.). This is definitely an extreme, but people have strong feelings towards different minded people. Homosexuals are also affected negatively in that they are believed to be very selfish and threatening to the nation as a whole due to their inability to help produce heirs and homosexual sex is only for pleasure rather than conceiving so it is un-national and selfish (Mole, 2016). This dramatically affects the social scene in Europe, and negatively affects those whose sexual orientations are different. They are seen in a negative light and does not support unity of everyone. No one should have to feel ashamed for their being and their choice of companion. Nationalism really affected the LGBTQ community negatively and made them feel ostracized from their own ethnic group. They were of the same language, region, background and still felt like an outsider just for who they are attracted to.

A big part of nationalism is the unity of a religion. Every nationality has their own religious views, with who their God is, how they do it and incorporating it into their daily lives. In Central and Eastern Europe, it is definitely very important to have religious views and theirs contradicts with the LGBTQ community stances. In general, social science research confirms that strength of religious belief is the strongest predictor of negative attitudes to homosexuality. The more subjects go to church, the more opposed and close-minded they are towards homosexuality and the community of LGBTQ (Smith, 1992). Religion is still used to prevent gay pride events like marches and awareness days. Christian Churches in Central and Eastern Europe are highly vocal in their condemnation of non-heteronormative sexuality. Only recently have churches started to allow for gay marriage ceremonies to occur. It is common knowledge that churches, and peoples view on the bible believe that homosexuality is a sin and should be ostracized. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, homosexual acts thus ‘close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.’ (Mole, 2016). Furthermore, this concludes the religious challenges faced with nationalism being prevalent in Europe. Homosexuality and nationality in some parts of Central and Eastern Europe are seen as not just conflicting but mutually exclusive altogether which serves to be problematic for the future of the nations. Nations believe they are united by shared biology, culture, history, norms and values, stretching back centuries if not millennia and marching forward towards a common future (Mole, 2016). One could see the reasoning behind nations fear of the individual. On the other hand, individualism is very important, as individualism sparks the drive to invent more, develop personal skills, and the freedom of being different. If everyone was exactly the same, the world would be boring and not nearly as industrialized. It is definitely essential to have diverse types of people to allow complete equality for all. In a different aspect, the ties between the church and government weakened after the growth of nationalism and also fostered the growth of nations containing vernacular languages. With the authority of the new ideas of the sovereignty of the citizens and their individual rights, the replacement of the king, who has religious power, as the center of the nation occurred. Popes and kings had lots of power over the nations in Europe’s past. Nationalism caused the state to become the people’s state and civilization became identified with national civilization (Kohn, 2019).

Conclusion: Balancing the Positives and Negatives of Nationalism

All in all, nationalism indeed has positive effects although the word itself has negative connotations that come with it. The positives to nationalism are unity of the country, national strength, preservation of the traditional culture and progression with the economy. National pride means caring what is yours and when there is a strong sense of nationalism, then there are programs in place to care for public stuff for the people, like the great public transportation in Europe and unity of the economy. Some would say it negatively affects all aspects of Europe as it is a leading cause of the world wars, but there is a different perspective to look at. Most controversial things are seen as either good or bad and the opinion is in the eye of the beholder. Seeing the positive of nationalism allows for good things to happen this then aids in promoting national growth, unity and freedom.

In this paper to answer the question about how much does nationalism fuel international conflict and instability. I am going to first define the word Nationalism. I will be answering this question by taking in context the recent terror attack in the Pulwama district of the Jammu and Kashmir state of India on The 14th of February 2019. My emphasis would be on the point that yes nationalism does fuel international conflict and instability as it did in this case between India and Pakistan. It is very easy to say that nationalism should be done away with but even with keeping in mind its dangerous effects but in the recent past even with efforts of powerful political leaders and parties, little success has been achieved regarding this matter. I do believe that nationalism still plays an important role in global politics, I will be putting more light on this claim of mine in the paper.

Nationalism is a term meaning showing utmost loyalty, respect and making sure that the nation is being run in a properly manner in accordance with the laid rules and regulations without any interference from the outer world

Utmost loyalty, Highest level of respect and sharing common interests towards one’s own nation according to me is one of the main reasons that it fuels international conflict and instability. To prove this claim of mine I am going to use an example of a recent terror attack that happened on the 14th of February 2019 on the Pulwama district of the Jammu and Kashmir state of India.

To help it understand better first I am going mention about what actually happened in this recent terror attack. A CRPF convoy of more than 78 vehicles carrying around 3000 soldiers were passing through the Pulwama district of Jammu and Kashmir state of India when a black Suv carrying more than 360 kg of explosives ran into the CRPF convoy and badly damaging the two buses , out of those two busses one bus was carrying around 39 personnel which later were confirmed by the Indian army to be martyred. The terrorist didn’t just stop by running into the CRPF, convoy after successfully putting a halt on the convoy there were other terrorists hidden in the bushes around that started open firing on the Jawans (soldiers), which resulted in various others injured. The group that took responsibility of this horrendous act was the Jaish-e-Mohammed based in Pakistan.

Now the question that must be coming to your mind would be how is this essay related to this terror attack, but in my opinion, I don’t think there would have been any better recent situation that could help understand my claims any better. This whole incident united India against Pakistan as a sense of Indian nationalism was put to test , whole nation stood up against it , Infact I should say the whole world condemned this horrendous act , But on the other hand Pakistan kept denying the fact that they had any connections or even any information regarding this incident . Infact there were some Pakistani media channels that labeled this attack as Indias own some little dirty game in awake of the coming elections in India.

Now coming back to my question of How much does nationalism fuel international conflict and instability? I would say a lot by stating the fact that this horrendous incident didn’t only shook India and Pakistan in the worst ways possible that they were on the brink of nuclear war or technically you can say world war three but the whole world was actually biting their nails knowing the fact that if that situation wasn’t de-escalated it literally would have meant the end of world let alone international conflict and instability.

In the awake of Indian peoples nationalism counter measures were taken by the IAF(Indian air force) as they conducted an air strike on the base of the Jaish-e-Mohammed terror group and calming the fact that the air strike killed more than 300 terrorists, which even more complicated the whole situation between India and Pakistan .

Now Talking about instability this incident didn’t just involve the army of both the nations but the business between both nations were also put on hold and India even canceled all its import contracts with Pakistan costing Pakistan an instant loss of 50 million USD as India returned their convoys filled with various fruits and veggies.

Now coming to the second part of my question regarding whether I think that nationalism is an outdated political ideology that should be done away with? Or do you think nationalism still plays an important role in global politics? To be honest in my opinion I would agree with both of them for the fact that nationalism is an outdated political ideology and definitely should be done with simply keeping in mind its harmful effects on the global scale as in the case of Pulwama attack , and I would also like to agree with the fact that yes, Nationalism still does play an important role in global politics .Now the question would be how ?

So when this whole situation of the terror attack happened it didn’t only affect India and Pakistan , Infact all the other countries(united states, Russia , china, England etc.) had to get involved too, united nations had to get involved as well just to make sure that the situation wasn’t escalated . In my opinion, I get the fact that the whole world was put on red alert regarding what might turn into a nuclear war and why everyone needed to get involved to avert that nuclear war situation, but I do believe somewhere hiding behind that reason to get involved was the politics that some nations wanted to play being the allies of both the nations in concern (India and Pakistan). Global politics in a major way was played between India and Pakistan for simply one thing in target that is Kashmir. As the main reason behind this whole incident was only due to the conflicts that has been going on and on for almost 30 years now regarding the Indian owned Kashmir territory and the Pakistan owned Kashmir territory. The world had a split view regarding this situation as the Pakistan based terror group Jaish-e-Mohmmed accepted the fact that attacks like these will keep on happening till the time Pakistan is given full control over the Indian own Kashmir territory, keeping this in mind some countries said just for the sake of the safety of the people India should give-up the territory where as many said doing this would mean that terrorism won and humanity lost .

In the end I would like to end this paper by coming to a conclusion that the terms Nationalism and conflicts/politics coexist, meaning in this present world no matter how much we try to separate nationalism from conflicts and politics we just cannot. People have been so brain washed that I think they have forgotten the real meaning of Nationalism and they are so brain dead in this present era that they cannot see the difference between being loyal to one’s own nation and killing millions in the name of it. If I could I would just disband this outdated and Dangerous political ideology of nationalism in an instant, but it is easier said than done.

Many have tried and many have failed to maintain the right balance between Nationalism and conflicts arising due to it. Nationalism has always played a key role in global politics and in my opinion it will keep doing it for many more ages to come.

Arab nationalism is a topic that I would like to further address. There are many articles of studies done over the Middle East, but they often reflect personal or political views. Arab nationalism is a topic that is often influenced by outside sources. Arab nationalism is most commonly associated with the thoughts, and beliefs that all Arabs hold the same traditions and beliefs. Arab nationalism is not only having the same cultural traditions, but also having a single political community, and having a common government (Goldschmidt & Al-Marashi, 2019). It is about gaining independence for Arabs, as a whole. There are many misconceptions when it comes to who is actually an Arab and identifies as an Arab. Many Arabs are Muslims, but not all Muslims are Arabs and not Arabs are Muslims. Arab nationalism took many years to be on the rise. It took Arabs learning new ways, teaching the youth, and learning new practices for Arab nationalism to become known and established.

Arab nationalism was promoted by American ways. Americans, on accident, helped Arabs when they started teaching in Arabic and allowing those of other religions into their schools. One of these was, “the Syrian Protestant College (now the American University of Beirut), admitted students of every religion,” (Goldschmidt & Al-Marashi, 2019). There, they taught reading, and writing, which led onto those students being able to do many things with their future. Americans were used to teaching this way, but Arabs were lacking these teachings at this time. They were able to send their youth to these schools, but many students still kept their Arab culture and heritage as important to them. They didn’t convert to other religions or held their own beliefs for the most part. They used these teachings of writing and reading for their own culture. Many students would become scholars, journalists, or teachers, for example. This helped the nationalim movement as this led to the Arabic literary revival. The Arabic literary revival turned into the Arabic nationionlism movement (Goldschmidt & Al-Marashi, 2019). The schools not only led to Arabic literary revival but also allowed Arabs to adapt many American ideas and ways. The youth not only took away the reading and writing learned, but also the ways in which Americans used school to try and expand their beliefs, by teaching them to the youth. This included “using schools to develop moral character, promoting benevolent activities, and teaching students to create new institutions to fit changing conditions,” (Goldschmidt & Al-Marashi, 2019). This gave Arabs new ways to teach their traditions and beliefs to many students at once. These teachings allowed the youth to be able to learn, and apply the learning in any way they wished. Since many Arabs stuck with their Arab heritage and traditions they could apply their knowledge to the changing world and how it was affecting their culture. They applied their knowledge in many ways to create Arab nationalist ideology. Western ideals of liberalism and democracy were important teachings applied to building the Arab nationalist ideology (Goldschmidt & Al-Marashi, 2019). Arabs wanted to incorporate liberalism and democracy in the Arab world. These concepts would be put into practice among the nation-states. The idea was that these nation-states would all be connected through Arabic nationalism, but be able to practice ideas on their own.

Arab nationalism ideology started to occur during the nineteenth century. It was a response to those wanting to make the world to be a single system revolving around Europe (Rashid, 1991). The result of this was Arabs wanting to be recognized as their own group. They wanted to have their own traditions, culture, and individuality. Nationalism was a way for this to happen for Arabs. They were afraid that under one single system, and Arabs being the minority of this system, that Arab traditions and customs would be lost. Many Arabs saw the need for change and applied their knowledge to come up with and put into place Arab nationalism. Arab nationalism grew from here, and by the time the twentieth century came around Arab nationalism became well known. Arabs around the world started to adapt to nationalism. Arabs were considered those who spoke Arabic, showed Arabic pride, and considered themselves as Arabs (Rashid, 1991). Creating this sense of shared identity among the Arabs allowed them to search for the political expression that they wanted for Arabs. This came with many problems among the Arabs themselves. There were Arabs all over in many locations. Arab nationalism was well known by the twentieth century, but not all started the practices at the same time. Arabism refers to the fully developed arab nationalism in the twentieth century (Rashid, 1991). Arabism was being adapted throughout the Arab world at different rates due to the differences in location, leaders, and policies. There were many obstacles that had to be overcome in order for Arabs to establish nationalism around the world among themselves.

Leading up to Arab nationalism, were years of opportunities from the changes that took place in the Middle East during the rise of nationalism. The Arabs seemed to have much hope on creating a friendship with the Turks. This would have allowed for steps to be taken towards the liberal democracy they were wanting. During the Young Turk revolution in 1908, the selection of representatives favored the Turks, which in return left the Arabs with lost hope and in fear of their traditions and culture being lost (Goldschmidt & Al-Marashi, 2019). The Arabs didn’t respond well to the fact that they tried but weren’t chosen basically due to them being the minority. The policies that they hoped to change, remained in place. This came across as a threat, which caused the fear of losing the liberties they had as Arabs. This was very important because the lose of these liberties would mean they would potentially lose their cultural heritage among Arabs. They would lose the practices that followed their culture and beliefs. Arabs would stay loyal to the Ottoman ways instead of those of the Arabs if nothing was done to change the ruling. The result would be a revolt against the Ottoman empire. The Ottomans getting involved in the World War, gave Arabs this chance they needed because it allowed Arabs to have the chance they needed. The Arabs were still searching for a way to be able to establish Arab nationalism. They were finally able to revolt against Turkish rule. This revolt was to bring down the Ottoman empire, in order to establish their nationalism. The revolt went on for two years (Goldschmidt & Al-Marashi, 2019). They fought in the war against the Ottoman empire. They fought alongside the British and French, but in the end they didn’t keep their promises to the Arabs (Goldschmidt & Al-Marashi, 2019). The Arabs were finally able to establish their practices as a whole after the fall of the Ottoman empire. Following this they were able to create nation-states making up the Arab world.

The Arab world consisted of nation-states. A common misunderstanding was the Arab nationalism would mean that all Arabs would be under one single nation-state. In order for Arabs to put their ideas into practice, they established three nation-states following the World War. These were placed in Syria, Iraq, and Arabian Peninsula (Rashid, 1991). These states were able to practice Arabian ideas and function independently. Many Arabs liked the ideas that nation-states would bring. This allowed for them to be independent, practice their own ideas, and still be all tied together by their beliefs and culture. Something that is often wondered is if becoming one nation-state would bring more unity among Arabs. Many believe unity would bring more strength to Arabs (Rashid, 1991). Unity would bring more strength in many ways. If all Arabs were under the same government control, they would all practice the same ideas. This would unite Arabs more so than as nation-states practicing only similar ideas. The strength would come through Arabs practicing their culture heritage and traditions together. This could create strength, but it could also create problems. Arabs were not all Muslims, and many arabs came from different religions. This can lead to different ways of thinking. The nation-states allow Arabs to practice ideas and beliefs within each nation-state, rather than as a whole. This allows for more freedom and liberty. Arab nationalism allows for the loyalty of Arabs to their culture. Practicing nationalism under one control or as nation-states both has its ups and downs. In the end, nationalism was able to be established under nation-states, and Arabs were able to practice their ideas and beliefs freely.

In conclusion, Arab nationalism was a result of young Arabs using their knowledge gained through the American schools ways to change the world to better fit their culture. Arabs fought many years to establish nationalism. Nationalism is important because it allowed for Arabs to practice their ideas and beliefs, and their culture and traditions weren’t lost. Many Arabs fought for nationalism due to the fear that their cultural heritage could be lost without nationalism. Arabs were very determined. They were defeated, and unable to establish nationalism many times along the way. They never lost hope and eventually were able to establish nationalism. Arab nationalism became well known throughout the Arab world by the twentieth century. It spread and united all Arabs. Arab nationalism was seen in nation-states, and not under one empire. This allowed Arabs to practice their ideas. Mainly, Arab nationalism allowed Arabs to be able to show pride in their identity, and be where they wanted to be politically.

References

1. Goldschmidt, A., & Al-Marashi, I. (2019). A Concise History of the Middle East (12th ed.). Routledge.
2. Rashid Khalidi. (1991). Arab Nationalism: Historical Problems in the Literature. The American Historical Review, 96(5), 1363. https://doi.org/10.2307/2165275

In today’s world, the breaking news of twenty-two dead and thirty-six wounded is becoming more and more normal to see. Innocent people’s lives are being taken just by going to the store or out in public. The shocking part for most people is that the shooter is typically white, and the victims are of another race. This is known as an act of domestic terrorism completed by a white nationalist. White nationalism is becoming an issue in the United States. The question is what started this all, how large is it really becoming, and what could be done about it.

Before addressing the details of how severe white nationalism is, what exactly is white nationalism or a white nationalist? The definition of a white nationalist from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is “one of a group of militant whites who espouse white supremacy and advocate enforced racial segregation” (“White Nationalism”). In other words, white nationalism is the belief that white people are better than all others and how the followers violently act to implement this belief. This is a form of racism that is increasing in the United States today. However, the cause of this group’s creation turns back to the United States’ history.

Racism has been a belief shown throughout the history of the United States. One major example of this is slavery. Slavery began in the year 1619, and along with this continued the idea of other races being inferior to whites. The African Americans, used as slaves, had their humanity taken from them by the whites (Smedley, Audrey). They were forced to follow the commands of the white men. Otherwise, they got whipped, beaten, and punished. The whites dehumanized them day by day. This is supported by the definition of dehumanize. Dehumanize means “to deprive someone of human qualities, personality, or dignity” (“Dehumanize”). Their human qualities were stripped away the moment they were sold to white families. They were not allowed to learn how to read and write, and their lives were shaped by the whites. Another example in United States history is the KKK. This group’s main goal was to promote white supremacy. This was completed by bombing black schools and hurting anyone involved in helping blacks gain power. Both of these examples from the history of the United States created white nationalism. Whites have always had more rights or more power over other races, and this is what compels whites to believe they are superior.

This idea of being superior has caused issues in the United States. According to the FBI, there has been a major rise in the number of domestic terrorism cases involving white nationalists in the past months (Thomas, Elizabeth). The most recent, devastating event took place back at the beginning of August this year. A man by the name of Patrick Crusius walked into a Walmart in El Paso, New Mexico, with a gun. He took twenty-two people’s lives while wounding more than twenty-four others solely because of the increase of Hispanics in the city. White nationalism was shown through Crusius’s action as he believed the Hispanics would gain power over the whites if the population kept growing. According to an Anti-Defamation League study, in the past ten years alone, seventy-three percent of domestic extremist-related fatalities were caused by men like Patrick Crusius acting out (Rubin, Jennifer).

Another major incident happened not even five years ago. In Charleston, South Carolina, Dylann Roof shot and killed nine African American men while they were attending church. His reasoning was to simply get back at them for killing the whites. He even specifically told police that whites are superior while being questioned (Sanchez, Ray, and O’Shea, Keith). Both of these events are included in the 16 plus attacks that have occurred in the United States since 2011 and brought attention to others. Within these 16 attacks, more than 175 people have lost their lives (Beckett, Lois, and Wilson, Jason). These facts go to show that white nationalism is not slowing down and not going to stop any time soon.

In order to slow down or get rid of white nationalism completely, there needs to be key actions implemented. First, the FBI should start being more concerned with these domestic terrorism acts. As of right now, the crimes of white nationalists are not being seen as domestic terrorism. Once the FBI starts classifying these crimes as such, the investigations will be prioritized to ensure they can catch the suspects before anyone is harmed. The FBI should also assign more agents to domestic terrorism instead of having eighty percent of agents working on international investigations (Fieldstadt, Elisha, and Dilanian, Ken). Having this implemented will decrease the overall number of attacks and lives lost from white nationalists or any hate group within the United States.

Another important action is to start teaching others about what is occurring and the consequences of it. Young children should be taught by their parents and their education system to accept and respect other races. Children also learn by looking up to role models which shows parents should be careful what they are saying. By not doing this, children can develop a sense that their race is superior to others. The internet and media play a role in this as well. They control what people hear and see on a daily basis. If these outlets stop displaying influential material, one race as superior, fewer people would stop believing this.

By taking action to stop white nationalism, the larger issue and causes of it will decrease over time, and innocent lives will be saved. Even though the United States history is the main cause of this group to believe whites are superior, their actions are not being stopped. The number of attacks in the United States keeps growing, and along with this comes the normalization of it. People are not surprised by news stories of these horrific acts of violence anymore. However, something does need to be done soon to slow or even stop white nationalism. One possible way this is possible is through the FBI, parents, and the education systems in this country. Acceptance is a key contributor. White nationalism is not going to stop itself.

Certain general suppositions about human instinct underlie patriot guessing, to be specific, that people are naturally social-social animals, either conceived or acknowledged into specific social networks that both shape them and are supported by them, in and through which they discover a lot of their importance and noteworthiness, and to which they definitely owe certain obligations and loyalties. These educate yet don’t characterize nationalism, for they may apply to any social gathering. At the point when, how and why any arrangement of individuals come to consider themselves as a feature of the ‘envisioned network’ called a country (instead of a clan, a people, or the subjects of a realm or domain) is one of the extraordinary inquiries presented by the patriot wonder.

What is sure is that patriotism, whatever intrigue it makes to culture, is a political belief system and along these lines consistently expect political targets, most halfway that oneself considered country be politically settled, united, protected and safeguarded. The intrinsically political character of nationalism clarifies its clear indistinguishability from the cutting-edge state, which (in spite of the expectations of fears of globalization scholars) remains the focal field of present days political activity and goal. Patriot undertakings addition power by tapping the requirement for having a place and meaning, and the longing to cherish an option that is more prominent than oneself.

The early scholars determined such love as fundamental to political life and request, a refusal of Hobbes’ conflict that dread was a more grounded energy than affection for restricting individuals in political network. Hobbes, to be sure, wished to stifle enthusiastic love as a reason for habit, disagreement and common clash, and succeeded very well. Positively Locke, tailing him, found the wrong spot for affection in his concept of government as a safeguard of private property, Kant found just the most insignificant, and Marxists, with their ‘objective’ powers of creation and class development, had no methods for conjecturing their own enthusiastic responsibility, or for defending the penance of their lives to the indifferent material powers of history. Women’s liberation may have tended to the disregard with the exception of that adoration would in general symbolize female persecution, ladies having been given a role as the archive of sustaining, tamed, ‘privatized’ love in masculinist talk.

Nationalism filled the hypothetical vacuum of course. Liberal nationalist attempt to recover a portion of the ground, yet in their dread of devoted overabundance typically delicate pedal love, making their endeavored recovery not exactly persuading. Political hypothesis commenced on willful ‘authoritative’ connections roused independent from anyone else intrigue renders the energetic connections and automatic commitments so key to a lot of life hypothetically peculiar. It is this disappointment of hypothetical understanding, maybe, that makes the suffering intensity of patriotism such a proceeding with confuse for political scholars.