George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Apr 23, 2010 8:12:35 GMT 10
Part 2 - Papers, discussions and exhibits
After delivering the welcome address, and introducing PoliNation co-convenors George Cruickshank (hi!) and Paula Jensen from Snake Hill, Dr Judy Lattas delivered her plenary address entitled Technicalities, which explored the tendency of a certain class of micronations to assert legitimacy largely or wholly on the basis of legal technicalities or documentary errors and sleights of hand. Dr Lattas also outlined her contention that in the case of micronations founded as a direct consequence of a dispute with a state organ or large corporation, or due to a perceived injustice suffered by the founders, the purpose of the "act" of secession is not in fact to successfully establish a viable independent polity, but to maintain the dispute.
Paula Jensen followed next with her plenary address, which described the events surrounding the establishment of her Snake Hill Principality, near the New South Wales town of Mudgee. Paula asserted that a financial institution with whom her family held a mortgage for several investment properties took them to court claiming that the mortgage was in arrears when in fact it was paid well in advance. When the case reached court, according to Paula, the judge refused to even consider this documentary evidence, and allowed the mortgage company to seize the properties in question. Snake Hill was founded to supposedly protect the Jensens' remaining properties from similar seizures
Paula asserted that Snake Hill is the only micronation to have gained "official recognition" by Australia's Governor General, claimed that the Snake Hill application to join the United Nations was "progressing" and implied that receiving xmas cards from the Prime Minister of Australia addressed to "Principality of Snake Hill means that Australia implicitly accepts that Snake Hill is an independent state.
George Cruickshank of Atlantium then delivered the third plenary address, entitled Le GIF c'est moi! - an examination of how micronations frequently create or appropriate symbolic visual imagery with a suddenness that suggests a belief in the idea that symbols and iconography lend a sense of historic continuity, respectability and legitimacy to a recently-created micronational entity that otherwise lacks such qualities. George compared this with an episode in the history of Haiti, when it went from being a republic to a kingdom by presidential decree - and acquired all the symbolic trappings of kingdoms (heraldry, aristocracy, funny costumes, longwinded royal titles) - almost overnight. George's address concluded with three Australasian case studies: The Province of Bumbunga, the Empire of Mogilno and the Principality of Marlborough, who's histories and iconography were compared and contrasted with those of the actual sovereign states that served as their inspiration.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Mckerra on May 5, 2010 0:56:48 GMT 10
I'm getting a bit of media interest through my micronationalism.info website.
I've had inquiries from BBC radio in London and Newstalk radio in Ireland. BBC seemed luke warm when they realized the conf was a couple of weeks back, Newstalk seem to think the whole idea is hilarious and want to make fun of me on air.
Good times!
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on May 5, 2010 7:17:31 GMT 10
Interesting.
I've been contacted this week by Sky News UK, who want to do a story on Wy and Atlantium.
You should have breathlessly informed the BBC that the conference was "just days ago" :-)
|
|
|
Post by Zandrovia on May 10, 2010 1:35:01 GMT 10
I would love to see similar interest in the US but the mentality here is....what's the word I am looking for....let's just say that thinking "outside of the box" as the saying goes is not exactly a strong suit of the general populace at times.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on May 10, 2010 1:51:34 GMT 10
I don't think a lack of public interest is the problem; it's more a lack of confidence, motivation, and - most importantly - credibility - on the part of micronationalists.
No serious academic or media representative this side of Zimbabwe is ever going to waste 3 seconds on people who are secretive, irrational, inarticulate, paranoid, delusional, insane, dysfunctional, shrill, hysterical or psychotic - and quite frankly, the US micronation community seems to be thoroughly weighed down by more than its fair share of those types.
|
|
|
Post by Zandrovia on May 10, 2010 2:07:30 GMT 10
I don't think a lack of public interest is the problem; it's more a lack of confidence, motivation, and - most importantly - credibility - on the part of micronationalists. No serious academic or media representative this side of Zimbabwe is ever going to waste 3 seconds on people who are secretive, irrational, inarticulate, paranoid, delusional, insane, dysfunctional, shrill, hysterical or psychotic - and quite frankly, the US micronation community seems to be thoroughly weighed down by more than its fair share of those types. There is certainly a lot of truth to what you say; however, most (granted not all) of the genearl populace here even look upon micronations abroad that have long standing histories and tend to be rather respected in their own land, with disdain, disbelieve, and even right down anger for reasons I have yet to understand. Although I do admit I would like to see more serious endeavors here in the US that are not quite so.....shall we say....soley ego driven? And for them to work together in a meaningful way, putting aside a lot of the petty bickering that we often see. The secrecy thing I can kind of understand to SOME extent, during the 60's and 70's communes began to flourish but once the authorities and public at large knew about them, they were shut down. In cases where no real crimes were being committed, they found creative ways to go after them for tax reasons, calling them cults, etc. The couple that remained and are still going strong today have done so largely because they remained off of the radar. So that secrecy can sometimes be a defense, although, it can also end up hurting your cause. This is actually one of the reasons why I started S.A.M in the frist place, to try and create a network of SERIOUS endeavors to advance micronationalism and encourage the sort of events and sucess here that you guys have seen with events like this. Yes, I know...it is going to be a long hard road, lol.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on May 10, 2010 8:23:47 GMT 10
I have one word for you: Molossia.
Kevin Baugh is by far and away the most successful US-based micronationalist because he pitches his message openly, in the guise of theatre, wrapped in good humor, packaged with a smile.
|
|
4321
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by 4321 on Jun 14, 2010 12:11:17 GMT 10
I have one word for you: Molossia. Kevin Baugh is by far and away the most successful US-based micronationalist because he pitches his message openly, in the guise of theatre, wrapped in good humor, packaged with a smile. Whilst I agree with this in terms of US-based, surely there are other sorts of micronation that have succeeded (or secceeded to excuse a pun) in other areas of the world on the same level as Molossia in terms of pubilicity or tourism? Plus, is there any downloadable information for those of us who are into micronation geopolitics which originated from talks or findings from the conference in Sydney? If you can that would be a great help
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 16, 2010 18:55:19 GMT 10
Welcome to LOM.
In answer to your question - yes, obviously there are.
I'd list the following as "successful" (to varying degrees) non-US micronations, based on your listed criteria:
Hutt River Principality (Australia) Principality of Seborga (Italy) Principality of Sealand (UK) Empire of Atlantium (Australia)
The important thing to note with all of these, is that they approach their activities with a seriousness that's founded on actual documented real-world activities conducted over many decades, combined with an underlying good-humour that generally endears them to outsiders, who often then become actively involved in promoting their continued growth; in effect, their good "attitude" ensures that their success becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
These sorts of micronations and those involved with them do not act like pompous asses - and hence they do not come across as the sort of shrill, paranoid nutter micronationialists who most normal people correctly laughingly dismiss as irrelevant, delusiomal cranks.
|
|
4321
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by 4321 on Jun 19, 2010 7:08:42 GMT 10
Thanks for the kind welcome George So what is the way not to approach micronationalism and are there any examples of this? (And more importantly, do they all have to be "face-to-face" in order for recognition as a proper micronation?) Plus if any citizens in these "bad micronations" wanted to reform their way of going about their nations, what would you recommend they do to change their situation?
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 19, 2010 8:09:15 GMT 10
I don't think there's a preferred "way" of doing things that applies to every micronation.
There are various different types of micronations - from art projects, to political experiments, to online simulations, to tourism boosters, to protest vehicles.
What should and should not be done to achieve success depends on which type you're talking about, and how you define success - but in general terms, not acting like a dick is usually a good basic policy. People generally respond positively to stuff that is cogent, reasonable, credible, sensible, presented honestly and without dissembling and misrepresentation, and which is interesting and entertaining.
People generally do not respond well to being lectured by those who deride the valid opinions and publicly documented achievements of others, who believe themselves to be unique or special, who demand respect without first earning it, who don't have a cogent, consistent, credible "back story", who are prone to mixing fact and fiction in order to deliberately misrepresent the actual state of affairs, who are frequently abusive, who are prone to intemperate hysterical outbursts in response to any external analysis of their project that is not uncritical and laudatory, and whose ideas are just not practical, achievable or of much interest to anyone other than they.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 19, 2010 8:26:38 GMT 10
Most people here know who the best-known "bad" micronations are without the need for my repeating their names here; in all cases the problem comes down to the person in charge lacking some of the essential qualities common to all successful leaders.
If a micronation leader spends most of their time frustrated, angry or enraged, is emotionally fragile, views all criticism as a personal affront, is not overly intellecually gifted, is a poor communicator, lacks subtlety of judgement, lacks charisma or the capacity for persuading and energising others - they're doing the wrong job.
|
|
4321
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by 4321 on Jun 20, 2010 0:52:24 GMT 10
That is indeed a fascinating viewpoint The start-up phase however would probably have almost every leader touching on all those weaknesses that you've mentioned, but no doubt if they are wise enough, have and will overcome most of these problems and frustrations (of which patience and reflection is a virtue) Anyway, back to the topic at hand - was there anything new to have come out of the conference?
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 20, 2010 7:25:46 GMT 10
Unfortunately, in the age of the internet, everything you say and do online is forever; the start-up phase of a new micronation and the behaviour of it's leadership is going to be accessible to anyone - and have ramifications - for decades to come.
What you say and do online today may well affect your capacity for functioning in the real world for the rest of your life.
By declaring yourself leader of a micronation, and publishing a website that anyone can see, you automaticaly become a public figure; you become part of a social phenomenon called "micronationalism" which is a peculiar outgrowth of "individualism" - a common trend in western liberal democracies from the mid 20th century onwards.
You are part of the historic continuum, and your activities become a legitimate subject of systemic analysis and commentary by social scientists, historians and the media - and they will form their initial (and often only) opinions about you based on what you do, say and write in the public domain. You cannot and will not ever be able to control the conclusions that strangers arrive at after reading your own words, and observing your actions.
If the only source of information about your micronation is its website and your forum or blog posts, they will form the only possible basis for such objective conclusions about you and your project to be drawn.
A number of micronational leaders have, in recent years, behaved appallingly online, and as a consequence they now find themselves ridiculed pariahs. Those people and their micronations are inevitably doomed to irrelevance and failure.
To praphrase the old saying... if there is any doubt that you may be a fool, it's generally best to stay silent and keep people guessing, rather than open your mouth and confirm ther suspicions.
|
|
4321
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by 4321 on Jun 21, 2010 11:12:01 GMT 10
So you're saying that no nation can be reformed because of the online image they portrayed in many years past? Not every nation surely could have been cast to the wind like this...
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 21, 2010 12:27:54 GMT 10
I'm saying that unless you're spectacularly fortunate, you will usually only get one chance to make a good first impression.
If you fail at that, you will inevitably have a LOT of apologising and catching up to do later on, which places you behind the 8-ball at the outset.
The issue with many "troubled" micronation leaders is that they make a terrible first impression, never acknowledge it, apologise for it or modify the behaviours or attitudes that gave rise to it... and then simply repeat it again, when they think enough time has elapsed for nobody to remember the previous occasion.
Unfortunately for them, some of us have very long memories and very low tolerances for that sort of disingenuity.
|
|
4321
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by 4321 on Jun 22, 2010 14:19:08 GMT 10
I see now - thanks for the clarification
|
|