Article

2006-05-04 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2006-05-04 06:57|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This opion piece mushes a lot of things together and prefers polemic to analysis. I'll leave the economic aspects alone and comment on the social aspect of the global information village. The article tries to impose a physical location model on what is essentially a locationless phenomena. When it comes to geopolitics I have more in common with a resident of the Burg than I do with my next door neighbor, but when it comes to the local school and the traffic problems caused by the 3:30 pickup, I obviously have more in common with my neighbor.

The reality is that the internet and other information technologies reinforce all kinds of communities, from crofters in the Shetland isles worrying whether there will be enough seaweed to feed their sheep to geeks who want to scan for transmissions from alien civilizations.

The dichotomy presented is false. It's not either globalization or local identity, both can flourish. The risks from globalization lie elsewhere.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-05-04 07:54|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-05-04 07:54|| Front Page Top

#2 The point isn't that globalization is good or bad - it's both - but that it's vastly oversold when it comes to reforming human character and weakening group identities. Along with commercial integration, we get social fragmentation. In Europe, Africa and the Middle East, the sense of "who I am" now more closely resembles that of the 15th century than the 20th century.

He's got some good points. In the U. S. we're much more factionalized than we were in the 20th century. In large part this is due to changes in communications. In the 20th century media were newspaper, radio, and television. All of these are capital intense, one way, top down communications that were easily controlled by the elite. In the 21st the emerging media are the internet and talk radio, two way, interactive, many to many communications. This allows many dissenting, minority opinions to be spoken and heard.

Both the Rantburg community and the local traffic community are smaller, more intimate, more 15th century communities than the mass movements of the 20th century that buried such fine distinctions.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-04 08:14|| 2006-05-04 08:14|| Front Page Top

#3 I dislike how he tries to muddle any non-internationalist identity into tribalism. And yes, as a reaction to greater levels of internationalism, we do see the re-emergence of some tribalism; but we also see the re-emergence of pagan religions and nationalism.

Then there is the difference between world-wide internationalism, and "continentalism" or "bloc-ism", such as the EU or NAFTA. In part these lesser organizations are moving in the direction of world internationalism; but on their own, they represent barriers to a world organization.

To boil it all down: all politics is local; the greatest impact organizations have on people is in their home towns. Progressively greater levels of organization affect people less and less, and as such, they are less and less desireable.

Nations, for the most part, evolve into the largest possible natural organization of a people. Beyond nations organizations are contrivances--conveniences of governments and businesses, not peoples. That is why there will never be a grand European army, any more than a NAFTA fighting force--there is no natural cohesion.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-05-04 09:10|| 2006-05-04 09:10|| Front Page Top

#4 As for those tribes that the professors insisted didn't really exist, go to Africa (or Iraq) and ask people who they are. Nineteen times out of 20, they'll respond with the name of their tribe: Kikuyu, Asante, Fulani, Igbo, rather than Kenyan, Ghanaian, Senegalese or Nigerian. Elsewhere, people no longer want to be Spaniards or British or Turks, but Catalans, Scots and Kurds.

I'm from Texas, what country you from? Sorry, Ralph has written better than this. Too long in Africa I suspect.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-05-04 09:11|| 2006-05-04 09:11|| Front Page Top

#5 ...go to Africa (or Iraq) and ask people who they are. Nineteen times out of 20, they'll respond with the name of their tribe...

When I lived in Australia people would ask me where I was from. When I told them I was an American, they said, "I know that, but from where?" (And that was always difficult to answer. Last place I'd lived was California, but I didn't want to try to pass myself off as a Californian. I grew up in Missouri, but nobody had heard of that.)

Similarly, if you're an American in the US and people ask you where you're from, they don't want to hear, "I'm an American." That would be crazy. They want to know what state or town you're from. Maybe this is the same phenomena, on a larger scale.

Posted by Angie Schultz 2006-05-04 11:23|| 2006-05-04 11:23|| Front Page Top

#6 The title is a bit of a misnomer. The tribes aren't back, since they never went anywhere. Not much of the world has progressed to an understanding of a "nation". If anything, the "tribes" cited haven't moved anywhere for millenia, if ever.

Just as Europe lead in civilizing much of the world, these areas need civilizing as well. Referring to "globalization" may just be a fancy way of labelling barbarians with the ability to acquire advanced weaponery and rudimentary training.

Not much new in any of this.

Posted by Whong Whoting4646 2006-05-04 12:20|| 2006-05-04 12:20|| Front Page Top

#7 The 'tribes' are back? File this complete waste of time under 'Duh'.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-05-04 13:21|| 2006-05-04 13:21|| Front Page Top

#8 "Who are you?"

"I'm an American" - thats the normal response from almost everyone (legally) here in this nation.

And that's what sets us apart. We've come here to give up tribalism, to live where you are who you want to be based on merit.

That is, except for the liberals who must divide everyone into groups to categorize, manipulate and eventually rule by playing favorites between them.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-04 16:05|| 2006-05-04 16:05|| Front Page Top

#9 we do see the re-emergence of some tribalism; but we also see the re-emergence of pagan religions and nationalism.

And they all seem to have some "Magic Date' to which they want to turn the clock back.
1967, 1492, 1200, 1948, match 'em up.

Posted by jim#6 2006-05-04 17:51|| 2006-05-04 17:51|| Front Page Top

01:08 the Twelfth Imami
23:35 djohn66
23:23 Dreadnought
23:21 ed
23:21 3dc
23:14 USN Ret.
23:09 3dc
23:08 3dc
23:04 JosephMendiola
22:59 JosephMendiola
22:57 Frank G
22:54 Grunter
22:50 3dc
22:48 3dc
22:47 BA
22:43 Robert Crawford
22:40 Robert Crawford
22:37 rjschwarz
22:35 BA
22:34 Broadhead6
22:32 3dc
22:32 Broadhead6
22:30 JosephMendiola
22:29 DMFD