Nationalism

Nationalism is an ideology that has formed the basis of several countries’ policies at various points in their development. The principle of nationalism is rooted in the pursuit of self-determination and sovereignty. In this sense, it frames all human activity as civil in nature. This idea is further depicted in the source as it suggests that nations should ultimately be free to act in their own self-interest and seek self-determination. This perspective is often driven by feelings of entitlement; that a nation should be respected and deserves to pursue its goals. The speaker of the source also states that it is completely unacceptable to extend one’s own policies into the affairs of other nations, regardless of the power and advantage you have over them. He believes that any nation, no matter how big or small, should be able to pursue their national interests without being confronted by other countries. From this, we can interpret that the speaker in favour of liberalism, where countries can pursue their goals while having a strong government influence, but without being infringed upon or violated by other nations. Under some instances, it can be argued that this perspective is right in the sense that it enables self-sufficiency. However, it can also be argued that this viewpoint must not be embraced. Part of the quote suggests that nations seeking to achieve their goals, are not to be limited or restricted by any form of higher authority. Unfortunately, this nationalist approach can lead to several impediments such as war, genocide and the violation of human rights. As a result, individuals must maintain the idea that nations should be able to interfere and interact under certain circumstances, in order to protect themselves from a foreign threat. For these reasons, people must not embrace the perspective reflected in this source, as it can lead to hostility, violence and disagreement among nations.

During the 20th century, the foreign policies of several nations were largely based on the pursuit of national interest. Sometimes countries will adopt policies to restrict their opponents from pursuing their goals, as a way of ensuring their security. From this type of thinking, we can understand how nationalism is a major contributor for war. We can find evidence of this amongst certain historical events, like World War I for example, where the allied forces attempted to defend their liberal principles against the fascist policies of Germany. This is a good example of why the speaker’s perspective must not be embraced, since most wars occur due to feelings of nationalism, that are taken to such an extent that it evokes feelings of supremacy over other nations. This is true in the case of Germany, as it took several drastic measures to achieve its ultranationalist fervours, one of them being its involvement in war. More evidence of this can be found in Europe, particularly in Yugoslavia, where tensions between different nationalities have led to several outbreaks of violence. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the former state of Yugoslavia had experienced several wars, when different groups tried to assert independence. One particular ethnic group, known as the Serbs, believed that they were historically entitled to much of the land in the area, and wanted to form a uniform, and self-governed Serbian state. However, this quest for self-determination was not without the result of several fatalities and the cost of many lives. In his statement, the speaker implies that when a nation is free to pursue whatever interests it may hold, it can achieve great advancement and stability. However if it not compelled towards certain limitations and boundaries, it can fail to consider the cost of its pursuits.

According to the source, a country should not extend its policies, under any circumstances over other nations or peoples. This implies that the enabling of sovereignty and self-determination, can essentially be to the benefit of the people. However, this statement can be considered to be contradictory in itself, because in the case of genocide, the pursuit of certain interests often come at the expense of the well-being and safety of the citizens. For example, when German dictator Adolf Hitler, implemented the systematic oppression of the Jewish people, he was ultimately suspending his fascist policies over the segregated group. This shows how in the pursuit of a national interest, countries can sometimes inevitably extending its policies in a destructive manner. After gaining almost full control of control of the country, Hitler began to stir ultranationalist feelings among the German people by using the Jews as a scapegoat for the country’s problems. He managed to convince almost the entire non-Jewish population that greatness for Germany could only be achieved if the country got rid of Jews. His initial policy involved the rounding up of the Jewish people and sending them into harsh-conditioned internment camps. However, he later proceeded to implement the mass eradication of the entire Jewish population. The reason why Hitler attained a lot of support, was because the country was at a severe point of vulnerability before his reign. The drastic effects of the Great Depression and the previous war, affected it both socially and economically. As a result, the path towards Germany’s reclaiming of stability led to several causalities, the main one being the genocide of the Jewish people. The Holocaust is a good example of how intense nationalism can be a detrimental force to mankind. Generally, the supporters of the view point presented in the source would argue that it establishes common grounds and enables nations to seek similar goals. However, when the measures taken to achieve these goals surpass humanity, it becomes more destructive than beneficial and essentially leads to the demise of a nation.