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 20th 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,