Fiery Nationalism Essay Example for Free

Fiery Nationalism Essay For more than five centuries it has been, and remains, the world’s â€Å"most powerful idea†. Nationalism is a key characteristic of traditional global politics. Despite its strength however, nationalism is not as dominant a political identity as it once was. Nationalism had existed throughout human civilization; it became a major political movement, in large part because of centuries of imperialism. As countries expanded their borders through warfare and colonialism, the map of the world was completely redrawn. Geographic lines were shifted to create political entities based on the â€Å"winners† and â€Å"losers† of conflicts rather than based on ethnic lines of indigenous populations. Nationalism is a doctrine invented in Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It pretends to supply a criterion for the determination of the unit of population proper to enjoy a government exclusively its own, for the legitimate exercise of power in the state, and for the right organization of a society of states. Briefly, the doctrine holds that humanity is naturally divided into nations, that nations are known by certain characteristics which can be ascertained, and that the only legitimate type of government is national self-government. Another definitions of nationalism are: devotion and loyalty to one’s own nation; excessive patriotism; the desire for national advancement or independence; the policy or doctrine of asserting interest of one’s own nation, viewed as separate from the interest of other nations or the common interest of all nations. Referring to the period 1900-1920, the positive part about nationalism as a political movement was that it allowed them to come together and overthrow imperialism. By the beginning of the twentieth century, nationalist movements threatened to tear apart the established empires and the world order the empires had created. On the other hand, the negative part was that it led to colonial wars for independence and civil wars within countries comprised of multiple nations. The problem for nationalist was that it was often difficult to determine exactly where some ethnics group began and others ended, which led to conflict between nationalities living together within a country. It’s true that imperialism and militarism were factors in WWI, but both were byproducts of nationalist governments. The alliance system also would not have caused war if it were not for nationalism. Serbian seeking to gain territory at Austria-Hungary’s expense, and members of a secret society collaborated together to kill the Austrian heir to the throne. This was the spark plug, nationalism, for the war. Nationalist-driven violence was certainly nothing new in the Balkans and what was left of the Ottoman Empire, so it was somewhat surprising that a politically motivated assassination in the region could lead to such large-scale warfare. No one thought it would take much longer than six months to wrap up, because each believed its alliance was clearly superior to other. Instead, the violence dragged into one of the deadliest conflicts in human history. From the period 1921-1945, the Interwar years from 1919 to 1939, it is a period that the conflict was not ended. Nationalism was negative. The frustrated nationalism created by the Treaty of Versailles, the social effects of the Great Depression and ongoing investment in military technology were the road for the next war WWII. In 1929, the Wall Street Market crash and hit Germany hard because the economy was built on mostly loans from America and was dependent on trade, so when the loans needed to be paid and there was no trade, Germany’s industrialism stopped; German workers were laid off, banks failed so saving and accounts were wiped out, inflation made it difficult to purchases necessities. Hitler decided that he needed to do everything at a political level, so that he will be seen as a legitimate leader and not someone associated with violence and bad things; he wanted to highlight the failings of other political parties. Hitler’s inflamed sense of nationalism encouraged him to share his beliefs and values with his fellow countrymen. His strong dependence on his beliefs gave him the reassurance he needed to do whatever he could to further his cause, no matter what people thought about him. Depression really took hold of Germany, and Germany had to repay the debt created by the Young Plan; Hitler tried to defeat the Young plan and this campaign made him a political force throughout the country; in his campaigning he turned down his Jewish hatred and promised to get rid of Communists and â€Å"other enemies† and to reunite Germany and other German speaking parts of Europe. Extremist were losing popularity because stability was returning; German Nationalist party made him respectable asking for him to help campaign against the Young plan’s repayment arrangements; Nazi party won 18.3% of the vote in September 1930. German nationalism made German citizens sympathize with one another, and the thought of more or worse poverty because of the repayments to America worried them all. Hitler, although not the most popular politician in the works at the time, definitely was able to wiggle his foot in the door because of the small amount of doubt in the minds of the people. Hitler was trying to create a sense of nationalism in German people, to the point where they felt they were better than any person of any other race. By creating a clear separation, Hitler was able to set the German’s apart from others living in the same area. Hitler felt that the only way Germany would return to order was through the Nazi regime. By combining Chancellor and President, he ensured that he would be at the head of the government and could spread his fiery nationalism to his people. German citizens may not marry or have sex with Jews in order to keep the blood pure (punishment of hard labor); Jews are not allowed to employ female German citizens under 45 as domestic workers (punishment of imprisonment or hard labor). Hitler really began to try to drive a wedge between Germans and Jews so that nationalism was felt very differently by the two different groups. In encouraging the nationalism and superiority in the German citizens, he made them feel better and feel against the Jews. Hitler formally ends obedience to the Treaty of Versailles; German warplanes attack a Spanish town, and this becomes the first air bombardment of an undefended town in history. Hitler outlines plans for a future war, confiding in his general of his intent to destroy Czechoslovakia; this was the beginning of Hitler’s process of beginning war. Nationalism flexes its muscles here, as the Germans show their new might in their air force and their defiance of the Treaty of Versailles, hereby raising confidence of the German people in their own government and fear of Germany for other countries. The German people were ready for a war. They believed because their leader had taught them to, that the only way to improve their situation was to fight for it. Nationalism prepared them for a war, and not only were they ready for the act, but they were ready to accept the consequences. Their need for stability as a country transcended other needs, and they were ready to do what it took to achieve their goals. WWII was the result of Fascism, and fascism involved nationalism. It is about returning one’s nation glory days. Hitler and Mussolini both sought to take lands that they felt were those of their nation. Hitler wanted the land Germany had lost in war, and much more. Some of the most horrific parts of WWII, such as Holocaust, were direct products of nationalism. Jews were considered to be a different nation by Germans and thus, the government tried to eliminate them, along with others who they felt were not real Germans. From the period 1946-1999 people have been promised self-determination and were frustrated when the political leaders they trusted to deliver it had failed to do so. This period nationalism was in some part positive. This time they would fight for independence and create their own identities through civil war, political revolutions, and migration. With ongoing nationalistic-driven, postcolonial, and identity-related violence marking almost every region of the world and a â€Å"cold war† prevailing on a global level, the structure for the latter half of the twentieth century was established. The Cold war was an ideological conflict in which is side use its growing military technology and alliances systems to stop the spread of the opposing ideology. Because no one wanted a nuclear holocaust, the superpowers relied on others (proxies) to engage in battles for them. The process of decolonization was the final death toll of the imperial system that structured the world until the mid-twentieth century. And because it took place in the midst of a Cold war rivalry with two superpowers vying for ideological control, the process was fraught with violence. Nationalist sought independence from foreign domination. The most violent example how the Cold war affected decolonization was the civil war in Vietnam. The fifteen-year military conflict funded by the United States, the USSR and the PRC showed the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America what decolonization could lead to during the competitive Cold War, and it certainly was not independence. Arab nationalism rose up against centuries of Western imperialism; Islam took on Judaism and Christianity; and ethnic and religious groups fought over territory each claimed legal and history rights to. Also we see, Africa nationalist movement demanded independence some came peacefully, other not. Ghana was a peaceful transition under Kwame Nkrumah, and for Kenya was a violent transition under Jomo Kenyatta. India had been a British colony for many years, the movement led by Mohandas Gandhi pushed for independence, he used a peaceful way not violent- methods to get independence. In conclusion, in my opinion, nationalism has been a positive force, but it has also brought despair and destruction to the world. One side of positive nationalism: which I defined as the proper love of one’s country and the respect which is due to every culture and nation. The other side, the negative nationalism: an unhealthy form of nationalism, which teaches contempt for other nations or cultures and seeks to advance the well-being of one’s own nation at the expense of others.

Change Over Time: The years 1670-1729 Essay -- History, European Power

From 1670 to 1870, the political regimes of the Atlantic Basin underwent drastic changes that were ultimately detrimental to today’s society. The new ideas of the Enlightenment sparked cultural, political, and social revolutions all the way from the newly established colonies of the United States to the ancien regime of the country of France. But how did these governments change during this era? The answers lie in the beginning, middle, and end of the 1670s to 1870s. The years 1670-1729 mark the beginning of this era, where the start of change takes place. During this period, European powers ruled in various places, such as in the colonies of America and in Haiti. In the colonies of America, there â€Å"was no sign that North America might become a center of revolution† (Bentley, p. 784). Britain imposed their culture on the colonists. The colonists â€Å"regarded themselves as British subjects: they recognized British law, read English-language books, and often braved†¦ the North Atlantic Ocean to visit family and friends in England† (Bentley, p. 784), with trade fueling the colonies’ wealth and reliable protection from the British militia. In France, Louis XVI reigned, and things were mainly prosperous. However, Louis was an absolute monarch, and he created three estates. The first estate â€Å"consisted of about 100,000 Roman Catholic clergy† (Bentley, p. 787). The second â€Å"included some four hundred thou sand nobles† (Bentley, p. 787), and the third was the rest of the population-â€Å"about 24 million serfs, free peasants, and urban residents ranging from laborers, artisans, and shopkeepers to physicians, bankers, and attorneys† (787). Nevertheless, the French mainly prospered under Louis XVI’s reign. However, in Haiti, things were not as prosper... ... off to France, where he died of maltreatment. The generals who succeeded Toussaint â€Å"defeated the remaining troops and drove them out of the colony† (Bentley, p. 796). In 1803, they declared independence and later â€Å"proclaimed the establishment of Haiti, meaning â€Å"land of mountains†. In conclusion, the governments of the Atlantic Basin evolved significantly between the 1670s and 1870s. Governments were established that shaped the beginning of human and political rights for generations to come. Without the ideals and beliefs of the Enlightenment thinkers, the rapid transformation of the Atlantic Basin probably would have never happened and the world would have been anything but recognizable at this time. Thanks to the work of many revolutionary leaders and philosophes, the Atlantic Basin was able to become one of the most influential areas in world history to date.

Women Role in Christianity and Islam

A Christian Woman is a woman who loves God more than herself. She is a woman who prays for her family, her church, her government and her country. She is a woman who reads God's Word and puts Him first in her life. From the beginning of the early Christian church, starting with Jesus, women were important members of the movement. The examples of the manner of Jesus reveal his attitudes toward women and show repeatedly how he liberated and affirmed women. Both complementarians and egalitarians see Jesus as treating women with compassion, grace and dignity. 2] The gospels of the New Testament, especially Luke, often mention Jesus speaking to or helping women publicly and openly, contrary to the social norms of the time. Jesus had female followers who were his sponsors,[Lu 8:1-3] and he stopped to express concern for the women of Jerusalem on his way to be crucified,[Lu 23:26-31] while Mary Magdalene is recorded to be the first person to have the privilege of seeing Jesus after resurrec tion. [Mk 16:9] The role of women in Christianity today depends almost entirely upon the context in which women find themselves or choose to be involved in. More conservative Bible-believing women will tend their participation in church leadership etc. The modern womens rights movement has had a dramatic impact on the role of women in Christian churches. â€Å"Women in Christianity† is a vast and complex subject with multiple dimensions as Christianity is one of the largest religions in the world practiced in different societies and cultures around the world. When we deal with the subject of â€Å"Women in Christianity† we need to understand that Christianity as that exists today is a mix of different denominations with Catholics and Protestants being the principle denominations. Further it would be prudent to delve into the history of Christianity to understand the role of women in this religion. In early Christianity there was no separate roles prescribed for men and women and women were not distinguished separately from men. This was despite the fact that the society in West Asia at that time was highly patriarchal in nature. Women in Christianity: The early Christian prophets From West Asia, Christianity spread to ancient Greece and Rome which were purely patriarchal societies. In these societies women and children were hought of as assets or possessions held by the head of the family. Men and Women were distinguished separately in this kind of set up and women were generally considered inferior to men. During these times Christians believed that the world will end soon and Christ will come to earth for the second time. There were many women teachers and prophets in Christianity in those days who believed in this proposition and went their way in preachin g this doctrine. Women in Christianity: Wave of change in twentieth century Only in the twentieth century things started changing in Christianity. With the churches loosing much of their clout and power in the twentieth century, with democratic governments firmly established in many countries in Europe as well as in America and with religion getting separated from politics things started to change in a dramatic fashion in Christianity that was never thought about in the last two thousand years of the religion. It all started with the early feminist movements and peaked with the second wave of feminism from the period of 1960s. This period saw a profound change in the status of women in Christianity as a religion. Women's rights came in the forefront. Women in Christianity: Women's liberation movement The period of 1960s and thereafter can be considered as the beginning of the â€Å"women's liberation movement† in history which advocated social, cultural, political and religious equality of the gender. Though the women's liberation movement went full throttle in this period the patriarchal set up did not vanish as such and the concept of sexual dualism still existed. This concept not only viewed the differences between men and women in mere biological terms but it also ranked and applied values to these differences. For instance, men were considered to be more idealistic, spiritual, and psychic than women. On the other hand, women were thought to be more emotional, instinctive, and physical than men. This was a senario of absolute â€Å"gender stereotyping† and it existed from last two thousand years. It was only the women's movement in 1960s that challenged these kind of thinking to some affect. Women in Christianity: The religious right and the liberal feminist theological movement It is quite natural that the Religious Right criticizes feminists, who challenge the superiority of men. They in fact resist everything about the feminist movement. For example they even dislike the liberal welfare policies for women because under such policies, single mothers who need to raise their children and the economically destitute are assisted financially. The Religious Right view such assistance as preventing the establishment of traditional families. They also reject the relativism of human existence and therefore they are intolerant to other views, cultures and religions. They believe in the absolutism and purity of Christian values and tradition. For the religious right â€Å"Patriarchal Christianity† is the central core of all existence. Anything outside this central core has to be resisted and absolutely rejected. The changes that happened in the Christian society in the last two hundred years have also affected other cultures and religions in a profound manner. The feminist movement owes its roots to the Christian society and thanks to it feminism has become a global phenomenon today which advocates gender based equality and ending of all types of discriminations and bias against women. In fact the study of the role of â€Å"women in Christianity† transcends the spectrum of â€Å"religion† and gives us a broad perspective of the struggle of women from the last 200 years for a right to a dignified and meaningful life.

Mistretta v. United States Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact

Mistretta v. United States (1989) asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the United States Sentencing Commission, created by Congress through the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, was constitutional. The court found that the Congress could use practical and specific legislation to form a special commission, dedicated to creating and maintaining federal sentencing guidelines. Fast Facts: Mistretta v. United States Case Argued: October 5, 1988Decision Issued: January 18,1989Petitioner: John MistrettaRespondent:   United StatesKey Questions: Is the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 constitutional?Majority Decision: Justices Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, OConnor, and KennedyDissenting: Justice ScaliaRuling: Congressional legislation that created the federal sentencing commission did not violate the separation of powers doctrine, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Facts of the Case In 1984, Congress signed off on the Sentencing Reform Act in an effort to create uniform sentencing guidelines. The act empowered a specialized group of experts called the Sentencing Commission. Prior to the commission, individual federal judges used their own discretion when sentencing offenders. The commission was tasked with creating, reviewing, and revising policy used to determine punishments for federal offenders. Any changes were to be reported to Congress. John M. Mistretta challenged the commissions authority after receiving a sentence of 18 months imprisonment for drug related charges under commission guidelines. The Supreme Court agreed to take on the case because of its importance to the public and to settle what Justice Harry A. Blackmun referred to in his decision as disarray among the Federal District Courts. Constitutional Issues Can Congress allow a special group of experts to create and monitor federal rules for sentencing? Did Congress violate the separation of powers when it delegated responsibilities in this way? Arguments An attorney representing Mistretta argued that Congress overlooked the nondelegation doctrine when it created the Sentencing Commission. The nondelegation doctrine, a legal concept that comes from the separation of powers, prevents individual branches of the government from passing power on to other branches. The attorney claimed that Congress had unlawfully passed off its authority to oversee federal sentencing when it created a separate commission. In doing so, Congress had ignored separation of powers, he argued. An attorney on behalf of the government argued that the Supreme Court should adopt a more practical interpretation of separation of powers. Some governmental duties require cooperation, rather than exclusivity, he argued. The creation of the Sentencing Commission was a logical way to dedicate a task to a specialized group, in hopes of ensuring fair sentencing in federal courts, the attorney argued. Majority Opinion In an 8-1 decision delivered by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court upheld the constitutionality of Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, affirming Mistrettas sentence. The decision was split into two different sections: delegation and separation of powers. Delegation The constitution does not prevent a branch from assigning specific tasks to expert groups, split between branches. The majority applied the intelligible principle test, which asks whether the Congress had granted authority in a way that was practical, specific, and detailed. Justice Blackmun wrote that Congress had achieved that goal. The legislative body offered lists of factors to aid the Sentencing Commission in developing guidelines. It also outlined clear instructions for the commission within the legislation, ensuring a constitutional manner of delegation, the majority found. Separation of Powers The majority applied a broad interpretation of the separation of powers. The constitution distributes power between branches to ensure independence, but acknowledges that the branches will sometimes need to work together to accomplish common goals. The sentencing commission derives its authority from Congress but is located within the Judicial Branch and executes its mission using members appointed by the executive branch. Congress created a cooperative commission to achieve a common goal: federal sentencing guidelines, the Court found. Dissenting Opinion Justice Antonin Scalia dissented. Justice Scalia argued that the sentencing guidelines have the force and effect of laws. By creating the commission, Congress gave its legislative power to a separate entity, housed within the judicial branch. Justice Scalia saw this as a clear violation of the separation of powers and the nondelegation doctrines, disagreeing with the Courts decision to take a common-sense approach to each. Impact Prior to the ruling in Mistretta v. United States, the Supreme Court had struck down statutes and panels that suggested blurred lines between the branches. After the decision, Mistretta was regarded by some as a ruling in favor of practical governance. Others expressed concern over the decisions effect on the separation of powers doctrine. Sources Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989).Stith, Kate, and Steve Y. Koh. â€Å"The Politics of Sentencing Reform: The Legislative History of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.†Ã‚  Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, 1993.