[Rancid]

Why are the police so unhinged?

[skinster]

Something to do with being exceptional, in the Amerikkkas.

It's not really a surprise if you paid attention to the country's very short history and culture.

[Verv]

Why are the police so unhinged?

In our country, we have the right to own guns, which makes every single interaction between the Police and the civilians an incredibly intense one.

Something to do with being exceptional, in the Amerikkkas.

It's not really a surprise if you paid attention to the country's very short history and culture.

Our "very short history," lol, contributes to our crime epidemic?

I like how you, the daughter of immigrants, is a part of the glorious & lengthy British history and have just imbibed up through your feet touching the British soil for so many years, but someone who is from an old American family with clear descent from British & Dutch settlers and who has practiced religion and customs in an unbroken line for a very lengthy amount of time is ... part of such a short history.

Like the Americans & Canadians are not Europe continued by other means.

[Oxymandias]

@Verv

You do know that British and Dutch settlers are immigrants right? Compared to British history, America's a baby. Furthermore, nothing in skinster's post states that she particularly identifies as British. For all you know, she could identify as a Pakistani or Indian a set of countries with longer histories than Britain.

Furthermore, we are referring to America's history as a political entity not as a demographic one. If we're basing it on demographics, Americans don't even exist and so don't Dutch. Everyone just ends up becoming African.

[Verv]

I'd argue, much like Ann Coulter and others, that there is a distinct difference between a settler and an immigrant. A big one.

You could even see this in the ancient world -- a refugee frm a war is an immigrant; a Gaul seeking opportunities in Rome is an immigrant; a Greek going to Antoich is an immigrant; but a large group of people moving into a land to take up agrarian populations and found a whole new world around them, transforming the region, are settlers.

I did LOL a little at this one, Oxy:

Furthermore, we are referring to America's history as a political entity not as a demographic one. If we're basing it on demographics, Americans don't even exist and so don't Dutch. Everyone just ends up becoming African.

Reduced to absurdity -- the blond Norwegian and the light skinned and phenotypically Asian Korean are all actually Africans because ... we came from monkeys, and that's where we first sprang to life as modern men.

Oh, OK.

So when the Germans & Walloons in the low countries of Spain resisted the Spanish because they had distinctive characteristics that were fundamentally different from the Spanish, both linguistically and culturally, they were just... deluding themselves?

Their identities were artificial and they really should have just accepted the Spanish power over them because, y'know, nationality is a social construct... and culture, language, etc., can also be reduced to absurd social constructs, too, anyways..?

I am curious, oxy, wouldn't it just be better if the Palestinians became Israeli Jews? There's no real such thing as an Israeli or a Palestinian, and ISraelis are mostly just atheists or secular humanists...

So why don't Palestinians just give up this notion of "Palestine," and embrace the concept that they are Israelis and take on Jewish cultural aspects? Their own Palestinian culture is empty, and the new Israeli culture is empty; does "emptiness" becoming a different kind of "emptiness" change anything?

Am I right, or is there some kind of nuance that I have not accounted for in your beliefs, Oxy?

[skinster]

lol, Verv is insecure about the US's short history. If it's any consolation, you're much older than Israel.

Back on topic:

[skinster]

[Deutschmania]

So when the Germans & Walloons in the low countries of Spain resisted the Spanish because they had distinctive characteristics that were fundamentally different from the Spanish, both linguistically and culturally, they were just... deluding themselves?

Their identities were artificial and they really should have just accepted the Spanish power over them because, y'know, nationality is a social construct... and culture, language, etc., can also be reduced to absurd social constructs, too, anyways

If you are referring to what I think you are , The Nine Years War . Among other causes , it also came to factor in the fight over religious differences , stemming from the Protestant Reformation , and the relationship between the Church and the Crown . My own ancestor , Johann Conrad Weiser , Sr. fought in that war , as a member of the Blue Dragoons , so I take a personal interest in it .

Wouldn't it just be better if the Palestinians became Israeli Jews? There's no real such thing as an Israeli or a Palestinian, and ISraelis are mostly just atheists or secular humanists...

So why don't Palestinians just give up this notion of "Palestine," and embrace the concept that they are Israelis and take on Jewish cultural aspects? Their own Palestinian culture is empty, and the new Israeli culture is empty; does "emptiness" becoming a different kind of "emptiness" change anything?

This is actually what this one man in particular has proposed http://the-engagement.org/?page_id=16 And , once again referring back to my own family history , I do believe that in order to be seen as immigrants rather than simply settlers , people should follow the example of my other ancestor , Johann Conrad Weiser , Jr . , and integrate with the indigenous population . http://explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=1-A-218

[Oxymandias]

@Verv

You could even see this in the ancient world -- a refugee frm a war is an immigrant; a Gaul seeking opportunities in Rome is an immigrant; a Greek going to Antoich is an immigrant; but a large group of people moving into a land to take up agrarian populations and found a whole new world around them, transforming the region, are settlers.

You clearly have a very narrow definition of the term "settler".

Reduced to absurdity -- the blond Norwegian and the light skinned and phenotypically Asian Korean are all actually Africans because ... we came from monkeys, and that's where we first sprang to life as modern men.

Yup although we didn't evolve from monkeys but a similar ancestor. Trace anyone's genealogy down and you'll eventually trace it to Africa.

So when the Germans & Walloons in the low countries of Spain resisted the Spanish because they had distinctive characteristics that were fundamentally different from the Spanish, both linguistically and culturally, they were just... deluding themselves?

Identity only exists when people decide it does. Furthermore, you are referring to socio-cultural differences, while I am talking about racial ones. They aren't intertwined at all.

Their identities were artificial and they really should have just accepted the Spanish power over them because, y'know, nationality is a social construct... and culture, language, etc., can also be reduced to absurd social constructs, too, anyways..?

I never said they shouldn't. I merely stated that race isn't a viable form of identity.

I am curious, oxy, wouldn't it just be better if the Palestinians became Israeli Jews? There's no real such thing as an Israeli or a Palestinian, and ISraelis are mostly just atheists or secular humanists...

Oh believe me they have tried. However Israel makes it illegal for Arabs or Palestinians to convert to Judaism.

So why don't Palestinians just give up this notion of "Palestine," and embrace the concept that they are Israelis and take on Jewish cultural aspects? Their own Palestinian culture is empty, and the new Israeli culture is empty; does "emptiness" becoming a different kind of "emptiness" change anything?

Except that Palestinian culture isn't empty. It has existed for centuries and there is plenty of evidence of such a fact. Israeli culture is in fact empty which is why Israeli culture just adopts most Arab culture since that's all they have. My point is that solidarity cannot be obtained through ethnic identity since ethnic identity is hollow. Cultural identity is the strongest form of individual association. You're claiming that people need to define themselves by their race in order to have an identity when this is blatantly false.

Am I right, or is there some kind of nuance that I have not accounted for in your beliefs, Oxy?

You forgot that I value culture over race (unlike you) as the defining characteristic of solidarity amongst a people. I believe that the sole purpose of a civilization or peoples is to advance their own culture, maintain, and develop it so that it may evolve. You, however, think that having everyone in a country have the same skin makes everything hunky dory and makes everyone collectively have an identity despite this not being the case at all. You point out Japan, Korea, and other East Asian countries but you forget that such countries have strong cohesive cultures that their people identify with and you refrain from mentioning that most East Asian countries are homogeneous due to out right genocide, have ridiculous social rules, and are ridiculously authoritarian.

[skinster]

[Verv]

@Oxymandias , I am curious....

So, racial distinctions do not exist... But "socio-cultural" distinctions do exist, and we should value those, and people should not be asked to assimilate?

It also makes sense, then, for someone to be proud to be white in America (as white is a socio-cultural distinction), and to be proud of being a native Frenchman in France (as this is also a socio-cultural distinction with meaning), and, as the American political concepts broaden and begin to dominate discourse in other areas, it would also make sense for European people to begin to identify broadly as white, not so much as a distinctive culture, but as a pan-cultural distinction, and, because people are treated differently because of the color that they are and not the great culture that they have inside (something that I learned in America), this does break down roughly along the lines proposed for there to be races in general.

Wow, it's kind of an interesting collection of arguments, but it brings us back to a fun place where there are static national and cultural identities exist, and there is even a hypostatic reality that undergirds them due to the basic fact that some amount of biolgoical tribalism exists.

However, I am very open to entertaining the fact that in cosmopolitan cities like Constantinople and Rome there was some amount of a concept of citizenship, and of culture not being used as a cudgel to alienate and other people. But this was also a factor in their downfall and the likes. Of course, that's highly debatable.

You forgot that I value culture over race (unlike you) as the defining characteristic of solidarity amongst a people. I believe that the sole purpose of a civilization or peoples is to advance their own culture, maintain, and develop it so that it may evolve. You, however, think that having everyone in a country have the same skin makes everything hunky dory and makes everyone collectively have an identity despite this not being the case at all. You point out Japan, Korea, and other East Asian countries but you forget that such countries have strong cohesive cultures that their people identify with and you refrain from mentioning that most East Asian countries are homogeneous due to out right genocide, have ridiculous social rules, and are ridiculously authoritarian.

First of all, no, I think culture is infinitely more important than race in the sense that there can be very, very positive manifestations of culture and very, very negative ones that color the whole drawing of a people. A computer needs good software or the hardware is useless.

Authoritarianism... Aw, yes, Oxymandias is playing at the classic orientalism where all of these foreign concepts look fudnamentally authoritarian to him, and the Asian is this soulless follower of tradition & hierarchy, with little to no innovation.

Yet, here I am, getting all the accusations because I do not have the Red Army credentials.

[Libertarian353]

@Verv

Just say you afraid of being the minority.

[Verv]

@Verv

Just say you afraid of being the minority.

I want the legacy of my ancestors to continue because it is a good legacy.

I would not be afraid that Koreans cannot govern a country well, and I would not fear that the Japanese cannot govern a country well, but I would not want the legacy of America to be Korean or Japanese.

It's just in-group preference.

[Oxymandias]

@Verv

So, racial distinctions do not exist... But "socio-cultural" distinctions do exist, and we should value those, and people should not be asked to assimilate?

Culture is a lot more fluid than that but ok.

t also makes sense, then, for someone to be proud to be white in America (as white is a socio-cultural distinction), and to be proud of being a native Frenchman in France (as this is also a socio-cultural distinction with meaning), and, as the American political concepts broaden and begin to dominate discourse in other areas, it would also make sense for European people to begin to identify broadly as white, not so much as a distinctive culture, but as a pan-cultural distinction, and, because people are treated differently because of the color that they are and not the great culture that they have inside (something that I learned in America), this does break down roughly along the lines proposed for there to be races in general.

No it doesn't because being white isn't a socio-cultural term. It's a racial one. Furthermore, identifying as a native Frenchman is a socio-cultural term not because of that person's race but because the idea of being a "Frenchmen" is by it's nature a socio-cultural identity and has historically been so.

Just because American racial politics has spread to Europe (although it seems to me that it's the other way around) in your opinion doesn't mean that race is a socio-cultural term. In America it detonates specific spheres of culture but they aren't identities in it of themselves and the spheres only have political baggage because of how they're basically organized into a caste system with little social mobility. America is an exception in that regard. It makes no sense for a pan-European Union to be based upon ethnicity since such an association is weak. It isn't built upon based on shared values or understanding, it's built upon the color of your skin. The color of your skin means jackshit and just because someone has the same color of skin doesn't mean that you share a similar human experience with them or the same sense of understanding as you would with another person within your culture. A poor white farmer in Georgia cannot identify with a white rich businessman living in LA because their experiences and values are fundamentally different. Thus, a Dutchman is completely different culturally than a Hungarian despite having the same color of skin.

Wow, it's kind of an interesting collection of arguments, but it brings us back to a fun place where there are static national and cultural identities exist, and there is even a hypostatic reality that undergirds them due to the basic fact that some amount of biolgoical tribalism exists.

Except that static national and cultural identities don't exist. You probably couldn't even give me a good example from history. Probably you're going to say something like China while assuming that China has the same national and cultural identity as it did eons ago based on your skin-deep understanding of Chinese history. I mean you haven't given proof for your other remarks, why start now?

However, I am very open to entertaining the fact that in cosmopolitan cities like Constantinople and Rome there was some amount of a concept of citizenship, and of culture not being used as a cudgel to alienate and other people. But this was also a factor in their downfall and the likes. Of course, that's highly debatable.

1. Constantinople isn't the only cosmopolitan city in medieval times or in any era. Every single major city, not just in medieval times, was cosmopolitan and I assure, they're getting on just fine. Constantinople wasn't even "cosmopolitan" by your standards. Most of the population was Greek and the Ottomans weren't immigrants living there given that they came out of fucking nowhere.

2. What led to Constantinople and ergo the Roman Empire's downfall were things you value. Isolationism and intense "nationalism" (I put nationalism in parentheses because using the term nationalism to describe any medieval or early modern civilization is anachronistic).

First of all, no, I think culture is infinitely more important than race in the sense that there can be very, very positive manifestations of culture and very, very negative ones that color the whole drawing of a people. A computer needs good software or the hardware is useless.

Culture doesn't operate on a system of morality. It simply exists for the sake of existing and only has the side-effect of binding people together. You may judge it as "good" or "bad" but that doesn't make your judgement valid or absolute.

Authoritarianism... Aw, yes, Oxymandias is playing at the classic orientalism where all of these foreign concepts look fudnamentally authoritarian to him, and the Asian is this soulless follower of tradition & hierarchy, with little to no innovation.

Alright, prove to me that Chinese institutions and bureaucracy for most of their history were not authoritarian. You don't have an overwhelming bureaucracy and not have an authoritarian state to utilize it. Furthermore, no one is saying that Asians are soulless followers of hierarchy and tradition nor that they aren't capable of innovation. Simply pointing out that Chinese political systems have a inclination towards authoritarian forms of government doesn't make me an "orientalist". Furthermore, I find it hilarious that you are accusing me of orientalism despite orientalizing not only Asian culture but Arabs and Palestinians as well. Also, you shouldn't be saying that I think all foreign concepts I don't understand are authoritarian since not only do you know absolutely jack about Chinese history, but we also clearly know your opinions toward Islam something you also don't understand.

Yet, here I am, getting all the accusations because I do not have the Red Army credentials.

Yes, I am a communist for believing that culture is a stronger form of identification than race. Disregard the fact that I oppose communism or the fact that I'm capitalist. Yup, just because I don't think race is a big deal means that I am a Big Bad Man and deserve to be called names and terms you don't understand.

[Oxymandias]

@Verv

A racial identity has no legacy. The only identity is the color of your skin. The accomplishments of Americans or Dutchmen or the British don't matter to you as much as their skin. The fact that they have the same skin as you do should be enough for you. You shouldn't give a fuck about what any of these white skinned people have done since all that matters to you is their skin. You don't identify with them because of their values, you identify with them because they have the same color as you.

There's no legacy here. You need a culture to have a legacy. Without culture, there would be no point to history either. It seems to me you just want to identify with every single white-skinned culture in the world and just want a simplistic way of doing so without putting much thought into it.

[Libertarian353]

I want the legacy of my ancestors to continue because it is a good legacy.

Right, so you're afraid of being a minority.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Right, so you're afraid of being a minority.

How does that follow?

First, who really enjoys being a minority? Secondly, how does not wanting one's legacy and heritage to go extinct imply that they merely don't like being a minority? Obviously @Verv doesn't mind being a minority. He lives in fucking Korea!

Go to bed EM, quit wasting our time with more race-baiting horseshit.

[Verv]

@Victoribus Spolia, I appreciate administering the slap for me. I like it when I do not have to respond to every single empty comment thrown in my direction. I hope that I can return the favor time to time!

@Oxymandias ,

No it doesn't because being white isn't a socio-cultural term. It's a racial one. Furthermore, identifying as a native Frenchman is a socio-cultural term not because of that person's race but because the idea of being a "Frenchmen" is by it's nature a socio-cultural identity and has historically been so.

Being "Slavic" was not a socio-cultural "term" for a very long time, yet we can clearly look at the Slavic peoples and make conclusions about who they are, and who they were, even before they were made into some definitive term.

Already, surveys of trends in America identity "white people." We also have the Left constantly referring to white people and "white boys." The vague term "white" has really come to mean a whole lot in America, yet here you are saying that it is not an identity in the least, even though it was somethign that deeply impacted the political and social status of people decades & decades before Saturday Night Life started making fun of white people.

Just because American racial politics has spread to Europe (although it seems to me that it's the other way around) in your opinion doesn't mean that race is a socio-cultural term. In America it detonates specific spheres of culture but they aren't identities in it of themselves and the spheres only have political baggage because of how they're basically organized into a caste system with little social mobility. America is an exception in that regard. It makes no sense for a pan-European Union to be based upon ethnicity since such an association is weak. It isn't built upon based on shared values or understanding, it's built upon the color of your skin.

Being Korean is based on shared values and understanding, and this consensus, while denoting their general appearance as well, is an incredibly natural formation. It hasn't changed that much in certain regards.

A culture is like this massive reference point... It's possible for values to shift from generation to generation, and it is possible for even naming conventions to change, but the Korean people have a pool of existence that they have been a part of, and it is deeply impactful to how they do everything. The same can be said for Europeans -- and, while the Parisian reference points are different from the reference points of Normandie and Provence, and while the French reference points are different than the Polish ones, there is enough of them coming together into a similar region of reference that there can be said to be a cultural family between all Europeans, and there is even a broader linguistic sphere. French & Polish are completely different in character as languages, yet they would still have recognizable words with one another (like "Commnisme" and "Komunizm"; even like "christianisme" and ""chrześcijaństwo" being recognizable).

So, in a sense, the pan-European categories become relevant... Not because they are relevant in every context, no matter what, and the French and the Polish must be joined at the hip in some identity, but because they become relevant when they are compared to others, and they become doubly relevant when we are talking about the invasion of a continent via immigration.

The way that the Left has promoted "globalism" makes a collective identity of Pan-Europeans relevant; the way that the narrative is pushed in America with "white privilege" makes socio-cultural distinction and unity of people with "white privilege" and thus white privilege reference points, cultural differences, etc., also relevant.

Do you see my point?

A racial identity has no legacy. The only identity is the color of your skin. The accomplishments of Americans or Dutchmen or the British don't matter to you as much as their skin. The fact that they have the same skin as you do should be enough for you. You shouldn't give a fuck about what any of these white skinned people have done since all that matters to you is their skin. You don't identify with them because of their values, you identify with them because they have the same color as you.

There's no legacy here. You need a culture to have a legacy. Without culture, there would be no point to history either. It seems to me you just want to identify with every single white-skinned culture in the world and just want a simplistic way of doing so without putting much thought into it.

Oh no, not at all.

They are the reference points that I have and they have formed cultures and traditions that affect the way I think about things; they told stories, or kept telling stories, and curated a world that I draw upon for influence.

You might not think that Reformed theology is relevant to you because you are a Cosmopolitan 21st century leftist, but this is one of the most relevant factors in how I view myself.

This is true of virtually everything in Western society, up to and including your Marxism.

My legacy is those stories and the Christianity that I received, and the Christianity that I continue to be a part of. I am part of the great liturgy of the Western world.

You just dislike my legacy, and you insist that I must be doing it as a "racist," because this is some stupid tactic to disqualify the esteeming and pride that we put into our own story as Europeans.

(This point isn't so important can be dropped, hence I put it at the end)

Alright, prove to me that Chinese institutions and bureaucracy for most of their history were not authoritarian. You don't have an overwhelming bureaucracy and not have an authoritarian state to utilize it. Furthermore, no one is saying that Asians are soulless followers of hierarchy and tradition nor that they aren't capable of innovation. Simply pointing out that Chinese political systems have a inclination towards authoritarian forms of government doesn't make me an "orientalist". Furthermore, I find it hilarious that you are accusing me of orientalism despite orientalizing not only Asian culture but Arabs and Palestinians as well. Also, you shouldn't be saying that I think all foreign concepts I don't understand are authoritarian since not only do you know absolutely jack about Chinese history, but we also clearly know your opinions toward Islam something you also don't understand.

Koreans have always been very rebellious people. The 19th century witnessed a massive religious & political revolution in the Donghak rebellion, and even under the leadership of the less-than-democratic leaders throughout the mid and late 20th century saw the 'submissive' and authoritarian Koreans always in rebellion.

Prominent Korean scholar, Robert Fouser, has actually given speeches about how this is one of the most confounding aspects of the orientalism that we face... He has lived in Korea for decades, saw the protests, saw the student movements, studied them in-depth, and has never thought of Korean or Asian people as submissive or authoritarian, and while there is some very important family structure and orientation, this is not unlike what it would have bene like in 19th century America. Yet, they were still rugged indivdiualists.

Someone play Han Daesu.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I appreciate administering the slap for me. I like it when I do not have to respond to every single empty comment thrown in my direction. I hope that I can return the favor time to time!

Anytime bruh.

[Libertarian353]

Go to bed EM, quit wasting our time with more race-baiting horseshit.

LOL, the irony here. Why is it a trait in right wingers? Anyway, can you explain to me how I'm EM? EM hates whites as I can tell and I do not hate myself.