Nationalism and Imperialism are two terms that should be understood in different senses. Nationalism is based on aggressiveness in its concept. On the other hand imperialism is constructive in its concept.
Imperialism is a kind of rule that aims at bringing equality of values, beliefs, and expertise among empires and kingdoms through domination and is autocratic in nature and also sometimes monolithic in its concept. Imperialism is a kind of western undertaking that employs expansionistic views and ideas in its ideals. Nationalism on the other hand paves the way for enmity among nations. A nationalist feels that his own country is better than any other country.
According to the great thinker George Orwell, nationalism is deeply rooted in emotions and rivalry. It makes one contemptuous of the virtues possessed by other nations. Nationalism makes one intolerant towards the progress made by other nations.
Nationalism makes one think that the people belonging to one’s own country should be considered one’s equal. Such thoughts are not present the ideals of imperialism. A nationalist does not mind about the deficiencies of his country but on the contrary takes into account only its virtues.
A nationalist strives for the domination of a nation and expresses his love for the country in an aggressive way. An imperialist though creates unequal economic relationship between states yet he maintains the unequal relationships based on domination. This is a subtle difference between the two terms.
Nationalism gives importance to unity of by way of cultural background and linguistic environment. The factors of cultural background and linguistic environment are not taken into account by the imperialist to a great extent.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options either context or references, we can comment on the following.
Here you are probably talking about the Three-fifth Compromise, an agreement reached by the delegates that participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to create the new Constitution of the United States.
Delegates from large and small states in the North and South reached an agreement during the works during the Convention. The proposal was made by delegate James Wilson.
Delegates agreed on the way slaves should be counted to determine the real population in the states. This was an important agreement because, in the end, this would the number of seats that each state would have in the lower chamber of Congress or the House of Representatives, and the number of taxes each state had to pay.
Finally, after many debates, the compromise was that they were going to count three-fifths of the state population of slaves toward the total population of the state. This allowed states from the South to have third more legislators in Congress and electoral because, in the beginning, slaves had been ignored.
I don’t think so. He implies women are only to be wives and mothers, which also implies the old statuses of men working, voting, owning property and women not being allowed to do so. This is not just the Justice’s personal opinion to keep to himself, and he says civil society must be based on the “law of the creator.” Personally, I think his perspective is rubbish
