The words I wish to address are nation, country and state. They are often used interchangeably, but in reality they represent claims, each to a different status. A nation refers to a people, with a distinct cultural-linguistic identity, held collectively, often through symbols such as flags and banners, colours and coats of arms. A country refers to the territorial area claimed by said nation. The state refers to the body that governs said people and administers said territory.
The peoples of the Roma Nation were recently on the receiving end of discrimination that relied heavily upon the differences between these words. Being a nation with no territorial claim and as such necessarily living in scattered and roaming groups, statehood is a difficult concept to apply to them. It also makes them an easy target.
An even more alarming target where the Iroquois Nation, who were on the receiving end of some British State discrimination early last year (MacAskill, 2010). The Iroquois National Lacrosse team were heading to Britain to take part in an international tournament in Manchester. However they were not allowed to board their flights because they sought to fly under their own national passports, rather than American or Canadian alternatives recognised by the UK.
It seems that the modern world still takes all its decisions on the basis of land ownership. The Welsh, Scottish and Cornish nations have fought tooth and nail against British domination and in return possess the status of both nation & country, even state now with their own autonomous assemblies, if not the status of sovereignty.
The Iroquois (or Haudenosaunee) fought as the Ally of the British Empire, yet they no longer receive any acknowledgement from the British Government. Even in spite of the fact that they do receive nation status from the United States, a nation they allied with Britain to fight against!
It seems that there is no room in our economic climate for transhumance. Every citizen is a commodity of value to the economic power of the whole.
And that leaves no room over for individual liberty. In the 2010 UK General Election leaders debate, audience member Joel Weiner expressed that he had 'found that the [education] system is incredibly grades driven, so much so education for its own sake is often sacrificed'; Gordon Brown's response was:
'We need teachers with better qualifications... we need young people with aspiration to succeed... we're in this new world where we're competing with Asia as well as America and Europe and our young people have got to have the grades, the qualifications to meet the best in the world.'It's almost as if he didn't listen to Mr Weiner's question. Asked to consider the issue of the trade off between making young people economically useful and teaching them to think critically, Mr Brown brushed aside the young man's view with 'we need young people with aspiration to succeed'; then continued to stress the need to focus on state economic strength.
As Rousseau points out, society only continues to work while our tacit social pact remains active; while the individual continues to benefit from the continuance of their association with the whole. If the one is always to give up the self for and to the strength of whole, how can there be room for the expression of the individual?
The argument is always returned that the individual will eventually benefit from the energy invested in the whole. That by buying into the importance of being landed you will eventually be reimbursed your investment through quality of life and freedom of wealth.
However in 'The Soul of Man Under Socialism', Wilde stresses that the duties and burdens of property and the economic supremacy of that institution only serves to alienate people from their liberty. To dredge up an idea older than Marx, are we not always going to be in conflict until all things are held in common? Thomas Paine certainly thought so (Paine, 1797). Furthermore Wilde posited that 'it is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair' (Wilde, 1891).
The EU aspires towards a kind of European commonality, if not absolute homogeneity judging by the actions of some of its member states. Are there not reasonable and humanist solutions that respect the rights of those who do not wish to join a globalising world?
==========
References:
==========
+ Jean-Jacques Rousseau's 'The Social Contract
';Penguin, 2004.
+ Ewen MacAskill's 'Iroquois lacrosse team cleared to travel by America – then blocked by Britain';
- More on the Iroquois lacrosse team story:
Iroquois Lacrosse Team Denied Visas By UK, NPR.com
Iroquois lacrosse team denied visas by U.K., cbc.ca
Iroquois lacrosse team denied visas, Belfast Telegraph
+ Gordon Brown's response to Joel Weiner; 36min 25; 15th April; 2010 UK General Election Debate;
ITV1, 2010.
+ Oscar Wilde's 'The Soul of Man under Socialism
';1891, (Forgotten Books, 2008)
+ Rev.John Ball, 1381; in Tony Benn's 'Big Ideas that changed the world: Democracy';
Channel Five (UK); 21 June 2005;
+ Thomas Paine's 'Agrarian Justice
';1797. (lulu.com, 2010)
No comments:
Post a Comment