I will go further to illustrate what i am saying. I've read at various sources that there have been such-and-such a (small) number of years of peace in all of recorded history. The details are of dubious provenance, but the point is well taken that at any given time in history, it is extremely difficult to say that there is no war anywhere on the planet. That good men and women live their lives peacably on a quotidien basis does not lessen the inherent evil of "isms." When someone with an agenda wishes to ratify their plan and secure their power, the adherence to "isms"--whether racism, some particular brand of sectarian theism, philosophy or ideology--is always waiting in the wings to provide the means of exploitation. Seeing the "other" as less than human, or dangerously misguided is necessary to overcome the scruples of peaceful people in order to prosecute the strife. "They also serve who only stand and wait." Theism, racism, nationalism--all the "isms" patiently await their main chance.
I note that you say "nationalism" rather than "patriotism", though. I think that patriotism is the odd one out. I can love my country without hating other countries, or even thinking my country is vastly superior. It's my country. I like it.
Well, Boss, i did say nationalism rather than patriotism, but i don't know that i would exclude it. I love my country as well, and do not think it superior--so i rather doubt that either your or my attitudes qualify as either patriotism or nationalism. In any event, when those in power, or who hunger after power, want to find a casus belli in the smoke-and-mirrors games of international "diplomacy", either will serve just as well as the other.
It's the negative (wrong or evil) actions steming from isms that are a concern to me. If everyone subscribed to the same ism, there would be no conflict. It's the contentions and conflicts of isms that is inherently evil and that is a part of human nature that all of us on this forum I'm sure would shun -- nevertheless it exists. When nationalism/patriotism, racism and theism combine in evil intent that it is the most dangerous. What do you suppose is in the minds of those who want to start a domino effect in the Arab countries to promote democracy? Is democracy their only motive. Yeah, sure.
When Sadam invaded Kuwait, the price of oil jumped from $18/bbl to $40/bbl in a matter of days. Every dollar increase in the price of a barrel of crude means the deaths of tens of thousands in the Third World. The equation is relatively simple. Marginal food production, inadequate infrastructure, and the sudden increase in oil prices making petroleum products, especially gasoline and diesel fuel, suddently very expensive--the tin-horn regimes will see to it that their armies and police are well-fed, and to hell with everyone else. Anyone able to do so, begins to hoard food.
This is what occurred in Somalia. Mohammed Said Barre had run a clan-based, respressive regime for 20 years. When the circumstances reached the breaking point, the other clans rallied behind Mohammed Farrah Aidid, whose clan was the most powerful, with the best shot at toppling Barre. Enter the UN, heavily supported by the US. Aidid could tout democracy, but the other clan leaders didn't buy the proposition that they would even get to the table, much less get a slice of the pie. So they backed the US, but were willing to sit on the sidelines, and let GI's do the dying, if dying there would be.
I'm optomistic about the future of the human race, but a complete cynic in regards to motives of anyone in a position of leadership. What bothers me most, even in our own country, is that national constitutions do not call on anyone to provide leadership. There's not a mention of it in our constitution. This is the province of political parties, and is used to flog the agenda of those in, or who would be in, power.
In the muslim world, what occurred in Somolia is repeated time and again. The Ibn Saud clan runs Saudia Arabia, without any greater claim to "leadership" than any other clan. They maintained their position with British support initially, and immediately saw the coming power, establishing Aramco (Arabian-American Oil) without demur as soon as it was proposed to them. They are scrupulous about maintaining the "religious" purity of the holy places of Islam, which has made matters very difficult for them ever since US forces have been stationed in that country. The alternative for them, is, however, unthinkable. The nation does not, technically, have an army or an air force. They have a national guard, and the air national guard is made up solely of clan members. This is tribalism at its highest form of expression. Saddam is the leader of a minority clan in power; Assad of Syria established a minority clan in power, and it is unprecedented in middle eastern history that he was able assure the succession of his son. Egypt, in the coup lead by a Sudanese general, rid itself of clan leadership when they chased Farouk from power. I don't now recall that general's name, but he was quietly eased out of power, and Gamel Abd Al-Nassar took over, with Anwar Al-Sadat and Hosney Moubarek (sp?) as his lieutenants. Egypt is unique in that it has escaped this pattern since the early 1950's--and we all know that the government there fights a constant war with religious fanaticism.
To my mind, tribalism is the oldest of the "isms," and granddaddy to them all.
Re: Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Dead Unicorns
dyslexia wrote: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.
Hmmm, I see.....yes.
HEY!!! Lightwizard!
How the heck are you?
I'm helping my mom get ready to sell her house in exchange for homecooking and the use of her computer. I'm getting alot done.
I never liked Unicorns....
Just keep your room picked up! :wink:
Lessoned learned my friend.
When are we going to start the Sicko thread?
Have you seen the trailer?
It's already active and in the top ten favorite on the film forum:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56520
That's because you don't check into the film forum like I rarely check into the politics.
Lightwizard, When are you going to come over to the political threads and crack a couple jokes?
It's almost all there good for.
At least give us a Menken quote.
