User:BBurns08/sandbox

Nationalism: One of Many Causes of War

General Background

Nationalism is the product of industrialization, capitalism, and modernization. Ivo Andre wrote in 1920, “Beneath the [passion], thirst for justice, faithfulness, and strength of character ‘the storms of hatred lie hidden in opaque depths’” (Djilas 25). Nationalism remains the issue of focus pre and post war for it is a cause of Territorial aggression, generational disputes, and the act of scape-goating, most commonly know as War. The history of generational conflict over territory and government control brought forth the issue of nationalism. Although some believe that there is a difference between nationalism before and after, in reality there is no difference. The same territory is being disputed over; the same ethnic groups are at odds by generational tendencies, and the struggle for power prevails.

Previous Studies

Nationalism and patriotism have been studied as the source of war in many cases and have provided a greater knowledge of wars in numerous countries as well as internal conflicts or civil wars. In this literature review, I will examine the texts available on the aspect of nationalism as a basis for war and provide an understanding on how nationalism, violence, and patriotism all have played significant roles in wars throughout history.Literature on the relationship of nationalism and causation of war has been of high significance, especially when looking back throughout the history of the world wars as well as civil wars. There are numerous works that contest the relation of nationalism and war regarding civil wars or wars of generational disputes. In order to grasp the affects of nationalism and violence, it is necessary to examine and compare literature that relates to civil disputes among nations and significant favoritism towards one’s nationality or fellow comrades.

Aspects of nationalism have been examined and studied using multiple variables and reasoning, commencing a sizeable amount of literature on the relationship between nationalism and sources of war, as shown by these scholarly reviewed articles. Some texts credit the Spanish Civil War as the framework for the use nationalism in anticipation of political power, while others determine nationalism and patriotism as a shared natural tendency amongst humanity. While a considerable amount of text is biased by whether the study was conducted for the benefit of the out-group or those in political and cultural dominance, the underlying determinates prevail. The literature supports the idea of nationalism legitimacy through moral obligation to maintain or preserve institution, generational disputes, and the implementation of limitations to protect the people. The reviewed literature has possessed a great impact on formations of Civil Wars as well as international uprisings for territorial aggression. Various studies examine variables between the relation of ethnocentrism, ethnic exclusionism, and educational attainment. With the given information, once can attempt to decipher conformity based on mutual respect over coercive inferiority, of those not residing under a dominant political coalition, in attempt to emanate clear universal humanism in respect to conflict.

Significant Articles

According to the article: The First Great Patriotic War: Spanish Communists and Nationalism, 1936-1939, written by Xose-Manoel Nunez and Jose Faraldo (2009), the incorporation of nationalism into institutions resulted from the 1936-1939 Civil War. The article discusses how the Spanish Communist Party was left with no choice but to use historical myths and cultural references as a strategy for social penetration and war mobilizing and therefore pioneered the instrumental use of nationalism. (Nunez & Faraldo 401) The declaration of a threatened homeland furnished rapid action and unified the people. (p.402) The article contest the national could finally be identified with its most authentic defender, the people, only after liberation (p. 410). Publications issued following the end of the Civil Wars stressed the importance of patriotic character, providing the framework to argue nationalism as in integral part of legitimizing power strategies. This article provides an excellent outline for creation of common ground to elicit collaboration on the shared commitment to a nation and provide political legitamcy.

According to the article Killing for the Homeland: Patriotism, Nationalism, and Violence, 2006 by Richard w. Miller, advocates of wars and uprisings commonly appeal to patriotism and nationalism. Miller’s article discusses various prominent roles regarding nationalism for establishing legitimacy of rebellions including political morals and affiliations, support to maintain institutions, and the instrumental principle.Miller examines the principle of Universalist acceptability and how it permits the use of national favoritism in political choices. As human beings, we are raised with universal principles to model ourselves after; benevolence, fair being of others, obedience to the law etc… however these principles can only provide guidance due to a plethora of situations that will never lend themselves to an easy formula, and the principles can only be used to guide our decisions such as the determination whether to support political coercion. The author discusses how the morals of fellow “compatriots” ought to protect all despite nationality and adhere to the achievement of political arrangements.

In her work, The Nation That Wasn’t, Aleksa Djilas examined the annexing of either Croatian or Serbian majority by redistribution of Yugoslavia between Croatia and Serbia by implementation of the Karađorđevo agreement solidified the theory of nations and nationalities strife over territorial dominance.(Djilas 28) The article proceeds to argue that territorial aggression by exclusionism correlates with causation of war.

The Effect of Education on Nationalsim and Ethnic Exclusionism: An International Comparison conducted by Marcel Coenders and Peer Scheeps focuses on ethnocentrism, the combination of a favorable attitude toward the ethnic in-group and an unfavorable attitude toward the ethnic out-group, and the relation to nationalism and patriotism. (Coenders & Scheeps 313)The authors hypothesized a positive relation between nationalism and exclusion of ethnicities, immigrants, or refugees implying out-group hostility.

Gretchen Ritter’s, Domestic Containment or Equal Standing? Gender, Nationalisms, and the War on Terror (2009) examines political incorporation of social groups in periods of war.The efforts to define the nation resurfaced but with the absence of an outside enemy to define ourselves, conflicts within the nation sought to redefine “the people” and “the other”.

Stephen Gent’s Scapegoating Stategically: Reselection, Strategic Interaction, and the Diversionary Theory of War proclaims, leaders facing internal social or economic problems have incentives to engage in adventurous foreign policies in order to consolidate their domestic political support (Gent 1). The scape-goating method is known in political science as the diversionary theory of war, and stems for the sociological analysis of in-groups and out-groups. The article goes on to indentify the usage of theory throughout major historical conflicts.

Relation to Patriotism

A speech given by Michael Yellow Bird, What is the Highest Form of Partiotism? I Say Acknowledging Our Addiction to Patriotism (2009), interrogates the use of American nationalism in our cherished ideals and the addiction behind it. The article observes the dangers of patriotic nationalism. Science, history and psychology are manipulated to validate actions for nationalist ends. The speech finds unapologetic historical domination and manipulation in the two most sacred documents to the American citizen: The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution and relates to inability to disarm nationalism. (p.357)The justifications of patriotism, nationalism and other various forms of group partiality and moral limitations have been argued for centuries.

The justification of attacking enemy civilians to achieve victory as well as political enhancement is examined using a rule utilitarian approach in Stephan Nathanson’s 2009 essay: Patriotism, War, and the Limitations of Permissible Partiality. The article questions “How can we reconcile partiality toward our own country with ‘equal importance’ to all persons?” (Nathanson 402) The article contests that a solution can be found in a proper balance that serves justice to all persons while recognizing partiality to individuals and certain groups.The constraints of partiality and the struggle for liberation have been argued by four crucial rules which boils down to the prohibition of an attack on enemy civilians. Nathanson’s literature explores the limitations placed on nationalist uprisings and declarations of war.