Nationalism: Ultranationalism And Genocide

Rwanda gained its independence from Belgium on 1st July 1962. Prior to its this colonisation, there were two ethnicities living in Rwanda, ‘the Hutus’ and ‘the Tutsis’. The Hutus were mainly farmers made up most of the population, the Tutsis made up between 15-18% and were mainly involved with cattle rearing. During the period of European colonisation, Belgium took over Rwanda and, on doing so, succeeded in creating a massive divide among these people. The Belgians introduced a European class system of hierarchy to Rwanda – the Tutsis who were already “prominently in the royalty” (however still peasants) were favored by the Belgians (History of the Genocide in Rwanda). Before this simplification of the power structure by Belgium, there had

When we think of nationalism we often associate a sense of identity with stare and nation, for some the idea of there identity being connected to their nation is a positive notion, but for others this association to nation raises worry of alienation and violence.1 Nationalism can be seen as a network where individuals of a nation can have shared values, expectations and sense of self. These negative associations of nationalism “occurs when, in the process of seeing ourselves as uniquely Australian others suffer.”2

Moving on to the idea of nationalism, Ernest Gellner (1997) understood nationalism as a product of industrial society. He defines nationalism as “primarily a political principle, which holds that the political and national unit should be congruent” (Guibernau and Rex 1997: 52). Nationalism, Gellner says is either a product of feeling of anger when the principle discussed above is not fulfilled or a product of feeling of satisfaction aroused by its fulfilment. Therefore, “nationalism is a theory of political legitimacy” (Guibernau and Rex 1997: 52). Gellner justifies the repercussions of the idea of “nationalism is a theory of political legitimacy” by discussing how the political effectiveness of national sentiment impairs the sensibility of the nationalists to realise the wrong committed by the nation. Gellner (1997) also describes the relationship between the nation and the state. The interchangeable use of nation and state deepens the contradictions that arise in the common person’s understanding of nationalism.

The denial of human rights in Ukraine and Cambodia has had huge impacts on regional and international communities. Ukraine was very independent, and Stalin wanted to remove the threat that the Ukrainians were becoming. In Cambodia, Pol Pot attempted to create a utopian Communist agrarian society.

Persecution can be defined in this statement, “They often use euphemisms to cloak their intentions, such as referring to their goals as “ethnic cleansing,” “purification,” or “counter-terrorism.” They build armies, buy weapons, and train their troops and militias. They indoctrinate the populace with fear of the victim group. Leaders often claim that “if we don’t kill them, they will kill us. (The Ten Stages of Genocide, Gregory H. Stanton)” It is represented in both other stages mentioned that the Turks mostly cloaked their intentions through religion and propaganda. Though, after the genocide, and still to this day the Turks refuse to call the murders' genocide. In the minds of the Turkish people, the Armenians remain an enemy force and their slaughter was a necessary war measure. Many countries have accepted the Armenian genocide as an official genocide but the U. S will still not admit it is genocide. Not admitting that this awful event persists as a genocide, gives the Turks a pass on what they did and caused. The discard of the genocide has greatly affected the Armenian people and has made this event even more devastating for them; knowing that their ancestor’s deaths will not be recognized or

During the early nineteenth century the idea of nationalism was born. Nationalism is a strong feeling of pride in your country. It is the idea of one country being better than all others. Before the idea of nationalism took shape, cultures living in Europe were spread throughout large multi-cultural empires. These cultures didn't feel any ties to other people of the same culture, they only felt loyalty to the king or queen. These kings and queens were in many cases foreign rulers. Nationalism became a popular idea during the French Revolution. Napoleon used nationalism to encourage the French army to conquer more lands, and he used it to build a love and loyalty to France in every citizen's heart. The new idea of nationalism quickly

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group that has brought many losses for human population through the whole history of the world. First cases of genocide had such reasons as territorial, competing and religious arguments. For instance, one of the first genocides is thought to be the Roman destruction of Carthage in 146 BCE that occurred due to religious reason and the competitiveness of these two superpowers.

Nationalism as stated in our textbook is the idea that members of a shared community called a “nation” should have sovereignty within the borders of their state. Racism is the belief that certain races of people are by birth inferior or superior to others promoting hatred and discrimination to others based on race. Some have misinterpreted the term nationalism and turned it into an excuse to attack other groups of people. We can see it clearly in the Holocaust and how the Japanese treated their “inferiors”.

Nationalism is the pride for one’s country, the love that one has for its country and it is the want for the good of all people in the nation. This love is not conditional, it does not depend on race religion or economic standing. When a leader is chosen, when a country is coming out of great national change, this requires a particularly strong leader who only wishes for their countries greatness and success in the future. However, this can quickly turn into ultranationalism, or expose ultranationalistic motives. The two concepts of one’s love for their country have similarities, one is formed from the other, or that each can be provokers of change in either direction in the political spectrum. Coming with the Similarities there are very definite differences between

History repeats itself, especially when it comes to the topic of genocide. The word “genocide” was created by a lawyer named Raphael Lemkin who combined the Greek word geno-, meaning race or tribe and the word -cide, Latin for killing. There have been a number of genocides that have occurred including, the murder of Jewish and Gypsy populations in 1944, the Rwanda genocide in 1944, and the genocide in Darfur in 2003. Genocide occurs because of propaganda, cultural expectations, and military strategies.

Globalization is a massive thing that affects every person on the planet in one way or another. This source raises the argument that globalization is a disease that harms people in more ways then it helps and needs to be stopped before it wipes out the human race. This raises a good point is some ways because globalization does harm humans in many way such as losing jobs due to outsourcing and the people who get the outsourced jobs are put into horrible working conditions and underpaid without benefits. But it also helps in some ways with trade and communication strengthening the relations of countries. I do agree with the source that globalization harms many people but not quite to the extent that the author goes to, I think that we should

Nationalism (Noun) - 1 . patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts. 2 . People who share a common history should create an independent nation. In Cecil Rhodes “Confession of Faith,” the imperialist author his views and preferences on nationalism. During this time period, Africa was in a state where it could be taken over by Britain, due to the lack of a strong government. Rhodes envisions this opportunity “to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory.” This act is the result of imperialism, but not nationalism. Rhodes’s biased thoughts about nationalism are expressed when “[he] thinks that we all think that poverty is better under our own flag than wear under a foreign one.” Under nationalism, land can be thought as “locked” to one territory, under a government formed by similar people. Rhodes supports imperialism due to the way control and power can be spread.

The Hutu-Tutsi dichotomy has long been (and still remains) a major source of instability in the Great Lakes Region. More specifically, in Rwanda memories of the 1994 genocide are still visible in contemporary politics. Building on this, this paper explores the role played by ethnicity during the Rwandan genocide. Addressing this question matters if we are to understand how the current Tutsi-led regime of Paul Kagame (in power since the end of the genocide) plays upon the notion of ‘ethnic reconciliation’ to justify his monopoly of power . Therefore, in answering the question, the paper will argue that ethnicity – here intended as a ‘subjective belief in common descent’ allegedly ‘having genetic foundations’ – deserves careful consideration

The concept of modernity is often framed in such a way as to inherit certain teleological characteristics. These teleological characteristics suggest that modernity is a progressive evolution of society and gives rise to the notion that modern civilization can be perfected. However, a problem arises when this idea of utopia is combined with the sociological phenomena of race and nationalism. These two concepts coincided with the advent of modernity and have yielded a concoction of violence and prejudice that has not only lead to the two most deadly conflicts in history but have also bred genocide. These ideologies contribute to genocide in a dual way that creates both division and hierarchy and thus effectively limits who can properly be considered

Nationalism has too often been dismissed as an irrational creed due to its association with disastrous results over the decades. But undeniably, it is a dominating force in contemporary international politics. It is important to understand nationalism if we want to understand global political developments. Many books have been written on this subject, but David Miller’s On Nationality stands out. This book takes on a distinctive approach to the study of nationalism, rendering it one of a kind in this field. It does not seek to provide a “new” theory on nationalism per se. Instead, its theory is based on the objection to pre-existing schools of thought. Paradoxically, this unique feature of the book is also one of its two major flaws, alongside