Sunday, August 29, 2010

Reflection

Within our class discussion the United States, nationalism, and globalization were repeatedly brought up- sometimes even in the same sentence. The United States, as countless people in the past have pointed out, is unlike any other nation in the world today. The U.S. is a sample of everything humanity has to offer; a mix of all races, ethnicities, religions, and political ideals. It is this mix that makes it so hard to simply define nationalism in America. Some have even argued that nationalism doesn't truly exist in America. This is mainly because our nation originated from an imperialist state (England) pushing out the natives, only for the former to then be pushed out by colonists that had roots in England (in principle, an attack on nationalism). Fast forward to the present day and one will see a nation that has countless individuals that were not born here but came for the opportunities, citizens who have close elders that were not born here but have grown to love the democracy that is the U.S.

Other nations have deep rooted ancestry on the territory their state claims. Traditions, morals, values, and for the most part a sense homogeneity have been established after hundreds of years of history. For example, one can walk down a street in China and see the Imperialist Palace or sweep across Europe and find a large number of greek orthodox churches.

The question is then raised, how can America define its nationalism? Can this country have nationalism without having deep rooted ancestry to the soil we live on or a greater sense of homogeneity? Is our nationalism simply defined by the people's love for the life and opportunity this nation brings? I would like to think of America as an example for the future world, a place where people of all backgrounds and lifestyles can come together, untied under basic fundamental rights regardless of ideologies. A future world where citizens can speak out and participate, change the face of their nation/government whenever they please. A new nation where each individual has love for their peers regardless of differences. I understand that America has a long list of vices, but the beautiful thing about this nation is that the vices are eventually realized and worked on. But my greatest point is that I don't believe America is simply the future, I believe something greater is to come- a new nation. But this new nation can only come about when our world redefines nationalism to be the love of humanity as a nation rather then a territory or ancestral background.

2 comments:

  1. "But my greatest point is that I don't believe America is simply the future, I believe something greater is to come- a new nation. But this new nation can only come about when our world redefines nationalism to be the love of humanity as a nation rather then a territory or ancestral background."

    This is thought-provoking. If something greater is coming, how can we know that it is going to fit into our existent terminology, aka "nation"? I wonder what such a "nation" would look like. Would membership to this "nation" be a birth-right? Will it be an achieved status, rather than an ascribed one? By virtue of being born into this planet, everyone carrying a human DNA is a member of the "human race" which should technically trump all other associations. If love of humanity as a race is not sufficient to establish an everlasting peace, how could love for humanity be used for "a new nation?" Additionally, how different would this new nation from a "global society?" Is there a reason behind your choice of terminology here?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The term nation has actually been jumbled in to political linguistics, what individuals mean to refer to is the state. If all governments in the international system were nation-states then it would be fine to refer to them as nations. However, that is not the current case. Nation is a term to refer to the people within the state; the culture, ethnicity (in some scholarls opinions) values, morals, and shared aspects (in Stalin's definition land, language, and psychological makeup) of the individuals. WIth that said, a nation can be just as fluid as a state in that there is room for alteration/adaptation (although some argue that nationalism is primordial). The issue of "birth-right" of citizenship is in itself a dangerous web based on an individuals definition of nationalism. If primordial then its based on birth, if not then there is a chance for citizenship through other means (such as acceptance of certain values).

    This may be an idealistic concept but I would argue that even if our world doesnt reach a unified state it is somewhat irrelevant. That is we all automatically belong to the human race as you have state and thus have an innate bond to one another. Therefore, regardless of abstract institutions, there exists a "nationhood" of humanity.

    ReplyDelete