Americans aren't the only ones

Although "nations" are a rather recent phenomenon on the world stage, there is no dearth of supporters who wouldn't trade them for anything. Americans are right at the top of the list, but a lot of others, like Russia, China, a couple of the Southeast Asian group or a few in Africa would like to get in on the deal. I don't know what the fascination is to be honest, just what is it that makes them so desirable?

A lot of you don't get the reason for the question. It's quite clear that we've had nations forever and it's as natural as four seasons in some parts of the world or rain in spring (if you're from the Northern Hemisphere). Actually, prior to 1648 and Treaty of Westphalia, there weren't ever really "nations" in our current understanding of the world, but, hey, why should we let historical facts get in the way of our beliefs? Life is certainly easier when you just pick and choose what suits us rather than getting the bigger picture. Why we have border where we have them or whether they make sense, well, those are issues that have been decided, of course, so there's no need to worry our little heads about them. Or is there?

In the Western Hemisphere (a rather artificial construct, if I may say so) 1776 is a year worth nothing. In the Eastern, however, it's 1789. In both years, revolutions took place and both these revolutions had a significant impact on everything that followed. The former was a conscious (even if perhaps, unnecessary) decision; the latter, a spontaneous act that developed into something that no one foresaw. This raises a question whether revolutions are a matter of choice or fate. I don't know. What I do know, however, is that some folks peg their beliefs on the one, while others will tell you it was the other date that matters. It really doesn't matter at all.

Sometimes I think that the petty and silly animosity between Americans and the French is about who had the "real" or the "true" or the "better" revolution. Depending on who you are reading, one year or the other can be used as marking the shift of humanity into "modernity". Whoopee. So far, no one's been able to make clear to me why that makes any difference at all.

When we look at the facts, we're left with this: a lot of violence occurred, a lot of blood flowed, a lot of innocent people suffered, and a lot of misery was visited upon the participants. In the decades that followed, a lot of violence occurred, a lot of blood flowed, a lot of innocent people suffered, and a lot of misery was visited upon those who benefitted from the "revolutions". And for what? For me, that's the key question.

The reasons for both were more similar than different: injustice, be it because of taxes or the simple ability to feed one's family. The results of both were more similar than different too: a different group of oppressors took over, a lot of people had to pay taxes and couldn't feed their families, and we have a different illusion of what our role is in the grand scheme of things.

Don't get me wrong, there are good things that came out of both. But ... are we moderns really better off than those revolutionaries. I often wonder.