European Heritage And Identity
By definition, identity means ”self-understanding of the individual” and contains both collective and subjective elements (Lutz et al. ,2006). Identity is not a fixed category; it is a animatedly or dynamically changing element in our existence, which continuously obtains new understanding and interpretations in our lives (Wright & Reeskens,2013). Another significant feature of collective identities is its unique character with regard to individuals and other groups. with a view to determine who we are we should realize who we are. As we build our identities, we continually discriminate ourselves from “we” (Lutz et al. ,2006). Theorists who deal with collective identities agree that land is an essential element and component of identity for individuals, however, what area is understood by different authors differently. For a long time,” the Territory has referred to collective identification to the territory of the nation”. In Smith’s definition, regardless of the existence of a geographical entity, “legal and economic systems are included as well as common culture and individual mobility” (Fligstein et al. ,2012)Europa from Winston Churchill perspective Troitiño and Chochia (2015) argue that Churchill thinking has been largely practiced in the European Union. While today’s conditions and circumstances are actual different, his formulations remain valuable for his role as a major strategic expert.
On September 19, 1946, Winston Churchill speech was at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, and he proposed the creation of a “kind of European Union” – a European group that might give a logic of widened nationalism and common citizenship to the peoples of this great land. With his activities, and his proposal over the next few years, Churchill plant his gigantic personal status behind the European unity`s issue (Troitiño & Chochia,2015). Churchill`s campaign was by no means debated, especially at home. He is no longer prime minister. The ruling Labor government generally did not favor his tactic and approach. None of them had any elements of the Conservative Party in Churchill himself, who served as a leader. Additionally, it became clear in the next years that he did not like full British membership in a future European political union, in spite of the fact that he expected close association ( Kaili,2016). Winston Churchill seldom speaks obviously about this point, however, it is clear that he want keep all options open, and does not want to eject the pro-unity view of Europe. For example, he told the House of Commons in 1950 that “I can not imagine that Britain would be a regular member of the UEFA at any time that can be expected at the moment. “.
However, he began by noting that it was “not decided today” ( Kaili,2016). At the end of Churchill`s life, In 1961, when a conservative government sought to join the European Economic Community, he articulated his support – but in an ambiguous and qualified manner( Kaili,2016). His ideas about European unity, and its relationship with Europe, have to an increasing extent emerged and developed during the recent economic and political revolution in the Europa and European Union. British Prime Minister David Cameron’s attempt to renegotiate British membership conditions will lead to a national plebiscite, which could lead to Britain leaving Britain (Simms, 2015). Both Euro-centricists and European skeptics have called Churchill on behalf of their cause. We should not put Churchill’s arguments directly in the debate about Britain’s exit from the European Union, because it was taking place in a completely different context. Since then there has been plenty of water under the bridge. It is reasonable to say that the European project has taken a different course from that originally envisioned by Churchill. He will undoubtedly be pleased with much of what has been accomplished in the name of European unity, but he is not comfortable with many of the ways in which the Union has become.
On May to June 1940,In the dark days, Churchill had proposed a political union for Britain and France. Working with his views on the European project, we can discover something from Churchill as a senior practitioner, and perhaps shed indirect light on current circumstances. It is important to remember the circumstances immediately after World War II. The continent, whether winning or losing, was frustrating and devastating. As Churchill said in Zurich, “on vast areas, there is a vast mass of terrible, tortured, hungry, deprived and miserable people waiting in the ruins of their cities and homes and examining the dark prospects of a new approach of tyranny or terrorism. ” Simms, 2015). From Churchill`s point of view, European civilization was about to collapse. In 1946, in his famous speech, at Fulton Missouri in March, he warned and said that the Iron Curtain was sloped descending on Europe. On the western side of the curtain, communist parties, most of them under Moscow’s supervision, seem to be preparing to take advantage of terrorism to impose and asses a form of persecution and tyranny.
Although Churchill did not believe that the Russians wanted war, only the fruits of war, he admitted that he could not be sure (Troitiño & Chochia ,2015). There were two or more Russian divisions on the other side of the line. Britain itself has weakened and debilitate by the war and can no longer play its historic role in the continental balance ( Kaili,2016). The only great force that was not directly affected by the war, the United States, has wiped out most of its armed forces and its future role in the world remains uncertain. America has possessed the atomic bomb, and this may have provided space for breathing to create the means to save civilization. But there was not an unlimited amount of time, because this monopoly was supposed to be broken soon (Simms, 2015). Europa from Altiero Spinelli perspective Altiero Spinelli’s main contribution was rooted in his conviction that Founding and building EU as the irreplaceable and first historical step on the road to the World Union hould be in the priorities of the fundamental political objective of his time: the precondition. That is, if they are to avoid the end of return to barbarity, civilization,perhaps the end of humanity itself. This conviction can be planned in two arguments (Fabbrini, 2017).
The first is to exceed the international characteristics of the great ideologies which, from the end of the eighteenth century, the French and American revolutions – in the movement processes that changed the depth of the structure of the modern state. These ideologies are socialism, liberalism, and democracy that have their indirect or direct roots in the establishing and emerging global orientation and liberal of the Enlightenment (Warleigh-Lack, 2015). The universal element of these ideologies finds expression in their cosmic contextsThe vision that realizes the importance and values of freedom, social justice and equality as universal values can be valid for the whole world, as is its theory of the primacy of domestic politics. (Mourlon‐Druol, 2016). This affects their approach to international relations and subsequently to the causes of war and the means to achieve and succeed peace. If the war is basically connected to the specific internal structures of States, the elimination of war and the founding of a permanent system of peaceful relations between States can only transcend those internal structures (Mourlon‐Druol, 2016).
⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an average student. It does not reflect the quality of papers completed by our expert essay writers. To get a custom and plagiarism-free essay click here.