Once Ukraine is handled, will tell the EU close US bases and NATO, or let your citizens starve as they freeze to death in the cold.
Why should long-suffering Russians continue providing abundant, affordable, reliable energy to countries that conspired to destroy them and lied about Minsk II for seven years?
Consider what conditions likely caused the vast majority of people to migrate to the New World. They were the expendables of wherever they came from. Even the Africans sold into slavery weren't princes and princesses swept up by white slavers, but the expendables sold into slavery, rather than being massacred, as so often was the fates of lots of those on the losing side of history. All the refugees of wars, revolutions, counter revolutions, etc. Then they come here and their descendants generally prospered over the last couple hundred years of parabolic economic growth. I don't know that I'd call them geophobes, so much as econophobes. It's not like they had any reason or desire to look back.
Meanwhile those cultures in the Old World have millennia of cultural, tribal and national successes and failures to teach them some degree of circumspection. As the Greeks would say, "Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, first they make lucky."
Heck, when the country had the choice of Jimmy Carter saying to put on a sweater, or Ronald Reagan saying to put it on the credit card, there was no looking back. We only know forward.
This doesn't just apply to the average American, but to those who think they know better. We only play checkers, where the only moves are forward, until you get to the other side of the board and are crowned a king.
When all is said and done, we won't be any geographically wiser, because when the dollar finally breaks, the states will start issuing their own currencies and foreign policy will be between Texas and California, not the US and the rest. Then we come back down to an earth that is quite local.
Nature is cycles. Expand, consolidate. Like rings on a tree. It's just some people who are linear and goal oriented.
Without the ups and downs, it's a flatline, but yes, sometimes we have these Wiley Coyote moments, when no one dares look down, because they would have been better prepared. Debt doesn't matter, until it does.
Sviatogorsk, last major milestone towards Russian southward advance on Slaviansk, abandoned by Ukrainian forces; **HUGE** sea change in last 24 hours in Ukrainian war outlook & propaganda—mood turns negative, resigned to more bad news, no more “rah-rah”; quasi-neocon Edward Luttwak throws in the towel, says Russia will win and Donbass should have a say in its own fate (…..sorry, it’s too late to “hand over” ONLY the Donbass.)
Thank you Mr. Lawrence. #GeoPhobic my new favorite hash tag. It goes well with my standard #EndTheEmpireOfLies. This essay aligns well & has brought clarity to my thinking on the issue.
The problem with your writing, Patrick, is that it prompts so many thoughts as to make it difficult to focus on one. So, in addition to the one you have on CN, Here's two more. Sartre's point: "how they act are determined by the choices they make in response to the conditions of their lives" really means that the society they inhabit will drive the choices they have to make and will make. The society that you inhabit may not be the same as the society that I inhabit and the likelihood that those societies will diverge increases as our society becomes more unequal. That sort of situation can make having a reasonably consistent world view much more difficult.
The second thought is that most of our problems in this world result from people trying to force their opinions, desires, etc on other people who for the most part would prefer that people kept their opinions and desires to themselves. My respect for Zhou En Lai has only increased over the years as I consider his five principles for peaceful coexistence which, among other things, militates against what would be called in people, co-dependency.
But the real problem is to get people to step out of their milieu and consider other people's milieux, innit?
But how does one reconcile the classification of the national character of the US as geophobic, which makes for an inconvenient irony at the heart of the argument?
It seems like you’d need to explore the nuances and origins of geophobia more deeply to find a way around this (if it's even possible to get around, which I'm actually not certain it is).
Still, an interesting and thought-provoking idea, nonetheless.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, and thanks to all present here.
Look, friend, this question came up while I was drafting: Aren't I applying a national character argument to America and Americans?
No. I was cognizant of the potential problem and minded it carefully. Please review my closing graf: What America has made of itself has been America's choice. It is pretty clearly stated. That graf was written i part with the question you raise in mind.
The Japanese like rice. The French drink wine. Latin Americans are freer of spirit than North Americans. Do not confuse--a corollary point here--characteristics such as these with the positing of any people's "national character."
It's likely just my unfamiliarity with the concept of "national character", but I admit I still have a hard time distinguishing between national characteristics and national character.
For example, you reference freedom of spirit of Latin Americans, but that's only a small hop away from declaring, say, an inclination toward authoritarianism in a second country, which is only another hop away from observing that a third nation has an inclination to solve societal problems with violence. Why is the first instance considered a characteristic but the others (I think) are more in line with what would be considered a broad and sweeping "national character"?
They all seem like generalizations of one sort or another. The difficulty - and what makes this line of thinking kind of fascinating - is that clearly certain of these are inarguably true (e.g. the French drink wine along with your other examples). This makes finding that line even more important because without it the insidious "national character" argument starts to feel very tempting indeed.
There is a much deeper issue here, that is surely a tangent, but you opened the box....
The mind has to edit, to develop a map of the territory that is more signal than noise. The problem is when we become attached and defensive about our maps. Religion, politics, schooling, education/indoctrination, etc. are some of those boxes we are both given and construct. In the current situation ever so many of those boxes are breaking down and the duct tape of ever more debt and defensiveness is only postponing the whole Tower of Babel coming crashing down. Having had enough distance from the culture to afford to look at it somewhat objectively, there are quite a number of holes in our models, that would be worth developing a discussion around.
Take, for instance, monotheism; Given the real mystery is this conscious awareness most of us seem possessed by, it should be noted that logically a spiritual absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell. Beyond all the political and social reasons for this top down, father figure lawgiver, it needs to be pointed out that ideals are not absolutes. Consider for a moment, how a culture would function, if its core assumption was to treat the ideal as absolute.
Even though the more anthropomorphic aspects have faded, it is still a fact that many of the ideologies, from Nazism to woke/cancel culture, that have developed in the West, view their ideals as absolute. That would be a first step to address.
This is wonderful exposition and thanks for it. Other comments're equally subtle and welcome. It is a big topic.
When I started writing columns in independent publications I decided the world didn't need another 700-word statement of the obvious. My project was to blur the line between column and essay. It comes with liabilities, as this week's comments make plain. Maybe I'm tryin at times to put 10 pounds of flour in a 5 pound bag. T.B.D.
Thanks again to all for reading, taking an active interest, and writing.
Thanks. I was thinking that was a bit too tangential, but I've developed my own sets of obsessions, as to why things are such a mess. Obviously though, most people get derailed if you question the paradigms to fundamentally. So I'm just waiting to see if that gap develops, between things coming unglued enough that enough people will be willing to examine the cultural foundations and it actually crashing into the abyss, making the whole discussion moot.
Excellent analysis - of US geophobia. Politicians love to play this fearmongering "game" in Australia.We have just had a change of government (Hurrah!) but our immediate past Defence Minister Peter Dutton just over two weeks ago was frightening the country with announcements of a Chinese naval vessel a couple of hundred km off the north-west Indian Ocean coast of the country. It was Chicken Little - "The sky's falling! Squawk!" geophobia. He actually said the Chinese ship was "hugging the coast" which would be like saying that a ship immediately adjacent to the Algerian coast of North-west Africa was hugging the French Mediterranean coast. And, at the same time - Australian naval vessels and Airforce planes have been hugging the South China Seas coastline/airspace - in provocative acts (to serve Australia's imperial Masters - the US) against China! Hypocrisy at its most blatant. Well, Peter Dutton's party (in coalition) was obliterated in the Federal elections 15 days ago. The LNP's former Pentecultist PM Scott Morrison - as devious as any politician/PM we have had - wept in his cult's assembly stadium the following day. And some days later - Peter Dutton became his opposition party's "leader" - still bleating in geophobic ways - having learnt nothing about the changed mood in a largely non-geophobic and very culturally/ethnic immigrant society... I relished your essay, PL - having travelled widely and lived in various countries (Spain, Germany, Japan) for extended periods - coming to terms with their own views of themselves and of others - and very fortunately in some respects - never within the bubble of diplomatic or major corporation boss level - but at the "ordinary" level - able to become close to people who wanted me to know about their land - "married" with wide reading and listening... Thanks for this thoughtful and insightful analysis...
Great stuff!
Expect the Big Break next winter.
Once Ukraine is handled, will tell the EU close US bases and NATO, or let your citizens starve as they freeze to death in the cold.
Why should long-suffering Russians continue providing abundant, affordable, reliable energy to countries that conspired to destroy them and lied about Minsk II for seven years?
Patrick,
I think you are overthinking this.
Consider what conditions likely caused the vast majority of people to migrate to the New World. They were the expendables of wherever they came from. Even the Africans sold into slavery weren't princes and princesses swept up by white slavers, but the expendables sold into slavery, rather than being massacred, as so often was the fates of lots of those on the losing side of history. All the refugees of wars, revolutions, counter revolutions, etc. Then they come here and their descendants generally prospered over the last couple hundred years of parabolic economic growth. I don't know that I'd call them geophobes, so much as econophobes. It's not like they had any reason or desire to look back.
Meanwhile those cultures in the Old World have millennia of cultural, tribal and national successes and failures to teach them some degree of circumspection. As the Greeks would say, "Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, first they make lucky."
Heck, when the country had the choice of Jimmy Carter saying to put on a sweater, or Ronald Reagan saying to put it on the credit card, there was no looking back. We only know forward.
This doesn't just apply to the average American, but to those who think they know better. We only play checkers, where the only moves are forward, until you get to the other side of the board and are crowned a king.
When all is said and done, we won't be any geographically wiser, because when the dollar finally breaks, the states will start issuing their own currencies and foreign policy will be between Texas and California, not the US and the rest. Then we come back down to an earth that is quite local.
Nature is cycles. Expand, consolidate. Like rings on a tree. It's just some people who are linear and goal oriented.
Those whom the gods would destroy - first they make mad - not lucky!
Without the ups and downs, it's a flatline, but yes, sometimes we have these Wiley Coyote moments, when no one dares look down, because they would have been better prepared. Debt doesn't matter, until it does.
It helps when you can continue to put off the consequences
Apparently a great deal of delusional thinking is required.
Sviatogorsk, last major milestone towards Russian southward advance on Slaviansk, abandoned by Ukrainian forces; **HUGE** sea change in last 24 hours in Ukrainian war outlook & propaganda—mood turns negative, resigned to more bad news, no more “rah-rah”; quasi-neocon Edward Luttwak throws in the towel, says Russia will win and Donbass should have a say in its own fate (…..sorry, it’s too late to “hand over” ONLY the Donbass.)
Dreizinreport --- June 7, 2022 https://thedreizinreport.com/author/dreizinreport/
Thank you Mr. Lawrence. #GeoPhobic my new favorite hash tag. It goes well with my standard #EndTheEmpireOfLies. This essay aligns well & has brought clarity to my thinking on the issue.
The problem with your writing, Patrick, is that it prompts so many thoughts as to make it difficult to focus on one. So, in addition to the one you have on CN, Here's two more. Sartre's point: "how they act are determined by the choices they make in response to the conditions of their lives" really means that the society they inhabit will drive the choices they have to make and will make. The society that you inhabit may not be the same as the society that I inhabit and the likelihood that those societies will diverge increases as our society becomes more unequal. That sort of situation can make having a reasonably consistent world view much more difficult.
The second thought is that most of our problems in this world result from people trying to force their opinions, desires, etc on other people who for the most part would prefer that people kept their opinions and desires to themselves. My respect for Zhou En Lai has only increased over the years as I consider his five principles for peaceful coexistence which, among other things, militates against what would be called in people, co-dependency.
But the real problem is to get people to step out of their milieu and consider other people's milieux, innit?
Interesting lens, this idea of geophobia.
But how does one reconcile the classification of the national character of the US as geophobic, which makes for an inconvenient irony at the heart of the argument?
It seems like you’d need to explore the nuances and origins of geophobia more deeply to find a way around this (if it's even possible to get around, which I'm actually not certain it is).
Still, an interesting and thought-provoking idea, nonetheless.
Scott.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, and thanks to all present here.
Look, friend, this question came up while I was drafting: Aren't I applying a national character argument to America and Americans?
No. I was cognizant of the potential problem and minded it carefully. Please review my closing graf: What America has made of itself has been America's choice. It is pretty clearly stated. That graf was written i part with the question you raise in mind.
The Japanese like rice. The French drink wine. Latin Americans are freer of spirit than North Americans. Do not confuse--a corollary point here--characteristics such as these with the positing of any people's "national character."
Claro?
Thanks for the reply, Patrick.
It's likely just my unfamiliarity with the concept of "national character", but I admit I still have a hard time distinguishing between national characteristics and national character.
For example, you reference freedom of spirit of Latin Americans, but that's only a small hop away from declaring, say, an inclination toward authoritarianism in a second country, which is only another hop away from observing that a third nation has an inclination to solve societal problems with violence. Why is the first instance considered a characteristic but the others (I think) are more in line with what would be considered a broad and sweeping "national character"?
They all seem like generalizations of one sort or another. The difficulty - and what makes this line of thinking kind of fascinating - is that clearly certain of these are inarguably true (e.g. the French drink wine along with your other examples). This makes finding that line even more important because without it the insidious "national character" argument starts to feel very tempting indeed.
Scott,
There is a much deeper issue here, that is surely a tangent, but you opened the box....
The mind has to edit, to develop a map of the territory that is more signal than noise. The problem is when we become attached and defensive about our maps. Religion, politics, schooling, education/indoctrination, etc. are some of those boxes we are both given and construct. In the current situation ever so many of those boxes are breaking down and the duct tape of ever more debt and defensiveness is only postponing the whole Tower of Babel coming crashing down. Having had enough distance from the culture to afford to look at it somewhat objectively, there are quite a number of holes in our models, that would be worth developing a discussion around.
Take, for instance, monotheism; Given the real mystery is this conscious awareness most of us seem possessed by, it should be noted that logically a spiritual absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell. Beyond all the political and social reasons for this top down, father figure lawgiver, it needs to be pointed out that ideals are not absolutes. Consider for a moment, how a culture would function, if its core assumption was to treat the ideal as absolute.
Even though the more anthropomorphic aspects have faded, it is still a fact that many of the ideologies, from Nazism to woke/cancel culture, that have developed in the West, view their ideals as absolute. That would be a first step to address.
John.
This is wonderful exposition and thanks for it. Other comments're equally subtle and welcome. It is a big topic.
When I started writing columns in independent publications I decided the world didn't need another 700-word statement of the obvious. My project was to blur the line between column and essay. It comes with liabilities, as this week's comments make plain. Maybe I'm tryin at times to put 10 pounds of flour in a 5 pound bag. T.B.D.
Thanks again to all for reading, taking an active interest, and writing.
Patrick,
Thanks. I was thinking that was a bit too tangential, but I've developed my own sets of obsessions, as to why things are such a mess. Obviously though, most people get derailed if you question the paradigms to fundamentally. So I'm just waiting to see if that gap develops, between things coming unglued enough that enough people will be willing to examine the cultural foundations and it actually crashing into the abyss, making the whole discussion moot.
Excellent analysis - of US geophobia. Politicians love to play this fearmongering "game" in Australia.We have just had a change of government (Hurrah!) but our immediate past Defence Minister Peter Dutton just over two weeks ago was frightening the country with announcements of a Chinese naval vessel a couple of hundred km off the north-west Indian Ocean coast of the country. It was Chicken Little - "The sky's falling! Squawk!" geophobia. He actually said the Chinese ship was "hugging the coast" which would be like saying that a ship immediately adjacent to the Algerian coast of North-west Africa was hugging the French Mediterranean coast. And, at the same time - Australian naval vessels and Airforce planes have been hugging the South China Seas coastline/airspace - in provocative acts (to serve Australia's imperial Masters - the US) against China! Hypocrisy at its most blatant. Well, Peter Dutton's party (in coalition) was obliterated in the Federal elections 15 days ago. The LNP's former Pentecultist PM Scott Morrison - as devious as any politician/PM we have had - wept in his cult's assembly stadium the following day. And some days later - Peter Dutton became his opposition party's "leader" - still bleating in geophobic ways - having learnt nothing about the changed mood in a largely non-geophobic and very culturally/ethnic immigrant society... I relished your essay, PL - having travelled widely and lived in various countries (Spain, Germany, Japan) for extended periods - coming to terms with their own views of themselves and of others - and very fortunately in some respects - never within the bubble of diplomatic or major corporation boss level - but at the "ordinary" level - able to become close to people who wanted me to know about their land - "married" with wide reading and listening... Thanks for this thoughtful and insightful analysis...