How Biden can unite the country

[jamil]

Wow. Okay, I work in a profession where it's important to define terms, and I just learned my lesson for today. I attempted a stab at "nationalism," not realizing the real word that needed to be defined was simply the word "nation."

-Twang (proud but still-smarting member of "Buckeye Nation"...who went to a school with a map on the wall, and realizes "Buckeye Nation" isn't really a "nation.")

(*you Michigan people are still sub-human mongrels though, so phllllbtttt! )

Maps drawn on walls in crayon showing you how to get back to your dorm from the toilet bowl don't count as actual maps.


(for those uninitiated in the UM/OSU rivalry, the "toilet bowl" is Ohio State's stadium. It kinda looks like it should be flushed.

 

[Mikey1911]

Maps drawn on walls in crayon showing you how to get back to your dorm from the toilet bowl don't count as actual maps.


(for those uninitiated in the UM/OSU rivalry, the "toilet bowl" is Ohio State's stadium. It kinda looks like it should be flushed.

Where are the “Dead Schembechlers” when you really need them?

(Not a fan of either UM or OSU football; but they are both great universities.)

 

[buckwacker]

I have to wonder how much the Nuremberg Trials did to set it in the world's minds that Germany's decision to commit ethnic cleansing was the worst atrocity in history. But it wasn't really an exception; it was the norm.

The nations that carried out those trials (Britain, France, the US, and the USSR) don't exactly have shining histories with regards to ethnic cleansing. Colonies in Africa, India, Australia, and others. The American west (and before). After all, there's not a lot of difference between Hitler's Lebensraum and America's "Manifest Destiny."

I think nationalism has a history of being problematic. At the least, it hasn't often been contained to anything like a healthy self-pride.

I'm,sorry but none of those other countries you listed sought to exterminate an entire group of people for no other reason than resentment of success. Here in America, it was the constant conflict between settlers and natives that spurred the federal government to act heavy handedly with the natives. Were they treated badly, yes; was it ethnic cleansing, please. What happened in Africa and India was again, not ethic cleansing, but essentially conquest, and to attempt to draw some equivalence between colonial conquest and what the Nazis did to the Jews is simply a subtle lefty swipe at Western culture and values. I'm not saying western colonialism was ethical, I'm saying it isn't really comparable to the holocaust.

 

[jamil]

I'm,sorry but none of those other countries you listed sought to exterminate an entire group of people for no other reason than resentment of success. Here in America, it was the constant conflict between settlers and natives that spurred the federal government to act heavy handedly with the natives. Were they treated badly, yes; was it ethnic cleansing, please. What happened in Africa and India was again, not ethic cleansing, but essentially conquest, and to attempt to draw some equivalence between colonial conquest and what the Nazis did to the Jews is simply a subtle lefty swipe at Western culture and values. I'm not saying western colonialism was ethical, I'm saying it isn't really comparable to the holocaust.

There was quite a bit of race mixed with it though. This was a case where cultures clashed because they're incompatible. If it were just another European type land dispute, they'd have gone to war, and the winners gets to rule, and the losers get to assimilate and live under the winner's flag. Natives were not culturally compatible with assimilating under the US flag.

 

[buckwacker]

There was quite a bit of race mixed with it though. This was a case where cultures clashed because they're incompatible. If it were just another European type land dispute, they'd have gone to war, and the winners gets to rule, and the losers get to assimilate and live under the winner's flag. Natives were not culturally compatible with assimilating under the US flag.

That was sort of my point. Had the natives in America, India, or Africa decided they were conquered and assimilated, they would not have been treated as badly as they were. (I don't really blame them for fighting back, I probably would too if I were in their place). The Jews did not really fight back at all against the Nazis but we're slaughtered anyway.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Just put him on ignore. You’ll thank me later

By putting him on ignore? Lol.

This new layout is a lot better when someone is ignored. It doesn’t even show up that they’ve commented unless someone quotes them. I never ignored anyone before because it showed as a giant blank space... now you don’t even know they were ever here. It’s nice.

What is it, when someone else FIRST try to get under your skin, and ironically your response get under theirs?

Ignore list what's that?

You see people think I put Kut on my ignore list because of the storm a year ago and my near melt down and I made that thread on how to put some one on ignore.

Funny thing is, he never was. I just took the higher road because I realized that some people are on here to just stir the pot and instigate. I have no problem scrolling right on by someones post with nary a problem. I choose to not ignore because you get to see the method and course of action some people use to get in others heads.

It's called a mental filter.

As people can see above, Kut's quote show up, so yup he's not on my ignore.

 

[BugI02]

?

It depends on what the meaning of TOO is.

In a definition words matter. That's not six or half dozen and the 2 definitions you provide are evidence against that thesis

Embrace the 'or'. It is not the same as 'and'. "In a definition words matter"

 

[BugI02]

There's nothing intrinsically or morally wrong with nationalism on a "country" level, any more than there's anything wrong with being selfish, concerned with your own interests, and looking out for #1 on a personal level. It doesn't grant a nation justification to do anything they want, any more than an individual's freedom to swing his arms extends past where another's nose begins.

Germany wasn't evil because it was nationalist. Germany was evil because it invaded other countries and marched people into gas chambers. China isn't evil because it's nationalist. It's evil because of what it does to its own people. I actually don't begrudge China being nationalist and looking out for its own interests. They have reasons for that. They do not owe us charity; it is up to us to "up our game" if we want to beat them. However, I see no reason for the U.S. to abide by rules that China won't abide by. That's just being a sucker. Expecting a level playing field, and treating them the way they treat us if they won't provide it, is just good sense.

People who get all sweaty about "nationalism" are just hysterical (meaning in the female uterus sense, not the funny sense). These sorts of moral histrionics are common in certain circles. It's akin to saying "Money is evil," because it leads to people doing evil things. No, money isn't "evil;" love of money to the exclusion of all else, encompassing a willingness to trample the rights of others, is evil. This type of over-the-top hysterical moralizing even makes its way into the gun debate. It's sorta like Raphael Warnock saying guns have no place in a "Charch Meetin'." Ok, well make sure you tell that to the folks at Emanuel AME church. (Best be putting up some magnetometers and some darn good security checkpoints while you're at it).

America is one example of a country with nationalist roots, that didn't lead to it being an evil, failed state. In fact, it has actually progressed the other direction. It's the only example which needs to be provided to bust the argument. If histrionic black social justice preachers and Harvard professors want to claim otherwise, let them. Nobody need waste any attention on them.

Not quite sure why I'm quoted. I was arguing that there is substantial overlap between 'patriotism' and 'nationalism'. Kut is the one who suddenly found a use for patriotism - as the last refuge of scoundrels

 

[CampingJosh]

I think we should just go with that and quit blaming the people from long ago of making the those mistakes as if we would have done anything different were we in their exact shoes. The people who made mistakes before us had the social knowledge of their time, not ours. They didn't know they were mistakes any more than the mistakes we're undoubtedly making today that our future generations will hopefully not castigate us like so many elitists do today. We've socially evolved away from those mistakes. Give ourselves some credit.

I think you're half right, but I think you are also inclined to give too much of a pass to "heroes" from the past.

Manifest Destiny was the idea that all natives, even those from tribes that hadn't been contacted, needed to be either driven out or eliminated in order to make space for American growth. I don't think that's fair to minimize that as a "mistake." It was a choice to do serious evil to millions of people.

And I don't think it's fair to say that we've socially evolved away from those mistakes. We're working on it. But on an evolutionary scale, we're still in the same paragraph as 1776.

 

[CampingJosh]

I'm,sorry but none of those other countries you listed sought to exterminate an entire group of people for no other reason than resentment of success. Here in America, it was the constant conflict between settlers and natives that spurred the federal government to act heavy handedly with the natives. Were they treated badly, yes; was it ethnic cleansing, please. What happened in Africa and India was again, not ethic cleansing, but essentially conquest, and to attempt to draw some equivalence between colonial conquest and what the Nazis did to the Jews is simply a subtle lefty swipe at Western culture and values. I'm not saying western colonialism was ethical, I'm saying it isn't really comparable to the holocaust.

The U.S. government explicitly set out to remove American Indians from most of the land. (Indian Removal Act plus a lot more)
The U.S.S.R. intentionally starved millions of Ukrainians to death. (Holodomor)
Do you really think it matters to the victims if the cause of their mass murder was their "success" instead of their mere existence?

I'm not at all trying to downplay the Holocaust. It was horrific, and it should be remembered. It just shouldn't stand alone.

 

[buckwacker]

The U.S. government explicitly set out to remove American Indians from most of the land. (Indian Removal Act plus a lot more)
The U.S.S.R. intentionally starved millions of Ukrainians to death. (Holodomor)
Do you really think it matters to the victims if the cause of their mass murder was their "success" instead of their mere existence?

I'm not at all trying to downplay the Holocaust. It was horrific, and it should be remembered. It just shouldn't stand alone.

The U.S. government moved the natives because they refused to accept strangers moving into their territory and set about killing them, not because they wanted to create a white European ethnostate. And they weren't slaughtered wholesale like the Nazis did the Jews. As I said, had the natives accepted that the European settlers were more powerful and now in charge and assimilated into the new society, they would have not been pushed off onto reservations. Holdomor is a closer relative of the holocaust.

 

[jamil]

I think you're half right, but I think you are also inclined to give too much of a pass to "heroes" from the past.

Manifest Destiny was the idea that all natives, even those from tribes that hadn't been contacted, needed to be either driven out or eliminated in order to make space for American growth. I don't think that's fair to minimize that as a "mistake." It was a choice to do serious evil to millions of people.

And I don't think it's fair to say that we've socially evolved away from those mistakes. We're working on it. But on an evolutionary scale, we're still in the same paragraph as 1776.

I think you're applying today's social morality to people who lived in a different social circumstance. I think you're too willing to vilify them. I'm not sure the point of view from which you're judging them even existed then, and if it did, it would have been extraordinarily rare.

Morality is largely subjective. The only objective morality is those moral principles which are universal to all humans. If you look at the history of the period, the only opposition to manifest destiny was from the Whigs. And their reasoning was more about anti-slavery. They were concerned that manifest destiny would make those new territories into eventual slave states. It had nothing to do with the indigenous people that would be displaced.

So clearly, the morality of the period had not evolved to the point where you are. Morality is not as universal across time and space as activists want it to be. Whoever told you to look down your nose at them because "making space" is immoral, was full of ****. TODAY it is immoral. It was not back then.

 

[foszoe]

Embrace the 'or'. It is not the same as 'and'. "In a definition words matter"

Sure. It further proves the point that the interpretation is up for a least a clarifying question instead of a reaching a conclusion unless one is more interested in the appearance of being right instead of actually being right.

 

[jamil]

The U.S. government explicitly set out to remove American Indians from most of the land. (Indian Removal Act plus a lot more)
The U.S.S.R. intentionally starved millions of Ukrainians to death. (Holodomor)
Do you really think it matters to the victims if the cause of their mass murder was their "success" instead of their mere existence?

I'm not at all trying to downplay the Holocaust. It was horrific, and it should be remembered. It just shouldn't stand alone.

The Holicost was an abject, utter, moral failure. I think the eventual policy the US developed against indigenous tribes was too. The idea of manifest destiny wasn't to destroy people. It was to conquer a land for the use of its people and their expansion. As I said, THAT wasn't a moral failure, because it was within the moral boundaries of the period. But something like the trail of tears, that was a moral failure.

To my earlier point, the cultural incompatibility between the European occupants of the land and indigenous people, accounted for the atrocities. Which happened on both sides by the way. By today's standards, it's immoral to cut the scalps of people off their heads, especially when they're still alive. And some people might defend that behavior, because the other side had it coming. But that's just taking sides.

They're ignoring the atrocities committed by the one side because they feel like they were just protecting their land and way of life. Can you scalp people today for protecting their land and way of life? Respect the morality of the period.

 

[JettaKnight]

Nazi's lol, of course you'd go there, the usual default.

It's Friday, I don't know if I have the heart to slog through this thread.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

It's Friday, I don't know if I have the heart to slog through this thread.

I just watched this last night! I’ve probably seen it a hundred times but I’ll watch it any time I come across it. Great movie.

 

[CampingJosh]

The Holicost was an abject, utter, moral failure. I think the eventual policy the US developed against indigenous tribes was too. The idea of manifest destiny wasn't to destroy people. It was to conquer a land for the use of its people and their expansion. As I said, THAT wasn't a moral failure, because it was within the moral boundaries of the period. But something like the trail of tears, that was a moral failure.

To my earlier point, the cultural incompatibility between the European occupants of the land and indigenous people, accounted for the atrocities. Which happened on both sides by the way. By today's standards, it's immoral to cut the scalps of people off their heads, especially when they're still alive. And some people might defend that behavior, because the other side had it coming. But that's just taking sides.

They're ignoring the atrocities committed by the one side because they feel like they were just protecting their land and way of life. Can you scalp people today for protecting their land and way of life? Respect the morality of the period.

I missed this one when I said I agree with all your other postings here. I think this is giving a pass to people who knew they were doing wrong and chose to do it anyway.

American history is full of people who claimed to be Christians (that is, they knew of and intellectually accepted the Christian ethical standards) and who treated huge numbers of people in ways contradictory to their own professed values. When people put out their ideals (such as in the Declaration) and then fail to live up to those ideals, it's OK to acknowledge that as a failure. Does that mean we would have done better? Probably not. But we certainly won't do better now if we don't think critically about what people in the past should have done with the information and beliefs they had at their own time.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

I am certain Obiden can not unite america. Why? Because the divide has boiled down to its base elements as always happens with time.
The exists (and always has) moraly exclusive world views that neither side will compromise on.
Think of a pendulum.. as it sits in the center, it is as close to balanced as it can be. It doesn't matter what side (left or right) you think is good or evil, what matter is with each compromise that balance is pulled more to one direction and the further its moves away from balance, the more alienation one side is going to feel.
There are several issues on both sides where capitulation is not a option and these are things of deep moral conviction. This is the heart of why there has never been any meaningful peace in the middle east.. because of mutually exclusive and incompatible world views
I personally just don't see any way out of this conundrum beyond the ultimate truth being the new morality and I don't see any man/woman knowing what that truth may be
Jeremiah 17:9
The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?

The bottom line is there will always be those trying to subjugate others and until that disease is cured, humanity remains doomed.. this isn't to say on individual levels humans can change but as a whole, I just don't think its possible..

Just my 10 cent

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[frenchiectfd2203]

 

[BigRed]

I've not been following this thread given when progressives call for "unity", what they are really calling for is conformity.

I saw Joe Bidding give a speech on "unity" this evening.

All I can say is he is full of ****.