"Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict" Speaker: Prof. Lisa Anderson Date: October 15, 2007 Course number: U6800 Course title: Conceptual Foundations of International Politics School: School of International and Public Affairs
1. Two facets of nationalism. First- Individual are part of the community. Second- That individual aspires to serve the community. 2. Nationalism is supremacy of 'national claiming', over and above other claiming. 3. Nationalism, is often in sync with the state. 4. Ethnic Nationalism- supremacy of ethnic claiming, i.e, language, race, religion etc, over and above any other claiming. 5. Civic Nationalism- supremacy of common political values, legal norms, and respect of institutions, over anything else. Many modern nations are still in dilemma, and are struggling to understand what kind of nationalism they follow. The pressure is to adopt the civic form of nationalism, but it is difficult for them to shed the image of ethnic nationalism which they are so used to follow. For Example- Is Israeli nationalism only ethnic? Or it has elements of civic nationalism? This is a contemporary debate, in which many countries are country engulfed. 5. What stems nationalism? What are the ingredients which propels nationalism?- a) Nationalism has timelessness attached to it. Nationalist often claim that their nation 'was always there', and is thus pristine. b) A certain common history of heroic origins. c) Prejudice and hatred for other nations, i.e, 'I should be nationalist, coz the other country is nationalist, and has the potential to encroach on my territory'. 6. Analyst of Nationalism, are different from Advocates of Nationalism. 7. Books mentioned in the lecture- Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson. & Peasants into Frenchmen Book by Eugen Weber. 8. Its an interesting lecture. It expanded my horizon of thinking. Thanks for uploading it. Blessed to be living in the internet era.
This is the level of demonization nationalism has been hit by in your country, whichever one it is. No one would want to even consider such a stupid move. Prof. Anderson has a right to express her views and that human right comes before an assessment of the academic merit of her perspective.
Russia. Spontaneous ethnic mini-conflict. Brawl at Wrestling Competition. Ethnic russians (predominantly northern and central europeans, baltoid types) vs ethnic caucasians (predominantly southern europeans, сaucasoid types). 0: 55 The tendency of ethnic russians to self-organize after cry: "Listen Everyone, Stand up in a column!" (at the first minute of the start of the conflict) /watch?v=31iLlH0t8WA
Note the total absence of criticism of imperialism and how it treated subjugated communities. This video should be mandatory viewing for the members of the diplomatic services of every single national state -- it is an illustration of the United States sees them and itself. Diplomats for national states should be aware of the total lack of respect for their culture, history and ultimately identity that United States political culture exhibits. And no, this is not a criticism of Professor Anderson, it is a criticism of the ultra-liberal milieu that imposes such beliefs and views on people, including herself. "No man is an island."
Whether you are right or wrong is another issue. Instead of a personal attack, why do not you deconstruct what she is saying instead. What is missing in her discourse? Context? Nationalism did not rise in vacuum. There had to be something there that made it a demanded ideology. No matter how hard you can "sell" something, if it does not meet some need, real or imagined, you are not going to be selling anything.
