Last time, I found the comments from Mister Micawber very useful and tried to review another article from Fannon. And someone could check the grammar for me and tell me how to improve my English faster. I feel very confuse about how to learn English well.
Among this week’s readings, I strongly agree with partly of the arguments made by Fannon, which he summarises the barriers of realising true nationalism as the unpreparedness of the educated classes, the lack of practical links between them and the mass of the people, their laziness and their cowardice at the decisive moment of the struggle. But according to both Fannon and Ghandi’s arguments, I still consider both of them are unilateral and emotional, base on the emotion of being victim from colonize progress. And I found that this kind of emotion are extremely strong in the countries which were invaded before by European colonization such like China, India and some other countries. In these countries, people cannot look on the historical whirligig justly and objectively. They use nationalism ideology to cover their timidness, flabbiness and pass the buck to aggressors, who can be considered as the destroyer of feudalistic societies and bringer of modern civilization indirectly in the other point of view.
Nationalism is an imagined political community, imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. They saw their long historical root as an infrangible wall to resist any type of revolution, refuse new technology, new ideas of liberalism especially the idea of freedom. The rulers and controlled layers are willing to control the whole country, control public’s mind, willing to use their negligible slow revolution progress to change, to adopt the change of world. They are afraid of other enlightened layer or elite replacing previous old institution and system. They are afraid of when most of people understand what freedom is and what right they have, they will lost their will to power to be a ruler no longer. Such like recent China, the control layer use nationalism ideas to shift the attention of public to the disadvantage and balefulness of colonization. They make big point to denial the complexion that is changed by colonization; emphasize how many people died in this progress, and how many fortunes are taken off, but ignore that colonization destroy the old structure of monarchy, destroy feudality, bring the new democracy, autonomy, self-government and independence ideas. The independence movement from nationalism is not the desirability of freedom from public, but the desirability from leading group. This is because the desirability of autonomy, freedom and democracy is the desirability of world, not only a group of people, a single country, and it is not the rejection of other ideas, it is not the idea ‘we are unique’, but ‘the world is unique’. Therefore, I cannot agree without giving serious thought of nationalism’s thinking. And I strongly agree with the statement the lecturer made last week:
l National sentiment is both ‘modern’ and ‘irrational’, ‘superstitious’ and folkloric’
l The rhetoric of national development is forward looking vision but rhetoric of national attachment looks back to custom and tradition.
no one check it for me??????? please.............