from the world's big
Noam Chomsky: Writer, linguist... anarchist?
Throughout his career, the famous philosopher has been trying to correct people's misconceptions about anarchy. Here's some of his thinking.
- Anarchism is usually connected to violence and chaos, but as a philosophy, its tenets are more nuanced than mere destruction for destruction's sake.
- It may surprise some to find out that Noam Chomsky, famous for his innovations in linguistics and philosophy, describes himself as an anarchist.
- Whether you agree with him or not, understanding anarchism can lead to a better understanding of our society and its politics.
What comes to mind when we think of an anarchist? Most likely, it's some punk wearing a bandana throwing Molotov cocktails at riot-control officers. We don't typically imagine anarchists as elderly, soft-spoken professors, but there's probably more of the latter than one would think.
Best known for his revolutionary work in linguistics and cognitive science, Noam Chomsky is an avowed anarchist. It seems a like a contradiction. Anarchy is so often portrayed as chaos for chaos's sake, a perverse impulse to implode a society that's the product of thousands of years of social progress. What business does a celebrated thinker have advocating for something that seems so fundamentally thoughtless?
Our conception of anarchy has been colored by its most visible proponents — the black-clad protester breaking shop windows with a baseball bat and spray-painting a circled "A" in red. But, like most philosophies, anarchism and anarchists come in a variety of flavors. Mohandas Gandhi, for instance, has been described as an anarcho-pacifist. Noam Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist.
What is anarchism?
While anarchism may not be 100 percent focused on dismantling the current system, it would be disingenuous to say that that is not a fundamental tenet. In a 2013 interview, Chomsky explained how he sees anarchism and its role:
"Primarily, [anarchism] is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can't justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just. And, as I understand it, anarchy is just that tendency. It takes different forms at different times."
By labeling himself as an anarchist, Chomsky is stating that he doesn't believe the institutions and systems that underpin our society are just. In essence, this is the heart of anarchism; the current system is illegitimate and must be dismantled to be replaced with something better. Popular culture just has a tendency to focus on the dismantling part rather than the illegitimacy part.
A Brazilian protester holds up a black flag with the anarchism symbol. This may be the popular vision of an anarchist, but it would be an oversimplification to paint all anarchists with the same brush. Photo credit: YASUYOSHI CHIBA / AFP / Getty Images
How is anarcho-syndicalism different?
So, what does Chomsky advocate as a replacement to the current system? Here's where the "syndicalism" part of "anarcho-syndicalism" comes in. Chomsky and others in his school of thinking argue that capitalism is inherently exploitative and dangerous: a worker rents their labor to somebody higher up in the hierarchy — a business owner, say — who, in order to maximize their profit, is incentivized to ignore the impact of their business on the society around them. Instead, Chomsky argues, workers and neighbors should organize into unions and communities (or syndicates), each of which makes collective decisions in a form of direct democracy.
Chomsky's arguments, though, like many philosophers' arguments, often fails to dive into the nitty-gritty of how such a world would actually function. Fortunately, we don't have to speculate: an anarcho-syndicalist government has existed before. During the Spanish civil war, eight million Catalonians actually established an anarchist society, albeit briefly. There was no hierarchy; rather, farms, factories, and businesses were all managed by the people who worked them as equals. Writers such as George Orwell described the Catalonian anarchy in glowing terms, but we also have to attribute these sources with a certain amount of bias (Orwell had fought for the anarchists during the war, after all). And, only 10 months after it started, the anarcho-syndicalist society was undermined by Stalinists and promptly dissolved.
An anarchist militia part of the National Confederation of Labor and Iberian Anarchist Federation (CNT-FAI), two long-standing, affiliated anarchists organizations that established a brief anarcho-syndicalist government during the Spanish Civil War. Image source: Wikimedia Commons
Like any revolutionary idea, Chomsky's anarcho-syndicalism has its criticisms. In whatever socialized version of the future it produces, for instance, how would a nation defend itself? First, Chomsky points out that the U.S. Defense Department has very little to do with defense—rather, it preserves American interests abroad and contributes to the economy through the production of weaponry. To this point, Chomsky admits the possible failures of anarcho-syndicalism:
"I don't want to be glib. It might need tanks, it might need armies. And if it did, I think we can be fairly sure that that would contribute to the possible failure or at least decline of the revolutionary force […] That is, I think it's extremely hard to imagine how an effective centralized army deploying tanks, planes, strategic weapons, and so on, could function. If that's what's required to preserve the revolutionary structures, then I think they may well not be preserved."
This problem, though, is just an aspect of a larger issue with the political philosophy. How will a nation-wide collection of unions and communities coordinate to address big issues, like climate change or planning the economy? To deal with this, Chomsky suggests we broaden our concept of what a union or worker's council might be: "Let's take expertise with regard to economic planning, because certainly in any complex industrial society there should be a group of technicians whose task it is to produce plans, and to lay out the consequences of decisions […] They produce plans in exactly the same way that automakers produce autos. The plans are then available for the workers' councils and council assemblies, in the same way that autos are available to ride in."
That's all well and good, but without the promise of a wage, why would anybody want to produce economic plans or build cars? And what about unpleasant work such as garbage collection? Here, Chomsky suggests that most people underestimate how much people value work for its own sake. He suggests that people would do hard work because freely choosing to do hard work can be intrinsically rewarding. As for the truly nasty work like cleaning and garbage collection, Chomsky suggests that every member of a community should contribute equally to accomplishing these unpleasant chores. He also points out that though this would be unpleasant, it would be preferable to the current system, where only those who will starve to death without a wage would choose to undertake such tasks.
The big picture
Whether you agree with Chomsky or not, considering his arguments for a different society can be beneficial. At the core of anarchism is the rejection of unjust hierarchies. Often, defenders of capitalism will say that it may not be the best system, but it's the best one we have. (As a quick note, Churchill is often misattributed as saying "Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others"; he may not have actually said this, but the sentiment of the quote is germane). This might be true, but it's also easy to use this as an excuse to allow its inherent injustices to go unchecked. Understanding how an intellectual giant like Chomsky could reasonably consider a crazy, radical system like anarchy can underscore the failings in our current system — that way, we can at least start working toward making a better society, which is really what all political arguments are about anyhow.
- Big Think Sits Down With Noam Chomsky - Big Think ›
- What happens when anarchists run a country? - Big Think ›
Sallie Krawcheck and Bob Kulhan will be talking money, jobs, and how the pandemic will disproportionally affect women's finances.
New book focuses on some of the world's most peculiar borderlines.
- Borders have a simple job: separate different areas from each other.
- But they can get complicated fast, as shown by a new book.
- Here are a few of the bizarre borders it focuses on.
Simple in theory<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM4Mjk1NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNTMyMzk1NX0.Qrzz1NidF-34YifuyHPPNg-cw1Fbd1_6iX6O7zGBF3Q/img.jpg?width=980" id="49560" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="cdc1c568091fd1c8d52555f6ee96752b" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="\u200bThe island of M\u00e4rket has a strange border dividing it into a Swedish and a Finnish half. Why? Because of a misplaced lighthouse." />
The island of Märket has a strange border dividing it into a Swedish and a Finnish half. Why? Because of a misplaced Finnish lighthouse (shown on the western half of the island).
Image reproduced by kind permission of HarperCollins<p>What separates us humans from other animals? The use of tools or language? The invention of God or music? The ability to blush? (According to Mark Twain, we're the only animal that can – or needs to). The jury is still out. For a swifter verdict, ask what separates humans from each other. Quite literally, it's borders.</p><p><span></span>Those borders can be the subtle separators of culture and class; the more tangible distinctions of race and gender; or the physical demarcations between this country and that. The job description for political borders is simple and straightforward enough: draw a line between areas with different rules (and rulers). But, as shown in a new book, those lines are not always straight and simple. </p><p>For reasons geographical, dynastic, military or otherwise, things on the ground can get quite complex quite fast. In "<a href="https://www.harpercollins.co.uk/9780008351779/the-atlas-of-unusual-borders-discover-intriguing-boundaries-territories-and-geographical-curiosities/" target="_blank" style="">The Atlas of Unusual Borders</a>," map enthusiast Zoran Nikolic zooms in on some of the world's most egregious examples of border weirdness. Here are a few samples from the recently published book. <br></p>
The Cypriot puzzle<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM4Mjk1NS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMDg5OTYyMX0.hx59ZmkR_zenzDGZPA-M25fhu7OXBgXfSjgqba9z050/img.png?width=980" id="6dcfc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b9c4e878a7b1c682b905b4462c2b6791" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Ideally, \u200bCyprus shouldn't have any internal borders at all." />
Ideally, Cyprus shouldn't have any internal borders at all. Then, history happened.
Image reproduced by kind permission of HarperCollins<p>Cyprus is a good example of the distance between theory and practice. As an island nation, it shouldn't even have land borders. Yet the small Mediterranean country is riven with borders, establishing four different political entities.</p><p><span></span>The oldest Cypriot border only goes back to 1960, when the island gained its independence from Britain. The former colonial overlord retained two large military bases, covering a total of 3 percent of the island's territory. Today, Akrotiri and Dhekelia – strategically close to the Middle East – remain under British control. </p><p><span></span>But while Akrotiri, near the city of Limassol, is a single, contiguous lump of land, Dhekelia, the other 'Sovereign Base Area', seems designed to make life difficult for the Cypriots: a tentacle pokes through in the direction of the island's eastern shore, almost touching Varosia, a former jet set hotspot just south of Famagusta, now a dystopian no man's land. The main body of Dhekelia is dotted with numerous exclaves of Cypriot sovereignty, containing two entire villages and one power station.</p><p><span></span>Dystopian no man's land? That goes back to 1974, when Turkey invaded, to help Turkish Cypriots set up their own, internationally unrecognised state in the north of the island. The as yet unresolved nature of that conflict is symbolised by the Green Line, separating the official, Greek-majority south of the island from the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus – recognised only by Turkey itself. That Green Line is not actually a line, but a UN-administered buffer zone, wide enough to contain the island's <a href="https://www.worldabandoned.com/nicosia-airport" target="_blank">former international airport</a>, for example. </p><p>The 1974 conflict has also stranded a Turkish-Cypriot coastal town south of the line. Erenköy (in Turkish; Kokkina in Greek), in the west, is a ghost port, a small Turkish garrison its only occupants. In the east, the Green Line intersects with the already complicated borders of Dhekelia, cutting off a large part of Greek Cyprus from its 'mainland'. However, traffic with the rest of Greek Cyprus is possible via Dhekelia, ensuring a steady flow of tourists to Ayia Napa, the exclave's main resort. <br></p>
Four Corners Canada<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM4Mjk1OS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxODU2NjE4MH0.F8WNdQQ30ZwOtXPld9DHo97ZHi-rhYUi3uB6X_QP2aY/img.png?width=980" id="00fee" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f020b8c05f36872ba2935c07261404f8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="'Four Corners Canada': \u200bNorth America's other quadripoint, where the Northwest Territory, Nunavut, Saskatchewan and Manitoba meet." />
'Four Corners Canada': North America's other quadripoint, where the Northwest Territory, Nunavut, Saskatchewan and Manitoba meet.
Image reproduced by kind permission of HarperCollins<p>Quadripoints, where four political entities touch in a single point, are rare. The last international one was extinguished after World War I. There is a tangle of borders in southern Africa that comes close – but misses the mark by about 300 meters. At the sub-national level, the United States has its famous Four Corners. After a serious trek through the desert, tourists arrive at what must be one of the loneliest attractions in North America: the monument to the meeting point of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona. </p><p><span></span>Well, that attraction has a potential competitor far north. On April 1 1999, when Canada created the territory of Nunavut, it also created a new quadripoint, where the new territory of Nunavut meets the now reduced Northwest Territories, plus the prairie provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. '<a href="https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Four_Corners_(Canada)" target="_blank">Four Corners Canada</a>' already has its monument: the metal marker on the (former) Northwest-Saskatchewan-Manitoba tripoint. </p><p>However, pending an official land survey, some doubt remains as to whether the legal definition of Nunavut's border actually aligns with reality. Furthermore, 'Four Corners Canada' is located 1,200 km (725 miles) north by northwest from Winnipeg, which makes it vastly more remote than 'Four Corners USA'. So it's doubtful whether North America's newest quadripoint will ever become a tourist attraction. <br></p>
Looters and poachers<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM4Mjk2MC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzIzNjczMX0.TPcNF6wC6byuiibkEaa1Xv2ljpHG1Z3sxBgtiYr_jAQ/img.png?width=980" id="c4ada" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="605689dc8256447af08e7c4c3e129c30" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="\u200bSo small and insignificant is this Russian exclave that it is left off most maps. But don't count on Russia abandoning it." />
So small and insignificant is this Russian exclave that it is left off most maps. But don't count on Russia abandoning it.
Image reproduced by kind permission of HarperCollins<p>Russia's most famous exclave is Kaliningrad, the northern half of what used to be East Prussia. After the disintegration of the USSR and the independence of the Baltic states, it got separated from Mother Russia – yet another burden for the fledgling post-communist state. Amid the confusion and economic collapse of the early 1990s, there was even some talk of just selling it back to Germany. <a href="https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/03/20/if-russia-gets-crimea-should-germany-get-kaliningrad-a33194" target="_blank">No more</a>. A resurgent Russia will no longer tolerate territorial shrinkage. The <a href="https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/663-nil-crimeariver-painting-putin-pouting" target="_blank">annexation of the Crimea</a> was a symbol of the turning tide. </p><p><span></span>So don't expect Russia to give up this little exclave either. Even though, unlike Kaliningrad, it has no strategic value. Sankovo-Medvezhye is a small fragment of Russia misplaced just across its border with Belarus – 35 km east of Gomel, 530 km southwest of Moscow. The two small villages making up the exclave were abandoned after Chernobyl. The population at present is zero. </p><p>Most Russians have never even heard of this particular exclave, and it's so small that it's left off most maps. The only people remotely interested in Sankovo-Medvezhye are looters, who by now have stripped both villages of almost anything of value; and poachers, who use the exclave as a sanctuary both from the Belarus authorities, who can't go there; and the Russian ones, who don't bother. <br></p>
Hamburg-by-the-Sea<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM4Mjk2My9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxOTMzNTgxOX0.fGzTtjTB4LRtpqY19kGjtn__KZGWSxCtSis9yhLLP_Q/img.png?width=980" id="a3fbb" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f2e10c4ed7f2fb78cb707fec98fd42a1" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="\u200bBremen has a coastal exclave? Then Hamburg wants one too!" />
Bremen has a coastal exclave? Then Hamburg wants one too!
Image reproduced by kind permission of HarperCollins<p>Germany is composed of 16 <em>Bundesländer</em> – federal states that typically are big enough to be a small European country on their own, like Bavaria or Brandenburg. Three, however, are Singapore-sized city-states: the capital Berlin, and the North Sea port cities of Hamburg and Bremen – the latter being smallest of all <em>Länder</em>. </p><p><span></span>Those two rival states are mirror images of each other: proud and ancient trading centers, landlocked in or between larger states, accessible to seagoing vessels via their respective rivers. Bremen has the Weser, Hamburg the Elbe. But zoom in further, as this map does, and they're even more alike. </p><p><span></span>At the 1815 Vienna Congress, Bremen obtained direct access to the sea in the shape of an exclave called Bremerhaven – big enough to be visible on most maps of Germany. (Actually, Bremen consists of three separate bits of land: Fehmoor is separated from Bremerhaven by a narrow strip of Lower Saxony. But let's not get distracted).</p><p>What's not so visible, is that Hamburg too has its own sea enclave. In fact, it has three: islands so small they usually don't appear on any map. Thinking it would need a coastal toehold to develop a deep-draft port, Hamburg acquired <a href="https://www.hamburg-tourism.de/das-ist-hamburg/stadtteile/neuwerk/" target="_blank">Neuwerk</a> (current population: 40) and its uninhabited sister island of Scharhörn after the Second World War. </p><p>Those deep-draft plans were eventually shelved, due to cost and environmental protests. A third island, Nigehörn, was created artificially to protect the bird sanctuary on Scharhörn. The three islands are still part of Hamburg, 120 km (75 miles) further up the Elbe, but they are now the anchors of a national park rather than a busy port. <br></p>
From no man's land to microstate<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM4Mjk2NS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNzczMDQxMX0.r6i3Sm4dsHlZ4fj9SjbHCQs18NSlBP0l1ohXq_z7Pt4/img.png?width=980" id="c3a97" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="142b1ed2c886bf272dee38beda8f50b4" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="In a region fought over so bitterly, Siga Island presents a remarkable exception: it is claimed by neither Croatia nor Serbia." />
In a region fought over so bitterly, Siga Island presents a remarkable exception: it is claimed by neither Croatia nor Serbia.
Image reproduced by kind permission of HarperCollins<p>Never set a border in a river. The river will shift, and then you're stuck with a mess made by two lines meandering all over each other. For some prime examples, check out the U.S. states who trusted the Mississippi to provide a neat and easy demarcation between them. </p><p><span></span>It gets worse when international borders are involved, as is the case between Croatia and Serbia. Of course, that border wasn't international until Yugoslavia bloodily tore itself apart in the 1990s. Much of that border is formed by the Danube. And both countries have different opinions of how that river should be used to demarcate the border. </p><p><span></span>Right down the middle, Serbia says. Following old cadastral borders, Croatia maintains. Those cadastral borders follow a previous course of the river, which is why Croatia claims 10,000 hectares on the 'Serbian' side of the river. It also explains why Croatia doesn't claim the 2,000-hectare Siga Island on 'its' side of the Danube – an area not claimed by Serbia either.</p><p><span></span>And there you have it: terra nullius. That's legalese for No Man's Land. However, like nature, geopolitics abhors a vacuum. Rather than wait or both countries to come to a compromise, various parties have sought to lay claim to the grey zone between them, and proclaimed it to be the Free Republic of Liberland, or the Kingdom of Enclava. </p><p>How will this end? While our hearts are with the micro-nationalists trying to do something new here, attempts at secession have generally not gone down well in this part of the world. Get ready to migrate your dreams to cyberspace, Liberlanders. (<a href="https://liberland.org/en/" target="_blank">OK, check!</a>)<br></p>
Room(s) for the Resistance<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM4Mjk2OC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwOTQzOTg3N30.zivB3Dz8jm0fywQ8jlxdGceWKQnWWATDZNrmQRrfelc/img.png?width=980" id="21848" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0714f6a2d5bbf09ab14dd0a8b0e19c00" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="\u200bDuring the Second World War, Hotel Arbez could simultaneously host both German solders (on the French side) and members of the French Resistance (on the Swiss side)." />
During the Second World War, Hotel Arbez could simultaneously host both German solders (on the French side) and members of the French Resistance (on the Swiss side).
Image reproduced by kind permission of HarperCollins<p>About 30 km (20 miles) north of Geneva, La Cure is a small village slap bang on the Franco-Swiss border. Quite literally so: half the village is French, the other half Swiss. The same goes for a bunch of buildings in town: the international border runs right through it. </p><p>One of those is the Hotel Arbez, and while that curiosity might have been a selling point for some of its earlier guests – the border passes through the double bed in the honeymoon suite, for example – during the Second World War, it became a major geopolitical fault line. While France was occupied by the Germans, Switzerland stayed neutral, independent and unoccupied.</p><p>It is said that during the war, on several occasions the French side of the hotel hosted German soldiers and officers, dining on the fine fare of the hotel's kitchen; while members of the French Resistance stayed in rooms on the Swiss side. Naturally, if the Germans had caught the Resistance fighters on the 'French' side of the hotel, it would have ended in an arrest, or worse: a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2Xu6T5gIns" target="_blank">BBC comedy</a>. But as long as they stayed on the Swiss side, they were untouchable – a very practical benefit of Switzerland's famed neutrality. <span></span></p>
A republic of monks<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM4Mjk2OS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMDA2NDM2Mn0.XoQaDkyZs-1Xo-cujHSeTDNF_d3v_UyipQDWpDazjPc/img.png?width=980" id="394c7" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ff22c40777660427fb02397fa9bd0e47" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Athos is a monastic republic, with some peculiar rules. Only men are allowed - exceptions are made for female cats and chickens." />
Athos is a monastic republic, with some peculiar rules. Only men are allowed - exceptions are made for female cats and chickens.
Image reproduced by kind permission of HarperCollins<p>Greece is not one country, but two. The more familiar one, simply called 'Greece', is a medium-sized modern European democracy with its capital in Athens. The other is a religion-based microstate on the easternmost of the three peninsulas of Chalkidiki – the only country in the world inhabited only by men. Its name? <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mXl8C4-M_4" target="_blank">Mount Athos</a>. </p><p><span></span>Named after its highest peak, Athos is sometimes also simply called 'Holy Mountain', because of the 20 monasteries and 2,000 monks on its territory. The monks have been here since the 8th century and have survived centuries of war and occupation (not the exact same monks, obviously). The Greek constitution recognises the Monastic State as a self-governing territory of the Greek state. The governor it sends to Athos is merely an observer. </p><p>For Athos is run by a religious council, made up of one representative per monastery. It has an executive body of four members (the 'Holy Administration'), headed by a CEO (the 'protos'). The monasteries attract monks from all over the orthodox world; residence at Athos gets them automatic Greek citizenship. In order not to disturb the contemplative life of the monks, no females are allowed on Athos. This includes female animals, with two exceptions: hens (to lay eggs) and cats (to catch mice; although one suspects the mice are co-eds too). <br></p>
Where Tasmania meets Victoria<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM4Mjk3MC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyODE5MzUzNH0.7Yp1jG6Mu_s3oExba9OK1cY06LXAvIw3gwzrkscMJug/img.png?width=980" id="7956c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2ad4fae249406dc801ce166f4a91f5fe" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="\u200bTasmania is Australia's only island state, yet it does share a land border with the rest of the country." />
Tasmania is Australia's only island state, yet it does share a land border with the rest of the country.
Image reproduced by kind permission of HarperCollins<p>A small island beyond the island-continent's south-eastern shore, Tasmania is Australia's afterthought; Down Under's own Down Under. It is the only state of Australia that is also an island. And yet Tasmania manages to share a land border with Victoria, the southernmost state on the Australian mainland. </p><p><span></span>It does so entirely by accident. When Tasmania's sea border with Victoria was drawn at a latitude of 39°12' South, it was thought the line crossed open water only. Upon closer inspection, however, the line did cross a tiny island, which an earlier survey had misplaced somewhat. </p><p>Too small and barren to be of any other interest, the rock, originally called North East Islet, was rechristened Boundary Islet, and its sole raison d'être now is to be a geopolitical footnote: the only land border of the island state of Tasmania, and the shortest of all land borders between Australian states: all of 85 m (93 yards). <br></p>
Asterix in the North-West Atlantic<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM4Mjk3Mi9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NTU1Nzk4NX0.tYI0GZmKkN_83hodOmUFSKmQWBgExbjBUPB0Oy2gRpk/img.png?width=980" id="80ecb" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="92e31b6bb260da7681bcfe60ba248744" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="\u200bSt Pierre and Miquelon is the last surviving fragment of what was once the vast North American dominion of 'New France'." />
St Pierre and Miquelon is the last surviving fragment of what was once the vast North American dominion of 'New France'.
Image reproduced by kind permission of HarperCollins<p>Until the mid-18th century, it was the French who were winning North America. They controlled New Orleans in the south, Acadia in the north, and a vast, unbroken stretch of territory in between. Then the Brits kicked them out of Canada, courtesy of the French and Indian War (1754-63), and the Americans bought the remainder off Napoleon in the Louisiana Purchase (1803).</p><p>But did the French give up all their possessions in North America? No! Like Asterix's Gallic village that bravely holds out against the Roman invasion, there is one part of the formerly vast dominion of 'New France' that remains French to this day – St Pierre and Miquelon, two small islands in the North-West Atlantic, 25 km (15 miles) off the coast of Newfoundland (and 3,800 km - 2,350 miles - west of the Metropolitan France). </p><p>If it isn't weird enough to find a slice of France stuck on Canada's eastern seaboard, a look at the territory's Exclusive Economic Zone raises eyebrows even further. The EEZ is the part of the sea over which a state has special rights (without having total sovereignty). The size and shape of St Pierre and Miquelon's EEZ was long an object of dispute between Canada and France. In 1992, an international panel granted the islands the EEZ you see on this map. Extremely elongated, the 200 km (125 miles) long, 10 km (6 miles) wide zone has been compared to a key, a mushroom and (perhaps inevitably) a French <em>baguette</em>. <br></p><p>The reason given for the shape is that it would provide a corridor for French ships to have unhindered access to St Pierre and Miquelon from international waters. However, Canada later exercised its right to extend its own EEZ, stranding the baguette within Canadian waters. Game over, you might think; but only if you're not French.</p><p><br></p><p><em>Zoran Nikolic: </em><a href="https://www.harpercollins.co.uk/9780008351779/the-atlas-of-unusual-borders-discover-intriguing-boundaries-territories-and-geographical-curiosities/" target="_blank">The Atlas of Unusual Borders</a><em>, published by <a href="https://www.harpercollins.co.uk/" target="_blank">HarperCollins</a>. </em></p><p><span></span>Images reproduced with kind permission.</p><p><strong><span></span>Strange Maps #1033</strong></p><p><strong><span></span></strong><em>Got a strange map? Let me know at </em><a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a><em>.</em></p>
The coronavirus pandemic has brought out the perception of selfishness among many.
- Selfish behavior has been analyzed by philosophers and psychologists for centuries.
- New research shows people may be wired for altruistic behavior and get more benefits from it.
- Crisis times tend to increase self-centered acts.
Paul Krugman on the Virtues of Selfishness<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="7ZtAkm6C" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="828936bf6953080e9018307354c0c02b"> <div id="botr_7ZtAkm6C_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/7ZtAkm6C-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/7ZtAkm6C-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/7ZtAkm6C-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> The Nobel Prize-winning economist on the virtues of selfishness.
Evolution Is Moving Us Away from Selfishness. But Where Is It Taking ...<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="cyeqmYCb" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="6c5efecb56456e9acc25cf36935b1826"> <div id="botr_cyeqmYCb_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/cyeqmYCb-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/cyeqmYCb-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/cyeqmYCb-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div>
Exploring Morality and Selfishness in Modern Times<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="02eX1Cag" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="45cc6180db791f32683988fb52faff26"> <div id="botr_02eX1Cag_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/02eX1Cag-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/02eX1Cag-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/02eX1Cag-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> Philosopher Peter Singer discusses the state of global ethics.
Parenting could be a distraction from what mattered most to him: his writing.
Ernest Hemingway was affectionately called “Papa," but what kind of dad was he?