: a feeling that people have of being loyal to and proud of their country often with the belief that it is better and more important than other countries.
The World Cup
Uniting or Dividing Brazil? The Brazilians are well-aware of how much the World Cup will impede its development as a country. Quite the contrary to other countries, Brazilians do not resort to extreme nationalistic parties but instead, steer towards a green and anti - corruption political environment. Next summer, Brazil will host the highly anticipated FIFA World Cup 2014. Football fans from around the world will certainly not want to miss such a historical event in the world of football. Then the question is; what will Brazil actually benefit from the world cup? Throughout the history of Olympics and the World Cup, it is has been proven that making a profit out of the World Cup is difficult. In fact, the last profitable event was the Olympics in San Francisco in 1993. Likewise, it is almost hard to imagine how a country like Brazil, with much internal problems could pull off another successful stunt. It would require copious amount of effort, investment and a shift in the country’s nationality. The fear now is that the country will be at risk of self-destruction instead of benefiting from this event. On July 29th 2013, many unhappy Brazilians turned to demonstrations and protests because of the corruption, the poorly handed public services and the highly demanding
changes for the world cup. Of course, this is but just the tip of the iceberg. More than one million people filled the streets of São Paulo and were met by an angry police force armed with tear gas. Eventually, this cry for help was heard. The politicians assembled and vowed to inject more money into the public transportations system, the education system and to even illegalize corruption. But given the added economical stress the world cup will bring, it will be highly insufficient for the Brazilians to materialize the former. The rising cost of hosting the world cup is daunting and at least 5 out of 11 host cities have admitted that they may not be able to build enough public infrastructures to meet the demands of the World Cup. Typically, this desperation for change would cause most countries to seek help from extreme political parties, but not Brazil. According to an article in The Economist 29th of June, many people have now turned to non-mainstream politicians such as Joaquim Barbosa, a supreme-court justice and anticorruption campaigner and Marina Silva, a former Green presidential candidate. This shows how people are tired and hungry for change and wants to live in a corruption-free society with low inflation, functional social welfare and transportation. In short, they desire to have what every
developed country has - liberty and democracy.
the As we speak, Brazil is a coun-
try of change. The pressure of getting every detail combined with the yearning for change is making Brazil a very chaotic country to live in. In this turbulence we can find Vinicious Lobosco near the capital São Paulo. The country is, after years of struggle, finally at a turning point against a better country and the Brazilians are willing to fight for it. As Mr Lobosco puts it
“The stadiums just show we can af-
Nationlism over Time
head of a ford it. Now Brazilians want itâ€?.
According to Mr Lobosco a general rule for nationalism is it requires contact with different people. However in a country where the percentage of immigrants relatively extremely low, there is no need for being nationalistic. Due to Brazil is such a big country with minimal contact with the western world; the only way nationalism is expressed is during events such
Brazil has, as the rest of the South American Countries, a long history of being colonialized. However now when the country is becoming wealthier the question if the government will embrace the change or just make the upper class all the more wealthy? In Latin America the term nationalism does most often come disguised as post-colonialism or, as in North America, patriotism. In Brazilâ€™s case it is hard to say when Brazil, as an emancipated state, had a defined nationalism of their own instead of the one the colonizing Portuguese people brought. For Brazil the dream of independence came true during the 19th century. Shortly after this the Brazilian nationalism was born. Although, until today it is still debated whether the Brazilian nationalism originated from this treaty, or if it developed from when the white colonial oligarchy started to
question the colonial hierarchy. After the independence treaty between Portugal and Brazil was signed the nationalistic feelings started to grow. This nationalistic atmosphere developed into an anti foreign attitude towards Portugal, Great Britain, and foreign Latin-American countries. These new uniting feelings united Brazil during the final years of being colonized and during the first years as a newborn country. The government turned into anarchy since the aristocrats respected the power the king had, in addition they were afraid of a revolution of the slaves. The elite, who now ruled the country, were mainly white men but since they represented a clear minority (only one third of the population was white) the government encourage more white Europeans to immigrate to Brazil to increase the governmental support.
as the World Cup. Therefore there will be no change of nationalism since it has little to no room from the start.
people will be having higher demands on the society. The stadiums just show we can afford it. Now Brazilians want it.
In Brazil the conditions are improving rapidly. Some indicators is shown with the unemployment rates, which is at a record low level, and with the huge swaths of the country have left poverty and become part of the middle class. According to Vinicius Lobosco the time for change is now. Brazil is turning from a poor country into a middle-class country. Along this,
Vinicious Lobosco concludes that even though many, among other The Economist, think the World Cup is not a good investment he argues it will be a way for the population to become more mature and feel more connected to the rest of the world. Letâ€™s enjoy the party!
Maori Culture - Globally Indigenous people all over the world nurture approximately 80% of the world’s cultural and biological diversity. It is therefore very important to our societies both historically as well as for the national identity nowadays. But many indigenous groups risks extinction as indigenous groups decreases in both size and numbers. According to UNESCO, it is very important to maintain the world’s indigenous cultures, and their main solution is to provide cultural education for the younger people. However it is doubtful that it is enough, since the reasons for the shrinkage is social. The Indigenous population, Maori, in New Zealand is experiencing this decline since intolerance towards indigenous people is typical for colonial societies. The Maori have through time experienced a lot of racism from the European New Zealanders and the conflicts have been many. This has caused a considerable divided feeling within the country. However nowadays, the European New Zealanders, also known as Pakeha, have started to moderately accept the Maori as their culture contributes to economic advantages, but there are still struggles within the nation. In New Zealand, the indigenous culture Maori has become desired when it comes to tourism and trade from other parts of the world. On the other hand the question is who the appropriation of the Indigenous culture actually belongs to. As New Zealand as a nation benefits of the world’s exotic interest in their old culture, the ones who actually stands behind the culture does not
benefit from it at all. As the European New Zealanders take economical advantage of the culture they normally suppress, the Maori people are left without any social or economic advantage of it. And also, the European New Zealanders, also called Pakeha, does not show any interest in the Maori culture except from the shallow economical one, and has through time suppressed the indigenous culture to an extreme extent. The debate of who actually has the right of the benefits which comes from the culture is crucial for the well-being and cultural identity of the Maori people and therefore also the national identity of the country. Because if
and fellowship instead of having Maori nationalism versus Pakeha nationalism. To achieve this there will have to exist a solution which benefits both Maori and non-Maori New Zealanders both socioeconomically and for their pride. But the question is if this actually would be right since the culture after all belongs to the country. It is as Maori Aroha Mead says
the Maori would become socioeconomically self-sufficient, they could perhaps earn some respect from the Pakehas. This would result in a better national identity and the nationalism within the nation could unite the entire nation with pride
people sees as the national identity of New Zealand and the culture is not only used for economic reasons but also for commercial needs. For example, the Haka, which is a traditional Maori war cry which is performed in groups, is often
“It’s cool to be Maori overseas, but for us here, it is a daily struggle”. Although the Ma-
ori people are not accepted within their country, it is a big part of what
culture within a nation
seen in commercial usage. The New Zealand rugby team, for instance, uses this as their war cry before a game. If the situation would be that most of new Zealanders actually would be appreciative of the culture, the Maori probably would not mind it, and see the gesture as most flattering, but as this is not the case; the usage of this is quite provoking. Since this war cry has been used by the All Black Rugby team since 1905 as a sign of “pride for their nation”, the Maori people have come to accept it. Although, when it comes to Haka dancing strippers in Auckland and Haka dancing gingerbreads in bakery commercials, they draw the line as totally inappropriate and disrespectful. The socioeconomics of different groups in New Zealand does not reflect rather well on the Maori population and the median wage and employment rate are much lower than the national average. The Maori are also doing really badly in health statistics, education levels and living standards. There are also more violent crimes committed by Maori than by any other ethnic group. But as both national and cultural identity is connected with a nation’s and a culture’s well-being, then perhaps these statistics could improve through more control over their own culture. The main goals of the Maori are the sustainability of the Maori world, the economic self-sufficiency, empowerment and enablement. If they would achieve this, their cultural identity would
become better, as well as their well-being and sense of dignity, and the consequences of this could also be enough for the Pakehas to accept
the Maori as a part of their nation which would result in a nationalistic fellowship This cultural identity has through the last centuries been beaten down by the Pakehas. They have taken lands of the Maori, and during the 20th century they have also denied them the rights of being in some public places, ordering drinks in the same bars as Pakehas, and wearing Moko facial tattoos. There are also records of Maori children being physically punished by teachers for speaking Maori in school. This is one of the main reasons for the low percentage of Maoris in New Zealand. Only 15% of the New Zealand population are Maori (see graph) whereof only 4 percentage units speaks Maori. This suppression mostly took place during the last 50 years through the rapid urbanisation of the indigenous people. Although the European New Zealanders moderately accepts the Maori culture as a contribution for the economy and the national identity of New Zealand, the pride and
nationalism exists in two different matters, whereof one is the nationalism among the Maori and one is the nationalism among the Pakehas. This causes a lot of “Us against Them” feeling since nationalism is such a strong emotion. This causes conflicts. To wrap it up this is due to the hereditary cultural differences which through time since the immigration during the 19th century. The different groups have criticised each other as the Europeans have expressed racism towards the Maori due to their thoughts of genetic sovereignty. Nowadays the Maori culture is somewhat appreciated but only for its commercial, tourist and economic value. The situation for the Maori people is still suppressed with a weak cultural identity which results badly in their well-being. A way to solve this would be to provide the Maori population with the appropriation of their own culture so that they could become more socioeconomic self-sufficient. Just to have an impact on this cultural question could mean so much for the pride of the Maori since they through time have possessed so little influence on their nation. This would provide a better well-being and cultural identity which also could provide them with the rest of the nation’s acceptance. This could get the nation together with a fellow pride of the fellow nation.
XENOPHOBIA IN THE EU IS IT BECOMING MORE SOPHISTICATED? OCSE’s reports display fairly well the xenophobic situation of the EU member states. France claims to have had 2902 cases of hate crimes a number fairly close Germanys 3048. Surprisingly however, that’s not where the numbers get alarming. Sweden, with a population just a ninth of Germany’s, reported 4224 xenophobia-related crimes. The UK’s record on the other hand, shoots through the roof, with the shocking number of 39300 racially motivated crimes. Claiming the most alarming figure would be Greece that reported to have no more than zero xenophobic crimes that year. How is this the most alarming figure?
“Doesn’t that just show that Greece is a utopia for ethnic minorities?
Nope. Absolutely not. It only shows that the minorities of Greece don’t dare reporting crimes against them or that Greece actively hides their true number for the OSCE. And which alternative would be the worst? The reality seems to be between a rock and a hard place. These crimes are performed solely by extremists and radicals, and therefore these reports
cannot be an ultimate measurement for xenophobia and racism. A fairly accurate indicator on the other hand could be general elections in member states, and this is where numbers begin to directly contradict the stats of xenophobia-related crimes. The UK, with its sky high record of xenophobia related crimes, only had 1.9% of votes for the nationalistic party in 2010. Macedonia, with the strongest nationalistic party in Europe achieving 28.9% of votes in the last election, is actually ”stating that they do not compile any statistics of this type.”. Frightening? Without doubt.
“But what makes xeno-
phobia and islamophobia so frightening today is its
It has spread through all layers of society, yet is only directly visible in the most extreme groups. The old prejudice that all racists wear boots and shave their heads is no longer accurate. They nowadays wear suits and infect society in all possible aspects. One could say that xenophobia has become as society develops into new forms, sophisticated. Alexander Bratthall
The traditional islamic clothing is currently subject to an extensive debate. Some parties argue that it opresses women whilst some argue that it is their very own choice to wear it. France recently legislated to ban it in public areas. Alexander Bratthall
A EUROPEAN IMBALANCE
Accepting asylum seekers was granted as an international obligation already in the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Protection on Refugees. The EU, as an area of open borders, accept roughly 200-500 thousand refugees a year. But due to different national legislations and requrements is asylum seeking
like a lottery - you must have luck when picking a country.
Last year, 75% of all refugees was accepted by no more than 6 countries. The amount of accepted refugees in the Southern States recently decreased by 27%, whilst the amount increased by 38% in the 5 Northern States. Out of those 5, Sweden stands for 70% of all accepted refugees.
The amount of immigrants fluctuates and is often dependent on local situations. Without going into further detail is - the refugee crises in Syria defined as the “gravest in the world” (UN report). This has of course lead to mass immigration. Adrian Edward, spokesman for the UNHCR, stated that “Over -
the past 40 days, [some] 3,300 Syrians, of whom more than 230 were unaccompanied children, have come ashore – mainly in Sicily. Some 670 of these arrivals were during the past week,”. The mentality surrounding the acceptance of
these refugees is wildly different from state to state. Germany, who have a reputation of being especially selective, have now agreed to accept 5,000 Syrian refugees. Impressive, yes. Moving towards something, yes. But in comparison? Sweden, with a ninth of Germany’s population have just opened up to give 8,000 Syrian refugees permanent residence permit. But this massive imbalance is in fact recognised and attempted to be dealt with. The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) was just instated, coordinating immigration in all member states and trying to balance the responsibility. But the actual consequences of such initiative might not solely be positive. Let’s assume that all member states accepted as many refugees as possible, in accordance to all domestic factors, before CEAS was founded. Since EU try not to overrun individual countries decisions, especially in a loaded subject like this, will they most probably not try and raise the amount of immigrants accepted by those who accept few. A “balamce” in this case would therefore mean that they simply lower the amount in those countries that accepts many. This creates a situation that directly contradicts the very objective of the initiative. The question is what is more important – accepting as many as possible or accepting an equal amount. Alexander Bratthall
Controverisal Scandinavian Parties A Cover-Up or Nationalistic Advances Recently Norway elected a new government for the next four years, including Hoyre and Fremskrittspartiet (Frp), which is the third biggest party in Norway. Frp have gotten less votes this election than in the last one but now they are in a coalition government with Hoyre. What they gotten most attention from is their politics on immigration, which is the most important concern according to the electors. According to an investigation made by the Norwegian statistic central bureau in 2001 64% of the electors agreed or partly agreed with “Immigration creates a serious threat towards our national individuality”, compared with 13% from Venstre or 30% from Arbeiderpartiet. How has this party, which has been marked xenophobic in Norway, come to be one of the biggest parties and have they perhaps become role models for other parties with same thoughts in the rest of Scandinavia? Their immigration policy spokesperson has said that he doesn’t want more than 100 asylum seekers accepted a year in Norway, however their official policy on immigrants is that they don’t want any more than 1000 asylum seekers accepted a year. This is because they believe that severe immigration is ruining their Norwegian culture and they want to make it clear that they are not xenophobic, even though
that is the stamp that they have gotten in Norway. After what Anders Breivik did at Utoya two years ago, there have been many speculations of what could have made him do it, and many Norwegian medias have been very straightforward with investigating his involvement in Frp. The party has constantly had to deny that they share the same beliefs that Breivik do and claim that he left the party because they were too liberal and there was no ground for his ideas there. They have also been criticised for using the term surreptitious* islamisation, but claim that the term has only been used once
or twice. Nevertheless, it is hard not see them as
a xenophobic party hiding under their cloak of “failed immi-
Another party in Scandinavia with the same ideologies have had major problems with gaining credibility, as there
have been several controversies around them over the years. The nationalistic party Sverigedemokraterna (SD) got into the Swedish parliament during the previous election and has kept growing since, as of the latest opinion poll they are the third biggest party in Sweden. Even though the party is growing fast, you rarely
hear anyone say out loud that they vote for SD. Why is this? Well, it has probably got something to do with all the controversies surrounding SD. One example is when three members of the parliament film themselves when they harass and threaten people on the streets of Stockholm. They also go to pick up iron pipes to defend themselves if someone would want to hurt them, all involved have had to leave their posts, at least for a
while as one of them has come back and another has moved to Hungary. This was not the first nor last time they embarrassed themselves in public. Even if you agree with the partyâ€™s opinions and motions you would have trouble with supporting the people who do this and that is probably one of the reasons that you rarely
see SD supporters talk loudly about it. Even though SD are growing they will struggle to get to where Frp are, because they are ahead. As a part of the Norwegian coalition government they can now start making the big change. As long as SD are the great minority that they are and that no other party would ever want to cooperate with them they cannot make any of those changes. SD have obviously got some support since they have grown to become one of Swedenâ€™s biggest parties and they want to become even bigger. Can they take after Frp? As SD seem not to be able to find a way to stay out of trou ble I do not believe that they will grow much more. They have been going strong up until now but they have seemed to stop off at just around 10% for the latest few polls. I also believe that it is important that they do not grow as SD have shown several times that
they are a xenophobic party. They say they are nationalists looking out for the Swedish people and the Swedish culture. I am also very proud to be a Swede, I am proud of our country and our traditions, but not in the same way as SD. I am proud that Sweden can help take in people who have been prisoners of a war in their countries, that we can keep our arms open to other cultures that can enrich our country. This is where our beliefs divide, they are proud of the Swedish culture that is our traditions, and our people. But I believe that we can and will keep our traditions, it is not a matter of trapping down immigration, it is up to us to keep our traditions going. As long as we have them they will always continue through our generations. There is nothing such as a surreptitious islamisation. We will not cease to exist and nor will our traditions. From what we have seen from both parties, slip ups in media, xenophobic terms and thoughts, they do not seem very different. But how have one of them become so much more successful? Well, for me it is as simple as Fremskrittspartiet have been able to quiet down their controversies and made their policies and thoughts on immigration the central point and SD have not. I hope for the sake of Scandinavian culture that we will continue to see a multicultural society grow. * Surreptious: Acting with or marked by stealth
Nationalism in Africa A Result of Colinialism? Nationalism in Africa is a quite recent phenomenon compared to its history in other parts of the world. The reason for this of course is the colonial history of the continent with all countries having been colonised to some extent. The colonialism of Africa has therefore been very important in the development of nationalism that is affecting the current political situation in many of the countries on different levels. In this article I will try to investigate the influence nationalism has in ex-colonies of the major colonisers in Africa, namely Britain, France and Italy and compare them to each other. The first colonisation of Africa started already in the Middle Ages conducted by the Spanish and Portuguese and later in the Age of Exploration other European powers such as England and France started to take coastal regions. It wasn’t however until the late 1800’s that the Europeans really started to colonise the continent in search for a global market to stimulate their economies and achieve trade surplus leading to an age of ”new imperialism”. The swift invasion and establishment of colonies called ”the scramble for Africa” left most of the continent under European control with the last remaining sovereign state without colonial influence, Ethiopia, falling to Italian colonisers in 1936. The quick remodelling of Africa, both geographically, industrially and politically, led to many different peoples being shoved into the same state - all drawn on map with a ruler, fully ignoring the earlier societies on the continent.
Britain were the main colonisers of Africa with about 30% of the population under their control. Ex-colonies of theirs range from South Africa, Sudan, Nigeria and Egypt. In this article I will narrow it down a bit and focus solely on one country - here South Africa. Nationalism in South Africa has its beginnings in the early 20th century with the formation of the National Party in 1915. They promoted Afrikaner culture, republicanism and apartheid, a society where the white and black population is segregated, and governed the country from 1948 to 1994. In 1997 the party was renamed as the New National Party to distance itself from its earlier apartheid policies and instead present themselves as a non-racist party. The party experienced no success in the following years however and merged with the Democratic Party to create the Democratic Alliance, now the second greatest party in South Africa following ANC. The alliance was short lived however and the NNP changed side but many of their original members decided to remain in the Democratic Alliance. There are two major types of nationalism present in South Africa Afrikaner Nationalism and African Nationalism. Afrikaner nationalism is the earliest form that was part of the National Party’s ideology in which the white Afrikaner population ruled the inferior black population through apartheid. Following the disbandment of apartheid in 1994 Afrikaner Nationalism has lost much of its support but is still present. For example there is the Herstigte Nasionale Party which
still promotes Afrikaner Nationalism. There is also the Afrikaner Resistance Movement that collapsed in 2001 but returned in 2008, wanting a secessionist Boer state for Afrikaner. Their leader Terre’Blanche was murdered in 2010 but the party are continuing their support for Afrikaner Nationalism still. On the opposite of this is African Nationalism which is seen as Black Nationalism by their opposition. After the ANC came to power in 1997 African Nationalism is the most common sort of nationalism in the country, though the party is stated to strive for a non-racist united South Africa where both black and white people can live equally. Next we have France who had about 15% of the population under their control with colonies such as Tunisia, Algeria and Mali, which I will focus on. In the years following Mali’s independence from France in 1960, a conflict with nationalism at its core has raged in the country and now recently escalated to new levels. The reason for this conflict is the Tuareg Nationalist movement which originates from the Tuareg population’s strive for their own na-
tionality from the Mali government. Tuareg Nationalists are fighting for control of the region Azawad in northern Mali which in the end led to their old colonial masters, France, taking military action and invading the country this year to quench the nationalists. This Tuareg Nationalism is also under support from many islamist groups who supports the nationalists in the conflict in order to create an islamist-nationalist state. On the opposite of Britain’s and France’s in colonial terms more gentle jurisdiction are Italy. They
were later to start colonising the continent fully only getting Eritrea, which I will focus on, in the scramble for Africa. Later as the Italian Empire started to increase their power, they also took control of Libya and lastly Ethiopia, amassing about 1% of the African population. Eritrea was conquered by Britain in WWII who gave it to Ethiopia in 1947. The country was kept under Ethiopian control until 1991 when they finally gained their independence. Since then nationalism have had a strong presence in Eritrea with the governing party (in
fact the only legal party), People’s front for Democracy and Justice, standing for Eritrean Nationalism and also Secular Nationalism in which religion holds no governmental power. The PFDJ are by many outside of Eritrea seen as corrupt with their single-party state and outrageous actions, for example the imprisonment of Swedish journalist Dawit Isaak. Most of this can be seen as a result of the strong foothold nationalism has in Eritrea which makes it possible for one party to rule undemocratically and also take hostile actions towards nations apart from their own. The governing of the different countries formerly part of the European empires differed and in this article it can be seen how this have led to several different nationalist developments in countries formerly owned by Britain, France and Italy. In South Africa, a former British colony, white nationalism had a great influence in the years following their independence all up until the nineties. After that there was a wave of African Nationalism to counter the former Afrikaner movement which is where we are today with relations between the divided population improving. On the other hand we have Italy’s former colony Eritrea which since its independence have had a strong urge of nationalism within the native population. Most of the italians left the region in the years following WWII, which is the opposite of what happened in South Africa, leaving the Eritreans to instead fight the Ethiopians for a sovereign nation. Today nationalism has the strongest presence in Eritrea compared to South Africa and Mali which can also be seen to some extent in other former Italian colonies such as Ethiopia and Li-
bya. They also established a secular nationalist government which greatly differs from France’s former colony Mali where the nationalists have allied themselves with the islamist to oppose the Malian government. This could be seen as a result of the Europeans shoving different peoples into the same countries in the 1800’s with the Tuaregs being very different from the southern population which is now the reason for their nationalist movement. While comparing these three countries you can see how nationalism have developed differently in the former colonies with all countries experiencing it in some ways differently and in some ways alike. This comparison can also be used to include many other colonies of Britain, France and Italy where similar developments can be seen. In most of Africa, nationalism grew out as a countermove towards the European Imperialism and Globalisation. It was an important development for many African countries just like it had for many European countries in the 18-20th century but history repeats itself and just like it did in the 1900’s, nationalism has now gone too far in many countries. Some countries have managed to hinder the nationalist movement, for example South Africa, while it continues to increase in other countries such as Eritrea. One can not forget the positive impact nationalism have had for many African countries to counter colonialism and the Western monopoly but it can neither go too far. That is however the situation in many African countries today which have to decrease the influence of nationalism in politics and instead work towards becoming democratic and justical nations. If they manage, Africa might have a bright future ahead of themselves and no longer having to linger in the shadow of Europe.
Growing Csparks of
Nationalistic tactics will lead
hina to success
The Communist Party of China, to the extent that it can be used 1856–1860). The CPC use this China’s ruling party, plan to use as propaganda for nationalistic feeling of humiliation to scare nationalistic tactics to make purposes. The Communist Party people with saying that a war like China the world’s number one of China (CPC), the ruling party this could happen again. To stop country. Through nationalisof China, has been in power for this from happening China need tic propaganda they will stay over 60 years. Through a study to unite as a country, and fight in power, unite the people and made by Political Research Quarto restore China as the strongest create a powerful China in the terly we can see that out of 3,763 country again. With creating a process. Chinese, the average rank of a threat to the country like this, the It’s impossible for us to go a persons support of the governChinese population feel a duty to day without using a product with ment on a 10-point scale, was 8. do as they’re told, to protect their the label”Made in China”. Why? With this statistics in mind, you country, therefore nobody quesChina is the world’s most popuwonder how the people can still tions the decisions of the CPC, lated country, the second most have so much support the same as they all think they just doing powerful country in the world, party. After having them rule what’s best for China. This threat and was named the also supports the CPC’S world's number one political agenda, which exporter in 2012, so for example include it’s not hard to una military expansion, derstand why the and keeps people from world is so dependent asking questions about on China. With a things like human powerful governmerights or a political nt, a large population reform. which get´s powerful A problem the working together, CPC have come across and a country that’s when trying to unite getting more powerful the country is how to Chinese protesters carrying banners saying "Declare War Against every day, it is natural include the China’s Japan" & "Japan Get Out of Diaoyu Islands" in Beijing, China. Pho- minorities. The to wonder how far tograph: Associated Press China will go, and Han ethnicity have how they have come for a very long time this far in the first place. China over China for 64 years, wouldn’t been the majority in China, with has always been nationalistic, and people have gotten tired of them currently 92% of the population it’s likely that this is a factor that by now? in the country, and because of has contributed to both China’s Throughout the years the CPC this the CPC wants to create the growth and the fact that the gohave used a number of diffeidentity of China by using the vernment has stayed in power for rent tactics to unite the nation, culture of the Han ethnicity, even a very long time. and to get the people’s support, though it would leave out the With a history with many embut the reoccurring one is the other 8% of the population. On pire’s and strong leaders, you can use of nationalism. The CPC the other hand, they also want say that China always have been is using a tactic where through China to have a great ethnic dia powerful country. During the a very patriotic campaign they versity, even though it still needs Qing Dynasty, (1644-1912) China create fear in the country. They to stay true to China’s roots. This had its golden years. In 1820, 37% like bringing up China’s golden creates a conflict, leaving the of the world population was a years, and how embarrassing it Chinese people quite confused part of the Qing Dynasty. This is was to loose the Opium war to about their country’s identity as a a time which China is proud of, the British Empire (1839–1842, whole.
Strong xenophobia between A recent conflict regarding the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, have created a strong tension between China and Japan. Boycotts of Japanese products, such as cars, and several protests on the streets have made people wonder if a feud is in their future. China’s relationship with their neighbor country Japan has never been good. Ever since the first Sino–Japanese War (1894-1895), where China lost, the tension between the two East Asian countries have grown bigger and bigger. During World War II they had their Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), with China (as a part of the Allies) coming out as winners, the gap between the two countries has grown even stronger. In August 2010, China overtook Japan as the world’s largest economy, something that did not sit well with the Japanese people. You can say that they’re not very supportive of China’s growth. Studies made by the Chinese
China Daily and the Japanese Genron NPO show that 93% of Japanese people have a bad impression of China, and 90% of Chinese people have a bad impression of Japan. With the recent of conflict regarding the Senkaku Islands/Diaoyu Islands, an island group in East China Sea, which the both countries want to claim for themselves, the nationalism and xenophobia between the two countries have become more violent and visible. For example, the use and sale of Japanese cars brands, like Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mitsubishi Motors Corporation and Mazda Motor Corporation, have gone down drastically. Sherry Wang, a researcher living in Xi’an, China, have been driving a Toyota Camry to work for two years now, but has recently started commuting instead. In an interview with Bloomberg News
“I’m afraid that my car or I she says:
hina and Japan
will become a target”. She’s referring to the
strong anti-Japanese protesters that recently have started to flock the streets of China. It’s also people with these believes who are responsible for the several attacks on Toyota-, Nissan- and Honda dealerships in the Chinese city Qingdao. China Daily states in a survey that more than a third of the 4000 Chinese people asked, said
"there will be military conflict in the future"
regarding the conflict between the two countries. As the world’s 2nd and 3rd largest economy, it’s dangerous that the two countries don’t trust each other, yet alone would be in a feud. So for our own sake, and people like Sherry Wang, let’s hope that this tension will cool down. Nationalistic sparks are easily lit, yet harder to be forgotten. A Chinese protester attacks a police car from the Japanese car brand Honda in Shenzhen. Photograph: Reuters
Patriotism = Nationalism ?
Andreas at age of seven.
The citizens of USA are renown to proudly love their country but also known for heavily disliking Nationalists. This can be an interesting paradox, especially since one third of Americans describes themselves as “extremely patriotic”, according to the statistics conducted by the non-profit organization Gallup. What are the differences between Nationalism and Patriotism? Could many Americans in reality be called Nationalists instead of Patriots? Andreas Johansson goes to the International Baccalaureate program in Sweden. His family moves a lot and tduring
his lifetime has he lived on several places all over the world. However, his childhood in the USA has defined his nationality; he’s American. Mr. Johansson grew up in Dallas, Texas, with a mother of Spanish origin and a Swedish father. When I ask him in an interview he says that he “considers himself a Patriot”, but he wouldn't like to be called a “Nationalist”. "Don't take me wrong, I think America is a great nation, but I also think that blind Nationalism in general is just a way for the people in power to manipulate complete strangers to fight and die for each other" he explains. The American view of Nationalism and Patriotism are in general very distinct. When we look in the dictionary can we find the literal definition of Nationalism and Patriotism; the definitions in Oxford Dictionary have more similarities than differences. Patriotism is defined by:
"The quality of being patriotic; vigorous support for one’s country", while as Nationalism can be divided into
three kinds: "patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts", "an extreme form of patriotism marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries" and "advocacy of political independence for a particular country". There is no doubt, the difference by definition is small, but still Patriotism is a rather common definition for Americans and Nationalism isn't, why is that? A professor of Government at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut, Peter Rutland, states that the word "Nationalism" often has negative connotations in the USA, "so we talk instead about Patriotism", he says. Even though the meaning of the words is similar, the subjective meaning for Americans is not. Therefore, we cannot connect Nationalism with, what Americans consider, Patriotism when these labels are put on people. What we, however, can is to see the similarities and differences in the practice in Nationalism and Patriotism. Professor Lloyd Kramer is, in contrast to the dictionary, straight when differing between Nationalism and Patriotism. He chooses not to specifically look at the literal definition but instead the '-isms' theories and practices. He states that Nationalism
"often encourages fears of all kinds of other people" and that the fears are often concentrated towards other religions, races, cultures or ethnic groups. If we would conclude his theory to be true, then we could exclude many Americans from being Nationalists, but not everyone. USA is a multi-cultural country, where 99% of the American population has ancestors who were immigrants. The federal state is build upon the rights of individualism, such as the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, freedom of religion. But behind the glorification of the land of freedom and liberty, there is a dark past with organizations such as the KKK and laws that allowed slavery trade and apartheid. And even though every man stands equal in front of the law today, do segregation and racism exists in our present time America. USA have after all, a past where white Anglo-American Protestants were the self-claimed ideal Americans. The social construction is based on "having the right ethnicity" have led to, as Professor Anthony Smith argues, that "some ethnic groups are clearly more equal than others". An Afro-American may, for example, sometimes define herself as being a part of an "ethnic" group in the American society and not being a part of what Professor Anthony Smith define as 'vernacular ancestralism', which
is a culture where only those of "the right ethnicity can truly be defined as citizens". However, according to the statistics made by Gallup, does 93% of the American population still define themselves between "somewhat patriotic" to "extremely patriotic", all religious groups, ethnicities and cultures included. David McCrone, professor of Sociology, at Edinburgh University, states that USA "seems to contradict the view that Nationalism requires at least some 'primordial' roots". With other words, a first generation American citizen can, regardless of ethnicity and religion, feel like a true American and like a Patriot. Even though we in general can see differences between Nationalism and Patriotism in their practices today, does the extreme form of Patriotism also have its negative effects on societies and people. Though Nationalism and ‘Extreme Patriotism’ can contribute to human progress, education and economic vitality, can it also have big negative effects such as contribute to violence, creating fear, and start international conflicts, which we can see in the American history and in some small regions of America today. Patriotism, have similar positive effect though it brings a nation together and creates collective identities. When a large community comes together with good intentions
and interests such as ideas of human rights and a sense of hope, Patriotism is something good and beneficial for the society and its future. But even the ‘non-Extreme Patriotism’ has its negative effects. In the state when a person stops being critical towards its Government and shows ignorance towards the domestic issues of the country, such as racism, there is a threat towards the society as a whole. Patriotism, described as a milder form of Nationalism, but with less intentions of superiority of other cultures and nations, is however always at risk for developing Nationalistic characteristics. Patriotism and Nationalism are by definition similar, but in practice different. Many Americans, such as Andreas, believes that an American Patriot shows affection and pride for her country, while as, compare to Nationalists, she still stays critical to decisions made by congress and the president. Racism and fear of other cultures can be born from a pride of ones country, which can be developed from ‘Extreme Patriotism’ and are frequently occurring within ‘Nationalism’. USA has a dark past, which still exists today in the form of social heritage. The modern American Patriotism cannot be connected to Nationalism, only through Nationalists who incorrectly still defines themselves as Patriots.
Settling on the other’s side The Israeli settlers keep evading the UN’s repetitive orders of withdrawing from the newly built societies on the Palestinian side of the border. From the beginning, the new start for the Jewish people, a 90 degree turn in the history books, this chapter started when the United Nations decided that after the 2nd world war, the Jewish people, as a whole, were to, for the first time in history, have an own country, a place and a state
language was created from the recreation of the old Hebrew from the Torah; one of the oldest techniques for uniting a people with positive nationalism was used. Settling in a country, populated by a large group of people disagreeing with your religion, proved to be a big problem for the Israeli settlers, and the process in the city regions of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem became an evacuation of the former inhabitants, Jewish
Picture contrasting the Israeli settlement (in the background) to a Palestinian village (in the foreground) were the Jewish people were to rule on their own terms, without the authority of any other. The state of Israel was founded on 29 of November 1947, the role as head of state was assigned to the leader of the world Zionist organisation David Ben-Gurion, history was created every single second of the primary stages in Israel, a decision to unite the people around one single language was one of the most fundamental linguistic decisions in all of history. Hebrew as a modern
countering Arabic, people became a problem in the urban areas, and the different groups became divided in to banks, the west and the northern bank. One of the oldest cities on earth Jericho became the capitol for the Arabic population in Palestine, the city of Gaza on the Gaza strip was ones again a subject of history’s repetition, and the city was surrounded by a foreign power. Zionist extremists were convinced to take back the grounds of the Hebrew Kingdom referred to
in the Old Testament (1000.b.c). These grounds were stretching from the old city in Jerusalem and towards the west and in to the nomad regions of the Arabic population, heavily guarded settlements were built on the west side of the Israeli border in Arabic controlled regions. The Israeli settlers were defending their rights with arguments stated in the Torah. The U.N is now continually ordering the Israeli government to put a stop to the expansion of the border, The Oslo Accords were a somewhat successful peace treaty in the early 1990’s. These accords state in article 31 that “neither side would take any step that would change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations” The UN does not only specify the acts of building the settlements as illegal, in the case of breaking the Oslo Accords. But does also look at documents designed to protect the international civil community, therefor referring to the: Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, commonly referred to as the Fourth Geneva Convention, is one of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions. It was adopted in August 1949; these documents define humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone, and outlaw the practice of total war. Total war in this case, focuses
at the problem in Gaza were the Israeli government practice one sort of total war, were they do not occupy or attack but instead interrupt transports of food as well as pharmaceuticals. The status between Israel and Gaza has not always been cold war, in December of 2008; the Israeli government launched an airstrike on the city of Gaza, the argument behind this being the bad diplomatic status between Israel and Hamas (the Government organ in Gaza), the Israeli government and defense minister officially stated that the attacks were planned far in advance and that the source for the attacks was to prevent more rocket attacks from the city of Gaza. A total of 1400 Palestinians were killed along with 13 Israelis, over duration of 22 days. When concluding the perspectives of the conflicts on the west bank as of today, you see a quite apparent pattern of how a nationalistic viewpoint has been translated in to something extremely large, a religion and a war, a modern day crusade fought tacitly and slowly. The parties in the Israeli government that support the settlers in Palestine are small but very powerful. Some argue that these extremist parties have the government occupied; these arguments are best explained as extortion where the small parties in the house of Parliament chose to use their democratic power in the balance of power. This phenomenon is comparable to what
just happened in the American house of Parliament where the small group called the Tea Party Movement shuck the world when they used the balance of power in their own interest, therefor trying to extort the big government in to deciding in the small partyâ€™s favor. Much like what the extreme nationalist parties do in the Israeli parliament therefor justifying the illegal settlers cause. History tells us that the continuous questioning of the UNâ€™s orders, are going to end in a big event, the question is when how and where. Is this going to be one of the oldest conflicts that will be solved, in the young generationâ€™s life span? The only thing that the PhD history professors know for sure is to leave a big blank page in the end of the history books.
Bjรถrn Elfvelin Freelance Philosopher
Klara Westby International Expert
Marika Elvin Creative Director
Hannah Palmaeus Cultural Consultant
Hanna Olsson Asian Correspondent
Alexander Bratthall Great Thinker
John ร slund Sociological Adventuerer
Anton Eckerbom Indenpendent Debater