January 25, 2009

Nationalism: The Process

I feel like the theme this week in MEH was nationalism. Although revolution and 1848 were the stage on which the theme was invoked, the reading consistently discussed nationalism, specifically the ways it changed over the years and its effects on revolutionary (or reforming) efforts.

Charlie was adept enough to point out the wandering (and contradictory) nature of my last blog post. Since then I've reflected on it and decided that he's completely correct. As I was writing, I was simultaneously consulting the textbook and hence I believe that my point of view changed depending on the section of the book I was reading. The post was written previous to any class discussion on nationalism had taken place, which I think only further enriched my thoughts on the matter.

Probably the most interesting thing we did in class was debate the matter of the U.S.A. as a nation. Reading other blogs, I was particularly interested in what DK and DLemma had to say on the matter.

We adopt the notion of legitimacy practiced by the Concert of Europe, i.e. the notion that "if we say it's legit., then it's legit." Essentially, nationhood is a product of (1) the desire of the people to be a nation and (2) arcane and arbitrary exclusivity. You can't be a nation and let everyone in. -DK

Nationalism- helped unify groups of people that identified themselves as "German" or "Italian," but it also broke apart people from different ethnicities that were living in the same nation and therefore a tangled mess of alliances was created. -DLemma

I'd agree with both of them, and trying to reflect upon the matter of the U.S.A. as a nation, I must consider an issue they both bring up: ethnicity.

As DK notes, to create a nation, people must desire one. As DLemma says, a nation helps to unify, but it also helps to break apart. I feel, though, that creating a nation doesn't necessarily have to "break apart people" or create "a tangled mess of alliances." While this undisputedly happened in Europe during the mid-19th century, the U.S.A. was different. While Europe was struggling to unify many groups of people who had all lived on the land for years (like Israel/Palestine perhaps), the United States was created almost solely by the overwhelming majority of Caucasian immigrants. The indigenous people were entirely excluded from the process.

Now though, it's as if the process is happening in reverse. Italy started divided and now is united. The USA, arguably, started united and now is...divided (?). As Lollotte brought up in class, as globalization comes more and more into play, with the identity of the U.S.A. as an almost entirely Caucasian country definitely ceasing to exist, are we still a nation? With these different groups of people (much like the minority populations in Germany and Austria-Hungary), can we/do we manage to hold it together?

No comments:

Post a Comment