0
Nationalism
Nationalism is a political ideology that believes in loyalty to one's nation, usually based on ethnic connections, historical ties, or loyalty to shared institutions. Nationalism was the philosophy behind the creation of the Nation-State in the 1800s, resulting in the unification of Germany and Italy and the disintegration of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires along ethnic lines. Nationalism was always opposed by cosmopolitanism and in today's global economy, the dialogue between advocates of either tends to be tense.
1,025 Questions
Is nationalism the same thing as self determination?
By definition nationalism is an extreme form of patriotic feelings, principles, or efforts, especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries. Self determination is the principle in international law that nations have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with out external compulsion or interference.
I would not say that these two are "the same thing," but I also wouldn't say they are opposites. A Nationalist can also fit the definition of self determination. The same way one defined by self determination could also be a Nationalist. Just because you feel superior to someone does not deem you unable to believe they have the right to freely choose their government, etc.
Who was the Serbian nationalist who assassinated the archduke in June 28 1914?
franz ferdinand was in a car, which took a wrong turn. as the driver was distracted, the assassins saw their oppurtunity.
Why did nationalist struggle outside of Europe?
The people came in peace ! but there where those that harts beat of WAR .. the stories as they are . told by the victror . and demands suffering . Point of intrest is that the first church built in the promisland .. but in turn of all things time does go . all these events that you are sown . or is it the the controll of what you see and what you are shone . this is what the time had to show . as not mine own . they had struggled to get out from the Roman controll . away from the one god only . view . and a wild fire was set forth . there is nothing new under the sun . that was from the text they show . but after all man can not own land he can only posess it for a while . death over takes all
How did Nationalism cause the assassination of the archduke?
Prior to the First World War, Serbia was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Because nationalism was a growing force in Europe, this foreign domination was greatly resented. On June 28th, 1914, a nationalist organization called the Black Hand assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand in an attempt to assert demands for Serbian independence. Though it is widely speculated that the Serbian government had no involvement in the assassination, Austria-Hungary responded swiftly. At Germany's insistence, it declared war on Serbia in an effort to crush the nationalist movement.
Though the assassination of Ferdinand was a seemingly miniscule event, it escalated into a global conflict because the major European powers established pre-war alliances in an attempt to avoid war. Britain, France and Russia established the Triple Entente while Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary formed the Triple Alliance. Such alliances were necessary because each nation had to defend its interests. Britain, for instance, was the undisputed ruler of the seas and feared the expansion of the German navy. France, meanwhile, wanted revenge on Germany for the outcome of the Franco-Prussian war of 1871; France suffered a humiliating defeat in this conflict and lost the provinces of Alsace-Lorraine.
Though these alliances were meant to prevent war, they wound up having the opposite effect. When Austria-Hungary went to war with Serbia, Russia came to defend the Serbs; the Russians and Serbs were naturally aligned because they were both of Slav descent. Because Germany instucted Austria-Hungary to be firm with Serbia following the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, it felt obligated to join the conflict and promptly waged war on Russia. Britain and France had already established an alliance with Russia and had no choice but to wage war on Germany. Within a month of June 28th, 1914, all of the major European powers were at war. It is worth noting that Italy held out until 1915 when it joined the side of the allies.
The origin of World War I and II are similar because both conflicts were preceeded by pacifistic intentions. Prior to the First World War, the nations of Europe chose alliances as a method of avoiding conflict. Prior to the Second World War, the method of choice was appeasement. This was a policy exercised by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain; it enabled Germany to receive political and territorial concessions in exchance for its promise to maintain peace.
In short, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was essentially insignificant. It was an incident that simply happened to take place during a tumultuous time characterized by tension and discontent throughout Europe. The eventual involvement of all the European powers in the initial conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary can be summed up in two words: domino effect.
Which contributed to the rise of nation-states in western Europe?
The word "Which" seems to indicate that your teacher gave you a number of possible factors to choose from. Since you did not give those factors, the question cannot be answered accurately here.
Generally speaking, contributing factors can be: a homogenous population that shares a common language and culture, a geographic isolation as in the case of England, the policy of a country's ruler to create national awareness, or the rise of an active and strong central government that takes the place of feudal lords.
What can Zionism best be described as?
jewish nationalist movement with the goal of creating a jewish homeland
Are changes in life of a nation inevitable?
changes in life of nation is inevitable(unavoidable) because as time passes by there is a ALWAYS a change whether it is economic, political, religious. specially that our time today, that we need to adopt something for the betterment of the country like k-12 aiming for a higher education (philippines). Even our our forefathers had changes in their lives that they even developed different tools for living. it is said that as time come, more advances will also come.
Answer 1
If the "religious" claim of the Zionists is true that they were to be led to the promised land by their messiah, and Israel's present occupation of Arab Palestine is the fulfilment of that prophesy: where is their messiah whom their prophets said would get the credit for leading them there? It was Ralph Bunche who "negotiated" the Zionists into possession of Occupied Palestine! Is Ralph Bunche the messiah of Zionism? If Ralph Bunche is not their messiah, and their messiah has not yet come, then what are they doing in Palestine ahead of their messiah?
=======================================
Distributed as one of the final Four Finalists
in the competition for
2013 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction.
Answer 2
It depends on how low you set the bar for being a Zionist. Most people do not consider Ralph Bunche a Zionist since he did not advocate for the creation, maintenance, or desirability of a Jewish State. There are those who say that mere recognition of the State of Israel makes someone a Zionist, which would make every non-Islamic government (and some Islamic ones like Egypt and Jordan) de facto Zionists for recognizing Israel and would make the term "Zionist" useless.
The one major pro-Israeli action that he took was negotiating a ceasefire between the Egyptian and Israeli forces in 1949 at Egypt's request. He received the Nobel Prize specifically for the way he held that negotiation. Bunche did this in his general capacity as a part of the US State Department and not to protect either Israel or Egypt. Bunche had nothing to do with UN Resolution 181 (II) which created the UN Partition Plan nor did he have anything to do with US President Truman's endorsement of Israel.
To respond to the nonsense in answer 1, the entire point of modern Zionism was that secular Jews were tired of waiting for the Messiah and therefore chose to realize their own return to the Land of Israel without waiting. The religious Zionists (which was a movement that came over 50 years later) say that the current secular country of Israel is merely the forerunner of a religious state whose establishment would bring the Messiah. It took the extra fifty years because of the exact problem of supporting a return to Israel without the Messiah in religious Judaism.
Zionism has only at its root the idea that that Jews should have self-sovereignty in their own country: Israel. Every other aspect of Zionism is at the whim of the individual who can has a number of auxiliary beliefs about how best to achieve the goal of Zionism, such as:
- Whether or not a Palestinian State helps or hinders the existence of a Jewish State?
- What is the best way to realize such a state if it is in Israel's benefit?
- What rights and privileges should Jews have in this state and should they be more, less, or equal to non-Jews?
- What should the welfare system of this country be like?
- How should the government be structured?
- What should immigration policy look like?
- How should the economy be organized and what economic activities should be incentivized?
- Many other questions.
The core tenet of Zionism cannot be changed (or else the person is no longer a Zionist) but the other pieces of a person's Zionist beliefs are completely at his discretion. Convince someone, and perhaps he'll believe like you do.
Why was Zionism a controversial movement?
Zionism is and was controversial for three different reasons:
Nationalism: The concept of Nationalism today and in the late 1800s was still very controversial. It holds that each people has the right to govern its own future and stands in stark contrast of the idea of a global community or cosmopolitanism.
Diasporic Nationalism: Zionism is a unique case in nationalism, since in most cases, nationalism occurs where the ethnicity desiring a homeland is already the majority population of that region. The Jews were not a majority in any region of the world (with the possible exception of Thessaloniki, Greece). As a result, the formation of a Jewish Nation would require a vast immigration to a certain area of the world, upsetting a local majority and denying their right to self-determination. This is eventually what happened to the Palestinians. Albeit, the Palestinians were not innocent in this, but it was a natural outgrowth of Diasporic Nationalism.
"Religious" Nationalism: Many people confuse the term "Jewish" in "Jewish State" with the religion of Judaism. Jews are an ethno-religious group. The term "Jewish" in "Jewish State" refers exclusively to the ethnic character of Jews. Herzl, Jabotinsky, Ahad Ha'am, and Weizmann were all Atheists or Agnostic Zionists. However, many incorrectly see the "Jewish" in "Jewish State" as referring to the religious aspect of Judaism and are bothered by the creation of a state that is inherently religious. (However, they seem not to have this reaction to "Islamic States", "Hindu States", and "Buddhist States" which are clearly religious terms.)
Did Nationalist Chinese flee to Taiwan?
Yes. Nationalist Chinese fled to Taiwan when the Communists took over the country.
What obstacles to unity did Italian nationalists face?
The main obstacles the Italian nationalists faced were the communist opposition. While Mussolini tried to unite the country under the nationalist flag, the communists rallied the masses to oppose the new Dictatorship. The communists believed that Mussolini's alliance with Hitler and Japan would crush Italian sovereignty and freedom.
Should nationalism be sacrificed in the interest of internationalism?
That is a very interesting question. A big part of what makes it interesting is the fact that neither of the two terms "Nationalism" and "Internationalism" can be functionally measured.
If you can't measure something; does it actually exist?
We feel these terms more than we define them. And you are asking a "Should" question. It is a question of morality or good versus evil. What should you do?
The answer to your emotionally loaded question is: It is not possible to sacrifice nationalism over internationalism, because every decision you make is a decision that you believe would be the best for your nation.
So, even if you choose what others may characterize as Internationalism you do so because you feel it is the best course for your nation. Which is a nominal definition of nationalism.
Is your nation better off "going it alone," or "joining the brotherhood of nations?" Either choice can only be made because you feel it is the best course for your nation. Either choice is nationalistic.
You are welcome.
When was Italian Nationalist Association created?
Italian Nationalist Association was created in 1910.
What are the beliefs of nationalist and unionist?
That could be quite a indepth question to answer, but in the most simple terms, nationalists want to be ruled by Ireland and unionists by Britain.
