Nationalism, modesty and airplanes in the Infinite age

[Crezth]

Actually, no; they'll usually bring up Nazis.

You mean like "at least we aren't Nazis?" That's never made much sense to me. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I'm getting extremely off-topic, but suffice to say any idiot that mocks a nationality in the same breath that they praise another needs to critically review his own understanding of history before persisting in his ignorance.

Russian Civilization is the greatest and most benevolent civilization of history, We$tern civilization, on the contrary, is the most vile and disgusting.

Try to refute that!

 

[Dachs]

An ethnicity could be seen as a collection of biologically related families just as a family can be seen as collection of biologically related individuals.

No, it can't. Ancestry is not the sole determinant of ethnicity; it is not even the most important.

 

[Crezth]

Russian Civilization is the greatest and most benevolent civilizations of history, We$tern civilization, on the contrary, is the most vile and disgusting.

Try to refute that!

Well, I, uh, I can't.

I fold. Well-played, good sir.

 

[Tahuti]

No, it can't. Ancestry is not the sole determinant of ethnicity; it is not even the most important.

Then what is? Religion - even though some ethnicities are by majority irreligious? Language - even though though some members of an ethnicity do not even speak their respective ancestral tongue? Or location - even though there are ethnic diaspora's?

 

[Artifis]

I really wish the whole of humanity would collectively stop 1) claiming countries invent things and then 2) use the word 'we' to refer to an ethnicity/government/nationality etc. when talking about an event unless they were actually there to do something.

No, Sweden didn't invent the dynamite. Alfred Nobel did. No, America did not invent the handphone, Martin Cooper did. Just like how England didn't write Midsummer's Night Dream, Britain didn't the steamship.

I want to hit people when they go "We defeated the Germans in WWII". No, you weren't there! You weren't alive! The Allied powers defeated the Germans, President Truman defeated the Germans, my Grandfather who fought in the war defeated the Germans in WWII". You did no sort of the thing. Just because you belonged to the country that did, does not make it that you can use the term "we" as to describe actual participation in it.

Well then by extension isn't that a reason to not be proud of any single race/culture/people? For example, say that I'm a native Greenlander (which I'm not by the way), and it turns out that we were the first to plot the stars, way before the Mayans or any other people. Should I be proud of this fact?

Likewise, should the Japanese be proud that they have such a long and rich history? Or the Americans that their constitution is one of the more progressive ones in modern society today?

To answer this (rather spread out, to put it nicely) thread, I still consider myself childlike in many ways. It's quite a conscious decision because I don't believe in losing certain aspects of childhood, which many people seem to do unfortunately. I must say though that I'm still trying to reconcile that with the perceived maturity one needs to have in order to be taken seriously. After all, isn't Mandela legendary for his mischievous streak?

Airplanes? Don't interest me that much except as vehicles to get from Point A to Point B.

Nationalism? You should know my views on that from a thread I made quite some time ago: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=446876

 

[Traitorfish]

Then what is? Religion - even though some ethnicities are by majority irreligious? Language - even though though some members of an ethnicity do not even speak their respective ancestral tongue? Or location - even though there are ethnic diaspora's?

Why do you assume that there's a single, universal logic to ethnic identification?

 

[Tahuti]

Why do you assume that there's a single, universal logic to ethnic identification?

I don't. But I do assume ancestry is the primary method of ethnic identification.

 

[aronnax]

Well then by extension isn't that a reason to not be proud of any single race/culture/people? For example, say that I'm a native Greenlander (which I'm not by the way), and it turns out that we were the first to plot the stars, way before the Mayans or any other people. Should I be proud of this fact?

Likewise, should the Japanese be proud that they have such a long and rich history? Or the Americans that their constitution is one of the more progressive ones in modern society today?

Then say this instead:

"Ancient Greenlanders were the first people to plot the states! I am proud of be a Greenlander."

Notice the lack of the word 'we'? Though that is a strange reasons to be proud of something.

I see nothing wrong for an American to say "I am proud of our constitution". The constitution is after all, something collectively applicable to every American. "We wrote the constitution" is something different...

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't. But I do assume ancestry is the primary method of ethnic identification.

And as Dachs said, you'd be wrong. So where does that leave you?

 

[luiz]

Fred, first let me say that I am a big fan of Santos Dumont, he was a great inventor, a great human and a great Brazilian. But he didn't invent the airplane (although he was one of the fathers of aviation).

The Wright Brothers did fly an airplane that did not need a catapult before the 14 Bis, and that is quite accepted among aviation historians. And the design of their planes was undoubtedly much more influential than the rather clumsy 14 Bis. So there is no basis to claim Santos Dumont was the first, other than Brazilian nationalism. He did not invent the wrist watch either, BTW (he merely popularized it, being a fashionable guy and an international celebrity).

 

[Glassfan]

I don't. But I do assume ancestry is the primary method of ethnic identification.

Look it up in the dictionary. Ethnicity may refer to common traits such as race, nationality, religion, language or culture. It's not necessarily the same as racial ancestry. Many Jews in America are not ethnically obvious. Meanwhile, lots of young White kids try to be gangstas.

Now, Brazilians come to mind here. What's a Brazilian? Racially they're a combination of Portuguese, African and Native American. But also they're increasingly distinct culturally - in their language and music - and I would say as their economy grows and they become a leading power in the future - their History will be rewritten to be distinct and and as boastful as others have been in their heyday.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I really wish the whole of humanity would collectively stop 1) claiming countries invent things and then 2) use the word 'we' to refer to an ethnicity/government/nationality etc. when talking about an event unless they were actually there to do something.

No, Sweden didn't invent the dynamite. Alfred Nobel did. No, America did not invent the handphone, Martin Cooper did. Just like how England didn't write Midsummer's Night Dream, Britain didn't the steamship.

I want to hit people when they go "We defeated the Germans in WWII". No, you weren't there! You weren't alive! The Allied powers defeated the Germans, President Truman defeated the Germans, my Grandfather who fought in the war defeated the Germans in WWII". You did no sort of the thing. Just because you belonged to the country that did, does not make it that you can use the term "we" as to describe actual participation in it.

Outstanding

 

[Ayatollah So]

To answer this (rather spread out, to put it nicely) thread, I still consider myself childlike in many ways. It's quite a conscious decision because I don't believe in losing certain aspects of childhood, which many people seem to do unfortunately. I must say though that I'm still trying to reconcile that with the perceived maturity one needs to have in order to be taken seriously.

I think maturity should lead to an increased range of emotional and behavioral possibilities, not just a shift. In other words, I never want to grow up either


Link to video.

 

[Tahuti]

Look it up in the dictionary. Ethnicity may refer to common traits such as race, nationality, religion, language or culture. It's not necessarily the same as racial ancestry. Many Jews in America are not ethnically obvious. Meanwhile, lots of young White kids try to be gangstas.

Many ethnic Jews are also atheists, yet are considered (often by themselves as well) to be Jews. Yes, I do know that there are Ethiopian Jews who are black, but who is to say they cannot share a common ancestry with German Jews? Ethnicities can and do cross racial, national, religious, lingiustic and cultural boundaries, so these common traits simply don't add up. Ancestry, on the other hand, seems to be fairly consistent way to distingiush ethnic groups.

Now, Brazilians come to mind here. What's a Brazilian? Racially they're a combination of Portuguese, African and Native American. But also they're increasingly distinct culturally - in their language and music - and I would say as their economy grows and they become a leading power in the future - their History will be rewritten to be distinct and and as boastful as others have been in their heyday.

Brazilians, Americans, Australians, Mexicans are solely (immigrant) nations and therefore solely nationalities, not ethnicities. You can still be a Mexican national and ethnically Dutch. You are right though, that these nationalities may become ethnicities in the - may I say far - future, when each Brazilian becomes very distantly related to eachother, but more closely related to eachother than to Columbians, for example.

All that said, I don't think ethnicity is a useful concept other than to identify political and historical currents, especially considering we eventually all have an ancestor in common.

 

[Traitorfish]

Many ethnic Jews are also atheists, yet are considered (often by themselves as well) to be Jews. Yes, I do know that there are Ethiopian Jews who are black, but who is to say they cannot share a common ancestry with German Jews? Ethnicities can and do cross racial, national, religious, lingiustic and cultural boundaries, so these common traits simply don't add up. Ancestry, on the other hand, seems to be fairly consistent way to distingiush ethnic groups.

That only suggests that the ways in which ethnicity are established is often related to family background, not that ancestry is necessarily a determinant. These aren't things like red hair or a big nose, something that can only be inherited, they're just things that tend to be inherited. It may take a few generations for a family to integrate, even a degree of intermarriage, but that's just the nature of in-groups.

 

[Formaldehyde]

First, I don't think Maher was ranting against nationalism. He was ranting about misplaced nationalism. He makes it pretty clear he wants to be able to claim "USA #1" without being hypocritical about it.

Second, I also disagree with nationalism based on the achievements of specific individuals, as Aronnax so eloquently stated.

But it is the entire notion of nationalism which is the real problem.

Nationalist slogan "Brazil, love it or leave it", often used during the Brazilian military dictatorship.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

"Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception." George Orwell

“Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” Albert Einstein

 

[Tahuti]

Welcome back Formaldehyde!

 

[FredLC]

Fred, first let me say that I am a big fan of Santos Dumont, he was a great inventor, a great human and a great Brazilian. But he didn't invent the airplane (although he was one of the fathers of aviation).

The Wright Brothers did fly an airplane that did not need a catapult before the 14 Bis, and that is quite accepted among aviation historians. And the design of their planes was undoubtedly much more influential than the rather clumsy 14 Bis. So there is no basis to claim Santos Dumont was the first, other than Brazilian nationalism. He did not invent the wrist watch either, BTW (he merely popularized it, being a fashionable guy and an international celebrity).

Did I really came out as defending the thesis of Dumont's fathership of Airplanes? (and I also knew of the wristwatch; damn, it's in the link)

First, I don't think Maher was ranting against nationalism. He was ranting about misplaced nationalism. He makes it pretty clear he wants to be able to claim "USA #1" without being hypocritical about it.

My only reason to mention Maher (which's show I like, as I consider it rayther funny, BTW), was that he picked the worst possible example when he was tryinh to be funny...

"Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception." George Orwell

“Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” Albert Einstein

Both statements I can endorse. Hard to imagine anyone less concerned about "nations" than me.

A few more quotations for good measure:

"Patriotism - the virtue of the vicious.” Oscar Wilde

“Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy.” George Bernard Shaw

“This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism on command, senseless violence and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism.” Albert Einstein

“Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it.” William Shakespeare

 

[Ayatollah So]

I'll be contrarian and give one cheer for nationalism. Your nation is a bunch of people you're kinda stuck with. You'll be interacting with them more robustly than randomly chosen outsiders, especially if you live in a democracy. Might as well cheer for the home team. As long as it doesn't get out of hand.

If it's USA vs Iran in the finals of an Olympic sport, by all means, wave the flag. If it's a bunch of US politicians saying "let's attack Iran", please reply: "stop being such bleeping morons."