Why must one judge nations 'superior' or 'inferior' in order to define one's own nationality?
Why must one judge nations 'superior' or 'inferior' in order to define one's own nationality?
David F. Craik
Go for it, time to start to initate the changes.Originally posted by Kimpatsu
No, that's more gradual, but it can be done. First, we need a liberal revolution in the education system.
So shoot me.
And you're committing tu quoque YET AGAIN!
Best lock up the world population than.
Which is an unacceptable thing to say, and must be punished.
Change has to come from within, you cannot force change.
If we could force changes we would have solved many problems like the Israel/Palestine situation a long time ago.
Amen, to that.Originally posted by Soulend
Why must one judge nations 'superior' or 'inferior' in order to define one's own nationality?
My nationality is defined by many different aspects and not just locality or a piece of paper.
Because the very idea of nationality is exclusionary.Originally posted by Soulend
Why must one judge nations 'superior' or 'inferior' in order to define one's own nationality?
How are you getting involved?Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey
Go for it, time to start to initate the changes.
Willingly.Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey
So shoot me.
What a depressing world view you have, that everyone in it must be racist.Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey
Best lock up the world population than.
Once again, arguing a logical fallacy. Laws don't change people's hearts, but they do restrain the heartless. In Japan, it is not illegal to put up a Jim Crow sign. This must change immediately. Change CAN be forced by law; that's why laws exist.Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey
Change has to come from within, you cannot force change.
If we could force changes we would have solved many problems like the Israel/Palestine situation a long time ago.
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
becasue the very idea of nationality is exclusionary.
If so, then so is the idea of being tall, fat, strong, white, a Shorinji Kenshi, atheist, Arab, a Cambridge alumnus, poor, asthmatic or blonde.
Everything is 'exclusionary', because people are different, whether by chance, birth, or choice. There is a difference between being equal and being identical.
Last edited by Soulend; 15th October 2003 at 02:48.
David F. Craik
I am not, I ain't the one complaining and screaming foul.Originally posted by Kimpatsu
How are you getting involved?
Call it realistic.
What a depressing world view you have, that everyone in it must be racist.
Not everybody is perfect & idealistic like you.
Laws will only change the outward method/appearance of discrimination it will never stop it.
In Japan, it is not illegal to put up a Jim Crow sign. This must change immediately. Change CAN be forced by law; that's why laws exist.
Like I said that are many more methods to legally restrict access to places besides the "Jim Crow" signs.
Ahyhuh, have fun fighting your fight.
Agreed, but nationality by definition argues that "our" nation is superior to that one. Read Ernest Gellner's "Nations and Nationalism" or "The Nation in History" by Anthony D. Smith.Originally posted by Soulend
Everything is 'exclusionary', because people are different, whether by chance, birth, or choice. There is a difference between being equal and being identical.
Nations are explicitly intended to be divisive.
Nationality: The status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization.
My birth certificate says I was born in South Africa of South African parents; therefore I'm South African. I don't regard myself superior or inferior to anyone based upon this. It's just a simple fact, like the fact that I'm white or that I have brown hair.
Claiming a nationality is not the same as jingoism or ultranationalism, just as claiming membership in a particular martial art does not mean you believe that all others are "inferior".
David F. Craik
But often leads to it.Originally posted by Soulend
Claiming a nationality is not the same as jingoism or ultranationalism.
BTW, David, if you're South African, how can you serve in the US military? What's the procedure on that?
Naa, Tony, I think often's a bit of an exaggeration. People will always search for a way to define or differentate themselves from the next person. The 'empty vessels' are usually those that view their differences as marks of superiority. You're hanging around or reading the views of the wrong blokes, perhaps.But often leads to it.
I'm a legal resident of the United States. I haven't changed my citizenship due to laziness, regrettably.BTW, David, if you're South African, how can you serve in the US military? What's the procedure on that?
David F. Craik
Yeah, today is a bad day; I've been reading David Aldwinkle's website all morning, and I find it depressing.Originally posted by Soulend
Naa, Tony, I think often's a bit of an exaggeration. People will always search for a way to define or differentate themselves from the next person. The 'empty vessels' are usually those that view their differences as marks of superiority. You're hanging around or reading the views of the wrong blokes, perhaps.
Get dual nationality, like I have (UK and Irish).Originally posted by Soulend
I'm a legal resident of the United States. I haven't changed my citizenship due to laziness, regrettably.
So, do you still talk like a Sout' Effrikan?
LOL..no, I lost my accent quickly. All my people were Scottish, so luckily I never had the Afrikaaner's gutteral twang. More of a kind of suave Sean Connery thing going on.Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Get dual nationality, like I have (UK and Irish).
So, do you still talk like a Sout' Effrikan?
Can't really be bothered with dual nationality - this is my home now, and the only reason I would bother getting a piece of paper proclaiming me a U.S. citizen is because it will widen job opportunities after I retire. I already know where my loyalties lie.
Now, the fact that you have dual nationality is interesting to me Tony. Given your dislike of nationality as a vehicle toward jingoism, why have two of them? Or is this only a step toward the day when you can legally hold all nationalities?
This is actually some pretty interesting stuff, and I hope not too far off the original topic. Nationalism and exclusivism to some degree will be inevitable for many people. People tend to be more concerned about their own family - otherwise we would descend into the depths of dispair upon glancing at the obituary column in the local paper. By extension, they will feel somewhat of a loyalty to their neighborhood, hometown, state or province, then nation. Just the way folks are. They tend to define themselves by their associations due to a very real need to belong to something. Whether this is right, wrong, or neither I don't know; but it is quite natural - many of the other mammals on earth are the same way.
I recall reading somewhere an idea to this effect. If you were to take the average person to see a sporting event, even if they knew nothing of the sport, the teams, or the players by the end of the game they would be quietly rooting for one team or the other based only on their prejudices - be they on the team's name, uniform colors, or preconceived notions about where they're from.
Of course, none of this gives anyone the right to treat other human beings as second-class citizens due to race or nationality.
David F. Craik
Exactly so. My objective is to hold as many passports as possible, to show up just how daft the whole notion is.Originally posted by Soulend
Now, the fact that you have dual nationality is interesting to me Tony. Given your dislike of nationality as a vehicle toward jingoism, why have two of them? Or is this only a step toward the day when you can legally hold all nationalities?
There was an interesting experiment conducted once in which 20 people who didn't know each other were taken to a party and each assigned one of two badges--X or W--at random upon arrival, 10 of each group. Within 30 mins., each person had identified with those in their own "group" and were cold-shouldering the others--based on nothing more than an arbitrary badge.Originally posted by Soulend
(Snip.) Of course, none of this gives anyone the right to treat other human beings as second-class citizens due to race or nationality.
BTW, I do get depressed when I read the obits--and see that Bruce B isn't listed there yet!
I don't really understand why it's daft, but oh well. If we don't have nationality to divide us then we will divide based on culture, language, accent, skin color, nose size, movie preference, or any of a multitude of idiotic things, as the experiment you mentioned clearly shows.Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Exactly so. My objective is to hold as many passports as possible, to show up just how daft the whole notion is.
David F. Craik