War and Terror: Nationalism
War and Terror: Nationalism
It is always challenging to fully understand the reasons one would take part in a war (aside from mandatory enlistment). While I can come up with many reasons that seem to make legitimate, it is still difficult to try to understand the inner thought process of someone choosing to fight, kill and likely die. Nationalism seems to be the overarching answer providing rationale for one’s actions. How does a sense of nationalism develop, then grow to a point of motivation to fight in war? Does the type of unity of citizens and outlook on immigration affect the strength of nationalism? Looking at three different countries – Canada, the USA, and Singapore may help answer this point.
With the highest per capita immigration rate in the world, Canada is a country defined by its multicultural society. In fact, to support economic policy and socio-cultural views Canada passed the “ Multicultural Act”. The term cultural mosaic is often used to describe the mix of ethnic groups, languages and cultures that co exist within Canada. While many may argue this focus on multiculturalism concept encourages immigrant communities to remain concentrated and segregated in certain areas, or that it implies that they should never be considered Canadian, and dilutes any sense of national pride, as a proud Canadian citizen I disagree; there is a unique Canadian identity that lies within its multicultural strength.
However, unlike the nationalism of many other countries, including the United States, I would argue that the differences in the nationalistic ideology would cause Canadian nationalism not to be a driving factor in wartime motivation. In many cases, war would mean opposition to many of the backgrounds and heritages that exist in Canada. It would mean opposing their people and family, or similar ideologies as their own. If there are still thousands of military personal willing to fight for Canada – then how does one explain it. While ideologies and family may be fought against, there is a joint pride in the opportunity, freedom, and acceptance that Canada represents. While not one identity, the values of Canada is something most people are proud of and would fight for. I think this existent but not arrogant nationalism is what make Canada more of a peace keeping nation rather than an aggressor.
Very different than policies and outlook on multiculturalism and nationalism in Canada is the United States of America. The USA supports and encouraged through policy cultural assimilation whereby members of ethic communicates and immigrants are integrated into a larger community and take o n the customs and ideology of this group. This absorption results in a loss of language, customs and identity. It also promotes a very strong nationalistic attitude. I believe more so than in Canada, American citizen take greater initiative to both defend and promote their countries attitudes in a more outward way, sometimes by war. American’s take pride in defending criticisms of the “American Dream” and this strong sense of nationality makes them more aggressive in taking revenge or action against countries that threaten any of the ideas of The United States. Because individuals grow up with a strong sense of these principles one can better understand their commitment to defending The USA.
Singapore is a society that is new to me. Since I have been here I have tried to determine if Singapore is more like Canada or the United States, in terms of attitudes on nationalism and multiculturalism. Inevitably I have come to the conclusion that it is a society unique to itself. There are distinct Malay, Chinese, and Indian groups within Singapore but none is so dominant as to assimilate the other members of society. On the other hand, there is fusion of these groups and integration seen in certain dynamics. More like Canada, it seems to have different groups respectfully living together and sharing their customs and ideologies; however, unlike Canada there are fewer large ethnic groups and a greater encompassing national unit. I believe the public policy and government in Singapore also represents a more solitary unit compared to that of Canada. While I am not deeply educated in it, I believe the history of Singapore’s independence also contributes to a sense of Nationalism. Mandatory national service for males arguably strengthens a sense of duty to one’s country, which may prove to be a motivating factor in joining potential war efforts. While some may argue that this compulsory service creates a false sense of national pride, coming from different backgrounds, maybe this service unites and gives a common experience that one can relate to a sense of nationalism.
Every country has different factors which contribute to a sense of nationalism. I agree that nationalism is the ideology that drives motivation in war. But that ideology comes from a different place within each country. It could be one’s history, economic policies, and types of immigration or progress of a society. In this way, while nationalism drives the motivation, the motivating factors are different. This may offer an explanation of the different stances and attitudes countries take on war
