Nationalism: Virus of Subjugation

This is a very interesting turn of perspective to me. As I was reading an article on the conflict between US and China's trade policies, I came across this statement "American and Chinese workers must reject the political poison of protectionism and nationalism that subordinates them to the ruling class in each country." Such a strong statement hit practically hit me on my ideas of how nationalism works for a country.

Ideally, it would be the driving force for the nationals to work hard for their country's sake. Protectionism, on the same note, would come about as one of the economic policies from the desire to have a nationalistic social construct. It would ideally allow for the said country to develop internally. But a downside to such a policy would be its feasibility because of the fact that a country's political-economy is always tied to that of another. This is not to say that it cannot exist without the other. Of course it can, but it cannot continue with its desired progression without the aid of the others. As could then be seen here, such manifestation of nationalism could bring more detrimental effects to a nation rather than developmental ones.

The statement given by the article on nationalism as with the case of the Americans in the US and the Chinese points out that because of their nationalist perspectives, they are actually the ones bringing on the so-called "trade war" upon themselves. From what I have learned in our International Relations courses, such effects are what could be called as extreme forms of nationalism. Yes, it can right up there with the Nazi anti-semitism and the Rwanda genocide.

The nationalist perspectives of both states are what could be said to have brought them to want to bring the best to their nation at the expense of the other power. It is because of the hegemonic desire of both (one trying to retain its position and the other trying to claim it) that implicated threats are being made by one toward the other. Very scrupulous about this are the recent moves by the US in trying to subjugate the expansion attempts of China in its concessions and influences. In other related articles, it is implied by the authors that they fear that if such a likely trade war would occur, it is not only these two that will have to deal with the outcome but also the nations tied to both of them, most especially the growing economies in the Asian region.

If such an predicted effect would take place, then it is most likely that the world is about to witness a war of another kind that can most definitely have destructive capacities. It may not be in the way that conventional wars do it, but it will.

From this simple statement then we see how a familiar strand of history can take itself back into our midst and present itself in another form much like the mutation of a virus. Strength in nationalism is always an admirable trait of a country. But when placed in a diagram such as this one, it is scary to think of what it could do.

What's in a Name?

Dear Reader,

I dedicate this letter to you. Yes you who have stumbled upon this post trying to find out about the empress of Russia. With this entry, I welcome you to the thoughts that I stumble upon in the last term I spend as a student of politics.

To first clear up any confusion, my name resonates with the title of the Russian Empress, meaning I am not the Empress herself nor am I a royal of any monarch. Why then is the blog named as such? As I have said earlier, my name is the title of the Empress. "Czarina Danielle" is my name where the first means the empress and the second is a variation of the name of Daniel from the Christian Bible. It's very odd don't you think that the words from which my name was taken from is quite contradictory? Well, it is not directly contradictory but the origins seem to me that they collide in more than one way-- but most of all, they collide in their political and cultural implications.

Now I don't wish to bore you with the history of both names, buy I think that a better understanding of me and my writings would show when these are laid out.

They say that we are named for certain reasons such as to hold the memory of a loved one, to be like that person you were named after, or to hold certain characteristics of the ones your name was taken from. In that idea, we are often named after great icons of history and religion or after people whom we see have such greatness in our perspectives.

I am not really sure why I was given such a first name, but from the way I see it I was named Czarina so that i may embody the strenght and subtleness of the empress. Danielle was a choice so that I would have the same courage and foresight that Daniel of the bible had. But even with that the question of why I was given such a first name still is in my head. The second name I can understand because many are being given Christtian names in the hope of having us be closer to the Lord.

Reflecting on this I realize something. Perhaps it may not be important why my first name is as such, but what I should be looking at is the bigger picture of why I am named after characters of foreign background. I begin to wonder then why it is that many of the people around my most especially my peers are named according to foreign narratives. Going to my own name, I find that the year I was born was the year that the Cold War had ended. I say to myself perhaps this is one link why I was  given this first name. Because even as the Russian monarch had ended, they reign in their legacy. That was one perspective I kept my hopes on. I hoped that someday I would be able to leave a legacy to my country. But to the questions of having such foreign names  be so rampant, I found a different answer.

Endocolonialism is a term that I have now just learned about. I found that one reason for having such a culture on names is a producct of having a nation subject itself to the dictates of a colonial culture therefore letting the latter dominate the ethnic culture that should be thriving in the said nation. Take for example that of the Philippines, it is no question that endocolonialism seems to be one that dominates its culture of social preference. I will not attempt to discuss anymore how this is in everyway. Let us just take the example of our country's obsession over whitening products. We obsess over white because we tell ourselves that it is better than our native skin color because it has been dictated upon us by our colonizers that what we are is less than what they are. To this extent then we degrade our culture and think that what we have is not to be had. Instead we think that what they have is what should be.

In that note, we see then a culture engulfed by the possession of colonial mentality in their midst. I understand that we are given names for the reason that our parents may have wanted us to be like who we were named after. But why is it that even with such a simple matter of choice, endocolonialism persists? Is it because when we give these foreign names, we also have this underlying desire to be what they are-- foreign and not native? Another answer is highly appreciated.

Respectfully yours,

Czarina

Identity Crisis: The Other Being

"Who is your other being? Have you ever been the object of domination or marginalization? How about the other way around? How did these happen?" I was left somehow dumbfounded after that lecture assignment. It made me try to think more clearly how such things have been in my own context.

Two days ago the class lecture spoke of mistaken identities. These identities are not ones that would mean to have a person ask who they are on the context of census and statistics, rather it is on the level of looking into the standing of one's self in the context of society. In many instances, people act or move in the manner that they have been "trained" to be by what norms they grew up with. Because of these the person's real identity is lost within the norms. Such suppression is one that can have an impact so immense that it shapes not only the person, but the community the person is in as well. Shortness in all, it seems to be one that can create the structural context in which a society operates itself through the individual level.

The idea of such dominance creates then the "other" being in every individual that comes to be their identity rather than their real identity. Let's take for example in the context of a typical high school where there is the dominance of a bully and a stereotypical nerd or geek. The nerd comes to be the one who is the other in the scenario. Because of the incessant picking by the bully, he is forced to retreat himself and just go with how the bully and his peers want him to be.

With that logic, let us take the context of suppression and of the other to the level of politics. As mentioned before, it is a tremendous social contributor as to how a society is shaped. If a society is then formed through strict norms of conduct, we then see its people operating life as abiding by norms in order to survive. It is then here that the culture of politics enters the context of the other. Culture being a social rule to a society, it naturally follows that these unspoken rules are to be followed in order to survive. Survival then becomes  the central idea of such a logic. We can then relate this to how colonizers have been able to successfully obtain many colonies in the past, particularly during the period of imperialism. A good example would be the manner that European states were able to colonize Asian countries. The reading "The Idea of Asia" provides a more thorough description of this. But thinking about it, it then seems evident that one reason why some countries in the region have yet to improve is because of such a suppression that has been passed on for decades that then lead to having a loss of identity perception.

To then answer then the question of who the other is in my context, I would have to say on the outer levels of the term "other" I have some of the friends I have. But dissecting it more clearly, I would have to say that I have made myself the other by often being the one to yield. All the while I have thought I was being dominant over certain individuals. Perhaps yes, it is true, I do but only in with the intention of them obeying me. But often, as I have realized, I have been both the dominant and the marginalized myself by letting norms get the best of me. Realizing this I then make a motion to relieve myself of such suppression and take my lost identity back. How then does it feel? It is the same feeling that the Filipinos felt when they at least thought they had freed themselves from the Spanish rule. It is the same feeling that nations had when they no longer had to submit to the demands of governments for arms at the end of the Second World War. It is a very liberating feeling. But of course every freedom has its limitations. At times then I still do submit to norms, but in these instances now I make the move not because I have been made to believe I have to, but because I will myself to.