National unity in cultural diversity: how national and linguistic identities affected Swiss language curricula (1914–1961)

2020 ◽  
pp. 135-152
Author(s):  
Anja Giudici ◽  
Sandra Grizelj
Author(s):  
Hugh Starkey

This article comments on keynote speeches given by Keith Ajegbo and Audrey Osler. The programme of study for citizenship derived from the Crick report and did not emphasise race equality and national unity for security. Osler argues that the Ajegbo review addressed teaching of ethnic, religious and cultural diversity but did not confront the inadequacies of British democracy or reassert social justice, a sense of shared humanity and a commitment to human rights. Proposing, let alone imposing, a definition of Britishness is futile, but it is possible to promote cosmopolitan patriotism supported by explicit principles, concepts and values.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 228-234
Author(s):  
Agus Setyo Hartono

The understanding of uniting the nation's cultural diversity requires a strategy in handling it so that it does not become a breaker of Indonesian unity, in the political integration of diversity in party groups and their partisanship with government power, it becomes less and less pro to certain communities in society that are represented in dealing with various problems. Cultural diversity that characterizes the Indonesian nation is a nation's wealth or asset that must be preserved and it is hoped that it will lead to potential excellence in the world. Conflicts that are oriented towards division, disintegration of the nation, and want to liberate from the unitary republic of Indonesia require concrete efforts to be overcome for the sake of realizing national unity in the Universal War Strategy. Therefore, the researcher wants to examine how the implementation of a sense of unity and political integration as an element that plays a very important role in the universal war strategy, because the understanding of universal war in the face of non-military threats is needed from government agencies outside of defense, especially in the political dimension, so civic, universality and populist is a feature of the settlement with a universal war strategy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-46
Author(s):  
Peter A. Blitstein

Soviet nationality policy was one of several political responses to cultural diversity in the interwar period. The author situates that policy in its comparative context, contrasting the Soviet Union to its eastern European neighbors and to British and French rule in Africa. Contrary to the nationalizing policies of the new states of eastern Europe, which sought national unity at the expense of ethnic minorities, Soviet nationality policy was initially based on practices of diff erentiation. Contrary to the colonial policies of Britain and France, which were based on ethnic and racial diff erentiation, Soviet policy sought to integrate all peoples into one state. In the mid-to-late 1930s, however, Soviet policy took a nationalizing turn similar to its neighbors in eastern Europe, without completely abandoning policies of ethnic diff erentiation. We should thus understand the Soviet approach as a unique hybrid of contradictory practices of nationalization and diff erentiation.


Al-Albab ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 265
Author(s):  
Masnur Alam

This article was motivated by recent development in Indonesian society whose religious and cultural diversity has raised a lot of racial issues that lead to tension and suspicion among communities in the Sungai Penuh, Kerinci Regency, Jambi province on Sumatra Island. The impact could potentially trigger conflict, damage, inconvenience and could further threaten national unity and national integration. This article gives an overview that religion (Islam) has a very positive philosophy that in fact humans are created in religious and cultural diversity. Diversity is the law of God, something that is commonplace, rule of time, a must, and divine grace to be grateful for, a form generosity from God to humans as the strength, the reason to do good. The government together with the community has been able to build harmony in diversity, creating peace, moderation, compassion, love of peace, tolerance, avoiding conflict, so as to build the country as planned. In socializing the attitude of harmony, the government can do it through formal and non-formal ways, eventually people can implement it in their daily lives. Thus, the government and the public can establish harmony in diversity, creating peace, security, order, justice, tranquility, comfort as well as brotherhood and compassion. The government together with the community can come together, foster mutual cooperation to achieve the goals the country’s development. This paper also recommends to religious communities with diverse cultures to always build harmony as one of the solutions in creating peace and free from conflict, as well as serving as capital to build the country, nation, state and religion.


Slavic Review ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A. Blitstein

Soviet nationality policy was one of several political responses to cultural diversity in the interwar period. Peter A. Blitstein situates that policy in its comparative context, contrasting the Soviet Union to its eastern European neighbors and to British and French rule in Africa. Contrary to the nationalizing policies of the new states of eastern Europe, which sought national unity at the expense of ethnic minorities, Soviet nationality policy was initially based on practices of differentiation. Contrary to the colonial policies of Britain and France, which were based on ethnic and racial differentiation, Soviet policy sought to integrate all peoples into one state. In the mid-to-late 1930s, however, Soviet policy took a nationalizing turn similar to its neighbors in eastern Europe, without completely abandoning policies of ethnic differentiation. We should thus understand the Soviet approach as a unique hybrid of contradictory practices of nationalization and differentiation


2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-24
Author(s):  
Hassen Zriba

Managing cultural differences has become a top priority in many western multicultural societies. Issues of intercultural harmony and social stability loom large in the rhetoric of political governance. Discourses of social cohesion and national unity seem to replace those of multiculturalism and cultural diversity. In this article, I study the discursive consideration of such issues within Britain in general and Bradford city in particular. A critical interpretive perspective is used to scrutinize the linguistic and the discursive strategies employed by a local race-related report Community Pride not prejudice (2001). It is suggested that such report reflected a growing official tendency to prioritize social unity over cultural diversity. It is perceived as the hegemonic dominant reading of the nature of race relations in contemporary Britain at the beginning of the 21st century. Yet, not hegemony is final. Thus, the dominant ideological inscriptions of the report were also read and decoded differently. Community Pride not prejudice was an official narrative of how ethnic residential segregation contributed immensely to the failure of race relations in Bradford. Nevertheless, other counter-narratives questioned its ideological assumptions and revealed its agenda-setting nature. The outcome of such hegemonic and counter-hegemonic readings of the situation was multiple and polyphonic discursive formations so indicative of the pluralistic nature of a society like that of Britain.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-170
Author(s):  
AlubaBari Desmond Nbete

The Nigerian state is deeply polarised along ethnic and religious contours, with a widening gulf between the poor masses and the rich few, which reflects the culpability of the ruling elite. However, the actual character of the class struggle is often blurred by the politicization of ethno-cultural and religious differences in a manner that undermines political order and national unity. Ethnicity and religion are thus usedby the political class to manipulate the citizens' consciousness of their ethno-cultural and religious identities to serve the masked parochial class interests. This has made the political arena very volatile and conflict-laden. Stemming the tide of this incessant clash of values and violent ethno-religious conflicts requires a creative adaptation of multiculturalism and secularism. This paper defended a sophisticated understanding of state in the globalization era, which includes citizens' appreciation of their cultural differences, mediated by consciousness of their shared humanity and a strong commitment to the ideals of a civilized community. It argued for a genuinely humanistic secularization of state affairs, harnessing of the country's diverse cultural heritage, and promotion of religious accommodation rather than cultural assimilation and the interference of religion in state affairs, or vice versa.Key Words: multiculturalism, humanistic secularism, cultural diversity, cultural integration, national unity


2016 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J.H. Van Wyk

In his book The Irony of Apartheid (1981), I. Hexham argues that Calvinists – also those from Potchefstroom – formulated and promoted the ideology of apartheid. In this article this statement is investigated by comparing it to the view of the Dutch historian, Gerrit Schutte, who blamed Hertzog, Malan and the volksnasionaliste [nationalists] for the development of the Afrikaner ideology. The views of Calvinist individuals and organisations, especially some hailing from Potchefstroom as well as those of the Gereformeerde Kerke van Suid-Afrika (GKSA) are examined and a far more nuanced conclusion is reached. The article ends with some short remarks on the everlasting question about the relation between (national) unity and (cultural) diversity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document