Questioning Civic and Ethnic Nationalism
Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer
Political thinkers over the past two centuries have grappled with the question of what constitutes a nation, and who belongs – or doesn’t belong – to it.
Civic or territorial nationalists define the nation as an association of people with equal and shared political rights, and an allegiance to similar political procedures. The nation is a political entity, inclusive and liberal. Anyone can, so to speak, join through becoming a citizen.
Ethnic nationalists define the nation in terms of a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, faith, and ancestry. They base membership on descent or heredity. It is clearly a more restrictive form of nationalism.
Let’s use one illustration to d
emonstrate the confusion that can occur when we try to pigeonhole people based on their differing identities.
We’ll take three families: the Rahmans are Muslim Bengalis from Bangladesh, the former East Pakistan. The Barkatis are Muslim Bengalis, but from the Indian state of West Bengal and therefore citizens of India. The Banerjees, who are Hindus, are also West Bengalis from India.
All three families move to Glasgow, Scotland. While it does have its own assembly and legal system, Scotland is not a sovereign state, but a devolved part of the United Kingdom.
Are the three families now Scots? In terms of ethnicity, no. But for civic or territorial nationalists, the answer is yes, they are Scottish. But are they then Indo-Scots, Bengali Scots, or, in the case of the Rahmans, Bangladeshi Scots?
Or, for that matter, since Scotland remains part of the British state, are they – at least once they acquire citizenship – simply British, thereby bypassing the tricky business of whether they are Scottish or not? That would work for some.
However, since Scottish ethno-nationalists, especially those who wish to create an independent Scotland, see the inhabitants of Great Britain as English, Scottish, and Welsh, the term British means little to them. It is merely a matter of legal citizenship.
So if nationalists were victorious and Scotland became a sovereign country, would the three families now be defined as Scottish, given that they are already UK citizens living in Glasgow?
For civic and territorial nationalists, the answer would be yes. But for some Scottish ethnic nationalists, the families would still not be Scots, even though citizens of a new Scotland -- though perhaps through assimilation, their descendants might become Scottish. (Racists, an extreme subgroup of ethnic nationalists, would deny that they could ever be Scots.)
What of the reverse? If the MacGregor family, ethnically Scottish, decide to leave Glasgow and move to London, would they cease being Scots? Not to ethnic nationalists, they wouldn’t – they’d become part of a Scottish diaspora.
Yet should the United Kingdom dissolve, and England, like Scotland, become – as it was for centuries – a country on its own, the MacGregors would become citizens of England.
And then perhaps they would become “Scots English” in terms of ethnic identity, despite the oxymoronic sound of that definition.
Is it a wonder these issues are never resolved?
Professor Henry Srebrnik
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
Political Culture More Important Than Formal Structures
Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian
Rio de Janeiro and Charlottetown both have traffic lights at major intersections. However, in Rio there are often police officers at the intersections as well, something Charlottetown manages without.
Why? Because otherwise - as I noticed when I was in Brazil years ago -- many drivers in Rio would, after looking to see no oncoming traffic on the cross street, continue driving right through the intersection.
In Charlottetown, not many people would do that, even in the dead of night and with no traffic on either the cross street or on the one on which they were travelling.
It all boils down to culture, and driving habits are a part of culture, of course.
People's attitudes and values regarding their political system are what we term political culture.
It's often the most volatile countries, ones with little sense of overarching national consciousness or a democratic political culture, that have the most stringent rules and regulations on the books.
Their political structures usually include intricate power-sharing arrangements between identifiable ethnic, linguistic, and religious communities or rival regions, including broad governing coalitions.
Their electoral procedures are designed to be as ‘fair' and ‘inclusive' as possible, through the crafting of complex formulas, such as the alternative vote, single-transferable vote, two-round runoff, proportional representation, and mixed-member-proportional systems.
This ensures that most political parties on the ballot - and there are always many -- gain seats in their legislatures, allowing disparate groups a voice in governance.
Some countries also reserve places or implement quotas for women, minorities, and even occupational and social groups in their parliaments.
They may also allow communities a large measure of control over culture and education.
On the other hand, some countries that are troubled by very deep political divisions only sanction parties that have a ‘national' character.
Such parties must demonstrate support in more than a few regions in order to run in national elections. Groups that are overtly the vehicles of particular sub-national entities are banned as being "divisive" and a danger to the unity of the state.
Yet despite their elaborate constitutional architecture and political safeguards, many of these countries still dissolve into civil strife or end up governed by brutal authoritarian regimes.
This happens because they are, typically, artificial states within whose borders live peoples who may be historic enemies or, at the least, have no interest in inhabiting the same polity with their fellow citizens. Patriotism and loyalty towards the nation, in such places, is clearly in short supply.
These unstable countries sometimes implode altogether and become failed states. And all their fancy structural designs do not save them.
In old and consolidated democracies such as Canada, we manage to muddle along with a patently ‘unfair' first-past-the-post winner-take-all system for electing MPs.
This usually allows a party to win a majority in the House of Commons with only a plurality of the vote. Even when a party fails to do so, we frown upon coalition government.
We also permit an openly separatist party like the Bloc Québécois to run in federal elections. And we tolerate an unelected senate.
Why are we not more incensed about this? Because we have a democratic political culture and don't think the country is in danger of falling apart or becoming a dictatorship.
Does this make us less ‘democratic'? Of course not. How many Canadians would prefer to live in some of the countries I've described, entities such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Lebanon, Nepal or Uganda?
What counts is the underlying political culture, something that can't simply be constructed through clever political engineering.
Canada is not as polarized, nor suffers from the same kind of political violence, as do many of these other countries.
We trust our politicians not to cross certain lines, such as fixing elections, bribing voters, jailing opponents, revoking civil liberties, or using the military to suppress dissent.
Our governments don't have the same level of control over our day-to-day lives. An independent judiciary serves as a check on their actions. So elections, for us, are not a matter of life and death, as is - literally - the case in other places. We can therefore afford to be more nonchalant about our democratic shortcomings.
It's like legislation concerning alcohol: the strict regulation of liquor (or its outright prohibition) is a society's response to rampant alcoholism. In places where this is not a major issue, laws regulating the sale and consumption of spirits are less stringent, because less necessary.
The same holds true for a country's political system. Where democracy already exists, there's less zeal to create a "perfect" version of it among the citizenry.
Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian
Rio de Janeiro and Charlottetown both have traffic lights at major intersections. However, in Rio there are often police officers at the intersections as well, something Charlottetown manages without.
Why? Because otherwise - as I noticed when I was in Brazil years ago -- many drivers in Rio would, after looking to see no oncoming traffic on the cross street, continue driving right through the intersection.
In Charlottetown, not many people would do that, even in the dead of night and with no traffic on either the cross street or on the one on which they were travelling.
It all boils down to culture, and driving habits are a part of culture, of course.
People's attitudes and values regarding their political system are what we term political culture.
It's often the most volatile countries, ones with little sense of overarching national consciousness or a democratic political culture, that have the most stringent rules and regulations on the books.
Their political structures usually include intricate power-sharing arrangements between identifiable ethnic, linguistic, and religious communities or rival regions, including broad governing coalitions.
Their electoral procedures are designed to be as ‘fair' and ‘inclusive' as possible, through the crafting of complex formulas, such as the alternative vote, single-transferable vote, two-round runoff, proportional representation, and mixed-member-proportional systems.
This ensures that most political parties on the ballot - and there are always many -- gain seats in their legislatures, allowing disparate groups a voice in governance.
Some countries also reserve places or implement quotas for women, minorities, and even occupational and social groups in their parliaments.
They may also allow communities a large measure of control over culture and education.
On the other hand, some countries that are troubled by very deep political divisions only sanction parties that have a ‘national' character.
Such parties must demonstrate support in more than a few regions in order to run in national elections. Groups that are overtly the vehicles of particular sub-national entities are banned as being "divisive" and a danger to the unity of the state.
Yet despite their elaborate constitutional architecture and political safeguards, many of these countries still dissolve into civil strife or end up governed by brutal authoritarian regimes.
This happens because they are, typically, artificial states within whose borders live peoples who may be historic enemies or, at the least, have no interest in inhabiting the same polity with their fellow citizens. Patriotism and loyalty towards the nation, in such places, is clearly in short supply.
These unstable countries sometimes implode altogether and become failed states. And all their fancy structural designs do not save them.
In old and consolidated democracies such as Canada, we manage to muddle along with a patently ‘unfair' first-past-the-post winner-take-all system for electing MPs.
This usually allows a party to win a majority in the House of Commons with only a plurality of the vote. Even when a party fails to do so, we frown upon coalition government.
We also permit an openly separatist party like the Bloc Québécois to run in federal elections. And we tolerate an unelected senate.
Why are we not more incensed about this? Because we have a democratic political culture and don't think the country is in danger of falling apart or becoming a dictatorship.
Does this make us less ‘democratic'? Of course not. How many Canadians would prefer to live in some of the countries I've described, entities such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Lebanon, Nepal or Uganda?
What counts is the underlying political culture, something that can't simply be constructed through clever political engineering.
Canada is not as polarized, nor suffers from the same kind of political violence, as do many of these other countries.
We trust our politicians not to cross certain lines, such as fixing elections, bribing voters, jailing opponents, revoking civil liberties, or using the military to suppress dissent.
Our governments don't have the same level of control over our day-to-day lives. An independent judiciary serves as a check on their actions. So elections, for us, are not a matter of life and death, as is - literally - the case in other places. We can therefore afford to be more nonchalant about our democratic shortcomings.
It's like legislation concerning alcohol: the strict regulation of liquor (or its outright prohibition) is a society's response to rampant alcoholism. In places where this is not a major issue, laws regulating the sale and consumption of spirits are less stringent, because less necessary.
The same holds true for a country's political system. Where democracy already exists, there's less zeal to create a "perfect" version of it among the citizenry.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Palestinians Are a Nation
Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer
Speaking to an audience at the Republican Jewish Coalition in Washington recently, Newt Gingrich, now the front-runner in the race to become the Republican nominee for president of the United States, declared the Palestinians are an “invented” people.
He later elaborated on his remarks. “Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire,” Gingrich told a television interviewer. “We’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community.”
For this he has been criticized by the Arab League, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, and even Republican opponents Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. He has been especially denounced by people on the left, who see in his remarks a “hard line” pro-Israel position.
Actually, anti-Zionists do the same thing, insisting that Jews are simply members of a religion and are not an ethnic group, and hence have no right to part of Palestine. Indeed, an Israeli academic, Shlomo Sand, recently published a controversial book entitled “The Invention of the Jewish People.”
The whole thing is somewhat ironic, given that the critics don’t seem to know that left-wing theoreticians like the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawn claim that all nations are “constructed” by clever elites and are thus “inventions.”
Back when Golda Meir was prime minister of Israel, she famously said that there are no such people as the Palestinians. She meant that until the 1960s they had no separate consciousness as “Palestinians” (a simple geographic term, and a fuzzy one, at that).
They were called “Arabs” when they revolted against British rule in the Palestine Mandate in 1936-39 and when the 1947 partition plan, which called for “Arab” and “Jewish” states, was passed by the UN.
It was the “Arab Higher Committee,” led by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, which opposed the creation of Israel by the Jews (who of course weren't yet “Israelis,” either).
Prior to 1948, Jews used the term Palestinian more than the Arabs did. The Jerusalem Post newspaper used to be called the Palestine Post. And during the Second World War, more than 5,000 Jewish volunteers from Palestine were organized into three battalions of the Palestine Regiment.
But never mind all that. People who say they’re a nation are one, it’s that simple. They define themselves, and don’t get defined by others. So of course the Palestinians are now a nation. Like every other nation, they have, so to speak, invented themselves – just the way Americans, Canadians, and others did before them.
Whether invented or not, there are now two nations within the old Palestine Mandate – Israelis and Palestinians. Each should have a state.
Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer
Speaking to an audience at the Republican Jewish Coalition in Washington recently, Newt Gingrich, now the front-runner in the race to become the Republican nominee for president of the United States, declared the Palestinians are an “invented” people.
He later elaborated on his remarks. “Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire,” Gingrich told a television interviewer. “We’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community.”
For this he has been criticized by the Arab League, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, and even Republican opponents Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. He has been especially denounced by people on the left, who see in his remarks a “hard line” pro-Israel position.
Actually, anti-Zionists do the same thing, insisting that Jews are simply members of a religion and are not an ethnic group, and hence have no right to part of Palestine. Indeed, an Israeli academic, Shlomo Sand, recently published a controversial book entitled “The Invention of the Jewish People.”
The whole thing is somewhat ironic, given that the critics don’t seem to know that left-wing theoreticians like the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawn claim that all nations are “constructed” by clever elites and are thus “inventions.”
Back when Golda Meir was prime minister of Israel, she famously said that there are no such people as the Palestinians. She meant that until the 1960s they had no separate consciousness as “Palestinians” (a simple geographic term, and a fuzzy one, at that).
They were called “Arabs” when they revolted against British rule in the Palestine Mandate in 1936-39 and when the 1947 partition plan, which called for “Arab” and “Jewish” states, was passed by the UN.
It was the “Arab Higher Committee,” led by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, which opposed the creation of Israel by the Jews (who of course weren't yet “Israelis,” either).
Prior to 1948, Jews used the term Palestinian more than the Arabs did. The Jerusalem Post newspaper used to be called the Palestine Post. And during the Second World War, more than 5,000 Jewish volunteers from Palestine were organized into three battalions of the Palestine Regiment.
But never mind all that. People who say they’re a nation are one, it’s that simple. They define themselves, and don’t get defined by others. So of course the Palestinians are now a nation. Like every other nation, they have, so to speak, invented themselves – just the way Americans, Canadians, and others did before them.
Whether invented or not, there are now two nations within the old Palestine Mandate – Israelis and Palestinians. Each should have a state.
Friday, December 09, 2011
Arguing for Real Gender Equality
Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer
Our society is obsessed by numbers. Statistics hold us spellbound. Everything is reduced to percentages, sometimes to the exclusion of more meaningful measures. But figures can mislead, especially in politics.
For instance, statistics regarding the composition of assemblies by gender in themselves tell us little about democracy or the empowerment of women.
In our own 2011 federal election, 25 per cent of the seats were won by women. That number has, in fact, been increasing, and that’s good.
But in Ecuador the National Assembly, after their 2009 election, included 40 women out of 124 members, 32 per cent, thanks to gender quotas.
In the recent balloting in Tunisia, won by an Islamic party, women took 29 per cent of the seats, again, because of a quota system.
And in Rwanda, the election of 2008 saw 45 of 80 seats in the Chamber of Deputies occupied by women, a full 56 per cent – because 24 women, two from each province and from the city of Kigali, were elected on women-only ballots.
Yet who would honestly say that women are better off in those less fortunate and less democratic countries than here?
Former Communist states also made sure that women were well represented in their parliaments. Why not? It’s not as if the women could wrest power from the Communist apparatchiks – almost all men – who actually ran the state.
In fact, many of the women legislators in today’s sham democracies are mere pawns, their names placed on proportional representation lists to do the bidding of the male “bosses” who run the political parties and to make the countries these men govern “look good” to the outside world.
These women haven’t really been elected as individuals in their own right. And the parliaments in which they sit, in any case, exercise little power.
It’s more façade than reality, often propagandistic and superficial window dressing.
We may have fewer women in our Canadian legislatures, but we know that they have actually been selected to run for office in a party’s open nomination meeting and have then won a competitive race within their riding.
They can exercise the same degree of power, and represent their constituents just as competently, as any of their male colleagues.
And as time moves on and prejudices lessen, women will indeed reach gender parity – for real.
Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer
Our society is obsessed by numbers. Statistics hold us spellbound. Everything is reduced to percentages, sometimes to the exclusion of more meaningful measures. But figures can mislead, especially in politics.
For instance, statistics regarding the composition of assemblies by gender in themselves tell us little about democracy or the empowerment of women.
In our own 2011 federal election, 25 per cent of the seats were won by women. That number has, in fact, been increasing, and that’s good.
But in Ecuador the National Assembly, after their 2009 election, included 40 women out of 124 members, 32 per cent, thanks to gender quotas.
In the recent balloting in Tunisia, won by an Islamic party, women took 29 per cent of the seats, again, because of a quota system.
And in Rwanda, the election of 2008 saw 45 of 80 seats in the Chamber of Deputies occupied by women, a full 56 per cent – because 24 women, two from each province and from the city of Kigali, were elected on women-only ballots.
Yet who would honestly say that women are better off in those less fortunate and less democratic countries than here?
Former Communist states also made sure that women were well represented in their parliaments. Why not? It’s not as if the women could wrest power from the Communist apparatchiks – almost all men – who actually ran the state.
In fact, many of the women legislators in today’s sham democracies are mere pawns, their names placed on proportional representation lists to do the bidding of the male “bosses” who run the political parties and to make the countries these men govern “look good” to the outside world.
These women haven’t really been elected as individuals in their own right. And the parliaments in which they sit, in any case, exercise little power.
It’s more façade than reality, often propagandistic and superficial window dressing.
We may have fewer women in our Canadian legislatures, but we know that they have actually been selected to run for office in a party’s open nomination meeting and have then won a competitive race within their riding.
They can exercise the same degree of power, and represent their constituents just as competently, as any of their male colleagues.
And as time moves on and prejudices lessen, women will indeed reach gender parity – for real.
Monday, December 05, 2011
Is the Middle East Edging Towards War?
Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal Pioneer
Current events in the Middle East don’t give us much hope that democracy is the new zeitgeist in the region.
Early results from the first round of the ongoing Egyptian parliamentary election indicate that the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party is winning about 40 per cent of the vote.
Founded in 1928, the Brotherhood is the largest Islamic party in the Middle East, with branches and allies in many countries (including Hamas in Gaza). It was officially banned in Egypt until the ouster of former president Hosni Mubarak.
And the Al-Nour Party, organized by ultra-conservative Islamists called Salafis, who are more extreme than the Brotherhood, appears to be gaining a further 25 per cent of the ballots cast.
These figures might even increase, because the results now tabulated came from the more liberal urban areas, including Cairo itself and Port Said. The second and third stages of voting will take place in more conservative rural areas in the coming months.
Should these numbers hold, the two groups might control at least 65 percent of the parliamentary seats, enough to gain power – should the Egyptian army permit it. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces remains the ultimate power in the land.
“It means that, if the Brotherhood chooses, Parliament can be an Islamists affair -- a debate between liberal Islamists, moderate Islamists and conservatives Islamists, and that is it,” Michael Wahid Hanna, an Egyptian-born researcher at the Century Foundation in Cairo, told the New York Times.
This is a worry for Israel, since the Islamists in Egypt have always opposed the 1979 peace treaty with Israel and would like to abrogate it. An Israeli official acknowledged concerns: “Obviously, it is hard to see in this result good news for Israel.”
Israel has begun building a fence along its long border with Egypt along the Sinai Peninsula desert. It fears that radical Islamic groups will use the Sinai for attacks on Israel.
Also, maintains Geneive Abdo, author of No God but God: Egypt and the Triumph of Islam, no matter which party picks up the most seats in parliament, the new Egypt will be less compliant to American demands and cultivate warmer relations with Iran.
Islamic parties calling themselves moderates have now formed governments in Tunisia and Morocco and will no doubt play a role in Libya as well, with the mercurial Muammar Gadhafi gone. The Libyan dictator was clearly a sociopath, but not particularly devout.
Meanwhile, Iran has been covertly developing nuclear weapons. A Nov. 8 report from the International Atomic Energy Agency was a wake-up call, even for those who have refused to see the danger. The report noted that “Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities” and is also working to develop long-range missiles.
Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, asserted recently that Iran has enough material for four or five nuclear bombs; all that is required is a decision to proceed.
The Islamic Republic proceeds from strength to strength, thumbing its nose at western sanctions. Two months ago the Iranians were accused of hatching a brazen plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington.
And last week the British Embassy compound in Tehran was trashed by a mob of militants, mostly members of Iran’s paramilitary Basiji brigades loyal to Iran’s ruling clerics.
Britain’s ambassador to Iran, Dominick Chilcott, described it as a mix of “mindless vandalism” and “sinister targeted theft.”
British historian Michael Burleigh, author of Blood and Rage: A Cultural History of Terrorism, has stated that “Unless the international community acts in concert to neutralise this danger, there will sooner or later be an Israeli strike to frustrate Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. If that happened, the world really would be in a new dark age.”
Israel must feel as if the noose is tightening around its neck and wonders whether its only real major ally, the United States, would be willing to defend it, should war break out.
U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta recently asserted that Israel is partly responsible for its increasing isolation and that it now must take diplomatic “bold action” to mend ties with its Arab neighbours and come to a settlement with the Palestinians. It is understood that Panetta’s comments are widely shared by U.S. officials.
“Stuck in the Middle With You” was a rock song released by Stealers Wheel in 1972. The refrain went like this:
“Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you.”
Today’s Israeli version might sound like this:
Egypt to the left of me,
Iran to the right, here I am
Stuck in the middle with USA.
Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal Pioneer
Current events in the Middle East don’t give us much hope that democracy is the new zeitgeist in the region.
Early results from the first round of the ongoing Egyptian parliamentary election indicate that the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party is winning about 40 per cent of the vote.
Founded in 1928, the Brotherhood is the largest Islamic party in the Middle East, with branches and allies in many countries (including Hamas in Gaza). It was officially banned in Egypt until the ouster of former president Hosni Mubarak.
And the Al-Nour Party, organized by ultra-conservative Islamists called Salafis, who are more extreme than the Brotherhood, appears to be gaining a further 25 per cent of the ballots cast.
These figures might even increase, because the results now tabulated came from the more liberal urban areas, including Cairo itself and Port Said. The second and third stages of voting will take place in more conservative rural areas in the coming months.
Should these numbers hold, the two groups might control at least 65 percent of the parliamentary seats, enough to gain power – should the Egyptian army permit it. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces remains the ultimate power in the land.
“It means that, if the Brotherhood chooses, Parliament can be an Islamists affair -- a debate between liberal Islamists, moderate Islamists and conservatives Islamists, and that is it,” Michael Wahid Hanna, an Egyptian-born researcher at the Century Foundation in Cairo, told the New York Times.
This is a worry for Israel, since the Islamists in Egypt have always opposed the 1979 peace treaty with Israel and would like to abrogate it. An Israeli official acknowledged concerns: “Obviously, it is hard to see in this result good news for Israel.”
Israel has begun building a fence along its long border with Egypt along the Sinai Peninsula desert. It fears that radical Islamic groups will use the Sinai for attacks on Israel.
Also, maintains Geneive Abdo, author of No God but God: Egypt and the Triumph of Islam, no matter which party picks up the most seats in parliament, the new Egypt will be less compliant to American demands and cultivate warmer relations with Iran.
Islamic parties calling themselves moderates have now formed governments in Tunisia and Morocco and will no doubt play a role in Libya as well, with the mercurial Muammar Gadhafi gone. The Libyan dictator was clearly a sociopath, but not particularly devout.
Meanwhile, Iran has been covertly developing nuclear weapons. A Nov. 8 report from the International Atomic Energy Agency was a wake-up call, even for those who have refused to see the danger. The report noted that “Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities” and is also working to develop long-range missiles.
Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, asserted recently that Iran has enough material for four or five nuclear bombs; all that is required is a decision to proceed.
The Islamic Republic proceeds from strength to strength, thumbing its nose at western sanctions. Two months ago the Iranians were accused of hatching a brazen plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington.
And last week the British Embassy compound in Tehran was trashed by a mob of militants, mostly members of Iran’s paramilitary Basiji brigades loyal to Iran’s ruling clerics.
Britain’s ambassador to Iran, Dominick Chilcott, described it as a mix of “mindless vandalism” and “sinister targeted theft.”
British historian Michael Burleigh, author of Blood and Rage: A Cultural History of Terrorism, has stated that “Unless the international community acts in concert to neutralise this danger, there will sooner or later be an Israeli strike to frustrate Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. If that happened, the world really would be in a new dark age.”
Israel must feel as if the noose is tightening around its neck and wonders whether its only real major ally, the United States, would be willing to defend it, should war break out.
U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta recently asserted that Israel is partly responsible for its increasing isolation and that it now must take diplomatic “bold action” to mend ties with its Arab neighbours and come to a settlement with the Palestinians. It is understood that Panetta’s comments are widely shared by U.S. officials.
“Stuck in the Middle With You” was a rock song released by Stealers Wheel in 1972. The refrain went like this:
“Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you.”
Today’s Israeli version might sound like this:
Egypt to the left of me,
Iran to the right, here I am
Stuck in the middle with USA.
Thursday, December 01, 2011
A Student Newspaper Best Indicator of Intellectual Vibrancy on Campus
Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian
There are many ways to gauge the excellence of a university, and ranking them has become a major growth industry. But my favourite is one that seems never to be used as an indicator: the excellence of the student newspaper.
I write as someone who has over the years become familiar with many student publications. I obtained degrees from universities in Britain, Canada and the United States, and I taught at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania, a liberal arts school, and the University of Calgary, a big research institution, before coming to the University of Prince Edward Island.
A friend who lives in Montreal has been sending me copies of the McGill Daily, McGill University's main student paper. (There is more than one.)
And in reading the wide variety of news articles and opinion pieces, as well as the in-depth coverage of the arts and sciences, I find that the paper is, professionally and intellectually, the equal of any college paper - or, for that matter, most daily newspapers. (Full disclosure: four decades ago, I was a student at McGill and also a contributor to the Daily.)
The Daily has a storied history: this year marks the centenary of its founding, and through the decades many famous names have appeared on its masthead and in its by-lines. During the 1960s and 1970s, it was in the forefront of student activism and radical politics. That tradition continues: it is still far to the left of most Canadian newspapers, including those published at universities.
If the Daily is a reflection of McGill's student body, then the university remains a vibrant academic institution, where "critical thinking" is a reality and not merely a PR platitude.
And this relates to my main point: Naturally, McGill and similar world-class universities have a more outstanding faculty than a smaller school such as UPEI - though I can think of some professors here who would not be out of place teaching there.
But the real difference probably lies in the student body itself. At UPEI, we have many excellent, even outstanding, students, but not the same "critical mass" found at larger places like McGill. And so we do not have the same climate of intellectual inquiry.
Much of real learning goes on outside the classroom, in lounges, the union, the library, and elsewhere, places where students interact, issues are debated, and heated arguments may ensue about matters that are not just "on the exam" or related to grades.
Of course, it helps that students at McGill, the University of Toronto, and similar big-city Canadian schools are exposed to more in the way of culture than those studying in smaller towns.
Obviously, Charlottetown can never match that.
In the U.S., many large universities are located in college towns which serve the same function: they provide the cultural and political milieu of an urban centre without, so to speak, the rest of the city.
So it's unfair to compare a small school like UPEI - which in any case has offsetting advantages, such as smaller classroom sizes and better faculty-student ratios - to big research universities.
But it never hurts to aim higher. And we are indeed doing just that.
Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian
There are many ways to gauge the excellence of a university, and ranking them has become a major growth industry. But my favourite is one that seems never to be used as an indicator: the excellence of the student newspaper.
I write as someone who has over the years become familiar with many student publications. I obtained degrees from universities in Britain, Canada and the United States, and I taught at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania, a liberal arts school, and the University of Calgary, a big research institution, before coming to the University of Prince Edward Island.
A friend who lives in Montreal has been sending me copies of the McGill Daily, McGill University's main student paper. (There is more than one.)
And in reading the wide variety of news articles and opinion pieces, as well as the in-depth coverage of the arts and sciences, I find that the paper is, professionally and intellectually, the equal of any college paper - or, for that matter, most daily newspapers. (Full disclosure: four decades ago, I was a student at McGill and also a contributor to the Daily.)
The Daily has a storied history: this year marks the centenary of its founding, and through the decades many famous names have appeared on its masthead and in its by-lines. During the 1960s and 1970s, it was in the forefront of student activism and radical politics. That tradition continues: it is still far to the left of most Canadian newspapers, including those published at universities.
If the Daily is a reflection of McGill's student body, then the university remains a vibrant academic institution, where "critical thinking" is a reality and not merely a PR platitude.
And this relates to my main point: Naturally, McGill and similar world-class universities have a more outstanding faculty than a smaller school such as UPEI - though I can think of some professors here who would not be out of place teaching there.
But the real difference probably lies in the student body itself. At UPEI, we have many excellent, even outstanding, students, but not the same "critical mass" found at larger places like McGill. And so we do not have the same climate of intellectual inquiry.
Much of real learning goes on outside the classroom, in lounges, the union, the library, and elsewhere, places where students interact, issues are debated, and heated arguments may ensue about matters that are not just "on the exam" or related to grades.
Of course, it helps that students at McGill, the University of Toronto, and similar big-city Canadian schools are exposed to more in the way of culture than those studying in smaller towns.
Obviously, Charlottetown can never match that.
In the U.S., many large universities are located in college towns which serve the same function: they provide the cultural and political milieu of an urban centre without, so to speak, the rest of the city.
So it's unfair to compare a small school like UPEI - which in any case has offsetting advantages, such as smaller classroom sizes and better faculty-student ratios - to big research universities.
But it never hurts to aim higher. And we are indeed doing just that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)