Thread: Nations/States/Traditions - good or bad?

Among the relevant forces in play during the normal discourse of politics, none stands more powerful than that of the nation, the state, or the tradition. Every policy is justified on that basis that it appeals to one of these forces - for instance, the debate over the expansion of the healthcare reform centers upon the space between the tradition of privatized healthcare, the platform that conservatives argue for, and the need for the greatest good to be brought to the greatest number, the position that the liberal advocate for. The question becomes then, why? Why is it that these three forces are among the most important forces in the realm of politics; why is it that healthcare becomes defined in terms of tradition or the nation, and not that tradition or the nation becomes defined in terms of health? The answer lies upon an understanding of power within society; the concept of a nation, or a state, or of tradition, serves to teach people the correct balance of power - thus, these forces of power are neither good nor bad.

----
Rest of paper to come soon.

In order to first understand why the forces of power teach people about a certain balance of power, rather than these forces of power being intrinsically good or bad, it becomes necessary to understand what these forces of power are; and in order to understand these forces of power, it first becomes necessary to lay out some base for understanding.

There is no better way to successfully lay a philosophical base in the pursuit of understanding the forces of power than to understand the conditions under which people find themselves. These conditions lay the groundwork for understanding the various needs and desires that the people have. For instance, South Africa; South Africa had a history of colonialism, where the British established dominion over a group of disparate tribes and united them under a common banner called South Africa.The only problem with this unification, is that in relation to the black people of South Africa, there was no unification - they were not permitted to move between codified districts, while they had been doing so for centuries; they were not permitted to work, except in manual labor; they were not permitted to own property, and were given only designated areas to live. This contrasts with the benefits that were given to people who were white - white people were able to move wherever they wanted, work wherever they wanted, own whatever they could; overall, although the government of South Africa claimed to represent all of South Africa, its policies created economic and social ills among its vast black population.

These economic and social ills provided the basis for the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or the SATRC. After the fall of the oppressive apartheid regieme that promoted these vast social inequalities, the new government of South Africa commissioned a commission that was designed to reveal the truth of the past system of oppression. The SATRC systematically went through cases of injustice that occurred during the apatheid regieme, and made them part of the public record - for instance, if there was people who were barred from entering a bar, their story would be told. The reason was that this was important, was that there was a constant story being told in the media, there was almost non-stop television coverage of 'bad' stories being told, and in the process these stories became part of a social conscience. People who experienced the conditions of apartheid listened to the stories, and accepted them as their own; if they were a former Afrikaneer, or those white people who benefitted from Apartheid, and acknowledged that the moral of these stories were wrong, they changed their ideals to believe that this oppression with wrong. Because the unequal conditions were widespread, both among the black people who were oppressed and the white people who oppressed, and because there the media constantly reported the truth about the bad side of Apatheid, people were able to associate themselves with New South Africa and disassociate themselves from Old South Africa; thus a new nation of South Africans were born

Originally Posted by The_Bear

In order to first understand why the forces of power teach people about a certain balance of power, rather than these forces of power being intrinsically good or bad, it becomes necessary to understand what these forces of power are; and in order to understand these forces of power, it first becomes necessary to lay out some base for understanding.

The forces of power never teach about a balance of power. If I am staying with your paper, when you refer to power you can be talking about political parties or the people in them in Washington. They never teach a balance. They promote their philosophy as the right, or good philosophy, but never how a balance between the powers are good.
Also, aren't those in power, in the U.S. anyway, supposively just an extension of you or I? So when you talk about healthcare for example, doesn't that supposively come down to what a majority of the people want as opposed to any sort of tradition or power?

Originally Posted by metheron

The forces of power never teach about a balance of power. If I am staying with your paper, when you refer to power you can be talking about political parties or the people in them in Washington. They never teach a balance. They promote their philosophy as the right, or good philosophy, but never how a balance between the powers are good.
Also, aren't those in power, in the U.S. anyway, supposively just an extension of you or I? So when you talk about healthcare for example, doesn't that supposively come down to what a majority of the people want as opposed to any sort of tradition or power?

thanks, I'm in the process of writing this; its a first draft, any indication where my points are vague is very useful.
Overall, what is a 'nation'? It is imagined; oh sure it has boundaries, but those boundaries are determined by lines on a piece of paper, which largely were determined by some peoples decisions back in the day. So, where the 'nation' lies, you see your 'leaders' ; where your state lies, you see your 'economy', and where you traditions lie you see your 'ideals'. The social hierarchy, the balance of money, and the balance of knowledge.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

thanks, I'm in the process of writing this; its a first draft, any indication where my points are vague is very useful.
Overall, what is a 'nation'? It is imagined; oh sure it has boundaries, but those boundaries are determined by lines on a piece of paper, which largely were determined by some peoples decisions back in the day. So, where the 'nation' lies, you see your 'leaders' ; where your state lies, you see your 'economy', and where you traditions lie you see your 'ideals'. The social hierarchy, the balance of money, and the balance of knowledge.

So, in your philosophy, your nation, state, and traditions are imagined. While your leaders, economy, and ideals are real?

While the economic conditions of the people of South Africa provided a basis for understanding how a new nation of South Africa was able to be built around a common social context, it becomes necessary to understand the condition of former Vietnam in order to realize how the creation of a new state occurs. A state differs from a nation because a state is the physical apparatus of people - it is a political and economical force, whereas a nation is just a social commonality among a group of people. In the case of Vietnam, the creation of the state occurs during its period of colonization by the French. During the period of colonization, the French built up the infrastructure around the capital; France built roads, schools, hospitals, and many other things that promoted the health and wealth of the people that lived in that region.
One effect of this was that it changed how many people made their money. Previously, the Vietnamese had engaged in a certain style of commerce. However, with the creation of new schools, more people began going to these schools to learn and to make money; these people would become doctors, lawyers, businessmen, etc. This had the effect of making the capital more prosperous than the rest of Vietnam. People would begin looking to the capital for money. Gradually, it became the capital that was the source of wealth and the center of the economy, rather than the rest of the Vietnam. In this regard, the capital became the center of the economy.

Because the capital became the center of the economy, this translated into the establishment of a state. A state government is a government that is located in a capital, and has the relevant means to assert control over a territory. In the United States, for instance, the state government is located in Washington DC - it is the state government because it has been given enough access to money and enough authority to do things that a state government is entitled to do. Correspondingly, the economic prosperity of the vietnameese capital in the post-colonial vietnam, allowed a government that took over power from the french in the capital, enough access to resources, that it would be able to maintain control over the region that became known as vietnam. Therefore, through promoting the economic prospects in the capital, the French re-oriented the people of Vietnam to consider the capital the source of their economic and by extension, political power - the existence of this political power is the existence of a state.

Originally Posted by metheron

So, in your philosophy, your nation, state, and traditions are imagined. While your leaders, economy, and ideals are real?

they are people yes.
But 'president bush' has been concocted people to be an almost mythical figure; a man who embodies America, and other stuff.
"Congress" is a mythical entity, but the people who comprise "congress" are real.
"America" is imagined, but there is a place that has borders.

These things aren't bad or even fake; they are just all in our head, so basic that its almost frightening.

Interesting stuff, Bear. The whole issue of boundaries and bordered nation-states is fascinating to me. The very concept of the bounded nation-state is one of the deepest traditions in the history of Western civilization, which is sort of ironic in that tradition is usually a source of social stability but in this case continues to provide the basis for so much conflict. One could make the point that clinging to geographic boundaries (particularly as a basis for identity) is in many ways counterproductive to the welfare of the human race.
The "us and them" point of view is a natural tendency, and because of this it's not fundamentally a moral dilemma. The way it's expressed is the important thing, and history continues to document how quickly and predictably this impulse turns into "us vs. them". The idea of "us vs. them" can and does become an ethical quandary (among other things) when it leads to unnecessary conflicts and/or human suffering, or just plain old mass stupidity.
As more and more people from different countries come into contact with one another through communication, travel, migration, trade, competition, cooperation, and conflict, the nature of the true significance of borders continues to change...