Nationalism

Austrian Empire, Russian Empire and Ottoman Empire suffered from the forces of nationalism.

Edgar Allan Poe expressed nationalism through his writings by incorporating themes of American history and identity, as well as by promoting the idea of a unique American literary tradition. His poetry and stories often featured settings and characters that reflected the cultural and historical context of the United States, helping to shape a sense of national identity among his readers.

Football is the national sport of Sweden.

Wilson's New Freedom placed strict government controls on corporations.

Since the Liberals and the Nationalist's were always striking up revolts with the Conservatives, this was the way that they contributed to the unrest in 1815. Since the Liberals and the Nationalist's were always striking up revolts with the Conservatives, this was the way that they contributed to the unrest in 1815. Since the Liberals and the Nationalist's were always striking up revolts with the Conservatives, this was the way that they contributed to the unrest in 1815. Since the Liberals and the Nationalist's were always striking up revolts with the Conservatives, this was the way that they contributed to the unrest in 1815.

Charles Stewart Parnell

beacuse the work by the moderates were not liked by many leaders

Enjoying fundamental human rights and being recognized as a citizen were effects of nationalism in Nigeria.

After World War II the rate of decolonisation around the world dramatically increased as a number of colonies were striving for independence from their foreign rulers. France and the United Kingdom, holding some of the largest colonies in the world, were feeling this wave of nationalism, and both suffered colonial loss around the same time. The United Kingdom lost India in 1947,and France lost the colony of Indochina, modern day Vietnam, shortly after World War II in 1945. The two colonies were both the largest of their colonisers at the time and both were economically most contributing. The United Kingdom and France were both unwilling to lose their most profitable colonies, so they took similar approaches to demoralise their rebellious inhabitants. Both provided a strong military presence and used aggressive tactics to combat rebels. Despite the United Kingdom and France's efforts to avoid the loss of their colonies both eventually gained their independence. The United Kingdom and Franceavoided, and even refused, peaceful methods of separation, and only tightened their grip on the colonies. This led to instability and created leaders like Gandhi and Ho Chi Ming, as people looked to find individuals to follow on their road to independence.Indochina and India, and its new leaders, were unprepared for independence and the two colonies, and the people, became divided which would later involve into major conflicts. Modern history views these events as two very different types of decolonisation, the following essay will show the similarities of the decolonisation, conflicts, and situations both France and theUnited Kingdom faced leading up to, during, and after the process of decolonisation with their colonies of India and Indochina.

During the 1940's France and the United Kingdom could have avoided the large wave of nationalism in their colonies had they created and maintained a stronger presence within those areas during the major conflict of World War II. During the war the British and French military presence in their colonies was greatly diminished, as each nation was forced to remove a large sum of troops out in order to assist with the war in Europe and to address the threat in the east. Also during this time the colonies of Indochina and India saw the rise of very important leaders, who took control of the main independence movements in their respective nations. India saw the passive rise of Gandhi, and the Indian Congress passed its 'Quit India' resolution to remove British rule. The French witnessedHo Chi Minh lead the charge for independence in Indochina. Both Gandhi and Ho Chi Minh took advantage of their colonisers weaknesses during the war, leading their countries into rebellious actions and fighting for political reforms.

The British had witnessed strong Indian nationalism as far back as 1857 when a riot had broken out in Meerut; this made the British realise the potential threat of the Indian people, after this the British sought out to tighten their hold over India. At that time the British government dissolved the control of the East Indie Company and proceeded to take direct control of India, once this was accomplished no less than 60,000 British soldiers were found in India. The strong military presence Britain maintained in India continued to kept a considerable amount of control until the outbreak of World War II. After the war broke out The United Kingdom removed most of its military presence, as the troops were called back home Indian nationalism began to rise. A strong anti-British movement began during the war, when Japan was drawing close to India and when the Indian Congress created 'Quit India', a campaign to finally and completely remove TheUnited Kingdom from India. It was this campaign that initiated the strong nationalist movement that eventually lead to Indian independence. It was also during this time that Gandhi became a highly respected leader of the Indians, and the people followed his every word. When Gandhi withdrew his support from those who fought in Germany and Japan it had created a civil disobedience campaign, the people began to riot and sabotage important British establishments and it hindered the allied war effort. Indian nationalism increased and the Britain's military and political control decreased. It was these many events of the 1940s that eventually lead to Indian independence.

France, like The United Kingdom, also experienced a wave of nationalism in their colony of Indochina during World War II, when France also had to withdraw its troops in order to combat the invading German forces in Europe. With the reduced number of French troops, Indochina was an easy target for the Japanese to invade and the French temporally lost control over the colony during this time period. Having seen the Japanese invade and defeat the remaining French forces, the people of Indochina realised that it was also possible for them to reclaim their country from their colonial oppressors. It was during this time that Ho Chi Minhfounded a communist party called the Viet Minh, the party was originally created to be an anti-Japanese movement but later it involved to become a Vietnamese independence group. Ho Chi Minh set to work with a great deal of skill and determination, assisted by his two closest colleagues who were also Communist, they preached strong nationalism. Like Gandhi, Ho Chi Minh "was a man of incomparable prestige and popularity. There can be no doubt that it was a disaster that France underestimated this man" . Had the French maintained a larger presence in their colony Ho Chi Minh would have never risen to power, and the resultingnationalism may not have occurred.

The violent and political troubles of decolonisation could have been avoided if The United Kingdom and France had allowed peaceful negotiations to work earlier in the inevitable separation process. In 1931, had The United Kingdom given India the proper political voice, and showed real concern for the issues of the colony, the strong nationalist movement that developed in India could have been avoided. A similar event happened to the French in 1946 with Indochina. At that time a proposal was being made for Indochina's independence, by the separatist leader Ho Chi Minh. A peaceful solution could have been easily accomplished andIndochina would have remained a part of the French union, but the French refused to give in and wanted to keep Indochina as it was. Both The United Kingdomand France would not listen to their colonies, and this inevitably led to the major issues that arose with the subsequent decolonisation.

The United Kingdom's negotiations with India took the form of what was termed a Round Table Conference, which took place three times during 1931, to determine the future of India. These conferences were long overdue since the Indian people had identified their lack of representation in Indian and British affairs for some time. Indian nationalist movements for a stronger voice date back to the late nineteenth century when the urban population grew frustrated with their lack of a political voice. The British solution to meet the demands of the Indian people was to hold a Round Table Conference. The first two talks accomplished very little, and the same could be said for the third, except for the fact that The United Kingdom allowed Indian independence movement leader Gandhi to attend the meeting. This was due to the fact that Gandhi was increasingly gaining power in India, and even gaining popularity in The United Kingdom itself. The third session of the Round Table Conference was presented to the people of The United Kingdom and India as being the session in which the major issues concerning the fair representation of India had been resolved, but this was not the case, little was accomplished at these Round Table Conferences were only held to humour the Indian people. The United Kingdom believed that these events would appease the Indian nationalists, but Gandhi would return to India to only strengthen the Indian movement, and continue the fight for Indian independence.

France's negotiations were much like The United Kingdom's in the sense that it appeared that the French only met with separatist leader, Ho Chi Minh, to have him believe that he was making a difference. Ho Chi Minh wanted to reach a peaceful solution with France, some evidence suggests that during these negotiations Ho Chi Minh wanted to come to an agreement with France and that he intended to keep Indochina apart of the French Union . Ho Chi Minh was aware of the economic instability of Indochina at the time, and they would have preferred French aide over Chinese or American assistance. In 1946, a letter of agreement was even drawn out between the two sides, and an agreement was close, but eventually the French would reject the entire agreement. A line had now been drawn between the French and Ho Chi Minh, and his Viet Minh. The people had to choose between the democratic coloniser, France, or the Communist Viet Minh. "One thing does seem certain is that if both sides had stuck to the letter of the March 1946 Agreement and war had been avoided; Vietnam would be a wholly Communist State". Had the people of Indochina been united under one leader the eventual Indochinese Wars, and the later American Vietnam War, could have been avoided and modern Vietnam would have developed in a very different way. France approached their colony much in the same way the British had with India; they met with the dominate leader to humour them, they both rejected a peaceful solution, and finally their negotiations accomplished little to nothing, leading only to more conflict.

One of the most critical mistakes made by the French and British, a mistake that led to the loss of their colonies, was their lack of action against the nationalist leaders, Gandhi and Ho Chi Minh. These two leaders were the heart of the independence movements in their nations, had these leaders not been given the chance to control the nationalism movement they would have never have been as strong, or as effective. The British allowed Gandhi to rise. With his passive protests he won the hearts of his people, gained the respect of the British people and humiliate the British ruling power in India. The French also allowed the rise of a strong leader, Ho Chi Minh, who possessed great control over the people. Ho Chi Minh led a very aggressive campaign against the French during the Indochinese Wars, which resulted in embarrassing losses for the French army. Both The United Kingdom and France failed to rebuff or neutralise two very influential rebels in time to save their colonies from separation.

India's actions leading up to separation were considerably passive compared to that of the people of Indochina, but that nation's methods were just as effective. India's most effective tool against the British was its leader, Gandhi and his "insistence on non-violence won for him the admiration of all the world and secured support for the movement" The United Kingdom lost the support of the Indian people and was beginning to lose the support of its own people, the British had allowed Gandhi to gain too much power too fast. The United Kingdom had always been accustom to having easy control over the Indian government. The United Kingdom simply put people into power who supported the British rule in India, people who would put down any rebellions or nationalist movements or prevented other leaders from gaining power. By removing the opposition and letting friends have the power The United Kingdom had always kept control, it was their oldest trick at holding all the cards. By allowing Gandhi to gain the loyalty of most Indian people the British could no longer just sweep away the problem with bribery, or by putting someone else in charge. Had they removed Gandhi from the picture during the rebellion the nation would have erupted in rage and a long ensuing war may have followed. The United Kingdom acted to late on the Gandhi issue and before they realised that something needed to be done Gandhi had the power of the people.

Unlike India Indochina fought fighting for their freedom with their newly established nationalist leader Ho Chi Minh. Once the separation agreement between France and Indochina failed, aggressive conflict appeared to be the only solution for Indochina to gain its independence. Not only was Ho Chi Minh a great political leader but a brilliant militant tactician as well. His Viet Minh took up arms against the French and pro-French Indochinese in a war that lasted almost a decade, which later became known as the Indochina War. Ho Chi Minh became such an influential leader that he convinced half a nation to not only fight against their colonial overseers but to also fight against their own people, those that supported and fought for the French. Much like Gandhi's peaceful protests and constant disobedience had embarrassed the empire, the Viet Minh embarrassed the French at the battle of Dien Bien Phu. French forces fought for at least fifty-five days and in the end the French not only lost the battle but they suffered 7,184 casualties and some 11,000 men remained on their feet to be marched off into captivity. The French were defeated by forces from their own colony, a very embarrassing moment for the French, and it only got worse after this battle as, after years of conflict, the French eventually lost the war. The French had their chance to take out the rebellious forces, and Ho Chi Minh, but they never could overcome the rallied Indochinese people. The French lost their colony because, unlike Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh, they never were able to gain the minds of the people of Indo-China.

Despite their efforts to stop the nationalistic independence movement, both France and The United Kingdom eventually lost their most powerful colonies and with this they also suffered significant economic loses. Both The United Kingdom and France were very dependent on their colonies for food, supplies, and even money. The British relied heavily on the economic trade with its colony, India "ran a trade surplus with Europe, the United States and Southeast Asia but a deficit with Britain, whose best customer it was" . As India began to gain its independence, it relied less and less on Britain and after the loss of India other countries imports of British goods dropped from £78 million to £51 million. France was just as dependent on Indochina as The United Kingdom was on India. France received numerous goods from Indochina such as rice, rubber, cotton, silk, corn, coffee, tea, sugar, tobacco, and pepper, also Indochina's largest industries were situated in the coal and zinc market, which were some of its most valuable exports. Most goods produced in Indochina were exported, thus making large amounts of money for Indochina. The United Kingdom and France became so dependent on their colonies that they began to look at them as suppliers rather than nations with needs and issues that needed to be addressed. After the separation, since France and The United Kingdom depended more on their colonies then their colonies depended on them, only the colonisers suffered economically. Both lost their most valuable colonies, and some of their most needed supplies.

Following decolonisation both France and left their respective colonies in similar conditions. After The United Kingdom left India the country became divided between the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, which resulted in numerous conflicts. Hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children were slaughtered, other hundreds of thousands maimed, and approximately twelve millions rendered homeless. This division also created the separate countries of Pakistan and India, who subsequently went to war against each other and to this day still have extremely strained relations. France also left its colony in a similar situation of division, resulting in the creation of the democratic South Vietnam, and the northern communist Vietnam. This set the stage for external interference by two of the world's super powers. Soviet Russian leader Joseph Stalin supported North Vietnam, much like he had done for North Korea during the Korean War, and Stalin was prepared to encourage the militant course. America entered the situation on the platform that they wanted to assist the French in regaining its colony. This set up a battle of democracy versus communism, which led to the Vietnam War, a war which caused many more causalities, and unnecessary conflict.

Had The United Kingdom and France been proactive in the management of their colonies, the painful process of decolonisation could have been easily avoided. If early on France and The United Kingdom had given the proper political voice to their colonies, and had addressed the issues that their colony had placed in front of them, the destabilisation, conflicts and economic losses may have been prevented, or at least tempered. Both The United Kingdom and France failed to see the benefits of a peaceful separation, in which they could have kept valuable trading partners and would not have become resented by the people. Because of the arrogance of these two countries great conflicts ensued, the Indochinese Wars and Vietnam War, and also the wars between India and Pakistan. In all of these conflicts thousands of lives were lost, industry was destroyed, and nations became divided. These two processes of decolonisation had very similar situations from the negotiations, to the rise of leaders and from the economic loss to the conflicts that followed.

Liszt would wear a national dress and gave charity concerts but Liszt is not listed as a nationalist composer.

. The goals of the two major nationalist groups in India was to adopt western ways and modernize India and reform the system of British rule, and to build a return to Hindu traditions.

The nationalists opposed the Articles of Confederation because it gave too much power to ordinary people who were usually less educated. History had shown that people weren't naturally wise enough to handle so much power over their own affairs. Attempts to create a republic government in places in Europe had ended in chaos. This also happened to the Roman republic over 1800 years ago. They couldn't let the US fall into political chaos because it was a model for the rest of the world. The nationalists were also more concerned with keeping order than increasing freedom. There was a large debt after the American Revolution, so states put heavy taxes on goods traveling to other states, which therefore angered people and caused economic chaos. Critics of the Articles thought these problems occurred because Americans had too much power in their state legislatures.

Another main reason the Nationalists were against the Articles of Confederation was that they thought it produced a weak National government, and they supported a strong one. People were getting out of hand under the Articles (ex. Shay's Rebellion) and they liked to challenged authority. Nationalists wanted to keep control of this behavior. A weak government wouldn't get respect from the world as well.

Nationalism is having a lot of pride and patriotism towards your own country. When Napoleon became a strong leader, most of the French people really supported him (the ones who wanted a republic), and the effect was that they developed nationalism.

Nationalism was evident in numerous ways in Europe in the late 1800s. Perhaps the most obvious example of it can be seen in the heated rivalries over obtaining territories in the developing world, primarily Africa, as numerous European countries sought to increase their prestige and strength by establishing (or solidifying their hold of) colonies.

Indonesia - the Supreme Commander of the Revolution President for Life Soekarno Indonesia - Proclamator. Prime-Minister Moh Hatta, Indonesia - The Great Generalisimo Sudirman Singapura - Yang diPertuan Negara Yusof Bin Ishak, ROC - Dr Sun Yat Sen ROC - Generalisimo Chiang Kai Shek ROC - Wang Jing Wei Dai Nihon - Tenno Showa (Emperor Hirohito) Dai Nihon - War MInister Tojo Hideki Malaysia - Dato Achmad Ismail Malaysia - Moh Mahatir Malaysia - Anwar Ibrahim Brunei - Paduka Seri Sultan Hasainal Bolkiah Indonesia - KartoSuwiryo Indonesia - General Achmad Yani

Although there are some benign themes of nationalism in Wagner's stage works, there is no "nationalism" in the music itself. Wagner was very committed to the idea of "German " opera it was an artistic concept, not a political or patriotic one.

The spirit of French nationalism had made possible the mass armies of the revolutionary and Napoleonic eras. However, Napoleon's spread of the principles of the French Revolution beyond France indirectly brought a spread of nationalism as well. The French aroused nationalism in two ways. First, they were hated as oppressors. This hatred stirred the patriotism of others in oppostition to the French. Second, the French showed the people of Europe what nationalism was and what a nation in arms could do.

The unification of Italy

The Franco-Prussian War

The unification of Germany

Although the Ottoman Empire is now generally thought of as being a Turkish Empire, the Ottomans identified themselves by language and religion more than by an ethnic identity. Although the Turks made up the largest portion of the population and had been the ones to establish the Empire, they had recognized early on that they would have to assimilate the subject populations and make use of their talents. Many of the most able managers and administrators of the empire were Greek, the merchants and traders were often Armenian, and for centuries the soldiers in its armies and the governors of whole provinces were raised from Christian children captured in the Balkans and raised in the Sultan's palace. The famous Grand Vizier Mehmet Sokollu Pasha was the son of Bosnian parents, and the Sultans themselves were frequently from non-Turkish mothers. All these people thought of themselves as "Ottomans" and most spoke Turkish.

In the 19th century, waves of nationalism swept Europe, with people who had always been the vassals of larger nations or who were part of cobbled together territories began to wish for countries of their own. For example, the people of the many cities and small kingdoms of Italy began to think of themselves as a single people "Italy" and began to think of "Italy" as a country instead of just a geographical expression. This led to the unification of some countries, like Italy or Germany, but caused great conflicts in others, such as the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires.

The Ottomans had never tried to forcibly convert any population to Islam or force any group to give up their language, so in some areas like Arabia and the Balkans there were large groups of subject people who had a different language and faith than their rulers. In some cases, like Serbia and Greece, the people had memories of independent kingdoms from before the Empire. As nationalist passion began to grow, it was encouraged by outside powers like Russia, Germany, and England who sought to unbalance the Empire.

The effects were disastrous for the Ottomans; in the Balkans countries declared and fought for independence and then fought each other over the borders. In trying to hold onto Macedonia the Ottoman inadvertently created the first modern terrorists, the IMRO, and were drawn into bloody and inconclusive battles and became demonized in the Western Press as "bloodthirsty Turks".

The worst situation, however, was in areas of the Ottoman heartland where Turks and other nations lived mixed together. A town which had once been 100% Ottoman and peaceful suddenly found itself a warring camp full of Armenian, Kurdish, Greek, and Arabic people. As it found itself pulled into WWI, the Ottomans were faced with movements among the Arabs, Kurds, and Armenians demanding independence or greater freedom and representation within the Empire.

During this period, the Ottomans committed a genocide against the Armenian people which tarnished the name of the Empire in the eyes of the world and history and still haunts the modern Turkish republic. Although the subject is still extremely controversial in Turkey and the use of the word "genocide" is forbidden by law, the facts are not in dispute by most scholars. The Armenians, an ancient Christian people who had lived in Asia Minor and the Caucasus for millenia, and who were found everywhere in the Empire (often as loyal servants of the Empire), were expelled from their homeland or murdered. Some modern Turkish scholars claim that the Armenian genocide was not intended, but that the Ottoman authorities had simply meant to resettle a population they believed was attempting to help the enemy during war and that the massive deaths were a result of either poor planning, unreliable soldiers, or Armenian resistance. Whether or not this is true, a crime of epic proportions took place.

A less atrocious but equally tragic population transfer took place after the war, when Greece and Turkey struck a devil's bargain to make their countries mono-ethnic, mono-linguistic modern nations. Millions of people were displaced as Turks from Greece (who might never have seen Turkey or spoken a word of Turkish) and Greeks from Turkey (whose ancestors had lived on the Anatolian Coast since pre-History) were forced to change places, leaving homes they had had for generations to go live among strangers. By this time the Ottoman Empire was dead, and the whittled down new country of Turkey, under the democratic and secular leader Ataturk, had just driven out a Greek army intent on annexing the entire extent of the old Byzantine Empire.

The new Turkey was modeled on the successful Western democracies, which meant that it was a secular republic with one language and one nationality. In the end, the Turks themselves had given in to nationalism, although Ataturk famously said that "anyone who speaks Turkish and calls himself a Turk is a Turk". This was much more tolerant than the national creeds in many countries, but even today Turkey has not managed to deal with the vexed issue of the people in its borders who do not want to speak Turkish or call themselves Turks. In the case of the Kurds, the largest ethnic group on earth without its own country, the problem of nationalism is still unsolved.

The result was that the State of Israel was formed.

No, he isn't.

Mao Zedong and the Communist Party of China are the creators of PRC.