Nationalist Debates Research Articles

The Antisemitism of the Eighth Duke of Northumberland’s the Patriot, 1922-1930

This article explores British antisemitism through an investigation of the journal Patriot, a leading weekly of the interwar British radical right. It provides the first indepth examination of the Patriot’s editorial content for the period it was under the direction of its founder, the leading publicist of the aristocratic Die-hard and protofascist right, the eighth Duke of Northumberland. The roots and trajectories of the Patriot’s antisemitic propaganda are situated within the broader radical right discourse of interwar Britain and the impact of the journal is assessed in the dissemination and popularization of antisemitic thinking. Aspects of antisemitism which receive attention include racialist and conspiracist theory, the religious causes of aversion to Jews, opposition to Zionism and to the League of Nations, and the role of anticommunism in fostering twentieth century antisemitism. Given the Duke of Northumberland’s principled adhesion to the Catholic Apostolic Church, a small premillenarian fundamentalist group, the ambivalent posture to Jews and Judaism of conservative Christianity is also assessed in considerable detail. The article argues that Northumberland and the Patriot were endowed with an attitudinal propensity to conspiracist, antisemitic paradigms by frames of reference born in the imperialist and nationalist debates of the Edwardian period. These frames of reference were refocused and renamed after the Bolshevik revolution so as to constitute the Jew-Bolshevik equation which cohered much of subsequent radical right and fascist antisemitism. The centrality of this renaming is shown to have been crucial as means towards circumventing the theological philo-semitism which was the heritage of Northumberland and his primary audience, making the Patriot an important conduit in permeating traditionalist, religiously-rooted Conservative thinking with antisemitic ways of perception and categories of thinking. Its clothing of these perceptions in anticommunism, imperialism and racialism is seen as having significantly contributed towards making antisemitism appear more respectable, apparently unrelated to Jews as a religious or cultural community, and therefore a much more potent, durable or malleable force than might otherwise have been the case.

From popular anti-imperialism to sectarianism: the african liberation support committee and black power radicals

This essay critically examines the popular mobilizations conducted by the African Liberation Support Committee (ALSC) and the organization's ultimate collapse into sectarianism. The natural history of ALSC and the factors responsible for both its successes and demise bear important implications for the development of viable black radical politics during the contemporary period. Though commonly neglected in discussions of African American influence over US–Africa relations, ALSC made an indelible impact on American public consciousness and state policy towards Africa during the 1970s. Through the African Liberation Day (ALD) mobilizations of the early 1970s and other programmatic activities, ALSC activists articulated a vision of postcolonial Africa that fused the standard claims of state sovereignty and democratic rights with a radical critique of the post-Bretton Woods global political economy and the inordinate influence of transnational corporations within this emergent configuration. Likewise, ALSC activists crafted a political campaign that made radical ideals and interpretations relevant to the everyday lived experiences of thousands of blacks throughout North America and the Caribbean. Albeit momentarily, ALSC organizers articulated a popular anti-imperialism that effectively connected the relations of production, conditions of labor exploitation and political disenfranchisement on the African continent with American corporate–state institutions and constructed productive channels for the expression of a substantive, transatlantic racial solidarity. This essay probes the sources of ALSC's demise and develops the claim that the conversion of many activists from nationalism to Marxist–Leninism stemmed from contradictions within black power discourse. Furthermore, I argue that the turn to Marxism was progressive to the extent that it encouraged the development of critical perspectives regarding the limits of black indigenous control and racial identity politics in general. Nonetheless, I maintain that emphasis on ideological purity—the fundamental premise that doctrinaire ideology and not historically specific, temporal political issues should serve as the principal basis of political work—was essentially flawed and counterproductive. To the extent that the mid-1970s Marxist–nationalist debate was characterized by dogma and ad hominem attacks versus reflexive political theory and constructive engagement, this development degraded the character of public debate within radical circles and deeply undermined ALSC's viability and the maintenance of opposition more generally. The advent of the Marxist–nationalist debate marked a tragic retreat from the powerful issue-driven popular alliances personified by the ALD mobilizations. Radicals' emphasis on doctrinaire ideology profoundly fragmented the capacity of oppositional forces, alienated them from vast sectors of the black population and ultimately arrested the potential impact of their programs.

Directions in Canada's International Security Policy

INTRODUCTION: DEFENCE AND SECURITYFor some time now, Canadians have not been overly concerned about national defence.(f.1) They have felt no threat of imminent invasion; they have not seen their core values or institutions under challenge by some foreign, or even some domestic, force; they have not been coerced into domestic or foreign policies inimical to their preferences.(f.2) Indeed, the idea of national defence seems to be of decreasing relevance to most Canadians, except for the perception by some that the movement for Quebec sovereignty directly challenges Canadian security.(f.3)But that does not mean that there has been no activity in this sector of public life. Since 1993 a series of government documents has emanated from the House, Senate, and the Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) and of National Defence (DND);(f.4) parliament has convened hearings; and the informed public has offered its assessments of foreign and defence policy.(f.5) To this list can be added the special reports commissioned to address specific concerns, including the Reserves, the Somalia Inquiry, maritime and naval issues, United Nations rapid reaction capability, procurement matters such as fixed wing and helicopter aircraft and conventionally powered submarines, the military justice system, and the 'quality of life' concerns of the families of members of the Canadian Armed Forces. What animates many of these efforts is a need to reorganize, reform, and refocus the Canadian military in the post--cold war world and to relocate it within Canadian society.Both DFAIT and DND undertook internal assessments in the late 1980s of their respective capacities to formulate and implement policies attuned to the dramatic changes unfolding during the period, especially around East-West relations. Already, then, some analysts in Ottawa and in the academic community were keenly aware of the need to rethink their ideas about international security.(f.6) But even with well informed reviews and reports, the analyses and sentiments have still not been codified or consolidated into an overall strategic view of Canada's place in the world of war and peace. This is not the place to pursue the larger issue, but it is worth noting that, in spite of much effort by people within and outside of official circles, no single statement or document clearly articulates for Canadians what it means today to have a professional Canadian Armed Forces. Why should a significant, albeit decreasing, proportion of the government's budget and taxpayers' dollars go towards maintaining a military force?(f.7)From Bosnia and Kosovo to Chechnya, the Great Lakes Region to Sierra Leone, Afghanistan to Sri Lanka, and Algeria to the Gulf, the use of organized force does not seem to have diminished. Enduring rivalries and protracted conflict and violence, whether intra- or interstate, are indicative of both the continuing utility and the perverse misuse of military force. It is equally obvious that none of these or, for that matter and to our good fortune, any other example directly threatens Canada - or at least only so far as it offends Canadian values and, for some, Canadian interests. Canadians and their government make that determination. For reasons ranging from the normative to the instrumental, they present these activities in ways that link Canadians to the event or to the outcome. These are not, in and of themselves, national defence concerns, though they are issues that are potentially within the mission and mandate of the Canadian Armed Forces.Of course, some analysts have perceived palpable threats to Canada or to Canadian interests in a number of recent cases: fish and maritime zones on east and west coasts; Arctic issues; questions about the penetration of Canada by non-Canadian cultural forces, which are at least as relevant as they were thirty years ago; and who really controls the economy. The same issues, with their own particular colour, inform much of the nationalist debate around Quebec and federalism. …

Culture, Communication and National Identity: The Case of Canadian Television

Why is Richard Collins, a British social scientist who has also taught in Australia, interested in Canada? Because we have experienced decades of what is now a global experience, that is, the constant “spillover of American television”. Collins brings a breadth of research and, equally important, an outsider’s point of view to our nationalist debate. He challenges some of its most basic premises and sharpens our sense of its place in our rather belated study of the texts of our own popular culture. Moreover, he is the first academic to attempt consistently to look at programs, policies and critics in French and English.