| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:44 am Post subject: Re: What Is History? |
 |
|
On Nov 14, 6:51 pm, "stephan.nikolov" <baba_gi...@pri.abv.bg> wrote:
| Quote: | andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49501776-8148-483b-b2ed-d83f41d71642@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 5:59 am, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 6, 10:04 pm, andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
|
(snip)
| Quote: |
I haven't disgregarded anything. What I said is that ethnic
nationalism isn't the law of nature. You seem to say this (correct me
if I am wrong), but there is simply too much evidence to the contrary.
No, he is simply saying that cultural imperialism is the issue.
|
Cultural imperialism is also a misleading term. You and I are
communicating with each other in a language that is "foreign" to both
of us. My ancestors spoke Irish (Erse or Irish-gaelic) and (I think)
you speak Bulgarian. But of all the European Imperial powers (with
perhaps the exception of the Dutch), the British were the least
interested in actually spreading their culture abroad. And today's
"British" (the Americans) may dominate the world's culture to an
almost tragic extent, but the average American simply doesn't care
whether or not the rest of the world loves their culture or hates it.
Americans are notoriously indifferent to the "Outside World". They are
accused of "cultural imperialism", but that is totally misleading.
They simply don't care (or even know) whether or not the world drinks
Coca Cola and watches CSI.
| Quote: | Nationalism is simply ne of its manifestations.
BTW, ethnic nationalism is quite misleading term.
|
I know it is, but for the purposes of this discussion, I think you
know what I mean. Catholic and Protestant Irishmen hate each others'
guts, even though they are the same "race" (again, a misleading term).
Same for Serbs and Croats, Tutsi and Hutu, etc etc.
(snip)
| Quote: |
Nope. You could worship as you pleased, practice your own culture, and
speak your own language.
As I said: Dominus et Deus. How this comes in terms with Judaism and
Christianity?
|
The Jews were tolerated and even treated gently, IMHO. And the
majority of the Ancient Hebrews (like the majority of Jews today) were
moderate and secular. Even in the Great Revolt, all the people elected
to lead it were moderates. The Zealots and Sicarii were a minority.
And if you look at it carefully, the Great Revolt was actually touched
off by local Greek-speakers deliberately offending Jewish
sensibilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish-Roman_War#First_Jewish_successes
It takes two to tango, even in Ancient Palestine.
| Quote: | How comes the statue of an Emperor in the temple of jerusalem fits in the
Jewish worship?
|
The Jews (or most of them) were more-or-less content to ignore the
Romans and actually did participate (half-heartedly) in emperor-
worship. The destruction of the Temple was actually IMHO the
culmination of a long series of mistakes and deliberate provocations
on both sides. It was by no means inevitable or necessary.
(snip)
| Quote: |
The Hapsburg Empire could have stayed together for another 50 years
through sheer force of arms. Russia and Germany would have helped it
to survive, and even the French and British had very little sympathy
for the national aspirations of its subject peoples. Remember "To Hell
With Servia" in 1914?
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda ..... This is not a valid argument.
Same with "what if" ...
|
It wasn't I who said that the breakup of the Hapsburg Emopire was
somehow inevitable. Nothing is ever inevitable or obvious in history,
provided you look at it with sufficient circumspection and honesty.
Again, the "history books" have drugged us all into thinking that
history can actually be understood. I believe this is impossible. In
fact, we don't even really know what history actually *is*.
| Quote: |
You use the term "Balkanization" as if it is a "dirty" word.
No I don't. I use it in the way it is commonly employed, and defined
in dictionaries..
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=balkanize
Oh, my ......
I wonder if that idiot who spoke of 'Balkanization of Lebanon" had consulted
the _urban_ dictionary.
|
I knew that one was coming ;-)
Do you have a better definition?
(snip)
| Quote: |
There's a tad more to it than that. Nationalism is one thing, but
visceral ethnic nationalism is quite another.
Is it? Would you bother to explain?
|
Certainly. Barack Obama is not the same "ethnicity" as JFK was. Both
are passionately "American". Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams are both
Irish, but they certainly do not see themselves as being part of the
same "ethnicity".
Same for French patriotism (or at least one strain of it). In the
leftist, revolutionary, modernist tradition of French patriotism, it
was perfectly possible to be black and French, or Vietnamese and
French etc. I know that the other strain of French Patriotism, the
reactionary, monarchist and Catholic strain is xenophobic and racist,
but the other tradition is alive and well.
Can you be black and Greek? There are Greeks on this very ng who say
this is not possible. Can you be Jewish and Greek? Ditto.
| Quote: |
....
As Churchill remarked, the history is written by the victors. But you
do not have to buy it.
Well, that's not altogether true. In the Spanish Civil War, the losers
wrote all the history and their version is the accepted one.
ts, ts, ts..... The winners of WWII wrote that history. The same who
qualified fascism 'wrong"
|
Actually, the winners supported Franco, a fascist (sort of) dictator.
He was the darling of the West right up to his death. But the
Republicans' version of the Spanish Civil War is the generally-
accepted one.
| Quote: |
Same for
the extermination of the aboriginals in North America and Australasia.
In spite of Germany's obvious culpability in bringing about the Great
War (and the rapacity of what she planned to do if victorious) the
Allies are still condemned for Versailles.
Are they? Isn't it the fact that Versailles are the established borders in
Europe....
|
Nope. The only Versailles border still in existence is that between
France and Germany, and that predated the Franco-Prussian War of
1870.
| Quote: | Was not that this sticking to the Versailles system brought the devastation
in Yugoslavia?
|
Definitely not. Versailles had nothing whatsoever to do with the
creation of Yugoslavia, and the "Versailles myth" is just another
excuse for people to pass the blame on to someone else.
Nobody forced people to commit atrocities, and no one (at least in the
West) is to blame for the creation of Yugoslavia. But people like to
blame the West for it all, thereby conveniently getting themselves off
the hook. If I rape someone and then roast her alive on a bonfire, I
am not any less guilty because that happened to my sister.
I would like to issue a challenge to all comers on this one:
Show me some hard evidence that the creation of Yugoslavia was the
result of some western plot or diplomatic offensive. It wasn't. It was
the result of indigenous panslavism and Serbian ambitions. It's all on
the record, but still "the West" gets all the blame.
Why do you suppose this is? |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: Re: What Is History? |
|
|
On Nov 14, 9:53 pm, Istor the Macedonian <istormacedon...@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | On 11 ÍïÝ, 11:20, andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
................................> Care to teach me something? I know, I know, the old dodge about me
being unteachable.
........................
First, get that you are malakas and your will make the first step to
understand world.
Second, there is no more multicultural country on earth regarding its
size, than Greece.
But this is not what English-World likes. They want us all coca-cola
boys.
|
That's odd. I am "English", and I have no desire at all to do anything
of the sort. Again, it is interesting to see that someone knows my
mind better that I do ... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:18 am Post subject: Re: What Is History? |
|
|
On Nov 14, 6:29 pm, "stephan.nikolov" <baba_gi...@pri.abv.bg> wrote:
| Quote: | andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4ac1c33-3f64-4f8c-9622-01b3e6444d29@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
India - perhaps but no much harmony there, perhaps.
More harmony than one might think, and certainly more than one should
reasonably expect of the place, given the poverty, illiteracy and
extreme diversity.
Anastassios has this one answered well.
USA - surely not. A look at the "americanized" Obama should
be the giding light here as well as the fact that over 90% of the Black
Americans voted for him.
That is exactly what I mean. A black man actually can be "American".
Could he be British? German? Chinese? Polish?
Yet, the black vote for Obama is racial vote, is it not?
|
What skin-colour was the majority of the people who voted for Obama?
And for that matter, economics IMHO had more to do with it than skin
colour. The "black vote" (assuming such a thing exists) is almost
always Democratic. If the Democrats had a white candidate in the last
election, the "black vote" would have been the same as it was for
Obama.
(snip)
| Quote: |
In Russia, assimilation is much easier than elsewhere in Europe. You
can look like Genghis Khan or Saddam Hussein and still be a "Russian".
Look at Russia's history. Lenin was obviously at least partly Tartar,
Stalin looked like an Arab and spoke with a thick Georgian accent.
Pushkin was part Ethiopian. Even a converted Jew was totally accepted
as a Russian, even in the Imperial Period.
What a mess. Out of a sudden assimilation becomes a trend of
multiculturalism.....
And this is precisely what I was telling you: establishment of a dominant
cultural trend!
|
Wait a minute. We may be talking at cross-puroposes here. What I was
saying is that some societies are more inclusive than others. It is
bossible to be assimilated if you want to be assimilated. Look at the
Jewish population of America. It is vibrant, strong and visible, but
it is (ironically) only really "threatened" by the ease by which one
can assimilate.
| Quote: | As for te Jews in tsarist Russia - you simply do not know what you are
talking about.
There was no more anti-semitic _state_ in Eurasia (that is both Europe and
Asia) in the 19th c.
than Romanov Russia. Reading Solzhenitsin's "200 years together " may
illuminate you.
The oigin of the very word "pogrom" should mean something for you.
|
I do not disagree. But one could be born Jewish and still "become" a
Russian. I mentioned Lenin's "Tartar" appearance, but his maternal
grandfather was called Aleksandr Dmitrievich Blank. His father was
therefore married to someone who was half-Jewish, and yet was able to
rise to the rank of the hereditary nobility, along with the title of
"Excellency". Where else in Europe would this have been possible?
And I know that this is an arguable point (the "grandfather was
Jewish" point), but even the whiff of Jewish blood would disqualify
one from rising so high in society.
Besides, I am not saying that Russia was a model of ethnic harmony. It
wasn't and isn't. What I am saying is that it is a more assimilation-
prone society than most others. Whether or not this is a good thing
is, of course, a matter of opinion, but it was (and is) at least
possible to "join" the dominant culture. The same cannot be said of
plenty of other countries and cultures, as I am sure you will agree.
Some people believe that ethnicity is in your DNA. The Japanese are an
obvious example of this tendency. Some people believe that ethnicity
is a matter of culture, not race. That's Russia. That is what I am
saying. You can be a Russian and look like a Mongol. Can you be German
and look like one? Greek? Italian?
| Quote: |
Sure - Rome was what I had in mind when I wrote that a certain tyoe of
culturehad been enhanced
in order to preserve the cohesion of society.
Look at the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem
Look at the lengths to which the Romans had to be pushed before they
did it.
Whatever. Look at the lengths to which the jews had to be pushed!
|
Pushed by whom? If you look at what actually happened, the conflict
was actually a local one, between the hellenized and non-hellenized
population. The "pushing" was largely done by non-Romans. In fact,
there is documented evidence of the Romans disciplining their own
soldiers for offending Jewish sensibilities. An off-duty (and possibly
drunk) legionary was executed for making rude gestures and noises from
the Temple wall during the Sabbath.
| Quote: | The Romans never bothered to uderstand Judaism.
|
Again, this sounds like "The Amercans don't understand the world". The
Jews and Romans didn't understand each other. It went both ways.
| Quote: | Facing a theocratic
monotheistic culture was
something they could not cope with.
Same with the persecution of Christians. Have you heard of "dominus et
deus"?
|
Yes, but aren't you forgetting Mithraism?
IMHO the Romans only wanted peace in Palestine. They didn't care how
people worshipped - nor did they care how many people they had to kill
to secure their border with Persia. Two societies - the Hellenistic
and Hebrew - could not or would not tolerate each other. The Romans
solved the problem (in typical Roman fashion) by obliterating one of
the two. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:06 am Post subject: Re: What Is History? |
|
|
On Nov 14, 1:10 pm, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 11, 1:19 am, andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
(snip) |
First you say this:
| Quote: | We now live in the world in which the images
of war flash to your screen immediately along with poorly informed
commentary.
What is "properly informed" commentary? In terms of this ng, it
inevitably means choosing sides and blaming somebody for everything
(or almost everything). I'm not saying that the media is faultless,
but there are too many stories out there to tell any of them properly.
For example: take 5 minutes and surf the net for news of the present
heavy fighting in the northwest of Sri Lanka. You'll have to look
pretty hard. Ask a Greek or a Serb or a Turk for his analysis of what
is going on here, just off the top of his head. I guarantee you he'll
probably have no picture of the complexity of the struggle, the scale
of the danger and tensions (in Colombo at least), and will almost
certainly dismiss the whole thing by blaming the British or the Sri
Lankan gov't or something like that.
|
Then this:
| Quote: | I do not. I know what is happening. And what does it matter if
average people understand a civil strife in a far away place? In most
cases, it hardly makes (if ever) western news. But Boznia was on TV
daily with idiotic commentary to boot.
|
I must say that you seem to this thicky to be contradicting yourself.
Again, I am not accusing you of racism, but you do see how what you
are saying could be construed as racist, don't you?
Yugoslavs are white and European. Their conflicts are extensively
covered in the news media. Sri Lankans are neither European nor white.
Their conflict - a full-blown civil war - is ignored. That says
something about our priorities, doesn't it? So if you are going to
condemn "the media" (and by implication, "the West") for its knowledge
of the Bosnian tragedy, you cannot thereupon shrug off an equally
tragic conflict elsewhere. That is hypocrisy, don't you think? Sauce
for the goose is sauce for the gander, and you can't condemn someone
for something you are quite patently guilty of yourself.
You say: "And what does it matter if average people understand a civil
strife in a far away place?"
What if the "average people" in the West ignore what happens in SE
Europe? They have "lost their moral compass", they "stood by and let
it all happen", they "closed their eyes to the tragedy" etc etc. But
people outside of "the West" are presumably afforded the luxury of
throwing away their moral compasses, standing by and doing nothing,
and closing their eyes to all the bad stuff in the world. In short,
everyone but "the West" can say "it's not my problem" and go to bed
with a clear conscience, because they aren't responsible.
IMHO, not only is this disgusting moral cowardice, it is just plain
dishonest. Blaming the Americans or the British or whoever is a very
neat way to get oneself off the hook. Scapegoating is scapegoating,
even if the person on the receiving end happens to be a superpower.
Maybe it's my subconscious Catholicism again, but I believe that we
are all responsible for everything, which (again) is just another way
of saying that none of us are responsible for anything. Who killed
Christ? The Romans? The Jews? The way it was explained to me was that
we all killed him. You and I killed him. Just as we are "killing" all
those poor, gentle, charming and loveable people in northern Sri Lanka
this very second. Refusal to accept this is scapegoating and moral
dishonesty, and a cowardly attempt to shift the blame for something we
are all responsible for.
And I couldn't care less how holier-than-thou that sounds. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
