- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
- Messages
- 26,292
- Reaction score
- 23,983
- Location
- PNW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
A post of mine got me thinking about this conception of international relations, and I wanted to expand on it and discuss it among friends.
Peoples often think of themselves, collectively, as having a particular heritage or "national character". Ideologues and despots often tap into that Zeitgeist to manipulate their people, but the concept goes way beyond that. Indeed, it sometimes hampers international relations.
I'll give some stereotypes to justify these assertions: Americans like to think of themselves as "rugged individualists" who conquered the continent and the markets through brash individualism; The UK has thrived by "keeping a stiff upper lip" - the one that once kept them "large and in charge" and got them through two world wars; Iranians like to think of themselves as master strategists, manipulating conditions to their advantage, and once controlled much of the middle East; Turks, too, remember wistfully the Ottoman Empire and also want control as they did then; Russians like stability and emotional control; Koreans have a storied history and have suffered from outside control through much of it.... I can go on, and y'all can disagree vehemently.
Nonetheless, I think it is important in international relations to recognize some of these predilections in order to better understand motivations for various actions. For example: North Korea's desire to be a hermit kingdom, and resistance to outside influence; Russian expansionism and nostalgia for it's two empires; Chinese defensive imperialism; Iranian meddling in it's neighbor's affairs; Turkish defensiveness and desire for ethnic purity.
Food for thought, and discussion.
Peoples often think of themselves, collectively, as having a particular heritage or "national character". Ideologues and despots often tap into that Zeitgeist to manipulate their people, but the concept goes way beyond that. Indeed, it sometimes hampers international relations.
I'll give some stereotypes to justify these assertions: Americans like to think of themselves as "rugged individualists" who conquered the continent and the markets through brash individualism; The UK has thrived by "keeping a stiff upper lip" - the one that once kept them "large and in charge" and got them through two world wars; Iranians like to think of themselves as master strategists, manipulating conditions to their advantage, and once controlled much of the middle East; Turks, too, remember wistfully the Ottoman Empire and also want control as they did then; Russians like stability and emotional control; Koreans have a storied history and have suffered from outside control through much of it.... I can go on, and y'all can disagree vehemently.
Nonetheless, I think it is important in international relations to recognize some of these predilections in order to better understand motivations for various actions. For example: North Korea's desire to be a hermit kingdom, and resistance to outside influence; Russian expansionism and nostalgia for it's two empires; Chinese defensive imperialism; Iranian meddling in it's neighbor's affairs; Turkish defensiveness and desire for ethnic purity.
Food for thought, and discussion.
Last edited: