My advice to Indians
I don't mean to return to my previous post on "Empire and Nation Building," in response to David Yeagley's long article "The Meaning of Nationhood in a Globalist Society." But, here is the reason why I reacted so strongly to it.
I got thinking: “why did Yeagley attributed a phrase to me which I have never written (or thought), and what was his purpose for using that phrase?”
Despite my presence on his forums, describing historical contexts surrounding modern Ethiopia, he decided to close himself off intellectually the information I was providing.
But, that is not really a problem. What is interesting is that he used an incorrect paraphrase of mine, to forward an ideology of his, which ultimately goes back to his Indianness and his relationship to America.
In his essay, he divides the world into two sections: the Soros globalist types, and the tribalists who just want to be with their own kind. I was suggesting something in between. There are many points in history when countries consolidate their surrounding areas into one entity for many different reasons. Even the cross-continental empires that the Europeans built weren’t some type of Islamic Ummah bent on subjugating the whole world. In fact, many European colonized countries welcomed their colonizers initially. Many reaped the exponential benefits they received from these colonizers. It just so happens that Ethiopia falls under these “colonizers” and empire-builders, an enterprise which started in the 18th century, and was completed in the 18th century.
It is this third interpretation that Yeagley left behind in his long thesis. And, his imagination (and stereotyping) attributed my ideas and positions to leftist ideologies by saying, “Kidist Paulos Asrat believe[s] the African nations are all quite artificial, with boundaries superimposed by European imperial powers.” But, I have previously said that Yeagley himself has leftist/liberal takes on Indians' situation.
There are many implications to this quote, some of which are that I think the European powers harmed these tribal people (I don’t. I think the benefits they gave them surpasses any harms they may have done); that these boundaries are useless (I actually think they work reasonably well, and the problems in Africa cannot be solely attributed to “artificial” boundaries); that Africa needs to be re-divided (this unrealistic and potentially dangerous. More irresolvable issues can easily arise by this rearrangement).
It is perhaps normal that all roads lead to Indian country in Yeagley’s exploration of ideas. So, naturally, his long thesis has to deal with the American colonizers of Indian tribes. I still don’t know how Yeagley ties American Indians with America proper. He seems to advocate semi-autonomous Indian regions, living under the auspices of treaties. This sounds like a “having your cake and eating it too” proposition. I understand it is a complicated position to be in: a colonized (or defeated) group that has to find the best possible way to react to the reality of this world order. But, I think Indians should simply stop their quest for an over-philosophized understanding of their world, and simply turn to practical and pragmatic matters. Get jobs; clean up the reservations; stop depending on government handouts; resolve the treaties in a manner that doesn’t leave them dependent on “free” money; try to assimilate. Perhaps one thing none of them have thought to do: be a little more humble. I mean this in the spiritual sense. Understanding what God has put before them.