Absurdity of Nationalism

Page 5 of 6 [ 93 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

16 Aug 2008, 12:39 am

corroonb wrote:

Chaotica wrote:

As for me, democracy is too close to anarchy, but more intelligent :lol:

I favour anarchy actually. I don't see the need for nations any more, we are all citizens of earth after all.

I agree with most of what you think but question the concept of anarchy and would it actually work? Or would people just become even worse than they are now? Going nuts and killing each other seems to be what the humans are best at.

I think people should be free to go where they want to go without hostility.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

16 Aug 2008, 12:40 am

Warsie wrote:

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

Warsie,
As we all know slavery is an ugly, horrible part of human history but do not forget that ancient civilizations enslaved millions in order to build their cities, public buildings, monuments, tombs, whatever. It's not just an American phenomenon. Actually, it is something that has affected the entire human species.

Most of us alive today are descendants of slaves.

And it still continues today. Hopefully, one day, the exploitation of humanity will discontinue and will just be another shameful page in history.

those other nations didn't claim they were beacons of democracy and liberty while doing that, the US has a unique position of doing that. Jefferson talking about liberty when owning black slaves; and the hipocrisy blatant until the 1960s and even after then..

I have always thought the Southern United states was an ignorant backward place full of racist rednecks. I think Jefferson is an example of that, although I am not sure if he is southern. He had that messed up southern mentality, IMO.

Anubis
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 136
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England

16 Aug 2008, 6:12 am

Warsie wrote:

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

Oh yeah I agree. Nationalism is only a recent phenomenon. It goes against human nature since humans wish to be free to move around and go where they wish.

huh? Humans are naturally inclined to become nationalistic in one form or another, starting back with tribalism. Then it was City-States, then Kingdoms and now the modern Nation-State (in the "Western World" to a certain extent at least)

also OP, IIRC the purpose of the Olympics was to avoid or curtail nationalism or at least have it in a non-violent way.

EDIT: don't really watch the Olympics, not too keen on sports anyway. Also, it depends. The main idea behind nationalism applies to other things, groups that you can choose to join as well(internet wars; see SomethingAwful vs. Ebaumsworld for a prominent example)

Agreed. However, nationalism can go too far, and turn into racial supremacism. Moderate nationalism doesn't hurt, being proud of one's nation and all that, but extreme nationalism is the problem. Naturally, groups and nations have always been in conflict for military, political, and socio-cultural domination, throughout history. I am not going to say that it is right or wrong. It is a part of human nature, after all. However, we should be at least past fascism and racial hatred, with the horrors of the early-mid 20th century and all. I maintain that war is a necessary evil sometimes, and is a massive driving factor for change in all its forms. Political, social, economic change, and so on. War also relieves tensions, and brings about peace to its own end, just as the longer peace lasts, the more likely all-out war will happen. This is not always the case, with some wars spawning other tensions, by destroying delicate balances. See: Gulf War II. It deposed Saddam, but freed the slumbering monster of sectarian hatred, and the war hasn't even ended yet. Socio-political change has happened in Iraq, but not for the better, not yet. Now it's got to be solved by diplomacy.

_________________
Lalalalai.... I'll cut you up!

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

16 Aug 2008, 11:22 am

Anubis wrote:

Warsie wrote:

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

Oh yeah I agree. Nationalism is only a recent phenomenon. It goes against human nature since humans wish to be free to move around and go where they wish.

Tell that to people living in a war zone, that it's a "necessary evil". It's so obvious you have never experienced living in a violent, crappy place or you wouldn't be speaking in such a detached manner. Entire families can be murdered leaving orphaned children who never forget what the war and the nations/individuals involved in the war have done. This can be passed down from generation to generation. The scars do not just go away.

Wolfpup
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,409
Location: Central Illinois, USA

18 Aug 2008, 1:23 pm

Magnus wrote:

Quote:

I've never much cared for nationalism either. Last 4th of July I was talked into going to see the fireworks with my family. When everyone stood up (and I continued to lay on the grass) for a song about being proud to be an American...I couldn't help but think how they would all be equally proud to be born on some other landmass and how utterly pointless it all was.

Quote:

My sentiments exactly.

Yep, mine too. If the U.S. actually was #1 in something I would be happy for that, but we're not in anything I can think of offhand anymore. We've sold the country off to giant corporations (which have sold it off to other countries, etc.)

Wolfpup
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,409
Location: Central Illinois, USA

18 Aug 2008, 1:41 pm

Kirska wrote:

You know what frustrates me about heritage is when heck are we going to be able to say "My heritage is American"?

I am a "native" American, but not a "Native American".

My family goes back to the Colonial days. I really don't care where they came from before that. There's been like a dozen generations since then. Yet when it comes time to put my heritage somewhere, there's no option for Caucasian American. There's the differentiation between European countries and then Native American.

I hate how these things always say "white" or "Caucasian". I know I'm supposed to fit in that category, but I am neither white, nor are my relatives from the Caucasus mountains. Not one.

So I put "other" for race, except in the extremely rare instances they have an option for "European American".

corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

18 Aug 2008, 2:12 pm

Wolfpup wrote:

Kirska wrote:

This also confuses me. Why are all white people supposedly from the Caucasus?

pandd
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

18 Aug 2008, 3:09 pm

corroonb wrote:

This also confuses me. Why are all white people supposedly from the Caucasus?

In the 18th century a chap named Blumenbach was constructing a classificatory scheme for humans. According to him, the human race was divided into 5 distinct groups and skull morphology was considered an important means of distinguishing between the groups. Blumenbach had quite a collection (of skulls) and seems to have settled on a particular skull as exemplifying one particular group in the 5 group schema he devised. The skull had been found in the Caucasus Mountains and so Caucasoid came to denote members of one of the 5 groups Blumenbach fancied humanity as being split into (he called the others were Mongoloid, American Indican, Ethiopian and Malay).

corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

18 Aug 2008, 4:03 pm

pandd wrote:

corroonb wrote:

This also confuses me. Why are all white people supposedly from the Caucasus?

Where do the Australian Aborigines fit in?

I see that was before Oz was discovered.

Sounds a bizarre reason to call whites Caucasian.

pandd
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

18 Aug 2008, 4:27 pm

corroonb wrote:

Where do the Australian Aborigines fit in?

Malay.

Quote:

I see that was before Oz was discovered.

I think Australia was discovered in the seventeenth century and Blumenbach consolidated his classificatory scheme sometime in the latter 18th century.

Quote:

Sounds a bizarre reason to call whites Caucasian.

Caucasoid encompasses European, North Africans and Middle Easterners I understand....regardless who it refers to I cannot disagree that it's bizarre.

2ukenkerl
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,248

18 Aug 2008, 4:57 pm

corroonb wrote:

Wolfpup wrote:

Kirska wrote:

This also confuses me. Why are all white people supposedly from the Caucasus?

Well, it IS stupid, but Asians and "whites" are BOTH named for the first ancient place fossils were found that supposedly predated history. That is ESPECIALLY interesting, because the earliest caucasian found was supposedly in MONGOLIA! That person was found AFTER the bones in the caucasis and mongolian mountains though.

And YEAH, whites are no more white than most blacks are black. Heck, technically, even the blackest black isn't black, and albinos aren't necessarily white.

Oh well, all whites being from the caucasis would make more sense than everyone being from africa, as some insist on believing. I mean they think that they can predict and track mutations, and somehow compare that to something from 5000 years ago to connect everyone? Besides, a lot of people claim the disparate races go back at least 2-3 times as far back.
Heck, the VEDAS supposedly go back 4-6 thousand years. Britain about 8000 years ago. Many others, like rome, about 3000! And, interestingly enough, even the earliest pictures don't look that much different. In fact, people have changed so much only relatively recently when the lack of superstition, improvement of science, etc.... made it so likely.

pandd
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

18 Aug 2008, 5:30 pm

2ukenkerl wrote:

Oh well, all whites being from the caucasis would make more sense than everyone being from africa, as some insist on believing.

I strongly disagree.

Quote:

I mean they think that they can predict and track mutations,

Mm, it's more the rate at which point mutations occur that are considered statistically 'predictable'.

Quote:

and somehow compare that to something from 5000 years ago to connect everyone?

What you mean by this is about as clear as mud to me....very opaque mud.

Quote:

Besides, a lot of people claim the disparate races go back at least 2-3 times as far back.

If by this you mean that a lot of people claim human diversity pre-dates 10000-15000 years ago, that it certainly true. However, unless you are under the illusion that there is a widespread belief held amongst 'out of Africa proponents' that human 'racial' diversity is approximately 5000 years old, I do not see how this expounds on the earlier comment it follows on from.

Quote:

Heck, the VEDAS supposedly go back 4-6 thousand years. Britain about 8000 years ago. Many others, like rome, about 3000! And, interestingly enough, even the earliest pictures don't look that much different. In fact, people have changed so much only relatively recently when the lack of superstition, improvement of science, etc.... made it so likely.

I am not able to comprehend your meaning here. I am confident you are not suggesting 'racial' diversity is the result of (and only began to exist after) the so called 'Age of Reason' that followed on from the European Renaissance, so I know I must be missing your point.

snuuz
Blue Jay

Joined: 1 Dec 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 97
Location: USA

18 Aug 2008, 7:04 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

Yep, Jefferson was a southerner who lived up the road from me near Charlottesville, VA.

As a southern redneck myself, all I can say is when I'm not up on a stump behind a mule, I occasionally have a reasonably enlightened thought. Just occasionally.

Omar
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 49

18 Aug 2008, 9:43 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

To be fair...he did call it a "necessary EVIL ", and your description of the viscous cycle only confirms that war is a constant. As he has noted....there are so many different political, ideological and economic changes that were sprung on the backs of war. Christianity and Islam, as obvious examples, would not have been so dominant today without its trumpeters blowing calvary charges on the unconverted heathens. Even your "fabulous country" was created out of war. Human beings just aint meant for completely peaceful settlement of differences, sometimes war is just easier or more efficient or desirous.

Omar be interested in hear'n examples to the contrary.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

18 Aug 2008, 9:49 pm

Omar that is just a bunch of brainwashing nonsense the war pigs want you to believe. And you believe it.

The idea that war is a necessary evil that humans need war, want war, desire war or that they cannot possibly live in peace and must use war to settle desputes is just a bunch of rubbish.

Praetorius
Snowy Owl

Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 148

18 Aug 2008, 10:02 pm

I dunno, dude... People have been talking about world peace for thousands of years. You really think we're getting closer? Just in the past century we've had some of the most deadly wars ever. Sure, I would love it if all wars ended. I would also love it if I could fly and see through women's clothes. None of these is going to happen, so why bother thinking about it?

Page 5 of 6 [ 93 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

Absurdity of Nationalism Post Reply New Topic

Absurdity of Nationalism