[ckaihatsu]

[EDIT: ADDED-IN FIRST DIAGRAM]

Funny. Because people of colour are often asked where they are from, implying they are not real Americans or Canadians.

I'd be glad to discuss this further. I'm half-Japanese, half-Lithuanian myself, but I *appear* mostly-white, as you can see in my avatar / self-portrait.

I think it's *typical* / normal for travelers or strangers to ask each other where they're from simply as a matter of course, so I don't think your assumption of an implication is necessarily *accurate* over all 'cases'.


---

when is it ok for a group within a polity to exhibit national self-determination based on an identifiable group characteristic (ethnicity, language etc) and when is it not?

I'll go so far as to say that the colony-in-question should have its own *domestic* political sentiment -- an inevitability -- and should geopolitically incline towards the established powers according to what kind of political social-organization it *favors* -- or not.

I say 'or not' because there's no reason to assume that the world *needs* to be reliant / dependent on the pre-existing global patchwork of capitalist nation-states.


Political Spectrum, Simplified UPDATE

Spoiler: show

Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show

[ckaihatsu]

3. Is Zionism racist, or do Israelis have a moral right to national self-determination (exact borders are a different issue, we're talking a right to any kind of Jewish state around the area Israel is?

---

However powerful the myths might have been, at no time over the centuries have the Jews shown the slightest inclination to uproot themselves and return to the land of their religion’s founders. This is true notwithstanding the occasional pilgrimage to the “Holy City” of Jerusalem and the continuous restatement of the myths in the form of prayer.

In fact by the time the Zionist idea began to take shape as a modern movement of Jewish political conquest of Palestine in the 1880s and 1890s, no less than 90 per cent of the world’s entire Jewish population lived in Europe and Russia, and had been settled there as communities for centuries. In other words, they were distinctly European in both culture and physical appearance, and, of course, had made important contributions to European culture in the arts, in literature and in science.

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/d ... origin.htm

[Rich]

Nationalism *altogether* has been morally-politically *bankrupt* since the First World War.

Not as morally bankrupt as Communism or Islam. The big problem with Hitler and the Nazis, is that they weren't contained. The Nazis might have been very far from ideal, but it they had been contained inside their 1938 borders in the same way that the Khmer Rouge were contained within Cambodian borders, their bigotry, prejudice and cruelty would have been acceptable. When we analyse things correctly we see that the Khmer Rouge were way more evil than the Nazis. Even their treatment of the Jews, pre 1939 this was no worse than the way Vietnamese Communists treated ethnic Chinese.

So yes Nationalism is immoral from a human universalist perspective. It can be cruel unfair even murderous. But we need to wake up and face the reality that the alternatives to nationalism, international Communism and Islamic internationalism are far, far worse.

Maybe, maybe if things had gone differently in the early twentieth century, Germany could evolved into a relatively restrained, relatively benign continental power like the United States has done in the Americas. But what ever after world war I, even if the Nazis hadn't come to power and they had been led by a more traditional conservative like Schleicher, Germany would have needed to be contained. The tragedy was that Germany's neighbours, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland and Czechoslovakia failed to get their act together, failed to recognise their overriding mutual interest and contain German nationalism.

The next problem was that when Hitler declared war on the United States, that idiot Roosevelt fell for the evil peoples theory. in the same way that the Nazis believed that the Jews were evil and that their power must be destroyed, so Roosevelt believed that the Germans were evil and their power must be destroyed. Roosevelt believed that Europe should seek salvation in the beneficent domination of Joseph Stalin and his successors.

And now we are here in 2023 following Roosevelt's stupid game. Here we are in 2023 dealing with Stalin's successor, and Roosevelt's legacy, Vladamir Putin. And again we get the same moronic reaction. Here we are again with the evil peoples theory of history. Russians are evil Russian nationalism must be destroyed. No the problem is that there is no German nationalism to contain Russian nationalism. Because of Roosevelt's cretinism, we need to look to building up Polish and Ukrainian nationalism as a replacement. But we should build up Polish and Ukrainian nationalism not with a view to destroying Russian nationalism, but in order to contain it.

[ckaihatsu]

superior culture

How about 'superior social organization' -- ?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_M ... nistration


---


Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show

---

People of so called Native American decent should thank their lucky stars that it was European Christians that got to the Americas first not the Bantu, the Muslims or the Confucianist Han. The North American Indians should also thank their lucky stars that the Europeans developed guns, advanced sailing technology and steel before the Aztecs did.

Sounds like you've picked your brand when it comes to *genocide*, Rich.


x D

[ckaihatsu]

their [Nazi] bigotry, prejudice and cruelty would have been acceptable.

You seem to think that mere geographic lines-on-a-map could somehow significantly mitigate fascist social-organization and resulting genocide.

international Communism and Islamic internationalism are far, far worse.

How so? You didn't really make a *comparison* here.

Maybe, maybe if things had gone differently in the early twentieth century, Germany could evolved into a relatively restrained, relatively benign continental power like the United States has done in the Americas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... in_America

Germany would have needed to be contained.

Soldier and worker control

Soldiers and workers brought public and military institutions under their control. When, against Souchon's promise, different troops advanced to quash the rebellion, they were intercepted by the mutineers and were either sent back or joined the sailors and workers. By the evening of 4 November, Kiel was firmly in the hands of approximately 40,000 rebellious sailors, soldiers and workers, as was Wilhelmshaven two days later.

Late in the evening of 4 November a meeting of sailors and workers representatives in the union house led to the establishment of a soldiers' and a workers' council. The Kiel 'Fourteen Points' of the soldiers' council were issued:

1. The release of all inmates and political prisoners.

2. Complete freedom of speech and the press.

3. The abolition of mail censorship.

4. Appropriate treatment of crews by superiors.

5. No punishment for all comrades on returning to the ships and to the barracks.

6. The launching of the fleet is to be prevented under all circumstances.

7. Any defensive measures involving bloodshed are to be prevented.

8. The withdrawal of all troops not belonging to the garrison.

9. All measures for the protection of private property will be determined by the soldiers' council immediately.

10. Superiors will no longer be recognized outside of duty.

11. Unlimited personal freedom of every man from the end of his tour of duty until the beginning of his next tour of duty

12. Officers who declare themselves in agreement with the measures of the newly established soldiers' council, are welcomed in our midst. All the others have to quit their duty without entitlement to provision.

13. Every member of the soldiers' council is to be released from any duty.

14. All measures to be introduced in the future can only be introduced with the consent of the soldiers' council.

15. These demands are orders of the soldiers' council and are binding for every military person.[7]

Dirk Dähnhardt came to the following conclusion in his 1978 doctoral thesis:

"The 14 points of Kiel were ... mainly an attack on the military system, political objectives were lacking widely."[8] Dähnhardt attributes this on the one hand to the heterogeneous composition of the bodies, and on the other hand to the intention to first of all issue a catalogue of immediate measures.

---

Roosevelt believed that Europe should seek salvation in the beneficent domination of Joseph Stalin and his successors.

'Salvation' is a bit *much*, Rich -- the post-WWII geopolitical situation was that of global *carve-up* as 'new management' arrived in after the British:

The third of the ‘anti-fascist’ leaders was Roosevelt. Before joining the war the US administration followed a policy of using the opportunity to build an ‘informal’ US empire to overshadow the formal European empires. As historian A J P Taylor explains:

In March 1941 Roosevelt instituted lend-lease, perhaps the most dramatic political stroke of the war. The United States became the ‘arsenal of democracy’ and did not ask for payment. There was a heavy price to be paid all the same. The American authorities stripped Great Britain of her gold reserves and her overseas investments. They restricted her exports, and American businessmen moved into markets that had hitherto been British.240

Anthony Eden, the British foreign minister, later complained bluntly that Roosevelt hoped former colonial territories, ‘once free of their masters, would become politically and economically dependent on the United States’.241

Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 525

---

[W]e need to look to building up Polish and Ukrainian nationalism as a replacement. But we should build up Polish and Ukrainian nationalism not with a view to destroying Russian nationalism, but in order to contain it.

'We' meaning *NATO*, right, Rich -- ?

You should sell 'Grand Chessboard' merch, and make a *fortune* -- !

[Unthinking Majority]

So, in what country were they able to make their country ethnically pure without genocide or ethnic cleansing?

Nationalism isn't about making a country "ethnically pure", that's basically of an extreme Nazi position of ultra-nationalism.

My answer is that I do not know, nor do the Quebecois care if I think they do or not. They believe they do.

Ok fine if you don't know. I'm not asking for the opinion of the Quebecois, I already know how they feel. I'm trying to debate whether their general nationalist feelings and policies are morally justified, besides some of the more problematic policies around religious symbols etc.

Canada is specifically built on the idea that Indigenous people are not allowed to decide their fate in such a way.

That's not true. Indigenous people in Canada have many special rights and legal privileges given to them that no other Canadians enjoy. The idea that they couldn't have their own migration policies on their land like Quebec does is not far fetched at all, and maybe they do already, I have no idea.

You are asking two different questions here.

“Do Israelis have a moral right to national self-determination?” and “Do they have the right to that land?”

In answer to the first question, I would suggest that the Jewish nation is no less fit to be a nation than any other.

As to the second question, please note that I think neither Canada nor the USA have the right to the land they currently occupy, so I must ask if the Israeli nation has any more right to its land than these two other countries.

If you think Canadian and US indigenous peoples are the rightful owners of the land that in some cases was conquered militarily from them, even despite treaties signed, then you would also support Israel's ancestral land claims given they are very similar.

This then begs the question: by what standard should ancestral land claims be enforced? Does this mean eastern Ukraine is a part of Russia? Taiwan a part of China? All the border changes throughout every continent from millennia of warfare? Does land only belong to the first humans who claimed it, even if they weren't able to defend it?

This is frought with political, practical, and legal problems.

[Rich]

If you think Canadian and US indigenous peoples are the rightful owners of the land that in some cases was conquered militarily from them, even despite treaties signed, then you would also support Israel's ancestral land claims given they are very similar.

While I agree with the overall thrust of your post, I don't think Israel's historical claims are really equivalent to the so called native Americans. If the Native Americans are taken as a single identity group then prior to 1600 pretty much all of continental USA and Canada had been under Indian occupation for ten thousand years maybe considerably longer.

The Jews historical claim to Israel on the other hand is utterly absurd. The Jews control of much of modern Israel was tenuous even under the Maccabees. What could credibly be considered the Jews controlled Jerusalem for less than a thousand years. And the modern Jews are not the only descendants of ancient Jews. Many Muslims and Christians are part descended from ancient Jews.

[Unthinking Majority]

While I agree with the overall thrust of your post, I don't think Israel's historical claims are really equivalent to the so called native Americans. If the Native Americans are taken as a single identity group then prior to 1600 pretty much all of continental USA and Canada had been under Indian occupation for ten thousand years maybe considerably longer.

The Jews historical claim to Israel on the other hand is utterly absurd. The Jews control of much of modern Israel was tenuous even under the Maccabees. What could credibly be considered the Jews controlled Jerusalem for less than a thousand years. And the modern Jews are not the only descendants of ancient Jews. Many Muslims and Christians are part descended from ancient Jews.

Anti-Zionist alert.

[Pants-of-dog]

Nationalism isn't about making a country "ethnically pure", that's basically of an extreme Nazi position of ultra-nationalism.

True.

Perhaps it is not the nationalism that needs to be examined morally, but instead what is done in the name of nationalism.

……

That's not true. Indigenous people in Canada have many special rights and legal privileges given to them that no other Canadians enjoy. The idea that they couldn't have their own migration policies on their land like Quebec does is not far fetched at all, and maybe they do already, I have no idea.

It is extremely far fetched, since Canadian law dealing with Indigenous people is specifically built on taking control of land away from Indigenous people.

Why do you think they were forced onto reservations?

If you think Canadian and US indigenous peoples are the rightful owners of the land that in some cases was conquered militarily from them, even despite treaties signed, then you would also support Israel's ancestral land claims given they are very similar.

This then begs the question: by what standard should ancestral land claims be enforced? Does this mean eastern Ukraine is a part of Russia? Taiwan a part of China? All the border changes throughout every continent from millennia of warfare? Does land only belong to the first humans who claimed it, even if they weren't able to defend it?

This is frought with political, practical, and legal problems.

Yes, but you want to look at the moral dimension. Is it moral for Canada to continue to keep land from its owners?

[Unthinking Majority]

It is extremely far fetched, since Canadian law dealing with Indigenous people is specifically built on taking control of land away from Indigenous people.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/ ... l-reserves

Under the Indian Act, band councils have limited authority in terms of the administration and retention of the reserve. However, many First Nations are gaining more control of their reserve lands under the First Nations Land Management Act (1999). This Act gives First Nations the right to opt out of sections of the Indian Act relating to land management. It gives them the power to develop their own laws about land management on reserves. Other First Nations in Canada are pursuing self-government agreements, which sever First Nations from the Indian Act and give them authority over their own governance, membership and lands.

Yes, but you want to look at the moral dimension. Is it moral for Canada to continue to keep land from its owners?

Canadian governments should abide by any treaties signed. I'm no expert on these treaties. You believe all of Canada belongs to aboriginals, that would mean all land is owned by them. This is fraught with intractable difficulties. There are reasonable alternatives, even land reparations. Canadian governments have paid out massive sums of money to many aboriginals for other reparations/lawsuits etc.

[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/aboriginal-reserves

Under the Indian Act, band councils have limited authority in terms of the administration and retention of the reserve. However, many First Nations are gaining more control of their reserve lands under the First Nations Land Management Act (1999). This Act gives First Nations the right to opt out of sections of the Indian Act relating to land management. It gives them the power to develop their own laws about land management on reserves. Other First Nations in Canada are pursuing self-government agreements, which sever First Nations from the Indian Act and give them authority over their own governance, membership and lands.

Some vague claims about land management does not change the reality of how Canada has operated for its entire life.

Canadian governments should abide by any treaties signed. I'm no expert on these treaties. You believe all of Canada belongs to aboriginals, that would mean all land is owned by them. This is fraught with intractable difficulties. There are reasonable alternatives, even land reparations. Canadian governments have paid out massive sums of money to many aboriginals for other reparations/lawsuits etc.

Yes, a lot of important societal change comes with difficulty.

Should we avoid morally uncomfortable discussions and actions because they present practical difficulties?

[Rich]

Anti-Zionist alert.

Anti Zionist. I'm probably the most pro Zionist poster on PoFo. As far as I'm aware I was the first poster to call on the West to recognise the annexation of the Golan heights. As far as I'm aware I'm the only poster who even raised the idea of Israel extending its control into western Syria allowing us a land connection to the Kurds.

Now OK I don't think the Israeli government should annex the whole of the West Bank right away, but I would certainly support the immediate annexation of parts of the West Bank territory, and am hopeful that the new Israeli government will deliver on its promises in this regard.

Why should being pro Israel mean I have to demean myself by pretending to believe in their absurd historical claims. As I've stated before a big part of the problem is that so many people seem to have bought into the ridiculous notion that the Second World War and maybe even the First World War were wars against racism. The Allies fought both wars on the basis of "White Christian Supremacism", the Poles and Czechs had a right to rule themselves, do you think that applied to the Moroccans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis or the Palestinians?:

Yes the Americans were very keen on Chinese and Philippino self determination. But what you've got to understand is that this was very much self determination with American characteristics. Do people imagine that the British, let alone the Americans were ever going to allow the inhabitants of Palestine a free and equal vote on their future until such time as facts had been established on the ground that totally favoured the Zionists?

With Balfour Declaration the British committed themselves to a Jewish state in Israel. They committed themselves to screwing over the Palestinians. And they did it. They just didn't do it fast enough and hard enough for the Zionists. By the late 1940s the Zionist stranglehold on Congress was so strong that even President Truman felt powerless to stand up to their demands. The British were no longer useful, they had served their purpose, so rather than being thanked for their help, the Zionists unleashed a terrorist campaign against them.

[Agent Steel]

Hi. I just want people here to know that I am sincere in my desire to be a better person. I feel some guilt about advocating for a policy that is sympathetic for white nationalism, but I think we have little choice. USA was established that way. We pretty much have to advocate such things in order to save America. Now, if you don't care whether America gets taken over and replaced, then surely you won't side with Trump, myself, and everyone else who wants a secure border.

I don't like to think of myself as a mean-spirited person but given the complexities of the world and the urgency of the situation it just may be the case that there are more important things than worrying about whether a secure border policy is racist or not. Perhaps it is. And perhaps this brand of racism is actually what we need.

I'm sorry to offend but it's just not possible to allow open border anarchy. I wish we could help poor refugees but we just can't : (

[Pants-of-dog]

Hi. I just want people here to know that I am sincere in my desire to be a better person. I feel some guilt about advocating for a policy that is sympathetic for white nationalism, but I think we have little choice. USA was established that way. We pretty much have to advocate such things in order to save America. Now, if you don't care whether America gets taken over and replaced, then surely you won't side with Trump, myself, and everyone else who wants a secure border.

I don't like to think of myself as a mean-spirited person but given the complexities of the world and the urgency of the situation it just may be the case that there are more important things than worrying about whether a secure border policy is racist or not. Perhaps it is. And perhaps this brand of racism is actually what we need.

I'm sorry to offend but it's just not possible to allow open border anarchy. I wish we could help poor refugees but we just can't : (

What exactly is the problem?

What is your solution?

[ckaihatsu]

The British were no longer useful, they had served their purpose, so rather than being thanked for their help, the Zionists unleashed a terrorist campaign against them.

Any take on whether the U.S. is 'wagging' Israel, or is Israel 'wagging' the U.S. -- ?

[ckaihatsu]

white nationalism, but I think we have little choice. USA was established that way.

So just because something 'was established that way', that means that it's automatically *legitimate* to you -- ?

Lowest. Standards. Ever.

I'm sorry to offend but it's just not possible to allow open border anarchy.

'Open borders' just means that *people* will then be able to do what *capital* does effortlessly, in whisking around the world without boundaries.

I wish we could help poor refugees but we just can't : (

Mass. moved quickly to help migrants shipped to Martha’s Vineyard; Advocates wonder why we don’t do it for ot

https://www.masslive.com/politics/2022/ ... thers.html