DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Henny on October 23, 2007, 09:27:13 PM
-
Judeo-Christo-Fascism Awareness Week Comes to American Campuses!
by Rabbi Arthur Waskow
Did that title make the hair on the back of your neck bristle? Did it feel like a bigoted attack on Christianity and Judaism?
When the feature film sent out for use in this Week?which focused on the disgusting Christian-led war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the disgusting Jewish-led killing of Muslim children by airplane bombng raids on Gaza -? also included interviews with a few peacenik Quakers, Methodists, and left-wing Jews, criticizing that war and those bombings, did you relax, feeling it was a balanced presentation of Judaism and Christianity?
NO??!! ?Your guts, your kishkes, felt that practically all Christians and Jews were being set up as potential ? indeed probable? bad guys? Could-be terrorists who ? often manipulated by governments that Christians or Jews controlled?-- hated other religious communities but had not yet got around to buying the plastique for their bombs?
And since Christians are a huge majority in America but Jews are a small minority with a past of being persecuted, did you especially fear for the impact of Judeo-Christo-Fascism Awareness on Jews and Judaism? That this Week might incite anti-Semitism?
Did you urge universities to condemn this ?travesty? and institute instead a real Judeo-Christian Awareness Week that looked at the wonderful achievements of Christian and Jewish prayer, charity, and social justice; the history of their persecution; AND the history of their violence against others? That did look closely at the murders of Muslims by Baruch/Aror Goldstein ? but as an aberration? And looked at the support of Nazism by the leading respectable Lutheran theologians of Germany as terrible ? a mistake? That discussed the genocidal passages of Torah as a long-ago transcended worldview in the light of Hillel?s teaching, ?Do not do to your neighbor what would be hateful if your neighbor did it to you??
Wow. Now THERE?S a concept!? Do not do to your neighbor what would be hateful if your neighbor did it to you!
So what are you doing about the fact that there is NO such week about to appear on US campuses, but on many campuses this coming week, there WILL appear a whole industrial machine called ?Islamofascism Awareness Week??
If you think it would be hateful toward you to have somebody produce Judeo-Christo-Fascism Awareness Week, what do you owe your Muslim neighbors? Or is Hillel?s teaching (and of course Jesus? parallel interpretation of ?Love your neighbor as yourself") a mere utopian joke aimed at na?ve children?
Are there some Muslims who claim the authority of God to kill and destroy? Yes. Are there some Jews who claim this? Yes. And Christians? Yes. What do we do about this?
There are two valid responses, aimed at loving connection-making rather than at demonization. One is to learn about what drives SOME of the members of EVERY religious community ? even polytheistic Hindus and compassionist Buddhists ?to using aggressive violence SOME of the time.
How do we brighten the threads of peace and justice and healing in ALL our traditions, while bleaching toward calm and caring the fiery blood-red threads of violence in all of them? Truly, what tugs us toward compassion, what toward war? Scarcities or plenitudes of water, of oil, of safety, of health care, of honor and respect?
The other path is to learn from and with each other rather than preserving our ghettos of fear and alienation.
On Labor Day weekend, I had the honor and the pleasure of being one of three rabbis who spoke at the national convention of the Islamic Society of North America ?an immense gathering of more than 35,000 American Muslims, held in hotels near Chicago. ISNA is the umbrella group for American Muslims.
The other rabbis were Rabbi Eric Yoffie, head of the Reform movement, and Rabbi Ellen Weinberg Dreyfus, vice-president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (the Reform rabbis), who is slated to be the next president of the CCAR. Both of them were eloquent, and both were welcomed with excitement and long applause. I will come back to them.
My own experience was joyful. I shared a panel on interfaith relations with, among others, Shanta Premawardanha, associate general secretary of the National Council of Churches. We both spoke about plans for the October 8 Interfaith Fast, and its meaning. Dr. Sayyid Muhammad Syeed, executive director of ISNA, chaired the session and added his own excitement that Jews and Christians were ready to take part in one day of the Ramadan fast, and his hope that mosques everywhere would welcome others to their prayers.
And then I went wandering the ISNA bazaar. Books bound in silver. Flimsy pamphlets on how to observe the New Moon. Arabic calligraphy. Jewelled crescent moons. Head scarves. Robes in white, in black, in purple. Meditation beads. Travel agents for trips to Mecca, Karachi, Fez, Istanbul, Nairobi.
And the people:
Every shade of skin, every twirl of hair. Jeans. Head scarves. Business suits. Long robes. Full-body covers, leaving only the eyes open to the world ? and such eyes! From one ear, I heard ?Asalaamu aleikum.? From another ear, ?Wossup, bro?? Palestinian-Americans. African-Americans. Kuwaiti-Americans. Indonesian-Americans. Pakistani-Americans. Anglo-Saxon Americans.
One thing I did not hear, or see: Speeches or conversations or pamphlets that were anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli, anti-Christian. Maybe there were some in Arabic, or other languages. But the lingua franca of the conference was English.
Oh yes. ISNA, like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) was named by the US Department of Justice (under Attorney-General Gonzales) an unindicted co-conspirator in a case alleging a Muslim-American charity was funneling aid to Hamas.
AND ? the FBI placed a full-page ad in ISNA?s program.
What is going on here?
Best-case scenario: Is the present government of the United States just crazy, does not know its right hand from its left? Worst-case scenario: is this good-cop/ bad-cop tactics? The government intimidates Muslims to cooperate with any intrusions the FBI cares to make, by smearing their name until they submit?
This ?unindicted co-conspirator? label is both clever and vile. The government does not even have to persuade a grand jury ? almost always ready to do what any prosecutor wants ? that there is enough evidence even to begin trial. And once it puts the"co-conspirator" label on someone, there is no way to get acquitted ? because you are not standing trial.
So they stuck this label on ISNA and also on CAIR ? the Council on American-Islamic Relations. I have worked with both in efforts to end the Iraq war and to condemn terrorism.
While ISNA is a broad Islamic umbrella, CAIR is more analogous to the American Jewish Congress when Rabbi Joachim Prinz and later, Rabbi Henry Siegman were its directors and the AJCongress was still vigorously committed to protecting the human rights and civil liberties of Jews as well as of others.
In that vein, the feisty CAIR has condemned the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, while in the name of God and Islam it has also condemned terrorist attacks upon Israelis. It has built strong American constituencies in local areas where there are sizeable Muslim communities.
Result: It is often condemned by those official Jewish organizations that brook no criticism of Israeli governmental policy and actions. It is accused of supporting terrorism although its website is full of condemnations of attacks by Palestinians on Israelis and of Al Qaeda on America. Thank God (and I do mean thank God), centrist American officials have rejected these attacks and have honored CAIR?s presence in the fabric of American life ? as Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and former Admiral, now Congressman, Joe Sestak ? did when they spoke at the annual CAIR dinner in Philadelphia.
I have gotten to know the staff of two local CAIR chapters?Philadelphia and Florida ? as co-members of the Tent of Abraham, Hagar, and Sarah. Since the Tent (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) meets for extended retreats, sharing our spiritual journeys, our social-change work, and our prayer lives ?I have gotten to know them in depth. I have been deeply impressed by them.
Back to Rabbis Yoffie and Dreyfus at the ISNA convention. Rabbi Dreyfus said, in part:
And finally Micah [the Prophet] tells us to walk modestly with our God. Of course this phrase, like so many others, is open to interpretation. I read it now to say that God has the power and the answers, and we need to be modest as we walk with God. In this context I would respectfully suggest that each of our faiths interprets God?s will and God?s expectations of us differently. We are only human, and cannot know everything. By walking modestly with our God, we recognize that we do not have all the truth and all the answers. I believe in religious pluralism. Pluralism recognizes that others hold truths that I do not share, but even while fundamentally disagreeing on what we hold sacred, we can respect others and their beliefs. This is, of course, very difficult and challenging, since we believe what we believe with great passion and sincerity. But it is the key to authentic interreligious relationships. ?
As we listen to each other, as we weave together the strands of our Abrahamic faiths, we have the potential to face our common challenges, to serve God and humanity. May we continue the conversation as we journey forward together.
She was greeted with long and vigorous applause. For her full text, see ?http://www.shalomctr.org/node/1303
And Rabbi Yoffie, speaking to a plenary session, said:
There exists in this country among all Americans ? whether Jews, Christians, or non-believers ? a huge and profound ignorance about Islam. It is not that stories about Islam are missing from our media; there is no shortage of voices prepared to tell us that fanaticism and intolerance are fundamental to Islamic religion, and that violence and even suicide bombing have deep Koranic roots. There is no lack of so-called experts who are eager to seize on any troubling statement by any Muslim thinker and pin it on Islam as a whole. Thus, it has been far too easy to spread the image of Islam as enemy, as terrorist, as the frightening unknown.
How did this happen?
How did it happen that Christian fundamentalists, such as Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham, make vicious and public attacks against your religious tradition?
How did it happen that when a Muslim congressman takes his oath of office while holding the Koran, Dennis Prager suggests that the congressman is more dangerous to America than the terrorists of 9/11?
How did it happen that a member of Congress, Tom Tancredo, now running for President, calls for the bombing of Mecca and Medina?
Even more important, how did it happen that law-abiding Muslims in this country can find themselves condemned for dual-loyalty and blamed for the crimes of terrorists they abhor?
And how did it happen that in the name of security, Muslim detainees and inmates are exposed to abusive and discriminatory treatment that violates the most fundamental principles of our constitution?
One reason that all of this happens is the profound ignorance to which I referred. We know nothing of Islam ? nothing. That is why we must educate our members, and we need your help. And we hope in doing so we will set an example for all Americans.
Because the time has come put aside what the media says is wrong with Islam and to hear from Muslims themselves what is right with Islam.
The time has come to listen to our Muslim neighbors speak, from their heart and in their own words, about the spiritual power of Islam and their love for their religion.
The time has come for Americans to learn how far removed Islam is from the perverse distortions of the terrorists who too often dominate the media, subverting Islam?s image by professing to speak in its name.
The time has come to stand up to the opportunists in our midst ? the media figures, religious leaders, and politicians who demonize Muslims and bash Islam, exploiting the fears of their fellow citizens for their own purposes. ?
We hope to accomplish all this and more with our dialogue program. This dialogue will not be easy. ? Because God is God and we are not God, we can recognize that other religions have much to teach us.
The dialogue will not be one way, of course. You will teach us about Islam and we will teach you about Judaism. We will help you to overcome stereotyping of Muslims, and you will help us to overcome stereotyping of Jews.
We are especially worried now about anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. Anti-Semitism is not native to Islamic tradition, but a virulent form of it is found today in a number of Islamic societies, and we urgently require your assistance in mobilizing Muslims here and abroad to delegitimize and combat it.
A measure of our success will be our ability, each of us, to discuss and confront extremism in our midst. As a Jew I know that our sacred texts, including the Hebrew Bible, are filled with contradictory propositions, and these include passages that appear to promote violence and thus offend our ethical sensibilities. Such texts are to be found in all religions, including Christianity and Islam.
The overwhelming majority of Jews reject violence by interpreting these texts in a constructive way, but a tiny, extremist minority chooses destructive interpretations instead, finding in the sacred words a vengeful, hateful God. Especially disturbing is the fact that the moderate majority, at least some of the time, decides to cower in the face of the fanatic minority ? perhaps because they seem more authentic, or appear to have greater faith and greater commitment. When this happens, my task as a rabbi is to rally that reasonable, often-silent majority and encourage them to assert the moderate principles that define their beliefs and Judaism?s highest ideals.
My Christian and Muslim friends tell me that precisely the same dynamic operates in their traditions, and from what I can see, that is manifestly so. Surely, as we know from the headlines, you have what I know must be for you as well as for us an alarming number of extremists of your own ? those who kill in the name of God and hijack Islam in the process.
It is therefore our collective task to strengthen and inspire one another as we fight the fanatics and work to promote the values of justice and love that are common to both our faiths.
Rabbi Yoffie?s address brought a standing ovation from thousands of Muslims. Even if he had not been representing more than a million American Jews, what he said would have been, IS, profoundly important. For his full text, see ? http://www.shalomctr.org/node/1302
Any honest and Godly assessment of Islam must, in this moment of extreme danger and high promise in our complex histories, include just such words as these. Any program, like the impending ?Islamofascism Awareness Week,? that does not, is a slap in the face of the Living God we claim to celebrate.
Rabbi Arthur Waskow, co-author, The Tent of Abraham; director, The Shalom Center http://www.shalomctr.org, which voices a new prophetic agenda in Jewish, multireligious, and American life. To receive the weekly on-line Shalom Report, click on?http://www.shalomctr.org/subscribe
-
Not in Our Voice
By Shira Gordon, Alana Krivo-Kaufman, Josh Schwartz and Shlomo Bolts
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 22, 2007
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/27592
We, the Progressive Jewish Alliance, repudiate the mission of David Horowitz?s ?Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week.? We reject the manner in which he manipulates Jewish grief over the Holocaust and the situation in Israel. As Jews and members of a larger campus coalition community, we speak out as allies of our fellow Muslim students.
Horowitz does not speak for us. Instead, he uses symbols and rhetoric which exploit Jewish communal memory and grief. He uses the fear brought about by the Holocaust as well as by terrorist attacks against our fellow Jews. He juxtaposes images of Nazi propaganda with current Islamic extremists. By associating these images with broad groups haphazardly labeled ?Islamo-Fascist,? Horowitz seeks to replace intellectual discussion with panic. Such malevolent tactics are of no service to the Jewish people; rather, they are an attempt to induce Jews into sacrificing their values for a world view of oversimplified fear.
Horowitz claims to support moderate Islam, but does nothing of the sort. Horowitz?s ?Student?s Guide? features a petition ?appeal? aimed at Muslim Student Associations across the country. This ?appeal? is in fact a loyalty oath, in which Muslims are forced to choose between denouncing their entire religion as a danger to humanity and being branded as terrorist sympathizers. Such a narrow-minded approach does not aid moderates, but seeks to strand them between two radical and untenable positions.
Horowitz?s anti-Muslim week of action aims to create a dangerous and false dichotomy between ?Judeo-Christian Civilization? and Islam, both on our campuses and in the world. Horowitz points to the atrocities of extremist regimes, which are driven by a range of historical, political, and economic factors, and claims such atrocities embody the essence of Islam. By this logic, geopolitical conflict can only be resolved with the end of Islam. Such a headstrong and stubborn conviction could only result in enflaming tensions, and provoking a New Crusade against Islam.
We refuse to lend our voice to those who attempt to parasitically draw on the support of the Jewish community. We are not fooled by pundits who co-opt progressive activists? language and protest forms. Instead, we stand as allies with communities of faith and our fellow students. Mr. Horowitz: You will not further your campaign of hate and intolerance in our voice.
-
"Did that title make the hair on the back of your neck bristle? Did it feel like a bigoted attack on Christianity and Judaism?"
Uh no
why would it?
actually it makes me laugh.
now if in today's world Christians in the name of their religion, whose prime motivation was their religion, were crashing airplanes into buildings, blowing up airplanes full of civilians, attacking theaters full of innocent civilians, blowing up commuter trains full of people in Spain and Great Britian, blowing up night clubs full of tourist in Bali, beheading journalist, beheading policemen, attacking churches/mosques, attacking weddings with suicide bombers, attacking and killing American men and women serving in the US Military, were threatening to kill as many Americans as possible, were chanting "Death To America" at weekly prayer services, ect times a 1000, again whose motivation was their religion, then yes I might be so insecure, the hair on the back of my neck stand up. But only then, because right now, in today's world the analogy is ridiculous. Just look at the "Christ in Urine" art display that was basically dismissed by Christians for what it was "Trash". On the othe hand a few cartoons about Prophet Muhammad led Muslims to violent protests, death threats, fire-bombings of embassies, and violence that led to more than 100 deaths. Do you see the pattern?
-
Thanks, Henny. I am so proud to read of rabbis like Rabbi Waskow and the others. You know I gave up going to synagogue here in Toronto because although the rabbi was a lot like Rabbi Waskow, the congregation had a lot of David Horowitzes. I just got sick and tired of listening to their racism and their fascism and as the years passed, it seemed that the rabbi got tired of fighting with the bastards and began to sound more and more like them. Well, not exactly - - he just stopped challenging them like he did in the beginning.
Recently, my wife and kids and I have been going to a secular Jewish organization which is about 80 years old, the core of which consists of the old Jewish Communist labour organizers, the ones who stayed with the Party even after the revelations of Stalin's "anti-Semitism" (how the guy could be anti-Semitic and still have a Jewish wife and a Jewish brother-in-law who remained a member of the Politburo until the final collapse of the U.S.S.R. has always mystified me) and even though Communism seems now like a dead cause, they and their children are still fighting the good fight of anti-racism, anti-fascism, anti-war and anti-globalism. Our group has had speakers from Israeli anti-war groups as well as Muslim-Jewish co-op farms in Israel, proponents of the one-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict and Fair Trade organizers. There's also some outreach to Canadian Indians, the most ripped-off members of our Canadian society, who are now battling the desecration of their ancient burial grounds, often for such ludicrous goals as to turn them into golf courses.
I worry that scumbags like David Horowitz grab the spotlight and give all Jews everywhere a bad name, so I do appreciate your two posts to indicate we're not ALL bad.
-
Thanks, Henny. I am so proud to read of rabbis like Rabbi Waskow and the others. You know I gave up going to synagogue here in Toronto because although the rabbi was a lot like Rabbi Waskow, the congregation had a lot of David Horowitzes. I just got sick and tired of listening to their racism and their fascism and as the years passed, it seemed that the rabbi got tired of fighting with the bastards and began to sound more and more like them. Well, not exactly - - he just stopped challenging them like he did in the beginning.
Recently, my wife and kids and I have been going to a secular Jewish organization which is about 80 years old, the core of which consists of the old Jewish Communist labour organizers, the ones who stayed with the Party even after the revelations of Stalin's "anti-Semitism" (how the guy could be anti-Semitic and still have a Jewish wife and a Jewish brother-in-law who remained a member of the Politburo until the final collapse of the U.S.S.R. has always mystified me) and even though Communism seems now like a dead cause, they and their children are still fighting the good fight of anti-racism, anti-fascism, anti-war and anti-globalism. Our group has had speakers from Israeli anti-war groups as well as Muslim-Jewish co-op farms in Israel, proponents of the one-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict and Fair Trade organizers. There's also some outreach to Canadian Indians, the most ripped-off members of our Canadian society, who are now battling the desecration of their ancient burial grounds, often for such ludicrous goals as to turn them into golf courses.
I worry that scumbags like David Horowitz grab the spotlight and give all Jews everywhere a bad name, so I do appreciate your two posts to indicate we're not ALL bad.
That's great MT - I'm glad you and your wife find a community where you are more comfortable.
And I DO know that Jews are not ALL bad (not even mosty bad or significantly bad - LOL.) God help me if I start classifying an entire race of people based on the acts of a few assholes! :D
-
It might be a good idea.
There is an American equivalent for the Al Queda.
A Group that wraps itself in patriotism , Chistianity and fellow feeling for like persons.
They misuse every decent thing about Nationalism , Religion and human sympathy .
We call them the KKK. And they are Christo-Fascist in any sense of the word you want to make.
A day of awareness for this would be a bad idea in what way?
-
They misuse every decent thing about Nationalism
What is decent about nationalism?
-
(http://www.pocanticohills.org/amprogress/apollo11_flag_big.gif)
-
Erm...is that a response?
If so, then... ???
-
yes JS it is a response
moments like that, caught on that picture
when the United States landed on the moon and
many other US achievements
make me very, very proud to be an American
i think alot of Americans are very prideful to be from the US
there is no other country i would prefer to have been from
i feel very blessed to be from the United States of America
do you have a problem with that?
(http://milret.daveylee.net/france/Image2.gif)
(http://milret.daveylee.net/france/Image1.gif)
(http://milret.daveylee.net/france/Image3.gif)
(http://milret.daveylee.net/france/Image4.gif)
(http://milret.daveylee.net/france/Image5.gif)
(http://milret.daveylee.net/france/Image6.gif)
(http://milret.daveylee.net/france/Image7.gif)
(http://milret.daveylee.net/france/Image8.gif)
(http://milret.daveylee.net/france/Image9.gif)
(http://milret.daveylee.net/france/Image10.gif)
(http://milret.daveylee.net/france/Image11.gif)
-
That doesn't answer the question.
First, what makes pride and nationalism synonymous?
Second, what is decent about nationalism?
-
That doesn't answer the question.
Yes it did.
Because you don't like the answer, does not mean it was not answered.
And by the way, you didn't answer my question.
Do you have a problem with that?
First, what makes pride and nationalism synonymous?
They aren't always synonymous but there can be a link when one has pride in his nation.
Second, what is decent about nationalism?
Well a second answer might be that "loyalty and devotion to a nation"
can sometimes build a unity that allows a nation to accomplish lofty goals.
JFK's race to the moon, brought a nation together to attempt such a goal.
This teamwork by a nation allowed a country to achieve a goal that had been
a dream for mankind for centuries. Had the UN been in charge of the same
mission I would think we would still be attempting to land on the moon for
the first time.
-
I appreciate your answers.
Now I will endeavor to answer your question.
Nationalism is, in my opinion, one of the worst inventions of humanity. It is really nothing more than pride in chance. In other words, pride in the luck that one was born within a specific set of geographic parameters.
Nationalism has led to the most brutal of wars, especially in recent history. The current Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Dan Fried, when looking at the aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars said: "Nationalism ... is like cheap alcohol. First it makes you drunk, then it makes you blind, then it kills you."
Nationalism was the ultimate tool of the Fascists and helped to lead to the world's worst genocide. Albert Einstein called it, "an infantile disease...the measles of mankind."
Nationalism and Patriotism both helped fuel Imperialism, colonialism, and the subjugation of the many, by the few. It has led to policies such as apartheid, segregation, and brutality. In the same year that Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, the Nationalists in Northern Ireland did their part to help begin The Troubles. FLQ bombers hit Montreal in the name of what? Francaphone nationalism.
The United States fights one of the bloodiest years of the Vietnam War and also bombs the separate nation of Cambodia in 1969. The war is basically a war about...nationalism. General Giap would go on to say as much in several interviews after the war.
Honduras and El Salvador fight a brief war from 14 July to 18 July 1969 dubbed the infamous "Football War." Nationalsim...again.
Patriotism and nationalism, in my view, are useless. Or at least, the costs FAR exceed any possible benefits. It is no big deal to chant U-S-A! at an international sporting event...if anything that is a good way to vent nationalist sentiment. But there are a hell of a lot of dead bodies left in the wake of nationalism and patriotism.
-
so it's the "worst invention" ever invented but before the nation state was invented "tribes" were slaughtering one another over countless centuries. Be honest, don't be ashamed of your ideas, isn't this really about your opinion that the world would be better served by a one world government and that you would like to disolve the nation state, dissolve the United States as a nation, and be a part of a "one world socialist utopia"? (is that an oxymoron?)
-
so it's the "worst invention" ever invented but before the nation state was invented "tribes" were slaughtering one another over countless centuries. Be honest, don't be ashamed of your ideas, isn't this really about your opinion that the world would be better served by a one world government and that you would like to disolve the nation state, dissolve the United States as a nation, and be a part of a "one world socialist utopia"? (is that an oxymoron?)
Your history is a bit off. We didn't go from tribes to nations. There was quite a bit in-between. The concept of nations is relatively modern in human history.
Regardless, I'm not one for utopias. I do believe the world would be better off if it held national boundaries in far less regard. As we stand, national origin carries far more weight than it ever should. Most of Africa and the Middle East were arbitrarily drawn by European Empires anyway, what the hell are they supposed to be proud of? A line on a map that someone from some other country drew a long time ago? Yipee!
Do I think the United States needs to dissolve as a nation? LOL No. I just don't believe that nationhood is such a spectacular concept.
It makes for a lot of fun when you want to get someone riled up though.
-
Being proud fo what fellow Americans, Missourians, Floridians, Miami-Dade Countians have done is fine.
Believing that they are superior in every way to people from other countries, states or counties sucks.
Pride is, of course, rightfully considered one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Self-respect and admiration for a job well-done is not the same thing.
Anger, Gluttony, Envy, Avarice, Sloth and Lust are the other six, in the event that anyone was in doubt.
These are unrelated to the Seven Dwarfs (Doc, Bashful, Sneezy, Sleepy, Happy, Grumpy, and Dopey) or the Seven United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi,Ajman, Fujairah, Sharjah, Ras Al Qaima, and Umm Al Qawain).
-
Nationalism is, in my opinion, one of the worst inventions of humanity.
Nationalism led to the founding of the US.
-
Nationalism is, in my opinion, one of the worst inventions of humanity.
Nationalism led to the founding of the US.
In some manner. That wasn't exactly a bloodless affair, was it? It had some brilliant hypocrisy as well, with people championing freedom and billing themselves as the "sons of liberty" destroying the printing presses of Tory sympathizers, murdering others, confiscating their land, and ignoring religious freedom of others.
Quite makes my point I think.
-
Your history is a bit off. We didn't go from tribes to nations. There was quite a bit in-between.
Oh whatever Mr. College Degrees
It was not intended to be a history lesson, it was meant to make a general point.
The concept of nations is relatively modern in human history.
Yep
Regardless, I'm not one for utopias.
odd
I do believe the world would be better off if it held national boundaries in far less regard.
How so?
As we stand, national origin carries far more weight than it ever should. Most of Africa
and the Middle East were arbitrarily drawn by European Empires anyway
Were not almost all boundries drawn by someone at some time?
It's really nothing new.
Boundries have been drawn and redrawn for centuries by all kinds of people with different motivations.
what the hell are they supposed to be proud of?
Well until they embrace a form of capitalism/freedom/democracy I would assume not much.
Inventions, great success, and prosperity generally originate from places like South Korea not North Korea.
A line on a map that someone from some other country drew a long time ago? Yipee!
Yeah Yippee, someone drew them last century, or several centuries ago, so what?
I don't care if Europeans had a hand in drawing up the US map hundreds of years ago,
I can still be proud of the US landing on the moon.
The Iraqi's seemed quite proud of the Iraqi National Soccer Team and didn't
seem too worried about that their country was drawn up on a map a long
time ago by Europeans.
Would you?
I wouldn't care if it was announced that an African King had secretly drawn up the
US Map and boundries. I would say "who cares?" and be proud of the US.
Do I think the United States needs to dissolve as a nation? LOL No.
So you want the United States to exist as an independent nation
with it's own laws and culture, but you just don't want the people
to get real excited about their own country?
I just don't believe that nationhood is such a spectacular concept.
Then what is your alternative?
It makes for a lot of fun when you want to get someone riled up though
I can relate to that.
-
Defending Islamofascism
It's a valid term. Here's why.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Oct. 22, 2007, at 11:33 AM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attempt by David Horowitz and his allies to launch "Islamofascism Awareness Week" on American campuses has been met with a variety of responses. One of these is a challenge to the validity of the term itself. It's quite the done thing, in liberal academic circles, to sneer at any comparison between fascist and jihadist ideology. People like Tony Judt write to me to say, in effect, that it's ahistorical and simplistic to do so. And in some media circles, another kind of reluctance applies: Alan Colmes thinks that one shouldn't use the word Islamic even to designate jihad, because to do so is to risk incriminating an entire religion. He and others don't want to tag Islam even in its most extreme form with a word as hideous as fascism. Finally, I have seen and heard it argued that the term is unfair or prejudiced because it isn't applied to any other religion.
Well, that last claim is certainly not true. It was once very common, especially on the left, to prefix the word fascism with the word clerical. This was to recognize the undeniable fact that, from Spain to Croatia to Slovakia, there was a very direct link between fascism and the Roman Catholic Church. More recently, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, editor of the Encyclopaedia Hebraica, coined the term Judeo-Nazi to describe the Messianic settlers who moved onto the occupied West Bank after 1967. So, there need be no self-pity among Muslims about being "singled out" on this point.
The term Islamofascism was first used in 1990 in Britain's Independent newspaper by Scottish writer Malise Ruthven, who was writing about the way in which traditional Arab dictatorships used religious appeals in order to stay in power. I didn't know about this when I employed the term "fascism with an Islamic face" to describe the attack on civil society on Sept. 11, 2001, and to ridicule those who presented the attack as some kind of liberation theology in action. "Fascism with an Islamic face" is meant to summon a dual echo of both Alexander Dubcek and Susan Sontag (if I do say so myself), and in any case, it can't be used for everyday polemical purposes, so the question remains: Does Bin Ladenism or Salafism or whatever we agree to call it have anything in common with fascism?
I think yes. The most obvious points of comparison would be these: Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. ("Death to the intellect! Long live death!" as Gen. Francisco Franco's sidekick Gonzalo Queipo de Llano so pithily phrased it.) Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined "humiliations" and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia (interestingly, also, with its milder cousin, anti-Freemason paranoia). Both are inclined to leader worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repression?especially to the repression of any sexual "deviance"?and to its counterparts the subordination of the female and contempt for the feminine. Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence; both burn books and destroy museums and treasures.
Fascism (and Nazism) also attempted to counterfeit the then-success of the socialist movement by issuing pseudo-socialist and populist appeals. It has been very interesting to observe lately the way in which al-Qaida has been striving to counterfeit and recycle the propaganda of the anti-globalist and green movements. (See my column on Osama Bin Laden's Sept. 11 statement.)
There isn't a perfect congruence. Historically, fascism laid great emphasis on glorifying the nation-state and the corporate structure. There isn't much of a corporate structure in the Muslim world, where the conditions often approximate more nearly to feudalism than capitalism, but Bin Laden's own business conglomerate is, among other things, a rogue multinational corporation with some links to finance-capital. As to the nation-state, al-Qaida's demand is that countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia be dissolved into one great revived caliphate, but doesn't this have points of resemblance with the mad scheme of a "Greater Germany" or with Mussolini's fantasy of a revived Roman empire?
Technically, no form of Islam preaches racial superiority or proposes a master race. But in practice, Islamic fanatics operate a fascistic concept of the "pure" and the "exclusive" over the unclean and the kufar or profane. In the propaganda against Hinduism and India, for example, there can be seen something very like bigotry. In the attitude to Jews, it is clear that an inferior or unclean race is being talked about (which is why many Muslim extremists like the grand mufti of Jerusalem gravitated to Hitler's side). In the attempted destruction of the Hazara people of Afghanistan, who are ethnically Persian as well as religiously Shiite, there was also a strong suggestion of "cleansing." And, of course, Bin Laden has threatened force against U.N. peacekeepers who might dare interrupt the race-murder campaign against African Muslims that is being carried out by his pious Sudanese friends in Darfur.
This makes it permissible, it seems to me, to mention the two phenomena in the same breath and to suggest that they constitute comparable threats to civilization and civilized values. There is one final point of comparison, one that is in some ways encouraging. Both these totalitarian systems of thought evidently suffer from a death wish. It is surely not an accident that both of them stress suicidal tactics and sacrificial ends, just as both of them would obviously rather see the destruction of their own societies than any compromise with infidels or any dilution of the joys of absolute doctrinal orthodoxy. Thus, while we have a duty to oppose and destroy these and any similar totalitarian movements, we can also be fairly sure that they will play an unconscious part in arranging for their own destruction, as well.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2176389/ (http://www.slate.com/id/2176389/)
-
Well until they embrace a form of capitalism/freedom/democracy I would assume not much.
Inventions, great success, and prosperity generally originate from places like South Korea not North Korea.
Do you know the history of South Korea? I'm not asking to be a smart ass, but do you think they were a democracy that embraced freedom just after the Korean War? The 60's? The 70's? The 80's? The 90's?
Can you answer that without looking it up? I'd find it very interesting.
What inventions did the United States come up with that you consider essential and due to capitalism and nationalism?
Also, your point is odd because plenty of countries that had very limited freedom (if any at all) had a lot of patriotism and nationalism. Some of the South African whites were very patriotic and the leading party for half a decade was the National Party, which was very proud of its Nationalism. They were great communist fighters and equally excellent at torturing and shooting black women and children in the back of the head.
What were they proud of again?
I would say "who cares?" and be proud of the US.
I have no doubt that you would.
So you want the United States to exist as an independent nation
with it's own laws and culture, but you just don't want the people
to get real excited about their own country?
At sporting events? I could give a damn less.
Should we demand that other nations kowtow to our supposed greatness? No. Are we inherently better than Canadians, Mexicans, Russians, Germans, English, Welsh, Irish, Egyptians? No. And that is where I dislike nationalism. That is where it becomes dangerous.
I just don't believe that nationhood is such a spectacular concept.
Then what is your alternative?
Imagine.
-
They misuse every decent thing about Nationalism
What is decent about nationalism?
Nice pick , so you agree with all the rest of my post?
Anyway Human beings get a lot done as individuals , we get even more done as teams . From the carving of Mt. Rushmore ,to the building of the Pyramids there have been a lot of useless big projects that couldn't have been done without forming huge teams and gathering resources from wide areas. The misuses of Nationalism(IMO) include using it for mere decoration or uselessly. Worse misuses were mentioned n your post preceding this one and I agree with some of them.
The KKK and several other clubs present themselves as super patriots and devout religionists while they plan projects of destruction, Al Queda is not dissimilar, the nation they want to talk about would be like the Capulate of old , perhaps we are witnessing the "Birth of a Nation"?
The good uses of Nationalism is to form up enormous levels of cooperation for the sake of good projects we may disagree about which projects are good Social Security is one we disagree about but while I think it a misuse of nationalism you might think it a worthy project that was merely mismanaged , regardless it depends on havering a Nation to accomplish it. The Apollo project , the Panama Canal , the Highway system , the Pentecostal waterway, the Erie Canal , The Tenn- Tom , Etc ..etc... there are very many large projects accomplished with the use of our national resources that have been usefull and some even usefull to the Nation as whole.
Saving for last the best the most proper use of Nationalism is defense , we need unity to drive off threat. Like it or not there are a lot of big teams in the world , other nations who are prepared to compete or attack. Fair competition we should accept, but we need to display unity in the face of unfair competition or attempts to destroy or steal our national resources. Back in the day when other nations used to be more strong than we were our strong nationalism allowed us to unify and drive off our enemy's , now that our nation is practically equal to all the rest of the world together n terms of strength we need unity tempered and guided with wisdom to avoid wasting this situations potential for doing good things and avoidthe potential fr its misuse.
There is no point in attacking Nationalism itself as long as there is more than one nation .
-
Well until they embrace a form of capitalism/freedom/democracy I would assume not much.
Inventions, great success, and prosperity generally originate from places like South Korea not North Korea.
Do you know the history of South Korea? I'm not asking to be a smart ass, but do you think they were a democracy that embraced freedom just after the Korean War? The 60's? The 70's? The 80's? The 90's?
Can you answer that without looking it up? I'd find it very interesting.
What inventions did the United States come up with that you consider essential and due to capitalism and nationalism?
Also, your point is odd because plenty of countries that had very limited freedom (if any at all) had a lot of patriotism and nationalism. Some of the South African whites were very patriotic and the leading party for half a decade was the National Party, which was very proud of its Nationalism. They were great communist fighters and equally excellent at torturing and shooting black women and children in the back of the head.
What were they proud of again?
I would say "who cares?" and be proud of the US.
I have no doubt that you would.
So you want the United States to exist as an independent nation
with it's own laws and culture, but you just don't want the people
to get real excited about their own country?
At sporting events? I could give a damn less.
Should we demand that other nations kowtow to our supposed greatness? No. Are we inherently better than Canadians, Mexicans, Russians, Germans, English, Welsh, Irish, Egyptians? No. And that is where I dislike nationalism. That is where it becomes dangerous.
I just don't believe that nationhood is such a spectacular concept.
Then what is your alternative?
Imagine.
I ave spoken to Korean Ctizens , they really hate that line and feel that it should not be there ,devideing their nation.
-
In fairness Plane, you are simply talking about a Government, or collectivism in general when you speak of Social Security, Apollo, the military, and the interstate system.
As you said, one can agree or disagree with each of those. Yet, it takes the collective work of the Government (or Ami or UP might argue a private venture could do it as well - and in some cases it may) to accomplish these things.
Nationalism and patriotism are very different from collective policy decisions.
A statement like, "if you don't support the war, then you don't support the troops" might constitute nationalism in a more mild or mdoerate form. It generally involves a lot of symbolism, the sanctity of national symbols, the sanctity of ethnicity or culture, it emphasizes a national identity that trumps other (what would be considered minor) identities, it is often at odds with immigration, it very much supports the idea of a "social psychology" or national psychology.
Government programs and goals aren't the same as nationalism. Not at all.
-
Are we inherently better than Canadians, Mexicans, Russians, Germans, English, Welsh, Irish, Egyptians? No
Our nation's system is inherently better than most.
Do you know the history of South Korea?
Not in any in-depth way, but thats not the point.
My point is not about South Korea's particular nuances.
It's about economies that encourage innovation, that are pro-business,
as opposed to those so concerned about "all the comrades being in
the exact same colored Yugo". It's about systems that allow the
best and brightest to become filthy rich if they can produce
the results without using corruption. Systems that understand
there is a "trickle down" effect.
The same point could be with Japan vs. North Korea.
Canada vs. North Korea.
The point is, nations that tend to have some form of capitalism/freedom/democracy
usually have greater achievements involving invention, innovation, poverty rates,
and disposable incomes, ect....
I'm not asking to be a smart ass
I think I am begining to realize that.
it seems to me you unconsciously like to change the subject
you miss the rest of the concert because the singer may leave one word out of the song
you are so busy screaming "that word was left out of the chorus" that you miss the song (the point)
but do you think they were a democracy that embraced freedom just after
the Korean War? The 60's? The 70's? The 80's? The 90's?
See above, South Korea is not the point.
What inventions did the United States come up with that you consider essential and due to capitalism and nationalism?
I think the huge body of US inventions in medicine, technology, space, transportation, farming, food production, and so many other areas speak for themselves. In other words if one had the time to compare invention/innovation originating from capitalistic societies vs. non-capitalistic societies I would strongly suspect that the capitalistic societies would win by a landslide. Anyone that assumes that all the innovation that has originated from the democractic/capitalistic United States is all just a coincidence and could have easily happened under a non-capitalist/non-democratic system in my opinion lives in a fantasy world.
Also, your point is odd because plenty of countries that had very limited freedom (if any at all) had a lot of patriotism and nationalism. Some of the South African whites were very patriotic and the leading party for half a decade was the National Party, which was very proud of its Nationalism. They were great communist fighters and equally excellent at torturing and shooting black women and children in the back of the head.
When you asked the question about "what the hell should they (Africans) be proud of ?"
I said "not much", I did not say they "were not proud of things".
You asked me and I answered what I felt they should be proud of.
Whether they are proud of shooting women is irrelevant to my answer as to "what they should be proud of".
BTW, can you answer my question about what your alternative is?
-
Over the past 200 years America has lead the world in innovations in production, medicine, science, and what used to be called "good Ole American know how." Now I suppose saying something like that has been stopped by the cold dead hand of political correctness. It's true none the less.
American ingenuity has made life easier and safer. It has prolonged human life throughout the world. America was, is a force for good in this world.
So who are some of these Americans?
Alexander Graham Bell
George Washington Carver
Thomas Edison
Dr. Jack G. Copeland
Samuel Morse
Norbert Rillieux
Jonas Salk
Isaac Merritt Singer
Benjamin Franklin
the Wright brothers
Charles Goodyear
Henry Ford
Robert Oppenheimer
Elisha Graves Otis
and more ...
-
In fairness Plane, you are simply talking about a Government, or collectivism in general when you speak of Social Security, Apollo, the military, and the interstate system.
As you said, one can agree or disagree with each of those. Yet, it takes the collective work of the Government (or Ami or UP might argue a private venture could do it as well - and in some cases it may) to accomplish these things.
Nationalism and patriotism are very different from collective policy decisions.
A statement like, "if you don't support the war, then you don't support the troops" might constitute nationalism in a more mild or mdoerate form. It generally involves a lot of symbolism, the sanctity of national symbols, the sanctity of ethnicity or culture, it emphasizes a national identity that trumps other (what would be considered minor) identities, it is often at odds with immigration, it very much supports the idea of a "social psychology" or national psychology.
Government programs and goals aren't the same as nationalism. Not at all.
Nationalism is what the Government uses to rally support for its big projects and for suport of itself , yes they are diffrent things, but the Govenment without nationalism would be imposed on an unwillng people.
-
Are we inherently better than Canadians, Mexicans, Russians, Germans, English, Welsh, Irish, Egyptians? No
Our nation's system is inherently better than most.
Are you inherently better, due to being an American, than a Canadian or an Egyptian individual?
It's about economies that encourage innovation, that are pro-business
So, now it isn't about freedom and democracy, but being pro-business? The reason I brought up South Korea (or ROK) is only because you brought it up. The history after the Korean War, or more specifically after the cease-fire, is very interesting. I suggest reading a bit about it and getting back to me on the freedom and democracy bit. That is Milton Friedman's theory and it has never been proven to be true.
I think the huge body of US inventions in medicine, technology, space, transportation, farming, food production, and so many other areas speak for themselves.
I merely asked for a few specifics as examples. What inventions really changed mankind? Is it purely technological and scientific achievement that forms pride in one's nation? If that is the case then it seems to me that a technocracy or some sort of corporate oligarchy is far more suitable to achieve those ends (and also meet your criteria of being pro-business, in fact, probably much more so than a democracy).
Also, your point is odd because plenty of countries that had very limited freedom (if any at all) had a lot of patriotism and nationalism. Some of the South African whites were very patriotic and the leading party for half a decade was the National Party, which was very proud of its Nationalism. They were great communist fighters and equally excellent at torturing and shooting black women and children in the back of the head.
When you asked the question about "what the hell should they (Africans) be proud of ?"
I said "not much", I did not say they "were not proud of things".
You asked me and I answered what I felt they should be proud of.
Whether they are proud of shooting women is irrelevant to my answer as to "what they should be proud of".
That didn't address my point at all. Nationalism was a staple of the white South African lifestyle. It is an essential element in Fascism. So why do you link it with freedom?
BTW, can you answer my question about what your alternative is?
I thought that I did.
-
Nationalism is what the Government uses to rally support for its big projects and for suport of itself , yes they are diffrent things, but the Govenment without nationalism would be imposed on an unwillng people.
So the government has to wave flags and brand the country to get people to support it?
Doesn't that seem a little odd?
-
Are we inherently better than Canadians, Mexicans, Russians, Germans, English, Welsh, Irish, Egyptians? No
Our nation's system is inherently better than most.
Are you inherently better, due to being an American, than a Canadian or an Egyptian individual?
Nope
I belong to a better club.
-
Nationalism is what the Government uses to rally support for its big projects and for support of itself , yes they are diffrent things, but the Government without nationalism would be imposed on an unwilling people.
So the government has to wave flags and brand the country to get people to support it?
Doesn't that seem a little odd?
That is what is done.
What is odd about it?
In the early history of our country citizens felt more connected to their state than the USA , the rise of Nationalism is in part a conscious effort on the part of our governmental leadership. The pledge of allegience is one such effort , it was origionally intended as indoctronation for the children of the South where there was a sad lack of Nationalism directed twards the USA.
-
Are we inherently better than Canadians, Mexicans, Russians, Germans, English, Welsh, Irish, Egyptians? No
Our nation's system is inherently better than most.
Are you inherently better, due to being an American, than a Canadian or an Egyptian individual?
Nope
I belong to a better club.
Aren't they just as likely to say the opposite?
And then the Brit might say: "you're all wrong" and the German too.
You cannot prove it to be true, any more than you can prove fried catfish tastes better than shepherd's pie, wiener schnitzel, or a gyro.
So what's the point?
-
Nationalism is what the Government uses to rally support for its big projects and for support of itself , yes they are diffrent things, but the Government without nationalism would be imposed on an unwilling people.
So the government has to wave flags and brand the country to get people to support it?
Doesn't that seem a little odd?
That is what is done.
What is odd about it?
In the early history of our country citizens felt more connected to their state than the USA , the rise of Nationalism is in part a conscious effort on the part of our governmental leadership. The pledge of allegience is one such effort , it was origionally intended as indoctronation for the children of the South where there was a sad lack of Nationalism directed twards the USA.
Calling the lack of nationalism in the South "sad" is subjective. I'm sure there was a lack of nationalism amongst the majority of Native Americans as well.
Just because it is "what is done" doesn't make it an appropriate, or even moral way of acting. Again, I'll point to Nazism, which was brilliant at taking an economy in ruins and turning it into a productive force to be reckoned with - probably one of the most miraculous transformations of a modern economy ever witnessed. It did exactly what you said, lots of Nationalism...grotesque amounts of the stuff.
I've yet to see what's so great about it. It still seems to me that patriotism and nationalism lead to a lot more cost than benefit.
-
It seems to me that arguing against nationalism is like arguing against the sun rising tomorrow: it's a natural phenomenon that we can't affect. The human psyche is organized, I suggest, according to a fairly solid template, along these lines: self, family, culture-religion-community, class, political subdivision, nation, planet -- in fair order of priority. To alter this repeated, scientifically verifiable order is an impossible task but in fleeting moments leading to disintegration and chaos. The project is not to abrogate the order but to ameliorate it with salient, salvic and salutary concepts and emotions, tempering the I-ness into a We-ness. In this vein, it must be remarked that the social organization represented by the nation-state is capable of tremendous good not only as a starting proposition but also as a defensive stance against metasticizing forms of organization either natural progressions of the "normal order" or frank mutations of it. Who, for example, would have fought on the triumphant side in World War II?
-
Nationalism is what the Government uses to rally support for its big projects and for support of itself , yes they are diffrent things, but the Government without nationalism would be imposed on an unwilling people.
So the government has to wave flags and brand the country to get people to support it?
Doesn't that seem a little odd?
That is what is done.
What is odd about it?
In the early history of our country citizens felt more connected to their state than the USA , the rise of Nationalism is in part a conscious effort on the part of our governmental leadership. The pledge of allegience is one such effort , it was origionally intended as indoctronation for the children of the South where there was a sad lack of Nationalism directed twards the USA.
Calling the lack of nationalism in the South "sad" is subjective. I'm sure there was a lack of nationalism amongst the majority of Native Americans as well.
Just because it is "what is done" doesn't make it an appropriate, or even moral way of acting. Again, I'll point to Nazism, which was brilliant at taking an economy in ruins and turning it into a productive force to be reckoned with - probably one of the most miraculous transformations of a modern economy ever witnessed. It did exactly what you said, lots of Nationalism...grotesque amounts of the stuff.
I've yet to see what's so great about it. It still seems to me that patriotism and nationalism lead to a lot more cost than benefit.
You half answer your own question.
Organiseing large groups to all pull in the traces can move mountains , accomplishing amazeing things.
We agree that this tool can be used badly and that it can be used to betray even the people who are participateing.
But it can be used for good stuff too . Why do you maintain that it cannot?
-
You half answer your own question.
Organiseing large groups to all pull in the traces can move mountains , accomplishing amazeing things.
We agree that this tool can be used badly and that it can be used to betray even the people who are participateing.
But it can be used for good stuff too . Why do you maintain that it cannot?
No, I maintain that the benefits do not outweigh the costs. Nuclear weapons may be beneficial. I'm sure that is the point of view of a number of countries across the world in various regions. That doesn't make them any less dangerous.
-
Are we inherently better than Canadians, Mexicans, Russians, Germans, English, Welsh, Irish, Egyptians? No
Our nation's system is inherently better than most.
Are you inherently better, due to being an American, than a Canadian or an Egyptian individual?
Nope
I belong to a better club.
Aren't they just as likely to say the opposite?
And then the Brit might say: "you're all wrong" and the German too.
You cannot prove it to be true, any more than you can prove fried catfish tastes better than shepherd's pie, wiener schnitzel, or a gyro.
So what's the point?
Aren't they just as likely to say the opposite?- yes, and they do ,also they build whatever monument or public work that they can grandly build in order to say so ,
by Jingo!
-
That was an interesting debate. I think nationalism's healthy, harmless and natural in small doses. If I were an American, I'd be proud to the point of tears to be part of a nation that produced Thomas Jefferson, the Wright Brothers and Rosa Parks, among many, many others. I can understand why Americans love their country. There is so much to be proud of.
But it's highly disturbing to me to see the kind of people who are most vehement today in professing their love of country. Seems like they're the most violent and hate-filled of the bunch. They use love of country as a launching point to their real obsession, hatred of the perceived enemies of their country. They're blind to anything their country has done to create hatred against it, not because they're too fucking stupid to see what's right in front of them (at least, I hope they're not) but because they don't WANT to see it. They need to hate and to express that hate openly, which of course they would be unable to do if they had to recognize that all this anti-American anger didn't just materialize out of nothing. For them, I would have to agree with Samuel Johnson's famous dictum that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Just as Hitler and Goebbels were able to hijack nationalistic feeling in Germany, American "conservatives" have been able to do so in Amerikkka, using it to lever the whole nation into their nefarious plans and schemes.
-
I both accept that resolution, Tee, and take credit for it.
-
LOL
We just won't see it the same way.
I'm not saying nations are useless, far from it! My point is that I believe nationalism and patriotism become a hindrance to truly solving problems in what has become a world where we now know that we are very interconnected and interdependent.
For example, people in the United States viewed the Yugoslav Wars for many years as "Europe's problem." Yet, massacres and senseless violence (in the name of nationalism I might add) should be all of our problem. The fact that Haiti is a starkly poor and absolutely deprived nation even by Central American poverty standards should really be a problem for everyone, yet many Americans probably can't find it on a map, let alone have any clue as to what the problems are there.
And I'm not just picking on the United States, this is true for many nations. It is easy to get wrapped up in one's flags and ignore the rest of the world. It is easy to point to Spain during their elections and say "their voters are cowards." Now that takes an arrogance linked to patriotism (the Iraq War and TWAT) that is irrational and frankly disturbing.
This is the mild side of nationalism. I'm not even going to go into the part where pointing out wrongdoing becomes treason and disagreement becomes treachery, where a national symbol of cloth or plastic, is protected by the police. Where people of different cultures, religions, or languages become targeted.
And worse still. But we don't need lessons on that, do we?
-
<<I both accept that resolution, Tee, and take credit for it.>>
Fair enough, domer. I should have said at the outset that I agreed with you. Sorry.
-
Again and again, JS, you don't address the arguments arrayed against you.
-
Again and again, JS, you don't address the arguments arrayed against you.
I apologize.
What argument have I not addressed?
-
The virtual inevitability (to date) of the arrangement and the project of ameliorating it in the meantime rather than sparring with the stars to eliminate it. It seems to be an inexorable psychological mandate of the ruled or at least the rulers.
-
The virtual inevitability (to date) of the arrangement and the project of ameliorating it in the meantime rather than sparring with the stars to eliminate it. It seems to be an inexorable psychological mandate of the ruled or at least the rulers.
I suppose I did not address this because there's really nowhere to go with it, Domer. You may well be correct (and I suspect that there is something to this, it certainly worked well in World War II for the Germans, Soviets, United States, United Kingdom, even the Japanese). It would also explain the historical cycle of violence.
Where do you want to go from that?
-
Obviously if you follow the history of nationalism, there has been a progression from tens of thousands of tiny tribes to city-states, nations and ever-bigger nations, through a gradual amalgamating process. With some set-backs as in the break-ups of Korea (the reunification of which is inevitable,) Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the U.S.S.R., etc. But the overall way forward, it seems to me, is through homogeneization, the dominance of ever-increasing blocs, the spread of English as a universal language (which I don't think Chinese, even with alphabetical reform, is going to catch up with) until the next logical step . . .
One World Government, only not in our lifetimes or even our grandchildren's.
-
With some set-backs as in the break-ups of Korea (the reunification of which is inevitable,)
I think that the4 northerners are more likely to kill the southerners than join them.
-
<<I think that the4 northerners are more likely to kill the southerners than join them.>>
I think over time it will all work out peacefully.
-
<<I think that the4 northerners are more likely to kill the southerners than join them.>>
I think over time it will all work out peacefully.
It cannot , the north is prepared to kill the south and has told its own people that the south is miserably repressed and poor, they cannot rejoin and let the northerners learn the life is much easyer to live in the south .
I expect that the worlds largest collection of Long range cannon , presently aimed at Seol , will be fired.
-
Well . . . I hope you are wrong.
-
Well . . . I hope you are wrong.
I also hope to be wrong , but the north is not set up for any sort of reconcilliation , how could they allow their own people to know the truth ?
-
First of all I think it's encouraging that up to now the North has not engaged in major hostilities. If they held back until now, what could encourage them to strike now or later? (I'll answer my own question - - the weakness or perceived weakness of the U.S.A., drained by unwinnable wars in the Middle East and increasingly exposed as a paper tiger.) Assuming they're smart enough to figure out that the U.S.A. can still deliver an unsurvivable nuclear punch, would that stop them? (Answer: define "unsurvivable." Maybe they've already got a plan for surviving while delivering a few nuclear punches of their own.)
To my way of thinking, there are too many "maybes" involved in the decision to go to war - - maybe the U.S.A. can't or won't fight, maybe we'll get nuked or not. Fuck that. It just doesn't pay. If they were crazy enough to ignore the maybes they would have attacked by now.
Secondly - - and this is where the "madman" theory of underestimating your enemies gets you - - maybe Kim Jong Il isn't really a madman but a very shrewd and capable negotiator, looking to extract the maximum benefits from the USA in return for guarantees of future good behaviour.
"
Third, the reason I'm not impressed with this "enmity of the peoples" line is that in the North, public opinion is just a manufactured product, to be turned off and on like a tap. There is no "enmity" towards the South apart from what the dictator chooses to whip up and when the dictator wants to whip up friendship, friendship is whipped up. It's like Orwell's 1984, when the TV announces, "Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia" when just a few days ago, Oceania had been at war "forever" with Eurasia. The people of North Korea will know what the government of North Korea wants them to know (and they're not all that much different from the way information is rationed out in the so-called "free world") and they'll get whatever the policy-makers think they need to get.
I wouldn't bet my life on any of this, though. There is a possibility of war, I just think there's a greater possibility there won't be a war.
-
I just think there's a greater possibility there won't be a war.
How so? I don't see the path to there from here.
In North Korea the North Koreans are told that they are the happyest of all countrys , and most prosperous .
They do not know that in South Korea a common man can afford to eat every day of the week and can leave his lights on all night.
Kim Ill Jong is worshipped like Egyptions pharohs were, but how could that continue if the truth was easy to get?
There is no possibility that the South Koreans will attack the North , there is so little public support for such a project that a government would loose its power the same day it suggested such a thing.
But if one day Kim Ill Jong were so depressed that he felt suicidal......
-
<< But if one day Kim Ill Jong were so depressed that he felt suicidal......>>
That's just another illustration of the "madman" theory of history and IMHO it's all bullshit. There's no more reason to think that Kim is depressed and suicidal than to think it of Bush. Actually more reason to think of Bush that way since he's a recovering alcoholic.
Kim Jong Il answers to a powerful military. Even if he goes crazy, there's no reason to believe his military will blindly follow him into the abyss. There's no reason to believe he's going crazy, either.
-
<< But if one day Kim Ill Jong were so depressed that he felt suicidal......>>
That's just another illustration of the "madman" theory of history and IMHO it's all bullshit. There's no more reason to think that Kim is depressed and suicidal than to think it of Bush. Actually more reason to think of Bush that way since he's a recovering alcoholic.
Kim Jong Il answers to a powerful military. Even if he goes crazy, there's no reason to believe his military will blindly follow him into the abyss. There's no reason to believe he's going crazy, either.
Kim Ill Jong inherited a system of worship from his father , he is practily a God to them.
How could anyone develop sanity when raised under these circmstances ?
He orders movie stars kidnapped and he gets them , he orders just about every thing for himself that is forbidden to the rest of his people , his body guard are some of the toughest people on earth and he is a dissoute drunk.
South Korea is his hostage , he cna get away with anything and he knows it , anything except actually killing his hostage.
So South Korea is more prosperous than everand North Korea is riven with malnutrition but the North Koreans live in a bubble where they feel under threat from their hostage and think that their nation is the happyest on Earth.
If the light of truth were ever to shine in Kim would die horribly , and he knows it. Kim Ill Jung is not insulated from Western culture and knoledge at all.
-
<<Kim Ill Jong inherited a system of worship from his father , he is practily a God to them.>>
Hey, I thought I had the monopoly on hyperbole around here! Tone it down, OK?
<< How could anyone develop sanity when raised under these circmstances ?>>
You're bandyng around a term like "sanity" pretty loosely. I think you're (a) exaggerating how he was raised and (b) making psychiatric conclusions you're not qualified to make. This guy may look at life differently than you or I would, but that in itself does NOT make him insane.
<<He orders movie stars kidnapped and he gets them . . . >>
And this makes him less sane than your Confederate ancestors exactly how? Because he was kidnapping movie stars and they were kidnapping field hands? I don't buy it.
<< . . . he orders just about every thing for himself that is forbidden to the rest of his people>>
Kinda like some a those Republican politicians or fundamentalist preachers. Hypocrisy knows no bounds and no political party.
<< his body guard are some of the toughest people on earth >>
Bush on the other hand leaves his protection to a bunch of ballet instructors and interior decorators.
<< . . .and he is a dissoute drunk.>>
Well, THAT'S certainly unheard of in North American political circles.
-
<<Kim Ill Jong inherited a system of worship from his father , he is practily a God to them.>>
Hey, I thought I had the monopoly on hyperbole around here! Tone it down, OK?
Why do you consider this to be an exaggeration?
-
For one thing, they don't believe in God. They are communists. Communists are materialists. They don't believe in supernatural powers. Kim is at most the object of a personality cult, like Stalin.
-
For one thing, they don't believe in God. They are communists. Communists are materialists. They don't believe in supernatural powers. Kim is at most the object of a personality cult, like Stalin.
So define god then.
He gets adulation by millions , it is like the godhood of a pharoh.
Try to find a criticism of him in any North Korean sorce.
I stand by the statement , he is a liveing idol.
-
There's no real difference between the Stalin cult of personality and Kim's. It does not mean the guy is insane. "God-like" is a meaningless term because it's open-ended.
-
There's no real difference between the Stalin cult of personality and Kim's. It does not mean the guy is insane. "God-like" is a meaningless term because it's open-ended.
I did not say god like or god lite , he is the recipient of worship he is literally their God.
Stalin had a personality cult , so did Jim Jones , Kim is a step further.
-
Pride is, of course, rightfully considered one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Self-respect and admiration for a job well-done is not the same thing.
Anger, Gluttony, Envy, Avarice, Sloth and Lust are the other six, in the event that anyone was in doubt."
-
<<I did not say god like or god lite , he is the recipient of worship he is literally their God.>>
Does that make them his Chosen People? (pun intended)
-
<<I did not say god like or god lite , he is the recipient of worship he is literally their God.>>
Does that make them his Chosen People? (pun intended)
I don't know if he would choose any diffrent people , or not.
I suppose as a living god you take the worshipers you have , not necesacerily the worshipers you wished you had.
(pretty good punning)
-
It seems to me that arguing against nationalism is like arguing against the sun rising tomorrow: it's a natural phenomenon that we can't affect. The human psyche is organized, I suggest, according to a fairly solid template, along these lines: self, family, culture-religion-community, class, political subdivision, nation, planet -- in fair order of priority. To alter this repeated, scientifically verifiable order is an impossible task but in fleeting moments leading to disintegration and chaos. The project is not to abrogate the order but to ameliorate it with salient, salvic and salutary concepts and emotions, tempering the I-ness into a We-ness. In this vein, it must be remarked that the social organization represented by the nation-state is capable of tremendous good not only as a starting proposition but also as a defensive stance against metasticizing forms of organization either natural progressions of the "normal order" or frank mutations of it. Who, for example, would have fought on the triumphant side in World War II?
Quite so , as a natural part of the human condition , it is a usefull thing both for the good things mentioned here and the bad ones too.
Intelligent peope who choose to be anti-nationalistic or without national allegience loose this tool .
Is the consequence good or bad that they do?
-
Breathes there the man with soul so dead
Who never to himself hath said
"This is my home, my native land?"
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned
As home his footsteps he hath turned
From wand'ring on a foreign strand?
If such there be, go mark him well.
For him, no minstrel raptures swell
High though his title, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish could claim:
Despite these titles, power and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self
da da da da da da da
God damn! I used to know the whole fucking thing. I almost got through to the end. The moral being, the guy who is NOT a patriot is a miserable schmuck who dies alone, "unwept, unhonoured and unsung." Great poem. One of my dad's favourites. The opposite to Samuel Johnson's dictum that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," which I like even better. (more realistic)