First of all, I'd like to clarify my previous statement about believing in the ideal of sharing musical traditions. I know that the term ideal brings about images of political fanatics who won't listen to reason. I suppose that it was the wrong term to use. I don't believe in political, let alone economic, ideals. Shit's just way to complicated for them to work.
For me, the most interesting and influential cultures come not from isolation, but from rich mixtures of a variety of influences. Take, for example, the internet metal culture. The music itself is a matter of taste, but the most powerful aspect is its ability to cross ethnic and national borders. It doesn't promote a single, uniform view (although many of the people and movements involved try to promote just that); it promotes a cultural diversity which has unlimited potential to promote communication, representation, understanding, and respect.
You make a good point about the division of the Austro-Hungarian empire after WWI. In my understanding, the Hungarians were a marginalized majority in the empire; the language of the government was German and the Austrians held a higher status. This suggests that the tradition of cultural defensiveness preceeds the division. It was surely hightened with the transition to being a minority in other countries.
I think you touched on a more important point, with this concept of a generation in the middle. This is a generation to which I think you and most of the driving force of the metal communities of the former 'bloc' belong: old enough to remember Russification and young enough to see the true effects of the market driven cultural domination. This domination must look very similar to Russification and the lack of respect for traditions which is more effective on the youth must be very frustrating. The market feeds off the young and it does not preach respect.
I think it's very reasonable to be wary of external influences corrupting a local culture, especially when it comes to dominate that culture as extensively as open markets do. In this way, E.U. membership is a double-edged sword. It provides great opportunities to local businesses for exports (if they can compete), but it also allows more foreign, market driven influence in.
While I'm very much in favor of the mixing of, and communication between, cultures and the diversity which it creates, the influence of the marketplace works against all these things in both directions. It doesn't seek to simply live beside and blend with local cultures; it strives for domination. It supports a homogenous culture in which everyone buys the same things, speaks the same language, and dreams the same dreams.
It also incites cultural defensiveness which tries to preserve the cultural traditions with a common consequence of stifling cultural growth. This cultural defensiveness can also lead to an isolation from, and mistrusting of, outsiders which can lead to more serious problems.
I suppose that the best goal is to find a happy medium between isolation, preservation, representation, communication, inclusion, and evolution. Don't be too concerned. There's presently a resurgence of the representation of, and respect for, the cultural traditions of Native Americans in North America. If those poor fuckers can make a comeback after all they've been through, y'all fuckers are in good shape.
