Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Would this really be defined as "nationalism," though?
Yes.
Self-determination and the nation were irretrievably connected.
The Czechs, for example, should form a nation around common bonds, rather than be part of an oppressive empire against their will.
That's pretty much the definition of liberal Nationalism. It emphasises people's 'right' to freedom and identity.
It's a humanist approach borne out of the Enlightenment, and is based upon common human needs, i.e. liberty.
I can see your point, and I would agree that Czechs desiring to form an independent nation rather than be part of an oppressive empire would certainly be an example of nationalism. Whether it's actually liberal or not would depend on what kind of government they embrace after they achieve independence.
I can see that from any nation's point of view, there is a desire to be free, independent, and to form their nation around common bonds and a sense of national identity.
However, it can be a bit complicated when looking at it from Wilson's point of view at the time, as well as considering America's formation and sense of national identity. Wilson could not and did not support liberal nationalism on a consistent basis – only where it was practical and politically expedient.
The Czechs wanted independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire which was our enemy at the time. The idea of Czech independence seemed a practical and mutually-beneficial proposition from Wilson's point of view. It was similar with his support of Polish independence, especially in light of new developments in Russia concerning the rise of the Bolsheviks.
Granted, if we're talking about a liberal and humanist vision of each national group (however it may be defined) having their own freedom, independence, and sovereignty within their own ancestral homeland – and where all nations mutually respect the rights and sovereignty of other nations – then, sure, I can see how there might be such a thing as "liberal nationalism" in the way you describe it.
But that would still be more of a function of humanism than "nationalism," as such. Nationalism seems to carry the assumption that a country with two or more nationalities would be automatically "oppressive." It implies that national independence is the only true way to have a free and liberal society. But that only works as long as all or most other nations actually respect that independence and sovereignty.
quote:
Completely different to 19th century German Nationalism which rejected the Enlightenment, Humanism, reason etc; and focused on the historic differences between nations, not the commonalities, underpinned by genetics.
You can see that the former has no basis in race and difference, whereas the latter certainly does.
Actually, there is a difference. In your example, Czechs would rather be governed by people of their own nationality, not anyone of any other nationality. That, in and of itself, defines the "difference." It doesn't necessarily mean that it's malignant or hateful, but it does divide people on that basis.
German nationalism took more of a Darwinian approach in their belief that only the strong nations should survive and/or hold dominion over weaker vassal states. German nationalism was also based in fear that if they didn't show strength and act aggressively, other nations would see them as weak and oppress them. So, it was similar in that it opposed oppression by outside powers and unified on that basis.
The commonality here is that no one outside of "our people" can take a position of leadership or influence, since they will presumably have divided loyalties and/or could serve the interests of some oppressive power. Just as people might resist a monarch who isn't the same nationality as the people he/she might rule. (Russians hated their German Tsarina during WW1.) Nationalism may not automatically be anti-monarchist, although it makes monarchy itself somewhat irrelevant.
No matter which form of nationalism one is addressing, it's still problematic and complicated, especially if one is not too accurate in defining the actual "borders" between nations. Even with the best of intentions – and even accepting the idea of liberal nationalism as entailing freedom, self-determination, etc. – there was still the problem of actually drawing the borders, setting up the governments, as well as questions regarding people who were of different nationalities who just happened to be living in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And when ideas of national independence and liberation were applied to Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, the issue of borders came up again – among many other political complications.
It's different here in the Americas. In contrast with Europe and much of Asia, our national identity does not correspond directly with identifying with a language group or a particular ancestry. A German nationalist and a Czech nationalist might share something in common in that their concept of nation would involve people sharing a common language and heritage. So, their form of nationalism would be based in that, whether it was a liberal, benign version or the more malignant and aggressive version.
While the German speaks German and the Czech speaks Czech, the American doesn't speak American, nor does the Canadian speak Canadian. There is no such language as American or Canadian. As a result our sense of national identity doesn't really correspond with the European sense of national identity. It's also a touchy subject, just like the Civil War is a touchy subject for a lot of people. It doesn't mean that we don't have a national identity, but it's just very complicated and something that we're going to need to sort out if we're ever going to get over some of these hurdles which divide us.
< Message edited by Zonie63 -- 7/11/2015 3:27:44 PM >
|
RE: Civil War - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread