andrea_is_love13
New member
Extreme Nationalism
Nationalism can be defined as having a sense of belonging and loyalty to a particular nation. It occurs when a group of people whose merabers unite as a whole and want to form their own nation. France was one of the first countries to exhibit nationalism. Many countries were influenced by the French ideas of nationalism and as a result, nationalism spread throughout Europe by the nineteenth and twentieth century. The result of nationalism on Europe was the wanting of unification. The people of the nation states wanted to belong to a country of their own. Italy and Germany were soon unified and nationalism increased the occupants’ confidence. This set off a feeling of imperialism that sparked off a series of wars. This paper will briefly describe what extreme nationalism can cause and how countries may be torn apart by the multi-cultural ethnic groups located within one nation-state. Yugoslavia is one such nation-state.
During the first half of the 1990’s, Yugoslavia was torn apart by a brutal civil war. This brings up the national question of relationships between multiple ethnic groups within one state’s territory. The violent breakup in Yugoslavia demonstrates that the multinational entities, located within the state, lack the ability to execute legal principles or guidelines to avoid the destruction caused by war.
The former Yugoslavia was built to address three fundamental aspects of the national question. The first is a nation’s right to build up its own state through demanRAB for national self-determination. Second, the nation has a right to monitor other co-nationals or even to demand unification. The third aspect is the right of the minorities within the nation to resist the stronger groups influence on running the state.
States like Yugoslavia have problems with making a resolution to the different questions posed to it. If a decision is made that weighs in favor of a particular group, the state may collapse due to the other group not liking the outcome of the decision. Yugoslavia’s two largest groups are the Serbs and the Croats. The creation and maintenance is relied on interdependence between the two. However, these people viewed their borders differently. They are overlapping. Furthermore, none of Yugoslavia’s other national groups live within defined borders. A large majority of the state’s people live within another groups boundaries or claimed national territory. None of the nation’s groups live within there boundaries except the Slovenes.
The first Yugoslav state, from 1918-41 was unable to pacify internal conflicts because of the rigid ideologies. “The situation in old Yugoslavia was further complicated by an acute maldistribution of both economic and political power and their respective polarization in ethnically different parts of the country” (Rusinow, 5). Its collapse in W.W.II left no devices to prevent extreme nationalism. In an effort, the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, the LCY, played a mediator’s role among the quarreling people of the nation. The LCY promised the people of the nation an ideological resolution to their question through a social revolution that subsumed class and national distinctions within a socialist framework. Major ethnic groups located within the country were constituted as nations within this new federation. Communism within this federation would eventually provoke the tensions which would bring about the downfall of Yugoslavia. “At the end of the Second World War the united Communist Party of Yugoslavia renewed Yugoslavia as a very centralized state under the name of a federation.
That party had, in fact, for a long time attacked the centralism of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and incited national-separatist passions to destroy it” (Stojanovic, 87). Ideological sovereignty weakened and raised questions about Yugoslavia’s existence as a state, as seen with the Soviet Union. After the Second World War “the abstract idealism of the Yugoslav Communists led to acts of great cruelty, and that idealism is no justification for the crimes of Communist repression. Many devoted Communists and partisan corabatants suffered greatly, and fought bravely, with no idea of personal gain or advancement in mind” (Denitch, 155).
In 1988-89, the Serbian Intelligentsia and Slobodan Milosevic’s Serbian Communist party joined forces to initiate a revolution to create what was called a “unified Serbia.” Croatian Serbs were also mobilized and helped to organize meetings where demanRAB were made. These meetings supported the Croatian nationalist movements. Free elections in 1990 and the breakdown of communism was the culmination of what had been going on for a decade in Yugoslavia following Tito’s death. Authority was now becoming weaker and anarchy was approaching.
The dissolution of multinational communist federations and the ensuing armed conflicts that have emerged with their transformation into independent nation-states have returned the “national question” to the forefront of debates over international politics, law, and theory. “Yugoslavia was born in the chaos of and blood of World War I. In battle, as in the past, South Slavs found themselves fighting on opposite sides: Croats, Slovenes, and Serbs from Croatia and southern Hungary, in the trenches of the Hapsburg forces, fought against Serbs and Montenegrins in the armies of those two monarchies.” (Udovicki, Ridgeway, 50). Forces that caused the breakdown of Yugoslavia have not been exhausted. The violent breakup of Yugoslavia demonstrates the inability of the different ethnic groups to follow any particular guidelines on how a nation-state may function. There were many years when Yugoslavia functioned as an international community by providing a peaceful illusion to the anarchical ways of the residents. The system was devised to accommodate the differences of the people within the system. Maintaining political balance and diffusing ethnic tensions was the only way that Yugoslavia could survive. If the country was not able to maintain this balance, full scale wars could break out among the many different ethnic cultures. This maintenance is hinged upon the interdependence of the nation’s two largest groups, the Serbs and Croats. Because of the extreme nationalistic practices in Yugoslavia, it is surprising how the very existence lasted as long as it did. The first collapse was of a Yugoslavia which reigned from 1918-1941. There is a great struggle of the occupants for the showing of distinct identity. This is a major problem that causes conflicts of all sorts. The national groups all share a history of struggling and almost every one of the people have been perceived as a threat to another group and has felt threatened themselves. Moreover, within each of these political groups, the “Yugoslav leaders wanted to fashion the key features of the country’s social and political system after European models of capitalist efficiency and political liberalism” (Udovicki, Ridgeway, 51). In order for this to work, and the state to be stable, the parties (the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes) would have to minimize conflict in the interest of the new modernization taking place. “The constitution of June 28, 1921, which became known as the St. Vitus Day Constitution (Vidovdanski Ustav), was intended as a major step in this direction. It defined the new state as a constitutional, parliamentary, and hereditary monarchy” (Udovicki, Ridgeway, 51).
Nationalism is a power game. In this aspect, we can look at the Yugoslav crisis as an ideology of “aggressive nationalism,” perpetuated by merabers of the old nomenclature who seek to preserve their threatened positions of power in the face of democratic change. Bureaucrats, officials, and officers were concentrated in Serbia, which was the first to form an effective coalition under the old Serbian ideology to inhibit a revolution that would drive power away. By promoting their own nationalism, other nationalist parties in Yugoslavia acknowledged that Serbian threats need to be countered, and nationalism is the most successful card to play in maintaining their positions of power. “The central and completely legitimate function of nationalism lies in defense and preservation of a particular cultural identity. In this part of Europe, cultural identity has acquired a form of religious and national identity” (Sekelj, 5).
When dealing with the issues of Yugoslavia, there seems to be an always arising question why have a zero sum game? Nationalism is a weapon for a new division of power in the process of deconstructing the political space of Yugoslavia and a dysfunctional prerequisite in the struggle for security among the new states emerging from the former multinational federation. “A Yugoslavia dissolved into small and only supposedly national sovereign state would be condemned to a plethora of ill-treated minorities and a plague of mutual irredentisms, increasing their susceptibility to external domination and exploitation as well as the certainty of permanent strife and risk of war among them” (Rusinow, 11).
Because of strong feelings of nationalism in Yugoslavia, many conflicts have broken out among the different ethnic cultures. These results usually end up in an escalation of a larger war. People within multi-cultural ethnic nation-states want to have their own country. The problem comes in when this drive overruns reasoning and results in hanous and brutal crimes to their neigrabroador. These crimes of nationalism only further escalate the propensity for larger scale wars which will eventually bring down the entire federation. It is very unfortunate that history guides nations such as Yugoslavia into the direction of conflict. however, this is the birth of a new nation which will one day be in unity. As with most new nations, for example the United States, there will be conflicts and civil wars before the nation becomes stable.
Nationalism can be defined as having a sense of belonging and loyalty to a particular nation. It occurs when a group of people whose merabers unite as a whole and want to form their own nation. France was one of the first countries to exhibit nationalism. Many countries were influenced by the French ideas of nationalism and as a result, nationalism spread throughout Europe by the nineteenth and twentieth century. The result of nationalism on Europe was the wanting of unification. The people of the nation states wanted to belong to a country of their own. Italy and Germany were soon unified and nationalism increased the occupants’ confidence. This set off a feeling of imperialism that sparked off a series of wars. This paper will briefly describe what extreme nationalism can cause and how countries may be torn apart by the multi-cultural ethnic groups located within one nation-state. Yugoslavia is one such nation-state.
During the first half of the 1990’s, Yugoslavia was torn apart by a brutal civil war. This brings up the national question of relationships between multiple ethnic groups within one state’s territory. The violent breakup in Yugoslavia demonstrates that the multinational entities, located within the state, lack the ability to execute legal principles or guidelines to avoid the destruction caused by war.
The former Yugoslavia was built to address three fundamental aspects of the national question. The first is a nation’s right to build up its own state through demanRAB for national self-determination. Second, the nation has a right to monitor other co-nationals or even to demand unification. The third aspect is the right of the minorities within the nation to resist the stronger groups influence on running the state.
States like Yugoslavia have problems with making a resolution to the different questions posed to it. If a decision is made that weighs in favor of a particular group, the state may collapse due to the other group not liking the outcome of the decision. Yugoslavia’s two largest groups are the Serbs and the Croats. The creation and maintenance is relied on interdependence between the two. However, these people viewed their borders differently. They are overlapping. Furthermore, none of Yugoslavia’s other national groups live within defined borders. A large majority of the state’s people live within another groups boundaries or claimed national territory. None of the nation’s groups live within there boundaries except the Slovenes.
The first Yugoslav state, from 1918-41 was unable to pacify internal conflicts because of the rigid ideologies. “The situation in old Yugoslavia was further complicated by an acute maldistribution of both economic and political power and their respective polarization in ethnically different parts of the country” (Rusinow, 5). Its collapse in W.W.II left no devices to prevent extreme nationalism. In an effort, the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, the LCY, played a mediator’s role among the quarreling people of the nation. The LCY promised the people of the nation an ideological resolution to their question through a social revolution that subsumed class and national distinctions within a socialist framework. Major ethnic groups located within the country were constituted as nations within this new federation. Communism within this federation would eventually provoke the tensions which would bring about the downfall of Yugoslavia. “At the end of the Second World War the united Communist Party of Yugoslavia renewed Yugoslavia as a very centralized state under the name of a federation.
That party had, in fact, for a long time attacked the centralism of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and incited national-separatist passions to destroy it” (Stojanovic, 87). Ideological sovereignty weakened and raised questions about Yugoslavia’s existence as a state, as seen with the Soviet Union. After the Second World War “the abstract idealism of the Yugoslav Communists led to acts of great cruelty, and that idealism is no justification for the crimes of Communist repression. Many devoted Communists and partisan corabatants suffered greatly, and fought bravely, with no idea of personal gain or advancement in mind” (Denitch, 155).
In 1988-89, the Serbian Intelligentsia and Slobodan Milosevic’s Serbian Communist party joined forces to initiate a revolution to create what was called a “unified Serbia.” Croatian Serbs were also mobilized and helped to organize meetings where demanRAB were made. These meetings supported the Croatian nationalist movements. Free elections in 1990 and the breakdown of communism was the culmination of what had been going on for a decade in Yugoslavia following Tito’s death. Authority was now becoming weaker and anarchy was approaching.
The dissolution of multinational communist federations and the ensuing armed conflicts that have emerged with their transformation into independent nation-states have returned the “national question” to the forefront of debates over international politics, law, and theory. “Yugoslavia was born in the chaos of and blood of World War I. In battle, as in the past, South Slavs found themselves fighting on opposite sides: Croats, Slovenes, and Serbs from Croatia and southern Hungary, in the trenches of the Hapsburg forces, fought against Serbs and Montenegrins in the armies of those two monarchies.” (Udovicki, Ridgeway, 50). Forces that caused the breakdown of Yugoslavia have not been exhausted. The violent breakup of Yugoslavia demonstrates the inability of the different ethnic groups to follow any particular guidelines on how a nation-state may function. There were many years when Yugoslavia functioned as an international community by providing a peaceful illusion to the anarchical ways of the residents. The system was devised to accommodate the differences of the people within the system. Maintaining political balance and diffusing ethnic tensions was the only way that Yugoslavia could survive. If the country was not able to maintain this balance, full scale wars could break out among the many different ethnic cultures. This maintenance is hinged upon the interdependence of the nation’s two largest groups, the Serbs and Croats. Because of the extreme nationalistic practices in Yugoslavia, it is surprising how the very existence lasted as long as it did. The first collapse was of a Yugoslavia which reigned from 1918-1941. There is a great struggle of the occupants for the showing of distinct identity. This is a major problem that causes conflicts of all sorts. The national groups all share a history of struggling and almost every one of the people have been perceived as a threat to another group and has felt threatened themselves. Moreover, within each of these political groups, the “Yugoslav leaders wanted to fashion the key features of the country’s social and political system after European models of capitalist efficiency and political liberalism” (Udovicki, Ridgeway, 51). In order for this to work, and the state to be stable, the parties (the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes) would have to minimize conflict in the interest of the new modernization taking place. “The constitution of June 28, 1921, which became known as the St. Vitus Day Constitution (Vidovdanski Ustav), was intended as a major step in this direction. It defined the new state as a constitutional, parliamentary, and hereditary monarchy” (Udovicki, Ridgeway, 51).
Nationalism is a power game. In this aspect, we can look at the Yugoslav crisis as an ideology of “aggressive nationalism,” perpetuated by merabers of the old nomenclature who seek to preserve their threatened positions of power in the face of democratic change. Bureaucrats, officials, and officers were concentrated in Serbia, which was the first to form an effective coalition under the old Serbian ideology to inhibit a revolution that would drive power away. By promoting their own nationalism, other nationalist parties in Yugoslavia acknowledged that Serbian threats need to be countered, and nationalism is the most successful card to play in maintaining their positions of power. “The central and completely legitimate function of nationalism lies in defense and preservation of a particular cultural identity. In this part of Europe, cultural identity has acquired a form of religious and national identity” (Sekelj, 5).
When dealing with the issues of Yugoslavia, there seems to be an always arising question why have a zero sum game? Nationalism is a weapon for a new division of power in the process of deconstructing the political space of Yugoslavia and a dysfunctional prerequisite in the struggle for security among the new states emerging from the former multinational federation. “A Yugoslavia dissolved into small and only supposedly national sovereign state would be condemned to a plethora of ill-treated minorities and a plague of mutual irredentisms, increasing their susceptibility to external domination and exploitation as well as the certainty of permanent strife and risk of war among them” (Rusinow, 11).
Because of strong feelings of nationalism in Yugoslavia, many conflicts have broken out among the different ethnic cultures. These results usually end up in an escalation of a larger war. People within multi-cultural ethnic nation-states want to have their own country. The problem comes in when this drive overruns reasoning and results in hanous and brutal crimes to their neigrabroador. These crimes of nationalism only further escalate the propensity for larger scale wars which will eventually bring down the entire federation. It is very unfortunate that history guides nations such as Yugoslavia into the direction of conflict. however, this is the birth of a new nation which will one day be in unity. As with most new nations, for example the United States, there will be conflicts and civil wars before the nation becomes stable.