To what extent is Nationalism inherently aggressive and expansionist Essay Example

Hitler expressing this idea by the expression of 'Hammer and anvil nations' where Germany is the hammer and Poland and the British Empire is the anvil. This means that some nations were to be ruled and others were destined to be ruled and salved. Expansionist nationalist argue that liberal empires are temporary for those who can't govern themselves. The fascist's empire is forever, unless the interior can beat you. This sort of nationalism is linked to the doctrines of racial superiority even when they don't have a theory of racial superiority; they have implications of racial superiority. In addition,

Expansionist nationalists tend to see the people of their nation as the chosen people with a unique destiny and their people embodying all virtues. This sort of nationalism tends to be obsessed with pollution, contamination and decay such as the ban on interracial marriage and anti-emigration and external conduct of a nation. Expansionist nationalism is highly irrational. Nation identity is seen as unemotional condition which is in the blood. An example of this is the Nazi slogan 'blood and soul'. However, the fascist idea that throwing yourself into a nation solves the problem of alienation which can be argued as reactionary.

On the other side, this sort of nationalism is as reactionary. It looks back to the past glories e. g. Mussolini and the Roman Empire. It's a fascist idea that nations are going to be reform after a period of weakness corruption which is know as polygenesis as Rigger Grills argued. There is a progressive type of nationalism within expansionist nationalism which looks for future conquest, looking for the past for guidance ratter

than literally getting beck to the past. Within expansionist nationalism, some state nations also tried to expand their size by annexing foreign territories, for example the German seizure of Austria in 1938.

However, much more often, ambitious states, like France, Britain, America, Russia and Japan conquered heterogeneous peoples and created empires in which, not surprisingly, they failed to transform them into nationals of the imperial power. Prior to their annexation the peoples involved were not divided ethno nations, as in the German/Austrian case, but separate socio-cultural communities who sometimes became assimilated to the language, life-style and culture of the dominant community and its elites, although in most cases of imperial conquest, they resisted integration and, instead, developed their separate ethnic national identities.

I believe that modern expansionist and destructive imperialism is a logical consequence of the rise of nationalism and that the liberation of conquered peoples was its unavoidable consequence. In some regions, Europeans exerted complete political authority, in other areas, spheres of influence were established, and leaving the existing governments as puppets, occasionally only economic influence was exerted. Imperialism in Africa created colonies designed to serve the needs of the colonial powers. Colonial boundaries often exacerbated long-standing ethnic rivalries.

The consequences of expansionist nationalism were destructive and also predictable. Competition between the expanding modern empires, rooted in expansionist nationalism, led to inter-state wars, starting overseas in the peripheral territories where these states sought to expand their rule, and it ended, during the 20th century, in gigantic inter-state wars at the centre. World Wars I and II brought the defeat of Germany and Italy in comparison with France, England, America and Russia,

but all of Europe suffered from war devastation.

In this period, the true off-springs of nationalism who elevated this school to its highest position and gave it its severest form were Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, Peron in Argentina, Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal. On the other side, Conservative Nationalism develops in established nation-states and therefore neither inherently expansionist nor destructive. They believe nations emerge naturally because humans' desire familiarity and security, they wish to maintain national unity by fostering patriotic loyalty and defending tradition and history.

Conservative Nationalism does not advocate expansionism, although Conservatives such as Disraeli and Bismarck had an imperialistic foreign policy. However, Conservative Nationalism does appear, more often than not, to cause conflict within the nation-state as the nation feels their national identity is under threat due to immigration and rejects the minority groups rather than attempting to integrate them into the state. Conservatives view humanity as imperfect, they have pessimist views about human nature, and they also would argue that we are psychological flows that cannot be removed.

This leads them to seek order as becoming important and to control the bad side of the human nature. Therefore, one can say that nation provides a solution ton the order by patriotism which is very important to conservative nationalism it is the natural love of their nation that people have about their common culture. People put national loyalties ahead of the rival loyalties such as class loyalties. On the other hand, conservative nationalism can be pro to xenophobia. It has the fear of foreigners because conservative nationalism relies to traditions and is insular conservative nationalism

since it is a racial superiority.

It is not racialist but latitude racism. Conservative nationalism can be guilty of being racist but not racialist. An example of this is Enoch Powel 'river of blood' speech on immigration which he picked up out of the conservatives. Another example is Mrs Thatcher deputy leader in the 1980s Norman Fowler referring to his cricket test. Where people who come to England should only support England's cricket team referring the West Indies and Pakistanis. This is a racial implication to the on-white people. Conservative nationalism is expansionist and militaristic.

Conservative nationalism does not look at war and over sees expansion. They understand that war is a threat to tradition which is one of their bedrocks. Conservative leaders exploit wars to patriotism; they generate e. g. Thatcher in the Falklands war. Nevertheless, the third type of nationalism which is more likely to not support the doctrines of expansion and destruction is anti colonial nationalism. One of the momentous transformations of the post-war World was the final decline and fail of colonial empires. Anti-colonial nationalism began to appear as a significant for that in the Arab World, India and Southeast Asia.

WWII, however, sealed the fate and accelerated the decline of the colonial system. Dutch, French, American and some British Southeast Asian colonial territories were under Japanese occupation for several years. Belgium, Netherlands and France experienced humiliating German occupation at home and Italy fortified its colonies by fighting on the losing side. The mystique of the invincibly of the major colonial powers was thoroughly shattered. The experience of colonial rule helped to give rise to a specifically Anti

colonial form of nationalism.

During the 20th century, the political geography of much of the world was transformed by anti colonialism. However, during the interwar period independence movements increasingly threatened the overstretched empires of the UK and France. In some cases, a combination mounting nationalists' pressure and declining domestic economic performance persuaded colonial powers to depart relatively peacefully as occurred in India and Malaysia. Nevertheless, decolonisation in the post 1945 period was often characterized by revolution and periods of armed struggle.

However, anti colonial nationalism can be sometimes destructive with the appearance of armed guerrilla struggle as a possible strategy choice to achieve independence. First in Indochina and the Dutch East Indies then in Algeria subsequently in the Portuguese African colonies, Rhodesia and Namibia insurgent armies demonstrated that independence could be achieved by protracted combat in the colonial adversary was unyielding. New doctrines of guerrilla warfare, associated with the Chinese and the Vietnamese revolutions defined strategies of prolonged struggle carried out from rural bases.

Anti colonial liberation movements could now count upon success to outside military supply, sanctuary in neighbouring independent countries and deepening support of international public opinion. Outright military victory was not necessary. Only the capacity to sustain insurgent action until the costs of an unending and fruitless military campaign became politically and economically unsustainable for the colonial occupant. Thus, the conviction look holds on all sides that liberation of colonial territories was an irresistible historical trend.

In some cases, developing-world regimes have openly embraced Marxist-Leninist principles and adapting them to their own needs. On achieving impedance, China, North Korea moved swiftly to seize foreign assets and nationalise economic

resources. They founded one party states and centrally planed economies. Other countries depend on their powerful charismatic leaders such as Kaddafi or Sadam Hussein. The socialism proclaimed usually takes the form of an appeal to unifying national causes of interest in most cases economic and social development.

Anti colonialism has been a revolt against western power and influence. In some cases western ideas have been adapted and changed beyond all recognition such as African socialism which is founded upon traditional communitarian values and the desire to subordinate divisive tribal rivalries to the overriding need for economic nationalism by cultivating links with other former colonies in an attempt to articulate a distinctive 'Third World' voice, independent from that of either capitalist 'First World' or the communist 'Second World'.

'Third Worldism reflected a fierce rejection of imperialism and a common desire for economic progress amongst countries that usually shared colonial past. Such ties have weakened as memories of colonial rule have receded allowing the cultural and political differences amongst the developing states to become more apparent. Nevertheless, anti colonial nationalism is a rational type of nationalism due to the free of the economic exploitation although empires are exclusive, they do bring good democracy, the rule of law, education etc... therefore rejecting this could be irrational.

On the other side, in Cambodia, under the Klinger Rouge political party economically destroyed due to forcing the population to leave the evil modern cities and torturing all the intellectual people. One more type of nationalism which seems to be less related with the cores of destruction and expansion is postcolonial nationalism. The postcolonial period has thrown up quite

different forms of nationalism. These have been shaped by the rejection of western ideas and culture than by the attempt to reapply them or remain independent from them.

If the West is regarded as the source of oppression and exploitation, postcolonial nationalism must seek an anti-western voice and not merely a non-western one. This is a reaction against the dominance of western and us culture and economic power in much of the developing world. For example, each African nation took a unique path toward independence. Some, such as Algeria, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe, took extreme measures like waging a guerrilla war on the colonial state; most countries pursued non-violent means and achieved a peaceful transfer of power. But there were varying degrees of success.

Some countries, such as Ghana, became completely independent while others, such as Congo, continued to depend on Europe, and their independence was superficial rather than absolute. The final type of nationalism which is not inherently destructive and expansionist is the liberal type of nationalism. Liberal nationalism is the oldest type of nationalism dating from the French revolution. Most of the 19th century nationalism in Europe was of this type. This type of nationalism is neither inherently destructive nor expansionist due to the reason this type of nationalism is not part to war, it brings peace era of nation and abolish war forever.

By conquering other people and annex them that will dilute their own culture and that will destroy the bedrock of your common culture. Liberals believe that this is irrational. They believe that there is no belief in superiority. The liberals rather believe in free trade with free

national economies will become independent and then war will become uneconomically unaffordable. Evidence supporting this is the Ottoman Empire, Austria Hungary and Russia. However, liberals argue that multi national empires are conservative and lack a common culture.

They argue that these nations are the 'prisons of freedom'. They are against freedom. For example, Greek nationals trapped in the Ottoman Empire. Not all liberals were enthusiastic nationalists. Lord Acton believed in power corruption. He called 'nationalism is a retrograde step in history' Liberals belief in advancing retro is going back. However, Lord Acton did not favour nation. Lord Acton Altered conflict between individual freedoms. He argues there is no connection between nation and liberal values. Nation states could be conservative, fascist etc...

On the other hand, we can have a conservative nation-state and also a multi-national empire. Liberal Nationalism advocates self-determination and popular sovereignty. It has been directed as a liberating force, opposing all forms of foreign domination and oppression, and regarding all nations as equal. Their goal is the construction of a world of independent nation-states. Liberal nationalism main idea came from applying from the individuals and applying it to the nation. Liberals believed that individuals are self interested and irrational.

Some external source of order is needed to manage self interested and control it. The support of international and supernatural bodies to manage self interested nations. Supporting the EU and the UN. Global bodies are needed to provide anarchy. Whereas in conservatism, nation can be internally free if they adopt conservatism and if they can require certain number of condition, liberal institution a constitution to protect people's rights. An example of

this is Lip Heart's theory in the Dutch system. Without this, the majority group will form exclusion and assimilation rather than create genuine liberal value.