As opposed to colloquial understanding, there is no standard scholarly definition of nationalism, but it is widely seen as zeal over an identity that strives to manifest into an organized state. Despite this minimal consensus, nationalism is usually equated with an ethnocentric conception of the nation-state, what I recognize to be ethnocentric nationalism, the commitment to a linguistically, racially, and culturally likeminded nation. I argue that this traditional, ethnocentric understanding of nationalism is only one interpretation of nationalism. Ethnocentric nationalism has and continues to be in tension with a more recently established interpretation of the nation, which I call multicultural nationalism: the commitment to a country’s principles rather than to its racial, cultural, and religious ties.
A common acceptance of difference is growing in the United States as shown by Kaepernick’s public support in the face of patriotic conformity. This perspective draws from the United States’ ideological roots that argue for one nation made up of many, e pluribus unum, so that foreign backgrounds should not just be accepted but also embraced to form a more diverse nation. The passion for a progressive, multicultural America can be translated into its own movement of multicultural nationalism. In this context, the support for Kaepernick’s actions no longer appears to represent increased dissent from the United States, but instead seems to be an attempt to challenge ethnocentric nationalism’s claim to the nation.
This paper will begin by contrasting the reactions to Kaepernick’s protest and to protests before him in order to contend that nationalism is no longer characterized by only ethnocentric tradition. I will analyze theoretical studies on nationalism to dispute this common understanding that nationalism is solely ethnocentric. I will argue that nationalism, rather, is the intense manifestation of a community’s identity within a political state; the identity of which can be either ethnocentric or multicultural. The Kaepernick ordeal will be used to signify the greater division in the American public over whether a multicultural or ethnocentric conception of the nation should be supported in the United States. Lastly, this paper will observe how the Kaepernick protest suggests multicultural nationalism’s viability in today’s politically progressive environment, and how multiculturalism should embrace nationalism to advance its platform.
In the current race for technological innovation, companies are striving to be the best and most prominent in the industry. A major way companies are setting themselves apart is through personalized experiences for their customers, so they have a huge incentive to collect consumer information. Consumers have limited knowledge of how much information companies collect and what goes on behind the scenes. Therefore, it is becoming extremely important to ensure companies are held accountable for upholding consumers’ right to privacy. One way this can be done is through the implementation of privacy legislation. The United States has not yet enacted federal preemptive privacy legislation, so this thesis examines the feasibility of enacting such legislation using the European Union’s GDPR as a model. California’s current state-level privacy law, the CCPA, is compared to the GDPR to determine the elements of a successful privacy law and find that the CCPA has many problems, most of which are solved by the GDPR. Because of this, it is concluded that it is necessary for the United States to adopt federal privacy legislation which would be most successful if the GDPR was used as a foundation.
This thesis is concerned with the political implications of two of Jacques-Louis David's paintings: Oath of the Horatii (1784) and The Lictors Bringing to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons (1789). In this thesis, I argue that David’s pre-Revolutionary work contained political anticipations of Revolutionary France articulated in his Neoclassical forms, the classical stories he chose to paint, his own narrative innovations using light, color, gender, unusual scenes and the thematic conflict of the state vs the individual and family.
The Electoral College, the current electoral system in the U.S., operates on a Winner-Take-All or First Past the Post (FPTP) principle, where the candidate with the most votes wins. Despite the Electoral College being the current system, it is problematic. According to Lani Guinier in Tyranny of the Majority, “the winner-take-all principle invariably wastes some votes” (121). This means that the majority group gets all of the power in an election while the votes of the minority groups are completely wasted and hold little to no significance. Additionally, FPTP systems reinforce a two-party system in which neither candidate could satisfy the majority of the electorate’s needs and issues, yet forces them to choose between the two dominant parties. Moreover, voting for a third party candidate only hurts the voter since it takes votes away from the party they might otherwise support and gives the victory to the party they prefer the least, ensuring that the two party system is inescapable. Therefore, a winner-take-all system does not provide the electorate with fair or proportional representation and creates voter disenfranchisement: it offers them very few choices that appeal to their needs and forces them to choose a candidate they dislike. There are, however, alternative voting systems that remedy these issues, such as a Ranked voting system, in which voters can rank their candidate choices in the order they prefer them, or a Proportional voting system, in which a political party acquires a number of seats based on the proportion of votes they receive from the voter base. Given these alternatives, we will implement a software simulation of one of these systems to demonstrate how they work in contrast to FPTP systems, and therefore provide evidence of how these alternative systems could work in practice and in place of the current electoral system.
People of color, and more especially Black Americans, make up a minuscule portion of annual National Park visitation. This podcast is a look into the prejudiced history surrounding the formation of the national parks, the modern theories surrounding continuing lack of park diversity, and personal accounts of where the movement for outdoor equality is going and where your support should go. This all culminates into a project that aims to understand why this statistic exists as it is and present it through podcast.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had an international impact since the novel coronavirus first surfaced in late 2019. Since then, different countries have taken different approaches to try and limit transmissions and deaths. While this is seemingly unprecedented in modern day times, many pandemics, or plagues, have happened relatively frequently in history. This paper examines three historical plagues through the lens of social psychologist Geert Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions to distinguish between cultures: power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long term orientation and indulgence versus restraint. This paper then applies these dimensions to the modern day U.S. and South Korea, two countries who have had different success in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. Through these dimensions, this paper aims to explain a factor in why South Korea has had better results than the U.S. It also recognizes that Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are not the only factor to affect the pandemic, and explores political influences in America through the lens of Henry David Thoreau and John Dewey. Overall, this paper argues that the U.S. has been unsuccessful in taming the pandemic because of certain cultural dimensions, such as more an individualist and indulgent culture, and its unstable and divisive political climate. Given this, the United States has a hopeful, yet arduous path moving forward with COVID-19 and future pandemics.
The Electoral College, the current electoral system in the U.S., operates on a Winner-Take-All or First Past the Post (FPTP) principle, where the candidate with the most votes wins. Despite the Electoral College being the current system, it is problematic. According to Lani Guinier in Tyranny of the Majority, “the winner-take-all principle invariably wastes some votes” (121). This means that the majority group gets all of the power in an election while the votes of the minority groups are completely wasted and hold little to no significance. Additionally, FPTP systems reinforce a two-party system in which neither candidate could satisfy the majority of the electorate’s needs and issues, yet forces them to choose between the two dominant parties. Moreover, voting for a third party candidate only hurts the voter since it takes votes away from the party they might otherwise support and gives the victory to the party they prefer the least, ensuring that the two party system is inescapable. Therefore, a winner-take-all system does not provide the electorate with fair or proportional representation and creates voter disenfranchisement: it offers them very few choices that appeal to their needs and forces them to choose a candidate they dislike. There are, however, alternative voting systems that remedy these issues, such as a Ranked voting system, in which voters can rank their candidate choices in the order they prefer them, or a Proportional voting system, in which a political party acquires a number of seats based on the proportion of votes they receive from the voter base. Given these alternatives, we will implement a software simulation of one of these systems to demonstrate how they work in contrast to FPTP systems, and therefore provide evidence of how these alternative systems could work in practice and in place of the current electoral system.