They do not necessarily die when they are attacked - Great Britain survived the Blitz. They do not necessarily die when they are conquered - much of Western and Eastern Europe survived two world wars and the Cold War. They do not necessarily die when they are split into smaller components - the Byzantine Empire was separated and came back together (much smaller the second time, to be sure) and the Russia of Old split and reformed into the Soviet Union and split and reformed (again) int the Commonwealth of Independent States (more or less in the same configuration as before).
They die when the idea of them dies and there is no longer a sense of "them". That the old country is simply not worth living for (or dying for) anymore. That no-one is a member of the British Empire or Byzantine Empire or Russian Empire but rather Welsh or Greek or Lithuanian.
The belief, of course, is that when this happens they will be replaced by something "better" - a rather nebulous term that assumes that the only thing that makes a nation or a state function is a belief in the worth of its existence and the nature of its existence. Economy, social life, entertainment, religion - all of these are assumed to just continue on in the spirit of "one big happy family".
The reality, of course, is quite different.
When something as fundamental as a nation or a state is ended, there are really only two kinds of people: those that rejoice in its end and those that mourn it. Those that rejoice perhaps often feel that those who mourn will just accept it and come around to see all of the benefits and glory of the new world. What they do not grasp is that a fundamental relationship, that of citizen to citizen, has been broken.
If the state or nation is undermined, thereby dying, the relationship between citizens also (by default) dies: there is neither a legal nor enduring relationship, only a proximate relationship (in this case, both parties still happen to live in the same geographic location as before). Think of it precisely as a divorce: two parties, once sharing everything - relationship, possessions, social life, money - are now separated by law and while they (temporarily) may live in the same house, their legal relationship as husband and wife have now ended.. They have nothing holding them together but those lesser items - possessions, social life, money.
Think of the "best" divorce you have known. And think of the "worst" one you have known. A great deal of that depends on the maturity of the individuals involved of course, and how bitter the divorce was. For those that were bad, how often - if ever - does the former spouse want to associate with, speak of, or even speak of their former husband or wife? Pretty much not at all.
When the belief that the marriage will not go farther, when the conviction sets in that there is nothing for it but separation, at that moment the concept of the marriage dies. You cannot undermine significant parts of the relationship - by overspending, by infidelity, by constantly running down your spouse - and then expect them to joyfully still want to remain in the marriage. In fact, in most cases they want to do nothing but get as far away from the former husband or wife as possible.
It is when the individual - or individuals - determine that they are better off by themselves or with more like minded individuals that the nation or the state dies. And it is that moment that those that were actively pushing for its destruction are suddenly shocked to see that individual citizens are truly walking way - not just with their beliefs but with their money, their talents, their energy. At that moment, those that are the destroyers will cry out "Where are you going? Why are you not committed to building the glorious new structure for a bright future? Are you so selfishly motivated as to not care about your fellow citizens?"
The response will be "Talk to my lawyer".
We are the victims of redefinition. Nations and marriages and families are based on a shared understanding of roles and responsibilities. Your analogy of the family is a good one. What if one of the parties involved decides to redefine marriage? Your marriage may survive. What if they then redefine sexuality? And parenting?
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that as the family goes... so go the communities, the the states and provinces and ultimately the nation.
Glen, a book I read a long time ago suggested the same thing, although I would have to go back and find the research as it is difficult for me to call to mind societies where that relationship existed (not saying it is not there, just that I cannot recall).
DeleteThe problem with redefinition of course, is once that cat is out of the bag you cannot put it back in. Redefinition becomes allowable for all - say, for example, people that want to redefine themselves as a new state or even nation. Under the rules that "redefinition is fine", it has to be allowed.
At the dinner table last night, my oldest son said "We're on our way to becoming two separate countries." I told him he was probably right. It's pretty bad when the best hope you can have is that that we only become TWO countries.
ReplyDeleteChina is sitting, watching, waiting....
Pete, that is a good point. Only two countries would be the best outcome, smaller and more would be worse.
DeleteAnd of course China (and Russia) are just watching, biding their time. They probably need to nothing at this point except to watch us devour ourselves and retreat inwards.