y Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.

y The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals. y Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination. Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/nationalism#ixzz1HvmtCXTP

... political or social philosophy in which the welfare of the nation-state as an entity is considered paramount. Nationalism is basically a collective state of mind or consciousness in which people believe their primary duty and loyalty is to the nation-state. Often nationalism implies national superiority and glorifies various national virtues. Thus love of nation may be overemphasized; concern with national selfinterest to the exclusion of the rights of other nations may lead to international conflict.

One of the grandest and most ironic examples of nationalism in the last 100 years transpired in Nazi Germany. The most fundamental aspects of propaganda were instituted into massive scales in order to promote national pride......as well as ethnic pride. The demonstrations held at Nuremberg were on a grand scale, the national flag was plastered on everything and I do mean almost everything. The call for national solidarity went out on a global scale, families that had settled abroad returned to "answer the call to the fatherland". In my opinion there has never been such a large scale turn towards national pride in history. Other example include the U.S. call to arms after Pearl Harbor. If you remember the post 911 days.....the flags dis[played in most neighborhoods, the commercials on our strength as a nation and our diversity at the heart of being American. The U.S.S.R. also had massive campaigns to assert nationalism within it's borders, however the reality of the corrupt and crumbling empire staunched any real sense of it's solidarity. Japan, being a true empire during WW2, was at it's peak of nationalism during this time. Giving ones life for his country was not only a willingly accepted duty but considered an honor. Of course this feudal system of classes had been in place for centuries and they did believe their emperor was a divine being. Nationalism is a nations sense of pride in its self, so any nation that isn't wracked by civil war is normally considered nationalistic.

The Battle of New Orleans is a huge example of Nationalism. It was a melting pot where all types of Americans came together to fight and defend our country at the end of the Revolution (Not that this Battle really count because the treaty had already been signed! XD)
In its first powerful manifestation in the French Revolution, nationalism carried with it the notion of popular sovereignty, from which some have inferred that nationalism can occur only in democratic nations. However, this thesis is belied by the intense nationalism that characterized the German Empire and later Nazi Germany. Where nationalism arises, its specific form is the product of each particular nation's history.

Although nationalism is unique to the modern world, some of its elements can be traced throughout history. The first roots of nationalism are probably to be found in the ancient Hebrews, who conceived of themselves as both a chosen people, that is, a people as a whole superior to all other peoples, and a people with a common cultural history. The ancient Greeks also felt superior to all other peoples and moreover felt a sense of great loyalty to the political community. These feelings of cultural superiority (ethnocentrism), which are similar to nationalism, gave way to much more universal identifications under the Roman Empire and with the Christian Church through its teaching of the oneness of humanity. As strong centralized monarchies were built from petty feudal states, as regional languages and art forms were evolved, and as local economies widened, popular identification with these developments became increasingly strong. In areas such as Italy, which were not yet single nations, recurring invasions led such thinkers as Niccol Machiavelli to advocate national political federation. The religious wars of the Reformation set nation against nation, though the strongest loyalty continued to adhere to the sovereign. In the 16th and 17th cent. the nationalistic economic doctrine of mercantilism appeared. The growth of the middle classes, their desire for political power, and the consequent development of democratic political theory were closely connected with the emergence of modern nationalism. The theorists of the French Revolution held that people should establish governments of equality and liberty for everyone. To them the nation was inseparable from the people, and for the first time in history a people could create a government in accordance with the nation's general will. Although their aims were universal, they glorified the nation that would establish their aims, and nationalism found its first political expression.
During the past year or two we have seen evidence of a resurgence of Canadian nationalism reminiscent of that of the 1 960s or of the period surrounding the debate over the Charlottetown Accord. The question being debated in the Canadian Left is whether this nationalistic sentiment plays a positive or negative role in the struggle for social progress. During the 1960s and 1970s Canadian nationalism figured prominently in anti-imperialist and socialist politics, aimed primarily against American economic, political and cultural domination and a desire to defend Canadian sovereignty. There were also currents of economic nationalism, in sections of the Liberal and Conservative parties, although it was always difficult to distinguish how much of this was based on a desire to defend Canadian independence and how much was based on narrow, economic self-interest. For its part, the NDP rejected the nationalism of the Waffle and expelled its leaders. During the 1980s, Anglo-American. imperialism adopted the strategy of neoliberalism in response to a crisis in profitability. One aspect of this strategy was the destruction of whatever remnants of socialism remained in the countries of eastern Europe, and the crushing of the nation-building in the liberated former colonies in order to bring these countries fully into the capitalist market. The embracing of those policies by the Mulroney and Chretien governments has placed in jeopardy whatever limited sovereignty Canada previously enjoyed. The resulting concern and apprehension generated amongst Canadians has given rise to this new wave of sentiment for Canadian sovereignty.

What is nationalism like today?

Today it operates alongside the legal structure and supplements the formal institutions of society in providing much of the cohesiveness and order necessary for the existence of the modern nation-state.

How does nationalism come about?

For people to express nationalism it is first necessary for them to identify themselves as belonging to a nation, that is, a large group of people who have something in common. The rise of centralized monarchies, which placed people under one rule and eliminated feudalism , made this possible. The realization that they might possess a common history, religion, language, or race also aided people in forming a national identity. When both a common identity and a formal authority structure over a large territory (i.e., the state) exist, then nationalism becomes possible.

What was nationalism like in the 19th century?

It was in the 19th cent. that nationalism became a widespread and powerful force. During this time nationalism expressed itself in many areas as a drive for national unification or independence. The spirit of nationalism took an especially strong hold in Germany, where thinkers such as Johann Gottfried von Herder and Johann Gottlieb Fichte had developed the idea of Volk . However, the nationalism that inspired the German people to rise against the empire of Napoleon I was conservative, tradition-bound, and narrow rather than liberal, progressive, and universal. And when the fragmented Germany was finally unified as the German Empire in 1871, it was a highly authoritarian and militarist state. After many years of fighting, Italy also achieved national unification and freedom from foreign domination, but certain areas inhabited by Italians (e.g., Trieste) were not included in the new state, and this gave rise to the problem of irredentism . In the United States, where nationalism had evinced itself in the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, national unity was maintained at the cost of the Civil War. In the latter half of the 19th cent., there were strong nationalist movements among the peoples subject to the supranational Austrian and Ottoman empires, as there were in Ireland under British rule, and in Poland under Russian rule. At the same time, however, with the emergence in Europe of strong, integrated nation-states, nationalism became increasingly a sentiment of conservatives. It was turned against such international movements as socialism, and it found outlet in pursuit of glory and empire (see imperialism ). Nationalist conflicts had much to do with bringing on World War I.

What was nationalism like in the 20th century?

The early 20th cent., with the breakup of Austria-Hungary and of the Ottoman Empire, saw the establishment of many independent nations, especially through the peace treaties ending World War I. The Paris Peace Conference established the principle of national self-determination, upheld by the League of Nations and later by the United Nations. While self-determination is a nationalist principle, it also recognizes the basic equality of all nations, large or small, and therefore transcends a narrow nationalism that claims superiority for itself. It was exactly this latter type of nationalism, however, that arose in Nazi Germany, preaching the superiority of the so-called Aryan race and the need for the extermination of the Jews and the enslavement of Slavic peoples in their "living space" (see National Socialism ). Italian fascism was in a similar manner based on extreme nationalist sentiments. At the same time, Asian and African colonial territories, seeking to cast off imperial bonds, were developing nationalist movements. Perhaps the most famous of these was the Indian National Congress , which struggled for Indian independence for over 60 years. After World War II nationalism in Asia and Africa spread at such a fast pace that dozens of new "nations" were created from former colonial territorial holdings. Although interdependence and global communications interconnected all nations by the 1990s, nationalism appears to have grown more extreme with the breakup of the Soviet empire, the growth of Muslim fundamentalism, and the collapse of Yugoslavia. Xenophobic, separatist movements are not necessarily confined to newly independent states; they appear in many European nations and Canada, as well as India, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and many others. International organizations, such as the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization of American States, and the

Organization for African Unity, represent attempts to curb extreme nationalism, stressing cooperation among nations. Positive points:
Nationalism is a hard topic to decide if it is good or bad, although it can bring about dictators like hitler and Napoleon, Nationalism does have it's good traits. For example; In sports a whole nation can be brought together to cheer for their country's team. People who would normally be competitors join forces to cheer for one cause. This is like in any competition, but the main focus is that it can be used as a tool to bring people together. This also creates pride in one's country, fueling confidence. When one goes travelling to a forgien land why do they put a Canadian, or American flag on their rucksack? Because their proud to display that their part of that country. In this way, nationalism influences confidence. Also, I'm sure as many others have, when travelling to another country, if one happens to encounter another citizen of your country in that forgien place you and that parson feel immediatley bonded. This is also another positive occurance. Nationalism also makes the wellbeing of one's nation important and aids in economic advances.

Examples: Flying national flags, singing anthems, fierce support of international sports teams as well as the military of your country and other such things. Nationalism is sometimes likened to racism in some countries, usually this is an over exaggeration although some, although certainly not the majority, see nationalism as being a reason for racism. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Cite_examples_of_nationalism#ixzz1Hvkr4MGH

What are the different types of nationalism? (see details)?

Ok, don't say I didn't do my homework, because I did. But I'm having some trouble with understanding the differences between the different types of nationalism. I looked through my textbook but they don't explain it in a clear enough way for me to understand. Could someone please explain to me the differences between these types? I'm including an excerpt of my book so you can see what exactly I'm getting at. "Types of nationalism: Nationalism may manifest itself as part of official state ideology or as a popular (non-state) movement and may be expressed along civic, ethnic, cultural, religious or ideological lines. These self-definitions of the nation are used to classify types of nationalism. However such categories are not mutually exclusive and many nationalist movements combine some or all of these elements to varying degrees. Nationalist movements can also be classified by other criteria, such as scale and location.

Civic nationalism is the form of nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy from the active participation of its citizenry, from the degree to which it represents the "will of the people". As a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Membership of the civic nation is considered voluntary. Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France. Ethnic nationalism defines the nation in terms of ethnicity, which always includes some element of descent from previous generations. It also includes ideas of a culture shared between members of the group and with their ancestors, and usually a shared language. Membership in the nation is hereditary. The state derives political legitimacy from its status as homeland of the ethnic group, and from its function to protect the national group and facilitate its cultural and social life, as a group. Ethnic nationalism is now the dominant form. Romantic nationalism reflected the ideals of Romanticism and was opposed to Enlightenment rationalism. Romantic nationalism emphasized a historical ethnic culture which meets the Romantic Ideal; folklore developed as a Romantic nationalist concept. Cultural nationalism defines the nation by shared culture. Membership in the nation is neither voluntary (you cannot instantly acquire a culture), nor hereditary (children of members may be considered foreigners if they grew up in another culture). Chinese nationalism is one example of cultural nationalism, partly because of the many national minorities in China. (The 'Chinese nationalists' include those in Taiwan who reject the mainland Chinese government but claim the mainland Chinese state). State nationalism is a variant on civic nationalism, very often combined with ethnic nationalism. It implies that the nation is a community of those who contribute to the maintenance and strength of the state, and that the individual exists to contribute to this goal. Italian fascism is the best example, epitomized in this slogan of Mussolini: "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State". Religious nationalism defines the nation in terms of shared religion. If the state derives political legitimacy from adherence to religious doctrines, then it may be more of a theocracy than a nationstate. In practice, much ethnic and cultural nationalism is in some way religious. The religion is usually a marker of group identity, rather than the motivation for nationalist claims. For example, Irish nationalism is associated with Catholicism. Most Irish nationalist leaders of the last 100 years were Catholic, but many of the early (18th century) nationalists were Protestant. Irish nationalism never centered on theological distinctions. Similarly, although Religious Zionism exists, the mainstream of Zionism is more secular in nature, and based on culture and ethnicity. Since India gained independence, Indian nationalism has been associated with Hinduism. In modern India, a contemporary form of Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva has been prominent among some groups.

Diaspora nationalism (or, as Benedict Anderson terms it, "long-distance nationalism") generally refers to nationalist feeling among a diaspora. A diaspora refers to any people forced or induced to leave their traditional ethnic homelands. African-Americans in the U.S. are a part of the African diaspora, along with other Africa-rooted people throughout the world. Other diaspora include the Irish in the United States and the Lebanese in the Americas and Africa. Anderson states that Diaspora nationalism acts as a "phantom bedrock" for people who want to experience a national connection, but who do not actually want to leave their diaspora community." Nationalism and Patriotism are basically the same thing. If you feel like you're a part of a particular nation, what you're experiencing is nationalist sentiment. Sometimes this sentiment becomes part of the State's official doctrine. But usually it's totally informal. Here are a few examples of "nationalism", some serious, and some not so serious: Civic Nationalism- In the USA, "if you don't vote, you can't complain" is a civic nationalist sentiment. The statement "he's not MY president" which was popular during the Bush years, is Civic Nationalism in reverse. Ethnic Nationalism- The Nation of Israel is not merely a reference to people from the State of Israel, but all Jewish people. Romantic Nationalism- Rather than Wales being ruled by England and therefore being forced to speak English, Wales is where everyone speaks Welsh, and the English ought to mind their own business. Cultural Nationalism- It's basically the same as other kinds of nationalism, but the people identify with the Nation because of "culture", whatever that may be. May I suggest that the "Raider Nation" of Oakland Raiders fans are a good example of this. ;) State Nationalism- When a people's culture is united by a powerful allegiance to the State, what you have is State Nationalism. They are comrades, rather than citizens. This is a dangerous sentiment. Religious Nationalism- The Nation of Islam bridges huge parts of the world, and is united by a common religion. Diasporic Nationalism- I can't think of a better example than the one your book gives for this.

Basically nationalism has more to do with the definition of the word "nation" than anything. If you think you're a "part of something larger than yourself", and that "something" is a bunch of people with whom you have something in common, then you're probably experiencing something akin to nationalism.

Nationalism has much to do with how you view your own identity, and how you see yourself fitting into the world around you. People who call themselves "citizens of the world" are nationalistic, but in a weird non-specific way. Just remember that what we call nationalism is nothing but a social phenomenon, and has no official source or significance. Nationalism turns devotion to the nation into principles or programmes. It thus contains a different dimension from mere patriotism, which can be a devotion to one's country or nation devoid of any project for political action. Most nationalists have a programme for their own particular nation; but do not necessarily hold views about the significance of nationality elsewhere. It is in this sense that nationalism has been described as an ideologically empty bottle with strength and shape, but no particular content. Thus, the nationalism of the Congress Party in India before independence was able to incorporate such varied figures as Jawaharlal Nehru, a modernizer and believer in rational planning, Krishna Menon, a Marxist, and M. K. Gandhi, an anti-industrial Hindu ascetic. The general feature of universal principles of nationalism is an assertion of the primacy of national identity over the claims of class, religion, or humanity in general. One strain can be loosely labelled Romantic nationalism. It is particularly associated with German reactions to the universalism and rationalism of the Enlightenment. In this view people can be better understood in terms of the linguistic, cultural, and historical factors which bind them to a particular territory than by reference to their general human capacities. The economic dimension of such nationalism is the belief that the ownership and control of important resources should be maintained firmly within the nation itself. The political application is the principle of self-determination which seeks to base political life on the nation-state, a sovereign entity dominated by a single nation. One advantage of nation-states is that their authority, as a natural embodiment of the identity and will of the citizens, creates a firm base for legitimate government. Another is that, as the American poet Robert Frost put it, good fences make good neighbours : peoples who are secure, economically and culturally, behind their own borders can negotiate with each other fairly and amicably. The great disadvantage of this idea of the nation-state is that it does not correspond to reality. The populations of the world are not distributed on clear-cut national territories and there are always minorities whose presence in the national state is difficult and potentially disruptive. Even such massive and painful demographic movements as the exchange of population between Greece and Turkey after the 1914-18 war and the expulsion of Germans from (re-defined) Poland after the 1939-45 war have barely alleviated the problem. In particular, the German, Russian, and Turkish peoples are distributed across the Eurasian land mass in such a way as to defy any attempts to draw boundaries for selfdetermination. The implementation of the principle of self-determination by the Treaty of Versailles 1919 created states which were too small for successful defence or economic management, regimes which were oppressive and illiberal, and ethnic grievances which have proved persistent. The same argument would suggest that such multinational entities as the Austro-Hungarian Empire and (later) the Soviet Union have important advantages over nation-states.

What it is particular nationalisms seek to achieve can vary considerably. In the classic cases, in nineteenth-century Germany and Italy, the core of the nationalist project was to establish political unity and independence. But nationalists can also seek to maintain a cultural identity: according to almost all the protagonists of Welsh nationalism, the preservation of the Welsh language and culture is the defining project of the movement. Nationalists may also seek to extend territory or to protect the interests of extraterritorial nationals. Equally, the issue can be the maintenance of cultural or political autonomy. For instance, English nationalism is rarely thought of per se and references to British nationalism are almost unknown. But where England or Britain is threatened by integration into a larger, European, entity and/or by disintegration, then it becomes possible to talk not only of English nationalism, but also of British nationalism. The varieties of nationalism are determined in large part by the broad and indeterminate range of the term nation . The word exists in English and in all the Latin languages with a root related to birth as in natal and native . But nationem in Latin referred to units much more like tribe , clan , or family than the large, territorially based groupings which we think of as nations today. In eighteenth-century English there were references to nations of Smiths, Hebrews, and gypsies or the royal nation (meaning the royal family or dynasty). The idea that a nation refers primarily or solely to something like England or France is a relatively recent development in the use of the term. The question of what constitutes the common characteristics of nationality, and therefore the distinguishing criteria of membership of a nation, has diverse and confusing answers. It is no longer the case that the criteria must be related to birth, since one can acquire nationality; indeed, some modern nationalities, like American or Israeli, consist mainly of people who have, or whose known ancestors have, transferred from another nationality. Some of the classic arguments for nationalism, those of such German nationalists as J. G. Fichte and the brothers Jakob and Wilhelm Grimm, and of Welsh nationalists, insisted that common language was the key to nationality since it was possession of the language which related people to history, legend, and territory in the way that defined nations. This triadic relation between language, territory, and myth/shared experience constitutes probably the most coherent and developed theory of nationality, but it is incapable of explaining such multilingual nationalities as the Swiss, Indians, and Belgians and fits oddly to a modern reality in which many different nationalities speak Spanish or English as a first language. The phrase the age of nationalism has been applied most often to post-Napoleonic Europe and to the movements which culminated in German and Italian unification. The particular importance of this period was that it established influential paradigms and approaches in the understanding of nationality. But distinctly nationalist sentiments can be detected in England and France centuries earlier and Shakespeare put such sentiments into the mouths of many of his medieval characters, including King John, Henry V, and (paradoxically) John of Gaunt. The late twentieth century can also be described as an age of nationalism; indeed, some of the assertions of nationality among the hundred nations of the former Soviet Union following its collapse 1991 might be described as nationalism ad absurdum.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/nationalism#ixzz1HvlzlFcC

Nationalism is a sense of shared identity and loyalty, based upon common history, language, culture, and traditions. Though it has much in common with religious and local loyalties, it may be distinguished since it almost invariably aims to be the basis of government. The tendency of recent scholarship has been to see the roots of European nationalisms deep in the past rather than regarding them as essentially 19th-cent. phenomena. A sense of English nationalism seems to have developed during the campaigns to drive back the Danes, though for centuries mistrust between Northumbria, Wessex, Mercia, and East Anglia persisted. It was reinforced after 1066 by resentment of Norman-French domination. The thrust of Norman advance into other regions of the British Isles stimulated rival nationalisms in turn. The military campaigns led by Wallace and Robert I Bruce culminated in the declaration of Arbroath (1320), and those in Wales led by Llywelyn ap Gruffydd and Glynd r gained wide popular support because they convinced many people that they fought to liberate Welshmen from English oppression. From the personal union of England and Scotland in 1603, and more particularly from the governmental union in 1707, strenuous efforts were made to encourage a sense of British nationalism. While accompanied by military success, imperial achievement, and economic growth, it flourished. In the 20th cent., and especially after 1945, as economic and political problems multiplied, the concept of British nationalism faltered and Celtic nationalist parties began to have some success. Ireland always presented particular problems for the idea of a British people to parallel a British state. The link between protestantism and Britishness made governments reluctant to let the catholic majority in Ireland share the rights upon which popular Britishness became based, while the willingness of some catholics to look to Spain, France, or Germany for assistance encouraged the English to regard them as potential traitors. Concessions to the Irish catholics after the Act of Union of 1801 (too little, too late is the easy clich) failed to prevent the growth of a more militant Irish nationalism, which in turn led to the development of protestant resistance to Home Rule (loyalism) and ultimately to the partition of Ireland in 1921. In Wales, the survival of the Welsh language has given a cultural focus to nationalism. In the 19th cent. dissatisfaction with the power of Anglicized landlords and the privileged position of the Anglican church was used by the Liberal Party to mobilize a Welsh-speaking population already undergoing a cultural revival. The Welsh nationalist party, Plaid Cymru, inhibited at first by the predominance of English-speaking in south Wales, made considerable inroads in the 1990s, returning four MPs to Westminster at the general election of 1997, and claiming twelve seats in the 60-strong Welsh Assembly in 2003. Nationalism in modern Scotland emerged as the autonomy of civil society and local government obtained by the Act of Union of 1707 began to be eroded by the increased speed of communications, the integration of the British economy, and the expansion of the Westminster government's powers of intervention. The resentment of Whitehall, found in many regions, could take a nationalist form in Scotland. But although agitation secured the re-establishment of a Scottish secretary in the cabinet (1885) and led to the foundation of a Scottish Home Rule Association (1886), Scottish nationalism did not mobilize the masses. Conservative and Labour lack of interest in Home Rule led to the foundation of the National Party of Scotland (1928), which metamorphosed into the Scottish National Party (SNP) in 1934. Increasing dislike of economic and political centralization, and optimism that North Sea oil could provide a rosy future, led the SNP to shock by-election victories at Hamilton (1967) and Govan (1973). At the October 1974 general election, the SNP took 30 per cent of the Scottish vote and eleven seats. Although the SNP's challenge declined after the inconclusive devolution referendum in 1979, the Thatcher years were widely seen in Scotland as government by an English nationalist. The SNP gained six seats at Westminster in the general election of 1997, and 35 seats out of 129 in the Scottish Parliament, elected in 1999.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/nationalism#ixzz1Hvm6aydX

History Early Developments Although nationalism is unique to the modern world, some of its elements can be traced throughout history. The first roots of nationalism are probably to be found in the ancient Hebrews, who conceived of themselves as both a chosen people, that is, a people as a whole superior to all other peoples, and a people with a common cultural history. The ancient Greeks also felt

superior to all other peoples and moreover felt a sense of great loyalty to the political community. These feelings of cultural superiority (ethnocentrism), which are similar to nationalism, gave way to much more universal identifications under the Roman Empire and with the Christian Church through its teaching of the oneness of humanity. As strong centralized monarchies were built from petty feudal states, as regional languages and art forms were evolved, and as local economies widened, popular identification with these developments became increasingly strong. In areas such as Italy, which were not yet single nations, recurring invasions led such thinkers as Niccol Machiavelli to advocate national political federation. The religious wars of the Reformation set nation against nation, though the strongest loyalty continued to adhere to the sovereign. In the 16th and 17th cent. the nationalistic economic doctrine of mercantilism appeared. The growth of the middle classes, their desire for political power, and the consequent development of democratic political theory were closely connected with the emergence of modern nationalism. The theorists of the French Revolution held that people should establish governments of equality and liberty for everyone. To them the nation was inseparable from the people, and for the first time in history a people could create a government in accordance with the nation's general will. Although their aims were universal, they glorified the nation that would establish their aims, and nationalism found its first political expression. The Nineteenth Century It was in the 19th cent. that nationalism became a widespread and powerful force. During this time nationalism expressed itself in many areas as a drive for national unification or independence. The spirit of nationalism took an especially strong hold in Germany, where thinkers such as Johann Gottfried von Herder and Johann Gottlieb Fichte had developed the idea of Volk. However, the nationalism that inspired the German people to rise against the empire of Napoleon I was conservative, traditionbound, and narrow rather than liberal, progressive, and universal. And when the fragmented Germany was finally unified as the German Empire in 1871, it was a highly authoritarian and militarist state. After many years of fighting, Italy also achieved national unification and freedom from foreign domination, but certain areas inhabited by Italians (e.g., Trieste) were not included in the new state, and this gave rise to the problem of irredentism. In the United States, where nationalism had evinced itself in the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, national unity was maintained at the cost of the Civil War. In the latter half of the 19th cent., there were strong nationalist movements among the peoples subject to the supranational Austrian and Ottoman empires, as there were in Ireland under British rule, and in Poland under Russian rule. At the same time, however, with the emergence in Europe of strong, integrated nation-states, nationalism became increasingly a sentiment of conservatives. It was turned against such international movements as socialism, and it found outlet in pursuit of glory and empire (see imperialism). Nationalist conflicts had much to do with bringing on World War I. The Twentieth Century The early 20th cent., with the breakup of Austria-Hungary and of the Ottoman Empire, saw the establishment of many independent nations, especially through the peace treaties ending World War I. The Paris Peace Conference established the principle of national self-determination, upheld by the League of Nations and later by the United Nations. While selfdetermination is a nationalist principle, it also recognizes the basic equality of all nations, large or small, and therefore transcends a narrow nationalism that claims superiority for itself. It was exactly this latter type of nationalism, however, that arose in Nazi Germany, preaching the superiority of the so-called Aryan race and the need for the extermination of the Jews and the enslavement of Slavic peoples in their "living space" (see National Socialism). Italian fascism was in a similar manner based on extreme nationalist sentiments. At the same time, Asian and African colonial territories, seeking to cast off imperial bonds, were developing nationalist movements. Perhaps the most famous of these was the Indian National Congress, which struggled for Indian independence for over 60 years. After World War II nationalism in Asia and Africa spread at such a fast pace that dozens of new "nations" were created from former colonial territorial holdings. Although interdependence and global communications interconnected all nations by the 1990s, nationalism appears to have grown more extreme with the breakup of the Soviet empire, the growth of Muslim fundamentalism, and the collapse of Yugoslavia. Xenophobic, separatist movements are not necessarily confined to newly independent states; they appear in many European nations and Canada, as well as India, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and many others. International organizations, such as the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization of American States, and the Organization for African Unity, represent attempts to curb extreme nationalism, stressing cooperation among nations.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/nationalism#ixzz1HvmOPI2B

Greek Nationalism
The earliest nationalist movement manifested itself in the Greeks' war to obtain independence from the Ottoman Empire (between 1821 and 1832). The earlier revolt of the south Slavs (between 1804 and 1830) that culminated in the creation of an autonomous principality of Serbia had been a manifestation of widespread discontent with Ottoman maladministration and military disorder. Its leaders did not articulate nationalist positions, however, and the Slavs would presumably have been content with a return to competent Ottoman rule. In Greece, however, despite a patchwork leadership ranging from bandit chiefs to Greek intellectuals educated in western Europe, a distinctly nationalist ideology came in time to be accepted as the best expression of the people's will. This ideology, however, was associated with a revolutionary organization called the Philike Hetairia that was based in Greek communities outside Greece (the most important one was in Odessa). Nationalist ideology followed rather than preceded the Greek rebellion, and many Greeks fought to escape Ottoman rule without being aware of any ideology. Many of the ideologues were more familiar with conditions and ideas in western Europe than in the Peloponnesus. Rhigas Pheraios, for example (who wrote in his immensely popular "War Hymn": "How long, my heroes, shall we live in bondage,/alone like lions on ridges, on peaks?/ . . . Better an hour of life that is free/than forty years in slavery!"), had a personal history of involvement with numerous revolutionary groups in western Europe dedicated to the ideals of the French Revolution. Independent Greece not only fostered a revival of classical language and a glorification of ancient greatness - both common practices in later examples of Middle Eastern nationalism - but also developed the Megali Idea, an ideology that harked back to the Byzantine Empire and whose proponents visualized a broad Balkan realm extending to Istanbul (then Constantinople) in which people of various languages and ethnic groups would be led by Greeks. This approach to nationalism, manifesting a vision of the Greek people as a political entity rather than a geographical entity, reflects the thinking of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and other French ideologues rather than the German vision of complete identity of people and land. The concept of one people dominating others within a specified territory later becomes commonplace in Middle Eastern nationalism.

Turkish and Arab Nationalism

Although other nationalist stirrings in the nineteenth century were not consciously patterned on the Greek example, they had some common features. Many advocates of Turkish and Arab political and linguistic distinctiveness, for example, were educated in Europe or were familiar with European ideas. Namik Kemal, whose Turkish drama Vatan (Fatherland) helped establish that word (watan in Arabic) as an element of nationalism, spent three years in exile in Europe; and the Lebanese Christian Butrus alBustani, one of the most industrious advocates of a revived Arabic literary language, worked closely with American Protestant missionaries. Like the Greeks, the Turks and Arabs encountered difficulty in harmonizing their particularist views with a history of pluralistic empire. Just as adherents to the Megali Idea could visualize, on the Byzantine model, an ethnically plural state dominated by Greeks, the Arabs and Turks aspired mostly to a revival or assertion of ethno-linguistic identity within the pluralistic Ottoman Empire. One difference between Greeks and other nineteenth-century nationalists was the association of religion with a people's identity. All Greeks were orthodox Christians, even though not all orthodox Christians were Greek, nor all Greek clergy nationalist in sympathy. By contrast, Christian Arabs were prominent in the protonationalist Arab literary revival, and the Turkish protonationalists supported the religiously plural Ottoman system. Therefore, even though the great majority of Turks and Arabs were Muslims, Islam did not from the outset become an integral element of nationalist thought. Written expressions of nationalist views among Turks and Arabs circulated during the last decades of the nineteenth century. Religion, however, remained a problem. The foremost Turkish ideologue, Ziya Gkalp, concentrated his analysis of Turkish identity on language and folk customs and dismissed Islam as a transitory civilizational attribute that should not stand in the way of the adoption of European customs. The Arab Abd al-Rahman alKawakibi, on the other hand, called for a revival of the caliphate under an Arab of the prophet Muhammad's tribe, the Quraysh, instead of under the despotic Ottoman sultan Abdlhamit II.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/nationalism#ixzz1HvmUQwec