Posted by FZM  3/08/2018 4:23 pm | #51 |
seigneur wrote:
Yes and yes. And what is *your* point? That there are no nation-states? That everybody is deluded about their ethnicity, about to what country, language, or race they belong, or to what degree they have adapted to wherever they happen to live?
What I wrote directly contradicts those points. My point would be that the USA lacks racial homogeneity but that even Poland, a current classical example of a linguistically and culturally homogenous nation state, can lack a history of being so homogenous before the 20th century. Its people, through their history, can have assimilated people originally from different racial and linguistic backgrounds in reasonable numbers and can have failed, through long periods, to understand their national identity in terms of cultural, linguistic and racial homogeneity . (If speakers of different Western Slavonic languages and speakers of East Slavonic languages (and Lithuanians) are treated as a single race though the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at its greatest extent could be treated as a pretty mono-racial state. Looking at genetics you could probably make an argument that there is a single Slavic race whose members have more in common genetically than what seperates them).
I thought that a position like that of Clinias, as far as I understood it at the time I was posting, would require that nation states or races have longer histories of homogeneity and lack of assimilation than is available in a 'model' nation state like today's Poland.
The role of Marxists in this region is interesting because it illustrates that Marxists are not always hostile to national identity, nationalism etc. but at times have worked to strengthen or support it. Communists may have produced even more homogenous national societies through working to eliminate the previous aristocracies and hereditary middle classes while in power.
Last edited by FZM (3/08/2018 4:48 pm)
|
Posted by Jeremy Taylor 3/08/2018 9:20 pm | #52 |
I am going to start deleting anti-Semitic, conspiratorial rants.
Personally, I think Clinias needs to give a better justification for defining the nation in such an overwhelmingly racial and hereditary way. Certainly, historically, the identity of a nation or people often had an important hereditary and even racial (though not in the modern sense) component, but they were hardly identified in the way some ultranationalists have identified them from the nineteenth century onwards. Racial purity is more a modern notion.
Even when ethnic groups looked back to common founders or heritage, such as the Celts or German tribes, this was often a myth, anyway. The racial or ethnic lineages of people who came to see themselves as the West Saxons, for example, were varied.
|
Posted by seigneur 3/09/2018 1:45 am | #53 |
Yes and yes. And what is *your* point? That there are no nation-states? That everybody is deluded about their ethnicity, about to what country, language, or race they belong, or to what degree they have adapted to wherever they happen to live?
What I wrote directly contradicts those points. My point would be that the USA lacks racial homogeneity but that even Poland, a current classical example of a linguistically and culturally homogenous nation state, can lack a history of being so homogenous before the 20th century. Its people, through their history, can have assimilated people originally from different racial and linguistic backgrounds in reasonable numbers...
None of this changes my point or even speaks to it.
...and can have failed, through long periods, to understand their national identity in terms of cultural, linguistic and racial homogeneity.
To "understand their national identity" is a pretty subtle thing. Sociologists, historians and philosophers ponder over things like this. Ordinary people simply live it. They worry over identity only when there is an *identity crisis* due to war, mass immigration, or the like. And, in general, pre-19th ("national awakening") era perceptions of identity would have been mostly something other than "national", which does not obviate the fact that Poland's homogeneity (or level of diversity) has been about the same for a millennium - because to keep things comparable we must use the same criteria throughout.
The role of Marxists in this region is interesting because it illustrates that Marxists are not always hostile to national identity, nationalism etc. but at times have worked to strengthen or support it.
Marxists are not always Marxists. I mean, look at the different strands of Marxism, Bolshevism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, and then look at Social Democrat ideologues very cautious of Bolshevism and Stalinism. Both are Marxist, but at least revolutionary versus non-revolutionary are two radically different things.
Ideology is one thing. Actual politics with concrete policies may turn out something totally different. When Bolshevists came into power by coup and then started the civil war to keep power, many things changed, such as embracing universal terror just to keep power and creating a strict top-down diktat form of government instead of bottom-up mandate according to their platform. This is not a leftist phenomenon. It's a power-struggle phenomenon at critical times. There was both Red and White Terror at that time.
I am not at all surprised that once Stalin got into power and it was clear that the world revolution was not happening all by itself as had been prophesied, he had to establish an actual country with population and borders, with interior and foreign policies. He had to, regardless of ideology. Therefore nationalism. And to enhance his personal position - personality cult. This is not surprising that Marxists may do it. When pressed in a similar situation, dictators of all minds and colours have done it.
But by now, Clinias has invented the label Masonic-Marxist. There is no end to his fruitful contributions.
Last edited by seigneur (3/09/2018 2:06 am)
|
Posted by seigneur 3/09/2018 2:48 am | #54 |
Let's use the historical nomenclature.
Why are you using, saying America is a land of immigrants? Because they want to legitimize massive amounts of immigration. There was "no state" that granted "immigration" in America. The Europeans just moved in. The American Indian moved into North America the same way. They moved from Asia, across the Bering Strait into North America. They were NOT immigrants but Colonizers.
Colonizers set up their own government. You immigrate to another state that accepts you.
The misuse and abuse of language is unethical. And for those "catholics" to adopt propaganda terms and use propaganda is inexcusable and wrong. Your viewpoints are NOT based on Truth but on Ideology. That is why you are abusing words.
There were the Thirteen Colonies---NOT the Thirteen Immigrancies.
Evil.
Sorry, but immigration was not the only thing I said about USA. I said: colonization, immigration, expulsion of natives, and expansion by conquest and annexation. I was not talking exclusively about the colonial era, but the entire history of the country. The original 13 colonies that declared independence and fought for it have meanwhile become 50 states.
|
Posted by FZM 3/09/2018 6:12 am | #55 |
Yes and yes. And what is *your* point? That there are no nation-states? That everybody is deluded about their ethnicity, about to what country, language, or race they belong, or to what degree they have adapted to wherever they happen to live?
What I wrote directly contradicts those points. My point would be that the USA lacks racial homogeneity but that even Poland, a current classical example of a linguistically and culturally homogenous nation state, can lack a history of being so homogenous before the 20th century. Its people, through their history, can have assimilated people originally from different racial and linguistic backgrounds in reasonable numbers...
None of this changes my point or even speaks to it.
Sorry, I have maybe lost the thread of whatever point you were trying to make, I suppose, to Clinias. That the de jure citizens of the USA are more genetically diverse than the citizens of Poland? That there isn't the same level of linguistic continuity among the de jure citizens of the USA as among the citizens of present day Poland and that the bulk of US citizens haven't lived in the same geographical location for 1000 years whereas the bulk of present day Poles have?
But, as far as I can see Clinias doesn't recognise the political entity that is the United States and its citizens as constituting a real nation or race anyway. If you treat British settlers and generally Germanic settlers (why not? Poland is homogenous because of the genetic similarity between all Slavs and similarity between all Slavic languages) as a race or nation then the main difference between that and the Polish race is that one has moved further from its original home.
|
Posted by seigneur 3/09/2018 6:51 am | #56 |
Sorry, I have maybe lost the thread of whatever point you were trying to make, I suppose, to Clinias. That the de jure citizens of the USA are more genetically diverse than the citizens of Poland? That there isn't the same level of linguistic continuity among the de jure citizens of the USA as among the citizens of present day Poland and that the bulk of US citizens haven't lived in the same geographical location for 1000 years whereas the bulk of present day Poles have?
Well, it's very difficult to summarize the main point that Clinias is making, but among other things he thinks there is such a thing as "the propaganda of diversity and multiculturalism by the American Catholic hierarchy" and that "Gospel of Love is a vehicle for Political Correctness and Social Justice which are a genocidal ideology; they are Cultural Marxism." And he vehemently opposes this.
What is the logical opposite of "diversity and multiculturalism"? As a minimum, it would be policies ignoring diversity and multiculturalism. And this is USA Clinias is talking about, the country that has been diverse and multicultural since its inception, necessarily so because it was formed by colonization and its history is characterized by aggressive expansion.
I'm basically saying that Clinias is mistaking USA (a prime example of a diverse and multicultural country because it was born like that and has kept adding to it with its own policies throughout history) for a country like Poland (a prime example of relatively stable homogeneity throughout history). You may of course find details in Poland's history to confuse the picture, but when you keep USA in mind for comparison, the point should be obvious.
But, as far as I can see Clinias doesn't recognise the political entity that is the United States and its citizens as constituting a real nation or race anyway.
I don't think there is a way to interpret Clinias so as to make him appear consistent.
|
Posted by seigneur 3/09/2018 6:54 am | #57 |
If you treat British settlers and generally Germanic settlers (why not? Poland is homogenous because of the genetic similarity between all Slavs and similarity between all Slavic languages) as a race or nation then the main difference between that and the Polish race is that one has moved further from its original home.
Yes, they moved away from their own home into the midst of other people's home, i.e. the colonists do not have their real home there. This is a significant point, don't you agree? As a corollary of this point, it's dubious of colonists to call themselves a nation or regard themselves as a nation-state with some particular background, language, skin colour, "Christian values" or something like this. Whereas Poland is the home of Poles, always was as far as history goes.
Last edited by seigneur (3/09/2018 7:08 am)
|
Posted by Clinias 3/09/2018 9:06 am | #58 |
“Wisdom is concerned with the primary causes and principles.” (ref: Arist., Metp., I, i, 17; §931b 35-30; Loeb, 9)
Aristotle makes clear
“We cannot know the truth apart from the cause”. (ref: Metp., II, i, 6; §993b 20; Loeb, 87)
In other words, If you don't know the origin of a thing---you can't know it. There is NO philosophy whatsoever, when the cause can NOT be known---or one refuses to know it.
There is a lot of cowardice in the ranks of catholics. I don't know how many times, I've mentioned something and catholics turn away because they can't face reality. If you can't face reality---you can't be a philosopher. Jeremy Taylor has put the kabash on knowing cause and the origin of things. That is not philosophy. Therefore I end my participation in this thread. None of you are philosophers. Deceived and being deceived.
Socrates in the Republic says this about being a philosopher: a philosopher must be a lover of truth "...and they will love the truth." Jowett, Republic, §485) and a "Hater of Lies "And will the love of a lie be any part of a philosopher's nature? Will he not utterly hate a lie?" Jowett, Republic, §490).
To not present reality, and all the facts of reality---is to lie. To not have the WHOLE truth is a lie. And God says in the Book of Revelation, that there is a special Lake of Fire, for those that lie.
"We are not in the world to give the laws...but in order to obey the commands of the gods".
~ Plutarch, priest of Apollo at the Doric Temple of Delphi.
|
Posted by DanielCC 3/09/2018 9:28 am | #59 |
I have not participated in this thread mainly because I find politics an utter malignant waste of time. The debate however was ill-formulated from the word off - one should not have asked do nations exist (they don't) but whether people ought to be nationalist. Likewise Clinias was really trying to stake his argument on an analogy between nation and family as based on blood relation (something I would deny even in the case of family). This has been obscured by unnecessary capitalization, interjected appeals to the Greeks and a failure to even comprehend basic philosophical terms like 'contingent'.
[To not present reality, and all the facts of reality---is to lie. To not have the WHOLE truth is a lie. And God says in the Book of Revelation, that there is a special Lake of Fire, for those that lie.
We call them politicians (and for some reason, probably usage of the black arts on their part, many people listen to them)
|
Posted by seigneur 3/09/2018 9:35 am | #60 |
@Clinias
Before you leave, could you please answer what I asked you earlier: Are anti-miscegenation views and laws biblical/Christian?
And your latest post now prompted this question: Do you think Aristotle is a Catholic?
