The Nations and Their Future -- The New Imperialism

There seems to be no escaping the New Imperialism that is being created as we write and debate about these things endlessly. The New Imperialism is global rather than regional, it seems to involve all the major nations (as in the G20) as almost equals, but as subsidiaries to the transnational corporations that are demanding and getting freedom from law and justice as they were once conceived and are asserting an independent "right to rule" without hindrance by government. Further, they demand that governments -- to the extent they are permitted to exist at all -- become the enforcers of corporate will against the interest of the People.

The nation-state as we have known it for the past several hundred years may disappear as a functioning governing body -- certainly national sovereignty will disappear as it is already doing -- in the interests of corporate hegemony, but what, exactly, will take its place (perhaps something like sports teams, many of which already have global followings) is anybody's guess.

I argue that the nation-states as we know them today are the legacies of imperial constructs of yore; they are not for the most part coherent geographical or common human interest groupings. They are at root arbitrary creations intended to instill loyalty to a distant ruling elite through nationalism.

They can disappear almost as quickly as lines on a map can be erased.

Europeans found that out for themselves as the first the Soviet Union and then the imperial constructs of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia fell to pieces, the latter not without considerable bloodshed and destruction.

If it could happen there, it could happen anywhere it becomes useful to certain interests -- not always popular ones -- to dissolve the larger nations and carry on with the "liberated" pieces. That's how the dissolution of nations has been sold, as "liberation" for... someone.

But anytime "liberation," "liberty" or "freedom" is placed up for bid, I always ask, "Liberty for whom to do what?"

I've never been a great nationalist. I'm more a tribalist. As I've argued in the past, de-tribalization is a prerequisite for the institutionalization of nationalism, and not everyone, even in the most nationalistic environment has actually been de-tribalized. The irony of forced de-tribalization -- which is often what takes place in the effort to forge a national identity -- leads inevitably to re-tribalization, perhaps differently aligned (for example, new-tribal groupings based on professions or neighborhoods or something similar)  but they are still socially the same thing.

I think of my Irish and German ancestors as strongly tribalized before they emigrated from the Old Countries in the mid-19th Century, and I believe they maintained their tribal identities when they got to this country. Their tribalism dissipated a bit as the generations wore on, and some individuals became highly nationalistic as an alternative to maintaining close tribal ties. But the essence of the tribalism they brought with them is still operating -- whether on the surface or below it. We see the same phenomenon among all sorts of peoples here and abroad. Organizing into tribes is human nature; it is how human society is designed to operate. Denouncing tribalism as some sort of mindlessness or inferior social structure is absurd; not only is it human nature, tribalism will assert itself no matter what "rational" argument is made against it.

As we've witnessed empires and larger nations dissolve during the past several decades and generations, we've seen a concomitant reassertion of tribalism. At the same time that nations and empires have dissolved, we've seen the rise of predatory corporations, some of them apparently organized specifically to loot and pillage the carcasses of the former republics and Imperial provinces.

Does this mean that we will ultimately see corporate brands and logos replacing national identities?

That's certainly been the view of many futurist and science fiction writers for decades, and we seem to be coming ever closer to that reality.

The future-present is not to be found in 1984, in other words, it's Blade Runner.

Or something else again.

I mentioned over at Ian's place the other day that he's apparently advocating for a New Imperialism based -- I think -- on the premise that there can be a "good" global authority that will act in the best interests of humanity as a whole and the planet. On a mission from god? I don't know, all I know is that the British and other European empires were constantly defended on the basis of "mission" -- a mission that was by definition "good" and was often argued to be God-given. The colonized peoples were simply too immature and irresponsible to be allowed to continue governing themselves; they had to be taken in hand by their Betters and put on the right path, much as British children were schooled in the fundamentals of knowledge and deportment. Well, some of them were, others were cast aside. Much as surplus colonized peoples were routinely disposed of.

But we won't go into that aspect of Imperialism right now.

The point right now is that I see us entering a New Imperial age, dominated once again by the private exploitative and extractive interests of corporations, for which governments are instituted and enabled as a means to enforce and enable the smoothest extractions possible. As in the past, unless thwarted somehow, this will not end well, as inevitably corporate wars for dominance will overwhelm every other interest at all.

A question for further consideration in this series is whether there truly can be a "good" Imperial overlord.

At the moment, I think not, but there are counter examples... aren't there?

Indian Sunset

 

We did some necessary Indian Business in Albuquerque yesterday, hooking up with the local tribal township and unexpectedly reconnecting with some of the tribal leaders we haven't seen in a decade or more.

It's a long and complicated story which I don't have time to go into in any detail right now. In the past, though, I've ranted about those who misuse the term "tribal" or "tribalism" to mean mindless loyalty. In Native American Indian society, the concept of loyalty is anything but "mindless." It's just about the opposite.

At any rate, we had a fine time at the Annual Meeting, very well attended by folks from all over the area (some had apparently come from as far away as Phoenix) as well as -- surprisingly -- by the tribal honchos and pooh-bahs who just showed up to say "hey" and schmooze for a while. They were not expected. Some of them we hadn't seen for a decade or more, and then it was in California, so yesterday was like Old Friends Day. Of course this was our first visit with the local branch of the tribe, and they were very welcoming and warm-hearted -- the way they tend to be. They were actually a lot of fun, and some were very funny, too. We met some really fine people, had wonderful food, got together with some folks we were surprised to see again, and we learned a bit about this area's tribal branch -- which has a whole different feel and atmosphere than the one in Northern California. That's how it goes in a tribal society: it's not a monolithic thing. They may share common values, common history, often common relations, but each group has its own character, and we were delighted with the one headquartered in Albuquerque.

Heading back over the mountain, we were driving away from the sunset, but the nearly clear sky in the east was lit up with all the colors of the sunset just the same. It was so subtle, though, it was almost transfixing. The nearly turquoise blue of the sky overhead faded gradually into a paler and paler blue, dusty gray, a pale yellow, into pink and then to orange, into another sort of purplish gray, then finally into an almost pure violet. These are the colors that painters and photographers struggle to capture waiting for exactly the right time of day and conditions -- and failing more often than not.

When we turned off the highway and looked back into the west, a brilliant orange and yellow glow arced over the Manzanos where the sun had set, as if there were a fire dying down, and the sky all around it scintillated with purples and pinks and blues. It was yet another of those gorgeous sunsets New Mexico is famous for, but this time not quite so showy or dramatic. This time it was simple and warming and welcoming.

We still have much more to do but we're getting there...

[This is not my picture, it's an uncredited image from Dialog Santa Fe -- a site which doesn't seem to be in operation at the moment... ]

Life At Versailles, In Sum: the Final Round

Versailles

Well. Wasn't that refreshing?

Himself and The Other One seemed to really get into it for once. The Other One looked to me to be pale and sweaty and even a bit blotchy under the intensity of the teevee lights and the penetrating gaze of Himself. The Other One even seemed to be "out of his depth" as they say on the all-important topic of Foreign Policy, unable to dent the rather gory record of the President of the United States even while bringing up a string of disasters and failures of this or that importance "on his watch."

"Commander-in-Chief" was the oft-repeated phrase, and as far as I could tell, Wromley (h/t Crowley) didn't really want that bit of Presidential Prerogative. This Killing of Brown People that Obama seems to relish these days appeared to make Wromley somewhat queasy. In a sense that's a good thing I guess. Presidents -- at least the way we are expected to regard them -- should not really be into the slaughter game. It hasn't been a celebrated characteristic in White House residents since TR, and he was always careful to make it clear that he "deplored" the slaughter he was (of course) forced to engage in (particularly in the Philippines)  and he loudly condemned the troops who went too far in their extermination of the Natives so as to secure that piece of American Empire.

Much of the "debate" -- which was closer to a real debate on substantive issues than previous forays -- focused on domestic issues and policies, particularly with regard to the economy, rather than foreign affairs. Good enough. There's not much to be said about America's foreign policy that isn't a factor of the rotten economy for the masses. Obama pointed out time and again that Romney would simply reinstate the same economic policies that crashed the economy under the Busheviks (true), but what he didn't say was that the Obama economic policies are almost identical. There has been very little positive change under Obama, and everybody knows it. As a rule, most of Romney's main criticisms of Obama economic policies are spot on: the economy is "sputtering," unemployment and underemployment is way -- way -- too high, ordinary people are struggling while the government lavishes money and favors on the rich, and so on. These things are not accidents, they are policy. And the Obama Administration proposes to "stay the course," essentially making no changes in the policies that are causing so much misery for the millions.

Meanwhile, Romney's prescription borders on insanity: he would return to the Bushevik Era free-for-all, crony-capitalist loot-fest, only now with the targets being Social Security and Medicare and whatever else is left of the social safety net and piddly middle class wealth, and he would call it a Good Thing.

Obama would do the same only with a few more controls on the looting and who gets first dibs.

Hm. Some choice there.

The "First Dibs" issue is basically all that the candidates are contesting. Their policies -- both foreign and domestic -- are all but identical in every important way (which is the way our political/governmental system is designed to operate in any case). The choice before the voters is not between policies, it is between personalities, styles, and who among the Highest of the Mighty has First Dibs on government and the benefits flowing therefrom.

It's not "tribal," it's inner-tribal. In other words, the political class is all the same tribe. The struggle, to the extent there is one, is between factions within the political class itself, and between factions of the Overclass that owns and controls the political class. But they are all, every single one, of the same tribe.

They are all denizens of Versailles. They all live in the bubble of a palace culture; and their realm is not that of the People.

For them, holding the keys to the Throne and the Treasury for the benefit of themselves and their friends is what it is all about; "First Dibs." The People don't factor in, or if they do, it is as an afterthought. Or sometimes, very rarely, because they are restless and throwing things.

At the on stage meet and greet after the "debate" the fact that these candidates were on the same side was made manifest what with all the Hale Fellow Well Met backslapping, hugs and handshakes. Even Tagg and the President had a good guffaw over something or other (Gee, I wonder what?) and the plethora of Romney children and grandchildren practically mobbed Obama ("Gee, can you be Our Dad?")

As for The Winner? I would give it to Obama because he didn't look like he was going to faint.

But who will win the election -- at this point -- I have no idea. The Rs have been diligently setting up their plans to steal the election outright if need be. Ds have done little or nothing about it, so even if Obama has a strong plurality at the polls, it won't necessarily lead to victory. I wouldn't be surprised if we had another Election 2000 situation, something that our Overlords seem to relish.

On the other hand, many have come to the conclusion that it will be a run-away Obama victory, that Romney will be thoroughly trounced, and that this has all been carefully planned for a very long time. What we see is just the Show; what's going on behind the scenes is what matters, and the result is to be a resounding Obama victory. He, after all, institutes Republican policies far better than Republicans ever did.

We'll see.

Meanwhile, an inside look at the Secret Rituals of the Mormon Temple is making the rounds. I watched the hour and twenty minute full version the the internet, embedded and linked below, because I'm into science fiction sometimes, and the whole thing seemed like it was straight out of a 1950's science fiction movie. Which makes me wonder how many science fiction authors and movie-makers were/are Mormons either current or ex. Anyway, it's an interesting -- if somewhat creepy -- diversion. Some of those who have watched it or the shorter version have claimed that "all religions" are creepy like this. Well could be, but this is on a whole nother plane.



http://youtu.be/5VrsFEiTpsQ

Here in New Mexico

The picture above is of the ruins of some nameless motel in Mountainair, a little town nestled at the foot of the Manzano Mountains. I took the picture in the summer of 2008 when I stopped there for... something... I don't remember what, and got captivated by all the images of what was and what is that are sprinked through the town and round about. There are ruins. Everywhere. Some of them dating back many centuries, both to the Spanish Era, and well before it. What's called the "Salt Mission Pueblos" stand in a kind of forlorn majesty, what they used to be detectable in the masses and shapes of the ruined pueblo quarters and the colonial era churches still standing, all built from the carefully laid reddish sandstone that is everywhere around the area. They were abandoned in the 1600's when starvation due to drought and Apache and Kiowa raids from the south and the east made it unproductive to stay. The populations went over the mountians and fused with the pueblos to the west, and when the Pueblo Revolt came in 1680, these pueblos, so they say, did not join in.

So. The Salt Mission Pueblos sat, century after century, abandoned. But because they are made of stone -- at least in part -- they do not melt back into the soil the way adobe ruins do. They "flake" away. The stucco falls off the walls, roofs collapse, wood members rot, the freeze-thaw cycle causes bits and pieces of the constructions to flake away into dust or shards that litter the ground everywhere.

Their ruin is much like that of Chaco, in other words, though smaller of course, and for the most part much newer. But still, we're talking centuries. And centuries. And centuries.

Many of the descendants of the builders of the Salt Mission Pueblos are still living in the pueblos on the west side of the mountains, particularly at Isleta, but there are other locations their ancestors settled. These ancestors in turn claimed to be the descendants of those who built Chaco and the other spectacular ruins farther to the west. While some, particularly the Navajo, dispute their claim, most archaeologists and anthropologists accept it. It makes sense. There was drought and misery to the west. Migrating east, the peoples found good places to settle along the Rio Grande, and their descendants live there still.

Which is remarkable given the history of the place. But that's as it is, and that's the way it has been, and that's the way it will be.

Living poor, living well, living happy, with plenty of time and plenty of room for rivalries and feuds, laughter and ceremonials, loves and foolishness, creativity and abandonment. Forward, back, and stay right in place, all at once.

Yes, fundamentally it's a tribal society, deeply rooted in place and time, in ancestry and lines of descent, in family, in clan, and in the three general groupings of New Mexicans: Anglo, Spanish, and Indian. Years ago a colleague came out to California from New Mexico where she had been a fundraiser for one of the major arts organizations. She was from DC, and she'd worked for years at the NEA before she moved out to NM and started dealing with Things As The Are Here. She was, she said, appalled at what she found, because she said, the society in New Mexico was the most racist she had ever encountered, including the Jim Crow South. Now, I wondered about that. Whatever did she mean?

Well, you have your three grand groups, Anglos, Spanish and Indians, and they all hate each other.

I see. Hmm. Is that right?

They live in their own hermetically sealed communities, never interacting with anyone else.

Are you kidding? They're interacting all the time.

They're at each others throats, she said.

Well. Sometimes, I said.

No, she insisted, it's that way all the time, and just try to get Anglos to fund Spanish arts or Indian arts; it can't be done.

Of course it can, I said. It's done all the time. Just in ways you might not recognize.

Another collegaue went out to New Mexico a few years later, having heard that it wasn't that bad and there were opportunities for a charming young man like him, and sure enough, he was picked up by one of the Cultural outfits in Santa Fe to be assistant marketing director, and he left in disgust and outrage within two years, because he found the same sort of ethnic/barriers in support systems, and he couldn't break through them.

"Why did you think you had to?" I asked, noncommittally.

"They can't survive in their own little pockets and closets and perspectives; it's for their own good to get them to break through."

Oh. I see.

"For their own good." I get it. I pointed out that the broader divisions and the finer division have been a basis for culture and society in New Mexico for centuries and maybe, just maybe, New Mexicans like it like that.

"But it is so discriminatory!"

Well, yes. It is. For the individual. But as groups, the broader and finer divisions within New Mexico seem to get along with one another pretty well, and there is little open "warfare" between them most of the time. In fact, there is much mutual cooperation on many issues and projects, and a really high degree of mutual respect, at least in public. No, the cultures aren't "integrated" according to ideals set in much of the rest of the country in the '50s and '60s, but then each culture is very proud of its independence, and its ability to be independent, to contribute to the whole, and to get along more or less well.

"Integration" is not the objective here. Independence and survival within that independent -- yet interdependent -- framework is the objective. Despite many, many ups and downs over the centuries -- and all the ruins that litter New Mexico -- it's worked pretty well.

(Not to be too coy, but there are plenty of efforts by a strident minority, mostly Libertarian cultists, to blow it all up. Nihilism is everywhere.)

Tribalism is a Good Thing

Image courtesy of First People.US They've got thousands of pictures, an abundance of information. An incredible resource. Go look!



I'm in New Mexico. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is Indian Country. Tribal peoples, in other words. Rather adaptable and successful ones, all in all.

Up and down the Rio Grande, there are more than a dozen active pueblos, and there are ruins of many more on the river and elsewhere throughout New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Northern Mexico. Zunis are over on the West, and, a little further west in Arizona, the Hopi -- also a pueblo people -- live surrounded by the Navajo, who are not a pueblo people. Of course the other major non-pueblo tribe in New Mexico is the Apaches.

Human history in New Mexico goes back about as far as human history can be traced in North America, the Clovis site having some of the earliest evidence found yet. Elaborate Indian cultural centers (one hesitates to call them "cities" because that's not really what they are) have arisen and and have been abandoned over the centuries.

Today's pueblo peoples are quite certain that they are the direct descendants of those who built the astonishing structures in Chaco Canyon, Mesa Verde, Canyon de Chelley and elsewhere. There is really no reason to doubt them, while there may be reason to doubt the tales the latecomer Navajo tell that they were enslaved and were forced to build the structures scattered in ruins around New Mexico. The pueblo peoples laugh. The Navajos accuse the ancestors of the pueblo peoples of cannibalism. Yes, well. That's as may be.

The social structure of all these peoples and their ancestors is tribal, and for them it works very well. Strong kinship ties, strong rivalries, strong social bonds, weak political ones.

In 1540, then again in 1598, and yet again in 1692, Spaniards invaded the native world of New Mexico, and with considerable violent persuasion -- the stories of which are told with a passion today as if the events occured yesterday -- they took physical control of the land, planted their own colonists, and exploited the labor (and the souls) of the Indians. The Spanish entrada and reconquista was never without resistance, most famously the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 that forced the Spanish out of New Mexico for the next 12 years, but in the bye and bye, the Indians and the Spanish came to an uneasy truce and accommodation with one another that was shattered by the American conquest of the Southwest in 1846-48. In fact, the American conquest of New Mexico was marked a singular event. The Spanish and Indians joined together to resist the imposition of American authority, a resistance that led to the death of the American governor and a number of other Anglos in Santa Fe Taos and elsewhere. American troops then laid siege to the Taos Pueblo where many of the rebels from other areas had retreated. Much of the pueblo was destroyed, and reports are that as many as 500 (but more probably 150-250) people, men, women, and children, were slaughtered by the troops as they tried to escape. Many Indians [and Beaners] were rounded up in other areas and some were summarily executed. Others were held for "trial" and hanged by the dozen in the Santa Fe Taos Plaza and elsewhere.

Thus began the American occupation of New Mexico.

As I say, these events are as yesterday to many of the peoples of New Mexico. One thing about a tribal society is that the past is never entirely absent from consciousness. It is living history. In some ways all the peoples of New Mexico share this tribal sense of history and the present, though in the eyes of the Indians, both the Spanish and the Anglos are highly defective in basic social concepts. It's taken the Indians hundreds of years to begin to bring the Spanish around to proper social understanding. The Anglos often appear to be hopless, though bless their hearts, some of them try to adapt.

I'm sure my history of New Mexico is in error in many respects and is defective in other ways, but my point is simple: Tribalism and tribal peoples are alive and well in New Mexico, and the fact that they are is a benefit to everyone.

In other words, there's nothing wrong with tribalism. In fact, it's a profoundly good thing in many respects.

Yet there are those, especially of a Libertarian bent, who like to level the accusation of "Tribalism" on others as a means of disparaging their social/political/economic activities.

As if somehow Tribalism is defective, unevolved, primitive, and usless in the Modern World, and the Higher Development of Libertarianism is by far superior. Darwinian Evolution and all.

Of course anti-tribalism is flavored with racism. "Tribal" peoples of the US and the world being of the blacker and browner persuasion by and large, though often the accusation is leveled at race traitor white folks who adopt those icky primitive tribal ways, as if white folks were never and are never "tribal" themselves unless influenced by the "mud people" whose social concepts are a pollution.

Libertarians deny it, they always do. They will change the subject and accuse their accusers. They are opportunists first and foremost. Since "Tribalism" is used as a dogwhistle by Libertarians to identify one another and express their solidarity against the tribal Mud Peoples, and to identify potential recruits to their cult.

I simply reject notion that there is something wrong with Tribalism. There isn't. It is perfectly normal, a matter of human nature. Tribalists will survive long after the last Advanced Libertarian has breathed his last.