The links below provide an outline of the material for this lesson. Be sure to carefully read through the entire lesson before returning to Canvas to submit your assignments.
Note: You can print the entire lesson by clicking on the "Print" link above.
In the previous two lessons, you read about the nature of identity as it is conceptualized within geography; lived experiences of identity and being misidentified; and about the ways that borders and identity interact, with an emphasis on geopolitical consequences of drawing and representing borders and labeling disputed territory. In this lesson, we focus our attention on the ways that group identities in the form of nations are territorialized and politicized through nationalism.
Upon completion of this lesson, you will be able to:
If you have any questions now or at any point during this week, please feel free to post them to the GEOG 571 - General Discussion Forum. (That forum can be accessed at any time in Canvas by opening the Lesson 0: Welcome to GEOG 571 module in Canvas.)
This lesson is one week in length. Please refer to the Calendar in Canvas for specific time frames and due dates. To finish this lesson, you must complete the activities listed below. You may find it useful to print this page out first so that you can follow along with the directions.
Step | Activity | Access/Directions |
---|---|---|
1 | Read the Lesson 5 online lecture notes. | The lecture notes can be accessed by clicking on the Lesson 5: Identity III - Nationalism, Separatism, and Terrorism link in the Lessons menu on this page. |
2 | Required Reading |
Antonsich, M. (2017). Nation and nationalism. In J. Agnew, V. Madouh, A. J. Secour, and J. Sharp (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to political geography (pp. 297-310). Wiley Blackwell. Jabareen, Y. (2015). The emerging Islamic State: Terror, territoriality, and the agenda of social transformation. Geoforum, 58, 51-55. Pokalova, E. (2010). Framing separatism as terrorism: Lessons from Kosovo. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33(5), 429-447. Reinares, F. (2005). Nationalist separatism and terrorism in comparative perspective. In T. Bjørgo (Ed.), Root causes of terrorism: Myths, reality, and ways forward (pp. 119-130). Routledge. Note: Registered students can access the readings in Canvas by clicking on the Library Resources link. |
3 | Optional Reading |
Caló, B., Malet, D., Howie, L, and Lentini, P. (2020). Islamic Caliphate or nation state? Investigating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant's imagined Community. Nations and Nationalism, 26(3), 727-742. Pamir, P. (1997). Nationalism, ethnicity and democracy: Contemporary manifestations. International Journal of Peace Studies, 2(2), 3-19. Note: Penn State students should be able to access the optional readings though the Penn State Libraries. (Penn State Access ID login required.) |
5 | Complete the Lesson 5 Discussion Forum. | Post your answer to the Lesson 5 Discussion Forum in Canvas and comment on classmates' responses. You can find the prompt for the assignment in the Lesson 5 Discussion Forum in the Lesson 5: Identity III - Nationalism, Separatism, and Terrorism module in Canvas. |
4 | Complete the Lesson 5 ArcGIS Online Exercise. | Instructions for the Map Exercise can be found on the 5.6 ArcGIS Exercise - How Ideologies Territorialize [1] page of this lesson. Submit your assignment to the Lesson 5 ArcGIS Online Exercise dropbox in the Lesson 5: Identity III - Nationalism, Separatism, and Terrorism module in Canvas. |
In order to understand how nations and nationalism operate, it is important to distinguish between nation, state, and ethnicity — all of which are key ideas that are important to understanding nationalism. To ensure that we’re all on the same page, we offer the following general definitions, with the caveat that the borders between some of these categories are sometimes fuzzy and mutable.
Of these concepts, state is perhaps the easiest to define, though there is no single, canonical definition, and different scholars emphasize different things. Storey, for example, thinks of states as “agencies with power over citizens within demarcated territory” (2012, p. 70) while Knight describes them as “a legal and physical entity, with an effective system of government, [and] is a bounded container for the contents of a particular area, which includes the people, resources, and a means for communication and movement” (1982, p. 517).
The Dictionary of Human Geography provides perhaps the most succinct definition when it defines a state as a “centralized set of institutions facilitating coercive power and governing capabilities over a defined territory” (Gregory et al., 2009, p. 722). Ultimately, following Mann (1984) and as summarized by Jones, Jones, and Wood, states consist of:
In contrast to states, which are legal entities consisting of both institutions and territory, nations consist of people, and it is difficult to pin down exactly what constitutes a nation. Again, without a single, canonical definition, we turn to a few sources, who characterize nations varyingly as “social collectives with an attachment to a certain territory” (Storey, 2012, p. 70); as a “product of nationalism” that is “treated by nationalists as the naturalized geo-historical foundation for national community” (Gregory et al., 2009, pp. 486-487); or, in the words of Benedict Anderson (1991), as socially constructed “imagined communities” of people who share a sense of belonging to a broader group even though they recognize that they will never meet everyone within it.
As Antonsich (2017) explains, there are longstanding debates regarding how and when nations formed. There are two major sets of stances with regard to the development of nations: primordial or essentialist stances, and modernist stances. While we see the merits of both positions, we embrace a modernist position, arguing that nations are constructed through discourses of nationalism generated and reproduced by states.
It is likely that the term ethnicity is familiar to you in some way, especially if you are from the United States and know your family’s history of immigration. Like nation, ethnicity is difficult to define clearly; nation and ethnicity are sometimes used interchangeably, and there may be considerable overlap between them. We often use ethnicity to refer to a person’s ethnic origins — i.e., the cultural affiliations of one’s ancestors, which typically reflect the language(s), customs, religion(s), cuisine(s), and practices that they associate with a particular place, and which have been passed down through generations. This is particularly the case in the United States, where, due to waves of immigration over centuries, many people claim an American nationality but an ethnic heritage that is something else and which may be expressed in a hyphenated fashion (e.g., Irish-American, Syrian-American, Chinese-American, African-American, etc.).
For our purposes, we will distinguish between nation and ethnicity thus: we will consider the nation a primarily political identity (with cultural elements), and ethnicity a primarily cultural identity (though one that can be politicized). That is, to bear a national identity may be to have citizenship in the state associated with that nation, or to desire self-determination (as is the case with stateless nations like Kurdistan). National identities are implicated in the desire for control over territory.
By contrast, to bear an ethnic identity is to claim a connection to a particular culture and the place of its origin, but not necessarily to the state in which that culture is dominant (if indeed there is one). While there may be an attachment to a place that is associated with a given ethnicity, that attachment may be more cultural and historical than actively political — that is, even while representations of that territory may be culturally or symbolically significant, there might not be a desire to inhabit or participate in the political control of that territory.
It is tempting to think of nations as collectives that change little over time, as groups that consistently identify with a clearly bounded territory. Yet from a modernist standpoint, nations are a relatively recent and politically charged construction that developed alongside the states. And states themselves are dynamic; borders change, internal conditions — both physical and social — change, and interaction between states (e.g., conflict, trade partnerships, etc.) can lead individuals to migrate to other places.
Transnational migrants provide an important example of how nations can become spatially fragmented or diasporic — and consequently give us reason to question the essentiality of identity. People who migrate across borders take their national and cultural identities with them, creating networks between places in the process. For individuals who retain citizenship in their home country, living abroad may reinforce their national identity (even if they don’t necessarily approve of aspects of their home country’s government). Migrants who have a limited or exceptional legal status (e.g., a Green Card in the case of the US) may find themselves regularly reminded of their national identity by the legal requirements of their host state.
A scattering of people over space and transnational connections between people and places. The term was first used to describe the forced dispersal of the Jews from Palestine in the sixth century BCE, and often continues to refer to forced migration and exile. More recently, and particularly since the 1990s, diaspora studies have come to encompass wider notions of transnational migration, resettlement, connection and attachment, often closely associated with post-colonial and ‘new ethnicities’ research. (Gregory et al., 2009, pp. 158-159)
It is through diaspora and transnational migration that we recognize that people’s national (and ethnic) identities may not be “pure.” The networks that transnational migrants create between places can also reflect the development of hybridity within identity — that is, “a blending of one’s old identity along with a newer identity imposed or resulting from a major move” (Kaplan & Chacko, 2015, p. 134). Hybrid identities suggest an internal, individual-scaled tension between one’s attachments to homeland and host state, and this tension suggests a fluidity of identity.
The implication here is that, although it is tempting to consider national identity as monolithic and unchanging at the scale of the nation itself, there is nothing inherently stable about national identity at the scale of the individual.
Antonsich, M. (2017). Nation and nationalism. In J. Agnew, V. Madouh, A. J. Secour, and J. Sharp (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to political geography (pp. 297-310). Wiley Blackwell.
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. (2nd ed). Verso.
Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M. J., and Whatmore, S. (2009). The dictionary of human geography. Wiley-Blackwell.
Jones, M., Jones, R., and Woods, M. (2004). An introduction to political geography: Space, place and politics. Routledge.
Kaplan, D. H., and Chacko, E. (2015). Placing immigrant identities. Journal of Cultural Geography, 32(1), 129-138.
Knight, D. B. (1982). Identity and territory: Geographical perspectives on nationalism and regionalism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 72(4), 514-431.
Mann, M. (1984). The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanisms and results. European Journal of Sociology, 25(2), 185-213.
Storey, D. (2012). Territories: The claiming of space. Routledge.
Our purpose in distinguishing between nation, state, and ethnicity in the previous section stems from our interest here in nationalism. As you will likely have already suspected, there is no single, clear definition of nationalism (we’re certain you’re shaking your head at the recurring theme; we should have just provided this as a blanket statement on day one, as this is a consequence of the nature of messy and constantly evolving disciplines like geography), though we can offer several dovetailing descriptions.
At its most basic, we can think of nationalism as a strong sense of identification with one’s nation — strong enough that it goes beyond the chest-swelling pride of patriotism in its ability to mobilize individuals to risk their lives for the perceived (or constructed) good of the nation (though often this is done at the behest of the state). Place and identity are intertwined in nationalism, as Gregory and company point out when they define it as
the modern social and political formations that draw together feelings of belonging, solidarity and identification between national citizens and the territory imagined as their collective national homeland. (2009, p. 488)
Storey’s conceptualization underscores the connection between nationalism and place, in the form of territory. He describes it thus:
a territorial ideology reflecting an affinity to a particular space and one which, in its more ‘active’ form, seeks to maintain or to attain political independence (and in some cases dominance) for the nation and, hence, for its territory. (Storey, 2012, p. 88)
Knight gets at an important scalar aspect of nationalism when he describes it as “a whole complex of ideas, attitudes, events, and political movements” the main function of which is “the transference of loyalty from kinship groups or local and regional levels to the larger national group” (1982, p. 521). That is, nationalism is the means by which people’s loyalties are scaled upward from the family to Anderson’s (1991) imagined community of the nation.
We often associate nationalism with conflict — with territorial aggression, border disputes, ideological wars (e.g., the Cold War) and so on. And while this association between nationalism and conflict is accurate, it is not the only function that nationalism performs. In fact, one might argue that the kind of “hot” nationalism that accompanies conflict is an extreme form that can only come about as the result of more generalized forms of nationalism.
Nationalism in its less violent form serves to reproduce the identity — that is, the traits, values, desires, and so on that people collectively imagine as characteristic of the nation — to reinforce people’s sense of belonging within it. Nationalism can also be deployed to smooth over political differences within the nation. This is particularly true of democratic states, as Calhoun argues:
nationalism is integral to much of modern democracy. Nationalist discourse is integral to constructions of “we the people.” A sense of common national membership is integral to acceptances of different opinions and even electoral losses. And beyond democracy, a sense of belonging to a common nation has underwritten many modern projects of economic redistribution and social welfare. The National Health Service has its name for a reason. (2017, p. 26)
Likewise, several authors (including Calhoun, 2017 and Pamir, 1997) note that some multi-ethnic states have used nationalism to unify diverse populations. In fact, this use of nationalism has a relatively long history that parallels the emergence of the modern state:
Eighteenth and nineteenth century European nationalism was a unifying force which brought together people of diverse backgrounds at the price of subordinating their ethnic identities to the larger territorial unit dominated by the secular state. (Pamir, 1997, p. 4)
This was also the case for the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires, all of which were multi-ethnic (Pamir, 1997). However, it is important to note that this approach does not always bode well for ethnic minorities; in an effort to promote the existence of a ‘single’ nation, states sometimes force ethnic minorities to assimilate — and while this may diminish differences among groups before the state, it does so at the cost of ethnic identity and cultural practices (see, e.g., Pokalova, 2010).
However, states are not the sole parties that deploy nationalism to their own ends. Ethnic minorities within states (and particularly those who have ancestral ties to the territory occupied by the state) sometimes use nationalism to oppose the state, often in response to “factors such as denial of cultural identity, political discrimination, repression, or economic deprivation” (Pamir, 1997, p. 3).
Traditionally, scholars have distinguished between two forms of nationalism — ethnic and civic that reflect different actors and interests. Ethnic nationalism, as we suggested above, often exists in opposition to the state. With ancestral claims to territory and shared ethnicity as its justification, it may use cultural heritage or tradition to appeal to those who identify with the nation. By contrast, civic nationalism, often deployed by the state, relies on a shared belief in the state’s political and legal structures. The distinction between these two modes of nationalism is not always clear; as Antonsich points out, state nationalism typically combines both of these to some degree.
As we noted above, nationalism isn’t always aggressive or violent. It shows up not only in fiery rhetoric justifying actions on the world stage, but also in national holidays, the presence or use of visual symbols, mottos, and flags. Likewise, just as nationalism is not necessarily aggressive, it is not necessarily overt. Social psychologist Michael Billig (1995) undertook a close study of these less obvious forms of nationalism in his landmark book Banal Nationalism. In it, he introduced the concept of banal nationalism — everyday forms of nationalism that we take for granted and barely notice. These reproduce a sense of nationalism in subliminal ways, reinforcing the existence of the nation in people’s minds. Calhoun (2017) argues that for Billig, banal nationalism is what makes “hot” nationalism possible.
Banal nationalism appears not only in material forms such as flags or coins, but also in linguistic conventions. For example, the use of “my” or “our” soccer team to refer to a national team competing for the World Cup reinforces a multiple sense of belonging between the individual, the team, and the broader, imagined community of the nation itself. As you may have suspected, state institutions habitually use banal nationalism — but so do individuals, again, often in unconscious ways. Banal nationalism is often so subtle that we fail to recognize it when we encounter it — but it may be more visible when visiting other countries.
Think of three examples of banal nationalism that you’ve encountered in the last week. In what contexts did they appear? What form did they take? Who produced them? Did you notice at the time? Why or why not?
Pamir, P. (1997). Nationalism, ethnicity and democracy: Contemporary manifestations. International Journal of Peace Studies, 2(2), 3-19.
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. (2nd ed). Verso.
Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. Sage.
Calhoun, C. (2017). The rhetoric of nationalism. In M. Skey and M. Antonsich (Eds.), Everyday nationhood: Theorising culture, identity and belonging after banal nationalism (pp. 17-30). Palgrave Macmillan.
Knight, D. B. (1982). Identity and territory: Geographical perspectives on nationalism and regionalism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 72(4), 514-431.
Pokalova, E. (2010). Framing separatism as terrorism: Lessons from Kosovo. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33(5), 429-447.
Storey, D. (2012). Territories: The claiming of space. Routledge.
We have so far presented an overview of nationalism and briefly discussed its uses and how it operates. Nationalism clearly has implications for human security, as it may serve as a foundation or mobilizing force for separatism or terrorism.
Separatism is the desire for independence and self-determination by national or ethnic groups; this usually entails a claim to specific territory and the intent to secede from a larger state. There are several well-known examples of separatist movements throughout the world, including Kurdish separatism in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria; Tamil separatism in Sri Lanka; Tuareg separatism in Mali and Niger; Quebecois separatism in Canada; Basque separatism in Spain; and so on.
Terrorism is “organized violence that deliberately targets civilians and that is intended to sow fear among a population for political purposes” (Gregory et al., 2009, p. 747), though other definitions broaden this definition somewhat. For example, Borum defines terrorism as “acts of violence (as opposed to threats or more general coercion) intentionally perpetrated on civilian non-combatants with the goal of furthering some ideological, religious or political objective” (2004, p. 4). There are debates among scholars as to whether terrorism is, by definition, perpetrated only by non-state actors, or whether states can engage in terrorism (see also English, 2019).
It is absolutely crucial to bear in mind that states exert a significant amount of control over discourses of terrorism. States have the power to construct groups as terrorist in nature through rhetoric and the selective release of information. Consequently, it is important to keep a critical perspective on what does and does not constitute terrorism, bearing in mind that what is framed as a terrorist organization by one authority may be framed as freedom-fighters by another. The lines are not always clear, thus it is important to ask why a given group is (or is not) deemed a terrorist organization by a given state.
To some degree, nationalism, separatism, and terrorism are universes unto themselves. Yet we can consider these three phenomena as both coexisting and overlapping, as in a Venn diagram: some nationalist movements are also separatist; some terrorist movements are nationalist; some separatist movements are driven by terrorist organizations; and sometimes an organization or movement can embody all three of these.
Before we continue, we want to offer the following caveats. First, it is imperative to remember that not all nationalism leads to separatism and not all separatism is nationalist in orientation. As an example of the latter, consider narrow-scale separatist religious communities like the Old Order Amish, who purposefully maintain a geographic separation from broader US society by creating rural settlements that Stump refers to as “rural colonies” (2008, p. 24) — this is a form of separatism that is neither nationalist in orientation nor seeks to create an independent state.
Likewise, not all nationlist or separatist movements resort to terrorism, and not all terrorism is linked to nationalism or separatism (consider, for example, anti-abortion bombings, or the environmentally-motivated violence perpetrated by Ted Kaczynski — both of which are/were acts of domestic terrorism). Finally, not all violence is terrorism — an armed uprising by a mass of civilians is a socially, politically, and geographically different event than a planned and targeted bombing by an individual or organization.
With these caveats in mind, we want to emphasize a few specific points here about the relationships between nationalism, separatism, and terrorism.
First, many separatist movements are rooted in nationalism, and often use nationalist rhetoric as a means of mobilizing support for their causes (Ryabinin, p. 2017). While some separatist movements resort to violence (and sometimes terrorism) to achieve their goals, not all do.
Separatist movements are complex with respect to their relationship to terrorism; a single separatist movement may have several factions that differ on political and strategic grounds (see, e.g., the variety of Kurdish political parties in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey as described in Hevian, 2013); some factions might favor violent action to achieve their goals while others rely on nonviolent strategies (e.g., forming political parties that try to operate within the existing state system). As we noted above, not all separatist movements resort to violence or terrorism — but states sometimes discursively construct peaceful separatist movements as terrorist movements (Pokalova, 2010).
While separatist movements are largely driven by nationalism, the converse is not necessarily the case. That is, nationalist movements do not necessarily seek the establishment of a separate, independent state. For example, the current increase in nationalist movements throughout Europe is in many cases a reaction to immigration and economic conditions; these movements are led by groups that seek to push immigrants out rather than to break away from existing states (see BBC News, 2019).
Like separatism, nationalism more broadly has a complex relationship with terrorism (see Reinares 2005). On the one hand, nationalism can be used as a means of rationalizing terrorist activity, often in the cases of religious and ethnic nationalism. This has certainly been the case for the Irish Republican Army in North Ireland, and for the Basque separatist group ETA in Spain (Sànchez-Cuenca, 2007). On the other, nationalism can also be used to try to curb terrorism. This has been the case with Saudi Arabia’s plan to counter violent extremism in the last two decades, as noted in the 2019 Country Reports on Terrorism from the US Department of State’s Bureau of Counterterrorism (emphasis added):
To promote a more comprehensive, collaborative, and proactive approach to CVE, Saudi activities focused on identifying pathways to terrorist radicalization and recruitment; and countering these by government messaging that emphasized nationalism, rejected intolerant ideologies, including those based on religious interpretations, and cultivated appreciation for Saudi culture and heritage as the basis for national identity. (US Dept of State, 2019)
As part of this plan, the Saudi Ministry of Education has implemented programs in schools that “seek to educate students about the dangers of terrorism and aim to promote nationalism,” and which Saudi officials compare to drug awareness and milk consumption programs in American classrooms (Boucek, 2008).
Jabareen, Y. (2015). The emerging Islamic State: Terror, territoriality, and the agenda of social transformation. Geoforum, 58, 51-55.
Pokalova, E. (2010). Framing separatism as terrorism: Lessons from Kosovo. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33(5), 429-447.
Reinares, F. (2005). Nationalist separatism and terrorism in comparative perspective. In T. Bjørgo (Ed.), Root causes of terrorism: Myths, reality, and ways forward (pp. 119-130). Routledge.
Caló, B., Malet, D., Howie, L, and Lentini, P. (2020). Islamic Caliphate or nation state? Investigating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant's imagined Community. Nations and Nationalism, 26(3), 727-742.
BBC News. (2019, November 13). Europe and right-wing nationalism: A country-by-country guide [2].
Borum, R. (2004). Psychology of terrorism. University of South Florida.
Boucek, C. (2008). Report: Saudi Arabia’s “soft” counterterrorism strategy: Prevention, rehabilitation, and aftercare. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
English, R. (2019). Nationalism and terrorism. In E. Chenoweth, R. English, S. Kalyvas, and A. Gofas (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of terrorism (pp. 268-282). Oxford University Press.
Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M. J, and Whatmore, S. (2009). The dictionary of human geography. Wiley-Blackwell.
Hevian, R., (2013). The main Kurdish political parties in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey: A research guide. Middle East Review of International Affairs, 17(2), 94-112.
Ryabinin, Y. (2017), The basic causes of the contemporary separatism, Journal of Geography, Politics and Society, 7(1), 5-9.
Sànchez-Cuenca, I. (2007). The dynamics of nationalist terrorism: ETA and the IRA. Terrorism and Political Violence, 19(3), 289-306.
Stump, R. (2008). The geography of religion: Faith, place, and space. Rowman & Littlefield.
United States Department of State. (2019). U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Terrorism 2019 [3]. Retrieved from the Department of State, Bureau of Counterterrorism.
In this lesson you’ve read about nationalism as an aspect of identity, and about the complicated relationship between nationalism, separatism, and terrorism. As indicated in the lesson content, nationalism is inherently territorialized, as it involves an attachment to (and claim over) some particular territory. In this assignment, we will investigate that territoriality more directly.
We can debate the nature of the Islamic State (do they constitute a nationalist group? If so, how so? Is this a case of religious nationalism or is it something else?), but what is clear is that the ideology driving their activity has a significant territorial component to it. In this lesson, we’re going to look at the territory that the Islamic State controlled over various points in time. As you complete this assignment, consider what the territorial goals were of the Islamic State, why they chose this particular territory, and how they acquired it.
Using the various layers in ArcGIS Online depicting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq’s general territory between 2014 and 2019, consider what it means for an ideology or an ideological group to “control” territory across international borders. Upon a visual inspection of the territorial claims of the Islamic State during those time periods and the violent acts that are still ongoing, you will write a two page paper evaluating the territorialization of an ideology and what it means even once the territory is deemed to have been reclaimed. Use the questions posed throughout the exercise as a guide.
The Islamic State in Syria and Iraq has been called by several names including ISIS, and ISIL, Daesh, but the group originated from al Qaeda in Iraq, which dissipated in 2007, only to resurface in 2011, changing its name to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in 2013.
Please read the following Timeline: the Rise, Spread, and Fall of the Islamic State [4]
The caliphate was at its height of territorial control in 2014. At the end of 2014, airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq began to be conducted, and also marked a turning point in the control ISIS had over the landscape. Using ArcGIS Online, evaluate the approximate areas of control for ISIS in January 2015, October 2016, July 2017, and March 2019. Please note that the area of control for March 2019 is exaggerated for visualization purposes.
After March 2019, area of control maps for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are next to non-existent. Does that mean that ISIS is no longer a threat?
This weeks assignment is to answer the following questions in a 2 page paper (300 to 500 words)
When you are ready to submit your assigment, please ruturn to the Lesson 5 module in Canvas where you will find the Lesson 5 ArcGIS Online Exercise dropbox which contains specific instructions for submitting the assignment.
Please check the Canvas Syllabus or Calendar for specific time frames and due dates.
In this lesson, we approached identity from the perspective of nationalism. Nationalism appears in the world as a broad-scale phenomenon, but people’s lived experiences of it filters down to everyday manifestations which they often overlook. With an understanding of how identity operates at the broad scale of the nation, we considered its relationships to separatism and terrorism, noting the non-exclusive overlaps between them.
Please return to the Lesson 5 module in Canvas where you will find the Lesson 5 Discussion Forum which contains the discussion prompt and specific instructions for the assignment.
Please check the Canvas Syllabus or Calendar for specific time frames and due dates.
You have reached the end of Lesson 5! Double-check the to-do list on the Lesson 5 Checklist page [5] to make sure you have completed all of the activities listed there before you begin Lesson 6.
If you have any questions now or at any point during this week, please feel free to post them to the GEOG 571 - General Discussion Forum. (That forum can be accessed at any time in Canvas by opening the Lesson 0: Welcome to GEOG 571 module in Canvas.)
Links
[1] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog571/node/477
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36130006
[3] https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2019/
[4] https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/timeline-the-rise-spread-and-fall-the-islamic-state
[5] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog571/node/166