No Snow Here blogs:
Earlier this week, I saw a commercial on TV. Several shots of people saying things like “I am American,” “I am Korean,” and “I am Indian.” When I heard the words, “I am Israeli,” I shouted some expletives at the screen. WTF!? And I shouted some more expletives when I learned that apparently the “right” to a nationality is Youth For Human Rights International’s 15th human right (just not for Palestinians, who have no rights, human or otherwise). First, Israelis and Americans have no “right” to a national identity. Israelis and Americans have a national identity that exists on the backs and dead bodies of indigenous people, so I don’t even want to hear that bullsh#@. Second, most people in this world have a national identity that was entirely invented and forced upon them by colonizers. Who drew those lines on the map? Who constructed and named those countries? Uh huh.
What reply can there be to someone who preempts response with “I don’t want to hear that bullshit?”
interesting link though.
I can sympathise with that kind of anger … but as useful as it is, I hope the outcome of it is ultimately a dialogue around the politics of nationality and what it means to be from a specific line in the sand (or jungle, or plains, or forest, etc.). I think the question’s zie’s asking are useful ones, and I’d like to see them addressed; I just would rather see them addressed in a way that actually encourages conversation.
The right to a nationality isn’t just Youth for Human Rights International’s 15th right; it’s the 15th right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified by the UN in 1948. That some random person is upset at the newly-discovered declarations of a 59-year-old document is hardly newsworthy.
The official wording is:
Does Snow really mean to assert that Israelis and (US) Americans must all renounce our citizenships and live nationless? That’s kinda…
crazyinsane-o.In fact, if Snow believes that Palestinians deserve to be citizens of a nation, then he should be embracing the document, as it asserts that such is their right.
The UDHR has its faults (my biggest complaint is that it’s freaky-vague), but I really don’t see the existence of article 15 as one of them.
Lots of other countries whose names didn’t get Jack’s undies in a wad also have a long and bloody history of oppression – of ‘indigenous people’ or otherwise. (Nice to know that Jews aren’t “indigenous” to the Middle East. Apparently they all lived in New York City until 1947.) I wonder if he scolds black Americans for thinking of themselves as “Americans” – fuck all that slavery bullshit, it doesn’t count since white people killed Indians too!
With the exception of a few Pacific islands, there is not a square inch of land on this earth that has not been stolen and restolen and stolen again, drenched in the blood of the people who lived there, whose grandparents had in their own turn robbed and raped and murdered.
And the Pacific islands weren’t all that peacefully settled, either, it’s just that their violence was ethnically intramural.
When Snow shouts at the TV, what s/he is actually shouting is “I know nothing about the history of my species!”
So let me get this straight. Jews have been living in Israel for 4000 years and have no right to a nation there?
As I understand it (and feel free to correct me if I’m off-base) Israeli and Palestinian are distinct concepts from who’s Jewish and not. I mean, there are Palestinian Jews who don’t consider themselves Israeli Jews, from what I hear. There are a lot of Arabic-language-speaking Mizrahi Jews who aren’t well-integrated into mainstream (Ashkenazic) Israeli society, right? Is that who you’re talking about when you say Jews have been living in the region for 4000 years? Because then I agree, but that history is of a distinct group of people than the nation-state of Israel.
As for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — there are obviously some concepts in there that wouldn’t necessarily exist in some versions of an “ideal world.” Like nation-states, and maybe even property, if you ask some people. But face it, we live in a world with property, and so it should be possible for everyone to own property — you shouldn’t exclude women or black people etc. from property ownership. Similarly, nationless people end up in all sorts of hell in this world of nation-states, borders, and immigration detention centers. The UDHR necessarily says something about this, and maybe “everyone should be able to have a nationality, and change that nationality if they want” is a simplistic stab. It’s not clear how that helps Tibetans or Palestinians or other people who lack sovereignity in their homelands, other than to say “well, you can always go somewhere else, or become part of the state that contains your homeland…”
Holly,
I’m not really sure what you mean. There are problems with racism among Jews in Israel, and they generally follow the pattern of racism elsewhere (ie, whiter is higher on the socio-economic ladder), although, afaik, with some exceptions for recent immigration (eg, poor white Russian Jews).
But to say that Mizrachi Jews don’t count as Israeli when they have been part of the struggle and the state since the very beginning, have benefited from the right to immigrate, have contributed hugely in so many ways, economically, militarily, etc, are politically active and powerful (ie Shas), make up a significant portion of the population (Ashkenazi Jews are not in majority in Israel), and, for the most part, are incredibly invested in and committed to the state, is just mindboggling.
I don’t know of any ‘Palestinian Jews’ who don’t consider themselves Israeli, and I would be curious to learn more about this. As far as I know, the Jewish families who have been living continuously in the area, which was only called Palestine on and off, mostly at the insistence of powerful foreign armies like the Romans and the British), are very proud of the fact. There are some Ashkenazi Jews, ultra orthodox sects, who live in Israel and oppose Jewish sovereignty except as instituted by a messiah, but these are definitely white, European groups. My impression is that that the Mizrachi Jews, who have experienced oppression and exile in other middle eastern countries and in the region, tend to be, well I won’t say more Zionist, but more right wing in their Zionist politics.
Israeli is distinct from Jewish, in that there are many Israeli citizens who are not Jews. These citizens include Palestinian Muslims and Christians, Druze, people with Jewish ancestry who are eligible to return but who do not identify as Jewish and/or are not Jewish halachically, refugees (ie the most recent group from the Sudan), and random other people who apply for citizenship through the normal procedures analogous to American or Canadian immigration.
I do agree the idea of a “right to nationality” is wonky but to assume all Americans are colonists is a fallacy.
First, Israelis and Americans have no “right” to a national identity. Israelis and Americans have a national identity that exists on the backs and dead bodies of indigenous people,
I don’t want to excuse either the US’s colonial history and tendencies or some of the uglier facets of the founding and expansion of modern Israel, but it does seem to me that singling them out as particularly existing on the backs and dead bodies of indigenous people is a bit unfair. All of the countries that currently exist on the American continents are the result of colonialism. So were some of the pre-Columbian societies. The Caribs conquered the Arawak to take the Caribbean islands. The Aztecs weren’t the first to inhabit Mexico, nor did they find it empty when they arrived. It’s the same with other continents. The “French” are mostly Roman, not Gauls, as is their language. The Japanese took their islands from an earlier culture. I’m only mentioning a few of the ones that I happen to know about, not an exhaustive list of conquest and colonization. So who has a right to a national identity? Maybe the answer is no one and that the whole idea is nonsense. But people like having groups to belong to. Could a less toxic substitute for national identity be found?
International sports.
Tara,
Thanks, I stand corrected and I certainly didn’t mean to say that Mizrahi Jews can’t be or aren’t part of Israel — just that in some cases it might be more accurate to distinguish concepts like Jewishness, Israeli vs. Palestinian, etc from each other. Especially with statements like the one Amp posted earlier about how nobody can be against Zionism without wishing murderous extinction upon all Jews, which is a kind of statement I have heard a lot of Jewish friends vehemently disagree with.
I think part of my muddle re: Palestinian Jews, Mizrahim, etc. is from reading about the identification of some folks like Uri Davis who call themselves Palestinian Jews because (in his case) he was born in Palestine, he is politically opposed to Zionism, etc. I’ve also met Mizrahi Jews who are similarly anti-Zionist and don’t identify with Israel even if they’re Israeli citizens… even if they are few in number, and it’s good to know that there are right-wing tendencies in Mizrahi communities, puts that stuff in context. Still, even if they’re few in number I guess the point is that, like you say, not all Israelis are Jewish, and not all Jewish people, whether they’re from the region or not, are Israeli or pro-Israel.
If Americans and Israelis have no right to a national identity, then neither do Indians. Throughout history, India has been invaded and settled by Persians, Greeks, Tamils, Turks, Mongols, Mughals, Dravidians, and many other peoples. Pretty much every country in the world has been invaded and settled by outsiders. England, for example, was inhabited by Celts, occupied by the Romans, invaded by the Anglo-Saxons, and conquered by the Normans. The only difference between America and Israel and other countries is that the displacement of the indigenous peoples is a relatively recent event.
Did anyone else catch the part about how Israelis apparently don’t even get to claim their own cuisine?
Hell, I’m part Irish – those of my ancestors came here to escape colonialism.
RonF–Good point. Some of my relatives would be in the same boat, figuratively, as yours–and my German relatives came to America as Prussian army deserters. I think a lot of things are far from black and white in this sort of discussion.
Could a less toxic substitute for national identity be found?
World Citizenship.
http://www.worldgovernment.org/wcd.html
http://www.worldcitizen.org/
http://www.intlmgt.com/portfolio/Citizenship.html
http://www.dwfed.org/
While I lean to the pro-palestinian side of the debate I hardly think the several 100,000’s of Jews that were forced out of Arab countries (Baghdad was 25% jewish not all that ago) exactly fall into the “colonists who should be denied Israeli nationality” school of evil.
The above commentators have done a good job rebutting this post. I would just add that there is a strain of leftism that sees the US along with Israel as the source of all that is bad in the world. I would call it a crude anti-imperialism and IMO is a derivative of knuckleheaded leninism and third world marxism.
I often ponder this question. You may say that I’m a dreamer, but I like to imagine a world where we all live as one. But outside of my dreams, I don’t observe it coming to pass any time soon. I suspect that humans have an evolutionarily-prescribed bias toward tribalism – that is, the inclination to affiliate.
Sports provides a great example. Who gives a rat’s ass which team wins the World Series? The players get traded every year, so the only aspect of the team with which I have a long-term association is the uniforms. Yet I can’t help routing for the home team; when they don’t win, it’s a shame.
I see affiliation as adaptive in promoting mutual aid. If you’re a member of my political party, I’ll buy you a beer. If you’re a member of my ol’ fraternity, I’ll pass your resume around. If you’re a member of my nation, I’ll ask my congressman to send emergency aid to you. If you’re a member of my church, you can crash on my couch. If you’re a member of my family, I’ll give you a kidney.
But along with the mutual aid thing comes the mutual animosity thing. If I’m biased in favor of the members of my clan, by definition I must be biased against everyone else. Nothing promotes a sense of identity better than defining yourself in terms of the people you’re not — the “others.” So I don’t merely want to see my home-town team play well; I want to see them beat your home-town team!
Assuming tribalism is sub-optimal but inevitable, which form of tribalism is the least pernicious? Given all the ways that we might divide ourselves — by race, religion, class, gender? — nationalism seems the least harmful. First, it’s quite malleable: we can define membership in a “nation” to mean damn near anything and — optimally — damn near nothing. Second, because nations seem to be defined by geography, it tends to produce a dynamic whereby we exhibit mutual aid toward those that are near (and are therefore easier to help), and animosity toward those that are remote (and are therefore harder to hurt). If someone is going to label me as an “other,” I’d like it to be someone I don’t have to deal with very often.
Significantly, nationalism is the solution the US is promoting in Iraq. “Stop looking on your neighbor as a Sunni or a Shiite or a Kurd; you’re all Iraqis!” Does getting people to unite as Iraqis mean getting them to unite in their common hatred of Turks? Perhaps. But if a mutual hatred of Turks can distract people from the fact that they hate their neighbor, maybe that’s as good as it gets.
Okay, is anyone getting the distinction between ancient history of conquering, which all of our bloodlines are guilty of, and, oh, the experience of belonging to a people colonized in recent memory? Because you know, I’ve pretty much forgiven Rome for the destruction of my Carthaginian great-great-great-greats, but for God’s sake, that’s not even equivalent to the family members I had and have met whose lives were destroyed by American and Japanese colonialism and imperialism.
I’m sorry. “Humanity has always been violent” is a cop-out and it’s a cop-out I only see from people who don’t want to face up to the recent and ongoing history of colonialism. Yes, in ancient history, it was hard on everyone and everyone invaded someone, or something, yada yada yada, and little teeny villages hit other little teeny villages on the head for extra crops, world without end. Invoking that as an absolution for moral responsibility for ongoing and current colonialism is, in my opinion, unacceptable.
I’m not going to weigh in on the Israel question, here. I’m leaving that alone for this conversation. But seriously, guys, I’m sorry, Iron Age Celtic conquering and the depredations of Han China don’t mean that you can dismiss people whose immediate families have been colonized, or remove the responsibility to care that the nation you live in has in your own lifetime engaged in immoral practices overseas.
It’s just a way to tell complainers to shut up and quit whining. I’m sorry, but I don’t hold my centuries-gone ancestors in the same esteem as my mother and grandfather, who I’ve met and hugged and heard stories from in their own voices. And I’m an ancestor venerator.
I am sick and tired of that old chestnut. There.
But we’re not saying that the recently-colonized have no grievances, little.light. We’re saying that identifying certain nationalities as being intrinsically and uniquely suspect is historically invalid.
“X can’t be a real country because they did Y immoral thing” is an arguable point (I guess), but the argument gets a lot weaker when you have to add “unlike all the other countries which did the exact same thing, but where nobody is left to be pissed off about it.”
Sure, Robert, but as awful as it is, the “nobody is left” is relevant, because we can’t do anything for them. We can do something for the somebodies left from recent troubles, who are here right now, you know? I’m not saying anyone’s innocent–but as soon as those recently-colonized bring up their grievances, I always hear, immediately afterward, the arguments I’m hearing here, as though whatever violences the Tainos did made what Columbus’ crew did to them acceptable, or as though current crimes become irrelevant because at some point somewhere the people they’re perpetrated against did something to someone, too.
It’s a repeating pattern that comes out in nearly every conversation about colonialism that serves to blot out whatever the colonized are saying. I’m not here to argue who gets to be called a “real country”–but that pattern is extremely frustrating and, to someone who’s known and loved people affected negatively (to say the least) by colonization, insulting in the extreme.
And then the next bit is, “But why are you so angry? Just calm down and be reasonable.”
We can do something for the somebodies left from recent troubles, who are here right now, you know?
Sure. Is yelling at the TV or saying that there’s no such thing as Israeli cuisine part of that “something”?
Robert, I think we’re moving the goalposts here. I don’t even think the original blogger would claim that yelling at the TV was something she was doing to help the situation, but her anger is understandable.
And you know that’s not what I was addressing; I was addressing the fact that in all of these conversations, that kind of anger is immediately dismissed with “well, violence happens, and at some point in history, everyone’s done it, sort of.” I’m not addressing the “how helpful is your yelling at the TV?” that you’re suddenly bringing up; I’m addressing the conversation that’s in the posts immediately above, where the criticism isn’t that her actions weren’t constructive enough, but rather that she’s holding recent colonizers accountable in a way she’s not holding accountable the prehistoric Maori or the Mughal Empire.
Littlelight,
I think you’re being somewhat disingenuous as well. Would that all the other examples were millenia old. It’s not the case. But sure, everyone wants to start history right where it’s convenient for them. Maybe there’s a reason why, at some fairly arbitrary point, western intellectual convention all of a sudden identifies a ‘pre-history’?
little light,
I think you have a valid point. There’s no particular reason why we should consider something to be “done, and there’s no use crying about it now” at any magical point in time.
I think the reason that so many things get lumped into that category is that nobody is really able to set out any sort of defining criteria that would separate the “oh well that’s a real issue even now” and the “too late, let’s move on” categories.
And a a result it gets even more confusing, because some things which are considered worthy of current concern are OLDER than some things which are not; there’s no simple rule. So on the one hand you’ve got the U.S. House debating the Armenian genocide (1915-17), an event which I imagine has very few current survivors on either side… and yet much more recent things are falling out of the public eye.
I don’t know what the solution is.
And anyway, yelling at the TV is part of “identifying the problem and solidfying that it actually is a problem.”
Okay, above I suggested world citizenship as a superior alternative to national citizenship, and I will not retract that. But I must respond to little light here, in defense of the UDHR. The universal right to a nationality and the right to change it were conceived of as anti-colonial. The whoe point was that England, France, the U.S., Russia, etc., had no right to deprive you of a nationality or decide for you what it would be. So Palestinians have a right to a nationality, and Mexicans who cross the U.S. border that we imposed on them by force have a right to change their nationality.
Now, you may argue that these rights are not anti-colonial in practice, or are not recognised in practice. You may or may not be right, and as an advocate of world citizenship, I do not have a committed opinion on that. But to suggest that Aticle 15 was drafted in an attempt to avoid responsibility for current and ongoing colonialism is exactly backwards.
Decnavda
I sorry, but could you explain this? Are you saying that US isn’t a sovereign country (settled by numerous wars and treaties like the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo)? Or are you saying that some people’s nationalities are personally optional without the permission of the sovereign country? And where exactly does such a “right” come from, and what authority enforces that “right”?
California is a sovereign state, but not completely sovereign, and we recognize the right people from Maine or Georgia to become Californian if they wish, as well as the right of people from California to become Georgian if they wish. That right comes from being human, and it is recognized and enforced by the U.S. Federal government. This right is good for the citizens who exercise it, and it have been good for the economies and cultures of all U.S. states.
The U.S. is an entirely sovereign nation that chooses to impose extreme restrictions on immigration. The right of individuals from other nations to become U.S. citizens if they wish comes from being human, is recognized by the world through the UDHR, but is enforced by no one because there is no democratic federal world government. The U.S. government is therefor capable of depriving people of this human right with impunity.
The U.S. is an entirely sovereign nation that chooses to impose extreme restrictions on immigration. The right of individuals from other nations to become U.S. citizens if they wish comes from being human, is recognized by the world through the UDHR, but is enforced by no one because there is no democratic federal world government. The U.S. government is therefor capable of depriving people of this human right with impunity.
What countries allow this?
[W]orld citizenship [is] a superior alternative to national citizenship, and I will not retract that.
Have we ever observed people rallying together as “citizens of the world”? We have – in science fiction. Consider, for example, the film “Independence Day.” I predict “world citizenship” will become a meaningful concept just as soon as we have an extra-terrestrial “other” to fear. That is, “world citizenship” will become meaningful just as soon as it’s not universal.
Thanks, mind if we explore this a little? This kind of thinking is fascinating.
Extreme compared to what? As far as I know the its harder to become citizens of many (maybe most?) other countries. I read something a while back that its actually pretty hard to become a Mexican citizen (non-native obviously), for example.
You might be correct regarding the UDHR but I would like a direct quote that says the US (and its citizens) can’t determine its own immigration policy or that any person can become a citizen of any country of their choosing regardless of what that nation’s policy is. Or is this just your personal interpretation of one of the many vague general statements?
Rights:
“comes from being human”: were these enumerated on a stone tablet or do you mean that all of the articles of the UDHR are THE definitive, universal, comprehensive, unchanging list of rights that “comes from being human”? If its the latter, then who gets to decide correct interpretations and applications? What if I, or many other people, disagree that X is a human right, or think that Y should be but isnt, or think that Z actually means this but not that? Who are they to decree from on high, that X is a human right and Y isnt?
Have we ever observed people rallying together as “citizens of the world”? We have – in science fiction. Consider, for example, the film “Independence Day.” I predict “world citizenship” will become a meaningful concept just as soon as we have an extra-terrestrial “other” to fear. That is, “world citizenship” will become meaningful just as soon as it’s not universal.
Historically, Federal Unions arise not in opposition to outside threats, but as a result of growing cooperation between the states. The United States was a loose confederation while fighting the British, but formed a federal union in response to internal problems in the absence of an external threat. Switzerland went from being a loose confederation to a federal state during a long period in the mid 19th century when they fought no external wars. Today, almost the entire continent of Europe has joined in a de facto confederation that is on a (rocky) path to federation, and in fact it has grown faster and stronger in the absence of the last credible military threat to European powers, the Warsaw Pact.
Also, threats that unify do not have to be from other groups of beings. Global warming, multinational corporations or international religious violence could all act as a common enemy for the people of the world to rally against.
Larry,
1. I could be wrong, but I do not think very many other countries (except Israel) have or are building giant fences or walls across their borders. Citizens of European Union member nations have rights of free travel throughout the EU and simplified and unified requirements for moving permanently between them.
2. The UDHR is too vague, but I think my interpretation is a requirement of the language. How can you have a right to change your nationality if the nations will not allow you to?
3. As to the right coming from being human, I know of no philosophy of secular ethics that provides a moral justification for allowing a government to deny some humans access to any portion of the earth. The closest would be right libertarian theories of property, but that explicitly applies only to individuals and voluntary associations of individuals: If such authority could be vested in a government, right libertarians could have no argument against property taxes, since it would merely be government charging them rent to allow them to stay. The UDHR is a recognition of this moral right by the world, but it does not establish this or any right.
4. If its the latter, then who gets to decide correct interpretations and applications? What if I, or many other people, disagree that X is a human right, or think that Y should be but isnt, or think that Z actually means this but not that? Who are they to decree from on high, that X is a human right and Y isnt?
There SHOULD be a democratic world government to answer all of these questions. As there is not, there is no enforceability to this lovely recognition of rights.
Decnavda, I made no statements regarding UDHR or Article 15. I’m not sure what you’re responding to.
Spain did/does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melilla_border_fence. There’s a large DMZ between the Koreas. I’m sure there are more. I believe that there are also other countries whose borders are mined, though it’s been a while since I read up on this.
Obviously countries are motivated to do this by 1) how many people who want to get in (or out) could realistically do so absent a border or fence; 2) how expensive it is to make such a border or fence; and 3) how much the country gives a hoot.
Israel’s sort of a separate issue that is more based on security. but the spanish fence is quite similar to the US, i think.
Hmm. You know more philosophy than I, but this doesn’t seem right.
Unless I’m missing something (which I probably am; as I said, i’m not a great fount of philosophical knowledge): If this were true, then all non-religious philosophers would either be illogical, amoral, unethical, or against government control of property, yes? Hopefully you’ll elaborate.
Are you modifying this with your own interpretation of morality, for example? I.e., are there philosphies that claim such a right, which you have deemed immoral?
Are you using “secular” in a way that goes beyond what laypeople might consider it to be? Not that i’m a fan of ‘natural law’ for example, but would you consider that and similar philosophies to be nonsecular?
Are you defining philosophies “of ethics” in a manner which severely limits the options?
etc.
I’m not saying that America has no right to exist as a country, but there’s a difference between mere invasion of territory and the directed extermination of an entire people. Though I’m sure similar arguments could be made for many other nations in the Americas, not just America proper.
little light — I would say you’re definitely on the right track as far as identifying and dealing with current and recent colonialism.
I’d say the original commentator, though, was shortsighted. It’s useful to criticize categories, but I don’t think it’s useful to erase them. I’m an American… not because it’s my nationality and I’m proud of it, but because I was born in that country and bear a share of its stupidities, current and past, regardless of the fact that I’d like to opt out.
When I stop saying “I’m an American,” I tend to emotionally distance myself from those realities. I’d love to be free of it entirely, and, honestly, that’s a cop-out. I’m an Anglophile and a Europhile as a method of escapism. I do not think it is good to encourage that escapism, that disclaiming of shame. No American is automagically nationality-less because their nationality is based on colonialism — any more than white people are automagically colorblind.
I think being a world citizen is a distinction one must work towards — and I’m still trying to articulate exactly what it means, exactly what kind of comprehensive education I need to undergo to be able to say, even, “I’m trying my best to be a world citizen,” much less to claim the identity. Living in a country where I’m one of three white faces I see in a week, and where, although my living conditions are urbanized, about a mile from me people carry water in buckets — that’s definitely part of the education. But only a fraction of it.