nationalism

[THOTH]

Ara,

 

Do you not think that there are philosophers/writers and such who might be promoting questionable or less then benficial ideas - often with questionable motivation - or worse (Hitler was a writer once I recall - though perhaps he already was a politician by that time)...and on the flip side - are all politicians (or leaders at any level) necessicarily motivated by power alone - might not some have the best interest of their people in mind and are commited to using their talents to do (what they percieve is) the best for their people? (like a Chief Joseph or some such)...(is this always a bad thing)?

 

While I certainly share your expressed view(s) (here and in general) for the most part - I do not think its/their application is necessarily universal. And some people are better wired for action - others for contemplation/expression - does a prediliction for one over the other really make a person a good one or bad - cannot both have their roles and contribute - cannot we find those who are good or bad in either group? Certainly artistic expression in its pure honest form should not have ulterior motivation beyond pure expression of the ideas and talents of the artists - but as we all know - we do not live in a perfect world - and humans are imperfect creatures with often questionable motivations.

 

Anyway, take care and keep on thinking and keeping us thinking...critics be damned! (and I think you've already spoken on the motivations of critics)

[abenlian]

On the basis of Ara's formulation of culture and politics I can't escape thinking of two fundamental questions. What are the philosophical differences between the two ethnic groups in the forum? For example, there is a drastic difference between the philosophy of communist China and semi-free USA. And the second question pertains to the distinction between political pool that is evident in the existance of centralized government and ethnic identity that permeates the masses. If you suppose that political nationlism is a cover up for a protectionist's power lust, national pride is its distorted version in the eyes of the average citizen.

[MJ]

ara baliozian

Member

Member # 271

posted August 27, 2001 07:35 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON PATRIOTISM AND OTHER

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

************************************

Patriotism may well be abolished on the day an enlightened mankind catalogues all the crimes that have been committed in its name.

If anyone ever dares to criticize one of our benefactors, an entire army of brown-nosers, parasites, hangers-on, flunkies and yes-man rise to his defense. But if a dissident is silenced, it’s like a tree that falls in the middle of nowhere.

 

You want to see me silenced? Stop reading me and as far as you are concerned, I shall have been silenced. But if you think I am a bad influence on the next generation, consider the verbal crap that our political parties dish out daily in our schools and media thus legitimizing and reinforcing the persistence of our fragmentation and tribalism.

 

The distance between a man you know from a distance and a man you know close-up, may be equal to the distance that exists between an ordinary Joe and Jack the Ripper.

 

There are three ways to get to know a man well: to marry him (if you happen to be of the opposite sex, though that is no longer a necessary condition), to have a fight with him, or to work for him. Likewise, the best way to understand a country is to make a living in it. The rest is tourist patriotism.

 

--------------------

 

ara baliozian

[aurguplu]

dear ara,

you say that culture and politics are mutually exclusive, and that one cannot have two hats (if i understand correctly).

what about the great greek writers who were also statesmen? or victor hugo, who was later to become a president of france? did they prostitute their creative talents?

i agree with you that culture and arts do have different aims, but only partly: i see culture as a way of life. life is like a journey that presents us with thousands of obstacles, problems and new situations. how we overcome them, solve them and adapt to them, plus how we turn life from merre survival into something more enjoyable, is what i understand to be culture.

politics is not directly opposed to culture, but rather part of it. politics has its own ends and means, and if an authoritarian political system gets too strong, it can stifle creativity and development. but politics cannot be divorced from culture. no human activity can.

we are social animals, and like other social animals, we have a political culture (all sophisticated social animals do). our political culture is further sophisticated by the fact that we have a faculty called language, which, in addition to enabling communication between different members of any one group at any given time, also serves as a repository of past experiences and a vehicle to formulate solutions for expected future problems. add to this the humna tendency to base group adherence on linguistic ties (amongst other things, of course), and you arrive at a fairly accurate picture of one of the aspects of the formation of political culture in humans.

so in my opinion we should not attempt to exclude any aspect of human experience from the sphere of culture. things as basic as the regulation of bodily functions are dictated by culture.

regards,

ali suat

[arziv]

ON NATIONALISM

OR THE WAGES OF PREJUDICE

***************************************

Political scientists have called nationalism "an infantile disease" and so it is. Nationalism may satisfy our vanity but it also makes of us prejudiced observers. One reason Hitler lost the war is that he drove his Jewish scientists, among them Einstein, into exile because he considered them inferior to his German scientists. As a result, the Jewish scientists established themselves in the United States where they were successful in developing the first atom bomb.

 

Prejudice and objective judgment are mutually exclusive concepts. When we say we are proud Armenians, we voice a prejudice and not an objective assessment. Scientists know something political leaders don’t: namely, the validity of a theory recognizes no national barriers. If we are going to learn from our history, we must approach our past with scientific objectivity. Then and only then we may be in a position to admit blunders and to learn from them. Otherwise we will be like the blind leading the blind, and to paraphrase still another biblical dictum, the wages of prejudice shall be death.

 

Nationalism is a dead end and its inevitable end is death – the death of the nation.

 

Business prostitutes the artist to the same degree that ideology prostitutes the historian. It follows that, a historian who enjoys the support of a political party or a regime with a clearly defined agenda has adopted charlatanism as his credo. And this applies to Turkish as well as Armenian historians.

style_images/master/snapback.png