Nationalism, the Roots of all Evil

While the rise of the nation-state marked much of the history of the twentieth century, its roots originated in the early nineteenth century. From feudalism to absolute monarchy and eventually the nation-state, European populations gradually acquired more individual rights as they experienced unprecedented upward class mobility and technological progress. However, social evolution did not come without inflicting great pain on humanity. The Balkan Wars, World Wars and Cold War not only deprived Europe of its global supremacy, but also brought the entire continent to the brink of destruction. Hence, it is understandable that contemporaries of the war era blame the fall of Europe on nationalism. However, these negative connotations might be a byproduct of the framing mechanism historians used to recount the events that plagued the twentieth century. Today, global communities talk about self-determination, liberation movements and representative or power sharing governments, which—to a large extent—are ways to legitimize nationalism or ethnic identification.

Academic studies have exhausted the term nationalism, ranking it high among key determinants of the Wars. Consequently, modernists traumatized by the massive devastation resulted from those conflicts, perceived nationalism as the root of all that is evil, negative connotations that have stigmatized the term from both ethnic and historical perspectives. From the Balkan Wars to Arab nationalism, this essay will trace twentieth century nationalism through available empirical data and argue that it was a painful, yet necessary portal to greater political and social consciousness; hence, a positive contributor to postmodern democratization.

Scholars recognize ethnicity as a key driver of nationalist ideology; therefore it is nearly impossible to dissociate one from the other. Some common themes associated with them include: territory, common law and civic culture. In Ethnicity, Nationalism and Conflict in the Early 20^th Century, David DeNaples—history scholar of the Yale-New haven Teachers Institute-- framed nationalism as “the political manifestation of “a consciousness, on the part of the individual or groups, of membership in a nation or a desire to forward the strength, liberty, or prosperity of a nation,” (p. 3-5). Moreover, Boyd Schaffer (1972) presented a more elaborate definition in Faces of Nationalism, framing it as “a condition of mind…of a group of people living in a well defined geographic area, speaking a common language, possessing a literature in which the aspirations of the nation have been expressed, attached to common customs, venerating it’s own heroes, and, in some cases, a common religion,” (p. 3-23).

Closely related, ethnicity originated with the French as ethnie, meaning community or group. DeNaples noted, “myth and history provide the foundation for ethnie, and history has shown us that for the most part people feel closer to their ethnie than to a political body (the nation).” Such framework is important to understand the rather explicit relationship that ethnicity share with nationalism. DeNaples further noted five common elements to an ethnie: “identification, culture (language, religion values), idea of a homeland, sense of solidarity, and history,” (p. 3).

Furthermore, a simile used by Robert Wohl (2002) in An Age of Conflict: The Generation of 1914 explained that in European minds, “war became a dangerous sport, like big game hunting, that some particularly adventurous Europeans practiced outside or on the periphery of Europe,” (p. 14). This chilling depiction unveils the nonchalant attitude an ignorance inhibiting European populations prior to the War, a process that, in part, undoubtedly came from increasingly prevalent nationalist sentiments that preceded that era. Although the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne by Bosnian nationalist Gavrillo Princip provoked the immediate outbreak of the Great War, it initially started—as Derfler and Kollander recounted— “ as a local struggle rapidly escalating into widespread European conflict as each nation was convinced it was fighting in defense of vital and legitimate rights,” (p. 7). The prevailing historical data made it abundantly clear the assassination that ignited World War I was not the primary reason for the War. Rather, it was a smaller part of a larger nationalist movement as European societies transitioned from absolute monarchy to the establishment of liberalism and democracy.

Barbara Jelavich traced the first European national movement to the 1804 Serbian revolt against corrupt local authorities that revolted into a movement for national independence. In her book, History of the Balkans: Twentieth Century, Jelavich faulted the Ottoman government’s failure “to curb provincial disorder” for the attainment of a Serbian autonomous status. Greece, explained Jelavich, successfully established an independent Greek state in 1830, following a Christian revolution. Still, a third national movement followed: that of the Romanians in Wallachia and Moldavia; however, unification of the provinces did not occur until after 1856 with the Russian defeat in the Crimean War. Therefore, twentieth century European nationalism was not without precedence. Many successful nationalist uprisings, including Montenegro that later joined the first three, pioneered the movement.

Later, resettlements resulting from the Balkan Wars further destabilized a declining Ottoman Empire giving rise to many ethnic conflicts and nationalist uprisings. According to Richard C. Hall’s book, The Balkan Wars, 1912- 1913: Prelude to the First World War, the emerging peace treaties of London and Bucharest in 1913 reconfigured the borders of the Balkan peninsula and established many independent states, namely Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro and, later, Albania (p. 2). Revolutionary activist Vasil Levski contextualized the movement saying, “We are a people and want to live in complete freedom in our hands, there were the Bulgarians live, in Bulgaria, Thrace and Macedonia,” recounted Hall (p. 3). Such statements are characteristics of the long struggle for self-determination by people who shared a common ancestry and history against oppressive regimes, rather than bloodlust nationalists eager to destroy humanity.

In addition, the rise of Fascism in Nazi Germany constituted the next major expansion of nationalist ideology. Through a complex mixture of isolationism, expansionism and a relentless deceptive propaganda campaign, Hitler succeeded in casting European Jews and the rest of the world in a negative light and a security threat to Germans to gain support for his genocide and fascist ideals. Even then, nationalism was merely a tool used by the Nazis to mobilize the German population to protect private ownership of institutions and capitalism that faced the growing threat of unionization and the emergence of a working middle class. The supposedly new anti-democratic system was only a façade cleverly contrived as the practical cure of Marxism. John Strachey’s The Menace of Fascism: the Marxist View captured Hitler’s successful use of nationalism to further his capitalist agendas. “They [the Germans],” he argued, “sincerely believed, in spite of the fact that each successive Fascist government when it gets into power does nothing of the sort, that their movement will nationalize big banks and trusts, and will discipline the capitalists as well as the workers,” he added (p. 103).

Decolonization delivered the next wave of nationalist movements after World War II when the colonies began rejecting assimilation in favor of autonomous statehood. Whether with imperial powers’ blessings, like the British colonies, or through much resistance, as it were in the case of France, Portugal and the Netherlands, these movements toward national identity marked the second third of the twentieth century. India represents a perfect case study of successful nationalist uprising when it won its independence from the British in 1947. Some nine years later, in 1956, Mahatma Gandhi and Mohammad Jinnah, champions of the independence movement through a persisting nonviolent campaign, parted ways and divided the country into the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and India. This Indian example covered in Library of Congress’ A Country Study: India, underlines the constant human aspiration for self-governance and freedom from the authoritarian grip of imperialism.

Finally, the adoption and ratifications of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and its protocols ushered in a new era or more modern views of nationalism during the latter third of the twentieth century. Yet, immigration in the U.S. among other international cases helps illustrate this new breed of nationalists. Far from the violent means of their forebears, immigrants to the United States usually gravitate toward familiarity among people who share common characteristics, values and history. Hence, geographical segmentations like Little Havana and Little Haiti in Miami or China Town and Little Italy in New York provides well-defined cultural settings for foreigners to interact while maintain original values from their homelands.

On a macro level, the Geneva Convention on Genocide recognizes a people’s right to revolt against oppressive governments as a mean of obtaining representation or self-determination as long as opposition parties obey the doctrine of war established by the Conventions. Urethrae and South Sudan independence movements are among many recent examples. After years of ethnic and religious conflicts, South Sudanese people peacefully voted to become independent from Muslim dominated Northern Sudan. Likewise, Ethiopia was also divided into two states after many violent eruptions over disputed lands and religious ideologies.

At the height of globalization and the Internet age, nationalism continues to dominate the political landscape. While interdependency of globalization inevitably link sovereign nations together in many dimensions, it is evident that the world is getting increasingly smaller as people seek freedom. In the case of British decolonization, leaders recognized the need for change and embraced it, which resulted into peaceful transfers of power and autonomy for its colonies. In contrast, other countries that resisted change fueled nationalism and promoted greater unity among opposing parties. Framed as a constant struggle for self-determination or liberation movement, nationalism symbolizes what postmodern Democratic societies strive for: equality, dignity, sovereignty and freedom. This people-centered power structure aims at achieving democracy’s highest ideals: liberty and justice for all. Most importantly, the history helps paint authoritarianism and oppression as the evil entity that provoked much of the unrests that plague the century, rather than nationalism.

Rapadoo O,