Nationalism

The sudden rise of nationalistic fervor in Europe around the 18th century sparked a wave of imperialism across the globe.

At the time, it was common for European citizens to have immense pride in their countries, especially after a victory in war. Since the 18th and 19th century had a multitude of global conflicts between European superpowers, nations more often than not had the opportunity to experience the surge of nationalism at least once.

Nationalism involves individuals identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation. Shortly before this time, Europe was plunged into political turmoil where monarchs married rulers of other countries, and their children married distant cousins of other monarchs. This resulted in widespread inbreeding of nobility and led to conflicts over land and throne rights. For their subjects, however, this resulted in it being difficult to identify their "foreign" monarch.

During this political and familial storm, it was not uncommon for the ruler of a nation to be viewed by his or her subjects as a foreigner. For example, King George I was the ruler of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but was in fact born and raised in northern Germany, and didn't even speak English when he first arrived to ascend to the throne. Nevertheless, as the result of generations of inbreeding, George was in fact the rightful heir to the throne.

This improved, however, in later centuries as rulers generally stayed in their respective kingdoms, and their subjects began identifying more and more with them. It was typical after the victory of war for citizens to feel as if their nation was more or less unstoppable. This sense of nationalsim surged to new heights once the New World was discovered, and colonies soon began being established.

As wealth, power, and prestige started rolling in from colonial claims in the New World, imperialism was born.

They had Russia backing them. The Communists back then were all followers of the "Great Communist Revolution" in Russia started by Trotsky and Lennon

They had a much larger army and got help from the USSR. -- Nova Net

perras hijas de putas that's me answer

Turkey..where in a country nationalism is brainwashed into children's mind in public schools and in a nation built on democracy but freedom of speech is not always allowed concerning the military or government.

The American Revolution (1775-1783)

It leads to an isolated group of people who become aggressive to defend their culture Their exaggeration often results in other groups of people turning aggressive to them like Indians back in 1700.

Nazi Germany was nationalist to give an example. They almost conquered the world so that's how dangerous it can get.

Daniel Webster was a member of the Federalist Party and after the 1816 of the Whig Party.

In contrast to the Democratic Party , he saw the United States as a nation with:

- a strong central power;

- a National Bank that would guarantee to the businessmen and traders a stable currency and large credits;

- the autonomy of the States restricted within reasonable limits;

- a tariffs' policy that would protect the Union's manufacturers.

In addition to that he was opposed to the expansionist policy pursued by the Democratic Party, that favored the agricultural masses, as the bearer of international and internal conflicts and in favor of public works, financed by the incomes of the protective tariffs.

In Webster's opinion the Union was a large federal republic which had to respect the States' local autonomy, but first of all had to govern also imposing, even by force, the decision taken by the majority of the Congress. In an address given from the Senatorial room in 1832, in opposition to the ideas expressed by John Calhoun in favor of South Carolina, that threatened to secede because of a sudden increase of tariffs decided by the Federal government, he said among other things:

"I'm for the Constitution as it is and the Union as it is....it is the constitution of the People, the People's government made for the People, by the People and accountable in front of the People...Liberty and Union, now and always, linked and inseparables truth is...that for certain purposes the People of the United States is one people. It is one in making war and one in making peace, one in business and one in setting fees or taxes..."

In a nutshell, his vision of a centralized and authoritarian Union, reflected that of the capitalist classes of the North.

It was the collision between nationalism and enlightenment principles. Nationalism allowed for the desire to unify the "nation" under enlightenment principles. It defined to whom the right of governance ought to expand. Furthermore it fueled those who sought to overthrow monarchical control, and created a social order. Study Garibaldi (Italy) and Hugo (France). Study closely the summer of 1848.

The people of a nation should have a shared culture and ethnicity.

Yes. Every country has their nationalistic tendencies...even the United States.

How many people insist that America is the best country in the world? That God is on our side and not THEIR side?

Whether or not those are true is besides the point, because Nationalism is technically "my country, right or wrong" whereas patriotism is "an optimistic civic creed that demonstrates respect for America's institutions, individual freedoms, and constitutional law"

I like this quote:

"there is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities. If you want to preserve your own freedom, you must stand up for the freedom of others with whom you disagree. But you also must stand up for the rule of law. You cannot have one without the other."

THe factors that give birth to nationalism in the philippines is that the time when many foreigners invaded the country specially during the spanish period who enslaved the filipino people who supposively the ones who owned the land who worked for the ivaders thats why they exact revenge...

another is Dr. Jose Rizal who wrote 2 novels Noli me tangere and El filibustirismu that woke up the hearts of Filipino to fight for their mother land...

i only know three which are liberal, romantic, and conservative nationalism.

the french wanted to remove German from the land Germany had taken in war

Lord Byron

I believe it was someone by the name of Gavrilo Princip, shortly after he was arrested for this crime. Then Austria-Hungary blammed Serbia for their deaths, and Austria-Hungary sent an ultimatum to Serbia. They only agreed to 2/3 terms, Serbia goes to find help, Russia helps hen Triple Entente helps serbia. Then Triple Entente and Triple Alliance were at each other, and this is how WW1 started.

The Ottoman Empire fought Austria-Hungary for control of the region.

Both romanticism and nationalism are movements that focus on positive overstatements of culture, politics, and values. They tend to paint with large brushes about emotional histories and developments. Specifically, romanticism was an oversimplification and love of European culture, traditions, and identity. It created the up-swell in pride for national identity that gave nationalism a strong footing.

imperialism was basically taking over another country and taking natural resources and goods from the land. It led to destructive nationalism because many countries wanted the same land and soon war erupted.

* The rising of illustrados (people with bright mind) - They are rised due to some Filipinos are going to the Western countries and study there.

* Issue of secularization and the death of GOMBURZA (Padre Mariano Gomez, Padre Jose Burgos and Padre Jacinto Zamora) - February 17, 1872 when the 3 priests were sentenced to die because they impute that they are the leaders of 1872 Cavite mutiny. The paid witness is Francisco Zaldua. One of the witnesses of the death sentence is Dr. Jose Rizal and his brother Paciano.

In the year 1155 the Catholic church issued a Papal letter declaring that Ireland was a possession of England. That plus other events resulted in English monarchs having control over Ireland. This control was not matched by any responsibilities for the well being of Ireland.

Over the centuries this proved disastrous for Ireland.

The main aim of Irish Nationalists was to recover their own country from the British.

Their aim was only partially achieved because there were just too many people in the north of Ireland who did not want to change.

To avoid a long and protracted civil war 6 counties remained as a province of Britain (i.e. Northern Ireland) and the main bulk of the geographical area became the Republic of Ireland.

The change took place during the first half of the 20th Century and remains the same today

Mahatma Gandhi was the father of nationalist movement in India,.

All sides made it seem as if you were not a true proud citizen if you were not some how supporting the war effort. Often Propaganda would include quotes that called out draft dodgers or depict scenes of young soldiers in heroic battles making others want to join them

It depends which Bloody Sunday you're talking about. I don't know much about the one in the North of Ireland in 1972, but I do know what happened in Dublin on 21 November 1920. Basically, it is know acknowledged that Michael Collins had a hit squad, informally known as the 'Twelve Apostles' and on the morning of the 21 November they took out 14 members of a British intelligence squad known as the 'Cairo Gang'. In reprisal, members of the British 'Black 'n' Tan' forces broke into Croke Park later that day where a match was taking place and opened fire into the crowd, killing 12 spectators and one player. It is widely acknowledged as one of the worst atrocities of the War of Independence, along with the burning of Cork city. [Yavemil] ----

The other "Bloody Sunday" took place on the 30th of January, 1972 in Derry. A civil rights march was taking place in Derry on that afternoon. The British Army tried to break it up and ended up shooting dead 13 unarmed civilians. On the day, they initially claimed that they had fired only 3 shots! Two enquiries into the events have happened, one shortly afterwards, known as the Widgery Inquiry, and one in recent years. The Widgery Report concluded that:

* shots had been fired at the soldiers before they started the firing that led to the casualties; * for the most part, the soldiers acted as they did because they thought their standing orders justified it; * although there was no proof that any of the deceased had been shot while handling a firearm or bomb, there was a strong suspicion that some had been firing weapons or handling bombs in the course of the afternoon.

Relatives and friends of the dead have always rejected these conclusions. No one was ever charged with the killings.

They didn't really have to explain anything, they didn't do anything.

Chiang Kai-shek