Nationalism (Patriotism) Theism and Racism are all shades of the same dead unicorn. They exist only in their oppositon to others and are, therefore, self defeating. As when persons are of the same genotype, religion or nationality,all of these "isms" are negated. The inherent conflict is what defines them. Without an atheist, or Muslim or Jew there can be no Christian. Without national borders, governments, flags, there can be no American, no Italian. These characteristics are defined, again, by their opposition to "other". Yet all of these characteristics are arbitrary abstractions sans integrity or merit. Not unlike Plato and Aristotle with their "ideals' and "forms" which gave us the ideas of what "should be", be the perfect oak tree or the perfect man. We, as a culture, are doomed to conflict in order to maintain our identify regardless of its validity. Just as the bells of europe were melted down to make cannon, the cannon were forged to silence the bells. Just as the choir tunes itself to a greater song, the loudspeaker silences us with its domination. When a man, a nation, a religion or a race becomes so dominate that it vanquishes its opposition, it loses its power because that very power was defined by its opposition. Just as Julius Caesar played the game so well that he destroyed all his opponents, he became unable to do the very thing for which he sought power. When his word became unquestionable he no longer had anyone to speak to. Just my opinion, i could be wrong.
dyslexia- Absolutely agree- We are an the same wavelength- only you express it better. (Maybe I can't come up with anything pithy right now, because it is 6:30 in the morning, and my brain in not yet in gear. I did want to acknowledge my agreement though! )
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Reply
Mon 9 Dec, 2002 07:33 am
In our world, the tribe reigns supreme . . . at least a thousand years after we all ought to have gotten beyond that . . .
0 Replies
fishin
1
Reply
Mon 9 Dec, 2002 08:39 am
Yeash, all these people being polite and noddiing. I'll disagree! lol
I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment being expressed but the comment "Yet all of these characteristics are arbitrary abstractions sans integrity or merit." is a bit over the top. Without merit? When someone asks yyou to describe yourself don't you list off a bunch of attributes? Height, weight, hair or eye color? Are all of those equeally without merit? Aren't those factors what differentiates you from all the rest of humanity?
The problem isn't with Racism, Nationalism or Theism. Each is simply a mechainsm used to distinguish ourselves from the rest of the herd. They are what makes us each unique and a member of a group at the same time and are just a valid as, and no less arbitrary than, our given names are.
If you stripped away every "ism" you can think of it wouldn't end conflict and will in fact, increase conflict as everyone is disrupted while trying to find their individual place again. Conflict is about power and achieving a measure of power is a part of human nature. If you want to see the results of what happens when uniqueness is lost take a look at that "other WWW site" where imposters abound. What happened there when the imposters started? Conflict certinaly didn't go away!
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Mon 9 Dec, 2002 09:59 am
fishin' wrote:
Conflict is about power and achieving a measure of power is a part of human nature.
Perty good. I agree. I was just talking about that with my hubby last night. He's an academic, and his department has a secretary who is a scheming, backstabbing, gossipy type. He took her at face value for a long time and the conversation started with him saying I'd been right to warn him to be careful from the beginning -- she reminded me of a type I'd run into more in education/ social services than he had in academe. We talked about why that happens, and your statement is very appropos -- the secretary feels powerless in her milieu and wants to do whatever she can to gain power. That includes sowing conflict.
0 Replies
fbaezer
1
Reply
Mon 9 Dec, 2002 11:58 am
I am for tollerance and I believe Nationalism produces many evils.
I don't believe in the we-love-each-other-so-much world either. That's alright for Coca-Cola commercials, not for real life.
The world isn't one community yet. Nor it will be during our lifetime.
What makes a community? A common past but, mostly, the idea of a common future.
As a member of a community I work for the common future of my community, not for another community's future. At the same time, I must keep some basic human solidarity with all other communities.
If race or religion are the common elements, it's clear that the community will be confrontational against others.
The greatness of the US is that they have, as a nation, been able, not without terrible problems, to surpass these two elements, and to be melting pot (or salad bowl) that looks to the future.
The problem with the US -as the rest of the world seems to see it- is that too often the basic solidarity with all the other communities is lacking.
0 Replies
fishin
1
Reply
Mon 9 Dec, 2002 12:27 pm
sozobe wrote:
Perty good. I agree. I was just talking about that with my hubby last night. He's a physicist, and his department has a secretary who is a scheming, backstabbing, gossipy type. He took her at face value for a long time and the conversation started with him saying I'd been right to warn him to be careful from the beginning -- she reminded me of a type I'd run into more in education/ social services than he had in physics. We talked about why that happens, and your statement is very appropos -- the secretary feels powerless in her milieu and wants to do whatever she can to gain power. That includes sowing conflict.
I see similar things happen with many of the scientists I work with too. When they are working with others in the same arena the "power' issue is mostly confined to their work i.e., power is based on advancing the science itself. When they have to deal with non-scientists they are at a bit of a loss. They aren't in their element in the power struggle over how many copies you can make on the copier or who gets new office furniture. Those are areas the office managers reign supreme in so when an office manager feels slighted by a scientist they'll "forget" to order their new desk or "forget" to get that latest manuscript out on time.
But it's all just power plays.
0 Replies
Lightwizard
1
Reply
Mon 9 Dec, 2002 12:40 pm
It's true -- all the ills of the world are wrapped up in the package and thanks for posting this, dyslexia. I do agree about what fishin' said about human nature -- we haven't evolved that far away from the tribal mentality of the past. Give us some time and we can make it, though. Hell, we can't even walk upright that successfully? Anybody have a back problem?
0 Replies
dyslexia
1
Reply
Mon 9 Dec, 2002 01:54 pm
A boundry, any boundry be it racial, national, religious, is a phenomeon of opposition. Where nothing opposes there can be no boundry. One cannot move beyond a boundry without being opposed. That is why patriotism-that is, the desire to protect the power in society by way of increasing the power of a society-is inherently belligerent. Since there can be no society without opponents, patroits must create enemies before we can require protection from them. Patroits can flourish only where boundries are well-defined, hostile, and dangerous. The spirit of patroitism is therefore characteristically associated with the military or other modes of conflict. Because patroitism is the desire to contain all horizons within a finite boundry other than an infinite horizon-it is inherently evil. We are never somewhere in relation to the horizon since the horizon moves with our vision. We can only be somewhere by turning away from the horizon, by replacing vision with opposition, by declaring the place on which we stand to be timeless- a sacred religion, a holy land, a body of truth, a code of inviolable commandments. To be somewhere is to absolutize time, space and number. The Renaissance was not an effort to promote one or another vision. It was an effort to find visions that promised more visions.
0 Replies
fishin
1
Reply
Mon 9 Dec, 2002 02:36 pm
I disagree. Opposition isn't "inherently evil" nor is patriotism. Patriotism is simply a love of and pride in one's country. Theism is simply one's set of beliefs in surrounding the nature of man and mankind's relationship to a supreme diety. There is no "inherent evil" in patriotism, racism or theism.
Each only becomes an evil when a zealot uses the "ism" for evil purposes.
Quote:
That is why patriotism-that is, the desire to protect the power in society by way of increasing the power of a society-is inherently belligerent.
This isn't a definition of Patriotism. It most closely matches "Imperialism" - An entirely different situation.
Quote:
The Renaissance was not an effort to promote one or another vision. It was an effort to find visions that promised more visions.
Unless of course, you happened to oppose those visions in which case you were tried for treason and executed. The Renaissance period wasn't exactly an age of enlightenment for mankind as a whole nor was it conflict free. Ask Robert Earl of Essex about it. I believe his head is rolling around somewhere.
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Reply
Mon 9 Dec, 2002 03:03 pm
Quote:
There is no "inherent evil" in patriotism, racism or theism.
I cannot agree with this. Although in principle, these things are not inherently evil, in practice quite a different picture emerges. All "isms" are manipulable, and don't, in fact, emerge in the "conversation" of a polity until a threat or a heresy is perceived. Those who simply love their country are by definition patriots, but the issue of one's patriotism is not broached until someone with an agenda brings the subject into play. The same holds true for the other "isms." I am atheist, in its purest sense--i am without god. This is because there are no gods or goddesses. However, others believe that there is a god, and the issue does not arise unless and until a threat is perceived to the beliefs that theists hold. The same basically applies to the other "isms," that they are brought into existence only when there is a question about what people believe or will do.
0 Replies
fishin
1
Reply
Mon 9 Dec, 2002 04:09 pm
Setanta wrote:
All "isms" are manipulable, and don't, in fact, emerge in the "conversation" of a polity until a threat or a heresy is perceived. Those who simply love their country are by definition patriots, but the issue of one's patriotism is not broached until someone with an agenda brings the subject into play.
In both of these sentences you had to add an extra parameter to make your point. If, as originally stated, the "isms" were in fact inherently evil then no addional parameters or qualifications would be necessary.
People can and do discuss views on patriotism and theism without threats or agends and there is no problem. They may disagree but that doesn't mean that there is evil - just a difference in opinion. If they were inherently evil that wouldn't be possible.
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Reply
Mon 9 Dec, 2002 04:17 pm
Inherent does not mean that the "isms" themselves are evil, just that evil resides within. I stand with the contention that evil resides within all "isms." As for adding a parameter, i did not add it. It comes into being as soon as an "ism" is practiced, as opposed to simply being a topic of private conversation. The conversation to which i referred was a conversation, written within quotes, in the polity.
0 Replies
fishin
1
Reply
Mon 9 Dec, 2002 04:43 pm
If a person lives for 50 years and loves their country through that 50 year period the patriotism exists all during that 50 years - it's been there throughout. There is no need to practice it.
The evil comes when that patriotism is threatened. That places the evil (and negative conflict) in the threat, not the patriotism. (Which is why people talk about tolerance, for the mitigation of threat..) That person may choose to defend their patriotism and it may be challenged even more so but then you slide into the zone of zealotry.
If a love of one's country is inherently evil then a love of anything is as well. I doubt many people would agree that love of another person is evil however. The concept of evil is in direct opposition to the concept of love.
0 Replies
Lightwizard
1
Reply
Mon 9 Dec, 2002 04:44 pm
isms are beliefs and beliefs are what one wants to be true not what necessarily is true. Racism is the most qualified as being inherently wrong and/or evil. Patriotism involved pride which is, after all, one of the seven deadly sins. The pride is too often false pride and it is passed off as sincere when it is really a device for subterfuge and deceit. Theism or Deism becomes more abstract as gods or goddesses are either products of the human mind or metaphysical. Buddhism survives quite well with a plan for a good life without any deity.
Philosophies conceived without the aid of a message from a god are conceived by intelligent logic and reason. Everyone is entitle to these beliefs but they are not entitled to used them as a facade for an evil purpose. Unfortunately, in the real world this happens far too many times.
We're dealing with human beings here, subject to error, hidden agendas to provide a means to an end and outright criminal intent.
0 Replies
sumac
1
Reply
Mon 9 Dec, 2002 07:09 pm
Be careful that you don't just tilt at windmills. The first, the simplest distinction a brain, or a computer, can make is that of a and not a, or on and off. Subsequent classifications are more complex and require more and more defining attributes. Not to mention a discriminating mind capable of holding multiples simultaneously. Kind of the cognitive equivalent of walking and chewing gum, and reading a book, and, and, and.
If it is easier to make basic binary differentiations, then alas, there may always be a pull, or at least a beginning point, towards or at that lowest common denominator, so to speak.
We can rail all we want against the tribal mentality, of which the nation state is just of a more complex, higher order, but a hypothesis could be set forth that it won't make any difference. It is the way we are built.
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Reply
Tue 10 Dec, 2002 06:56 am
Fishin', let it go . . . you're wrong. All believers in any "ism" start from the premise that they are the members of a superior group. This is not a case of saying i prefer the Hazelnut Blend to the Dark Roast Columbian. This is people announcing that they are the members of a group which has superior religious, philosophical or political practices, or that they are the citizens of a nation which is superior. This is the working definition of bigotry--the belief that one is the member of a superior group. Bigotry always entails prejudice, as the bigot considers all those who are defined as being outside the group as inferior--judged in advance of being known, these individuals are the target of prejudice. Evil is inherent in all "isms."
It is specious to attempt to argue by analogy that love of anything is inherently evil. It is the specific stance of believing oneself the member of a superior group which releases the evil residing within all "isms."
0 Replies
fishin
1
Reply
Tue 10 Dec, 2002 08:36 am
Nope sorry. Not wrong at all. There are billions of people worldwide that have patriotism, practice theism and observe racism and none of them "announce' anything nor do they necessarily think that their choices are superior to anyone elses. They simply go about their daily lives.
You're applying the actions of SOME of people to ALL which is stereotyping, another of those little things that leads to prejudice and bigotry.
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Reply
Tue 10 Dec, 2002 10:21 am
The discussion was of inherent evil, not actions. I ascribed no actions to anyone. "Isms" are inherently evil, because of the assumption by those who profess them that they are members of a superior group, which is bigotry, which leads to prejudice. This is simple definition, not stereotyping. That someone does not act in an evil hour does not lessen the evil therein.
)
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace