4 ms·

There is, no question, such a thing as too much preoccupation with a national culture. But, the article posits that a national culture more or less evaporating

There is, no question, such a thing as too much preoccupation with a national culture. But, the article posits that a national culture more or less evaporating, is not a problem. All of the nations you mention ("Europe" is not a nation) have had to fight to maintain their identity (and both Europe and Japan have relied on US military protection for a couple generations now). It should not happen often, and if you have too many enemies you are probably misusing or ignoring "soft power". But, if you have no national culture which you find important (enough to defend), then another nation will take advantage of that fact.

krapp 5y ago
> But, if you have no national culture which you find important (enough to defend), then another nation will take advantage of that fact. Modern militaries don't defend cultures - fighting for "American ideals" or because "they hate our freedoms" is just propaganda. Militaries defend assets, territories and wage war for national interests, and their ability to do so is entirely orthogonal to their nation's sense of culture, or lack thereof.
- the_af 5y ago
  I don't think it's orthogonal though. You can argue which are the true goals of modern war, and I may find myself in agreement with you, but you can't convince people to support a war "for assets"; not unless you convince them those assets mean something to them, their culture, their religion, their patriotism, their way of life, something. So symbolism and the sense of the "group" (culture) remains very important.
  - Nasrudith 5y ago
    What "not wanting a goddamned military invasion" isn't enough of a motivation for defensive military? There is no need to go that abstract for actual defense as opposed to the old Orwellian euphemism in the Department of Defense.
    - the_af 5y ago
      Perhaps, but how many purely defensive militaries do you know of? If a single soldier steps outside the country's borders to do anything but prevent a demonstrable imminent invasion of their country (so peacekeeping, preemptive strikes, fighting terrorism don't count) then it's not a defensive military.
- LogonType10 5y ago
  >fighting for "American ideals" or because "they hate our freedoms" is just propaganda Close... It's a narrative. And without a compelling narrative, no one is going to sweat and toil to make your spreadsheet tracker of assets look pretty.
  - teddyh 5y ago
    Those are only the classical tried-and-true narratives. There are always many narratives, and if one of the old ones happens to fail, new ones will rise to take their place.
wolverine876 5y ago
> All of the nations you mention ("Europe" is not a nation) have had to fight to maintain their identity (and both Europe and Japan have relied on US military protection for a couple generations now). When have they fought to maintain their identity? They fought for conquest or freedom. Japan, Germany, and Italy lost WWII, but their identities didn't (substantially) change. Imperialist Communist dictatorships try to destroy the identities of conquered countries and 'foreign' internal regions, including the USSR and China (Tibet, Xinjing). That fails spectacularly - when the USSR collapsed, all the ethnic identities reappeared. Interestingly, in free democracies, such as the US, ethnic identities tend to vanish. I read one study (many years ago) that said for most immigrants, in the third generation, only ~5% speak the original native language and (IIRC) ~80% marry outside the ethnic group.
- thriftwy 5y ago
  It's hard to be more wrong when postulating that USSR tried to destroy ethnic identities. USSR took a centrally run Russian Empire and carved a dozen of ethnic states from it - ones such as Belarus and Azerbaijan. These were de-jure countries with right of secession and USSR rouble bill featured writings in all of these countries' official languages. When talking about Eastern Europe, USSR did some rebordering but it never prevented any of countries from having a language, a government and they got to keep a national flag.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > It's hard to be more wrong when postulating that USSR tried to destroy ethnic identities. Their propaganda insisted it didn't exist. They literally moved communities across Asia to eradicate it. They insisted they were harmonious, unlike the divided US (sound like a familiar story?). There's a book by Daniel Patrick Moynahan which predicted the breakdown when the USSR disappeared. > with right of secession :D > USSR did some rebordering but it never prevented any of countries from having a language, a government :D They never prevented them from having a government that submitted to Moscow. Ask Hungary and Czechoslovakia, not to mention Tito, about what happens otherwise. > they got to keep a national flag wow!

krapp 5y ago

> But, if you have no national culture which you find important (enough to defend), then another nation will take advantage of that fact. Modern militaries don't defend cultures - fighting for "American ideals" or because "they hate our freedoms" is just propaganda. Militaries defend assets, territories and wage war for national interests, and their ability to do so is entirely orthogonal to their nation's sense of culture, or lack thereof.

the_af 5y ago
I don't think it's orthogonal though. You can argue which are the true goals of modern war, and I may find myself in agreement with you, but you can't convince people to support a war "for assets"; not unless you convince them those assets mean something to them, their culture, their religion, their patriotism, their way of life, something. So symbolism and the sense of the "group" (culture) remains very important.
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  What "not wanting a goddamned military invasion" isn't enough of a motivation for defensive military? There is no need to go that abstract for actual defense as opposed to the old Orwellian euphemism in the Department of Defense.
  - the_af 5y ago
    Perhaps, but how many purely defensive militaries do you know of? If a single soldier steps outside the country's borders to do anything but prevent a demonstrable imminent invasion of their country (so peacekeeping, preemptive strikes, fighting terrorism don't count) then it's not a defensive military.
LogonType10 5y ago
>fighting for "American ideals" or because "they hate our freedoms" is just propaganda Close... It's a narrative. And without a compelling narrative, no one is going to sweat and toil to make your spreadsheet tracker of assets look pretty.
- teddyh 5y ago
  Those are only the classical tried-and-true narratives. There are always many narratives, and if one of the old ones happens to fail, new ones will rise to take their place.

wolverine876 5y ago

> All of the nations you mention ("Europe" is not a nation) have had to fight to maintain their identity (and both Europe and Japan have relied on US military protection for a couple generations now). When have they fought to maintain their identity? They fought for conquest or freedom. Japan, Germany, and Italy lost WWII, but their identities didn't (substantially) change. Imperialist Communist dictatorships try to destroy the identities of conquered countries and 'foreign' internal regions, including the USSR and China (Tibet, Xinjing). That fails spectacularly - when the USSR collapsed, all the ethnic identities reappeared. Interestingly, in free democracies, such as the US, ethnic identities tend to vanish. I read one study (many years ago) that said for most immigrants, in the third generation, only ~5% speak the original native language and (IIRC) ~80% marry outside the ethnic group.

thriftwy 5y ago
It's hard to be more wrong when postulating that USSR tried to destroy ethnic identities. USSR took a centrally run Russian Empire and carved a dozen of ethnic states from it - ones such as Belarus and Azerbaijan. These were de-jure countries with right of secession and USSR rouble bill featured writings in all of these countries' official languages. When talking about Eastern Europe, USSR did some rebordering but it never prevented any of countries from having a language, a government and they got to keep a national flag.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > It's hard to be more wrong when postulating that USSR tried to destroy ethnic identities. Their propaganda insisted it didn't exist. They literally moved communities across Asia to eradicate it. They insisted they were harmonious, unlike the divided US (sound like a familiar story?). There's a book by Daniel Patrick Moynahan which predicted the breakdown when the USSR disappeared. > with right of secession :D > USSR did some rebordering but it never prevented any of countries from having a language, a government :D They never prevented them from having a government that submitted to Moscow. Ask Hungary and Czechoslovakia, not to mention Tito, about what happens otherwise. > they got to keep a national flag wow!