'Nationalism and racialism are indistinguishable' Discuss with reference to three thinkers that
you have studied.
It has been suggested that racialist and nationalist are indistinguishable as although both are
distinct theories, their beliefs on superior identity are extremely similar as racialism
encourages racial hierarchy whilst nationalism equally values a ‘national identity’ which is
established by factors such as religion, language and culture (which occuringly appears as
devaluasing certain ethnicities.) It can be argued to some extent that a nationalist can be a
racialist (for example when looking at the BNP who see’s British identity as being specified
to white people) however, a racialist is less likely to be a nationalist as racialist believe in
segregation and separate which enables a nation to become ununited.
The life of Marcus Garvey demonstrates that nationalism and racialism are indistinguishable
as Garvey was a black nationalist, who in 1920, established a newspaper to encourage the
‘Back to Africa’ movement. Following the increase of black popularity in North America in the
late 19th century, many individuals experienced racism as a result of segregation as well as
physical violence from white people. The immigration was arguably attributed to the rising
potential of the ‘American Dream’ with the idea that America would grant better financial and
career opportunities. Garvey encouraged black individuals to ‘go back to Africa’ to prevent
white superiority and establish nationalism due to the idea of shared cultures, which many
did not believe was being reflected for black people in America. Garvey argued that if this
movement was successful, then the black race could be dominant in comparison to America
where “the white race had dominated the black.” The movement would enable people to be
united not only by their racial identity but their embracement of African culture which was not
expressed in the US. Garvey supported a 1939 bill which suggested that the US should buy
40,000 square acres of African land from French and Britain, providing the land to the
movement and financially supporting those wanting to relocate. The teachings of Garvey
demonstrate that a nationalist can be a racialist and therefore the beliefs are
indistinguishable. However, it can be suggested that in countries such as India during the
British Raj, there was a sense of nationalism between all ethnicities. In the case of the US it
can be agreed that “there was a white race and a black race” which could never be united by
nationalism like for example, the liberation of India.
Contrastingly, Jean Jacques Rousseau argued that national identity was not about racial
identity but contrastingly individuals who just desire their own sense of liberty. The French
Philosophers teachings have been suggested as being egalitarian as he suggests that
“social harmony” can only be achieved through the equality of all citizens which the likes of
‘ethnic cleansing’ prevents as one race is oppressed by another. Rousseau believed that the
founding fathers were imposing tyranny whilst citizens should focus upon its resistance to
prevent the mistreatment of another. His work ‘The Social Contract’, suggests that a nation
can be united by a dream of “democratic self mastery” bounded by “fraternity, patriotism and
love” despite an individual's class, gender or race. This form of egalitarian nationalism is
considered as being the most modern and reflective of the actuality of many diverse nations,
and is present in Martin Luther King Jr’s civil rights movement which was characterised by
social equality and equal rights for all people. In the modern day, this is also evident by the
SNP who considered ‘national identity’ to be characterised by the support for Scottish
independence, not by race, gender or class therefore promoting egalitarian belief as
everybody is seen as being equal.
you have studied.
It has been suggested that racialist and nationalist are indistinguishable as although both are
distinct theories, their beliefs on superior identity are extremely similar as racialism
encourages racial hierarchy whilst nationalism equally values a ‘national identity’ which is
established by factors such as religion, language and culture (which occuringly appears as
devaluasing certain ethnicities.) It can be argued to some extent that a nationalist can be a
racialist (for example when looking at the BNP who see’s British identity as being specified
to white people) however, a racialist is less likely to be a nationalist as racialist believe in
segregation and separate which enables a nation to become ununited.
The life of Marcus Garvey demonstrates that nationalism and racialism are indistinguishable
as Garvey was a black nationalist, who in 1920, established a newspaper to encourage the
‘Back to Africa’ movement. Following the increase of black popularity in North America in the
late 19th century, many individuals experienced racism as a result of segregation as well as
physical violence from white people. The immigration was arguably attributed to the rising
potential of the ‘American Dream’ with the idea that America would grant better financial and
career opportunities. Garvey encouraged black individuals to ‘go back to Africa’ to prevent
white superiority and establish nationalism due to the idea of shared cultures, which many
did not believe was being reflected for black people in America. Garvey argued that if this
movement was successful, then the black race could be dominant in comparison to America
where “the white race had dominated the black.” The movement would enable people to be
united not only by their racial identity but their embracement of African culture which was not
expressed in the US. Garvey supported a 1939 bill which suggested that the US should buy
40,000 square acres of African land from French and Britain, providing the land to the
movement and financially supporting those wanting to relocate. The teachings of Garvey
demonstrate that a nationalist can be a racialist and therefore the beliefs are
indistinguishable. However, it can be suggested that in countries such as India during the
British Raj, there was a sense of nationalism between all ethnicities. In the case of the US it
can be agreed that “there was a white race and a black race” which could never be united by
nationalism like for example, the liberation of India.
Contrastingly, Jean Jacques Rousseau argued that national identity was not about racial
identity but contrastingly individuals who just desire their own sense of liberty. The French
Philosophers teachings have been suggested as being egalitarian as he suggests that
“social harmony” can only be achieved through the equality of all citizens which the likes of
‘ethnic cleansing’ prevents as one race is oppressed by another. Rousseau believed that the
founding fathers were imposing tyranny whilst citizens should focus upon its resistance to
prevent the mistreatment of another. His work ‘The Social Contract’, suggests that a nation
can be united by a dream of “democratic self mastery” bounded by “fraternity, patriotism and
love” despite an individual's class, gender or race. This form of egalitarian nationalism is
considered as being the most modern and reflective of the actuality of many diverse nations,
and is present in Martin Luther King Jr’s civil rights movement which was characterised by
social equality and equal rights for all people. In the modern day, this is also evident by the
SNP who considered ‘national identity’ to be characterised by the support for Scottish
independence, not by race, gender or class therefore promoting egalitarian belief as
everybody is seen as being equal.
