11-09-2006, 01:24 PM
For any who may care to remember, long after I'm gone, what my opinions were regarding the "micronational" phenomenon, I think the following exchange really sums-up the philosophy which I have always embraced. I leave it for everlasting remembrance:
<_<
<_<
Quote:
Duke of Brunswick
I've talked to a couple of adults about micronations, but most of them have been in situations where they simply have to sit there and say "Oh, right, very interesting..." I find the people who accept it most easily are people who commonly participate in online communities - I suppose it's a kind of stepping stone.
Actually, when I was discussing it, and they asked "So what are you in this kingdom" (or words to that effect), and I replied "Uh, I'm a, uh, a Lord..." they found that idea much more amusing than the micronation thing in general.
Duke of Marchmain
In my own case, most everyone I know expects me to be involved in something bizarre, so when I matter-of-factly ask, "would you like to be a lord in my landless kingdom," as if there were nothing odd about the question, no one thinks me any nuttier than they had previously and a number of friends and relatives have willingly obliged. Most of them nevertheless neglect to address me as "sire" or kiss my hand upon greeting me, and this irks me.
I'm always careful to avoid using the term "micronation" when discussing the subject. To explain "micronations" is to invite those "you really are disturbed and pathetic, aren't you?" looks. People simply don't respond to that type of thing very well unless they're political junkies. But when you offer people the chance to become a "lord" in a "kingdom" and present it in a somewhat playful manner, people do respond to that.
That having been said, my co-workers still find it annoying when I hollar "chop, chop! The King, the King!" before entering a room.
wjtmcintyre
Dang nab it... where is the red carpet and trumpet when you need them...
I call us a people in diasphoria instead of a micronation
Duke of Marchmain
Yes, well it seems that some people have gotten it into their heads that micronations are some sort of movement or religion that other people have to be recruited into or converted to. They've even named their religion: "micronationalism". To me that's a strange take on the situation and to invite an outsider to become involved with an alternative nation in that way is an effort which is doomed to failure from the beginning.
If I want someone to become involved with the Kingdom of Varennes, for example, I'll present it in just that way: becoming involved with the Kingdom of Varennes. I will not invite individuals to become involved in "micronationalism". I have several friends (and members of the royal family) who became citizens of both Hanover and Varennes who are completely in the dark as regards "micronations". The term is not in their vocabulary, they are oblivious to the phenomenon and that's fine. "Micronationalism" is a whole lot of strange baggage that alot of people won't care to open much less carry around.
These--I say with hesitation--"out of the loop" subjects of mine don't have to become a part of "world-wide micronationalism". They don't have to know the history of or even be aware of the presence of other "micronations" in order to fully enjoy their participation in my kingdom. They don't need to know who "Emperor Norton" was (I'll never understand how the deranged claimant to the "imperial throne" of the United States became the patron saint of "micronations"), who Peter Ravn Rasmussen is, who Robert Ben Madison is or who "Claudio" is. Why they don't even have to know who Christopher Thieme is. They don't need to know how many times Vincent III disappeared or be aware of the teachings of the Treesian Unorthodox Church. They needn't be aware of the words "micras" or "apolloism". They don't need to be told that Sealand is not an amusement park with killer whales that jump through hoops.
I've long thought and still maintain that "micronationalism" is a silly, losing notion. One doesn't create a national community in order to simply become part of a hobby or an "ism". One creates a national community for a specific purpose, because there are no communities already in existence which meet the needs--emotional, ideological, intellectual or otherwise--of a people which has begun to form itself together due to a strong common bond of one sort or another.
In forming your community, it will afterwards be classified as a "micronation" by larger entities simply because that's the fact of the matter, not because your community has aspired all along to become a "serious micronation". Your community aspires to be a nation, of course, perhaps one day a landed state. "Micronation" defines your community's size, not its character or its raison d'etre. Most citizens and even leaders of landless national communities seem to utterly lose sight of their purpose or perhaps never really had a purpose to begin with. As a result, things like "micronationalism" arise in place of the meaning which once existed in individual national ventures.
They best way to bring newcomers into the Kingdom of Hanover is to invite them to join the Kingdom of Hanover, plainly and simply. Let them figure out the rest on their own if they care to and leave them be if they don't.
Duke of Brunswick
The thing about your Talossan-style isolationism, James, is that in refusing to recognise and care about other micronations, you miss out on part of the total experience. Micronations, whatever else they do, are meant to simulate the functions of macronations, wherever possible, and a large part of the function of a macronation (depending on its political philosophy) is diplomacy. Obviously, micronations don't have much chance engaging in diplomatic communiction with Great Britain, or even Lesotho, and that's where fellow micronations come in.
If you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a micronational community wider than just your own micronation, and the history and traditions of that community, you're just as backward as those insular tribal communities which still live with stoneage tools.
Duke of Marchmain
Well, of course, this only serves to illustrate my point and to underscore our two conflicting philosophies on the matter...and just how wrong you are in comparison to my infallible rightness on this and any other matter upon which our opinions diverge.
WHEREAS you have tended to be amongst those who look at "micronationalism" as a hobby and those non-participants in the hobby as "isolationists", I on the other hand view the nation, not an "ism", as the end in itself, and not a mere component part of a quirky subculture.
To label that which I have described as "Talossan-style isolationism" seems silly to me. Let me just say in the first instance that I believe you err in trying to stigmatize Talossa in that way. Talossa is a large, active and dynamic community which really has developed a strong national identity and which is posessed of so many of those elements and procedures which truly define that community as a nation. The fact that it doesn't have an ambassador at the Court of St. James doesn't seem to rob them of their national qualities, neither their lack of an ez-board embassy in, say, Cyberia.
Of course, to me, the creation of a national community isn't about accurately simulating anything, but rather involves the faithful recreation and maintenance of national and state elements in order to govern the affairs of the community and, through their resemblance to the institutions and elements of macronations, to lend a sense of pride and legitimacy to the nation. In the want of desire or need for simulation, the lack of an active diplomacy with other nations becomes utterly unimportant, because one can have a meaningful foreign policy which defines the nation's outlook on the world, regardless of whether or not it's ever put into action.
At any rate, the thrust of my remarks had little to do with whether or not a nation is "isolationist" or not. Whether or not this or any other nation decides to conduct diplomatic relations with other similarly small nations will (or at least ought to) be based upon benefits which will be received from such an encounter or on account of a friendship which has evolved and not because we believe in creating some sort of alternate world of small nations quite apart from the real world. The various "mapping" projects serve to illustrate just how far that bizarre sort of "we live on a different planet" mentality has gone. So I am not an isolationist, necessarily, only I think that diplomatic relations arise on account of needs, events or relationships. I don't think that they are simply confected in order to take part in or to identify the nation with some nebulous phenomenon.
The primary discussion here, however, regards how to approach prospective citizens and my main point was to say that not all prospective citizens are going to want to immerse themselves into the "micronational" phenomenon, which many would think cultish and distasteful, something akin, perhaps, to Dungeons & Dragons. Adults, in particular, will be more inclined to join a particular community than to become part of some strange "ism". Different people respond to different things.
New citizens shouldn't be asked to be baptized into the entirety of "micronationalism" in order to take part. Some people who might find themselves interested in taking up citizenship in this or another national community may not care at all to take part in the "total experience", as you call it. For many, their participation as a citizen in a given nation might just be their "total experience" and what could be wrong with that? Gamblers who want to play poker get together to play poker, not to feel themselves a part of the larger gambling community.
I don't see what a citizen devoted to one particular nation is "missing" by not spreading himself thin and burning himself out jumping from ezboard to ezboard as if the point of citizenship was to post comments and accept an endless portfolio of positions in a motley of different governments. Citizenship, to my way of thinking, should be a commitment and not merely one of many stamps to be collected and added to a posting board signature.
That one might invite a potential citizen to take part in a given community without throwing "micronationalism" at him is all I really meant to say and I think what I've said represents an entirely valid approach to enticing new citizens. I don't see that such an approach has anything, necessarily, to do with isolationism.
I've talked to a couple of adults about micronations, but most of them have been in situations where they simply have to sit there and say "Oh, right, very interesting..." I find the people who accept it most easily are people who commonly participate in online communities - I suppose it's a kind of stepping stone.
Actually, when I was discussing it, and they asked "So what are you in this kingdom" (or words to that effect), and I replied "Uh, I'm a, uh, a Lord..." they found that idea much more amusing than the micronation thing in general.
Duke of Marchmain
In my own case, most everyone I know expects me to be involved in something bizarre, so when I matter-of-factly ask, "would you like to be a lord in my landless kingdom," as if there were nothing odd about the question, no one thinks me any nuttier than they had previously and a number of friends and relatives have willingly obliged. Most of them nevertheless neglect to address me as "sire" or kiss my hand upon greeting me, and this irks me.
I'm always careful to avoid using the term "micronation" when discussing the subject. To explain "micronations" is to invite those "you really are disturbed and pathetic, aren't you?" looks. People simply don't respond to that type of thing very well unless they're political junkies. But when you offer people the chance to become a "lord" in a "kingdom" and present it in a somewhat playful manner, people do respond to that.
That having been said, my co-workers still find it annoying when I hollar "chop, chop! The King, the King!" before entering a room.
wjtmcintyre
Dang nab it... where is the red carpet and trumpet when you need them...
I call us a people in diasphoria instead of a micronation
Duke of Marchmain
Yes, well it seems that some people have gotten it into their heads that micronations are some sort of movement or religion that other people have to be recruited into or converted to. They've even named their religion: "micronationalism". To me that's a strange take on the situation and to invite an outsider to become involved with an alternative nation in that way is an effort which is doomed to failure from the beginning.
If I want someone to become involved with the Kingdom of Varennes, for example, I'll present it in just that way: becoming involved with the Kingdom of Varennes. I will not invite individuals to become involved in "micronationalism". I have several friends (and members of the royal family) who became citizens of both Hanover and Varennes who are completely in the dark as regards "micronations". The term is not in their vocabulary, they are oblivious to the phenomenon and that's fine. "Micronationalism" is a whole lot of strange baggage that alot of people won't care to open much less carry around.
These--I say with hesitation--"out of the loop" subjects of mine don't have to become a part of "world-wide micronationalism". They don't have to know the history of or even be aware of the presence of other "micronations" in order to fully enjoy their participation in my kingdom. They don't need to know who "Emperor Norton" was (I'll never understand how the deranged claimant to the "imperial throne" of the United States became the patron saint of "micronations"), who Peter Ravn Rasmussen is, who Robert Ben Madison is or who "Claudio" is. Why they don't even have to know who Christopher Thieme is. They don't need to know how many times Vincent III disappeared or be aware of the teachings of the Treesian Unorthodox Church. They needn't be aware of the words "micras" or "apolloism". They don't need to be told that Sealand is not an amusement park with killer whales that jump through hoops.
I've long thought and still maintain that "micronationalism" is a silly, losing notion. One doesn't create a national community in order to simply become part of a hobby or an "ism". One creates a national community for a specific purpose, because there are no communities already in existence which meet the needs--emotional, ideological, intellectual or otherwise--of a people which has begun to form itself together due to a strong common bond of one sort or another.
In forming your community, it will afterwards be classified as a "micronation" by larger entities simply because that's the fact of the matter, not because your community has aspired all along to become a "serious micronation". Your community aspires to be a nation, of course, perhaps one day a landed state. "Micronation" defines your community's size, not its character or its raison d'etre. Most citizens and even leaders of landless national communities seem to utterly lose sight of their purpose or perhaps never really had a purpose to begin with. As a result, things like "micronationalism" arise in place of the meaning which once existed in individual national ventures.
They best way to bring newcomers into the Kingdom of Hanover is to invite them to join the Kingdom of Hanover, plainly and simply. Let them figure out the rest on their own if they care to and leave them be if they don't.
Duke of Brunswick
The thing about your Talossan-style isolationism, James, is that in refusing to recognise and care about other micronations, you miss out on part of the total experience. Micronations, whatever else they do, are meant to simulate the functions of macronations, wherever possible, and a large part of the function of a macronation (depending on its political philosophy) is diplomacy. Obviously, micronations don't have much chance engaging in diplomatic communiction with Great Britain, or even Lesotho, and that's where fellow micronations come in.
If you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a micronational community wider than just your own micronation, and the history and traditions of that community, you're just as backward as those insular tribal communities which still live with stoneage tools.
Duke of Marchmain
Well, of course, this only serves to illustrate my point and to underscore our two conflicting philosophies on the matter...and just how wrong you are in comparison to my infallible rightness on this and any other matter upon which our opinions diverge.
WHEREAS you have tended to be amongst those who look at "micronationalism" as a hobby and those non-participants in the hobby as "isolationists", I on the other hand view the nation, not an "ism", as the end in itself, and not a mere component part of a quirky subculture.
To label that which I have described as "Talossan-style isolationism" seems silly to me. Let me just say in the first instance that I believe you err in trying to stigmatize Talossa in that way. Talossa is a large, active and dynamic community which really has developed a strong national identity and which is posessed of so many of those elements and procedures which truly define that community as a nation. The fact that it doesn't have an ambassador at the Court of St. James doesn't seem to rob them of their national qualities, neither their lack of an ez-board embassy in, say, Cyberia.
Of course, to me, the creation of a national community isn't about accurately simulating anything, but rather involves the faithful recreation and maintenance of national and state elements in order to govern the affairs of the community and, through their resemblance to the institutions and elements of macronations, to lend a sense of pride and legitimacy to the nation. In the want of desire or need for simulation, the lack of an active diplomacy with other nations becomes utterly unimportant, because one can have a meaningful foreign policy which defines the nation's outlook on the world, regardless of whether or not it's ever put into action.
At any rate, the thrust of my remarks had little to do with whether or not a nation is "isolationist" or not. Whether or not this or any other nation decides to conduct diplomatic relations with other similarly small nations will (or at least ought to) be based upon benefits which will be received from such an encounter or on account of a friendship which has evolved and not because we believe in creating some sort of alternate world of small nations quite apart from the real world. The various "mapping" projects serve to illustrate just how far that bizarre sort of "we live on a different planet" mentality has gone. So I am not an isolationist, necessarily, only I think that diplomatic relations arise on account of needs, events or relationships. I don't think that they are simply confected in order to take part in or to identify the nation with some nebulous phenomenon.
The primary discussion here, however, regards how to approach prospective citizens and my main point was to say that not all prospective citizens are going to want to immerse themselves into the "micronational" phenomenon, which many would think cultish and distasteful, something akin, perhaps, to Dungeons & Dragons. Adults, in particular, will be more inclined to join a particular community than to become part of some strange "ism". Different people respond to different things.
New citizens shouldn't be asked to be baptized into the entirety of "micronationalism" in order to take part. Some people who might find themselves interested in taking up citizenship in this or another national community may not care at all to take part in the "total experience", as you call it. For many, their participation as a citizen in a given nation might just be their "total experience" and what could be wrong with that? Gamblers who want to play poker get together to play poker, not to feel themselves a part of the larger gambling community.
I don't see what a citizen devoted to one particular nation is "missing" by not spreading himself thin and burning himself out jumping from ezboard to ezboard as if the point of citizenship was to post comments and accept an endless portfolio of positions in a motley of different governments. Citizenship, to my way of thinking, should be a commitment and not merely one of many stamps to be collected and added to a posting board signature.
That one might invite a potential citizen to take part in a given community without throwing "micronationalism" at him is all I really meant to say and I think what I've said represents an entirely valid approach to enticing new citizens. I don't see that such an approach has anything, necessarily, to do with isolationism.