nationalism

Due to an awful illness, which has seemed to only get worse, I missed out on a lot of the discussion revolving around nationalism this week, but after reading some of the posts of my peers, I can see that nationalism was a main topic of the week. Some major points or questions, if you will, that I noticed were those concerning what defines a nation and whether or not nationalism is a positive movement. Both questions are difficult to address, with no clear-cut answers, as one can see by the varying opinions. David seems to think a nation is defined by exclusivity, while Thomas considers a nation to be defined by the people and what they agree is legitimate. As for the exclusivity point, I think that a nation includes all those who want to be a part of said nation. There are obviously issues concerning citizenship and physical location, especially today, but, when considering 19th century Europe, I think it is fair to say that if someone wanted to be German, they were part of Germany.

Now, concerning the issue of whether or not nationalism was positive, I would have to say, ultimately, no. The idea of nationalism, in its original state, was positive because it promoted change from below and liberal ideas such as "constitutions, reforms, [and] new political communities"(754). The idea of banding together with fellow citizens to fight for a common cause created a very romantic notion of a nation, one in which Mazzini perpetuated. However, once conservatives took control of nationalism and tried to bring about nations through government, the idea of nationalism lost its original appeal. People were cast aside and excluded based on ethnicity, which is a point Danielle brought up. War, death, animosities amongst different ethnic groups, and borders followed in the wake of this new nationalism, none of which I consider to be positive. I think that many of the world's problems would be solved if Mazzini's ideas of nationalism had succeeded and the obsession with borders had never existed.