I hope to god you’re wrong about this country settling in to passively accept an authoritarian takeover by some of the pettiest, cruelest, most inept and downright incompetent people. $100B was just authorized by the House GOP to spend on the thugs responsible for surveillance, detention and deportation while members of the administration float the possibility of ending habeas corpus.
I agree that reclaiming the flag and redefining American patriotism is a worthwhile project, and it’s one that I think we have seen start to emerge in the wake of Trump. You could see slivers of it in Kamala’s campaign. And it can be rooted in concrete and material progress, as well as noble ideas and shared values.
One objection: On what basis do you describe Elias Rodriguez as a “Palestine activist”? Shouting “free Palestine” does not make a deranged murderer into an activist or representative of a cause. That strikes me as a rhetorical attempt to tar anyone who believes in the Palestinian cause as part and parcel of this atrocity (as the state of Israel would like us to believe).
It is semantics but that doesn't make it fair. "Activist" makes it sound like he's a member some legitimate organization or movement. It ties him mainstem movements that adhere to the law.
Activist is not a word that people tend to apply to violent criminals or terrorists. We tend not to call the proud boys right wing activists. We don't call Osama Bin laden an Islamic activist.
I think it would sound strange and pointed to call the Jan 6ers "Republican activists". I think calling them activists ( as semantically correct as that may be) would be a pointed attempt to put all the republicans in the same category...on the same level as them. And I think that is what Noah is doing here. I think he is pointedly staining the whole pro Palestinian movement in the shade of his actions.
I think when Noah used the phrase “Palestine activist” he was intentionally throwing shade at the whole movement. Not fair.
Noah has been doing this since the beginning of the conflict. He seems to have his own biases & priors to contend with here. Similar to his disdain for wokeness.
Dear Noah, am happy to confirm that I didn't really notice any pessimistic or downbeat tone in your recent posts. The only thing they suffer from, if at all, is a slightly restricted sense of time and history, and perhaps a slightly overrated sense of agency. It is clearly essential to signal at the earliest moment possible the start to a new and potentially worrisome trend. This is good risk management. There is alot of damage to be avoided by correcting something before it becomes significant. At the same time, there are alot of potentially positive outcomes that also could happen, and it is often the case that our impact is limited. And then there is my favorite of all: progresstination. This is a new word I have invented to describe what happens when you put off solving something, and it just goes ahead and solves itself. Keep up the good work!
While Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression has obviously been heroic, I’m not sure how transferable their experience is as a form of nationalism. Ukrainian identity has always been heavily tied around hating and fearing Russia, and rejecting Russian dominion over them. That’s obviously a very resonate cause at the moment, but I don’t think it’s ideal in a vacuum to have a sense of national pride that’s based entirely around a unifying hatred of some other place and people.
This is profoundly incorrect. First, it is quite typical for nationalisms to form as a response to external powers and empires, the so-called “defensive nationalisms” all formed that way: Czech against German, Polish against German and Russian, Greek against Ottoman, American against British, French (republican) against pan-European ancien regime etc. (Then there are the “expansive” nationalisms which work in a different way.)
Second, Ukrainian nationalism historically first developed as a response against Polish dominance, it had little to do with Russia! In fact, until late in the 19th century, Russia was culturally extensively borrowing from Ukraine, Poland and Baltics as these all had superior education, literacy and human capital compared with Russia; Russia was also economically dependent on them, and critically, Russian national idea was basically non-existant. Imperial Russian elites were largely German, Polish, French (or styled themselves in such a way), there were no middle classes, extremely limited intelligetsia and the enserfed population had no national conciousness of political programme. So it would made no sense for Ukrainian nationalism (which was developing from the 17th but most vibrant in the 19th century) to position oneself against non-existant Russian nationalism.
Finally, Ukrainian nationalism is historically very rich and had little to do with Russia, and even now it’s much more about local culture and history than about Russia.
In this sense, it definitely can be emulated elsewhere. And there are remarkable attractions for Americans, like the deep sense of freedom and the need to defend it even with force, the ideal of horizontally structured society (from the Cossack times but also idealised from the era of Rus’ and Viking society, and possibly extending thousands of years to the Tripillian culture), distrust of state authority, generosity and hospitality culture, acceptance of foreign influences and religious tolerance etc.
There is much more to Ukrainian national identity than opposition to Russia. Which is evident to anyone who actually spent some time in Ukraine, studied Ukrainian history or interacted with Ukrainian culture in any meaningful way. The reduction of Ukraine into just some “anti-Russia” or “Russia-bashing” is just ridiculous.
Not about the rise in nationalism so much as how it focused the existing nationalism in a way that has strengthened many aspects of the country. Certainly as some who lived in Ukraine and studied it's history I can attest to the fact that has already been a strong thread and Ukrainians have again and again used any opportunity to assert it.
“You can’t imagine how often we still find ourselves saying to each other, half in disbelief: ‘Can you believe this? Who would’ve thought our poor Ukraine was capable of this?’”
Time and time again in the 20th century, and in the New Millennium, we see the trend of the so-called great powers getting beat by small nations and asymmetrical warfare. All the outrageous statements about massed military personnel, equipment, artillery, etc. Then the real war begins, and the plans of the so-called military strategists are rendered worthless. One hopes China is learning this lesson at remove.
I love point No. 2. It seems accurate to me. The hyperpolitics of the late 2010s just aren't there right now, or at least they're in a much more diminished form.
I run into people from time to time loudly braying that "wokeness isn't over," that it's still rampaging through society, etc. I don't know what to tell them. That war is over.
In my last corporate job I worked for a tech company which is owned by a Japanese conglomerate (Indeed). Part of that deal is to have a tech hub in Tokyo.
I work for the org that plans and manages engineers, so dealing with growth and day to day governance is our job. One of my colleagues is the Tokyo site lead )I am the SF site lead).
Interesting fact: Tokyo office is about 1/3 US expat (we had a liberal transfer policy and Tokyo is always the cool spot for young engineers to go “adventuring”. Another third of Eng from China. The last third is folks from Russia (this is before the war).
Japanese nationals are far and few between. Many are those who is tired of the Japanese corporate culture and therefore want to try something more “liberal”. We get hardly any new grads from Japanese uni.
Among the expats they are somewhat transient. Most people go home after 3~5 years due to immigration law and homesickness. Only lifers are those who married a Japanese spouse…
For your "What the good kind of nationalism looks like" part, I think it's pretty usual for countries in war to have that - heck Americans got it as recently as WW2 (you can argue about what happened after 9/11, but for a while apart from hatred towards the terrorists it seems that Americans can get their act together to help each other!)
As for "the age of unrest is receding, except in France", you might want to add Argentina in that list; though for Peronist presidents the street seemed more calm because of few demonstrations, even though the economy being shitty :)))
Are red state test scores you mention really better, or are red states changing who they test, with poor performing students thrown off the bus and into the ditch?
Or, more likely, the compositional change is the children of new residents performing better on standardized tests than the children of families who have lived in the state for a while. Probably not a factor for Mississippi, since their population is stagnant, but perhaps for other Sunbelt states.
I’d like to see a study of the test scores, controlling for how long the students’ families have resided in the state.
“A lot of people really don’t like the idea that politics could be rational, nonpartisan, and goal-oriented — that instead of shouting on social media, rioting in the street, vilifying the enemy party, or making extremist proposals to “widen the Overton window”, Americans could simply come together through the regular democratic process and implement sensible reforms that help large numbers of people.”
I don’t know about a lot of people but this is exactly what I think politics should be. Perhaps politicians should give it a try.
One note: "online classes ended up fading, as it became clear that these didn’t help (or even made things worse" - online classes have expanded access to learning for many people, notably adult learners.
And open education resources (OER) have cut materials prices.
War is bad. It’s good we have less of it. But there are beneficial side effects. Healthy nationalism is one. Less wealth inequality (from the physical destruction of fortunes) is another. We haven’t yet figured out how to achieve these important benefits in a world of fewer wars.
I hope to god you’re wrong about this country settling in to passively accept an authoritarian takeover by some of the pettiest, cruelest, most inept and downright incompetent people. $100B was just authorized by the House GOP to spend on the thugs responsible for surveillance, detention and deportation while members of the administration float the possibility of ending habeas corpus.
I agree that reclaiming the flag and redefining American patriotism is a worthwhile project, and it’s one that I think we have seen start to emerge in the wake of Trump. You could see slivers of it in Kamala’s campaign. And it can be rooted in concrete and material progress, as well as noble ideas and shared values.
One objection: On what basis do you describe Elias Rodriguez as a “Palestine activist”? Shouting “free Palestine” does not make a deranged murderer into an activist or representative of a cause. That strikes me as a rhetorical attempt to tar anyone who believes in the Palestinian cause as part and parcel of this atrocity (as the state of Israel would like us to believe).
https://www.timesofisrael.com/washington-shooting-suspect-charged-with-murder-told-police-he-did-it-for-gaza/
If he takes political action (violent or otherwise) on behalf of a cause, it's fair to call him an activist for that cause
Just semantics - a deranged Israeli who did the same could also be considered an "Israeli activist"
It is semantics but that doesn't make it fair. "Activist" makes it sound like he's a member some legitimate organization or movement. It ties him mainstem movements that adhere to the law.
Activist is not a word that people tend to apply to violent criminals or terrorists. We tend not to call the proud boys right wing activists. We don't call Osama Bin laden an Islamic activist.
I think it would sound strange and pointed to call the Jan 6ers "Republican activists". I think calling them activists ( as semantically correct as that may be) would be a pointed attempt to put all the republicans in the same category...on the same level as them. And I think that is what Noah is doing here. I think he is pointedly staining the whole pro Palestinian movement in the shade of his actions.
I think when Noah used the phrase “Palestine activist” he was intentionally throwing shade at the whole movement. Not fair.
Very well said.
Noah has been doing this since the beginning of the conflict. He seems to have his own biases & priors to contend with here. Similar to his disdain for wokeness.
I disagree. Semantics matter.
Dear Noah, am happy to confirm that I didn't really notice any pessimistic or downbeat tone in your recent posts. The only thing they suffer from, if at all, is a slightly restricted sense of time and history, and perhaps a slightly overrated sense of agency. It is clearly essential to signal at the earliest moment possible the start to a new and potentially worrisome trend. This is good risk management. There is alot of damage to be avoided by correcting something before it becomes significant. At the same time, there are alot of potentially positive outcomes that also could happen, and it is often the case that our impact is limited. And then there is my favorite of all: progresstination. This is a new word I have invented to describe what happens when you put off solving something, and it just goes ahead and solves itself. Keep up the good work!
While Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression has obviously been heroic, I’m not sure how transferable their experience is as a form of nationalism. Ukrainian identity has always been heavily tied around hating and fearing Russia, and rejecting Russian dominion over them. That’s obviously a very resonate cause at the moment, but I don’t think it’s ideal in a vacuum to have a sense of national pride that’s based entirely around a unifying hatred of some other place and people.
This is profoundly incorrect. First, it is quite typical for nationalisms to form as a response to external powers and empires, the so-called “defensive nationalisms” all formed that way: Czech against German, Polish against German and Russian, Greek against Ottoman, American against British, French (republican) against pan-European ancien regime etc. (Then there are the “expansive” nationalisms which work in a different way.)
Second, Ukrainian nationalism historically first developed as a response against Polish dominance, it had little to do with Russia! In fact, until late in the 19th century, Russia was culturally extensively borrowing from Ukraine, Poland and Baltics as these all had superior education, literacy and human capital compared with Russia; Russia was also economically dependent on them, and critically, Russian national idea was basically non-existant. Imperial Russian elites were largely German, Polish, French (or styled themselves in such a way), there were no middle classes, extremely limited intelligetsia and the enserfed population had no national conciousness of political programme. So it would made no sense for Ukrainian nationalism (which was developing from the 17th but most vibrant in the 19th century) to position oneself against non-existant Russian nationalism.
Finally, Ukrainian nationalism is historically very rich and had little to do with Russia, and even now it’s much more about local culture and history than about Russia.
In this sense, it definitely can be emulated elsewhere. And there are remarkable attractions for Americans, like the deep sense of freedom and the need to defend it even with force, the ideal of horizontally structured society (from the Cossack times but also idealised from the era of Rus’ and Viking society, and possibly extending thousands of years to the Tripillian culture), distrust of state authority, generosity and hospitality culture, acceptance of foreign influences and religious tolerance etc.
There is much more to Ukrainian national identity than opposition to Russia. Which is evident to anyone who actually spent some time in Ukraine, studied Ukrainian history or interacted with Ukrainian culture in any meaningful way. The reduction of Ukraine into just some “anti-Russia” or “Russia-bashing” is just ridiculous.
Noah’s post is explicitly about the rise in the Ukrainian nationalist feeling since the invasion.
Not about the rise in nationalism so much as how it focused the existing nationalism in a way that has strengthened many aspects of the country. Certainly as some who lived in Ukraine and studied it's history I can attest to the fact that has already been a strong thread and Ukrainians have again and again used any opportunity to assert it.
“You can’t imagine how often we still find ourselves saying to each other, half in disbelief: ‘Can you believe this? Who would’ve thought our poor Ukraine was capable of this?’”
Time and time again in the 20th century, and in the New Millennium, we see the trend of the so-called great powers getting beat by small nations and asymmetrical warfare. All the outrageous statements about massed military personnel, equipment, artillery, etc. Then the real war begins, and the plans of the so-called military strategists are rendered worthless. One hopes China is learning this lesson at remove.
I love point No. 2. It seems accurate to me. The hyperpolitics of the late 2010s just aren't there right now, or at least they're in a much more diminished form.
I run into people from time to time loudly braying that "wokeness isn't over," that it's still rampaging through society, etc. I don't know what to tell them. That war is over.
I guess we have to wait until 2027 for our own positive version of nationalism to become a reality.
In my last corporate job I worked for a tech company which is owned by a Japanese conglomerate (Indeed). Part of that deal is to have a tech hub in Tokyo.
I work for the org that plans and manages engineers, so dealing with growth and day to day governance is our job. One of my colleagues is the Tokyo site lead )I am the SF site lead).
Interesting fact: Tokyo office is about 1/3 US expat (we had a liberal transfer policy and Tokyo is always the cool spot for young engineers to go “adventuring”. Another third of Eng from China. The last third is folks from Russia (this is before the war).
Japanese nationals are far and few between. Many are those who is tired of the Japanese corporate culture and therefore want to try something more “liberal”. We get hardly any new grads from Japanese uni.
Among the expats they are somewhat transient. Most people go home after 3~5 years due to immigration law and homesickness. Only lifers are those who married a Japanese spouse…
For your "What the good kind of nationalism looks like" part, I think it's pretty usual for countries in war to have that - heck Americans got it as recently as WW2 (you can argue about what happened after 9/11, but for a while apart from hatred towards the terrorists it seems that Americans can get their act together to help each other!)
As for "the age of unrest is receding, except in France", you might want to add Argentina in that list; though for Peronist presidents the street seemed more calm because of few demonstrations, even though the economy being shitty :)))
Are red state test scores you mention really better, or are red states changing who they test, with poor performing students thrown off the bus and into the ditch?
Or, more likely, the compositional change is the children of new residents performing better on standardized tests than the children of families who have lived in the state for a while. Probably not a factor for Mississippi, since their population is stagnant, but perhaps for other Sunbelt states.
I’d like to see a study of the test scores, controlling for how long the students’ families have resided in the state.
“A lot of people really don’t like the idea that politics could be rational, nonpartisan, and goal-oriented — that instead of shouting on social media, rioting in the street, vilifying the enemy party, or making extremist proposals to “widen the Overton window”, Americans could simply come together through the regular democratic process and implement sensible reforms that help large numbers of people.”
I don’t know about a lot of people but this is exactly what I think politics should be. Perhaps politicians should give it a try.
One note: "online classes ended up fading, as it became clear that these didn’t help (or even made things worse" - online classes have expanded access to learning for many people, notably adult learners.
And open education resources (OER) have cut materials prices.
Interesting things, as advertised, but a strong vibe of “look at all the schools we’ve painted in Iraq”.
War is bad. It’s good we have less of it. But there are beneficial side effects. Healthy nationalism is one. Less wealth inequality (from the physical destruction of fortunes) is another. We haven’t yet figured out how to achieve these important benefits in a world of fewer wars.
I think you're right about the age we're in but show me an example of " right-wing brawlers."
Proud Boys, etc.
Here's an extreme case of what I mentioned earlier, about online learning expanding access: https://amu.tv/171972/