There is a quote that floats around claiming a Chinese curse says—may you live in interesting times. It turns out it’s not Chinese, and there are different opinions on from where it originated. [Quote Investigator]
This is not just happening in the United States; but as a country with global influence, some believe it’s our fault wherever bad stuff happens. I think we do have a lot of influence, but with a changing world, that might not last. Nothing ever does.
The post below is about cultural shifts. It's not partisan but might appear political to some. Of course, it is-- all human interaction eventually gets down to political maneuvering.
Current Events
Most recently, our country had a kerfuffle with France, with whom, we’ve had a mixed history between being allies or enemies. They’ve helped us win a war. We've fought each other in a war. In the 20th Century, we both liberated them and fought wars with them-- wars that much influenced what the world is today-- for better or worse as some choices weren't always helpful for future peace-- if peace is even a goal (thinking the way the allies divided what was once the Ottoman Empire).
What came up with the recent Armistice celebration brought up history and current political dilemmas. After a seemingly friendly exchange, France's President said this:
“Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism.... Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. By saying our interests first, we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what gives it grace, and what is essential: its moral values."Whether his statements were true or not, this was an opportune moment for Macron to give a hit on Trump and maybe raise his own current low popularity in France. Where at least the US media loves any attack on Trump, the speech was bound to get much coverage-- even in our fast moving times. He wasn’t done.
“We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America," he told French radio station Europe 1. "Who is the main victim? Europe and its security. I want to build a real security dialogue with Russia, which is a country I respect, a European country - but we must have a Europe that can defend itself on its own without relying only on the United States."A week later, I am still trying to get my head around what he meant. Europe has not been paying the share it promised of NATO, which I thought was about European defense. Now, Macron wants France and other European countries to pay for an independent military with evidently not the US. Why then keep NATO? Would that EU military be run by those who run the EU? Like, say Belgium, still a major manufacturer of weapons? Does any of that ring a bell for those of you who study history?
History as it impacts today
Being as old as I am and as an author who writes historical romances, history is a big deal to me. When I was an elementary education major in college, history and art were my selected areas of interest. In terms of history, I know what a big deal it is to figure out what words mean. Everything changes with different generations.
For a reference, I grew up when history classes didn't push the 19th century concept of Manifest Destiny, which by the way, was not uniformly seen as a valid goal even then. My teachers also didn't push American Exceptionalism, a term which appears to be popular/unpopular off and on. Maybe because I lived in the Pacific Northwest, there wasn't much of a political agenda in my school. I have no idea how any of my teachers even voted. History classes (as best I remember) were about dates, events and outcomes.
As I read quite a bit for my own historicals, I see how it even changes for when a history book was published. Some today want to rewrite history with today's mores or consider what people used to think of no value. It's not hard to find some today who don't know the difference between the Revolutionary and Civil Wars.
Words have meaning, which might change
This kind of changing of thought happens even more with words. Writers have to work with this, but we also do in our daily living as the words get changed to suit a political agenda. An 'in' word is suddenly an 'out' word.
Where it comes to a word like nationalism, it can be twisted to fit many agendas including believing it's code for white nationalism or jingoism (using American might for political causes like the Spanish-American war where we also had an example of Yellow Journalism-- newspapers pushing their agenda and don't mind twisting or ignoring facts). Jingoism is not nationalism and neither is white nationalism. We are a country of many ethnicities and races.
Looking for nationalism definitions, I found--
Loyalty and devotion to a nation especially: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.
A political, social, and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty (self-governance) over the homeland (uh oh watch out for this word as the Nazis took it over).
The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
Due to the distinctive circumstances involved throughout history in American politics, its nationalism has developed in regards to both loyalty to a set of liberal, universal political ideals and a perceived accountability to propagate those principles globally.Those were all contemporary concepts. Since Macron said nationalism is not patriotism (still trying to figure that one out), I looked up patriotism to be sure I understood it.
Love for or devotion to one's country. At one time, pretty simple. Also a quote regarding how thatAs best I understand, which currently is deteriorating, for some people patriotism, which used to be considered good, is now considered bad unless it's not for your country-- and then what is it for? Instead of nationalism, the desired sense of how the world community should be -- is globalism -- a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence.worksused to work out. "Although poles apart ideologically, they are both unashamed of their patriotism." Christopher Hemphill
I don't know about you, but for me, this thinking seems to go in circles. Where the globalist might attack nationalism, it would be okay to push its own idea of moral living onto other nations? Trade agreements don't require globalism. Globalism is about no borders and at least in its final stage, one set of common laws.
Is the ultimate stage of human life on this planet necessarily globalist and nationalism is archaic for the future world? Is that what Macron meant? So to the whole, one must be patriotic, a whole possibly run by an unelected cabal? If it is, how will it work out for ordinary people, those not the elite? I have no idea and am having a hard enough time trying to understand the terms as they change... Interesting times indeed.
It might not seem like it now, but I believe the implications of understanding what globalism and nationalism mean to a culture will become critical to future generations as pressures grow.
24 comments:
Words go in and out of favor and sometimes I understand, while other times I get corrected and still am lost. I can no longer use Oriental...I do think that Macron's response to Trump's nationalism was far more complicated in nature. We have lost status and power and there is even some concern that we are closer to nuclear wars than ever and Europe is concerned that the moderating influence of the U.S. has been lost with this madman in power.
I have no idea about Europe or how ordinary people there feel about us as I only hear from a few friends there. The leaders obviously don't like renegotiating trade deals or the demand they pony up their agreed share on NATO. I don't get much of a sampling as most of my friends online are liberals-- not all though.
Macron was using emotions to suggest, without the words, that this is Germany during Nazi era thinking to put your nation above the common good--- i.e. in the case of a globalist the whole world and its needs. The Hitler fear is thrown out whenever someone disagrees with someone else. Before him, it was probably the Antichrist (well, and still is in some religious circles. You probably know some feared that was Obama-- not Hitler, of course, but the Antichrist).
I still though don't get when they aren't paying their agreed share of NATO, how they figure it'd be cheaper to get a EU army. And why do they need both or do they want to end NATO? And why to protect them from Russia, China and us? They fear invasion by China or us???? It was confusing to me, but it was emotion driven and aimed at those who react to emotions in arguments. We kind of divide that way today-- some of us using emotion to decide things and some of us using logic, hopefully fact driven *and yes I am chuckling as I write that given how it is today
You know, in terms of how I see, personally, globalism or nationalism, I think it's much impacted by how I grew up-- farm living, small town school, PNW, not a lot of family money, but strong family values with a lot of diversity in terms of lifestyles. Those years have a lot to do with how I think. They did much to make me who I am but that doesn't mean I assume i am always right. As a writer, I am an observer of life, a questioner. I find looking at motivations fascinating.
Years back I read a book called Aquarius something or other. It said for new ways to take hold the older generation has to die off. It related to cultural norms, history and science. Will my country/the world be better if it goes globalist? I have no idea, but I likely won't live to see it happen given my age. My grandchildren probably will along with whether we have been able, as a human species, to adapt to a changing world due to earth's climate changing massively-- human or otherwise caused. I do find it interesting and it makes me curious about how say a socialist America (if that's the way America goes) might be for ordinary people like my family. I grew up with a freedom of thought that maybe won't be here in the future with more controls needed to make that future society work. i feel lucky at my time to be born. I hope future generations will be able to say the same thing.
Sadly, all comments here must be in English as otherwise, I can't determine if they fit the subject.
"MIGRATION
Faced with the great challenge of migration, I do not believe in talk of unconditional openness – it only produces worry and heightens intolerance. Nor do I believe the lies of those who claim, for example, that in Europe and elsewhere they will be stronger if they take shelter behind closed borders. That is not true.
The only effective way to manage the migratory flows affecting all of our continents in an orderly, controlled fashion is to create the conditions for a type of international mobility that is freely chosen, not imposed; to work together, whether we are countries of origin, of transit or of destination, to tackle the deep causes of such migration, especially when it is imposed; to dismantle networks of traffickers, which are the worst scourge in this situation; and to protect our borders in a respectful way while ensuring compliance with international law, and in particular the unconditional protection of those who have the right to asylum. That is what we decided to do together in the UN compact that will be adopted in Marrakesh this December, and which I support." Emmanuel Macron
"To be honest I don't believe in one great globalized people. Not at all-it is utopian there is no such thing. But I believe in universal values, human rights, the dignity of individuals and in no way will I yield the principle of sovereignty of peoples to nationalists...." also from Macron's speech to the UN.
The full transcript is on line.
Being liberal, I, of course, feel Macron is spot on.
Rain I compliment you on recognizing the change of meaning of words and the importance of being aware. Also beginning discussions by defining what is meant. I had to look up the meaning of cabal. I was thinking of Jewish cabalism and cabala.
In that second paragraph, it made no sense to me, Diane. How does a country do that? Orderly? Is that what just arrived at Tijuana? That UN compact might sound good but what makes it happen? That's what I have against liberal talking points. Sound good but what does it mean? How do you change another country? it's pretty obvious that the latest caravan is not about fear of from where they have come but wanting jobs and a better life. Millions around the world want that? Globalism means no control and that's where we are-- with pretty words.
Mood music: When the heads of state arrived in Paris. they walked up the Arc de Triomphe together. Trump came separately as did Putin (qualifying their places as leaders) but greeting each other fairly warmly. All this was noted. Macron and Merkel were also to the fore as hosts for Europe.
I think Macron speech was not against America it was a rallying cry against nationalism in Europe as the forces of the right take power, Trump unfortunately uses the same language, something we don't understand in this country, though our 'Brexit' shows a need for independence.
You started the essay Rain 'we live in interesting times' what history is always about is power, who can blow the trumpet loudest. We have the interesting scenario of a woman prime minister who is fighting her way through the arrogance of the EU and back stabbing males in the government to get a voted democratic draft policy through parliament. Funnily enough she has the country behind her for her courage and dignity and responsibilty towards those she serves. Who will win?
Thanks for that insight, thelma. I also think he was saying it given the possibility other countries would want to break up the EU. What would get me, and many Americans about a system like globalism is how it would impact laws. Of course, the Trump disdain/haters took it very much about him over here. I took it that it's a conversation we should be having and liberals need to make their case for why it'd be better for the world. A lot of globalist leaders, in this country, have hidden their true agenda feeling that Americans would not vote for them.
From before the UN, there's always been this desire, from some, for one world system and a group who fear what that would mean. For those who are oriented toward the Bible, the warning is in the last book about a system where no one can buy or sell without the mark of the 'Beast'. For centuries that was so far out as to be impossible. Not any more. Today we could be microchipped (some businesses are already suggesting that for their employees) and a one world system might well dictate all that Revelations predicted. How convenient would that chip be instead of carrying ID that could get lost. How easy it would be to take away rights if someone rebelled at the 'rules'. One world government has a lot of potential to put a few in charge of the many creating a peon class with no rights.
I know many idealists favor a one world system but my use of the word cabal (meaning a secretive group in power) means I do not. I don't have a scriptural reason for it in my case but a belief that concentrated power doesn't usually mean good for ordinary people. I believe a one-world government would end up more appointed than elected and countries like mine would see even our poor finding a downturn on lifestyle. Things like even supplements, which we can freely use, taking our risks as we go, could be banned.
So I follow with interest whether England can really get out of the EU or that will be taken back as the ease of travel and trade would make up for losing some rights-- like my husband found when with a cold he could not buy Vit C in a large dose without a prescription.
Americans though are divided on all of this as the fear of loss of individual freedoms, the frontier spirit if you will, is, for some, not seen as important as an idyllic view of a world where all live better lives. To them, especially those not religious, a microchip is not a step toward a more dire plan but instead is worth it for the convenience. Time will tell how this turns out on globalism or nationalism but it's an important discussion to have because many of our leaders don't tell us their real goals when we vote for them... Since, for now, we do still get to vote even though we often don't have the choices we wish we could have.
I don't though plan to write in this blog regularly on any of this. It can be hurtful and divisive. To consider the options though and their consequences seems to me important now and then-- when it can be done without rancor.
I don't btw see the EU as really globalism but more a group of smaller states banding together into one for more power. Whether that works is hard to say as individual differences are often problems but the US is kind of that way. We are many states with big differences that made the decision to join together (not always willingly).
Patriotism and even nationalism would be to that nation state (in this case, the EU) and what was best for it as primary with concern following for other places in the world. Globalism is a whole different game. in some ways, it's colonization taken to a whole different level with a question as to where control even lay.
Rain I don't believe globalism means with no control. I believe it means we should look at the world as a whole considering our actions and how they effect the world not just our individual country. Climate change for example effects the whole world as one unit.If we break up our thinking as this little piece of the world thinks climate change is a hoax it still doesn't stop its effects on the whole global community. We can't seperate ourselves into a nationalist way of thinking as us against the rest of the world without their being backlashes against us and also other countries feeling if its good enough for us then they should follow suit. Breaking up into many isolated pieces does not help this world as a whole and could eventually disroy this world as we know it.
nationalism though does not mean no concern for other nations. We send a LOT of money overseas and began that in more patriotic/nationalistic times. What it means to be a nationalist is to put the needs of your own people first and only then will you have the possibility of really helping others. We have not done that. Look at the Marshall plan a great idea to help Europe rebuild and NATO where we still fund 22% of Europe's defense while they have yet to pick up even what the promised as their share. Trade deals that hurt manufacturers here to the point of moving jobs overseas. There is an economic class in this country that benefits from globalism-- selfishly speaking-- but then talks as though it's noble to have cheaper groceries by using illegal labor and fearing if their costs would go up.
And as far as control goes in globalism, that comes back to the cabal running things, not someone you elect.
On the Paris accords, they were letting the developing nations off the hook to help build up their economies. How serious was that about climate change? It was one world system where the rich one place are leveled down to make another go up. TPP was like that. It hurt the working class people here but many profited from it by their stocks, etc.
Much of Europe has put little into their military and the result is they had it to pay for universal health care, high speed rail lines, etc. We have ignored our infrastructure in many cases to pay for our big military out of fear of what will happen if we don't. I don't know if you've noticed how China has been militarizing the South Pacific with those islands, but the time of one nation taking over another by force is not really gone-- if opportunities arise.
I see us as making many mistakes and we need to relook at our programs-- all of them to see what works. If we don't with the homeless, diseases we haven't seen in a long time are going to come back, and they will even hurt those who live in gated communities. We need to get some rebalancing and maybe having the House in the hands of many elected based on identity politics, will come up with some of those improved ideas. I just want all them to also tell us how we pay for it.
I was reading something from Thich Nhat Hanh awhile ago, and made a note of his litmus test for "right speech": Ask "Is it true?" and then "Is it useful?" If both of these conditions are met, then I can generally be pretty comfortable saying it. If I don't know something to be true then I need to look at it some more. I mention this because I've been troubled for some time by a sense that those who would lead us seem to favor trying to scare us witless, and then offering some draconian "solution" that we'd have to be witless to adopt. The MSM seem to be complicit in that, perhaps because it's good for ratings for their "news" programs.
Who are we and what do we stand for? We are being led as Americans, so what does that mean? We have dispossessed and displaced all of the initial inhabitants of our land so that claim is entirely based on force majeure. I see that as a significant part of our difficulty in relating to the world: we have no cohesive sense of history and little if any national credibility. Edmund Burke wrote: "People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to our ancestors." We didn't come here together, and we don't seem to have done a very good job of coming together since then. We don't have a discernable shared vision of our common goals.
Do we believe that all men are created equal? Do we believe "You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself"? We seem to see people from communities other than "our own" as different somehow and we seem to use "globalism" as a pejorative. When and how did we become so different from one another? Who benefits from us becoming different and perpetuating our differences?
Well, one thing, Harold is that we aren't all Christians. But I think there has been a standard of caring for those when we can. We still allow in over 1 million legal immigrants a year. Maybe we need to reevaluate from where those come. We seem to need agriculture, construction and service jobs Why not make them a priority with this merit based system? The other thing is a desire that those who come here want to be Americans-- not change us into from wherever they came. We have classes that people used to take before becoming citizens.
I am a big believer in securing the border-- really securing it-- and then figuring out a path to citizenship or work cards for those already here. If we don't secure the border first, it'll be like Reagan. Then, in an orderly system, let in those who want to come with a plan for them to either become citizens or freely go back to where they were born if that's their desire.
I think we in the US do have a history and it's of settling a land that we had to fight to hold. That's not really different from Europe. It's not like they knew no invasions that eventually changed borders.
The thing is if we are experiencing a global climate change, where some regions will become uninhabitable, how do we as a world community deal with that?
The thing that gets me is some talk about the ones coming from Honduras, etc. as being about bigotry and races. Hispanics are white, Native American, and black. They aren't a race but a culture, which may vary a lot from region to region.
I think what scared Americans when they didn't want the Irish, during that time of famine and turmoil over there,was fear that those coming wanted to change those here into some other country-- even without religious liberty, etc.
The question is valid today. Do people come here to change our culture or become part of it? We are such a mix of cultures. That's part of our national identity and even pride. But we don't want those who would deny us what has been the American culture, that of taming the wilderness, individualism, and building a community that works for those in it.
To me, that's our problem today especially with our political parties-- what works for us all?
Charles Degaulle's definitions of patriotism and nationalism were: "Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first". Samuel Johnson in the 18th century said: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." I think that last one is true even today when our politicians appeal to the patriotism of our young men to get them to die on the battlefield for the sake of profit for business men. Or when we disguise our xenophobia with the mask of patriotism to justify our inhuman treatment of other people
Interesting take on it, Wally. To me, nationalism is putting your country first and nothing to do with hate, but Hitler impacted how many saw it-- as well as the white nationalist movement, which is always bad. I guess the truth is words can be used to get power and we should watch out for that from both parties in our country. They gain power by getting someone to hate someone else.
I am writing about anger for Saturday, but I'd say hate is the same. When we hate, we are the losers.
I looked up another word that has taken on negative connotations-- populist. It turns out it just means bending to the will of the people not the elites.
So how did that become negative? Hillary Clinton used it most recently saying Europe had to do more about illegal immigration as a way to stop right wing populists from getting more power. So, I guess left wing populists would be okay with her lol
Our founding fathers did not have much faith in the ability of common folk to choose able leaders and to participate in representative democracy. I think the original purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent a populist movement. They thought the populace would be easily manipulated by a political despot. So they put together a process where a community could choose an "elector" who was considered able and knowledgeable to vote on their behalf. How ironic that the system designed to prevent a populist candidate from being elected actually did the opposite in 2016.
So it's better to have one state, like California, with very left wing populist views run everything by masses? We don't like that with laws and why we have Civil Rights. Hillary worried about a right wing populist being elected but hopefully everyone knows there are left wing populists, whose goal is not for the betterment of our country but another agenda, one they hide. I don't really know if Trump is a right wing or left wing given his views and the bigger concern with him is his personality and possibly a disorder. All said, I want our borders stopped and immigration legal-- if that's a right wing populist, so be it. I think we need the middle of the country to have a voice and it'd have none if this was rule by the mob (majority) for everything. Globalism, here we come-- and how many globalists have thought what that would mean for their lives-- if they aren't elites.
It is in point of fact a great and useful piece of info.
I am glad that you simply shared this helpful information with us.
Please stay us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.
I really like what you guys are usually up too. This sort of clever work and coverage!
Keep up the good works guys I've incorporated
you guys to my own blogroll.
This is very interesting, You are a very skilled blogger.
I've joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your
excellent post. Also, I've shared your website in my social networks!
I do not even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was great.
I do not know who you are but definitely you are going to
a famous blogger if you are not already ;) Cheers!
Its like you read my thoughts! You seem to understand so much
about this, like you wrote the e book in it or something. I believe that you could do with a few
% to force the message house a little bit, but instead of that, this
is great blog. A fantastic read. I'll definitely
be back.
Post a Comment