Monday, February 2, 2009
Weekly Summary Two
Over the past week many of my fellow bloggers have discussed the United State’s status as a nation. The consensus was that the U.S. is a nation because we say it is, so stop asking whether or not it’s a nation, and I too believe this to be true. We are constantly reminded, especially during presidential elections and inaugurations, that, though we may be different in some ways, we also have much in common that we should celebrate and be willing to protect. In addition, much of American history has exhibited a tendency towards the top-down nationalism favored by political leaders in the second half of the 19th century, particularly with Lincoln trying to preserve the union of the country during the Civil War. It’s interesting to see the ways in which the development of the U.S. in the 19th century was similar to Europe’s, not just with nationalism but also with imperialism. Though our country’s history is unique, we do share more in common with Europe than we think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
“Over the past week many of my fellow bloggers have discussed the United State’s status as a nation.”
ReplyDeletehttp://natewozere.blogspot.com/2009/02/weekly-summary-two.html
Like who exactly?
““realism’s focus on the material world owed much to the ideals of nineteenth-century science, which seemed to cut through traditional moral and philosophical concerns in pursuit of empirical facts,” it also says that realists had a “sympathy for the poor and dispossessed” and offered up “sharp critique[s] of contemporary society” (all quotes from page 779). How can this be resolved?”
http://natewozere.blogspot.com/2009/02/morality-of-realism-coffin-778-779.html
I don't see this as a contradiction. In any case, isn't it possible for a realist work to arouse strong emotion in the viewer?
“On the other hand, when Austria chose not to support Russia, that alliance dissolved.”
http://natewozere.blogspot.com/2009/02/impact-of-crimean-war-coffin-776-777.html
I think some caution is in order here... The Crimean War was a couple of generations and change removed from WWI. If you trace trajectories—Austria and Russia would be allied after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, with Germany. This was Bismarck's genius—he could keep them onside with Germany and each other. After 1890, the new Chancellor, Caprivi, couldn't juggle the inherent tension between Austria and Russia over the Balkans—he didn't have Bismarck's skill.
“None of Marx’s “conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat” could be accomplished on a large scale without some central, organized authority. Marx assumes everything’s gonna be peachy-keen, that “the public power will lose its political character,” but, call me a pessimist, I don’t believe there is very large percentage of humankind who, upon reaching a position of power, is content to give up that power of their own accord. Was Marx not an educated man? (That is perhaps a bit mean-spirited; for the record, he was educated). But if he thought everything was going to work itself out, he had to have been kidding himself.
I don’t have much to say about the paternalism in this excerpt. Marx is basically claiming that Communists know what every working-class person wants. That doesn’t really contradict anything in Communist ideology, but Marx is once again presuming quite a lot, as it seems to be his wont to do.”
http://natewozere.blogspot.com/2009/01/karl-marx-or-mr-presumes-lot.html
I wonder if you might entertain another view: That the change would be so massive that the old institutions would not survive. Since it was universal, there wouldn't be a bastion of capitalism left. The older folks would not be fully with the view of a post capitalist world, since their experience is firmly rooted in this one—habit stops us from making the leap. But the ones who come later—they wion't have these habits, so they will embrace the new world. Us? We will wither away, along with a vestige of the state which would be there in transition to the new society. Utopian? Maybe...