Post by Souriquois on Jul 4, 2019 22:27:03 GMT -4
I found an interesting video and I guess does a good explanation of something that, while I was aware of some of this history, kind of had me scratching my head, and I think likewise, also has Europeans scratching their heads.
Yes, I was aware that in Europe, there is some suspicion of blatant nationalism because of traumas in the past over there, but the United States had the opposite experience around the same time. Nationalism brought about death and destruction in Europe, as well as authoritarian regimes, but, the end of WWII ushered in the Golden Age of the United States.
Although I think Trump may have ruined the word "nationalism" in the US, but, honestly, that surprised me too... I know Trump tries to be politically incorrect, but I never got the impression that nationalism was politically incorrect in the US. Ethnonationalism, maybe, but American nationalism based on the shared values of the country, you know, the whole "Shining City on a Hill" thing, that was always kind of an aspect of American nationalism. But then again, Trump is anti-immigration and I always got the vibe that American nationalism was pro-immigration, because American nationalist rhetoric was anybody from anywhere in the world could go there, follow their passions, work hard, improve their lot in life, be free, and live the "American dream".
Then from a Canadian perspective, nationalism is definitely not negative here. In fact, it's encouraged. Canada historically viewed itself as an extension of Great Britain (and many Canadians on the right side of the political spectrum still do). The World Wars started a course towards Canadian nationalism when it was discovered that Canadian soldiers could hold their own in battle, but really, Canadian nationalism didn't rise to mainstream prominence until the 1960s, and opposition to the Vietnam war and other aspects of American and British foreign policy among the Canadian public was the big catalyst, as well as the October Crisis. Pierre Trudeau was really the first explicitly nationalist prime minister, although reading more about him, he used nationalism as a tool because he had failed to get what he wanted done by being a cool-headed and rational policy wonk and decided to appeal to the emotions of voters instead so they would vote for him... he basically said "If you want blood and guts, I'll give you blood and guts!" and he dialled up the nationalism. He also employed it to unify different ethnic groups in the country that didn't get along (ethnic tension is what caused the October Crisis). We call him "The Father of Modern Canada" and we got full independence from Britain in 1982 under his watch (not 1867 like is commonly believed). And still to this day, multiculturalism is a big part of Canadian nationalism, we are all a big cultural mosaic (as opposed to a “melting pot” like the US), a community of communities, working together towards a common goal and shared values. And since our nationalistic ethos is quite young, the shared goal is still nation-building, rather than the “blood and soil” nationalism like elsewhere, as Canada is still a work in progress. You often hear politicians say this in speeches, that we are not perfect and still have to work to improve and perfect the nation. In fact, immigrants get a dose of nationalism when they get here, and often then end up being more nationalistic than people born here (at least if polls are to be believed). But with immigrants, they are viewed as more hands in this nation building process... we say we need their help too. So maybe this means refugees are not viewed merely as charity cases, helping refugees is viewed as a win-win, they get safety, we get their insights, skills and contributions to the nation building process, and helping refugees is often spun as the nationalistic thing to do. This multicultural nationalism is a result of the October Crisis, which was a trauma to this country, but nationalism was how we dealt with it.
Then you have nationalism in Latin America, Africa, and other places which had a liberation angle to it. I cannot really comment on this because I am not as informed (maybe someone else can).
Yes, I was aware that in Europe, there is some suspicion of blatant nationalism because of traumas in the past over there, but the United States had the opposite experience around the same time. Nationalism brought about death and destruction in Europe, as well as authoritarian regimes, but, the end of WWII ushered in the Golden Age of the United States.
Although I think Trump may have ruined the word "nationalism" in the US, but, honestly, that surprised me too... I know Trump tries to be politically incorrect, but I never got the impression that nationalism was politically incorrect in the US. Ethnonationalism, maybe, but American nationalism based on the shared values of the country, you know, the whole "Shining City on a Hill" thing, that was always kind of an aspect of American nationalism. But then again, Trump is anti-immigration and I always got the vibe that American nationalism was pro-immigration, because American nationalist rhetoric was anybody from anywhere in the world could go there, follow their passions, work hard, improve their lot in life, be free, and live the "American dream".
Then from a Canadian perspective, nationalism is definitely not negative here. In fact, it's encouraged. Canada historically viewed itself as an extension of Great Britain (and many Canadians on the right side of the political spectrum still do). The World Wars started a course towards Canadian nationalism when it was discovered that Canadian soldiers could hold their own in battle, but really, Canadian nationalism didn't rise to mainstream prominence until the 1960s, and opposition to the Vietnam war and other aspects of American and British foreign policy among the Canadian public was the big catalyst, as well as the October Crisis. Pierre Trudeau was really the first explicitly nationalist prime minister, although reading more about him, he used nationalism as a tool because he had failed to get what he wanted done by being a cool-headed and rational policy wonk and decided to appeal to the emotions of voters instead so they would vote for him... he basically said "If you want blood and guts, I'll give you blood and guts!" and he dialled up the nationalism. He also employed it to unify different ethnic groups in the country that didn't get along (ethnic tension is what caused the October Crisis). We call him "The Father of Modern Canada" and we got full independence from Britain in 1982 under his watch (not 1867 like is commonly believed). And still to this day, multiculturalism is a big part of Canadian nationalism, we are all a big cultural mosaic (as opposed to a “melting pot” like the US), a community of communities, working together towards a common goal and shared values. And since our nationalistic ethos is quite young, the shared goal is still nation-building, rather than the “blood and soil” nationalism like elsewhere, as Canada is still a work in progress. You often hear politicians say this in speeches, that we are not perfect and still have to work to improve and perfect the nation. In fact, immigrants get a dose of nationalism when they get here, and often then end up being more nationalistic than people born here (at least if polls are to be believed). But with immigrants, they are viewed as more hands in this nation building process... we say we need their help too. So maybe this means refugees are not viewed merely as charity cases, helping refugees is viewed as a win-win, they get safety, we get their insights, skills and contributions to the nation building process, and helping refugees is often spun as the nationalistic thing to do. This multicultural nationalism is a result of the October Crisis, which was a trauma to this country, but nationalism was how we dealt with it.
Then you have nationalism in Latin America, Africa, and other places which had a liberation angle to it. I cannot really comment on this because I am not as informed (maybe someone else can).