ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
I claim to be a son Of Lenin... that is a political lineage and, if I care to, I can trace that revolutionary lineage to Babeuf. Though AFAIK, I have not a drop if Russian or French blood in me, biologically.
History questions not worth their own thread V
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
- Status
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
I learned something new today. Thank you.
That puts a unique twist on Bombing one tribe of Hebrews while allowing another to return to Palestine.
Political descendancy. Interesting. Ofcourse Lenin's views differ substantially from Babeuf's. Or anyone in between. I say you're a son of Marat.
ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
But it was Michel Buonarotti's Babeuf and the Conspiracy of Equals that started the whole Leninist "closed and narrow party" thingy...
Typical.JEELEN said:
JEELEN said:
You suck at reading comprehension, can't engage constructively and have to resort to snark and one-liners. But we already know that.JEELEN said:
Moderator Action: Infracted for flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
You seem to have a problem making a point. But since the "issue" isn't worth arguing over, I can sympathize with that.
Ah, yes, and Buonarotti was ofcourse also a son of Babeuf. I still say you're a son of Marat.
Ah, yes, and Buonarotti was ofcourse also a son of Babeuf. I still say you're a son of Marat.
Pray tell, what am I "attacking"? Also, where was I "beaten" exactly? And by what? (As the latter seems, again, to be missing.)
Let me rehash for 1 second: I mention the absurdity of certain religiously inspired "descendancy" claims. You respond with some claim of a Malaccan nobly family, who takes their claim literally (basically confirming what I said then), and at the off-hand remark "That doesn't contradict conversion". Well, neither does 1+1=2. It's also completely irrelevant.
So pardon me for not feeing "beaten", or feeling any need to "attack". Nobody is "beaten", nobody is "attacking" anything.
By the way, on the topic of descendancy, I'll top you all by claiming to be Son of God. Expect the end of times (sometime in the future, but I'm not making any promises).
Let me rehash for 1 second: I mention the absurdity of certain religiously inspired "descendancy" claims. You respond with some claim of a Malaccan nobly family, who takes their claim literally (basically confirming what I said then), and at the off-hand remark "That doesn't contradict conversion". Well, neither does 1+1=2. It's also completely irrelevant.
So pardon me for not feeing "beaten", or feeling any need to "attack". Nobody is "beaten", nobody is "attacking" anything.
By the way, on the topic of descendancy, I'll top you all by claiming to be Son of God. Expect the end of times (sometime in the future, but I'm not making any promises).
Moderator Action: Please keep it civil.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
I don't use it. Although I used to. But I barely come around CFC these days anyway.
H4run
Deity
after the discussion about civilization, I want to ask, is nationalism is nothing but an extended tribalism? Do you consider nationalism as an evil ideology or at least as a phase of ideology evolution that peoples should pass (the sooner the better)? if no why?
If it is yes, by contemplating in history what will prevail in the future in the western secular world? is it civilizationism (which again another extension of tribalism)? globalism (extension of capitalism, trade globalisation forced the poor country to privatize their national company and eliminate tariff, in the end it only disbenefit local trader and benefit TNC and MNC)? Proletariat Internationalism (I don't know what to say, it never really work, it always regress to nationalism)? cosmopolitanism (this sound more tempting)?
Thanks!
If it is yes, by contemplating in history what will prevail in the future in the western secular world? is it civilizationism (which again another extension of tribalism)? globalism (extension of capitalism, trade globalisation forced the poor country to privatize their national company and eliminate tariff, in the end it only disbenefit local trader and benefit TNC and MNC)? Proletariat Internationalism (I don't know what to say, it never really work, it always regress to nationalism)? cosmopolitanism (this sound more tempting)?
Thanks!
Does it hide their posts?
I think it may be fair to compare nationalism to tribalism. Just a much larger and more inclusive tribe. But really, it's just another version of 'this is us, that is them'. Is that bad? Well that depends on how it's used.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it does.
Any reason for this?
Depends. "Tribe" has connotations of common descent; some nationalisms place emphasis on that too, but not all (modern Western civic nationalism for instance).
Potato
("Potato" is how I respond to questions which requires at least several long essays to answer properly, which I do not have the mental capacity to write. If I was to chance an unsatisfactory response, I'd say something like "It's neither a Good Thing or Bad Thing, it's an idea, a phenomenon naturally arising from the interaction of human beings, like currency or religion or reality television. It's evolved from earlier ideas but that doesn't mean people are destined to pass through it in a particular order. Like how some countries largely bypassed landline to go straight to mobile phones. I consider nationalism evil when it leads to evil things, like genocide. Does nationalism, with its accompanying 'us vs them' mentality, necessarily leads to evil things? That can be debated endlessly until the sun goes nova.")
H4run
Deity
@TK, Thank you for your kind reply, as I asked this question it also related with one of my studies, I'm now studied the concept that is build by Erdogan and Zappataro "Alliance of civilization" as a counter punch for Huntington thesis "Clash of Civilization".
Many views suggest that the concept of civilizations can be a good alternatives for the counter of the concept of nation-states, Nation stated from the time it gain the currency created so much problem, miss conception, separation, war, genocide like what happen in India, Turkey, Indonesia.
Ernest Renan is an orientalist that effected the creation of nation state in the muslim land, his notion that Nation have a soul hence it is sacred, combine with other orientalist that gave identities of Turkish nationalist and Arab Nationalist as Bernard Lewis mention there are 3 orientalist that form Turkish new national identity, I just remembered two of them now which are David A. Lumley and Arminius Vambery, created many types of trouble like genocide (Armenian genocide in Turkey, Bosnian genocide in Serbia), civil war, etc.
I see the solution for the muslim world is, to go back to the concept of Ummah which I believed is the antidote to counter nationalism. That is my believed I understand if many don't agree with that. While in other hand I also thought many of the westerner especially the one which I give respect to which are the pacifist, the non interventionist and the humanist one, also felt that they are having enough with the narcissistic and destructive aspect of nationalism, as it act for a mirror to satisfy they narcissistic impulse. I thought in the future it possible to repeat the history of how civilization in Hindia ocean interact with each other (From Egypt to Hindia coast) as before the arrival of Portuguese they were quite heterogeneous and peaceful even tend to created a pacifist type of civilization, there were Muslim, Hindus and Jews having a peaceful relation for centuries, the Jews settling in every part of the Muslim land, those nations were not even bother to build naval army to protect their area, in short they were in peacefully co-exist and nearly form what I believe to be "alliance of civilization" not until the Portuguese come and ruin the interaction. As their naval fleet ask the Hindus Indian to slaughter the muslim or else they will suffer bombardment, the Indian refused it and it resulted 3 day of bombardment and the Egyptian and Indian trade ship shoulder to shoulder protecting themselves against the Portuguese naval fleet, which end up to be destory. And I take that from Geniza manuscript from the travelog of Amitav Ghosh.
I thought there must be a way or a concept to re-created this again. As Jews, Hindu and Muslims were enjoin co-existent together the only part of the world that not enjoin the same co-existent is the European Christian, infact at that time they were marching a crusade against the Muslim. So I was thinking if the Muslim have the concept of Ummah, what the western hold in the future? Civilizationism (which not a good idea)? Cosmopolitanism (good idea if they not worry that the western will be extinct by the immigrant)? or Globalism? Maybe in the future there will be more stable world to live in where different moral system and belief system can be accepted and even accommodate, where peoples can say "I'm right you are wrong" without end up in secretariat war :/ Sound utopian indeed, but yea I was thinking this subject can also be my thesis maybe.
Many views suggest that the concept of civilizations can be a good alternatives for the counter of the concept of nation-states, Nation stated from the time it gain the currency created so much problem, miss conception, separation, war, genocide like what happen in India, Turkey, Indonesia.
Ernest Renan is an orientalist that effected the creation of nation state in the muslim land, his notion that Nation have a soul hence it is sacred, combine with other orientalist that gave identities of Turkish nationalist and Arab Nationalist as Bernard Lewis mention there are 3 orientalist that form Turkish new national identity, I just remembered two of them now which are David A. Lumley and Arminius Vambery, created many types of trouble like genocide (Armenian genocide in Turkey, Bosnian genocide in Serbia), civil war, etc.
I see the solution for the muslim world is, to go back to the concept of Ummah which I believed is the antidote to counter nationalism. That is my believed I understand if many don't agree with that. While in other hand I also thought many of the westerner especially the one which I give respect to which are the pacifist, the non interventionist and the humanist one, also felt that they are having enough with the narcissistic and destructive aspect of nationalism, as it act for a mirror to satisfy they narcissistic impulse. I thought in the future it possible to repeat the history of how civilization in Hindia ocean interact with each other (From Egypt to Hindia coast) as before the arrival of Portuguese they were quite heterogeneous and peaceful even tend to created a pacifist type of civilization, there were Muslim, Hindus and Jews having a peaceful relation for centuries, the Jews settling in every part of the Muslim land, those nations were not even bother to build naval army to protect their area, in short they were in peacefully co-exist and nearly form what I believe to be "alliance of civilization" not until the Portuguese come and ruin the interaction. As their naval fleet ask the Hindus Indian to slaughter the muslim or else they will suffer bombardment, the Indian refused it and it resulted 3 day of bombardment and the Egyptian and Indian trade ship shoulder to shoulder protecting themselves against the Portuguese naval fleet, which end up to be destory. And I take that from Geniza manuscript from the travelog of Amitav Ghosh.
I thought there must be a way or a concept to re-created this again. As Jews, Hindu and Muslims were enjoin co-existent together the only part of the world that not enjoin the same co-existent is the European Christian, infact at that time they were marching a crusade against the Muslim. So I was thinking if the Muslim have the concept of Ummah, what the western hold in the future? Civilizationism (which not a good idea)? Cosmopolitanism (good idea if they not worry that the western will be extinct by the immigrant)? or Globalism? Maybe in the future there will be more stable world to live in where different moral system and belief system can be accepted and even accommodate, where peoples can say "I'm right you are wrong" without end up in secretariat war :/ Sound utopian indeed, but yea I was thinking this subject can also be my thesis maybe.
- Status
