So after reading many, many articles about nationalism, patriotism, jingoism, and otherism, I've been thinking for quite a while about an interesting concept that I call "soft nationalism". It is both completely separate and closely intertwined with "hard" nationalism.
Simply put, soft nationalism is great pride in ones culture or ethnicity within the confines of a chosen nation. An advocate of soft nationalism does not want to separate from her nation; to the contrary, she takes great pride in her nation and wants it to be great.
Now, what sets a soft nationalist apart from a hard nationalist? A soft nationalist wants to promote her culture within her chosen nation; she wishes to have a fusion of her culture and the culture of her nation. A soft nationalist wants to promote the study of her culture, and how it figures into the history and culture of her nation. Take, for example, Hispanic-Americans; only a fringe few (like the Aztlan crowd) want to split off from the United States; the typical Hispanic-American simply wants to see her culture fused (not assimilated) with "regular" American culture. They do not want their culture to be forgotten; they want to highlight and promote Hispanic culture within the nation of the United States. Looking at modern Europe, there are similar trends of soft nationalism; Anglo-Indians, for example. They want to be a part of the United Kingdom, they want to British citizens, and they want to share in the British culture. Yet, they treasure their Indian ancestry and culture. They like to continue and elevate a few of their old traditions. Anglo-Indians want their contributions and their English and Indian fusion way of life to be preserved and promoted.
"Hard" nationalists are different. Hard nationalism is, by definition, more hardline and rough. It advocates separation of a culture from a nation that does not share the same culture. It advocates creation of a new or old nation. Hardline nationalism sees no virtue in sharing a nation with another culture; it seeks to enforce one, separate culture upon whatever authority or population it can lay claim to.
Both hard and soft nationalism have their merits; soft nationalism is less aggressive, more multicultural within their chosen nation, and more willing to reach a compromise. Hard nationalism, by contrast, is more aggressive, more devout, and less willing to tolerant attacks on itself. Both can allow a culture (or fusion of cultures) to last for centuries; depending on the situation, hard nationalism can force by sword and shout the survival of their culture and nation. In other situations, the hard nationalism can antagonize neighboring cultures so much that the hardliner portions of it are crushed into dust, forgotten by all and only propagated by meaningless traditions that those enacting them have forgotten the reason for.
Soft nationalism can likewise create a smooth, frictionless culture anchored within a nation and tied to its future. On the other hand, soft nationalism can lead to old traditions dying; the largest culture in a nation can swallow up the culture trying to coexist with it; who proudly lays claim to a fusion of German and American culture anymore, for example?
What is interesting to me (regarding hard and soft nationalism), is that soft nationalism seems like it is on the rise. Nations are no longer expanding in size or actively exporting their culture. Instead, soft nationalism is leading to a rise in fusion cultures; for example; a French-Algerian boy once restricted to being French culturally is able to learn about his ancestors in French school, to celebrate the fusion of Algerian and French culture that is in his blood. Once, he would either have to give up his Algerian culture and assimilate or become a hardline nationalist that demanded only Algerian culture. Now, he will be able to fuse both cultures together. Of course, part of the price of soft nationalism is that the descendants of same French-Algerian boy might lose their identity as Algerians, and not even remember that they once held both cultures tight to their identity. They might not celebrate the Algerian part of their French-Algerian culture! Or a German-Pole (from Silesia in Poland) might become only just a Pole, completely omitting their German heritage.
Again, sorry for the rambling, its just an interesting concept, and though I'm sure its been discussed before, I never had thought of a term for it until recently.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Some thoughts on Libya.
So as the civil war in Libya starts winding down, I've got some thoughts about it.
The Libyan Civil War was really the first modern war (civil or otherwise) that I paid any attention to; I recall the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I was too young to follow them closely. They're only a shadow in my memory. Libya, however, is clear and bright in my mind. I can recall the important events (as I watched the fight closely from the beginning), the decision-makers, the controversies, the quotes about it, even the equipment used in the conflict. I can remember the articles from all different points of view talking about the conflict. Libya seems to be the conflict that will shape my future views on war, whether I want it to or not.
The first thing I learned from Libya is that even nowadays, the smallest decisions can cause the most incredible things to happen. It's funny, really. In 1914 Franz Ferdinand was killed by a Serbian nationalist, sparking a war bigger than any the world had seen before, and now, almost a century afterwards, a Tunisian fruit-seller named Mohamed Bouazizi sets himself on fire, sparking one of the biggest waves of revolutions and protests since 1848 (which was called the Year of Revolutions). Side note: It's a bit frightening to look at 1848 and see the parallels in the "Arab Spring" of 2011, only Middle-Eastern instead of European. The smallest decisions by the lowliest of figures can shake the very foundations of the world.
The second idea I've discovered is that covering fire is a godsend to the underdog in a war. The Libyan rebels (now considered by most of the world to be the rightful Libyan government and people) were outclassed in many, many ways by Mommar Gaddafi's forces. The pro-Gaddafi forces at the beginning of the war were better equipped, better skilled, had more experience in combat, had a stronger position, and had better morale. All of that didn't matter as much when bombs rained from the sky like a reversed London Blitz.
The third thing I've found is that people who haven't been trained in any kind of combat for roughly 40 years can't pick up military skills at the drop of a hat. Beyond suppressing insurrections and small-ish, low intensity wars, Gaddafi's army doesn't have too much experience either, but it still has much more experience than the National Transitional Council (formerly rebel) forces do. Besides the defected former Gaddafi regiments, the NTC guys have only been at this for about half a year, so it makes sense that they have to learn how to fight properly as they go. It isn't surprising that they're making many, many mistakes.
The fourth interesting fact that I've seen is how different parts of a country and its people react to the crumbling of a regime. Some Libyan cities (Benghazi in particular) revolted when they had their first chance. Others waited for their dictator to be distracted by the first revolters. Others were publicly loyal until the NTC tanks and jeeps rolled into their cities, revealing themselves to be wholeheartedly supportive of the opposition forces. The way the people reacted is a fascinating observation itself. Some secretly deserted Gaddafi when he turned his back, others refused his orders openly and trumpeted their opposition to him. Yet others waited until the NTC forces managed to siege major cities successfully. A few ran to the NTC only when Gaddafi had no chance to hunt them down. And a few hardliners only hardened in their loyalty to the deposed dictator. And throughout it all, suspicion mounts against those who take too long to desert Gaddafi. Before his shady death, General Younis of the NTC forces was under the suspicion of NTC forces that thought he only fled the dictator to set himself up in a coup, Gaddafi-style.
All in all, the Libyan Civil War/Revolution has been very well documented, and with all its twists and turns it is an excellent study into how modern-day wars can operate. Forget Iraq or Afghanistan, those wars were predictable from the start. Libya, however, reads like a novel, and is informative while still being interesting. It would be better if it wasn't needed at all (if Gaddafi stood down), but as it is, I think it was a needed revolution; not only for the Libyan people to show their desire for freedom, self-worth, and democracy, but also a revolution that gives a lesson to the world in terms of changing the paradigm for the Middle East.
The Libyan Civil War was really the first modern war (civil or otherwise) that I paid any attention to; I recall the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I was too young to follow them closely. They're only a shadow in my memory. Libya, however, is clear and bright in my mind. I can recall the important events (as I watched the fight closely from the beginning), the decision-makers, the controversies, the quotes about it, even the equipment used in the conflict. I can remember the articles from all different points of view talking about the conflict. Libya seems to be the conflict that will shape my future views on war, whether I want it to or not.
The first thing I learned from Libya is that even nowadays, the smallest decisions can cause the most incredible things to happen. It's funny, really. In 1914 Franz Ferdinand was killed by a Serbian nationalist, sparking a war bigger than any the world had seen before, and now, almost a century afterwards, a Tunisian fruit-seller named Mohamed Bouazizi sets himself on fire, sparking one of the biggest waves of revolutions and protests since 1848 (which was called the Year of Revolutions). Side note: It's a bit frightening to look at 1848 and see the parallels in the "Arab Spring" of 2011, only Middle-Eastern instead of European. The smallest decisions by the lowliest of figures can shake the very foundations of the world.
The second idea I've discovered is that covering fire is a godsend to the underdog in a war. The Libyan rebels (now considered by most of the world to be the rightful Libyan government and people) were outclassed in many, many ways by Mommar Gaddafi's forces. The pro-Gaddafi forces at the beginning of the war were better equipped, better skilled, had more experience in combat, had a stronger position, and had better morale. All of that didn't matter as much when bombs rained from the sky like a reversed London Blitz.
The third thing I've found is that people who haven't been trained in any kind of combat for roughly 40 years can't pick up military skills at the drop of a hat. Beyond suppressing insurrections and small-ish, low intensity wars, Gaddafi's army doesn't have too much experience either, but it still has much more experience than the National Transitional Council (formerly rebel) forces do. Besides the defected former Gaddafi regiments, the NTC guys have only been at this for about half a year, so it makes sense that they have to learn how to fight properly as they go. It isn't surprising that they're making many, many mistakes.
The fourth interesting fact that I've seen is how different parts of a country and its people react to the crumbling of a regime. Some Libyan cities (Benghazi in particular) revolted when they had their first chance. Others waited for their dictator to be distracted by the first revolters. Others were publicly loyal until the NTC tanks and jeeps rolled into their cities, revealing themselves to be wholeheartedly supportive of the opposition forces. The way the people reacted is a fascinating observation itself. Some secretly deserted Gaddafi when he turned his back, others refused his orders openly and trumpeted their opposition to him. Yet others waited until the NTC forces managed to siege major cities successfully. A few ran to the NTC only when Gaddafi had no chance to hunt them down. And a few hardliners only hardened in their loyalty to the deposed dictator. And throughout it all, suspicion mounts against those who take too long to desert Gaddafi. Before his shady death, General Younis of the NTC forces was under the suspicion of NTC forces that thought he only fled the dictator to set himself up in a coup, Gaddafi-style.
All in all, the Libyan Civil War/Revolution has been very well documented, and with all its twists and turns it is an excellent study into how modern-day wars can operate. Forget Iraq or Afghanistan, those wars were predictable from the start. Libya, however, reads like a novel, and is informative while still being interesting. It would be better if it wasn't needed at all (if Gaddafi stood down), but as it is, I think it was a needed revolution; not only for the Libyan people to show their desire for freedom, self-worth, and democracy, but also a revolution that gives a lesson to the world in terms of changing the paradigm for the Middle East.
Friday, September 9, 2011
My Generation: Generation Sparse Snarkers
Looking at all the news and browsing through various internet forums (where people of all persuasions hang out; rich, poor, white, black, Latino, Asian, conservative, liberal, religious, secular, calm, hotheated, fringe, comfortably mainstream), and I've come to a conclusion: My generation (the Millenials, 90s, and very late 80s children) is a generation of very austure, penny-pinching comedians. A generation of moneyless mockers. Of pocket-change parodists.
Now, why do I think this? Because the first part (of being poorer than their parents and being forced to make great financial sacrifice; we are the generation coming of age in the almost mythic (in a cultural sense) "Great Recession", the Depression for the new century. We are, more than any generation in 70 years, forced to elevaluate the cost of our finanical decisions. Of course, those middle-aged adults already in this situation face the same decisions, but, like the generation coming of age before the Greatest Generation, they don't comphrend the full cultural signifiance of the Great Recession.
The comedian side of this generation is a bit harder to realize; it's only when you realize the figures that Generation Sparse Snarkers seem to idolize that you understand. What does this generation respect? Not experience or ideology; that is the refuge of the older generations. This generation respects Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and the like, comedians all. Many of this generation go to comedians for news; they respect the integrity and news-telling skills of the unserious over the professional journalists. Even the political pundits inject satire into their politics nowadays, just to be admired by this generation.
And our heroes of the past are no different; who do we respect and why? Who from history is popular right now; certainly not those who built stability or great empires. No, we respect historical leaders with a sense of humor; Winston Churchill's witty dismissal of those who accussed him of being a drunk, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt when they satrizied their opponents, Harry Truman when he used his rough manner to mock his opponents, and those similar to these jokester presidents. We don't pay as heavy attention to their actions (though we still do look at what they actually did), and focus rather on their comedic talent.
Even our music, in some cases, gravitates to the "poor/disadvantaged comedian"; new forms of folk, hip-hop, rock, rap, punk, and country music are becoming popular, and rather than complain about what they do not have, these new music artists take aim at those that are perceived to have too much. The older music that does the same thing as this new music has been embraced in much the same way. For example, I personally have started to listen to The Dead Kennedy; their fierce satirical lyrics appeal to me, and fit my generation's woes, even though they are decades old.
So yeah, I think the culture of my generation is of austerity and comedic wit. I feel that we feel these things are the things that define our generation. I feel this is how our generation will be seen by future generations.
Now, why do I think this? Because the first part (of being poorer than their parents and being forced to make great financial sacrifice; we are the generation coming of age in the almost mythic (in a cultural sense) "Great Recession", the Depression for the new century. We are, more than any generation in 70 years, forced to elevaluate the cost of our finanical decisions. Of course, those middle-aged adults already in this situation face the same decisions, but, like the generation coming of age before the Greatest Generation, they don't comphrend the full cultural signifiance of the Great Recession.
The comedian side of this generation is a bit harder to realize; it's only when you realize the figures that Generation Sparse Snarkers seem to idolize that you understand. What does this generation respect? Not experience or ideology; that is the refuge of the older generations. This generation respects Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and the like, comedians all. Many of this generation go to comedians for news; they respect the integrity and news-telling skills of the unserious over the professional journalists. Even the political pundits inject satire into their politics nowadays, just to be admired by this generation.
And our heroes of the past are no different; who do we respect and why? Who from history is popular right now; certainly not those who built stability or great empires. No, we respect historical leaders with a sense of humor; Winston Churchill's witty dismissal of those who accussed him of being a drunk, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt when they satrizied their opponents, Harry Truman when he used his rough manner to mock his opponents, and those similar to these jokester presidents. We don't pay as heavy attention to their actions (though we still do look at what they actually did), and focus rather on their comedic talent.
Even our music, in some cases, gravitates to the "poor/disadvantaged comedian"; new forms of folk, hip-hop, rock, rap, punk, and country music are becoming popular, and rather than complain about what they do not have, these new music artists take aim at those that are perceived to have too much. The older music that does the same thing as this new music has been embraced in much the same way. For example, I personally have started to listen to The Dead Kennedy; their fierce satirical lyrics appeal to me, and fit my generation's woes, even though they are decades old.
So yeah, I think the culture of my generation is of austerity and comedic wit. I feel that we feel these things are the things that define our generation. I feel this is how our generation will be seen by future generations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)