Culture
Forgetting the context associated with the content of the conversation, I made a quick reply to an associate's comment a few days ago. The subject was culture. My reply was that of the pedant One who, according to one Webster's definition, "puts unnecessary stress on minor or trivial points of learning, displaying a scholarship lacking in judgment or sense of proportion."
We were in a serious meeting. My associate was referring to Ukrainians' and (I think this had something to do with education) Americans' respective upbringings. His comment alluded to the greater culture that Ukrainians tended to have than the more uncouth (my word) Americans. I use the word uncouth pejoratively here. I was offended.
He was referring to the greater exposure Ukrainian youth had in their classrooms to music, art, literature, history, etc. The litany may have been less, or more, or different. It doesn't matter. My reply was altogether - well - stupid.
I said something like: "But they don't learn how to run a trotline." A poor attempt at humor (and a put down). Of course, my friend, being a Yankee (this terminology refers to any American not born in a certain 11 states; north or west or wherever in the USA direction having not a whit to do with the matter) had no idea what I meant by trotline.
Heck, maybe I had in mind the great Russian writer Chekhov who loved to fish, maybe more than he loved to write I've heard. Yeah, probably Chekhov used to run a trotline. But not really likely.
What had flashed through my Mississippi noggin was the seemingly prevalent notion that Europeans, generally, and Russians (I use Russian rather than Ukrainian here not without reason), in particular, have some superior form of cultural resonance (maybe it's thought inborn or comes through a breeding pattern) than the more untutored Americans. Ukrainians, like we Mississippians, tend to fall, in more superior minds, into a strata that leaves us certainly on the less-cultured side, relative to all others when being categorized with them, I mean.
This idea of cultural exclusivity finds many adherents among more elite Americans. Nowhere does this seem more so to me than in certain elements of the expat community in Europe. In fact once some Americans "cross the pond" they magically, it seems (by osmosis perhaps?), acquire this cultural affinity.
Here in Kyiv most of the expats I see and converse with tend to be British. This habit of associating with the Brits I'm confident owes less to personal preference than to location; that is, the location of my flat to favored bars. Brits are real Europeans (I think) so they are, ipso locquitur, cultured. But our cultured conversations are more about football (i.e. soccer), sex and routine business matters. Not necessarily in that order, and business is not that important. Oh music comes up, but seldom is the opera or symphony mentioned. History too. Some jokes and stories are so old as to qualify as such.
Culture. What is it? Some definitions from the Web:
• Culture refers to the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations;
• Culture is the systems of knowledge shared by a relatively large group of people;
• Concepts of the universe, and material objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in the course of generations through individual and group striving.
Maybe along the line I've missed a point but taken together the above falls into my thinking as to what culture really is. And I don't want to take away from my associate's legitimate point that some American education and, in particular its focus, is limited. I fall into that group that strongly favors more teaching of history, literature and the arts in American primary and secondary schools. And, if it is taught, I believe more will "stick" and we will have a better, more well-rounded citizenry, even a more cultured one. More people will appreciate "the finer things."
Alas though, some will always fall through the cracks. They will think good music is country and zydeco. That a symphony is one of those funny drums that sissies have to play when the high school band is in concert rather than marching toward the football stadium on a Friday night. That The Tennessee Waltz is old enough and good enough to be classical music. That a picture of a hunter's bird dog pointing in the pastureland that hangs over the fireplace mantel is high art. That history is when the story of great-great uncle Mose Robbins spotting the Yankees coming near Lafayette Springs is retold. And, even maybe that sport-shooting water moccasins before running the morning trotline is not only fun, it's high culture.
Alliances and Allies
There has been a lot of talk and reporting these days of alliances. Particularly discussions of military alliances, of NATO, the Atlantic alliance. National mutual security agreements are the topic.
Some famous historian or politician or some such, maybe British, I'm not sure, frequently gets credited with saying something like "nations don't have alliances, they have interests." I said "something like." It's probably a bad recollection from an exactness standpoint. But I think it true and likely the same sentiment that has been expressed over time by many.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to much criticism, made a reference a year or more ago to "old Europe." This offended many. Note: Secretary Rumsfeld has been offensive to many on many subjects of late, so that probably isn't the prime reason he is so much-maligned these days.
Presidential hopeful John Kerry leads many in criticism of President Bush as having offended many of our allies.
The Bush administration recently announced the closure of some European outposts and the "bringing home" of some troops from Europe, Japan and South Korea. U.S. military personnel have been in these places nigh on 50 years. Their numbers about a decade ago were almost twice what they are now. The process is a continuing one of "bringing home" and redeployment.
Some of the criticism of Rumsfeld and Bush I'm sure is on point as relates to these matters. But in the course of history the tides do not run long on lasting alliances. Rather like the tide, they ebb and flow.
Always, even the alliance presently discussed has been often tenuous and turbulent. Remember Suez, DeGaulle's withdrawal, the problems with military overflights in conflicts past and in other times and circumstance. The U.S. mostly stood by while its most faithful ally, Great Britain, fought a war in the Falklands.
The French? Allies with whom? Ever? A chance relationship on occasion these past 200 years or so, for the United States anyway. Does any other nation want to volunteer for a permanent relationship with our Gaulish friends?
Germany? An ally to whom else in NATO this century past? And why? Think about it: There is one paramount reason. The French have the same reason.
France and Germany seem mostly with whom turmoil has been about lately. And mostly with all. Or most. Not just the United States. Forget NATO. Exactly in whom do France and Germany have common interests in the European Union? Particularly, in the EU's newer members?
Are France and Germany better allies than Turkey? Will France and Germany be better allies for the United States and Britain in the future than several of the newer members of the European Union? Or of Turkey, Japan? Or maybe, even Ukraine or Russia (though a longshot there).
My point is simply this: Who knows right now? We live in interesting times. We will all, I think, watch the tides. Alliances will be built where there are genuine common interests. They will last as long as those interests and the perception of need requires.
It has always been so.
|
