Summary: This analysis of Western sub-state nationalisms under conditions of globalization takes as its starting point Montserrat Guibernaus view of contemporary politics as defined by a dialectic in which the Western state is being squeezed from above by supra-state organizations that demand the cession of some of the states sovereignty, and from below by sub-state nationalisms that challenge the states legitimacy. It is within the framework of this dialectic that she proposes to consider the current situation and the etiologies of Western "nations without states [ i.e., those] cultural communities sharing a common past, attached to a clearly demarcated territory, and wishing to decide upon their political future which lack a state of their own" (1).
The book, Guibernau says, has "four main aims. First, to offer a definition and a typology of the different political scenarios in which nations without states find themselves in the West. Second, to advance a systematic analysis of the processes leading to the generation of nationalist movements in nations without states paying particular attention to the role of intellectuals and the impact of the media in the construction and reproduction of nationalist messages. Third, to establish a clear-cut distinction between cultural resistance and armed struggle as major strategies employed by different nationalist groups in the advancement of their goals. Fourth, to assess the factors which might contribute to generating a completely new political environment in which nations without states are likely to become global political actors" (10).
Consider first the classical nationalist answer to (2a). Politicalsovereignty requires a state “rightfully owned” by theethno-nation (Oldenquist 1997, who credits the expression to thewriter Czeslaw Milosz). Developments of this line of thought oftenstate or imply specific answers to (2b), and (2c), i.e., that in anational independence struggle the use of force against thethreatening central power is almost always a legitimate means forbringing about sovereignty. However, classical nationalism is not onlyconcerned with the creation of a state but also with its maintenanceand strengthening. Nationalism is sometimes used to promote claimsfor the expansion of a state (even at the cost of wars) and forisolationist policies. Expansion is often justified by appeal to theunfinished business of bringing literally all members of thenation under one state and sometimes by territorial and resourceinterests. As for maintenance of sovereignty by peaceful and merelyideological means, political nationalism is closely tied to culturalnationalism. The latter insists upon the preservation and transmissionof a given culture, or more accurately, of recognizably ethno-nationaltraits of the culture in its pure form, dedicating artistic creation,education and research to this goal. Of course, the ethno-nationaltraits to be preserved can be actual or invented, partly or fullyso. Again, in the classical variant the relevant norm claims that onehas both a right and an obligation (“a sacred duty”) topromote such a tradition. Its force trumps other interests and evenother rights (a trump which is often needed in order to carry out thenational independence struggle). In consequence, classical nationalismhas something to say about the ranking of attitudes as well: inresponse to (1e), caring for one's nation is given the status of afundamental duty for each of its members, and in answer to (1f), thescope is taken as unlimited. In summary, for future reference:
A prominent member of the NYM was Nnamdi Azikiwe. When he joined in 1937, he was elected into its Central Executive Council. In the same year he established the West African Pilot, which became an instant success with a wide circulation and an unapologetically anti-colonial stance. The paper’s editorials focused on the themes of colonial injustice, exploitation, and racism. With Lagos as his base, Azikiwe was the first prominent nationalist from eastern Nigeria and he was able to mobilize the Igbo elite in Lagos in support of the NYM. Azikiwe energized the nationalist movement in West Africa from 1934 to 1949, becoming the best known anti-colonial crusader and journalist. Articulate and indefatigable, “Zik”, as he was called by thousands of his admirers, employed oratory and complex diction to great effect. He himself experienced the dramatic changes of the colonial period. As a young boy, he grew up in an urban, heterogeneous setting. He disliked the treatment of his father in the Nigerian Regiment, and of himself as a clerk from 1923 to 1925. He struggled to reach the United States where he attended a predominantly black college as a poor student and observed racial discrimination and protests by African-American organizations. Even with two degrees, he could not secure a civil service job in his own country and had to go to the Gold Coast (now Ghana) to establish the Accra Morning Post and publish his first book, Renascent Africa. In 1937 his newspaper published an essay by a labor leader, I.T.A. Wallace-Johnson, entitled “Has the African a God?” that criticized the colonial government in a way that it found libelous. Azikiwe was convicted, but later acquitted on appeal. He returned to Nigeria, where he became both a journalist and a nationalist.
We pointed out at the very beginning of the entry thatnationalism focuses upon (1) the attitude that the members of a nationhave when they care about their national identity, and (2) the actionsthat the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain)some form of political sovereignty. The politically central point is(2): the actions enjoined by the nationalist. To these we now turn,beginning with sovereignty and territory, the usual foci of a nationalstruggle for independence. They raise an important issue:
Summary: Nationalism has become the most prevalent source of political conflict and violence in the world. Scholarship has provided scant guidance about the prospects of containing the dark side of nationalism -- its widely publicized excesses of violence, such as ethnic cleansing and genocide. Departing from the usual practice of considering only a few examples of nationalism drawn from a limited geographical and historical canvas, this book is based on fundamental theoretical ideas about the formation and solidarity of groups. offers a unified explanation of the dynamics of nationalism across the broad sweep of time and space. Among other things, it explains why nationalism is largely confined to modern history, why it is supported by specific forms of inequality between cultural groups, and why it is inclusive at some times and exclusive at others.
In its general form the issue of nationalism concerns the mappingbetween the ethno-cultural domain (featuring ethno-cultural groups or“nations”) and the domain of political organization. Inbreaking down the issue, we have mentioned theimportance of the attitude that the members of a nation have when theycare about their national identity. This point raises two sorts ofquestions. First, the descriptive ones:
The most successful of the early parties was the Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP) established in June 1923 by Herbert Macaulay in response to a constitutional reform in 1922. A new Legislative Council was empowered to legislate for the Colony of Lagos and Southern Nigeria. The Council had forty-six members, nineteen of them unofficial and twenty-seven official. Of the nineteen, four had to be elected in the municipalities of Lagos and Calabar, the only two towns where the educated elite was allowed to use the franchise. The NNDP was founded to contest these elections. The NNDP published the first elaborate manifesto, with an important preamble:
Indeed, older authors — from great thinkers like Herder andOtto Bauer to the propagandists who followed their footsteps —took great pains to ground normative claims upon firmontological realism about nations: nations are real, bonafide entities. However, the contemporary moral debate has triedto diminish the importance of the imagined/real divide. Prominentcontemporary philosophers have claimed that normative-evaluativenationalist claims are compatible with the “imagined”nature of a nation. (See, for instance, MacCormick 1982; Miller 1992,2000; Tamir 1993, Gans 2003, Moore 2009, 2010, Dagger 2009 and, for aninteresting discussion, Frost 2006.) They point out that commonimaginings can tie people together, and that actual interactionresulting from togetherness can engender important moralobligations.
Despite these definitional worries, there is a fair amount ofagreement about the historically paradigmatic form of nationalism. Ittypically features the supremacy of the nation's claims over otherclaims to individual allegiance and full sovereignty as the persistentaim of its political program. Territorial sovereignty hastraditionally been seen as a defining element of state power andessential for nationhood. It was extolled in classic modern works byHobbes, Locke, and Rousseau and is returning to center stage in thedebate, though philosophers are now more skeptical (see below). Issuessurrounding the control of the movement of money and people (inparticular immigration) and the resource rights implied in territorialsovereignty make the topic politically center in the age ofglobalization and philosophically interesting for nationalists andanti-nationalists alike.
Summary: Prior to World War I, most of the Irish population favored constitutional reform (devolution) rather than complete independence from Great Britain. The Great War transformed public opinion and led the public to support the formation of a free Irish republic rather than a parliament devolved from the British parliament at Westminster. Thomas Hennessey examines this important change and the resulting realignment of the relationship between unionists and nationalists. While other scholars have seen the Northern conflict in terms of religious or class division, Hennessey argues that the polarisation of Irish and British identities during the war are actually at the root of the problem. Rather than a Catholic/Protestant conflict, the war in Northern Ireland is the result of contested national identity. The fundamental difference between Loyalists and Nationalists is that Loyalists have a "Britannic identity" while Irish nationalists do not.