The Definition of Nationalism In Different Regions and Countries - Essay Example

The Definition of Nationalism In Different Regions and Countries of East, South, and Southeast Asia Currently there is a generally accepted modernist model of the history of nationalism. According to this model, nationalism emerged in the last quarter of the 18th century. Its formation took forty years from the American and French revolutions to Napoleon’s conquest of Prussia. In the last third of the 19th century, nationalist movements emerged outside Europe in Japan, and India. At the beginning of the 20th century, there joined Asian ethnic nationalist movements: Javanese, Vietnamese, and Chinese. In the 30’s of the 20th century, there were no lands that were not in any way engaged with nationalistic ideas. Although, the exaggerated interest in nationalism in 30’s led to the rise of fascist and Nazi ideas, it also provoked the anti colonial liberation movements in Asia (Smith 95). The current essay will examine the peculiarities and the differences of the nationalistic movements in Eastern, Southern, and South-Eastern Asia at the end of the 19th and the beginning of 20th century. At the beginning of the 20th century, the countries of the South and Eastern Asia were completely dependent on England, France, and the Netherlands as their mother countries. For maintaining these areas, there were established specific methods of governing, from protectorate to politically powerless territories. The World War I gave a push to the creation of national economies, and, consequently, to the formation of the national capital and the working class. Transformation of the existing structures of the society caused the emergence of new conflicts between the labor and the capital, between the national capital and the capital of metropolis, and the decline of traditional elites. On the new basis, the national liberation movement began to develop. The newly formed national political parties sought to overcome the backwardness with the help of gaining national independence and modernization. In India, it was Indian peasantry that formed a major force in the national liberation movement in the interwar period. To involve a broad amount of population into this movement, it was needed to take into account socio-psychological characteristics of the Indian peasantry and urban workers, yesterday’s peasants. Prominent role in the organization of mass non-violent campaign of the resistance to the colonial regime in the 20 - 40’s of the 20th century belonged to Mahatma Gandhi. He was the one to shape India national ideology. Thanks to Gandhi, the idea of the absolute independence of India was put forward. In this respect, Indian nationalism acquired the traits of Gandhi’s ideas. Gandhism resonated with wide layers of peasantry and the urban poor, because it was connected with the social ideal of the belief that the struggle for independence from British rule, is a struggle for justice. Gandhi drew upon his appeals from cultural, historical, and religious traditions that were familiar to peasants. Therefore, the demands for independence and the transformation of the society were explained in the traditional way and were clear to the dozens of millions of Indians. The tactical method of Gandhism was marked with the understanding of the traditions and psychology of the peasants. It was a method of nonviolent resistance (boycott, peaceful marches, denial of cooperation). Gandhi’s active protest was combined with the tolerance to the enemy. Nonviolent resistance was considered as the only possible form of struggle with the colonial regime. Gandhi rejected the class struggle as a destabilizing factor the separates the nation and makes the liberation from the foreign rule impossible (Spielvogel 927). The Indian nation was united according to the primordial racial idea. So, there was a clear understanding the colonizers were the odd element in the national state structure. Gandhism tied together peasants, artisans, and the national bourgeoisie. Finally, without bloody armed struggle, they forced the colonizers to leave India at the beginning of 1948. Indonesia at the beginning of 20th century was a colony of Holland. Compared with other colonies, there was no strict colonial regime in Indonesia. Holland managed to maintain these territories due to the lack of territorial, national, and religious unity. The idea of national unity was strange to the Indonesians of that time. Technical means of communication and interaction were inaccessible as well. The colonizers overcame the resistance of the traditional nationalism, but they failed to cope with anti-colonial factors that were the result of their own dominance on the archipelago. The Dutch colonizers developed the “paper Malayan” that later became the national Indonesian language, and began to consider Indonesia as an organic unity, but not a mechanical set of captured territories. For their own needs, the Dutch had to give European education to some locals (hence, the idea about the inviolable human rights). All in all, the colonial regime caused the growth of the strata of people of mixed origin that perceived the problem of inequality of islanders with Europeans more dramatically than natural locals. Modern liberation movement of Indonesia was inherently the mixture of nationalism, Marxism, and Islamism. At first, they developed independently from each other. An engineer Sukarno was the first, to combine these ideas in an ideology confronting the Dutch colonialism. The success of the anti-colonial movement depended on the support of the millions of ordinary Indonesians, who desperately tried to survive in the wilds of the congested urban neighborhoods or died under the tropical sun on the rice fields (Best 250). New nationalism, “social nationalism” in Indonesia, had to point out a path to a brighter future for the little man, using non-violent methods of Gandhism. Guided by the ideas of Sukarno, after the World War II, Indonesia became independent country. Vietnamese nationalism was very much alike Indonesian one. As well as in Indonesia, in Vietnam there was linguistic scenario developed. The French colonists, ruled by their own interests to destroy the Chinese mandarin culture in Vietnam, were Latinizing the Vietnamese with the support of schools and publishers. In the 1920s – 1930s, the Vietnamese based their idea of the national unity on the artificial language that was presented as the fundamental for the Vietnamese nation. An important role in the Vietnamese national revival played the ideas about inviolable human rights taken from the Western philosophers. On the other hand, this tradition of literacy led to the deprivation of the ties with past Chinese tradition. In 1920s the Vietnamese national movement was influenced by Communist ideology that was brought by the French communist party to Vietnam. Its ideologist became Vietnamese revolutionary Ho Chi Minh (Best 297). In this respect, as well as in Indonesia, the European idea of nationalism was mixed with other suitable ideologies and transformed according to the demands of these certain circumstances. In China, nationalistic ideas were dictated by other conditions then in the colonized India, Indonesia, and Vietnam. In the second half of 19th century, there falls an internal representation of China as an immovable empire that is a center of the culture overcoming any “barbarians”. After two Opium Wars and the conclusion of a number of agreements, China was divided into the spheres of influence between the major Western powers. Formally, the Chinese imperial power was preserved; however, the control over the judiciary, customs, army, and most of the political decisions belonged to foreigners. It was a terrible humiliation for the empire, which for thousands of years aimed to become the center of the world and lost everything in a matter of thirty years. All these led to the emergence of Chinese nationalism as an idea of saving the country. At the beginning of the 20th century, there appeared the secret societies embracing Western ideas of Marxism and anarchism. Thus, the current essay discussed several nationalisms in the South and Eastern Asia. There were certain differences between these nationalisms; however, they were much more alike that different. All of them were the product of the European activity in the region. In all countries of the region, first sprouts of the idea of national unity appeared almost at the same time adopting the most suitable ideologies. “Self-strengthening” movement in China and Meiji restoration in Japan “Self-strengthening” movement in China and Meiji restoration in Japan were the national policies, aiming at the reformation of the country in order to make it a competitor of the Western powers on an international stage. However, in both countries they were conducted in different ways and with the different level of national devotion of the functionaries. In this respect, the result of the initially similar policies was radically different. After the fall of the Tokugawa shogunate in Japan, there began a period of the restoration of emperor power. In historical science of Japan, this period was called the “Meiji restoration”. Political changes have resulted in the changes in other sphere of the Japan society. The reforms in Japan of that period had specific character: on the one hand, all social layers were interested in the economic growth; but on the other hand, the samurais and large landowners, who received a portion of their ancestral privileges with the restoration of emperor’s power, did not want to lose them again. The new government tried to maintain the feudal system, but the impending threat of the Japan’s capture by western countries led to the arrival of the new capitalist order. The latter guaranteed the growth of Japan’s influence and independence. The reforms, necessary for further development were implemented during 1868-1873 (Spielvogel 868). In 1869, there was a voluntary return of Japan and its people to the Emperor. Damiyo (Japanese medieval feudal) were initially submitted to their previous possessions as the hereditary governors. However, after the complete destruction of principality division and the introduction of the prefectures, 1871, the princes were all removed from the affairs of the governing. The implementation of the supreme power in prefectures was passed to the government officials. The previous system of land ownership was cancelled; the bourgeoisie with new ideas of ownership was gaining momentum in Japan. In 1872, there was abolished the complex and strict class division of the population that was adopted in Tokugawa Japan. All population estates were formally equaled in rights; the ordinary people got the right to have a family name. Essentially, the establishment of a regular army in Japan that consisted of peasants and townspeople, led to a formal end of the existence of the samurai as a special military class. Lifetime payments to the persons of the military class were replaced by a single state compensation. Samurai demanded an end of the reforms and the return of the old feudal order. However, the development of capitalism in Japan could be stopped neither by terrorist acts, nor by the public uprisings. In the first years after the elimination of shogunate, the Japanese government established a regular army of the European model. Ideological indoctrination of soldiers of the new army was based on the moral and ethical code “bushido” that was slightly modified in accordance with the spirit of the time. In the same key, the young civil generation was brought up. The “national” approach in education was present in all disciplines taught at school to children. The grasping of the principles of the “national” ethics was considered more important than the development of children’s mind. Of the crucial importance in the establishment of the Japanese national idea was Shinto. During Meiji, Shinto became the state religion. The emperor, as a “divine” descendant of the Shinto supreme goddess, was regarded as a living god, ensuring the welfare to Japan. In a very short period of time, Japan, using Western experience, became a rich capitalist country with the strong equipped army. Within few decades of the 19th century, Japan was able to achieve the purposes that took much more time for Western countries. The perception of the European culture was primarily subjected to the military tasks (Spielvogel 869). With its strong army, Japan later began to seek for the “correcting of the historical injustice”. Meanwhile in China, after the defeat in the second Opium War, there was a need to try to find a way out of the unfortunate situation, when the largest state in East could become a pathetic appendage of the Western powers. As the result, a new line of development was developed and was called a “self-strengthening movement” (1861-1895). From the first glance, the situation was very much alike to that in Japan during the same period of time. However, the final results were totally different. Unlike Japan, the previous old regime of Qing dynasty in China was left in power. The over dated bureaucratic methods of ruling the country were desperately combined with the western political novelties. There were three main stages in the “self-strengthening policy”. During 1861-1870, there was a focus on the internal suppression of the peasant and national minorities’ resistance. During the 1870-1885, the ruling camp was divided into two antagonistic camps that were struggling for the influence on the internal changes. The third period of the “self-strengthening” movement was characterized by the war with Japan and the humiliating defeat. The idea of borrowing the foreign ideas and implementation of best scientific achievements had become the major during the halved reforms of 1860’s. The ideological roots went back into the theory of learning an “overseas experience”. In 1861, there was created an office of public administration in the foreign affairs. It played a role of a senior advisory council in the Chinese Empire. During the first 20 years of self-strengthening movement in China, its major efforts were directed at the reformation of army in order to achieve a decisive breakthrough in the actions against the internal rebellion. After the suppression of Taiping rebellion, the emphasis was made on the construction of modern machines, ships, and military enterprises. There was declared six major components of the self-strengthening policy: training of soldiers; shipbuilding; development of machinery; rising of the funds for the maintenance of armed forces; attraction of the talented people to the managing positions; and the determination for the long-term implementation of the above activities. This political line was kept unchanged until 1895. The general idea of the reforms was not bad; however, most of the assigned funds for the implementation of these reforms went for the personal purposes of the royal family. The bureaucratic system remained, the opposition was strictly suppressed, and the social reforms were not held. Hence, there was no support of the authority among most of the population. In addition to that, as the result of a range of the humiliating and unequal agreements of the Qing administration, by the end of the 19th century, China became almost a semi-colony of the foreign countries that divided its territory into the spheres of interest. Income did no longer fall into the state’s treasury. After the defeat in the war with Japan, in the Chinese society the ideas of the radical reformation began to increase. Their main goal was seen in the turning of China into a powerful country independent from foreign influence. These views were put forward by the Chinese national bourgeoisie that saw the dominance of the foreign capital as the main problem of national prosperity. The “self-strengthening movement” by Qing failed (Black 28). To conclude with, the policy of Meiji restoration in Japan and “self-strengthening movement” in China were discussed in the current essay. The reforms of the Meiji restoration succeeded, because the authority at any cost managed to overcome the outdated regime and put the national interests above the personal ones. The latter did not happen in China, were the ruling dynasty was not willing to give up the absolute power and the privileges it gave. In this respect, they did not manage to maintain the power and turned the country into the semi-colony of the foreign powers. Works Cited Best, Antony. An International History of the Twentieth Century and Beyond. Routledge, 2008. Print. Black, Jeremy. War in the Modern World, 1815-2000. Routledge, 2003. Print. Smith, Anthony D. Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History. Malden, MA: Polity, 2010. Print. Spielvogel, Jackson. Western Civilization: Since 1500. Boston: Wadsworth, 2011. Print. Read More