Ideology Was More Important Than Culture and Religion for the Growth of Nationalist Movements in the Period Before Wwii. How Far Do You Agree?
Ideology was more important than culture and religion for the growth of nationalist movements in the period before WWII.
How far do you agree?
Colonial rule had brought about many significant impacts in South East Asian countries which included many dissatisfactions among the natives. Thus, this brought about the rise of nationalist movements. There are many reasons to why there was a development of these movements and the two main reasons for this cause was ideology as well as religion and culture. The spread of ideology such as Marxism and communism and the preservation of culture and religion were one of the main factors as to why nationalist movements were widespread in the period before WWII. The growth of nationalism refers to how these movements were able to garner mass support from the locals, how far they are able to radicalize their movements and how united the movements were. The growth of nationalism was largely based on ideology rather than religion. Thus, I agree strongly to the statement.
Firstly, religion and culture played an important role in the rise of nationalist movements where it was able to gain mass support from the locals. Religion and culture was greatly displaced by the colonial powers and many natives were severly affected as religion played an important role in shaping their lives. For instance, religion managed to influence and gain mass support. This could be seen in Sareket Dagan Islam in Indonesia. It only managed to gain more support from the locals after changing its name and objectives in 1912 to Sareket Islam. The party was based on Islamic reform, which stresses that Islam was a source of democratic ideas and spiritual education. The party dropped the term “Dagang” to appeal to a wider sector of society beyond commercial interests and retained the word “Islam” which was useful politically in a country that was predominantly Muslim. This garnering of mass support through religion and culture could also be seen in Burma.
How far do you agree?
Colonial rule had brought about many significant impacts in South East Asian countries which included many dissatisfactions among the natives. Thus, this brought about the rise of nationalist movements. There are many reasons to why there was a development of these movements and the two main reasons for this cause was ideology as well as religion and culture. The spread of ideology such as Marxism and communism and the preservation of culture and religion were one of the main factors as to why nationalist movements were widespread in the period before WWII. The growth of nationalism refers to how these movements were able to garner mass support from the locals, how far they are able to radicalize their movements and how united the movements were. The growth of nationalism was largely based on ideology rather than religion. Thus, I agree strongly to the statement.
Firstly, religion and culture played an important role in the rise of nationalist movements where it was able to gain mass support from the locals. Religion and culture was greatly displaced by the colonial powers and many natives were severly affected as religion played an important role in shaping their lives. For instance, religion managed to influence and gain mass support. This could be seen in Sareket Dagan Islam in Indonesia. It only managed to gain more support from the locals after changing its name and objectives in 1912 to Sareket Islam. The party was based on Islamic reform, which stresses that Islam was a source of democratic ideas and spiritual education. The party dropped the term “Dagang” to appeal to a wider sector of society beyond commercial interests and retained the word “Islam” which was useful politically in a country that was predominantly Muslim. This garnering of mass support through religion and culture could also be seen in Burma.