Question: How do you define citizenship?
David Maine:The second sure, I mean, I think anybody who spends time outside of their native country will probably have a different view of their native country, than the person who doesn’t do that. I don’t think that’s particular to me. I mean I just think expats, they compare where they are and where they are from and they are influenced by that. Now, many people who leave their country become rah-rah patriots from the country back home, so it isn’t like it always happens the same way. But I think it does, generally speaking, happen. As for a citizenship, now actually, it hasn’t changed my opinion that much. I am one of these kids, I was born in ‘63 and I went to school in the ‘70s, and we are taught to...it's your duty to vote, and it’s your duty to stop the red lights and signal, it's your duty to be a productive member of civil society in to don’t litter and all that stuff, I mean I still believe all that. I've lived in a couple of countries where people haven’t been able to vote very much and where they don’t throw their litter in bins very often, and if any thing it’s just reinforced my understanding that simple civics is really, really important. It’s not enough. You have to have, I think, a view that extends beyond the boundaries of your voting district or whatever. But it is very important. I don't...I am not disdainful of it or anything.
Recorded on: 2/20/08
Discuss
shawn disney on May 31, 2009, 2:57 PM
“Citizenship” implies a Nation. Over 400 years of this , we have allowed the intitial vagueness of its meaning to reach a now dangerous condition: a great number of “Nations” are actually “Failed States”, with a number of pathologies that follow. The reason is almost always a function of not being able to achieve a civilized consensus because of “minorities”, i.e. culturally alien groups who are frequently marginalized or outmaneuvered, and are not real “Citizens”. But rather than deal with this upfront, we seem to prefer to insist on the reality of “countries” which have little or no ethnic commonality. “Divide and conquer” is useful to dictators as well as empires, but it is made easier by our blind assumption that being in a “country,” even a multi-ethnic one, is an overwhelming benefit, which may even justify military intervention to achieve (temporarily). disigny
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register