The author of this source takes a supranationalist approach to nationalism. This stance is outlined in the quote, “The creation of nations fosters a dangerous ‘us versus them’ mentality.” and “It is [the creation of nations] a breeding ground for discrimination and oppression, marginalizing those who do not fit the national identity." A supranationalist view is identified by the author’s objection to the formation of nations in its entirety. This detail is what sets the perspective apart from an internationalist one. The author discusses the implications of religious, cultural, and ethnic nationalism when they state how an ‘us versus them’ mentality entails “intensifying tensions and deepening social fractures... such as race, religion, or
…show more content…
Referencing the author's words "the creation of nations fosters... deepening social fractures... such as race, religion, or culture" and "unchecked nationalism, where differences are weaponized," specifies the author's perspective. To further understand this stance, one can observe the assimilation and genocide of Indigenous people at the hands of the Canadian government from the mid-1800s up to 1996. In the interest of cultivating Canada as an English-speaking, uniformly cultured nation, actions of marginalization and oppression were brought upon the Indigenous. The establishment of residential schooling furthers the agenda of forcing indigenous people to neglect and forget their culture to adopt a more socially acceptable, more white, more Canadian identity. The stripping of children from families, the stealing of land, and the eradication of an unwanted culture stemmed from a desire to spread Canadian nationalism. As differences in race, way of life, culture, religion, and more existed between the Indigenous and the European settlers, a need for one group to overpower the other grew strong. The resulting mass gravesites and generational trauma caused by a sense of Canadian nationalism exemplify the weaponization of differences. The national identity of Canada excluded the Indigenous for not fitting their standard for how citizens of their nation should act, look like, believe, and speak. This case study epitomizes why the author of the source does not support the creation of nations, as the results showcase a plethora of
Referencing the author's words "the creation of nations fosters... deepening social fractures... such as race, religion, or culture" and "unchecked nationalism, where differences are weaponized," specifies the author's perspective. To further understand this stance, one can observe the assimilation and genocide of Indigenous people at the hands of the Canadian government from the mid-1800s up to 1996. In the interest of cultivating Canada as an English-speaking, uniformly cultured nation, actions of marginalization and oppression were brought upon the Indigenous. The establishment of residential schooling furthers the agenda of forcing indigenous people to neglect and forget their culture to adopt a more socially acceptable, more white, more Canadian identity. The stripping of children from families, the stealing of land, and the eradication of an unwanted culture stemmed from a desire to spread Canadian nationalism. As differences in race, way of life, culture, religion, and more existed between the Indigenous and the European settlers, a need for one group to overpower the other grew strong. The resulting mass gravesites and generational trauma caused by a sense of Canadian nationalism exemplify the weaponization of differences. The national identity of Canada excluded the Indigenous for not fitting their standard for how citizens of their nation should act, look like, believe, and speak. This case study epitomizes why the author of the source does not support the creation of nations, as the results showcase a plethora of