4 Comments:

Thank you, Jake, for your comment on my comment. It´s rather reassuring to know you're not typing in the wind.
Maybe some details would deserve a bit more attention from me, but it would easily turn into a rather long text. So I'll just stick to those I find to be important for the idea you are making of me right now (as I am making one of you too, the key to any human relationship.)
I've always lived in Portugal. The destiny of Africa is not alien to me. The more languages I've learned throughout my life (yes, I'm already of a «certain age», which also gives me a better perspective of the world I've been living in for almost half a century now), the more I've been able to understand European diversity, the better I feel towards individuals and the worse I feel towards administrations, governments and politicians, from wherever they may come.
Since I left University and became a linguist (I cherish Chomsky very much, both as a scientist and as a concerned citizen) and a teacher, I've never lost track of what goes on in the world. But you couldn't have guesed it, I know.
If Portugal stayed in Africa much longer than it should and became a ridiculous, obsolete dictatorship in Western Europe long after the end of WW II, we have to thank that to the American administration (and not to the American people; here's the main difference!) that decided it was more important to have an air base in the Azores than to overthrow that obnoxious Salazar. (Do you get my point now?)
The next issue is «crusading for democracy worldwide, while serious matters at home are just put aside»: i) crusades have always proven wrong; ii) «you shouldn't demand from your neighbour what you are not able of achieving in your own house.»
For all it matters, I have no intention - I've never had - of revising/bleeching/laundrying Portuguese history. It's almost 900 years old, needs no «intervention» from me, speaks openly for itself, for better and for worse. All I want to prevent is the confusion that nowadays seems so easy to create, especially by the media, between citizens (oh yes, there's no public opinion, only published opinion!) and governments. I am a Portuguese citizen, but in many situations I have no intention whatsoever of backing up my government. Why? Am I somehow some kind of traitor? No. I guess we all know by now that governments protect interests that, most of the time, have very little to do with the well-being of citizens. This seems to be the way Western democracies have been following for the past, say, some decades. If I consider that a perversion of the system? Definitely, no doubt about it!
Dear Jake, I hope your youthful thinking may help me to reassess my ideas. I wouldn't be here (on the Web, I mean) if it weren't for that.
Greetings and best wishes!

By  Anonymous, at 7:19 PM  

As much as I would like to say something really smart, I only got a B International Political Relations, and even that was a struggle... But I can talk circles around Constitutional, Criminal and Healthcare Law... Now that makes for a good debate, as long as martinis are involved!!

By  beachgirl, at 7:53 AM  

Ricardo, I did indeed get your point. Salazar is a perfect example of the Cold War glasses I mentioned earlier. Portugal's strategic location and anti-communist leadership was key to overlooking its authoritarian rule.

This was not just the United States. Much of Western Europe was upset with Salazar's refusal to turn loose of his dreams of colonial power. But not enough to push him so much as to alienate him from the struggle against the Soviets.

Keep in mind that Portugal was allowed to participate in the Marshall Plan -- even though Portugal was officially neutral in the war. (The Azores were used by the Allies; but Portugal continued economic trade with the Axis powers.) This was done for only one reason: to keep the communists out of Western Europe.

Of course, you know all this. I'm only pointing it out for the other two people following this exchange. :-)

By  Jake McCafferty, at 5:46 PM  

As far as this kind of debates is concerned, I try to keep three different areas separate: i) facts, which make History; ii) theories & concepts, which make historiography; iii) ethics, especially in relation to politics and political history. It's mainly this third point I'm interested in for it seems to be the only one open for personal contributions. I'm neither a historian nor a historiographer, but I can take position as to the way events are used to fit in this or that interpretation. Ideology and personal political convictions play here a major role.
As Ortega y Gasset put it, I am myself and my circumstance. I was rather young when Salazar's New State was overthrown. Always bearing in mind what that regime meant for several generations, I feel no sympathy whatsoever for the Right, which in Portugal has proven to be shortsighted, mental retarded and able of the most imbecile, cruel acts and attitudes. But this is not exclusive of Portugal, I know.
Knowing that economic forces - mainly anonymous, acting preferably in the shadow, using politicians as mere loudspeakers, and creating events for their own profit and content - are nowadays paramount, I'm sure the role of an attentive citizen is that of evaluating how these processes unfold, which is not minor a task.
These forces are since the Industrial Revolution - and mainly after WW II - what nobility and gentry were in the Ancien Régime. So altruistic is definitely not a word to characterize their intentions, let alone what they go on spreading worldwide.
Any other picture, even if colourful and bright enough, is not my cup of tea at all.

By  Anonymous, at 9:01 AM  

Post a Comment