Posted by: britster59 on: June 12, 2008
2) According to www.thefreedictionary.com, nationalism is defined as: “1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one’s nation, 2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals, 3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.” Based on this definition, is the government’s policy on Indian removal an example of American nationalism? If so, why?
The Indian Removal would not be a good example of nationalism because even in the definition it is defined as being devoted to the culture of a nation. The culture of a nation is not merely defined by the people that come to inhabit the land, but also the people that have lived on the land long before the settlers. True nationalism would have been if the settlers had embraced the culture and ways of the native people. The people that have come to this new country may believe that they are acting in the best interest of the new country, which is one of the aspects one could add into nationalism, but were they really taking all aspects into consideration on the “best interest”, were these actions in best interest for the native people? Culture is not only defined by the traditions, and ways in which a group of people act and believe in a given area, but also what traditions, and belief structures were already present, and how they interact and coincide with the new people to the area.
Nationalism may have been exhibited during this time in the aspect that the government was focusing on the national stance of the country during this Indian removal, not focusing on international ties and policies. One of the reasons to look at this as not being a form of nationalism would be that the settlers did not see the natives as part of their nation. Due to the difference in culture and ways of life it was hard for the settlers to understand and accept the native way of life. If there was less of a culture gap between the many groups it may have been easier to mesh the cultures together more harmoniously, in a more nationalism sense
June 12, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I think this post was interesting because you put a new perspective on things. I thought that the policy of Indian Removal was nationalistic, because I thought of the white Americans as being considered a nation. You, on the other hand, considered the Indians and the white Americans together to be the nation. If you think about it from your perspective, the government wasn’t really looking for what was best for the nation, they just wanted what was best for the white Americans, and it is therefore not nationalistic. It was interesting to see a new perspective and a different interpretation of the definition!