Next lecture Lectures 13 and 14 concern two related topics -- Serbian and Greek nationalism -- and approach them in a way that is contrary to the usual division of early twentieth century European history into pre- and post-World War I periods. World War I stands as a watershed event that fundamentally changed these nations' historic progress. Such a view of World War I is less attractive and useful for thinking about Balkan affairs.
The literature on nationalism is complex, conflicting, inchoate, contradictory, and at times paradoxical, sentimental, and perplexing. It is not surprising that because of its multifaceted nature and manifestations, nationalism has become notorious for its A trace of the development of nationalism in the southern states.
Although nationalism has universal properties, it also exhibits unique characteristics that are determined by historical forces—political, sociocultural, and economic. Nationalism is such a powerful force in human affairs that even those who regard it as an unmitigated disaster created by human genius have themselves sometimes resorted to nationalistic sentiments, perhaps in moments of frustration and weakness, to make their points.
The truth is, like it or not, nationalism will never fade away. The fad of internationalism, regarded by some as a more progressive and rewarding movement, is increasingly becoming a forlorn hope.
This entry is a modest effort to present the meaning and dimensions of nationalism in modern Africa. This restriction in no way supports the views of those who argue that modern African nationalism is a phenomenon that started after and that Africans learned it from the colonizers.
The antecedents of the movement are as old as African history itself. However, its modern manifestations, no doubt complicated by the impact of Europe, are more relevant to contemporary Africa.
MEANING Generally, European colonial administrators and early Western scholars did not fully understand, and could not appreciate the existence of, African nationalism as a major political and socioeconomic force.
When by the s the regaining of African independence had become a fait accompli, two British imperial historians, John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson, embellished the same sentiment rather flamboyantly but equally incorrectly. Several later Western scholars continued to argue that African nationalistic resistance was directed against the cruel forms and seamier aspects of the European presence and not against colonialism as such, and that individuals and groups resisted colonialism for selfish motives and not because of any nationalistic impulses.
Recent historiography, however, shows that African resistance movements were a natural reaction against the imposition of alien rule; that they were propelled by a desire to protect African sovereignties; and that when they failed to do so, the advocates of resistance resolved to regain their independence by conciliation, force, or both.
Modern African nationalism, then, began as an attempt by African nationalities to not submit to European rule during the scramble for Africa.
When that failed, the nationalities, now grouped under new multination states created by colonialism, reorganized under the leadership of the new, more radical Western-educated elite the nationalists to terminate colonial rule.
And when that succeeded, the nationalists began to wrestle with the difficulties of solidifying the multi-nation states that they inherited. In the final analysis, modern African nationalism was initially a response to European political, socioeconomic, and biological imperialism.
It was, in the words of K. It is hoped that this synthesis will make Africa more relevant in a competitive and even callous modern world.
Indeed, as Godfrey Uzoigwe wrote: In other words, African nationalists won the support of grassroots people and that of other elitist and resisting groups who, hitherto, had been passive toward colonialism. Once that happened, European colonizers had no group with whom to do business except African nationalists, whom, generally, they resented.
Even in those parts of Africa where the colonizers had depended on the support of prefabricated European collaborating groups—Algeria, Kenya, Angola, Mozambique, Southern Africa—it was becoming clear by the s that the game was up and that it was time to create an exit strategy.
These nationalities, which earlier scholarship erroneously called tribes but which recent scholarship describe as ethnic groups, are estimated to number about three thousand. They ranged from the ancient empires, kingdoms, and societies of the Nile Valley and the Horn of Africa, which have been in existence for thousands of years, to those of Africa south of the Sahara, which trace their origins back hundreds of years.
Micronationalism demanded the complete loyalty and devotion of all citizens—not always successfully due to the existence of contentious issues that influenced the nature of their relationships—because of supposed common origins expressed in consanguinity, culture, language, religion, history, historic charters, geographical contiguity, or a combination of all or some of the above.
Once consolidated, a nationality, usually made up of independent communities, became apprehensive and suspicious of stranger elements. This attitude accounted, perhaps, for the absence of the notion of naturalized citizenship in Africa.
Some scholars regard the later multination states created by colonialism as the best paradigm for studying modern Africa, since the so-called original nationalities as presently constituted are fictitious.
They are regarded as fictitious because, being creations of European colonialism, they do not deserve to be regarded as original African nations. After all, these nationalities were in existence long before the coming of Europe, and were functioning on the bases of historic charters, social structures, political cultures, and pan-associations that bound them together.
These nationalities were thus distinguished from their neighbors, and cannot be said to be fictitious colonial creations. It is important to note that African countries today are faced with the problem of nationalities of varying intensity, some of maximum severity as in Nigeriasome of medium severity as in Ugandaand some benign as in Ghana.
It was these original nationalities that challenged the European conquest during the phase of primary resistance, the aim being the prevention of colonization.
|History of Denmark - Wikipedia||There is considerable debate among scholars about whether or not the slaveholding South was a capitalist society and economy.|
|Identification of state and people||Forty-nine of us, forty-eight men and one woman, lay on the green waiting for the spike to open.|
This first stage of European confrontation with the African nationalities and communities was largely complete by the first decade of the twentieth century. The confrontations, lost by the African nationalities, have been well studied.
Being attempts by resisters to protect their lands and sovereignties, it is incorrect not to regard them as expressions of nationalism. The resistances took various forms and were not always physical. There were, for example, groups like the Baganda in present-day Uganda who used cooperation with the invaders to cut deals for themselves in the colonial dispensation.
There were also those like the Banyoro, also in Uganda, with whom no deals were possible. However, both cooperators and resisters were incorporated by the colonizers into larger territorial states, often with new names invented to encompass the new aggregations that became the current multination states.
The failure of the primary resistance movements, far from signaling acceptance of foreign domination, was followed in many of the new states by secondary resistance movements. These movements used guerrilla-style hit-and-run tactics, or, as in the case of the Banyoro, passive resistance to continue to oppose foreign domination.Halting a discussion of Greek or Serbian nationalism in or leaves the story unfinished.
It makes more sense to trace Serbian nationalist thought from the s all the way up to , perhaps even to the history of Serbia during World War II and during the alphabetnyc.com · The paucity and transience of Confederate literature, he contends, is its great virtue as an object of study, for it "allows us to trace the development of a alphabetnyc.com Southern states, fearing the north would eventually try to abolish their "peculiar institution," knew they needed to maintain control of the Senate.
In order to do so, as the nation expanded west, the South needed to ensure that states entered the union as slave alphabetnyc.com A RMITAGE: It's vital to have been reminded that what we mean by nationalism is the desire of nations (however defined) to possess states to create the peculiar hybrid we call the nation-state, and likewise, to recall that there's also a beast we might call the state-nation, which arises when the state is formed before the development of any alphabetnyc.com In Modern Black Nationalism, William L.
Van Deburg has collected the most influential speeches, pamphlets, and articles that trace the development of black nationalism in the twentieth century.
This documentary anthology seeks to chart a course between hazardous pedagogical alternatives - neither ignoring nor overstating the case for any one of alphabetnyc.com The development of mechanized textile mills in England, coupled with Eli Whitney's cotton gin, made cotton cloth affordable, not just in Europe and the United States, but throughout the world.
Before , the world dependedalphabetnyc.com