I've had enough! I'm sick to death of reading about the Clinton-versus-Obama bickering. I have absolutely no interest in reading about what the religious right thinks of McCain. Nor do I want to read any more about Spitzer and his thousand-dollar hooker (and people thought Edwards' haircut was extravagant). Given the typical US media coverage, you'd think the rest of the world didn't exist at all!
Sad thing is, I suspect many Americans do know the rest of the world exists...they just don't give a fuck. This would explain why our local news stations keep trying to outdo each other in providing "local news...the news you care about." It's possible citizens of every country are similarly indifferent to foreign events, but I doubt that's the case. My friends and relatives who live in various countries in Asia can readily converse about world news and politics. In contrast, I've had to explain to a group of college educated, upper middle class, big city-dwelling Americans what I was talking about when I referred to the genocide in Rwanda. Fucking pathetic.
I could rant and rave about this for a while, but what I really wanted to write about is Kosovo. Kosovo recently declared independence from Serbia and became the Republic of Kosovo, although this received little attention here. But what one might expect to be a joyous occasion has been marred by subsequent protests by Kosovar Serbs. These events raise many difficult questions about how (1) the right to self-determination, (2) coexistence of different demographic groups, (3) economic and political viability, and (4) the interests of other countries affect the formation of a new autonomous state.
It's easy to support the right of self-determination for Kosovar Albanians, but what about the Serbian minority? Are they to become Kosovar citizens against their will, or will there be a mass exchange of people such as that of Hindus and Muslims between India and Pakistan following the end of British rule? Is the Republic of Kosovo a viable state capable of self-government? Will it be in permanent conflict with Serbia as Israel is with some of its Arab neighbors? Will Serbia and Kosovo become new pawns in the political machinations of Russia and NATO?
To be honest, I find it ironic that countries which have experienced foreign occupation or rule, as Serbia has under both the Ottoman and Hapsburg empires, do not seem to develop greater empathy for the nationalist struggles of others. In any case, there doesn't seem to be any easy answers to these questions, and it's likely Kosovo's first few years as an independent nation will be rocky.
Why am I so interested in Kosovo? I'm generally interested in world events and politics, but this is probably also a mild case of transference. These issues are similar to those facing two countries in which I am deeply interested. Both of those countries have experienced significant political changes recently, and I am just dying to blog about these events. But I'm wary of providing information about my past that may compromise my anonymity. So for now, I'll just have to settle for blogging about the politics of other countries.
Currently ...
1 hour ago
9 comments:
These problems are always so complex. Plus, there always seem to be access issues, to both religous (e.g. holy places) and economic (e.g. access to ports or natural resources) stuff.
NPR has had some coverage of recent events in Kosovo. The station here has a BBC news show in its lineup, as well as a locally produced show about world events, so it might have more international coverage than many. Still, I was shocked after the V Tech shooting when the BBC Newshour had that as its only topic. Certainly, that couldn't have been the only newsworthy thing that happened that day in the entire world. It made Americans seem so much more important than anyone else, which made me feel sad. Of course, I was sad about the VTech shootings too, so it was a sad day all around.
I can totally understand why major domestic events get lots of US media coverage. I think what pisses me off is the attitude of some people that foreign events don't directly affect them, and therefore there's no reason to be interested in or informed about them. It's an extremely narrow-minded and short-sighted mentality because these events all eventually affect America somehow. Kosovo's independence, for example, may affect American troop participation in NATO forces in the Balkans, and will certainly affect US-Russian ties given that the US officially recognized Kosovo's statehood while Russia has pledged support to Serbia.
MadHatter, I have been upset about this on more than one occasion! To some Americans, it is like the rest of the world hypothetically exists, but really doesn't matter. Unless they send led-tainted toys to American stores. Pathetic.
Good point about the toys--that definitely got people's attention! And for a period of time after that, there was a definite increase in media coverage of manufacturing/export issues in China. But I'm guessing it will die down eventually and we'll go back to the usual Britney-Lindsay-Paris rotation.
The thing is the general public usally does not know much more than what they hear from the news about these countries. If news reports focus on the negative, then the general public knows only the negative. I think it contributes to prejudices to foreign immigrants.
A journalism professor once told me that the entire Africa was pretty much invisible according to the US news media because the US was not trading with any Africa country, nor were we fighting with any of them, so no one would be interested in reading any of it. Read = no journalist was interested in covering any of it.
I don't like journalists very much by the way, especially when there are stories that they don't want to cover, and then they blame the public for not interested in reading. ::rolling eyes::
Honestly, and this is probably the American in me talking, but I don't get why every ethnic group needs their own damn country. People co-existed semi-peacefully in Europe for years, and I don't get why everyone now feels like they have to have their own little area with only people of their race.
I feel the same way about India. I believe that Partition (the separation of Pakistan and India) was a mistake. And I don't support this tendency in India now to call things by "state languages/names" instead of the more national name. For example how Bombay is now called Mumbai because Mumbai is the Maharati word for the city. It's retarded. Bombay was never a city before colonization. It never had a Maharati name. It's ORIGINAL name is Bombay, not Mumbai. No one ever took a Maharati city and gave it a different name. And it pisses me off that now Mahrashtrians are co-opting what is a global city with a global name and calling it by some name they made up with none of the historical significance of the name Bombay. (Full disclosure: I am half Maharati.)
Hmmm... guess I had a lot to say about that one!
Doc-in-Training--I agree that media coverage is skewed, and that unbalanced coverage can contribute to prejudice. But I don't think ignorance and indifference can all be blamed on journalists. There are many other sources of information besides the news, and the general public must assume more responsibility than simply sitting back and expecting to be spoonfed.
Arduous--Yes, it would definitely be impractical for every ethnic group in existence to have its own country. But that doesn't mean that some of the ethnic groups that want to have their own country aren't justified. And the purpose of independence isn't necessarily just to have one's own little ethnic club.
There are no countries with complete racial equality, but there are some that don't even view racial equality as a goal to strive for. I have lived as an ethnic minority in a country that practices racial discrimination openly and legally as part of its governmental policy to advance the ethnic majority. I wouldn't advocate that the people of my race secede from my home country, but minorities in more oppressive countries may reasonably view independence as their primary means of escaping bigotry and persecution.
And it's not always about race either. The separation of India and Pakistan was, I believe, largely about religion. Separation can also be based on culture. I can't think of any actual examples of a culturally distinct region declaring independence (although Quebec clearly has some inclination), but one example of a territory which could legitimately want independence based on cultural differences (among other things) is Hong Kong.
Ideally, races, religions, and cultures would all coexist peacefully, but this isn't always the case. And in some situations, separation may be preferable to prolonged civil war.
...but one example of a territory which could legitimately want independence based on cultural differences (among other things) is Hong Kong.
and Taiwan (from China)
Definitely!
Post a Comment