What is the difference between a nation and a state? The difference between a nation and a state is that a nation is defined as a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government or a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities. Where as a state is defined as a body of persons constituting a special class in a society or the operations or concerns of the government of a country. Based on the example provided, and the context in which the term “nation-state” is used, write a clear definition of the term. A clear definition of the term nation state would be a form of political organization under which a relatively homogenous people inhabits a sovereign state. Can the term “nation-state” be applied to Canada? Why or why not? The term ‘nation-state’ can be applied to Canada due to the fact that we are a country in which form of political organization under which a relatively homogenous people inhabits a sovereign state. We are a multicultural nation that consists of many different nationalities. Such as, Chinese, Japanese, Tamil, Indian, Italian, Jewish, Russian, Spanish, Filipino, Dutch, Irish, English, French, Ukrainian, Middle Eastern and so much more. I think that we have a person from almost every country in the world living in Canada. We open the doors to many people and do not turn them away because we are happy to have them. We all live together in one country under one government. How did the situations in Russia and Austria in the late nineteenth century differ from those in most other Western European countries? The situations in Russia and Austria in the late nineteenth century differ from those in most other Western European countries by in Austria the empire was weakened by nationalism and it became an increasingly anachronism. It became a dynastic state, and not a nation-state. Under the Hapsburg dynasty, the Empire tried to balance of competing nationalistic and dynastic interests became even more complex with the decline of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans. There, Slavic nationalism created new possibilities for Roman influence. In Russia, the monarchy was caught between the desire to preserve a conservative aristocratic order and the need for economic and industrial reform. Russia’s defeat in the Crimean War demonstrated the need from industrialization of the economy and modernization of the army. The most significant change was the emancipation of 22.5 million serfs in 1861. This reform had to satisfy the Russian gentry, however, who feared the loss of their income from land, their control over the peasantry paid the price of reform: while legally free and in possession of limited plots of land, the peasants had to pay an indemnity to the state for their emancipation. The gentry and the reformers had feared that emancipation would create a landless and rootless- and potentially dangerous-rural population. Where as in the other Western European countries nationalism thrived in them and the Empires decided to implement nationalism, industrialization, and modernization into their countries. Compare and contrast the styles and policies of British Prime Ministers William Gladstone and Benjamin Disreali. Which politician would you have supported? Explain your choice. In 1867, Prime Minister Benjamin Disreali and the Conservatives passed a Second Reform Act, which granted the vote to the male urban working class householders, thereby adding one million voters to the list. Unlike, his party, Benjamin Disreali was an optimist and knew how to seize opportunity, his optimism rested on his belief that a natural alliance existed between a paternalistic landed interest and a deferential working class. In a famous speech at the Crystal Palace in 1872, Disreali redefined the appeal of conservatism across class lines by calling on tradition, patriotism and paternalism, embodied in three key terms: monarchy, empire, and social reform. When he became Prime Minister in 1874, he based his policies on these three principles. First he persuaded Queen Victoria to come out of her reclusive widowhood after the death of her husband Prince Albert in 1861. Through Disreali’s influence, the modern royal family became symbols of tradition closely attached to the values of the Conservative Party. Disreali also appealed to pride in empire. He made Queen Victoria the empress of India and purchased shares in the Suez Canal. He persuaded an aggressive colonial policy, engaging in the wars in Afghanistan and southern Africa. His ministry also passed the most innovative social reforms of the second half of the nineteenth century, improving the legal status of trade unions and introducing legislation on consumer protection, industrial safety, and public housing. On this basis, Disreali helped build the modern Conservative Party by identifying it with traditional institutions such as the monarchy, by making it the party of imperialism, and by linking it to a program of social reform. Where as in 1884 Prime Minister William Gladstone and the Liberals extended the vote on the same terms to male households in rural constituencies, thereby adding another two million voters to the list. Throughout the second half of the nineteenth century, however, Britain witnessed a struggle between the forces of change- as social reform- and the forces of community, in support for the monarchy and other conservative traditions. His Liberals were supported by a natural animosity between the workers and middle class. Under the leadership of Gladstone, the Liberals’ rallying cry was “Peace, Retrenchment and Reform.” By “peace” they meant free trade and opposition to costly foreign and colonial adventures. By “retrenchment” the Liberals meant a laissez faire policy in which the role of government was strictly limited, and the costs and taxes were reduced as far as possible. By “reform” they had in mind doing away with outmoded laws that benefited the privileged. Accordingly, the Liberals reformed the army and the civil service to eliminate patronage, enabled students who were not Anglicans to graduate from Oxford and Cambridge Universities, and in 1870, introduced national primary education. Ultimately, it was their own slogan of peace that proved to be their undoing. When more than 12 000 Bulgarian Christians were killed by Turkish forces in 1876, Disreali, for strategic reasons, backed to Ottoman Empire in its war with Russia. The public’s enormous interest in these moral and strategic questions was given a renewed charge by William Gladstone. For the first time in British and European history, a politician embarked on a modern political campaign. In his Scottish campaign on 1879, Gladstone travelled by train to Liverpool to Edinburgh, stopping at towns on the way, and delivering speeches the condemned the immorality and costs of Disreali’s imperial policy. After a second Scottish campaign in 1880, the electorate tossed out the Conservatives, and gave Gladstone and his Liberals a majority. Gladstone, who had supported the cause of national liberation in Europe, wrestled with Britain’s imperial conflicts in Africa against the Boers, and nationalism in Ireland. When he introduced his Irish Home Rule Bill in 1886, he split the Liberal Party. As a result, the Conservatives- the party of patriotism and empire- and their leader Lord Salisbury, became the dominant party in British politics for the next two decades. The politician that I would have supported is William Gladstone. The reason for this is that he supported education for everyone. He believe in Peace, Retrenchment and Reform.” By “peace” they meant free trade and opposition to costly foreign and colonial adventures. By “retrenchment” the Liberals meant a laissez faire policy in which the role of government was strictly limited, and the costs and taxes were reduced as far as possible. By “reform” they had in mind doing away with outmoded laws that benefited the privileged. Accordingly, the Liberals reformed the army and the civil service to eliminate patronage, enabled students who were not Anglicans to graduate from Oxford and Cambridge Universities, and in 1870, introduced national primary education. Explain why many believe the seeds of World War I were planted in the late nineteenth century by listing, in order of importance, four important causes of war. Many believed the seeds of World War I were planted in the late nineteenth century by with the spread of industrialization and the mounting economic competition between European states, national rivalry and imperial ambition led to an arms race and the foundation of diplomatic alliances in anticipation of war. Nationalism aroused not only loyalty toward an individual’s own state and people, but also antagonism toward states and peoples perceived to be threats. National and imperial rivalry put new pressures on domestic politics within states. The Prussian aristocracy, which dominated the offices of state and the army, identified its own power with the pre-eminence of the German nation. With the backing of industrialists anxious to profit from the arms race, politicians and generals wrestled with the problem of Germany’s encirclement with Central Europe. They began to see the inevitability of a Great War as the way for Germany to assume its rightful and dominant place on the Continent. Consequently, during critical weeks on crisis diplomacy in July 1914, there was a willingness to believe that the time had come for a lasting peace through a victorious war. In Britain, rivalry with Germany, especially in the naval arms race, fostered a constitutional crisis. The Liberal government needed to finance both warships and new social measures, such as old-age passions. The People’s Budget of 1909, proposed by Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George, introduced taxes on inherited wealth. In response, the landed aristocracy in the House of Lords defeated the budget and brought down the government. This constitutional crisis, whereby a hereditary peerage brought down a popularly elected government, reflected a new willingness of conservative, traditional interests to challenge the authority of the state. How does woman today different from those that women experienced in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century face the inequities? The inequities faced by woman today are different from those women experienced in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century by in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century woman faced horrible things such as women were not allowed to vote, they could not have the same jobs as men. They could not even work, they were not equal before the law, were not legal before marriage, could not own their own property, could not have access to birth control and so on. Where as now a days women can do whatever they want to do, they can vote, have the same jobs as men, can work whenever they want, are equal before the law, have the right to own their own property and have the right to birth control and day care for their children.