denoir 0 Posted December 16, 2004 #1 The right to bear arms! Various parts of the world have their own idiosyncrasies and customs. You have your weapons fetish. In some muslim countries you can have multiple wives. In Holland you can have and use weed (what is more basic than being allowed to do as you please with your body?). In Germany, prostitution is not only legal, but has the status and protection as any other job (i.e labour laws, taxes, pensions etc) In Sweden you have "Allemansrätten", a very old law that allows anybody to move around freely in nature - including on the private property of others'. etc etc The popularity of shooting at your fellow citizens is an American peculiarity, but it's nothing ground breaking or special in any way. Oh, and Canada, who is still "ruled" by Queen Elizabeth II has just as liberal gun laws as the US. Quote[/b] ]#3"The People of this Nation, is the Government. Not the officials  that were elected. (Not to many countries have, the people as the government.) Meaning what in pracitice? Your extremely delegated form of government (especially with presidential elections and the electoral college) is on the border on not qualifying as a democracy by European standards. That system was designed for the late 18th century, and seriously outdated today. Quote[/b] ]The "Bill of Rights," is what this country holds sacred! That sort of highlights the problem, the "holds sacred" part. Your dear founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves. The American constitution was a solid set of laws in the 1790's. It was relatively progressive for its time (although certainly not first of the most progressive). Overall, it was a good practical implementation of the ideas of the French enlightenment. More than 200 years later, it's hopelessly outdated - it's not the fault of the "founding fathers" - they could not have anticipated what would happen during the next 200 years. Unfortunately during these 200 years due to abstract and often misleading concepts such as "patriotism" have turned a very practical set of laws into dogma - into some form of "holy" text. Speaking of patriotism and your "founding fathers": you do know that they cannot be considered patriots by any definition of the word, don't you? They were British and they betrayed their country by not only breaking off, but by allying themselves with the mortal enemy of their country: France. There's no more clear case of treason than that. Suppose that during the cold war a couple of states broke off from the US and started a new country: "The Socialist Federation of Atlantic Republics". Of course, they stood no chance alone against the US military, so they asked for Soviet help. Moscow liked the idea and sent Russian troops to defend the new country, together with the rebels engaging US troops and kicking them out of the territory of the new country. After ridding themselves of US troops, the new country introduces a communist state. What would you call those that broke off from the American Union and used Soviet troops to kill other Americans? Patriots? Or traitors? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ares1978 0 Posted December 16, 2004 Speaking of patriotism and your "founding fathers": you do know that they cannot be considered patriots by any definition of the word, don't you?Suppose that during the cold war a couple of states broke off from the US and started a new country: "The Socialist Federation of Atlantic Republics". Of course, they stood no chance alone against the US military, so they asked for Soviet help. Moscow liked the idea and sent Russian troops to defend the new country, together with the rebels engaging US troops and kicking them out of the territory of the new country. After ridding themselves of US troops, the new country introduces a communist state. What would you call those that broke off from the American Union and used Soviet troops to kill other Americans? Patriots? Or traitors? That would depend on how you look at it. To their own people they are most certainly patriots, to the British they are traitors, but there really is no universal truth in this matter. From the second the people in your example started their new country, they were no longer Americans. Perhaps "separatists" is the most describing term for them? ps. I love it when people use the worst parties possible for "psychological warfare" in discussions. In this case it would be the Soviets. Everybody knows that whenever someone mentions "the Soviet Union" or "the Third Reich" (or Stalin or Hitler), people get allergic reactions to whatever issue they are "connected" to. Because nobody wants to defend anything if it might even accidentally be interpreted as taking the side of the worst regimes and political systems that ever existed. Â Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted December 16, 2004 Speaking of patriotism and your "founding fathers": you do know that they cannot be considered patriots by any definition of the word, don't you?Suppose that during the cold war a couple of states broke off from the US and started a new country: "The Socialist Federation of Atlantic Republics". Of course, they stood no chance alone against the US military, so they asked for Soviet help. Moscow liked the idea and sent Russian troops to defend the new country, together with the rebels engaging US troops and kicking them out of the territory of the new country. After ridding themselves of US troops, the new country introduces a communist state. What would you call those that broke off from the American Union and used Soviet troops to kill other Americans? Patriots? Or traitors? That would depend on how you look at it. To their own people they are most certainly patriots, to the British they are traitors, but there really is no universal truth in this matter. From the second the people in your example started their new country, they were no longer Americans. Perhaps "separatists" is the most describing term for them? So, if I declare Helsinki and surrounding regions to be the Denoirland Empire, and declare myself the ruler or it, I'm no longer Swedish? Rubbish! They were British until their new country received full international recognition as such. And that was well after their little insurrection. Quote[/b] ]ps. I love it when people use the worst parties possible for "psychological warfare" in discussions. In this case it would be the Soviets. Everybody knows that whenever someone mentions "the Soviet Union" or "the Third Reich" (or Stalin or Hitler), people get allergic reactions to whatever issue they are "connected" to. Because nobody wants to defend anything if it might even accidentally be interpreted as taking the side of the worst regimes and political systems that ever existed. Actually, you are quite wrong there. I picked the Soviet union because it was the vaguest and mildest example. The US was never at war with the Soviets. The British were very much at war with France. So using the Nazis would have been a much more accurate example. It would have been still too weak as the British/French conflict had been going on for hundreds of years and was far more serious than the four year American/German conflict. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ares1978 0 Posted December 16, 2004 So, if I declare Helsinki and surrounding regions to be the Denoirland Empire, and declare myself the ruler or it, I'm no longer Swedish? Yes, you would no longer be Swedish, as soon as you expatriated. Would the Finnish or the Swedish people consider you a traitor? No. Quote[/b] ]Rubbish! Right back at you. Quote[/b] ]They were British until their new country received full  international recognition as such. And that was well after their little insurrection. They were British until they declared their independence. Quote[/b] ]Actually, you are quite wrong there. I picked the Soviet union because it was the vaguest and mildest example. The US was never at war with the Soviets. The British were very much at war with France. So using the Nazis would have been a much more accurate example. It would have been still too weak as the British/French conflict had been going on for hundreds of years and was far more serious than the four year American/German conflict. I very much doubt that. Why not choose a completely fictive scenario, instead of exploiting the negative attitudes towards a former enemy? For about 50 years the US and the Soviet Union were sworn enemies even though a shooting war never broke out between them, it's useless to claim that it hasn't affected the mentality of both sides. In other words, it's a nice tool if you want to make it a bit harder to answer. I'm sorry, but this is pretty much an open and shut case. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xawery 0 Posted December 16, 2004 I very much doubt that. Why not choose a completely fictive scenario, instead of exploiting the negative attitudes towards a former enemy? For about 50 years the US and the Soviet Union were sworn enemies even though a shooting war never broke out between them, it's useless to claim that it hasn't affected the mentality of both sides. I suggest you read Denoir's reply one more time. As he clearly states, he intentionally used the Soviet Union to simulate the hostility between the British and the French. Besides, it's simply redundant to call the founding fathers patriots. As they had to create a state, there was nothing to feel patriotic about in the first place. The independence was announced for very concrete and rational reasons, not something as irrational and vague as 'patriotism'. Furthermore, saying that the founding fathers were patriots suggests that there is a possibility that creators of a new state may not be patriots, i.e. may not love their country. That's simply illogical: how can one not cherish one's own creation, at the time it was conceived? In sum: saying that founding fathers were patriots is not only a pleonasm, but also introduces an illogicality. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted December 16, 2004 So, if I declare Helsinki and surrounding regions to be the Denoirland Empire, and declare myself the ruler or it, I'm no longer Swedish? Yes, you would no longer be Swedish, as soon as you expatriated. What planet are you from? I brought it up as an absurd example. You are joking, right? Quote[/b] ]Would the Finnish or the Swedish people consider you a traitor? No. If I did this while Finland was Swedish and started killing Swedes, then of course they would. And especially if I called in Russia for help and military assitance. Quote[/b] ]I very much doubt that. Why not choose a completely fictive scenario, instead of exploiting the negative attitudes towards a former enemy? Because the British/French conflict was not fictive. The whole point of the excercise is to demonstrate how joining your country's enemy against your country is an act of treason. I'm showing how the British must have felt when their colony betrayed them to their worst enemy. Quote[/b] ]For about 50 years the US and the Soviet Union were sworn enemies even though a shooting war never broke out between them, it's useless to claim that it hasn't affected the mentality of both sides. In other words, it's a nice tool if you want to make it a bit harder to answer For about 700 years the British and the French were sworn enemies that on many occasions went to actual war. Quote[/b] ]I'm sorry, but this is pretty much an open and shut case. Indeed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted December 16, 2004 I very much doubt that. Why not choose a completely fictive scenario, instead of exploiting the negative attitudes towards a former enemy? For about 50 years the US and the Soviet Union were sworn enemies even though a shooting war never broke out between them, it's useless to claim that it hasn't affected the mentality of both sides. I suggest you read Denoir's reply one more time. As he clearly states, he intentionally used the Soviet Union to simulate the hostility between the British and the French. Besides, it's simply redundant to call the founding fathers patriots. Â As they had to create a state, there was nothing to feel patriotic about in the first place. The independence was announced for very concrete and rational reasons, not something as irrational and vague as 'patriotism'. Furthermore, saying that the founding fathers were patriots suggests that there is a possibility that creators of a new state may not be patriots, i.e. may not love their country. That's simply illogical: how can one not cherish one's own creation, at the time it was conceived? In sum: saying that founding fathers were patriots is not only a pleonasm, but also introduces an illogicality. It again brings us back to the definition of a country. If you think that at the time when everybody but them considered them to be British, that they were a separate nation and country, then yes, it is a redundancy. But that can hardly be said to be the case as they were just British colonies that were rebelling. So any talk of patriotims has to be from a British point of view as they were as far as everybody else were concerned British. To give another absurd example, say that I declare my apartment to be the Denoir Republic with me being of Denoir nationality. To improve my economy I declare war on Sweden and rob a bank to improve my country's economy. Unfortunately I get killed in the attempt. Was I a patriot and did I die for my country? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ares1978 0 Posted December 16, 2004 What planet are you from? I brought it up as an absurd example. You are joking, right? I actually hoped that you weren't serious. But it really would depend on your own view on ethnicity, whether or not you would stop being a Swede in your own opinion. Quote[/b] ]If I did this while Finland was Swedish and started killing Swedes, then of course they would. And especially if I called in Russia for help and military assitance. On what grounds would they do that? Treason is "violation of the allegiance owed by a person to his or her own country". It is clear that there are no grounds for calling you a traitor since you don't have any allegiance towards your former country. Quote[/b] ]Because the British/French conflict was not fictive. The whole point of the excercise is to demonstrate how joining your country's enemy against your country is an act of treason. I'm showing how the British must have felt when their colony betrayed them to their worst enemy. But your example was fictive. There is no real reason to have a semi-fictive scenario, unless you want to exploit the factual part of it. You could just as well have used countries A, B and C. For example, "B breaks away from A and calls A's mortal enemy C in to help secure its independence. Is B a traitor or a patriot?" I suggest you read Denoir's reply one more time. As he clearly states, he intentionally used the Soviet Union to simulate the hostility between the British and the French. And I suggest you read my replies one more time. What I was talking about was the motivation behind choosing specifically the Soviet Union, instead of  choosing to simulate the same situation using an example without the same real historical burden as the relationship between the Soviet Union and the USA. Quote[/b] ]Besides, it's simply redundant to call the founding fathers patriots.  As they had to create a state, there was nothing to feel patriotic about in the first place. The independence was announced for very concrete and rational reasons, not something as irrational and vague as 'patriotism'. Furthermore, saying that the founding fathers were patriots suggests that there is a possibility that creators of a new state may not be patriots, i.e. may not love their country. That's simply illogical: how can one not cherish one's own creation, at the time it was conceived? The concept of patriotism is not confined to simply the state or the country. Patriotism is "deeper" than that and is much love of country, as it is love of nation, people or the land. As much as they had to create the state (a mere signing of papers), they did not have to create the land and the people that make up that state or country. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted December 16, 2004 What planet are you from? I brought it up as an absurd example. You are joking, right? I actually hoped that you weren't serious. But it really would depend on your own view on ethnicity, whether or not you would stop being a Swede in your own opinion. No, it's not my call in any way. I might say that I'm a pinguin, but that means nothing as long as other people think of me as human. What I think and what I declare is entirely irrelevant. It depends on general external views, not my own. To take a very concrete and real example: Vichy France. They declared their own state, disassociated with the third republic. After WW2, the leaders were executed as traitors. Another example: The "American Taliban" John Walker, who renounced his citizenship and joined bin Laden. He was captured in Afghanistan, brought to the US and tried for treason. Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] ]If I did this while Finland was Swedish and started killing Swedes, then of course they would. And especially if I called in Russia for help and military assitance. On what grounds would they do that? Treason is "violation of the allegiance owed by a person to his or her own country". It is clear that there are no grounds for calling you a traitor since you don't have any allegiance towards your former country. I have an allegiance to my country by law since birth - because of my citizenship. And I cannot renounce it either (very few countries allow that). Should I for instance sell military secrets to the Russians, I can assure you that "Oh, but I don't consider myself to be Swedish anymore" would not prevent me being tried for treason. Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] ]Because the British/French conflict was not fictive. The whole point of the excercise is to demonstrate how joining your country's enemy against your country is an act of treason. I'm showing how the British must have felt when their colony betrayed them to their worst enemy. But your example was fictive. There is no real reason to have a semi-fictive scenario, unless you want to exploit the factual part of it. You could just as well have used countries A, B and C. For example, "B breaks away from A and calls A's mortal enemy C in to help secure its independence. Is B a traitor or a patriot?" I could have, but it would have not been so illustrative. I gave a practical scenario of an equivalent situation that a contemporary American could relate to. France and Britain were at war; they were arch enemies; they had been fighting for centuries. The animosity was far greater than the Soviet vs US example. So if anything, you can claim that it was a too weak example, that it doesn't illustrate enough how treasonous their action was. Unfortunatly, it's the best I can do, given that America has only been around for slightly more than 200 years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted December 17, 2004 Quote[/b] ]No, it's not my call in any way. I might say that I'm a pinguin, but that means nothing as long as other people think of me as human. What I think and what I declare is entirely irrelevant. In my view Ares certainly has a point! Of course ethnicity is relevant! To side nationality to cultural identity is not only silly but rather unfruitfull and trivialises the matter at hand. The very reason why the concept of ethnicity was introduced in the first hand was that there were no correlation between cultural identity and the nation state on several levels - both individualy and collectively. I'm surprised that you forgot about the Sami people up north in Sweden, Finland and Norway. Hell, you'll even have a hard time asigning a single national identity to the sami's. Secondly, lot's of people use a metonymic and/or a metaphoric way to express their identity. Not seldom does it take the form of an "animal" with a set of specific qualities attached to it. In a metaphoric way they'll say they are like a "bull" or something similar - and this way of constructing identity is not reserved for sports teams only (how on earth could someone call themselves the "Red socks" ? ) . For people who find themselves orientated towards another cosmological world the metonymic way is the rule ( I am the penguin etc. ) . So depending on your cultural identity and whom you have to relate to in your political environment you could very well be a penguin - or not! Thirdly and most importantly - one could say that ethnicity is all about comunicating it successfully! Making it relevant to others is of course of utmost importance! As you mentioned, the world society at large have to "aprove" the status - or in this case - the ethnicity's relevance. According to the french philosopher Pierre Bourdieu you could very well say that ethnicity - or any other form of social status - is the result of who has the power to define what is and what isn't. Bourdieu used "taste" as in good and bad taste to outline his thoughts and theories. Very interesting they are! So, my point is that you may have a strong case when saying that they were british subjects and criminals/troublemakers or whatever in a judicial way! However, do remember that ethnicity does not nessecarily have anything to do with the idea of the formal judicial nationstate. Furthermore, to say that cultural identities is something "fixed and static" is utter rubbish! Identities are in their character just as selfcontradictory as they are coherent. "An identity" on an individual level is like a set of concentric circles with you in the middle and with the different identity layers around you. The closer to you the more important and vice versa. And last but not least, identity is not always communicated - it's more or less the choice of context. It's no point in trying to succesfully communicate your gay status when discussing your swedish belonging. Quote[/b] ]It depends on general external views, not my own. To take a very concrete and real example: Vichy France. They declared their own state, disassociated with the third republic. After WW2, the leaders were executed as traitors. Here's another example: Chechnya has judicialy belonged to Russia since 18hundred and something. Do they succesfully claim to be a nation? No! Do they succesfully claim their ethnic diversity and cultural status? Yes! Also, you should consider the possibility that the "founding fathers" actually found it nessecary to define themselves as "something or someone" opposed to the british. More often than not this takes form in suggested qualities. Although I lack the factual knowledge about it I'd say it's not only likely but highly probable that they did everything possible to secure a sort of cultural unity among themselves. Culture is always defined by two factors atleast: What you are - and what you're not! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted December 17, 2004 In my view Ares certainly has a point! Of course ethnicity is relevant! To side nationality to cultural identity is not only silly but rather unfruitfull and trivialises the matter at hand. The very reason why the concept of ethnicity was introduced in the first hand was that there were no correlation between cultural identity and the nation state on several levels - both individualy and collectively.I'm surprised that you forgot about the Sami people up north in Sweden, Finland and Norway. Hell, you'll even have a hard time asigning a single national identity to the sami's. Who's talking about ethnicity? Perhaps you should read the posts more carefully. We're talking about arbitrary states declared by an arbitrary group within an existing state. We're not talking about national groupings. We're talking about British (both politically and ethnically) turning against other Britons - or better to say, their country, Britain. Quote[/b] ]So depending on your cultural identity and whom you have to relate to in your political environment you could very well be a penguin - or not! Wow, could you miss my point more? The general taxonomic definitions of a pinguin and of a human are globally very well accepted. If I go around claiming that I'm a pinguin, they'll lock me up in a mental institution. The same way, if I proclaim independence from Sweden with my Republic of Denoir and go off selling Swedish state secrets, they'll lock me up for treason. If I declare war on Sweden, start killing Swedish soldiers and get captured, they'll try me for murder and I will not get a POW status. If I then go around claiming that my actions were patriotic (relative my "country" RoD), most likely they'll lock me up in a mental institution. And this not only in Sweden, but in basically any country in the world - until by some chance, I actually got some form of international recognition. It's no coincidence that during the American revolution, captured French soldiers were kept as POWs while the rebelling British colonist (now known as Americans) were not given quarters, but executed as traitors. Now in my Republic of Denoir, where L'état, c'est moi - literally, letting the state (i.e me) buy a beer for the entire population (i.e me), migt be considered an unprecedented act of unselfish kindness, no sane person in the world would think of it that way. And objectively, I'd be crazy to think like that myself. The same way it is absurd to think that betraying your country, make a grab for territory with the sworn enemy of your country is nothing but an act of treason. Claiming that it wasn't betrayal because "Oh, but we're not British anymore, we're Americans", is nonsense as the British consider you British, and the rest of the world as well. It doesn't work that way. If our individual convictions gave us the right to do whatever we thought was right regardless of anything else, the world would collapse into anarchy. Quote[/b] ]Also, you should consider the possibility that the "founding fathers" actually found it nessecary to define themselves as "something or someone" opposed to the british. More often than not this takes form in suggested qualities. Although I lack the factual knowledge about it I'd say it's not only likely but highly probable that they did everything possible to secure a sort of cultural unity among themselves. Culture is always defined by two factors atleast: What you are - and what you're not! Oh, there's a lovely tautology. "I'm different because I say I'm different." Again completely pointless and devoid of any reality. It is first when there is a general concensus that there's something different about you that you'll be accepted as different. And it should be fairly obvious that it has to be that way. Had it not, it would have ruled out any form of communication and we'd be more primitive than lizards. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ares1978 0 Posted December 17, 2004 No, it's not my call in any way. I might say that I'm a pinguin, but that means nothing as long as other people think of me as human. What I think and what I declare is entirely irrelevant. Being a penguin is not quite as abstract as being a patriot. If somebody calls you a penguin, it doesn't make you one. But they still can sentence you for being one. Quote[/b] ]It depends on general external views, not my own. To take a very concrete and real example: Vichy France. They declared their own state, disassociated with the third republic. After WW2, the leaders were executed as traitors. Executed by whom? That's the point. It really is a matter of perspective. You can always try and sentence people for whatever, but it really doesn't make the sentence right. You probably noticed how everybody the Americans have fought the last couple of years, have been labeled terrorists, even though very few of them fit the actual description. Quote[/b] ]Another example: The "American Taliban" John Walker, who renounced his citizenship and joined bin Laden. He was captured in Afghanistan, brought to the US and tried for treason. And there was no justification for that trial either. People will always be considered traitors by outsiders, even though there are no grounds for it. The logic of the masses and the individuals in charge is always that switching sides, even if one holds no allegience to their former country, is treason, when it's not. Quote[/b] ]I have an allegiance to my country by law since birth - because of my citizenship. And I cannot renounce it either (very few countries allow that). Should I for instance sell military secrets to the Russians, I can assure you that "Oh, but I don't consider myself to be Swedish anymore" would not prevent me being tried for treason. Sure you can. All you have to do, is to change your citizenship. Although it would prevent you from having anything worth selling. They can try you for anything they want, and they may sentence you, but it still doesn't mean they are right in calling you a traitor. Quote[/b] ]I could have, but it would have not been so illustrative. I gave a practical scenario of an equivalent situation that a contemporary American could relate to. You could have (should have), but it wouldn't have had the effect you probably hoped for, right? I prefer examples laid out clearly, without relying on any subconscious reactions to influence the one viewing the example. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted December 17, 2004 Quote[/b] ]We're talking about arbitrary states declared by an arbitrary group within an existing state. We're not talking about national groupings. We're talking about British (both politically and ethnically) turning against other Britons - or better to say, their country, Britain. Yes it's lovely isn't it - that you make a one to one relationship between the new and the old world. Are you so naive that you believe the britons in north America felt very british? Do you find it hard to believe that identity has something to do with understanding oneself to be different from others - in this case the ones living in the british isles. Do you believe the irish, welsh, and the scottish felt obliged to be just like the english administrators? Do you believe the persecuted religious people felt any different. Did other american colonies tear themselves apart from european nations. Of course - they must have been rebels? How about people in the colonies constructing ideas of themselves being different from the ones that take decisions on their behalf? Do you find it hard to believe that people then start to construct ideas about founding a nationstate of their own? And yes, ethnicity has something to do with it! In case you wondered you should perhaps know that ethnicity is not about race or biology but an imagined community. Thus IF a larger group starts to think of themselves as qualitatively different from others they ARE an ethnic unity per se. Welcome to Denoir land! Quote[/b] ]Wow, could you miss my point more? The general taxonomic definitions of a pinguin and of a human are globally very well accepted. If I go around claiming that I'm a pinguin, they'll lock me up in a mental institution. I have no problem in seing what constitutes a penguin or a human being for that matter. However, I suggest you read up on the concepts metaphor and metonym . Also for your information there are actually people on this earth that stress their relationship with various animals. It's very well known in anthropology. Quote[/b] ]The same way, if I proclaim independence from Sweden with my Republic of Denoir and go off selling Swedish state secrets, they'll lock me up for treason. If I declare war on Sweden, start killing Swedish soldiers and get captured, they'll try me for murder and I will not get a POW status. If I then go around claiming that my actions were patriotic (relative my "country" RoD), most likely they'll lock me up in a mental institution. And this not only in Sweden, but in basically any country in the world - until by some chance, I actually got some form of international recognition. Did you at all read what I wrote? Quote[/b] ]It's no coincidence that during the American revolution, captured French soldiers were kept as POWs while the rebelling British colonist (now known as Americans) were not given quarters, but executed as traitors. Of course they were executed! The King kept on calling north america his "colonies" long after the war. The brits treated the boers as traitors by the way! The only thing that made them remotely british was that they were british subjects by law - but the perceived themselves as different. That's called ethnicity - or do you deny the very excistence of the concept? Quote[/b] ]Now in my Republic of Denoir, where L'état, c'est moi - literally, letting the state (i.e me) buy a beer for the entire population (i.e me), migt be considered an unprecedented act of unselfish kindness, no sane person in the world would think of it that way. And objectively, I'd be crazy to think like that myself. Well there's a difference between one mad Denoir and several thousand of you. God forbid - but if that happened we would have witnessed a bunch of madmen and criminal rebels breaking away. Thus you obviously had to be taken care of! However, from your own point of view your claims would have made perfect sense. Quote[/b] ]The same way it is absurd to think that betraying your country, make a grab for territory with the sworn enemy of your country is nothing but an act of treason. Claiming that it wasn't betrayal because "Oh, but we're not British anymore, we're Americans", is nonsense as the British consider you British, and the rest of the world as well. It all depends actually. Not in a formal judicial sense, but from the relative point of view. You obviously lack the ability to understand that people with a lot of similarities - such as the same citisenship - also can perceive themselves as different. What the fuck do you think made the norwegians in the national romantic period construct the idea of living in a norwegian nation for the first time since the middle ages? Oh no, they were traitors towards the swedish king! Or were they just mad? You tell me what made the feeling of similarity (thus ethnicity) turn into a struggle for a nation of it's own. Or the boer state of South Africa? Or Peru, Chile, Mexico and the US! They were all traitors right? Quote[/b] ]It doesn't work that way. If our individual convictions gave us the right to do whatever we thought was right regardless of anything else, the world would collapse into anarchy. You don't get it do you? It's not about Denoir madland and your individual fruitcake society constructed in your head! It's about a collective forming ideas about similarity and quality! It's not psychology inside your head - it's about anthropology between heads! It's not about judicial rights - but all about perceived culture! Quote[/b] ]Oh, there's a lovely tautology. "I'm different because I say I'm different." Again completely pointless and devoid of any reality. Again, welcome to ethnic identity! It's there for you to use! It IS reality because you (the collective body) make it reality. Quote[/b] ]It is first when there is a general concensus that there's something different about you that you'll be accepted as differentOh give me a break will you!Why do you think people struggle and fight? Could it possibly be because they want to make their status and identity relevant! Quote[/b] ]And it should be fairly obvious that it has to be that way. Had it not, it would have ruled out any form of communication and we'd be more primitive than lizards. The world doesn't work like Denoir land you see! It's not like identities are made and agreed upon under general consensus. Actually, the one and critical point is power! And power to force your identity upon others as well as power to acknowledge and decide what identity is to the conserned. I suggest you go and read Jean Paul Sartre, Bourdieu, and Foucault if you want to broaden your mind a little. You are obviously fixed on some sort of normative idea about plights and obligations of the loyal citizen - ruled by law in Denoir land! Edit: interested to hear your thoughts on who's the traitor: North- or South Korea, North- or South Vietnam, and Ireland versus the British - or Ireland and North Ireland? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted December 17, 2004 Yes it's lovely isn't it - that you make a one to one relationship between the new and the old world. Are you so naive that you believe the britons in north America felt very british? Do you find it hard to believe that identity has something to do with understanding oneself to be different from others - in this case the ones living in the british isles. Do you believe the irish, welsh, and the scottish felt obliged to be just like the english administrators? Do you believe the persecuted religious people felt any different. Of course they felt British! They were British (or English if you wish), culturally, ethnically and otherwise. They broke off for economic reasons in a process that started far before they even thought to found a new country. Even after the British were defeated, they were not quite sure what to do. They declared political independence from the British state, but did not replace it with an American one. Very long negotiations took place to finally form, not a nation state, but a federation of colonies. And indeed they still thought of themselves as being of their original nationalities and cultures. Now I'm taliking about the founding fathers, who were very normal Englishmen that took a liking to the French enlightenment while realizing that as a colony they were exploited by the state. There were a bunch of not-so-normal colonists, such as the puritans who declared a country of their own, a "land of saints". Of course it didn't survive for long as nobody else recognized it and the other factions had more guns. Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] ]Wow, could you miss my point more? The general taxonomic definitions of a pinguin and of a human are globally very well accepted. If I go around claiming that I'm a pinguin, they'll lock me up in a mental institution. I have no problem in seing what constitutes a penguin or a human being for that matter. However, I suggest you read up on the concepts metaphor and metonym . Also for your information there are actually people on this earth that stress their relationship with various animals. It's very well known in anthropology. Again, you are missing my point which is quite simple: What you make up in your individual little twisted mind does not necessarily equate to reality. And reality in the political case is the external recognition. We're talking about the real world here, not some New Age fantasy of "if it is right to you, then it's right". It's the difference between seeing the brave knight Don Quixote valiantly fighting bloodthirsty giants and an old fool charging a windmill! Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] ]It's no coincidence that during the American revolution, captured French soldiers were kept as POWs while the rebelling British colonist (now known as Americans) were not given quarters, but executed as traitors. Of course they were executed! The King kept on calling north america his "colonies" long after the war. The brits treated the boers as traitors by the way! The only thing that made them remotely british was that they were british subjects by law - but the perceived themselves as different. That's called ethnicity - or do you deny the very excistence of the concept? No, I don't deny the existance of the concept, but I don't agree with your definition of it and I deny the relevance of it here. America became more than just treasonous colonies once they got external approval of being something else. Quote[/b] ]It all depends actually. Not in a formal judicial sense, but from the relative point of view. You obviously lack the ability to understand that people with a lot of similarities - such as the same citisenship - also can perceive themselves as different. Of course they can, but as long as nobody else agrees and as long as they don't manage to do something, it's irrelevant. There are millions of groups out there considering themselves to be "different" and very few of them fit in the real world. The definition of a country is a bit more specific than just an item you or a group imagines. Quote[/b] ]What the fuck do you think made the norwegians in the national romantic period construct the idea of living in a norwegian nation for the first time since the middle ages? Norwegians were an externally recognized entity. You wern't just Danes with a delusion of grandeur. Quote[/b] ]Why do you think people struggle and fight? Could it possibly be because they want to make their status and identity relevant! It's always so hilarious to discuss these things with a sociologist. You really have no clue of how the world works, do you? Well, sorry to burst your fantasy - now listen very very carefully: National identity, ethnicity etc are means not goals Goals are, and have always been economic and political power. (I suggest you read up on your Foucault) Quote[/b] ]Actually, the one and critical point is power! And power to force your identity upon others as well as power to acknowledge and decide what identity is to the conserned. That's what I'm telling you. It's not relevant what you or your group consider yourself to be. Only if you get external recognition your ideas become relevant - and that is about power. Your power and the power of others'. Quote[/b] ]I suggest you go and read Jean Paul Sartre, Bourdieu, and Foucault if you want to broaden your mind a little. I suggest you read them rather than use them for name-dropping. Bourdieu would have disagreed with you, and correctly pointed out that the separation of the colonies was not a cultural struggle, but a social one (economic). And that is very well reflected in the patriotic images that Americans today use. It is exactly on the level and the type you find representative of the social segment that built up America. Take a look at some of the British tabloids and you'll see the same story about "Our boys in Iraq" that is typical of American mainstream. It goes to show that it was a socio-economc separation rather than a cultural one. As for Sartre, well, I basically disagree with everything he came with. I do not share at all his view on subjectivity. While I appreciate the historical role of existentialism, especially in the forms it inspired secular humanism, I think it's nosense in the core. Your individual "truth" is only individual. Collective "truth" can only come from collective agreement (including by force!) when we are talking about abstract social phenomena, and from science when we're talking about concrete stuff. Yes, there are of course variations and shades of gray, but I think that their whole idea of subjectivism is deeply flawed. We live in a real world, it's not what is in your mind or what your little sawing group thinks. It's not about individual or collective rights. It's about power and the ability to use and project power. There's no subjective relativism here. You are a traitor is the person holding the gun says you are. When you manage to get the gun, then you may call yourself a patriot. That's the reality of things, devoid of any absolute "truth" or even individual relative "truth". The founding fathers were "traitors" until America became strong enough to project its own power and revise them up to "patriots". At the moment of the revolution, they were traitors and their action was a betrayal of their King and country. Quote[/b] ]Edit: interested to hear your thoughts on who's the traitor:North- or South Korea, North- or South Vietnam, and Ireland versus the British - or Ireland and North Ireland? trea·son n. 1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. 2. A betrayal of trust or confidence. You tell me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bonko the sane 2 Posted December 17, 2004 if i might barge in this very interesting thread... in my point of view, History is a very interesting concept, open to many interpretations, also it is made by those who win, in this specific case traitors became heroes, patriots and founding fathers with their cute faces printed in little green pieces of paper. Had it been the opposite, they would probably be remembered nowadays as a bunch of traitors\rebels who consorted with the enemy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted December 17, 2004 Quote[/b] ]And indeed they still thought of themselves as being of their original nationalities and cultures. I see: Quote[/b] ]Of course they felt British! They were British (or English if you wish), culturally, ethnically and otherwise. ................... Quote[/b] ]Again, you are missing my point which is quite simple: What you make up in your individual little twisted mind does not necessarily equate to reality. And reality in the political case is the external recognition. You are taking the quote out of it's propper context! I was not talking about "a single twisted mind" but a collective mind if you will! Quote[/b] ]We're talking about the real world here, not some New Age fantasy of "if it is right to you, then it's right". Say goodbye to cultural relativism for all it's worth! Quote[/b] ]It's always so hilarious to discuss these things with a sociologist. You really have no clue of how the world works, do you? Well, sorry to burst your fantasy - now listen very very carefully:National identity, ethnicity etc are means not goals Listen yourself: it is both depending on how you view and practice national identity in analisys! Ethnicity on the other hand is purely an analytical term unless you take height for both emic and epic terms. Quote[/b] ]Goals are, and have always been economic and political power. (I suggest you read up on your Foucault) I don't need to read up on Foucault. In essence his theory is about controling oneself and embodying power through practices. Education, punishment, control, and disciplining through varous mechanism controled by the centralised state is what we're talking about. Remove the will to be actively forced by those means and you are looking at struggle against your oppressor. - Or the english state! Quote[/b] ]That's what I'm telling you. It's not relevant what you or your group consider yourself to be. Only if you get external recognition your ideas become relevant - and that is about power. Your power and the power of others'. No that's not what you are telling me! My point is that the fight - your fight - is what is nessecary in order to get recognition . Quote[/b] ]Bourdieu would have disagreed with you, and correctly pointed out that the separation of the colonies was not a cultural struggle, but a social one (economic). Oh Lord! Bourdieu doesn't even talk about anything remotely economic when refering to something social. He's refering to something cultural . His focus on power was in short a focus on "habitus" and "doxa" - meaning knowledge about "what goes without saying" . Someone has the power willingly or unwillingly - to define what is and what isn't . That kind of power is reproduced both by those who define it and by those who constantly reenact it. National identity is not always a result of someone's rational will! However, the moment someone choses to fight against the symbols, rituals, and institutions of the dominator you are also defining yourself as opposed to that. You and the dominator - or as in Sartre - you the passive object and the other the acting subject are changing roles. That's called a binary opposition. I'm sure that's too "new age" for you though! Having said that though - I've never claimed that economic factors wasn't among the major issues for the separation. Quote[/b] ]There's no subjective relativism here. You are a traitor is the person holding the gun says you are. When you manage to get the gun, then you may call yourself a patriot. That's the reality of things, devoid of any absolute "truth" or even individual relative "truth". The power to define may very well be enabled by the hand holding a gun. That I've never challenged - actually quite the opposite! However, there are many ethnic groups in this world fighting to have that initiative - a gun - or power to define. Why do you think people fight? What would be the point if not to seek another status than being the passive object for the others eyes to use Sartre again. That's realpolitik for you! No fight - no traitor, and we could abolish the word. And the relative positions decide how you view yourself - and how others view you! Quote[/b] ]The founding fathers were "traitors" until America became strong enough to project its own power and revise them up to "patriots". At the moment of the revolution, they were traitors and their action was a betrayal of their King and country. They were certainly traitors from the british crown's point of view. I highly doubt they saw themselves as traitors though. Freedom fighters or something like that perhaps. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted December 17, 2004 Quote[/b] ]Bourdieu would have disagreed with you, and correctly pointed out that the separation of the colonies was not a cultural struggle, but a social one (economic). Oh Lord! Bourdieu doesn't even talk about anything remotely economic when refering to something social. He's refering to something cultural . Bourdeu's most famous empirical work was showing that in France people chose art forms depending on their socioeconomic position. I.e rich people listened to classical music while poor people listened to pop musik. And this was despite the complete freedom of choice. What he was talking about was the economic segregation of society within one and the same culture. And that is where it translates very well into the American sitaution, where we today clearly can see the reflection of the social classes that were overrepresented. The apparent difference in American and British culture isn't actually a cultural difference, but a different social distribution. They were still typically British, just from a number of specific social/economic layers. (This has of course evolved over time but there are still some very clear elements of that today) Quote[/b] ]They were certainly traitors from the british crown's point of view. I highly doubt they saw themselves as traitors though.Freedom fighters or something like that perhaps. The point is that they couldn't have seen themselves as patriots as Britain was their country. The war with the British started in 1775 and their declaration of independence came first in 1776. That means that they started their fighting before they even declared their independence. By any definition, including their own, they were still the subjects of King George and Britain was their country. I'll point you to the definitions again: Quote[/b] ]trea·sonn. 1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. 2. A betrayal of trust or confidence. Quote[/b] ]pa·tri·ot·ismn. Love of and devotion to one's country. In 1775 when they started their little insurrection, they were British citizens, by British definition and by their own definition as well. So tell me, did the founding fathers show "love and devotion" for their country or did they "violate their allegiance" to it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted December 17, 2004 Quote[/b] ]Bourdeu's most famous empirical work was showing that in France people chose art forms depending on their socioeconomic position. I.e rich people listened to classical music while poor people listened to pop musik. And this was despite the complete freedom of choice. When Bourdieu talks about socioeconomic it's about much more than monetary resources. It's about controling knowledge. That's why he focuses on whom has the power to define bad and good taste. It's all about the economy of knowledge - not monetary economy in general allthough there's bound to be a connection between the two. If you had cared to read on you'd find that one of his more famous ways of exemplifying is the problem of vulgarity and the lack of knowledge as a barrier against converting economic capital into cultural capital. A short explanation would be the noveau riches lack of propper knowledge on how to spend it right. The end result is figurative and very often romantic art instead  of avantegarde art, Mercedes Benz, Porsche and BMW's instead of Bristols and Aston Martins. Another famous exemplification of his are two separate art exhibitions taking place at the Louvre - at the same time. The catalogues from the avantgardistic exhibition were all gone, while comparatively few were taken from the figurative one. Guess which exhibition had the most visitors? The point in Bourdieu's theories is that your so called "freedom of choice" is not a freedom of choice. Sure, noone is denying you the right to choose - but you'r disabled to choose  because of a lack of knowledge which you are denied in a systematic way! It's like using your mother tongue - you'r able to use it - speak it, although you'r unable to specify the grammatical rules! It's all about rules and knowledge about "what goes without saying" - the habitual aspect of acting as a human being. You don't reflect upon it! That's his point! Quote[/b] ]What he was talking about was the economic segregation of society within one and the same culture. For your information I'll tell you that Bourdieu's theories has been applied to far more cases than within one culture. Quote[/b] ] And that is where it translates very well into the American sitaution, where we today clearly can see the reflection of the social classes that were overrepresented. The apparent difference in American and British culture isn't actually a cultural difference, but a different social distribution. They were still typically British, just from a number of specific social/economic layers. (This has of course evolved over time but there are still some very clear elements of that today) Please elaborate - because I'm not sure what your implying? WASP? Quote[/b] ]The point is that they couldn't have seen themselves as patriots as Britain was their country. The war with the British started in 1775 and their declaration of independence came first in 1776. I never argued against this - all I said was that they would have seen themselves as different from the brits. When the nation building finally took place they would have had to look for something to construct their "americaness" . Mind you, the concept of culture and ethnicity wasn't even thought of back then. They were both introduced by anthropology - and have unfortunately both been misused by ordinary people ever since. Most people see them as synonimous concepts to society, nation, people, race etc. - and they are not! Quote[/b] ]In 1775 when they started their little insurrection, they were British citizens, by British definition and by their own definition as well. So tell me, did the founding fathers show "love and devotion" for their country or did they "violate their allegiance" to it? In a judicial way the could not have been anything but rebels! However, at some point there is a moral side to it as well! At what point does one consider the abuse to be of such a character that loyalty can be abolished? Ask the finnish people? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted December 17, 2004 Quote[/b] ]Bourdeu's most famous empirical work was showing that in France people chose art forms depending on their socioeconomic position. I.e rich people listened to classical music while poor people listened to pop musik. And this was despite the complete freedom of choice. When Bourdieu talks about socioeconomic it's about much more than monetary resources. It's about controling knowledge. That's why he focuses on whom has the power to define bad and good taste. It's all about the economy of knowledge - not monetary economy in general allthough there's bound to be a connection between the two. If you had cared to read on you'd find that one of his more famous ways of exemplifying is the problem of vulgarity and the lack of knowledge as a barrier against converting economic capital into cultural capital. A short explanation would be the noveau riches lack of propper knowledge on how to spend it right. The end result is figurative and very often romantic art instead  of avantegarde art, Mercedes Benz, Porsche and BMW's instead of Bristols and Aston Martins. Another famous exemplification of his are two separate art exhibitions taking place at the Louvre - at the same time. The catalogues from the avantgardistic exhibition were all gone, while comparatively few were taken from the figurative one. Guess which exhibition had the most visitors? The point in Bourdieu's theories is that your so called "freedom of choice" is not a freedom of choice. Sure, noone is denying you the right to choose - but you'r disabled to choose  because of a lack of knowledge which you are denied in a systematic way! It's like using your mother tongue - you'r able to use it - speak it, although you'r unable to specify the grammatical rules! It's all about rules and knowledge about "what goes without saying" - the habitual aspect of acting as a human being. You don't reflect upon it! That's his point! I absolutely agree that it was his point, but what significance does this have to our discussion? My claim is only that the differentiation between the American British and British British was the social distribution. That we de facto are talking about the very same culture, just different social segments. And that the social segment over represented in America reached a critical mass that lead to a revolution. The difference between that and for instance the Russian or the French revolution was that the colonies that reached the boiling point were physically separated from the rest of the country - leading to a localized revolution and in the end independence. My point is that their socio-economic position led them to take action, not because their culture was overall different. Culture, nationality, ethnicity or any other such grouping was not an issue. As for the noveau riches, it's a case of temporary social displacement. There's a lag of one or two generation. Their children will go to better schools and consort with more cultured people and thus pretty soon eliminate the difference. In the end the money is the relevant step, the rest follows given a bit of time. As for Aston Martins, they're bloody expensive, much more so than BMWs or Porches. Trust me, I've drooled over the Vanquish but been severely discouraged by the price. Quote[/b] ]Please elaborate - because I'm not sure what your implying? I'm refering to the blatant national/patriotic symbolism and imagery used en masse by the Americans. The flag waving, the "Founding Fathers™", the very visual patriotism etc If I would want to be a bit more controversial, I could extend it to pop culture, fast food etc And yes, puritans and other religious fundamentalists. I'm saying that those are remnants representative of the British social class that left for America. That  it's not in the base a new culture, just amplified elements of the British culture at that time. Many of these things have changed over time, and yes, I would say that there is a unique American identity today - but I think a lot of the fundamentals are still in place and that their origin is very British and very representative of the social segments that moved to America. Quote[/b] ]In a judicial way the could not have been anything but rebels!However, at some point there is a moral side to it as well! At what point does one consider the abuse to be of such a character that loyalty can be abolished? Ask the finnish people? I'm not using these expressions in a judgmental manner, just their litaral meaning. What about a Nazi officer leaking out information to the Allies? Traitor? Sure. Did he do a good thing? Sure. The epithet "traitor" is only negative if the entity you are betraying is seen as positive. Well, it can have some implications for the character, but on a grander scale that's irrelevant. Personally, I admire America's founding fathers, and I very much approve what they did. That doesn't however mean that they did not betray their country and their king. It's not a normative statement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted December 18, 2004 Quote[/b] ]I absolutely agree that it was his point, but what significance does this have to our discussion? The only point in this is that you disregarded Ares suggestion of ethnicity while you were telling him that the founding fathers could not have been patriots. This I agree upon, but I do not reject the thought of the american brits thinking of themselves as different than their cousins in the british isles. The revolution didn't suddenly occur - it must have been in the doing for a long time: people feel discomforted by the authoroties, high taxes and unfair rules of trade etc. So, my only argument is that it's likely that they started to think of themselves as different from their english masters. Or a beginning ethnicity if you will. Every factor to facilitate this was present - even the thought of national identity based on exclusive ethnic identity (ethnicity doesn't need the nationstate though) . Mind you - it's still pretty much like that in the USA despite it's multi cultural setting. The one and coherent identity they export is very much a "wasp'ian" view of the rich, white, moral person. When you seldom see others represented one sort of get the feeling that they'r represented because of lobbyism by the film board. An aspiring ethnic identity is an empirical question though more than anything, so maybe it's time for some "ad fontes". Having said that I agree that they could not have been patriots when they still hadn't founded their nation. Quote[/b] ]My claim is only that the differentiation between the American British and British British was the social distribution. That we de facto are talking about the very same culture, just different social segments. And that the social segment over represented in America reached a critical mass that lead to a revolution. I understand what you mean but I beg to differ! While there were many similarities I wouldn't say it was one and the same culture. I'm rather certain of the fact that life in the americas was perceived quite different from life in the british isles. And there's nothing unusual about that. It only takes a generation or two after the initial migration before people start to think of themselves as different. Even children brought up by pakistani or indian immigrants in Norway feel they do not belong in Pakistan/India when traveling back to their parents former homeland. Quote[/b] ]My point is that their socio-economic position led them to take action, not because their culture was overall different. I see what you mean and agree with that! My point was that in the process (and preceding that) they would likely start to think of themselves as qualitatively different. I certainly wouldn't like to make comparisons between myself and a perceived unfair, immoral ruler. Quote[/b] ]As for Aston Martins, they're bloody expensive, much more so than BMWs or Porches. Trust me, I've drooled over the Vanquish but been severely discouraged by the price. There are and have been models made by both Mercedes and BMW's that are just as expensive as an Aston Martin. Porsche has regularely been making cars with a higher price tag. Maybe I should have said Bentley, TVR, Morgan etc. instead since the other car manufacturers also make simpler and cheaper cars aswell. That is part of the piont though, new money chooses artifacts and symbolic value that are easily recognisable. Mercedes Benz fits the bill perfectly. However, my point is that some artifacts are considered to be of vulgar character simply because the noveau riches lack the right spending knowhow. Some symbols are available to a few - allthough this is changing right now. Aston Martin has now become a plummers dream and is loosing it's cred so to say. They have also been too closely connected to Ford and their V12 engines consists of two Ford Mondeo V6's - which kind of discredits it! Jaguar also downbranded when making the horrible and silly retro designed S and X type. Bloody Ford Lincolns and Mondeos they are. Â Â If you wan't to buy into a higher class you would go for TVR, Maserati, Bentley etc. - and in particular Bristol which always has been the choice for the very few (and they are dead ugly aswell) . I'm done with this topic for now. I don't believe we disagree that much on this subject. I'm no patriot myself! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
***friendlyfire*** 1 Posted January 21, 2005 As Gen. Patton said:"Let the other poor bastard die for his country" nope he said "the object of war is not too die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his" harsh but a lot better than dying yourself LOL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Necromancer- 0 Posted January 22, 2005 To give another absurd example, say that I declare my apartment to be the Denoir Republic with me being of Denoir nationality. To improve my economy I declare war on Sweden and rob a bank to improve my country's economy. Unfortunately I get killed in the attempt. Was I a patriot and did I die for my country? No, you would be a complete idiot. Denoirism.. very dangerous cult. I think these days "dying for your country" is more about "defending" your morale's and culture, then really defending your country's sovereignity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites