What is the difference between modern nationalism and anti colonialism?
Answers
Answer:
Some historians argue that colonialism was an outgrowth of nationalism. Once the people in the leading industrial powers started to strongly identify as British, French, German, American, or Japanese, they fell in love with the idea of planting their national flags all over the map. Hence, “empire.”
Other historians argue that anti-colonialism was an outgrowth of nationalism. Once people in Asia and Africa started to strongly identify as Indian, Malaysian, Egyptian, Algerian, or Angolan, they fell in love with the idea of replacing the foreign flags on the map with their own. Hence, “national liberation.”
A thinly-veiled political agenda usually stands behind these claims. Most people nowadays agree that colonialism was bad. So if nationalism leads to colonialism, that’s a mark against nationalism; but if nationalism leads to anti-colonialism, that’s a mark in favor of nationalism. Lingering fans of colonialism naturally reverse these scoring rules.
So who’s right about the connection between nationalism and colonialism? As far as I can tell, both sides are right. Nationalism inspired many of the world’s mightiest countries to attack and annex the world’s economic laggards. But this in turn exposed the inhabitants of the colonies to the idea of nationalism. Before long, native thinkers were marketing their locally-made variants – and calling for national liberation. Once the colonial powers lost the stomach for draconian repression, the anti-colonial movement swiftly triumphed.
If nationalism inspired two incompatible movements, how should we evaluate it? You might just call it a wash: Nationalism giveth, and nationalism taketh away. But this shoulder shrug overlooks two mountains of bodies. The first mountain: All the people killed to establish colonial rule. The second mountain: All the people killed to overthrow colonial rule. It is perfectly fair to blame nationalism for both “transition costs.”
Surprising implication: Regardless of the relative merits of colonial versus indigenous rule, the history of colonialism makes nationalism look very bad indeed. Why? Because colonial rule didn’t last! So if you’re pro-colonial, nationalism led to a high transition cost, followed by ephemeral wonders, followed by another high transition cost. And if you’re anti-colonial, nationalism led to a high transition cost, followed by ephemeral horrors, followed by another high transition cost. Two dreadful deals, however you slice it.
But don’t you either have to be pro-colonial or anti-colonial? No. You can take the cynical view that foreign and native rule are about equally bad. You can take the pacifist view that the difference between foreign and native rule isn’t worth a war. Or, like me, you can merge these positions into cynical pacifism. On this view, fighting wars to start colonial rule was one monstrous crime – and fighting wars to end colonial rule was another. Nationalism is intellectually guilty on both counts, because it is nationalism that convinced people around the world that squares of multi-colored cloth are worth killing for.
Explanation:
014
DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199791231-0152
Introduction
Colonialism and nationalism consist of linked sets of diverse projects that construct colonies, nations, and the relations among them. Colonies are territories that are commanded and/or settled by foreign powers. The nations that fill the world today are imagined communities that emerged from and/or were shaped by the colonial empires that dissolved in the years following the Second World War. A handful were imperial powers that commanded or settled other territories. Most are former colonies that have now attained independence. Childhood and children appear in colonial and nationalist projects in several ways. Debates about colonial and national identities, the legitimacy of colonial rule or national independence, the boundaries of colonies and nations, and relationships between the colonized and the colonizers and among nations frequently turn on claims regarding the character of childhood, categories of children, the well-being of children, and modes of childrearing. Efforts to create colonial or national cultures commonly involve projects such as schools in which it is imagined that the identities of children may be formed. Children may participate in, and not infrequently are harmed by, violent anti-colonial and nationalist conflicts. Much of the research on these relationships focuses on things that adults do and say: debating the character of childhood, establishing educational policies, creating schools, presiding over school rituals, teaching, producing television programs, etc. Children typically appear in generic capacities—for example, the members of the second-grade class—without particular identities and histories. They are seen but not heard, or not heard very much. Much less common is research that focuses on what children do and say: playing with their peers, getting through the school day, learning to read, moving about their neighborhoods, watching television, discussing political issues, etc. In research of the latter sort, children appear as specific human beings, in particular situations, and with their own life histories. They are heard as well as seen. To study children in this way is difficult. It requires researchers to put themselves in children’s shoes, to see the world through children’s eyes, to hear what children have to say. It also requires a great deal of time and patience because colonial or nationalist projects are not the only issues with which children may be concerned. For all its difficulty, however, more research of this sort is required if we are to have a fuller understanding of colonialism and nationalism in the lives of children