Historical experience tells me that this is possible. That historical experience also tells me that it doesn't happen until things break down to a certain point. The actual locus of that point is a contingent factor (how much is the normal population willing and able to put up with before it acts).
Historical experience tells me that this is possible. That historical experience also tells me that it doesn't happen until things break down to a certain point. The actual locus of that point is a contingent factor (how much is the normal population willing and able to put up with before it acts).
One of our big problems is that the system (whatever that system is) tends to work hard to project/create a sense of normalcy. The media with its both-siderism and pursuit of profit (and its increased atomization). The political parties playing at business as usual. The sullen acceptance of the "regular" people because that is what they )think) they are stuck with--and things aren't So bad after all, right?
It is less, I think, complacency than it is a fear of making things worse. The fear of making things worse (or of change per se) holds things in place until things get bad enough that people are willing to take the chance.
People can only affect change through either through cultural change over time or by spasms of activity (usually in th4e form of violence).
It is going to require the mass of Palestinians to repudiate what is currently their "leadership" structure (both HAMAs and the Palestinian Authority).
“ It is less, I think, complacency than it is a fear of making things worse. The fear of making things worse (or of change per se) holds things in place until things get bad enough that people are willing to take the chance.”
This is a moment among many when I feel that international examples of violence recapitulates domestic violence in families. (I probably have that inverted; domestic violence recapitulates international violence). The same psychological forces are in play.
You're right that that "breaking point" has to happen before a population turns on their militant overlords, and maybe that will or won't happen in our lifetimes. But it IS possible. A counter-point to what I said is that the Sunni-Shia civil war was young when the Sunnis turned their back on AQI, whereas the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has gone on for a very long time and has become embedded in the culture on both sides. That's a whole lot of generational momentum to overcome that wasn't present in Iraq necessarily--albeit, the Shia had suffered under Sunni autocratic rule since 1963--so this isn't necessarily apples to oranges.
It's kind of like William T Sherman's outlook on protracted warfare: “War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.” I think he was talking about the necessity for a "breaking point" to end warfare, and that cruelty and overwhelming suffering is what is often necessary to bring that "breaking point" about. That's why he burned down the South. The story of Imperial Japan tells a similar story when it came to defeating their own religious martyrdom culture after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sometimes a peoples need to look cultural and societal extinction in the eye before collectively throwing in the towel.
When I use the phrases: there is no solution or a solution is not possible; it doesn't mean that there aren't solutions.
Indeed, solutions can usually be identified or are actually know/recognized.
A solution is not possible because there isn't sufficient motivation for the necessary CHANGE. The existing cultural/political inertia cannot be overcome.
It cannot be overcome because existing conditions are not bad enough to drive change. People are getting by. There is not a strong enough perception (because it is often a matter of perception) to drive change.
This is why we are continually kicking the can down the road. People are unwilling to change the existing state, so issues are ignored or short term "solutions" are applied. Reference the various "compromises" that occurred in the lead up to the Civil War.
Things actually have to get pretty bad to drive change. That badness has to be immediate and clear. But (again) realize that this is a function of PERCEPTION.
The perception of threat to the institution of slavery by the Southern master class (and the essential nature of that institution) were enough to precipitate a crisis.
Except their action led to the swift demise of what they sought to preserve.
By the same token, the efforts to preserve racism and sexism in the US may well precipitate the crisis that effectively ends them as they currently exist.
A substantive number of people are absolutely resistant to change. Change is dangerous--and better the danger and discomfort that you know, than the unknown danger and discomfort that might arise. Even people who will ultimately benefit from change will tend to resist it.
Better the devil you know.
This makes it VERY difficult to proactively change things to stop the bad. The bad must, in essence, happen for the change to happen.
An autocratic system can force/coerce change (but not always successfully and not always in a functional direction). A democratic system usually cannot until the crisis point is reached.
One can see history as a series of crises that drive change. Think of it as evolutionary pressure, shifts in environment that are either adapted to or that cause extinction.
And, because we often do not change until a crisis hits, the change is not managed well. It turns into something akin to a crapshoot. You never know where you will end up (which only contributes further to a fear and avoidance of change).
Historical experience tells me that this is possible. That historical experience also tells me that it doesn't happen until things break down to a certain point. The actual locus of that point is a contingent factor (how much is the normal population willing and able to put up with before it acts).
One of our big problems is that the system (whatever that system is) tends to work hard to project/create a sense of normalcy. The media with its both-siderism and pursuit of profit (and its increased atomization). The political parties playing at business as usual. The sullen acceptance of the "regular" people because that is what they )think) they are stuck with--and things aren't So bad after all, right?
It is less, I think, complacency than it is a fear of making things worse. The fear of making things worse (or of change per se) holds things in place until things get bad enough that people are willing to take the chance.
People can only affect change through either through cultural change over time or by spasms of activity (usually in th4e form of violence).
It seems clear that there is no hope for improvement until Hamas is replaced by a leadership that is serious about wanting a diplomatic settlement.
Don't hold your breath, everyone.
It is going to require the mass of Palestinians to repudiate what is currently their "leadership" structure (both HAMAs and the Palestinian Authority).
Yup. That's what I was thinking. I'm inclined to think I will never see that day. But maybe I'm just a pessimist.
“ It is less, I think, complacency than it is a fear of making things worse. The fear of making things worse (or of change per se) holds things in place until things get bad enough that people are willing to take the chance.”
This is a moment among many when I feel that international examples of violence recapitulates domestic violence in families. (I probably have that inverted; domestic violence recapitulates international violence). The same psychological forces are in play.
You're right that that "breaking point" has to happen before a population turns on their militant overlords, and maybe that will or won't happen in our lifetimes. But it IS possible. A counter-point to what I said is that the Sunni-Shia civil war was young when the Sunnis turned their back on AQI, whereas the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has gone on for a very long time and has become embedded in the culture on both sides. That's a whole lot of generational momentum to overcome that wasn't present in Iraq necessarily--albeit, the Shia had suffered under Sunni autocratic rule since 1963--so this isn't necessarily apples to oranges.
It's kind of like William T Sherman's outlook on protracted warfare: “War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.” I think he was talking about the necessity for a "breaking point" to end warfare, and that cruelty and overwhelming suffering is what is often necessary to bring that "breaking point" about. That's why he burned down the South. The story of Imperial Japan tells a similar story when it came to defeating their own religious martyrdom culture after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sometimes a peoples need to look cultural and societal extinction in the eye before collectively throwing in the towel.
Some key things that need to be understood:
When I use the phrases: there is no solution or a solution is not possible; it doesn't mean that there aren't solutions.
Indeed, solutions can usually be identified or are actually know/recognized.
A solution is not possible because there isn't sufficient motivation for the necessary CHANGE. The existing cultural/political inertia cannot be overcome.
It cannot be overcome because existing conditions are not bad enough to drive change. People are getting by. There is not a strong enough perception (because it is often a matter of perception) to drive change.
This is why we are continually kicking the can down the road. People are unwilling to change the existing state, so issues are ignored or short term "solutions" are applied. Reference the various "compromises" that occurred in the lead up to the Civil War.
Things actually have to get pretty bad to drive change. That badness has to be immediate and clear. But (again) realize that this is a function of PERCEPTION.
The perception of threat to the institution of slavery by the Southern master class (and the essential nature of that institution) were enough to precipitate a crisis.
Except their action led to the swift demise of what they sought to preserve.
By the same token, the efforts to preserve racism and sexism in the US may well precipitate the crisis that effectively ends them as they currently exist.
A substantive number of people are absolutely resistant to change. Change is dangerous--and better the danger and discomfort that you know, than the unknown danger and discomfort that might arise. Even people who will ultimately benefit from change will tend to resist it.
Better the devil you know.
This makes it VERY difficult to proactively change things to stop the bad. The bad must, in essence, happen for the change to happen.
An autocratic system can force/coerce change (but not always successfully and not always in a functional direction). A democratic system usually cannot until the crisis point is reached.
One can see history as a series of crises that drive change. Think of it as evolutionary pressure, shifts in environment that are either adapted to or that cause extinction.
And, because we often do not change until a crisis hits, the change is not managed well. It turns into something akin to a crapshoot. You never know where you will end up (which only contributes further to a fear and avoidance of change).
This is another really well put thread. You have been on fire lately. Well done
Fair point