Blood and Belonging by Michael Ignatieff This article will explain the subject of the book and its relevance, discuss Michael Ignatieff's methods and conclusions on the subject, and include finally a personal criticism of the book by the author of this article. The author of the book travels following what he calls "the six journeys". In these "journeys" he encounters different cultures, traveling to six different coinciding areas of the world. Examine the unique expression of nationalism that each population displays by interviewing various members of that particular society. The six areas he travels to are chosen specifically for the clarity with which nationalism is expressed in society. Nationalism is a factor contributing to current and future instability in these areas. These areas are the former Yugoslavia (specifically Croatia and Serbia), Germany, Ukraine, Quebec, Kurdistan and Northern Ireland. According to Ignatieff, in Croatia and Serbia there is a desire for a separate identity between the two peoples. The fear of losing one's national identity has caused ethnic hatred. A terror so strong and historically persistent that it drives people to a state of desperation that pushes them to do anything. This largely contributes to the reasons for the extreme violence present there today. The author states: "A Croatian, therefore, is someone who is not a Serb. A Serb is someone who is not a Croatian." This quote profoundly expresses the short-sighted mentality present in their conflict. In his travels in Germany, the author highlights an important issue. Is it the nation that makes the state, or the state that makes the nation? This question doesn't stop there, especially when it comes to Germany. Some see the essence of the German people as aggressive and offensive, hence the existence of the German problem. If the nation creates the state, Germany will always be a threat. If the state creates the nation, then the aggressive nature of the German nation, which brought the world into two global wars, can be harnessed and redirected. The question has its roots and its answers in the recent reunification of Germany. Ukraine worries about not being Russian. It is here that Ignatieff receives a comprehensive understanding of what nationalism is. He states, "I understand what nationalism really is: the dream that an entire nation could be like a congregation; singing the same hymns, hearing the same gospel, sharing the same emotions, connected not only to each other but to the buried dead under their feet." Quebec is a model that presents a possible future of the state system. Ignatieff uses the example of Quebec to illustrate the relationship between nationalism and federalism. He implies that “if federalism fails in Canada, it can fail anywhere.” If the balance between “ethnic and civil principles” is not maintained in Canada, which is not a poor country and has a large and successful economy; then perhaps the modern world has failed to transcend the clutches of nationalism. The Kurds represent a stateless nation, which finds itself surrounded by other, more aggressive, nationalist nations. The term Kurdistan is a definition of the areas used by Ignatieff to explain the area of ​​greatest concentration of the Kurdish population. There are no real borders, no flag, no government and the Kurds must recognize the state in which they reside (i.e. Syria, Turkey, Iran and Iraq), of which Kurdistan is not. Finally, the sixth trip ends in Northern Ireland. He makes the observation that this is the ideal place to conclude his project. Northern Ireland contains a recurrence of themes that seemed so prevalent on the other trips. In Ireland ethnicity, religion and politics are all tied into one expression or identity. These are also evident in the five previous studies. Is Michael Ignatieff's work relevant? The answerto this question, yes, it is. The question is important. Nationalism presents itself as a phenomenon. The questions of why people should maintain a cultural identity and how they act to preserve it are still unanswered. More and more unfathomable is the violence permeated by nationalistic expressions, which are "necessary" on the part of the parties involved. The very existence of the conundrum created by nationalism dictates the need to explore the topic in more depth. The situations described in the book are not isolated events. Nationalism exists in every state in the world. There is a dichotomy presented by Ignatieff between nationalism and federalism. He explains the political doctrine of nationalism by stating "(1) that the peoples of the world are divided into nations, (2) that these nations should have the right to self-determination, and (3) that full self-determination requires the state." The Federalism, although not a particular ideology, is a means of sharing political power among different peoples within a state. The various systems of government that fall under the definition of federalism are not problematic for citizens; unless, of course, they are completely legitimate. If the government is illegitimate, then ideally nationalism steps in to demand a fully self-determined government, which offers adequate representation to its population. Despite the diversity of a state's population, in theory harmony is maintained as people are adequately represented or controlled. This situation with variations is experienced all over the world. States are dynamic, as are their governments and their populations. If the dynamics of the government or state do not keep pace with the pace of population change, then instability will increase in the name of nationalism and shake the very foundations of the state if left unchecked or unabated. The method used by the author of the book was personal interviews with both prominent people and the ordinary common person in the areas visited. Also use descriptions of the surrounding areas to accentuate the point of the discussion. His intent was to objectively take the reader on a walk through the areas he visited. Through his writing style, he allows the reader to participate in his interview by highlighting specific questions and answers found in his conversations. Finally, he creates visual images that he had considered ironic and analogical to support his observations. Ignatieff comes to the conclusion that nationalism is not the problem of this world. Continuing, he states that when one loses one's individuality to become a "patriot," that is where the danger lies. Being yourself is something that ethnic nationalism does not allow. Political ideologies can become blinding to their owners. At the beginning of the book it says that he is a liberal. Travel and experiences have not changed the situation at all. He emphasizes the importance of the "liberal virtues: tolerance, compromise, reason", but concludes with an observation on how these virtues oppose human nature. Ignatieff addresses the violence factor surrounding nationalism as a plague, concluding that nationalist rhetoric is an excuse to commit acts of violence. He noted that most violence is carried out by young people between the ages of 18 and 25. His explanation is that the liberal mentality forgets that not everyone hates violence. He also says that there is an underlying disgust for peace in males. Is human nature the reason for violence, or does Ignatieff think it is specifically male human nature. Personally I liked the book and found it an interesting read. It had the feel of a novel without losing its academic character. The.53.