Nationalism

Chaing Kai-Shek (spelling might not be exact)

they fled to the island of Taiwan, where they established the Republic of China.

Nationalism is a product of modern thought (as opposed to medieval thought). Since modernity only reached the Arab World when it was colonized by Western Powers in the late 1800s and early 1900s, Nationalism only began there in those periods.

All three of these men led the unification of their respective homelands (Bismarck - Germany, Cavour - Italy, Meiji - Japan) in the mid-to-late 1800s and the industrialization and modernization of their countries. The unifications in all cases required impressive military tactics and diplomatic acumen. These leaders also thrust their countries into the imperialist land grab in Africa, Asia, and Oceania, trying to get any territories not already taken by UK, France, Portugal, Netherlands, or Belgium.

The Congress of Vienna restored all the States which existed in Italy before the French revolution, with exception of the Republic of Venice, whose territories in Italy, Istria and Dalmatia were given to Austria, that became again the dominant power over the Italian Peninsula.

Prior to the 1760s, the British more-or-less ignored the American colonies, allowing them (1) to engage in large-scale smuggling trade with other colonies and foreign powers, (2) deal with the Native Americans as they saw fit (usually violently), and (3) with minimal taxation.

However, the 1760s served as a watershed moment. The British were forced to fight the Seven Years War (called the French and Indian War in America) on American soil in order to protect American lives and territory. Whilst fighting the war, the British became aware of the extent of the smuggling operations in the colonies and the conflagrations between colonists and Native Americans all along the Appalachian Mountains. As to be expected from a far-off power, the British responses to discovering the extent of the smuggling and amount of violence on the Western frontier led to the British harshly curbing both.

Additionally, as a result of the vast expenses incurred by the British in the Seven Years, they imposed light taxes on the American colonies to vitiate the debts they owed. Even though these taxes were the lightest in the entire British Empire, the imposition of these new taxes was enough to begin a general trend to towards desiring American independence.

So, the three major factors that led to a surge in American nationalism in the 1760s were (1) the British enforcement of restrictions on trade, (2) the British restriction of settlement and limiting of colonist-native wars, and (3) the imposition of taxes to cover war debts.

1949

Nationalism led to the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand; Ferdinand had selected a Serbian national holiday to parade through Sarajevo, stoking nationalist distaste. Also, Germany was the revisionist power in opposition to the traditionally pre-eminent France and Britain. The desire of Germany to prove itself could be labelled a nationalist element.

No. he simply had ideals that many of the other founders rejected and even despised. Rightly so because many of his ideas we are NOW following and its leading to the implosion of our country. For example, Alexander Hamilton was the first to suggest that a nation could indefinitly borrow from itself and effectively print money out of thin air, never having to repay that money. He said that the government could just keep spending money forever with no consequence. Later, those who started the Fed did so believing the same thing and much later John Maynard Keynes took Hamiltons ideas and made himself famous with them.

Hamilton was also much more in favor of a big government. Actually, his beliefs about money were just one way he tried to justify big government.

So can you see why people who ADAMANTLY believed in a decentralized and democratic system that was as far away from big government as to be, as Franklin put it, "one step away from anarchy" (because anarchy is very bad, but being close to it protects people from each other while providing as much personal freedom as possible) and who also believed in being as frugal as possible might have a few disagreements with such a man?

Is he a traitor to our nation? no. Is he a traitor to the fundamental principles behind the Constitution, yes, but the Constitution protects people with different viewpoints, so its not illegal.

The only way he could be considered a traitor in the legal sense is if you judge him by the standard Senator McCarthy judged people back during the red scare. Had hamilton been alive when McCarthy was, Hamilton most definitly would have been incarcerated....but what McCarthy did was just as unconstitutional as Hamiltons ideas. In effect McCarthy was using big government to arrest people who believed in big government.

There were two:

Tan Yankai and Chiang Kai Shek.

Tan's rule ended in Oct 1928 and Chiang suceeded.

Quit India movement, Civil Disobedience Movement, Armed revolts after 1857, Non Cooperation movement, Swadeshi and the Boycott Movement, Khilafat Movement, Kuka movement etc.

Zionists did not play any part in the Holocaust.

Sun Yat-Sen was the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party until his death and then he was succeeded by Chiang Kai-shek.

The Zionist movement originally began in 63 BC when the Israelis (Jews) were forced out of Israel by the Romans. Those who stayed were killed. This scattered the Jews around to Europe, Asia, and Africa. Recently, they have been discriminated against, like in the Holocaust, and returned to Israel. They immediately claimed the land and all the Palestinians in it were forced into areas such as the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. This is what has now caused the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Nationalism was the first and foremost cause of World War One. Without Nationalism, Austria-hungary would not have been in Serbia, thus the Archduke Franz Ferdinand would not have been assassinated. Without him being assassinated, war would not have been declared on Serbia, Russia would not have come to Serbia's aid, and Germany would not have come to Austria-hungary's aid. A long time before the beginning of World War One, armies had begun to expand their armies, and their domains. This had made smaller countries afraid, and these countries had gone to bigger countries for alliances. These factors also assisted in bringing about World War One.

Competition for land, trade, and industry increased

Nationalists.

Historically, Nationalists have been supported by those who see the world as divided by cultures as opposed to divisions in political systems, regional values, or realpolitik alliances.

The primary issue for Italian nationalists was that Italy was controlled by numerous different sovereign entities that would not cede power or territories without war. Some territories needed to be conquered from city-states and others would need to be taken from powerful empires, like the Austrian Habsburgs. As a result, different Italian statelets and generals would need to enter into accords in order to unify the country.

By emphasizing the positive unity of the African diaspora, it encouraged some to believe that the true path to African American empowerment was the establishment of all black nation. This was known as black nationalism, and called for the complete segregation of blacks from other races.

Anti-Semitism is a hatred, revulsion, or denigration of Jewish people and a belief that those people are somehow (by dint of their genetics) more violent, conniving, mischievous, and dastardly than other people. In some cases, like the Nazis or Extremist Muslims, they are considered a "sub-human" race, on par with monkeys. Almost all Anti-Semites are not Jews for the simple reason that no person would willingly consider himself a putrid thing.

Anti-Zionism is a rejection of Zionism. Zionism is merely Jewish Nationalism, the belief that Jews have a right to have their own country where they can determine their own future. Zionists can be both Jews and non-Jews and Anti-Zionists can be both Jews and non-Jews, because the question of whether the Jews have a right to a state is a political question. Since the Jews were able to create such a country, Israel, Anti-Zionism is usually seen as Anti-Israel sentiment.

It is important to note that there are those who wish to argue that Anti-Semitism does not apply exclusively to Jews (since there are non-Jewish Semites), but the term Anti-Semite has never been used to describe anything but Jew-hatred. Additionally, people like to claim that Zionism is a code word for an international cabal of evil Jews trying to control the world. Aside from the fact that such a cabal does not exist, such a thing would fall under Anti-Semitism, not Zionism or Anti-Zionism since this cabal would not be concerned with Jewish Nationalism.

Definition
First, we should have an accurate understanding of what Zionism is. Zionism is the belief that Jews should have political self-sovereignty and is the patriotic sentiment behind the Establishment of the State of Israel. It is worth noting that many Anti-Semites claim that Zionism is a code word for some unclear international cabal of evil Jews trying to control the world (or actively doing so). Such a cabal does not exist and insinuations without evidence or with evidence that has proven to be a hoax that it does exist are Anti-Semitic. Aside from this, since such a cabal would not be concerned with Jewish Nationalism, it, therefore, could not be Zionism.

Others argue that Zionism exclusively refers to the current Israeli Right-Wing or Ultra-Nationalists who argue for Israeli annexation of the West Bank and possible expansion outside of territories currently controlled by Israel. Such people are more properly termed Greater Israel Zionism or Right-Wing Zionism. This is contrasted with Left-Wing Zionism, of which Yitzhak Rabin was a major leader and advocate.

Discussion
Equipped with a definition that is actually useful for what Zionism is, we can have a discussion.

Zionism is a nationalist movement, so if wanting a homeland to be free to self-govern is an evil thing, as several post-nationalists believe, then so is Zionism. However, such a person who holds this view should also condemn the modern states of Turkey, Greece, Italy, Germany, Pakistan, Algeria, Armenia, and numerous other nation-states that were built on such ideals. A unique condemnation of Zionism on the question of nationalism is a mask for modern Anti-Semitism. However, in each of these cases, the creation of a national homeland provided a place where the people could determine their own national cultures, identities, languages, foods, and ideals free from the influence of neighboring countries which had conquered or colonized them or expressed strong intentions of doing the same. It allowed them to be free from persecution. A person who believes that every group of people, especially ones as maligned through history as the Jews, deserve the right to govern their own affairs and be responsible for their own defense, must hold that Zionism is part of genuinely good historic of nation-building and global development.

Some people see Zionism as wicked because the Jews took a land where they did not have a significant presence for many years. However, Jews lived in the Land of Israel from at least 1100 B.C.E. until the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. Almost all Jews were exiled to other countries, known to Jews as the Diaspora. For centuries, Jews prayed for a return to Zion. In the nineteenth century, the Zionist movement, led by Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann, encouraged Jews to turn the dream into reality, and lobbied the international community to understand that a "Jewish national home" was the only solution to Anti-Semitism and the "Jewish problem." The Return of the Jews to Israel would be no different than if the Native American Tribes or the Aboriginal Australians demanded some of the land stolen from them by White Settlers. They were evicted from their home and are demanding a correction to this historical injustice.

Some believe Zionism is evil because of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. What these people neglect to see is that the conflict has nothing to do with Zionism per se and has much more to do with Arab Muslim beliefs about their own right to discriminate from a position of apartheid. Most early Zionists, even Right-Wing Zionists like Jabotinsky actively wanted to integrate Arabs into a Binational Jewish and Arab State. However, it was the Palestinian Arabs (using the term retroactively) who were led by Nazi-Sympathizer and collaborator on the Armenian Genocide Haj Amin al-Husseini who decided that a Judenrein Arab World was desirable. He was responsible for instigating the Nebi Musa Riots of 1920, the Hebron Massacre of 1929, and the Palestinian Civil War of 1937-1939. It was him and his supporters who made it clear that freedom and equality for Jews could only occur in a Jewish State where Arabs would not be able to violently threaten Jewish lives. The Jews were successful in protecting themselves and their children from the violence of the Palestinians and have prevented large-scale persecution (compare this to the promises of the Arabs in 1947 and 1948 that Palestine would be ethnically cleansed of all Jews). This is another benefit which Zionism has conferred.

Zionism has also resulted in a democratic, Western-aligned country in the Middle East. No other movement for self-determination in the Middle East, other than maybe Turkey or Cyprus can boast the same. The provision of human rights in Israel far outstrips any other Middle Eastern country on almost every metric.

However, it is very questionable whether Right-Wing Zionism, which has a more expansionist view, is good since it agitates and provokes more conflict with the Palestinians than may be necessary.

Nationalism is pride in your nation. Colonial nationalism is pride in the colony a nation controls. It means great pride in the colony you live in.