Webster’s dictionary defines nationalism as loyalty and dedication to a nation, especially in the sense of a national consciousness that promotes a country above other countries and emphasizes the promotion of its culture and interests. Not the culture and interests of other countries or supranational regions. In simple terms, nationalism can be described as a kind of love and pride for one’s own country, and the belief that one’s own country is better than any other country. But it means a lot to me. To me, nationalism does not mean that our country is perfect, it means that we strive to be our best. For me, nationalism is doing anything that can improve the lives of my country and my fellow citizens. When you love something, you take care of it, and you want to see it grow and prosper. These little ways of expressing love for India may not be as good as giving your life to the country, but love is in the little things, right?
Patriotism is more than marching bands, armed forces and flag waving. There is nothing wrong with this, unless it means hating my country, and then we have to talk. Patriotism is volunteering for a good cause (whatever it may be for you) and keeping your community in good shape. This is the simplest, just like picking up trash. Or the most important thing: die for your country. Patriotism is caring and ensuring that you and your employees do their best.
Nationalism has become a tool and touchstone for testing people’s patriotism. This form of nationalism is sowing the seeds and throwing the country into trouble along racial and religious lines. This type of nationalism that creates hatred and hostility between people can no longer be called nationalism. Their sheer chauvinism is detrimental to state units. Loving your own country does not mean that you should hate another country. This misunderstanding has led to widespread war trafficking, not only in India but also in other parts of the world. This way of spreading hate and aggressive nationalism is called chauvinism. American patriots hate the Russians and vice versa. The same goes for the patriots of India and Pakistan.
People should understand the difference between nationalism and patriotism, and spread love and positive energy in the world. One thing we must remember is that we were all human before Indians or Americans. Aggressive nationalism that tends to spread hatred and war between countries is called patriotism. Although nationalism is good for the country, chauvinism can be a disaster for the country.
Nationalism is the ideology and movement of a country that helps bring people together. The purpose of nationalism is to cultivate the sense of belonging of the people of the country to their nation. Nationalism unites people of different languages, genders, religions, cultures, or races.
For me, patriotism means supporting our country in both good times and bad; never lose confidence in our country; raise the national flag to show us respect and dedication; and pay tribute to those who serve to defend this country, life or death, retirement or asset. Patriotism means supporting and loving our country, even if it is going through difficult or difficult times. You still love our country, even if it is like this not what you want. Dedication to our country means supporting it no matter what happens, and working hard to improve it.
Patriotism means never losing faith in our country. You know that the ideals on which our country is based are real, and you support them. You don’t give up it’s just because things didn’t turn out the way you think they should. You trust us when the country deviates from the correct path, it returns to the correct path.
Patriotism is expressed by waving the national flag of our country, whether in the country or in Work, school or activity. Raising the national flag means respecting our country and your loyalty to our country. A raised flag does not mean that you support everything that happened in the past, but it means that you love us, the country, the best place you like.
How you treat those who serve this country also embodies patriotism, employment and retirement, life or death. You can show your respect in your own way to their behavior. You can shake their hand and tell them to thank them. Serve, tell them they are heroes and help them in any way. Patriotism means remembering the dead by keeping the cemetery clean, orderly, and intact. Patriotism does not mean that our country is perfect, but it does mean that we strive to be the best we can be.
For me, this term simply means seeking the best interests of my country. This means knowing my country, knowing its ways of eating, living, working, suffering, fighting and surviving. All of these make a country. Once I understand these things about the land in which I live, I automatically feel proud to be part of its history and to belong to it. In that moment, I knew that no matter what I do, no matter what I do, no matter what field I work in, I will always seek the best interests of my country and its citizens. Simply put, for me, it is nationalism. For me, nationalism is doing anything to improve my country, which will help my compatriots live a better life. You don’t have to join the army.
For nationalism to prosper, clearly the United States needed to demonstrate its test effectively. The War of 1812 was one demonstrating ground. More noteworthy than a strategic accomplishment against Britain was the marvelous ascent in the national economy, started by populace increment, regional acquisitions, and mechanical changes in transportation and industry. The unfaltering aggregation of influence to the focal government to the detriment of the states was likened to the development of America. Nationalism suggested the denigration of sectionalism and states’ privileges.
The issue among central and nearby governments that went with the ascent of nationalism was not amazing. The European country states encountered the affirmation of focal power by methods for amazing rulers conquering the nonconformity of primitive nobles. What recognized the American experience from others was the uncommon idea of the focal power; it was not represented by a president, not even George Washington. The supernatural origination of a constitution favoring an association allowed the loved American freedoms to thrive. The contention for unifying government during the Confederation had been battled on the presumption that no other government could play out that capacity. States’ privileges may mobilize libertarians stressed over the oppression of standard from far off, yet the veterans of the progressive war coming back to their homesteads and towns were increasingly worried about the financial downturn and fore-terminations on their properties than with the potential shades of malice of a far off national government. Had there been a more grounded focal expert in the Confederation, progressive war legends of the request for Ethan Allen, who proposed appending Vermont to Canada, and George Rogers Clark, who thought about a Spanish association with secure Kentuckians’ entrance to the Gulf of Mexico, would have been less enticed to get together with the previous British enemy and the unfriendly Spanish neighbor.
Where the states exclusively or by and large as the Confederation had neglected to react to Indian or European dangers in the West, the Union drove the Indians out of the Northwest, spared the country from the British, and wrested Florida from the Spanish. As the western domains entered the Union their loyalties were to the country that invited them as opposed to any unblemished pilgrim district. In contrast to the first thirteen states, they had been made by demonstrations of the government Congress. In any case, the divergent powers that had consistently been a piece of the American experience had not vanished. Such ‘nice sentiment’ as existed after 1815 didn’t have its reason toward the finish of sectionalism or even states’ awareness; rather, the ‘American framework’ of Henry Clay was based on a typical threatening vibe toward British monetary power that would work the economies of the North, the West, and the South. On the off chance that there was brief concordance as of now, it was to a great extent in light of the fact that each area had unreasonable desires for a uniquely favorable position from congressional help of taxes or of inward enhancements.
The slave-arranged South found the Union had a danger both to its economy and to its general public, and the Civil War gave the best challenge the Union needed to overcome in the country’s history. The war was considered by some as a battle between two contending patriotisms. In the years going before this contention, the Union turned into the most fundamental national image of the North. Southern difficulties on protected grounds turned out to be progressively unbearable. The South’s explanation signified something other than an unconventional gleam of the Constitution; the North viewed them as ripping off the instrument of America’s sway and the resulting eradication of the American country. While steadfastness to an area more noteworthy than reliability to the country could be viewed as nationalism, by 1860 most of the nation was persuaded that a successful American power could be communicated distinctly in a brought together country.
The injuries of the sectional clash brought about the expulsion of the protected inquiry from patriotism. The Union had triumphed and with it estimations of nationalism. The restraint with which nationalism was communicated in the center for long periods of the century respected a reassertion of the more established disorderly spirits. The finish of the war saw a time of significantly increasingly quick development in population, wealth, and influence than had been seen fifty years sooner, after the Treaty of Ghent. It likewise resuscitated in overstated manners before the century was over the possibility of a mission that had been certain in the American mental self-portrait from the earliest starting point: the idea that God had given America an exceptional segment of gifts, and with it, a strategic offer them with less-favored people groups.
Preceding the Civil War the most vocal explanation of the American crucial went with emergencies with Spain or Britain or France over their assets in North America. They all abused a perfect arrangement. While the possibility of fortunate control of the West preceded the extension of Texas and the requests for Oregon and, for sure, might be found in Jeffersonian ruminations during the 1780s it was John L. O’Sullivan, who in 1845 explicitly charged outside antagonistic vibe and desire with ‘restricting our enormity and checking the satisfaction of our show predetermination to overspread the mainland dispensed by Providence for the free improvement of our yearly increasing millions.’ Texas, California, Oregon, and even Upper Canada were compared with void land anticipating the appearance of Americans to bring it under appropriate development.
Americans didn’t respect these perspectives or the activities that pursued them as practically equivalent to European colonialism; they were just the common spread of free people groups and free organizations into abandoned space wrongly asserted by others. Albeit such declarations may have sounded double-dealing to unfriendly onlookers, even adversaries of the Mexican War could surrender that the strategic spread of freedom bore signs of vision. Frederick Merk found in expansionism a soul that was ‘optimistic, self-denying, cheerful for heavenly support for national yearnings, however not certain about it.’ So if show predetermination was associated with getting a handle on land, it was additionally connected to the land’s improvement by peopling it with what Americans of the period viewed as a superior society than could have been accomplished under its unique owners.
Amidst the Mexican War, the previous secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin characterized the American crucial as an incredible examination where ‘a delegate vote based republic’ got an opportunity to evaluate its standards on an enormous scale. ‘In the event that it fizzled, the last any expectation of the companions of humankind was lost, or uncertainly deferred; and the eyes of the world were turned towards you. At whatever point genuine or imagined worry of the fast approaching peril of believing individuals everywhere with power was communicated, the appropriate response was ‘Take a gander at America.” In this soul, the movement of Americans to Texas or California or Oregon connoted not an abuse of local people groups, or administration over reluctant subjects, yet the sharing of freedoms over a more extensive territory. The developing United States had spilled its surplus populace into neighboring domains that were generally unfilled. At the point when those regions were adequately crowded, they would enter the Union, at last as full and equivalent accomplices of the more established states. On the off chance that there was strife inside the United States over their affirmation, this was an element of the servitude fights, not of longing for radical control with respect to the country.
Although an offensive component can never be erased from nationalism, mitigating elements refine the extension of Texas and even the following war with Mexico. Show predetermination was in excess of an instrument of southern interests; the draw of California had pulled in New England commercial aspirations too. Increasingly significant, it was a national as opposed to a sectional motivation, with a ground-breaking England, as on account of the Oregon fight, a significant rival in 1844. The expectation was that the two Canadas would sue for admission to the new and augmented Union. O’Sullivan hypothesized that Canada, as effectively as California, could be simply the following ‘client.’ Arrogant and filling in as this language sounded in press, podium, and schools, its clients could energetically differentiate the opportunity of religion and self-government in the domains under American control with the suppression of a state church in Mexico and the impediments of political opportunity in Canada. At the point when the requests for extension took steps to escape hand, as in the weight for the assimilation of all Mexico, rivals halted the risk viably. Fanatic feelings of trepidation of Mexico’s allocated slave states may have been an amazing motivator for resistance, yet they were filled also by the unpalatable prospect of overseeing an unassimilable populace that would pass on the American political procedure.
However, it was difficult to deny that the fragmentary dismemberment of Mexico exchanged off the instructor’s soul behind show destiny. The obstruction of such perceived figures as John Quincy Adams, a genuine expansionist, and the craftsman James Russell Lowell mixed sentiment of fault over a war that various abolitionists saw as a showing of hostility by southern servitude interests. That Mexican and Indian peoples, paying little heed to how scattered, lived in California or New Mexico gave an example of government to the results of American nationalism.
In spite of the fact that debate keeps on twirling about the immaculateness of American thought processes in mainland development, it doesn’t have any significant bearing on the presentation of patriotism in this period. It was certified and across the board. In the event that any feeling could have beaten the profound divisions inside the Union in the nineteenth century, it was pride in American organizations and in the country’s capacity to declare them to the world.
Nationalist Identity politics in Russia Introduction: In this report, Russian nationalist identity politics will be examined through the use of findings and discussion. Below a list of results from extensive research will be listed, then followed by a brief discussion on how Putin uses Russian Nationalism to assert dominance and control over the west. Firstly though, a brief overview. Relations between the west and Russia are at their worst since the Cold war, yet Nationalism is on the rise with Moscow and Vladimir Putin being on the forefront of the March and the prime figurehead leading the movement. Russian pride has been thrust onto the world stage since the unite the right rally in Charlottesville, where the white nationalist protestors chanted ‘Russia is our friend’. It is clear to see that Putin and his aim to assert Russia as a strong and dominant country within the west is occurring.
Findings:
Finding Number 1 –
President Vladimir Putin has a 90% approval rate which makes him one of the most successful leaders in the World. When the Soviet Union (SU) fell in 1991, 1 large country became 15 separate countries. In today’s contemporary Russia, Putin’s party Unite Russia has the overall aim to reunify the former satellite states and have a new Russia, the key component here is Russia having the most ‘robust economy’. It has also been stated by others that Putin is ‘determined to construct the Soviet Union 2.0’. Due to Russia’s much stronger economy compared to the states which surround her (Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, etc), Russia is experiencing an immigration issue with over 11million immigrants currently residing in the country. As with other countries, immigrants become an easy scapegoat and over 50% of Russians hold anti-immigration views. After the fall of the SU, ultra-nationalist groups have risen. One of these groups being the Slavic Union, founded by Dmitry Demushkin. However, the Slavic Union was banned by Putin himself in 2010 for being too extreme, Demishkin is now the founder and leader of another group called ‘the Russians’ who’s key belief is Russian Supremacy. Many groups like this one meet on National Unity Day (founded by Putin) to march for Russian Supremacy and some, a white Russia However, each year the march turns violent and in 2016, around 20 people were arrested for extreme right-wing views.
Finding number 2 –
Russia’s recent rise in nationalism can be linked to Putin’s evolving leadership style of populism. As ‘ideas of Russian ‘sovereign democracy’ and Russia as a great power’ started to take flight in order to secure his power over the presidency and as a response to the colour revolutions. The idea that Russia was rising again and become an empowered state after the west had tried their best to keep her down was what aided Putin to return as president in May 2012. It can be seen that Putin is not content with provoking nationalism in Russia alone. Far right nationalistic movements are taking Europe by force and Vladimir Putin is using this to his advantage with his ‘numerous photo-opportunities with the likes of France’s Marine Le Pen and Matteo Salvini of the Italian Northern League’.
Finding number 3 –
After the 2014 Winter Olympics, Russia an assertive move by bringing the Crimea back under Russian power. Putin violated treaties in order to do so and when annexing the Crimea, he ‘claimed that Russian identity was under threat in Ukraine…he also claimed to be protecting Russians in Ukraine from Western expansion.’
Finding number 4 –
Imperial Nationalism is the most popular type of nationalism within Russia today. Imperial nationalism holds its beliefs that Russia renders a different Europe, one that hasn’t been tainted by American ideals of liberalism. Many Russians identified Russia as being its own civilisation and fewer examined themselves as part of European identity (please refer to figure 1). Furthermore, nationalism is displayed through the favourability of ethnic Russians (please refer to figure 2)
Discussion:
Putin’s popularity plays a key role in Russian nationalism. His identity itself is classed as a real muzhik which, by definition means that his ‘nation recognised him as macho in the national style’. This not only legitimises his power but enforces nationalistic rhetoric to his civilians. They have a man that will protect and guide them through difficult times, something which was needed after Russia struggled with her identity, often being portrayed ‘as a woman of easy virtue’. Furthermore, there is a need for a ‘real man’ to be the leader of Russia as symbolism betrays Russia to be a mighty/strong ‘Russian bear’. Putin’s certitude that the west was ‘waging a war’ on Russia, meant that he needed to protect whilst also present Russia as a powerhouse country. Therefore Putins alignment with other Nationalistic Movements supports the argument presented by Shekhovtsov that Russian nationalism is being compelled in order to not only protect Russia but to also assert her dominance. Shekhovtsov further states that some of Putin’s ‘illiberal ideas clearly originate from the far right’. The far right movements typically depicting nationalistic and fascist rhetoric. There has been always been a strained relationship between Russia and her former satellite state Ukraine. It is clear to see that through Ukraine’s unwillingness to accept Russia’s dominance and desperation to remain an independent state, Russian nationalism has thrived on that and as result so has Ukrainian nationalism. After the Orange revolution in late 2004, early 2005 a ‘Rise of openly Pro-Russian parties’ occurred. Through Russia’s intervention within Ukraine such as; Russia reverting back to ‘traditional soviet conspiracy theories’ in examining Ukrainian affairs in 2004 and 2013-14 and investing in ‘Russkii Mir’. Through Russia’s actions, Ukraine gained ethno-culture resources to mobilise the people, which led to events such as the Euromaidan and the Orange Revolution which in turn fuelled Russia’s desperate need for identity. Moreover, Putin believed that he needed to protect ‘Russian identity against Ukrainian nationalism’ and as a result wanted to create a buffer zone of New Russia to protect his citizens, although he had previously claimed that both Ukrainians and Russians were one. This anti-Ukrainian rhetoric can be seen in figure 2, through the slogan ‘Russia for Russians’.
Conclusion:
Figure one:- NEORUSS survey data, 2013 -2014. Russians were asked “Do you consider Russia to be part of European civilization or something else? Figure 2:- NEORUSS survey data, 2014. Russians were asked “What do you think of the slogan ‘Russia for Russians’?”
Bibliography:
Alcock, Chris, Reggie Yates’ Extreme Russia (Russia: BBC, 2017)
Arnold, Richard, ‘Surveys Show Russian Nationalism Is On The Rise. This Explains A Lot About The Country’S Foreign And Domestic Politics.’, The Washington Post, 2016 [Accessed 10 January 2019]
Clover, Charles, ‘The Return Of Russian Nationalism | Financial Times’, Ft.Com, 2019 [Accessed 8 January 2019]
Hill, Fiona, ‘This Is What Putin Really Wants’, Brookings, 2019 [Accessed 10 January 2019]
Kuzio, Taras, ‘Competing Nationalisms, Euromaidan, And The Russian-Ukrainian Conflict’, Studies In Ethnicity And Nationalism, 15 (2015), 157-169
Plokhy, Serhii, Lost Kingdom (Cambridge: Penguin Books), p. 339
Riabov, Oleg, and Tatiana Riabova, ‘The Remasculinization Of Russia?’, Problems Of Post-Communism, 61 (2014), 23-35
Robinson, Neil, and Sarah Milne, ‘Populism And Political Development In Hybrid Regimes: Russia And The Development Of Official Populism’, International Political Science Review, 38 (2017), 412-425
Shekhovtsov, Anton, Russia And The Western Far Right (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2018), p. 250
Nationalism, a pivotal force in shaping societies and nations, holds a particularly unique place in American history and identity. In the USA, nationalism is not just a sentiment; it’s a complex tapestry woven through the country’s history, politics, and culture. This essay aims to dissect the layers of American nationalism, understanding its evolution and impact on the nation. From the fervor of the Revolutionary War to the contemporary political landscape, nationalism has been a driving force in uniting and sometimes dividing the American people. This exploration begins with a basic understanding of the concept and progressively delves into its multifaceted role in the USA.
This essay, therefore, seeks to understand and articulate the various dimensions of American nationalism. By exploring its historical roots, its evolution over time, and its current manifestations in the socio-political landscape of the USA, we aim to provide a comprehensive picture of this enduring and dynamic force. The goal is to offer insights into how nationalism continues to shape American identity and the nation’s role in the global community, and explore the implications of these dynamics for the future of the United States.
100 Words Essay on Nationalism
Nationalism in the United States is a sense of pride and devotion to the nation. It’s a unifying force that transcends individual differences, creating a collective identity among Americans. This sentiment is vividly expressed through national symbols like the flag, the national anthem, and national holidays like the Fourth of July. American nationalism celebrates the country’s founding principles of liberty, democracy, and the pursuit of happiness, fostering a sense of belonging and commitment among its citizens. This form of nationalism often serves as a binding agent, uniting people across diverse backgrounds with a shared sense of purpose and identity.
250 Words Essay on Nationalism
American nationalism, while underpinned by a shared sense of belonging and pride, is also a complex and sometimes contentious concept. It is deeply rooted in the country’s history, from the struggle for independence to the present day. This form of nationalism is characterized by a strong attachment to the nation’s founding principles – liberty, democracy, and the pursuit of happiness.
Throughout American history, nationalism has played a crucial role in uniting the country during times of crisis and conflict, such as during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the World Wars. It has been a source of inspiration and motivation, driving the nation towards common goals and aspirations. However, it has also been a source of division, particularly when nationalistic fervor conflicts with American society’s diverse and multicultural nature.
The positive aspects of American nationalism include promoting unity, fostering a sense of collective identity, and inspiring citizens to contribute to the nation’s welfare. On the other hand, it can lead to exclusionary practices, intolerance, and conflict when it becomes extreme or is manipulated for political purposes. The challenge for the USA has been to balance these aspects, ensuring that nationalism serves as a unifying force that respects and embraces the nation’s diversity.
As the United States continues to face new challenges and opportunities, the nature of its nationalism is likely to continue evolving. Issues such as globalization, technological advancement, and international migration will further test the adaptability and inclusivity of American nationalism. This ongoing journey is not just about preserving a sense of national identity; it’s about enriching and redefining it in an ever-changing world.
400 Words Essay on Nationalism
In the United States, nationalism has been a dynamic and evolving concept, reflecting the changing socio-political landscape of the nation. Initially, American nationalism was heavily influenced by the fight for independence and forming a new nation. This early form of nationalism centered on liberty, equality, and democracy, as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution outlined.
As the nation grew and faced various challenges, nationalism evolved. The Civil War era witnessed a significant transformation in American nationalism. The conflict between the Union and the Confederacy was not just a battle to overstates’ rights or slavery; it was a struggle for the soul and identity of the nation. The war’s outcome and the subsequent Reconstruction period redefined American nationalism, emphasizing the importance of a strong, unified federal government and the rights of all citizens, regardless of race.
The 20th century brought further changes, with American nationalism becoming closely linked with the country’s role on the world stage. The World Wars and the Cold War era saw the USA emerging as a global superpower, with American nationalism often intertwined with notions of international leadership and responsibility. The fight against fascism and communism was framed as not just a military struggle, but also an ideological battle rooted in American values and principles.
In the contemporary era, globalization and the rise of multiculturalism have presented new challenges and opportunities for American nationalism. The USA is now more diverse than ever, with a population encompassing many ethnicities, religions, and cultures. This diversity has enriched American society but has also led to debates over the meaning and expression of nationalism. Today’s American nationalism is a balancing act between celebrating the nation’s unique identity and heritage, while embracing its diversity and global connections.
This modern form of nationalism is about cherishing the past and navigating the present and future in an inclusive and representative way for all Americans. Integrating different cultures and perspectives has led to a more complex and nuanced understanding of being American. This has been reflected in various aspects of society, including politics, education, and the arts, where there is a growing recognition of the value of diversity and multiculturalism.
However, this evolution has not been without challenges. Debates over immigration, language policies, and the role of national history in education highlight the ongoing tension between traditional notions of nationalism and a more inclusive, pluralistic approach. This ongoing process is crucial for maintaining a sense of national unity and identity in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.
500 Words Essay on Nationalism
In the contemporary United States, nationalism continues to be a potent and often contentious force, shaping the nation’s identity and politics in an increasingly globalized world. This essay delves into the nuances of modern American nationalism, examining its impact on society, politics, and international relations and pondering its future trajectory.
Modern American nationalism is multifaceted, often reflecting the country’s diverse and polarized political landscape. On one hand, it embodies a unifying sentiment, rallying citizens around shared values and ideals such as freedom, democracy, and the American Dream. National events, symbols, and holidays continue to foster a sense of unity and pride among Americans. On the other hand, nationalism in the U.S. can also manifest in more exclusionary and divisive forms, sometimes leading to xenophobia, isolationism, or resistance to global cooperation.
Politically, nationalism plays a significant role in shaping policy and discourse. It influences foreign policy decisions, with debates often centered around the extent of American involvement in global affairs. Domestically, nationalism can impact immigration policy, economic strategies, and social reforms. Political leaders and movements from all spectrums often leverage nationalist sentiments to rally support, sometimes leading to a highly polarized political environment.
The rise of multiculturalism and increasing demographic diversity in the U.S. adds another layer to the conversation on nationalism. The traditional concept of a homogenous national identity is challenged by the growing recognition and celebration of diverse cultures and backgrounds. This diversity enriches American society, yet it also raises questions about how nationalism can inclusively represent the myriad of American experiences and identities.
Globalization presents another challenge to traditional notions of nationalism. In an interconnected world, the interests and issues of the U.S. are increasingly tied to those of other nations. Economic, environmental, and security challenges often require global cooperation, which can sometimes be at odds with nationalist policies prioritizing national interests. Balancing these global commitments with national priorities is a continuing challenge for American policymakers.
Looking towards the future, the trajectory of American nationalism is likely to be influenced by several factors. Technological advancements, especially in communication and information dissemination, continue to shape public opinion and national discourse. The evolving global landscape, with emerging powers and shifting alliances, will also play a crucial role in defining the role of American nationalism on the world stage.
Moreover, the ongoing struggle to define and embrace a form of nationalism that is inclusive and respectful of America’s diversity will be crucial. The ideal form of American nationalism in the 21st century would be one that celebrates the nation’s founding ideals while also acknowledging and valuing the contributions of all its citizens, regardless of their background.
In conclusion, American nationalism is a dynamic and evolving concept, deeply intertwined with the nation’s history, identity, and future aspirations. As the USA navigates the complexities of the modern world, the challenge lies in fostering a form of nationalism that is inclusive, forward-looking, and adaptable, capable of uniting the nation while engaging constructively on the global stage.
Nationalism in South Africa can be defined as the nationalist political movement for one unified Africa. This movement can also be the less significant objective of the acceptance of African ethnic groups or races by the institutions of their own state, as well the rise of African nationalism was to protect or safeguard their own indigenous customs. Factors that led to the rise of African nationalism are cultural discrimination by colonial orders, colonialism interfering with African political institutions, taxation, Western education, political unification, racial segregation, urban environment favored the growth of nationalism, and other relevant.
Political Unification
Most African countries were politically unified, like India, those countries were unified under one role, administrative framework, set of laws, judicial court, and administrative officers. Indians became aware that this vast United India belong to them and by way, and thus nationalism was created.
Development in the Means of Communication and Transport
This was the very biggest problem when the routes that were built and communication systems were implemented by the British, this was to serve imperial interest. And the people of India capitalized on it. Lord Dalhousie made a lasting contribution to India by introducing the railways, telephone, and new modes of postal system.
Impact of Western Education
English education was introduced in 1835, it was a milestone in the British administration. This education was meant for Indians to serve the British Raj. Disaggregation was not beneficial at all when it comes to the Indian mass population, but the education system taught Indians to become the socio-political pioneer and religious reforms in India. This English also educated Indians to become the torch-bearers of Indian nationalism and aroused consciousness in the minds of millions of Indians. The influence of Western education motivated the educated Indians to reflect the idea of liberty, freedom, and nationalism through the vernacular literature. They aimed at arousing the mass to oppose British rule being surcharged by the spirit of nationalism. Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s ‘Anand Math’ (which contained the song ‘Vande Mataram’) and Dinabandhu Mitra’s play ‘Nil Darlan’ extorted tremendous influence upon the people and created anti-British feelings among them.
Racial Antagonism
The Englishman considered themselves superior in all respect to the Indians. This means that they take Indians for granted than themselves, and they also give themselves a lot of things than Indians, the English are racist. When it comes to the workplace, they do not want to give Indians higher job qualifications, even though they are qualified. The civil service examination was having age limit of 21 and the examination was held in England.
Taxation
In Africa, most people experience direct taxation, mainly in the form of poll taxes levied by local governments. Poll taxes defers in detail, but distinctively are levied on every adult male at the same rate, with little or no adjustment for differences in individual incomes or circumstances. In East Africa and elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa, poll taxes have been the dominant source of revenue for local governments, although their financial importance has tended to diminish over time. They have their origins in the colonial era, where at first they were effectively an alternative to forced labor. Poll taxes have been a source of tension and conflict between state authorities and rural people from the colonial period until today, as well as the catalyst for many rural rebellions.
Cultural Discrimination
During that time of colonization, when Europeans were taking control of everything in African society, they ended up engaging in cultural discrimination. Most people in different African cultures were discriminated against, in the workplace, they were not allowed to work in there. According to South African history, in the first two decades of the Union (1910-1930), the governments of Louis Botha, Jan Smuts, and J. B. Hertzog promulgated a barrage of discriminatory laws and regulations that tightened state control over black people. The most important law passed was the Natives Land Act of 1913. This law reserved 93% (revised to 87% in 1936) of the land in South Africa for whites; it prevented two-thirds of Africa’s population at the time from freely buying land. The small African ‘reserves’ created by the Land Act were a forerunner of the apartheid-era ‘Bantustans’ or ‘homelands’. Denying the majority of South Africa’s inhabitants, the right to own land had major socio-economic and political repercussions.
Colonial Administrations
Since 1652, successive colonial administrations had systematically deprived black communities of their land. The loss of this crucial resource was arguably the most important factor leading to the impoverishment and marginalization of African communities. It was also arguably the most important factor spurring formative organized resistance. Preliminary drafts of the Natives Land Act were debated in 1911 and the Mines and Works Act was passed in 1911. These laws and the formation of the Union were important factors leading to the formation of the South African Native National Congress on 8 January 1912 in Bloemfontein, renamed the African National Congress in 1923. Land dispossession lies at the heart of South Africa’s history and heritage of inequity. The new ANC was created against the backdrop of the massive deprivation of Africans’ right to own land.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that the rise of African nationalism before and after 1945 was caused by many factors that were bad for African citizens, they had to fight for their own independence and their own land.
Nationalism originated in England and France in the 18th century. Since then, it has had an inestimable influence on world history. Every coin has two sides, even it has existed for a long time, doesn’t mean we can underestimate the disadvantage of it.
Nationalism is prone to ethnic conflict. Different nations have their own interests, so conflicts will inevitably occur between each other. This is a normal phenomenon. However, in some countries and regions, this nationalism that safeguards the interests of its own nation has evolved into racism, that is, it emphasizes that its own nation is a superior nation, while other nations are inferior nations. The most typical examples are the discrimination against blacks and the slaughter of Indians by white Americans. In addition to racism, pure ethnic conflicts continue to be staged around the world. The old grievances of France and Germany are typical examples.
Nationalism is prone to terrorism. The love of our nation is a good thing, but when our nation is in a weak position and oppressed by a powerful nation, a strong nationalist complex may evolve into terrorism. The world’s first widely recognized terrorist incident was the Sarajevo incident of 1914. The Austro-Hungarian Empire desperately occupied Serbia’s Bosnia and Herzegovina regardless of Serbian opposition, and held a military exercise against Serbia in Serbia on the day of Serbia’s Shame (the date when Serbia was conquered by Turkey centuries ago). However, Serbia was incapable of confronting Austria-Hungary at that time, and the Serbian strong national complex could not be released, which directly led to the Sarajevo incident and brought a devastating disaster to the world. In addition to this pure terrorism, national separatism also often resorts to the form of terrorism to achieve its purpose of splitting the country. Today’s world terrorism has become the number one threat to world peace.
Nationalism is prone to national division. Although nationalism has promoted the development of nation-states, excessive nationalism can easily lead to national separatism, and the direct consequence of national separatism is state separatism. Most countries in the world are multi-ethnic countries. There are multiple nations in a country, and each nation has its own interest claims. When such interest claims are not met, it is easy to cause these nations to use nationalism as an excuse to set off a national separatist movement to split the country and form Own regime. Even in some countries, the government grants certain ethnic groups many special rights higher than others, but the minority fanatic nationalists of these ethnic groups are still not satisfied, they carry out activities to split the country regardless of the consequences, and even collude with foreign countries, at the expense of The interests of the people.
Nationalism was meant to emphasize a sense of identity and belonging to the nation, which is conducive to stimulating national self-esteem and self-confidence. Now days, It has become the source of modern violence, it has seriously threatened world peace and the collective interests. How to solve the problem caused by nationalism has become a major issue worldwide. Above all, having collective interest replacing national interest would be hard but it’s the best opinion.
Beginning February 21 to December 1916 the Battle of Verdun can be considered one of the largest battles fought during WWI between France and Germany with a total combined death count of 698,000 on both sides (Horne, 1994).
Based on the account of Alistair Horne in his book “The Price of Glory” this paper will elaborate and examine some of the more interesting facets of the war involving pride, nationalism and the de-humanization of combatants brought about by the combination of such factors.
Going even further into human aspect of the war elaborated on by Horne, this paper will examine the reasons that drove both combatants to fight over what was basically a useless piece of land and how the end result was nothing more than a war of costly attrition with a pyrrhic victory at the end.
Pride and Verdun
When examining the account of Horne regarding the Battle of Verdun it becomes obvious that the entire context of the battle itself was one of pride between two contenders that entered into what can be roughly described as a “pissing contest” between two countries.
For example, if you were to observe the greater context of the First World War it becomes immediately obvious that there was very little to be gained from Germany attacking Verdun while at the same time France had little to lose from merely allowing Germany to take Verdun.
The area wasn’t situated in what can be described as a strategically viable position in terms of allowing Germany to push further into France nor would holding the area allow the French army to cut off any German supply routes or allow the Germans to access any viable resources from the region since Verdun itself held little, if any, “war potential” in terms of munitions factories or stockpiled resources.
Based on the account of Horne it can be seen that Verdun was a matter of pride between the actors wherein it became a symbol of French resistance against German incursions while at the same time it was a way of showing Germany’s resolve in winning the war.
Going even further back to understand that factors that lead to irrational exuberance that permeated this desire to go to war over what can be described as a worthless piece of land, one would come across a variety of historical snippets (as indicated by Horne) which show that the land itself was heavily contested between the French and Germans even before the start of WWI.
This in itself is quite interesting, especially when overlaying the “nationalism” that was used as a factor to drive the inexorable war machine forward it can be seen that when nationalism meets pride minor disagreements can often erupt into major conflicts resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
Despite the overwhelming loss of life on both sides over something that had nothing to do with actually winning the war it can be seen from the account of Horne that extreme nationalism urged both sides to keep on fighting with German Field Marshall Von Falkenhayn famously saying that they would “bleed the French white”.
What is interesting about this particular account of the war is that when taking it and overlaying it in the greater context of wars within human society it can be seen that a lot of them were a direct result of pride and nationalism taking precedence over common sense and practicality.
Even in the modern-day era with the current “war on terror” it can be seen that a large percentage of radical Islamic militants turn towards terrorism due to feelings related to nationalism and the desire to protect their “traditional” way of life.
Nationalism and Inhuman Treatment
Continuing the in the same vein of though regarding nationalism, pride and how these fueled the battle of Verdun it is quite interesting to note that it was also during this particular battle that the first recorded instance of poison gas was utilized.
This is an important factor to take into consideration since when you combine its usage with the various de-humanizing aspects related to the battle itself it becomes all to obvious that nationalism and pride taken to its zenith enables countries to not think of the ethical and moral considerations of war (as explained by Horne when he elaborated on the various human factors behind and during the battle of Verdun) and as a result de-humanizes the enemy enabling the most atrocious of actions to become acceptable all for the sake of winning.
This is particularly enlightening, especially when taking into consideration the inherently hypocritical “noble and “just” reasoning elaborated on by state leaders and generals at time regarding the “justness” of their cause in the face of thousands of deaths.
Such a method of justifying atrocities has actually been endemic in countries such as France and Germany in the past wherein the Crusades (various attempts at retaking the Christian Holy Land from Muslim hands which resulted in millions of deaths on both sides) were fueled by religious fervor.
In the present religion has been replaced by nationalism however, it is no less effective in justifying the deaths of thousands all for the sake of a “just” cause.
Pyrrhic victory
The last and but not the least most interesting aspect of the account of Horne was that in the end both sides gained nothing from the battle of Verdun and for the French it was nothing more than a pyrrhic victory while for the Germans they actually accomplished what they set out to do and that was to “bleed the French white” (however in terms of an overall military victory the French actually “won” at Verdun since the Germans were unable to either capture the city of Verdun nor were they able to inflict greater causalities to the French).
First and foremost what you have to understand is that despite the sheer amount of deaths on both sides by end of the Battle on December 1916 both sides were quite literally at the same fronts they were in when the battle started in the first place.
Thus, from a certain perspective, it can be surmised that the entire battle was useless from start to finish since neither side actually were able to advance, both suffered costly causalities that hampered their war potential and in the end the battle itself was fought for reasons that are both incredibly selfish and can even be described as incredibly stupid given the amount of people died for them.
Conclusion
Based on the account of Horne and the opinions presented in this paper, it can be stated that the entire battle of Verdun was complete was of human life and shows how nationalism and pride can lead to actions that can basically be described as insanely stupid.
Reference List
Horne, A. (1994). The price of glory: Verdun 1916.
Even though a nation has been viewed for a long time through the prism of its heritage, as well as its contribution to the rest of the world, it seems that a new approach of evaluating a nation is soon coming into full force – a country and a nation is soon going to be represented by its existing sub-communities, which means that no imagined tradition is going to be a part of a nation’s image.
As it has been noted by King Abdallah in his Saudi Arabian National Dialogue, a state – or a kingdom, for that matter – is going to be represented as a mixture of the existing communities.
Hence, the kingdom was to incorporate such communities as Shia, such parties as Liberal Reformers and such issues as the rates of unemployment and gender concerns. Judging by the fact that the concerns above were raised meant that the national integrity of the state was threatened, especially in the light of the conflict between the USA and Iraq.
Still going on, the conflict which was further referred to as the ‘Saudi national debate’ has transcended the boundaries of critiquing the political issues in the state and has become the voice of the national dissatisfaction with the country’s policies, which poses a threat to the current religious situation, as well as the relationships with Al-Saud.
Developing into a debate concerning the national identity, the above-mentioned issue has become quite a problem in the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Spiced with the complicacies within the society and economy of the GCC states, as well as a number of existential problems, the issue of national identity has been blown out of proportions, which the leaders of Iran and the rest of the Gulf States have recently admitted.
Even with the results of the economic crisis of 2008, which has made it possible to level up the demographic issues, the economic tendencies in the GCC countries remain the same. It must be admitted, though, that the decay of economics has allowed people to see the political impotence of the heads of the countries, as well as the inconsistency of their social contract policies; apart from Bahrain, the policies of the GCC countries leave much to be desired.
Still, it is necessary to mention that the national integrity of the GCC countries is not going to disappear completely – there are still certain cultural, political and ethnical specifics which will never be washed away by the sands of time.
Indeed, the phenomenon of national identity is built of some concepts tracing which will require going back in history before the GCC states became independent. It is essential to mention, however, that one of the main standpoints at which the national identity of the peoples of the GCC states was formed was liberation of Riyadh in 1902, which followed the memorable fight in the Masmak fortress.
It is remarkable, though, that the given event was not considered as the liberation of the people who inhabited Riyadh – the residents of the latter remained under the control of the dominating nation. Therefore, it can be considered that the Riyadh liberation was instead an event of religious significance than the one of political importance for both the rebellious unitarians, or the Wahhabis, and their opponents.
As soon as the Independent Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was formed in 1914 and Ibn Saud, the former leader of the kingdom, was considered a perfect candidate for the position of the magistrate of Najd, the leaders of other Arabian countries, or, to be more exact, the rulers of Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain, were chosen to play the Ottoman role since 1870s.
Among the rest of the changes which have been made to the Arabian countries which have been finally liberated, the aegis of the British Empire should be mentioned; however, the latter did not score well in the realm of the Arabian world – Muwahhidon’s attacks took their toll on the future GCC states. Nevertheless, the Gulf countries were still ready to start their consolidation; carried out in XVIII-XIX centuries, the given process allowed for the development of the national identity of the Arabian people.
Before the oil production was turned into the critical means of growing finances for the countries which are nowadays referred to as the GCC, tribal leaders had built secure connections with the British Empire, since the latter provided sufficient help from the newly appeared countries. However, the fact that the nations mentioned above are still very young means that what is referred to as the ‘imagination of tradition’ is a rather half-baked idea.
Even though the Arabian society of the present-day world is not as homogenous as it used to be, the anonymity of belonging to a specific nation, culture or state defines the modern civilized society, which means that the Arabian countries have to reconsider their idea of emphasizing national identity. Since even the people supporting the idea of an ‘imagined political community have very vague ideas of it, it will be more appropriate for the GCC countries not to turn their sense of national identity into radical nationalism.
Nationalism takes its root in most people’s supreme loyalty to the nation. Nationalism may also be termed as the belief that people of the same language, history, and traditions need their state or country. An ideology of nationalism seeks to protect the rights of people with a common identity as noted by Conner (36). Nationalism has its origins set in northwest Europe during the eighteenth-century wars and especially the Second World War.
It came as a universal idea that manifested itself in terms of different ideologies like communism and democracy. The conditions that set nationalism on stage include intellectual traditions, cultural history, and social structure. On the other hand, ethnicity has its definition as discussed here. Ethnicity may relate as the characteristic of a human being group that has the same linguistic, racial, and religious individualism together with other traits defining them as one ethnic group. The individuals in an ethnic group or set up have many characters in common that they share. These characters define and distinguish between a particular ethnic group and another.
About the study that Brass (84) puts forward, many issues emerge. To handle this, our discussion bases its argument on the issues that Paul Brass brings out in his argument. This is by his sentiment that the study of ethnicity and nationality is in large part the study of politically induced cultural change. Also, where Brass asserts “that it is specifically a mode of looking at the privileged and those who are not within cultural groups select aspects of the group’s culture, attach new value and meaning to them, and uses the symbol as a tool to mobilize the group” (82). This discussion tries to emphasize on these sentiments.
Brass (83) in his discussion has pointed out the roles of elites about the ethnic group they represent. The elites find ways of mobilizing the ethnic group they belong to. They do so by coming up with strategies favoring their coexistence in society. Paul affirms this through the states he makes concerning the elites in society. This state clearly shows the reality concerning the elite, as Paul says the elites draw upon and distort while fabricating materials form their own culture. This may include the ethnic language change, the existing status of the; political-administrative devolution. The elites do this in a way that opens avenues and highways to their superiority in the society.
According to Brass (58), ethnicity is the product of modernity; where the elites fabricate cultures by using raw materials sourced from different groups while they aim at creating nations. The elites do this to ensure their economic and political advantage. As it stands Paul’s opinion that, the lessons of ethnicity or customs and nationality is just the study of politically induced literary transformation.
This idea comes out clearly as Paul talks about how the elites strategize on how they mobilize and survive in the society they live in. The elites devise ways in which they erode the original cultural values to make a suitable environment for their emergence. To this end, the study of ethnicity today conforms to the study Paul Brass pointed out. That is the study of politically induced cultural change. In this case, the politics of the elites surfaces when then mobile and erode the existing political-administrative devolution, cultural norms, and values to suit their political survival. This political advance is not for the interest of the majority in the group but the minority elites.
From all the sentiments brought out by Paul brass, it is quite evident that the study of ethnicity and nationality brings out these issues of elites and it is quite to associate the study with that of the politically induced cultural changes. This is because a group of elites who want individual gains brings about all the cultural changes. This is motivated by political superiority elites over the majority in the society the particular individuals (Brass 36).
On the other hand, Conner (36) emphasizes the difference between loyalty to the state and loyalty to the nation. To explain and defend Conner’s argument, the definition of the two meaningful words is quite necessary for a clear distinction. To begin with, a nation is termed simply as the largest group of humanity that has a sense of common ancestry. A nation has more of psychological tangibility. To a large extend a nation has a more or less common kinship.
A state on the other end is a combination of various ethnic setups or nations under collective sovereignty that has its political, legitimacy to serve as a sovereign entity in a particular nation. A state may lack physical tangibility as opposed to the nation, thus a nationalist finds more bonding to the nation than a patriotic individual who is loyal to a sovereign entity that is bound change. This distinction carries more importance and Conner’s argument, which gives a separation between the two builds a foundation on which several factors concerning the two kinds of loyalties may find concrete and health discussions that would benefit several scholars.
Conner’s argument is important because it brings out a clear differentiation between the two closely related terms and the application after the definition may help in times of political crises as witnessed in the China-Tibet crises. Conner’s definition and the distinction between the two terms has a perfect clarity needed while seeking to make a healthy discussion arrangement about the two important terms. The importance of the two terms comes when seeking a political authority or political independence of a particular part of a state, nations within a particular state may have its practices and principles different from the rest of the sovereign state.
Conner’s argument is important in a way I identify the two terms which are perfect, not synonymous in any way. In conclusion, Conner’s argument helps people to choose between the two important facts as it was in the case of the Chinese South Africans who were not South African nationals but they could be the patriots of that particular nation (Conner 83).
Works Cited
Brass, Paul. Language, religion and politics in north India. New Delhi: Universe Publishers, 2005. Print.
Connor, Walker. Ethno nationalism: the quest for understanding. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Print.
Since the establishment of the Australian federal department of immigration in 1945, over 6 million migrants, including more than 600, 000 refugees have been reported to be residing in Australia. The identity and nationality of the Australian migrants have changed from the traditional United Kingdom and European nations to Middle East and Asia.
According the Parliament of Australia (2006), 24% of the current Australian population is made up of individuals born overseas, and 40% of the total population has one or both parents born out of Australia.
In addition, the current Australian population is made up of almost 185 countries and more than 200 languages spoken within its borders. In the last few years, the Australian government has been greatly anxious about the increasing number of immigrants from the Middle East (Kippen & McDonald, 2000, 34).
Source: Adapted from Australian Government: Department of Immigration and Citizenship.
Of particular concern to the Australian is the fact that most of these people are illegal immigrants. While the treatment of the Middle East immigrants by the Australians has been heavily criticism internationally, of particular concern to scholars has been how this particular group of immigrants to Australia considers nationalism and ethnic identity in Australia.
The objective of this essay is to provide an overview of the what Australian nationalism and identity means to the Middle East immigrants in Australia
Nationalism and Identity among Middle East Immigrants to Australia
According to Walsh (2001, 56), nationalism exemplifies the good qualities of patriotism; however, it is comprises of different characters. Kippen and McDonald (2000, 34) argues that nationalism is the way a particular group of people think about their nationhood and how they promote the interest of their nation.
In this sense, nationalists would promote economic, political, cultural and legal independence of their country (Kippen & McDonald, 2000, 33). It is on this basis that the Australians have constantly viewed immigrants to their country not only as people who have no entitlement to reside within the country’s borders but as individuals out to stifle any form of independence in the nation.
The controversy surrounding treatment of immigrants especially those from the Middle East has always been informed by the argument that Australia is a country with a common culture and race, hence illegal immigrants have no entitlement whatsoever to live in the Australian community (Walsh, 2001, 78).
Despite these arguments and continued detention of illegal immigrants (also termed as boat people in reference to their means of transport into the country), the immigrants from the middle east have continuously flocked the country since the abolition of the Dictation Test in late 1950s.
According to Walsh (2001, 67), 77 per cent of the total number of third-world immigrants to Australia are of Asian origin. Why the Middle East immigrants in Australian have found it easier to adapt to the Australian nationalism and identity as oppose to English-speaking white immigrants has been greatly debated in various literatures on Australian nationalism and immigrant populations.
Kippen and McDonald (2000, 33) argues that despite the recent controversies related to the native Australians growing anxieties about middle east immigrants, this group of immigrants have always valued Australian citizenship more than immigrants from Britain and other English speaking countries.
Since 1950s, Australia has greatly transformed its population from a predominantly white to a multicultural society consisting of diverse cultural groups from all corners of the globe. This change had begun in the 1950s when the Australian government started to relax some of its ‘White Policies’ that had become the hallmark of the post-independence Australia (Walsh, 2001, 89).
In the subsequent decades, the country experienced increased number of immigrants from different cultural and racial backgrounds, majority of whom originated from Asia. The country signed a migration agreement with Turkey, a non-European, which allowed immigrants from Turkey to be easily assimilated into the Australian nationalism (Kippen & McDonald, 2000, 33).
When the country elected the first Labor government in 1972 since 1948, radical changes were implemented by the immigration ministry to make Australia more receptive to multicultural immigrants flocking the country (Walsh, 2001, 34). The changes brought an end to the quota system whereby immigrants were determined by their country of origin in order to preserve the Australian homogeneity.
The Labor government through its Minister for Immigration, Al Grassby, declared the country a multicultural society and affirmed that previous ethnic and/or racial discrimination inherent in the post-independence Australia had been permanently eliminated in the Australian society (Kippen & McDonald, 2000, 33).
Middle East Immigrants
The development in the early 1970s led to influx of migrants into Australia in a way never witnessed before. The migrants were particularly migrating from Middle East. For instance, a huge contingent of migrants in boats reached Darwin in 1975. According to Walsh (2001, 67), over 25,000 people from East Timor, China, Vietnam and Middle East have since migrated to Australia in the last thirty years.
However, majority of Asian immigrants to Australia in recent years have been from the Middle East (Naidoo, 2007, 23). Despite declaring the country a multicultural society, the Labor government as well as subsequent governments have continuously subjected the Middle East immigrants to compulsory detention during which the government would assessed their refugee status claims (Kippen & McDonald, 2000, 23).
Although the interment policy has drawn much criticism from both the Amnesty International and the United Nations, the Australian governments have never relented on this policy.
However, what astounds both Australians and scholars alike is the ease with which the Middle East immigrants have integrated into the Australian national and cultural identity. Even after undergoing inhumane treatments in the hands of Australians, the Middle East immigrants have continuously found it easier to identify with the Australian nationalism and cultural identity.
Fitzgerald Inquiry
The changes to the Australian immigration policies implemented in 1988 after the Fitzgerald Inquiry further encouraged migrants from the Middle East to entrench their foothold in Australia. Following the inquiry, the Australian government changed its migration policy from an emphasis on ‘family reunion’ to one stressing business and skilled categories of migrants (Walsh, 2001, 87).
Assisted passage into the country had been stopped in early 1980s and only those ascertained to be refugees were accorded support upon arriving in the country. This was followed by increased number of illegal immigrants from Middle East claiming to be refugees with the hope of gaining entry into the Australian community (Kippen & McDonald, 2000, 54).
Naidoo (2007, 12) observes that for the first time in the migration history of Australia, the number of immigrants arriving from Britain dropped drastically below that of Asian immigrants.
This was explained by the renewed prosperity that was sweeping across Europe at the time. while in the earlier decades the British, Italian and Greek immigrants were the majority of populations migrating to Australia, migrants from China, India and other middle east countries would fill the vacuum vacated by the reduced influx from Europe (Naidoo, 2007, 14).
Numerous conflicts in the Middle East region also meant that there was increased migration from the Middle East. Australia provided safe haven for this group of people who were flocking the country in the 1990s and early 21st century as intra and inter-state wars escalated.
The Impact of Major Wars and Historical Events
For most communities migrating from the Middle East to Australia, major wars and historical events have been the influencing factors. According to Naidoo (2007, 15), the large scale movement of middle immigrants has been a recent phenomenon influenced by protracted conflicts between Arabs and Israelis, the Gulf war, 15 years of civil war in Lebanon and the emergence of Islamic fundamentalist groups.
It is against this backdrop that the Middle East immigrants have been attracted by the social, political and economic opportunities offered by the Australian immigration policies and programs (Walsh, 2001, 45).
Cronulla Riots in Sydney in 2005
Despite this increased influx of migrants from the Middle East as well as the immigrants’ easier integration, the issue of nationalism and identity has brought a number of conflicts and disharmony between the native Australians and the Middle East immigrants. Naidoo (2007, 23) recalls the Cronulla Riots in Sydney in 2005 which was ethnically motivated.
In a series of mob confrontations, the riots involved a group of individuals claiming Anglo ethnicity who felt that Australia should not be opened to other ethnic groups especially those from the Middle East. In effect, despite the Australian government’s immigration policy allowing for multicultural integration, migrants within the country’s borders have always erected barriers between their different ethnic groups.
While the Cronulla riots erupted after a number of youths of Anglo descent were attacked by another group claiming Middle East ethnicity, the conflicts between Middle East immigrants have always been motivated by some underlying factors (Naidoo, 2007, 23).
European View with Regard to Nationalism and Identity
According to Naidoo (2007, 16), the Australian communities of European origin have always tried to portray the Middle East immigrants as ‘others’. Although the division along ethnic and racial lines have always been there, the portrayal of Middle Easterners as “others’ was more intense after the September 11 attacks in the united states (Walsh, 2007, 65).
Consequently, this has led to erection of barriers between ethnic identities especially between those from the Middle East and those of European decency. Naidoo (2007, 12) observes that while ethnic identity has always informed the conflict between these groups of immigrants, national dominance and nationalism have been the most underlying reasons for these conflicts.
According to Walsh (2001, 67), groups of people within a multicultural society would always mobilize around ethnic and religious groupings in order to attain or claim national dominance through state power. Just like other immigrants in Australia, Middle East immigrants are rightfully exercising their own identity in order to claim a stake in the country’s nationalism.
Conclusion
In exploring the understanding of Australian nationalism and identities, the Middle East immigrants have by far been able to integrate into the Australian multicultural society, albeit with some difficulties. In the last few years, the Australian government as well as the majority white Australian communities has been greatly anxious about the increasing number of immigrants from the Middle East.
Of particular concern to the Australian is the fact that most of these people are illegal immigrants, who, based on their identity pose a great threat to Australian nationalism.
Consequently, this categorization of the Middle East immigrants has led to heightened ethnic competition between different ethnic identities in the country’s multicultural society. However, the competition between different ethnic groups has ushered in a different dimension in the Australian multicultural society whereby every ethnic identity seeks to have a stake in the country’s nationalism.
References
Kippen, P. & McDonald, P. (2000). Australia’s population in 2000: the way we are and the ways we might have been, People and Place.
Naidoo, L. (2007). Rupture or continuity? The impact of globalization on cultural identity and education in Indian immigrant families in Australia. Transnational Curriculum Inquiry, 4 (1).
Parliament of Australia, (2006). Australia’s settlement services for refugees and migrants, E-Brief: Online Only issue 9. Web.
Walsh, Kate. (2001). The changing face of Australia: A century of immigration 1901-2000, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
