Stereotypical views of Ireland run deep and misunderstandings abound: an emerald isle awash in myths, legends and faerie stories, and steeped in a highly marketable (and misleadingly uniform) “Gaelic” culture hardly does justice to the complexity of this land and its people. Few people would consider Ireland to be a universal state (basically a multi-ethnic state with an inclusive ideology) but its history makes it a surprisingly good candidate for this status. While there are those in Ireland who wish to keep that land exclusively for Celts (“the real Irish” as they mistakenly say), they are blind to their own ancestry and the intermixing of blood and culture that gave rise to the Irish people and made them what they are today.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Unhealthy Skepticism
The liberal status quo thrives off of the demise of communism because they know that as soon as any great progressive idea is put to the test of public opinion, the people can be counted on to skeptically reply: “I’ll believe it when I see it,” or cynically condemn it as a “pipe dream”. Therefore they will leave the progressive thinker with the nigh impossible task of building a new model society without any popular support. It is no wonder that the liberals and conservatives who make up the backbone of modern politics think that they will remain in power indefinitely – for they are the only choice and in the absence of socialism or any other progressive ideology no one really questions their domineering authority over a political system which, likewise, no one seriously challenges. Indeed, the only things that are challenged and seriously questioned are the alternatives put forward by others.
When liberalism and conservatism rose to power, and particularly in the case of liberalism, people were willing to believe in new ideals and were willing to sacrifice for new ideals (we have to remember that modernity did not emerge overnight but through a long and bloody period of trial and error spanning over two centuries). The skepticism that is so prevalent now essentially keeps the outmoded ideals of the 18th and 19th centuries in power because few people are willing to believe in and almost no one is willing to sacrifice for new ideas – essentially they are unwilling to endure the period of trial and error required to build a new and better world order and therefore they stunt the growth of humankind. This situation permits world leaders such as George W. Bush to advance their reactionary agendas with impunity regardless of how much the general public despises them. It is impermissible that such a situation should continue. Humanity must advance.
When liberalism and conservatism rose to power, and particularly in the case of liberalism, people were willing to believe in new ideals and were willing to sacrifice for new ideals (we have to remember that modernity did not emerge overnight but through a long and bloody period of trial and error spanning over two centuries). The skepticism that is so prevalent now essentially keeps the outmoded ideals of the 18th and 19th centuries in power because few people are willing to believe in and almost no one is willing to sacrifice for new ideas – essentially they are unwilling to endure the period of trial and error required to build a new and better world order and therefore they stunt the growth of humankind. This situation permits world leaders such as George W. Bush to advance their reactionary agendas with impunity regardless of how much the general public despises them. It is impermissible that such a situation should continue. Humanity must advance.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
What does it mean to be Progressive?
It is increasingly fashionable in politics today and regardless of which side of the political spectrum a politician or political commentator happens to come from, to speak in terms of “threats”.
When in December of 2007, Richard Mottram, a former member of Gordon Brown’s government in the UK, effectively attacked his government’s fixation on the threat of international terrorism to the exclusion of all else he had little constructive to say beyond highlighting several other threats besides terrorism. Instead of attacking the scare-mongering policies of the Brown government which, in keeping with the policies of Tony Blair, basically have succeeded in transforming Britain into an island fortress that positively bristles with anti-terrorism measures, Mottram elected to scare the public about global warming and weapons of mass destruction instead. I can’t say I’ve ever met the man but he doesn’t seem to be a terribly deep or creative thinker by the looks of things and hardly original for that matter.
The rhetoric of the early 21st Century politician is consistently dominated by talk of threats and the language of fear and has been since the earth-shattering terrorist attacks of 2001. Calling it the 9/11 syndrome would hardly be far from the mark and it certainly isn’t confined to neo-conservatives. Whether we are taking about fears about global warming, terrorism, rogue states, flu pandemics, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or whatever, these threats are continuously pressed home from politicians and commentators on the left, on the right, in the middle or wherever. Whether it’s in the media, during election campaigns, in the White House, in the British or Canadian Parliament, the Bali Conference on Climate Change, or any number of other political forums across the world the focus of the discussion is on the existence of threats, the causes of threats, and responses to threats.
When in December of 2007, Richard Mottram, a former member of Gordon Brown’s government in the UK, effectively attacked his government’s fixation on the threat of international terrorism to the exclusion of all else he had little constructive to say beyond highlighting several other threats besides terrorism. Instead of attacking the scare-mongering policies of the Brown government which, in keeping with the policies of Tony Blair, basically have succeeded in transforming Britain into an island fortress that positively bristles with anti-terrorism measures, Mottram elected to scare the public about global warming and weapons of mass destruction instead. I can’t say I’ve ever met the man but he doesn’t seem to be a terribly deep or creative thinker by the looks of things and hardly original for that matter.
The rhetoric of the early 21st Century politician is consistently dominated by talk of threats and the language of fear and has been since the earth-shattering terrorist attacks of 2001. Calling it the 9/11 syndrome would hardly be far from the mark and it certainly isn’t confined to neo-conservatives. Whether we are taking about fears about global warming, terrorism, rogue states, flu pandemics, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or whatever, these threats are continuously pressed home from politicians and commentators on the left, on the right, in the middle or wherever. Whether it’s in the media, during election campaigns, in the White House, in the British or Canadian Parliament, the Bali Conference on Climate Change, or any number of other political forums across the world the focus of the discussion is on the existence of threats, the causes of threats, and responses to threats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
