States, Nations and Society (Reflections on O'Neil Ch 1-3)

3/8/2012

In response to the week’s readings (O’Neill Ch. 1-3), please post an approximately 200-300 word open-ended reading response. You may consider the reading in relation to its historical or theoretical context; you may bring up different political issues the reading might apply to, you may write about an aspect of the reading that you don’t understand, or something that jars you, you may formulate an insightful question or two about the reading and then attempt to answer your own questions, or you may respond to another student’s post, building upon it, disagreeing with it, or re-thinking it.
I am more interested in your thoughts on Chapter 3 since we have not discussed it at all yet, but you may include insights from Chapters 1 & 2 as well. I encourage you to interact with both the reading and each other!

Click on "add comment" to post.

A few rules:

1. Be respectful.
2. Please type your full name, a creative title, and the page numbers or chapter your blog entry is responding to on the top line of your comment. This will help us keep track of who is responding to what.
3. You may write in the first-person, informally. That being said, please write in complete sentences and keep your comments relevant and appropriate.

13 Comments

Gabriella Goldenstein

6/8/2012 08:34:02 am

Connecting : The 20th Century Enduring National Conflict - Israel and Palestine

As defined in chapter 3, a national conflict is when “one or more groups have as their goal sovereignty, clashing with others in the quest to form an independent state”. The question of creating a two-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians has been going on for decades, but the end for this issue is still miles away. This chapter questions why are these conflicts incited and how can they be halted. For this specific situation, the conflict revolves around Palestinian independence, making it a perfect example for a national conflict. However, did this conflict grow to become an ethnic one? Was it always ethnic together with national? (Remembering the books definition for ethnic conflict - conflict between ethnic groups that struggle to achieve certain political or economic goals at each other’s expense).

Another question that called my attention was: How can these conflicts be solved? In this case, the separation barrier has in fact reduced the number of Palestinian suicide bombings, being 73 between 2000-2003 and only 12 after its completion.

But is this the ideal solution? Even though this “peace wall” serves to protect, shouldn`t the solution be no bombings at all? What about peace talks between both parties?

The problem is that the nationalism of the Palestinians will keep on growing (and I surely agree with their right) and that the religious, ethnic and all other differences have created hatred and extreme rivalry. The problem is that the Palestinian Hamas` moto is “We love death as much as the Jews love life”. Their main objective is Israel`s destruction and they keep rejecting Israel`s right to exist, acceptance of peace agreements and an end to violence. How can these feelings vanish? Israel needs security and a neighbor that won`t be a threat. This is the only way to end this national conflict and to give Palestinians what they want: sovereignty.

Alê Silveira

6/8/2012 12:37:10 pm

The Palestinian Nation - (National Identity)

In order to analyze the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in its entireness we must take into consideration the different policies, aspirations and points of views of both parties before making radical assumptions.

As defined by O'Neil, national identity is "based on the concept of a nation: a group of people bound together by a common set of political aspirations, especially self government and sovereignty." (O'Neil 50) Unfortunately, Palestinians cannot pride themselves in the appropriate form of patriotism since it requires a state.

Anyways, ethnic identity has fostered a national identity among Palestinians, specifically as its members indeed feel that they lack certain rights or freedoms. In this specific scenario, they are being oppressed by a modern day form of Israeli Imperialism which of course can then be debated extensively on. They have a unified mission to create a Palestinian State, as granted by UN GA Resolution 181 in 1947, even if it did rip them of 52% of their initial territory.

Nonetheless, among so many factors, it makes sense that it indeed is an ethnic issue revolving around this conflict, after all, the same separation wall is often called the "Apartheid Wall" as it cuts of Palestinians form their basic needs strictly because of their location and rights as Palestinians. When going back to consider if it is actually a cost benefit situation for Israel to keep the wall its always going to be a big fat no. There are other ways of combating terrorism; the ICJ has deemed it illegal; it goes beyond Israeli borders capturing the little Palestinian land left and incites regional turmoil as well as deprives basic people their human rights.

One thing that isn't mentioned in the read, but is comes from "World Politics - Interests - Interactions - Institutions" by Frieden, Lake and Schultz is the concept of the Rally Effect. By definition it is "The tendency for people to become more supportive of their country's government in response to dramatic international events, such as crises or wars." This can be seen both in Israel and in Palestine, but is best exemplified by the Malvinas.

In Israel this works as every time there is a terrorist attack against any citizens, it brings together the basic concept of sticking together through hard times, trusting your government to do the best. Whatever they do, it's right. Somewhat Machiavellian as the "end justifies the means" in order to protect their own identity as a people and their sovereignty.

In Palestine it works the same way, the more air strikes, the more raids, the stricter blockades bring the Palestinian people together to support Hamas. Looking back Hamas was indeed democratically elected in 2009 by the people in the Gaza Strip, it is indeed a form of democracy as Zakaria would put it, no matter the restrictions or whatnot, it is a democracy. Theoretically Israel would go through all this trouble to destabilize the "terrorist" government of Hamas, but in reality it just brings more support to Hamas since it (Hamas) is the only one truly standing up to Israel in the way that it can since up until recent history there have been many failed attempts to engage in peace negotiations by very stubborn, conservative Israeli political figures, especially Netanyahu.

In the Malvinas case, Margaret Thatcher and Argentina's 1982 military government benefited from the war. Both countries were dealing with economic and social instability, a way to divert that attention was by engaging in the War of the Malvinas. In Britain poor economic conditions led Margaret Thatcher to have only 29% of the approval ratings, but once the war began her popularity jumped right up to 51%.

Back to Palestine, we cannot forget that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. And that the Hamas provides 90% of its government budget into the development of basic social welfare, infrastructure destroyed by Israeli raids, accessibility to basic needs such as chocolate impeded by the illegal blockade and educational purposes.

Palestine is indeed a nation because it cannot be considered a state. This basis also contributes to the widespread Palestinian nationalism, which is defined as pride in one's people and belief that they have a unique political destiny, which in this case would be the creation of a legitimate Palestinian State with the land that was illegally seized and is now occupied by Israel.

#Icoulddothisallday #YOLO

Daniel Pinho

7/8/2012 04:48:24 am

Back in the day, could Britain argue that the Founding Fathers were terrorists? Maybe not, due to their classy formality and intellectual inspirations being Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. But, just as the Palestinians are doing now, they were also simply willing to fight for their freedom in a place where their voice is not heard, neither their recognition as a nation is legitimized.

Does this story sound familiar? The only difference between both accounts is that one group deals with the problem using faith and religion to bond themselves together – not to mention the advanced technology and warfare used – and the other used a very intelligent rhetoric of economic and political gain to lure people to separating from the Britons.

Ironically enough, this increase in nationalism could also be seen in the United States as soon as they started Indian Wars to expand their territory westward, just like the War of 1812 and the Spanish withdraw of Florida in 1819 after other wars. Proving that, as Alê quoted: "The tendency for people to become more supportive of their country's government in response to dramatic international events, such as crises or wars".

It is indeed an ethical dilemma but, just as ironic the Americans were not approving the secession of the Confederate States in the Civil War, Jews don’t recognize Arabs from the Palestine just like Jews were not recognized back in the day where Diaspora was a struggle faced by that ethnicity.

Nevo Mantel

6/8/2012 10:21:48 am

Through the first pages of chapter 3 we can see that the ethnicity and the nation are the main points, the first point to be talked about is the ethnicity. O’Neil says that the relation that you have to another member of the society is called ethnicity.
For example: We are Brazilians since we are all part of the Brazilian society where we share culture, religion or moments.

Another point discussed in chapter 3 is the National identity. To O’Neil a nation, is more of a political concept, which means that national identity is where the same political ambitions are shared.
For Example: The same political views, where I believe that Israel shouldn't give back the lands that are theirs and other Israelis think it too, which means we share a political view or have the same national identity.

The third point discussed in chapter 3 was the two points combined Ethnic and National Conflict. Ethnic conflicts are defined by conflicts between ethnic groups which are fighting for economic or political success.
For Example: Here in Brazil we can see gangs of drug dealers, fighting for control in the favelas, they are not trying to gain independence but they are trying to have a greater power than the other drug dealer gangs.

Different from ethnic conflicts, national conflicts are the conflicts between two different nations which are fighting against each other to take or gain independence.
For Example: Israel and the Palestinians, one is fighting to maintain its independence and its people safe, while the other is trying to take it so that they can get become an independent country.

Leonardo de Lucca

6/8/2012 11:48:40 am

To clarify the chapter, O’Neil differs three key terms: Ethnic Identity, National Identity and Citizenship. Ethnic Identity can be defined as the characteristics and societal institutions that culturally distinguish a group of people such as language, religion and customs. National Identity relates to the group of people that are bound together based on a set of “political aspirations, specially self-government and sovereignty.” Finally, citizenship has to do with the relationship of a person with the state, when the citizen swears loyalty to such, and is provided with rights and benefits in exchange.

That said, the difference among people can generate Ethnic and National conflicts. These have different perspectives: top-down (when the conflict is generated by elites) and bottom-up (when the conflict is generated after long disagreement between groups).

The American Revolution can be defined as a National Conflict because colonies separated from Great Britain based on political goals, seeking sovereignty and rights for the nation as a whole. Nevertheless, conflicts in Afghanistan can be considered as Ethnic, given that there are a great number of different groups that seek for power over each other and not for a nation as a whole.

But how do those conflicts break out? Political, economic, cultural factors and others, differing in each case, can propel such conflicts. Bottom-up conflicts tend to be the response of a bad economy, societal problems and political institutions. One good example of that is Africa, which had 80 percent of its borders divided according to longitude and latitude, not considering ethnic differences and geographical characteristics. This resulted on tensions within the continent, and for that reason, it lacks economic development and political instability.

Julia Souza

6/8/2012 12:51:56 pm

A STATELESS WORLD?

After reading chapter 3 of the O'Neil book, I have a clearer idea on how societies shape politics. Individuals in a society have different ways of identifying themselves, either through ethnicity, national identity, citizenship, ideology or culture. But these are not determinant factors, meaning it’s not one way or the other. Individuals will have different dosages of each and it changes from place to place. One may identify himself ethnically with a group of people, but not have the nationalistic factor necessary to aspire for self-government. One may be a citizen of Brazil, but that doesn’t mean all Brazilian citizens share the same political attitudes or ideology. And when humans start arguing about their different ideologies, background and religion is when conflicts tend to arise.

Moreover, the main argument faced by all the distinctive sects in society goes back to the whole struggle over freedom and equality. There are different ideas on how this relationship should be and how a change should be done to achieve this ideal link. Should a nation have a higher equality and compromise its individual freedom or should it be the other way around? Is there any way that a nation has high freedom and equality? According to Figure 3.3 in page 70 of the book, anarchism is the political ideology that reconciles both. Anarchists, believe that if the state is eliminated completely, people would be free to pursue their own lives and would cooperate freely, without the state’s pressure reinforcing inequality, private property and economic exploitation. The thing is, anarchism has never been achieved by any society in the world. How is it possible to go through this transition of completely eliminating the state, something that’s institutionalized in our world’s politics? And what if it was possible to eliminate the state, who truly believes humans would put forth the common good over their individual needs? I personally think men are greedy and if there weren’t an organization, such as the state, to strengthen order, security and the least bit of equality, the world would be a big chaos, where people would just do whatever they wished.

Liz Costa

6/8/2012 08:39:16 pm

IS SOCIAL DEMOCRACY BETTER?

In accordance to chapter 3 a social democracy: “accepts a strong role for private ownership and market forces while maintaining an economic quality.” Barack Obama has received various criticisms for the reason that he tried to implement a new health project with an extremely socialist touch to it.
Being the president of the greatest example of liberal democracy Obama’s policies were highly criticized by the republicans in the congress, the conservative American party which argued that it went against the constitutional rights, denying the freedom of the patient to choose their own health care services.
What is to be understood is that, a socialist democracy is not a bad thing. Rather it is the best form of democracy there is, correcting the fallacies that capitalism leaves behind and that the liberal democracy system does not have the power to approach. Another point of a socialist democracy is to spread the wealth the capitalist economy produces so to convert it to beneficial programs for the citizens.
Social Democracy is present in much of Europe, one of its most successful examples being social welfare in Sweden. The system is funded with taxes that provide to the citizens health care, financial security, elderly care, education and labor market. Of course you have to pay a huge amount of taxes but still you have the certainty those taxes are being converted to benefits for the citizens. Social democracy is not inferior to liberal democracy, it is exactly the opposite, it is capitalism with equality.

A short guide to Obama and Socialism: http://balkin.blogspot.com.br/2009/03/short-guide-to-obama-and-socialism.html

Alana Cavalcanti

6/8/2012 11:53:25 pm

When talking about history and especially politics, the people cannot be forgotten. O’Neil clarifies terms used on the daily basis however with a greater meaning when you are dealing with politics. Society is divided into nations, however a portion of the population is not satisfied with the division for a historical, cultural, ethnical, culture or ideological reason and strive in search of freeing themselves from this. Somaliland, example, is part of the country of Somalia, however fights for its independence, the same way that South Sudan was fighting a year ago. But, how should borders be defined? Before thinking in the way to govern a nation, borders need to be placed. Most of them were results of wars though history.
This entire concept of borders has been changed due to the researches Anthony Vanky and MIT are doing. And the changes that society face daily Based on the lecture of Vanky, I attended, the research was based on tracking what happens into the cities eventually solutions and decisions can be made. The overall importance and accomplishment of them is more significant to the projects individually. The message that he was trying and successfully was able to cross to the audience is hat by tracking the real life of people it would be easier and a more precise understanding of the society. Since we currently live in a society where a lot of things occur at the same time, an open platform of real tome data is the key concept to the future. When you understand the people you discover how to wok better with them and also what they need. The capitalist world needs this information that is out there to accomplish its function and also facilitate the life of the consumers. The information is out there, we just need to get it and used it. An example of boarders that Vanky presented was in redrawing the map of the United States of America. He points out that we can do that based on people and the way that they connect among each other. Communication can define new communities that go beyond the traditional conventional boundaries we are used to. The result would be states splitting and some joining together. Communication is a new way to define a society; it’s the newest way to do so. Emerging communities based on the social interactions.
Imagine taking the information that is out in the world and processing it in the same way. Facebook flicker, twitter, YouTube, sms, BBM, apple store and other social medias are in our daily life…can you imagine how the boundaries of this would be based on them?

More information about SENSEable City: http://senseable.mit.edu/csa/visuals.html

Daniel Pinho

6/8/2012 11:55:06 pm

Chapter 3: Nationalism, Society and Ethnicity

The first pages of O'Neil's Chapter 3 emphasizes on these broad and complex themes: nationalism, society and ethnicity. It can be concluded that these terms have a common purpose to label people’s identification to geographical location within the world.

Society would be how these people organize themselves and share the same types of systems. Nationalism could be referent to the passion one defend its society, while ethnicity is the bond that cements common habits, traits and makes these people create their society.

For me, the most terrible type of oppression is the one that the society defies ethnic pride by impeding a group of people from the creation of a new society. This example could be seen in the American Revolution, but, different from Catalans and some separatists groups in Brazil, they could not succeed.

Throughout history it is possible to see several fights for the liberty of a people. African and South American countries were exploited and controlled by European countries, making the people lose a lot of their ethnical traits. Proving, as well, that it is an “instable” value to people and can be brutally modified by force. With that being said, it is way more than possible to change society’s mentality.

Tiago Fonseca

7/8/2012 01:45:03 am

From National Conflict to Hatred

In chapter 3 one of the main points is national conflict, which is when one or more groups want their individual sovereignty, and then their interests clash in their “quests to form an individual state”. For me the perfect example for this definition would be the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
The Palestinians believe they have the right for independence and are supported by its allies, while Israel believes otherwise. This conflicted has been going on for a long time with no clear vision of when it is going to end. Many have died, measures have been taken, but with the passing of time this conflict escalated into hatred. It is no longer only about sovereignty, but the Palestinians Hamas want the complete destruction of Israel. Even their motto expresses their hate “We love death as much as Jews love life.” This clearly expresses that the conflict has become also an ethnic one.
While Palestinians Hamas has been aiming towards Israel’s destruction, Israel has been fighting back on their own way. They built a west bank barrier that goes off their territory, and goes into Palestinian lands. Palestinians claim it is another attempt for the Israeli to take their lands. The wall not only is illegal, but has other negative consequences; it reduces Palestinian freedom, and interferes with their basic needs such as, Health and medical services.
How can someone solve an extended conflict such as this one? How can they both reach a peaceful agreement when the thought of each other’s existence, makes them angry? There are many arguments for both sides, but they only bring them further apart, and Palestinians will not stop until they receive all the land they say they deserve, and Israel will not stop until Palestine is down for good.

Nilo Lisboa

7/8/2012 09:54:56 am

I find that one of the most important ideas brought to light by Chapter 3 is discerning between ethnic identity, national identity, citizenship, and patriotism. I find it important to separate these because many people tend to forget that an ethnic group does not, necessarily, have to participate in politics. A national identity though, is a more political concept, when people seek similar political goals such as sovereignty.
I find it interesting when, at times of conflict, ethnic conflicts become much more primal than national conflicts. This is when their differences really show. Nations and people with national identities are far more political, and therefore, follow more rules and strategies. This is due to several groups within the government, such as, the army. Ethnic groups are far more disorganized and seek to establish dominance and leverage over another ethnic group. Observe the Darfur conflict or the Rwanda genocide. There is a massive ethnic conflict going on between different groups and with the slow reaction from surrounding nations, the Darfur conflict escalated into a massive war between ethnic groups, with the Janjaweed crushing all opposition. In the Rwanda Genocide, the Hutus and Tutsis were killing each other by the thousands in a brutal fashion. In wars between nations, there is much more of a formality between countries. They don’t become as brutal and reckless as ethnic groups that are in conflict.

Thais Oliveira

7/8/2012 11:36:11 pm

Nationality

In the book Essentials of Comparative Politics by Patrick O’Neil, the definition of nationality is discussed. O’Neil’s view of nationality is to swear allegiance to the state in order to be given the right to take part in it. Also the topic of defending the country and fighting on their armed forces shows full compromise. O’Neil also states that nationality is more of a political view. Therefore if you consist of all the above you are patriotic and have nationality.

I don’t agree with O’Neil’s definition of nationality. For me nationality doesn’t really have to do with political views; it is more of a sense of belonging and love for the nation than anything else. I am Brazilian and I love my country, but I don’t love its government or the way it acts. I am very patriotic, but would never fight in the army. Therefore I do not fit in the nationality description O’Neil discusses, and yet I feel as passionate about my country as anyone else.

I think O’Neil’s view of nationality is very American and perhaps doesn’t fit other nations very well. Americans do believe that they have to fight in the army to show their love and support for their country. They also believe that if you go against the government wishes, such as war, you are being anti-patriotic. From that type of mentality comes the statement: “You are either with us, or against us”. I do not think that is how it should function, therefore I do not agree with O’Neil.

João Soares

4/10/2012 01:34:53 am

Response to pages 55-57

THE LEGALITY OF CONFLICTS

As ethnic and national issues are defined in our globalized world, one question remains unanswered: to what point can a group fighting for separation or more government influence be considered in their rights as citizens instead of an illegal rebel group?
First of all, it is important to define the difference between ethnic and national conflict. In ethnic conflict, different ethnic groups struggle for power over the government, while in national conflict one or more groups seek to achieve independency of a territory from the current state. National separatists groups generally need more force and public support to achieve their goals since their loftier ambitions are met with considerable more resistance from the governing forces.
This distinction, however, isn’t enough. For example, in Afghanistan during the 1980s and 1990s the rise of Taliban in the country was resultant from an ethnic conflict: the group’s objective was to control the country. Still, the resulting government was extremely unethical and did not live up to the basic premises of human rights established by the United Nations. On the other hand, the movement led by Mahatma Gandhi was a national conflict that used the idea of civil disobedience to leverage the peaceful power of the people and achieve independence of India. It was a national separatist movement that broke with the mighty British Empire without the exaggerated use of violence. These two contrasting examples show that ethnic conflicts aren’t more righteous or less violent in nature.
In conclusion, conflicts are dependent of the specific groups in specific moments of history. No generalizations can be made about the legality based on the distinction between ethnical and national conflicts, since the methods vary from revolution to revolution. The lessons of the past should, however, be taken in account when analyzing new surges in our globalized world.

It's All Politics

States, Nations and Society (Reflections on O'Neil Ch 1-3)

Leave a Reply.

Ms. Garrett

Archives

Categories