This is engaging in many ways, Tim. Thanks. I kind of remember when “nation” was a thing that could and would be compared to federation, tribe, colony, empire...and also seen as a stage in a definitive political evolution defining the modern world. And however peculiar that seems now, as you may clear in so many ways, the analytical and comparative work on nation has had immeasurable(?) influence on publics and social science.
The commentary is smart and challenging as always, Tim, but not sure what I think of the “women-as-colonizers/imperialists” illustrations. I do realize that woman have always been integral to the imperial project, but they have rarely been the leading lights (not never, but rarely). I get that the images are meant to tweak our expectations for what colonizers/imperialists look like, but somehow I don’t think this works. Imperialism and patriarchal power can’t be readily disentangled—no, nor nationalism and patriarchy, either. For every Flora Shaw there were a thousand Lugards; for every Victoria, there were tens of kings and potentates. This is one case when I’d rather be under-represented that over-represented.
Working with Midjourney--those are AI images. Mostly I was trying to avoid "nations, empires, sovereignty" as represented simply by men, but it simply refused on every attempt to mix men and women in the prompts I was using. But I was kind of taken by the results.
(Like, I was going for a British imperial man on one side, an African 'Marianne' on the other, and it just absolutely would not give me anything like that)
This is engaging in many ways, Tim. Thanks. I kind of remember when “nation” was a thing that could and would be compared to federation, tribe, colony, empire...and also seen as a stage in a definitive political evolution defining the modern world. And however peculiar that seems now, as you may clear in so many ways, the analytical and comparative work on nation has had immeasurable(?) influence on publics and social science.
The commentary is smart and challenging as always, Tim, but not sure what I think of the “women-as-colonizers/imperialists” illustrations. I do realize that woman have always been integral to the imperial project, but they have rarely been the leading lights (not never, but rarely). I get that the images are meant to tweak our expectations for what colonizers/imperialists look like, but somehow I don’t think this works. Imperialism and patriarchal power can’t be readily disentangled—no, nor nationalism and patriarchy, either. For every Flora Shaw there were a thousand Lugards; for every Victoria, there were tens of kings and potentates. This is one case when I’d rather be under-represented that over-represented.
Working with Midjourney--those are AI images. Mostly I was trying to avoid "nations, empires, sovereignty" as represented simply by men, but it simply refused on every attempt to mix men and women in the prompts I was using. But I was kind of taken by the results.
(Like, I was going for a British imperial man on one side, an African 'Marianne' on the other, and it just absolutely would not give me anything like that)