Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ... 17252627
Results 781 to 808 of 808

Thread: Zionuts

  1. #781
    Better ask your French (Plantagenet) kings who spent a century trying to "reclaim" the French throne. Or the Habsburg rulers of Austria, Spain, and the Netherlands. The idea of nationalism did not exist until well into the 18th century. In Europe, peasants had a provincial identity and a Christian identity. For European nobles, dynastic ties and power politics were the main motivating forces. It wasn't until the French Revolution and Napoleon's conquest of much of present-day Germany that nationalism became a real force in politics (which coincided with rising nationalism in places like England, present-day Italy, Belgium, etc.).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  2. #782
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Loki, it's possible you're using a very narrow Poli Sci definition of nation, but even then I think it's a bit hard to defend your statement. Nationalism in its modern form certainly traces back only to the late 18th/early 19th century as far as I can tell, but there are plenty of examples of national identity going back way further. Unless this is some sort of semantic/definitional argument that will waste all of our time.

    That being said, I'm not really sure what Dread was getting at.
    Right, in the way Marx claims some version of class consciousness existed centuries back. Except it wasn't nationalism for the simple fact that nations did not exist. Religious identity existed. There was some general sense of a civilizational identity (albeit a weak one) in places like Greece, Rome, and China. But illiteracy was rampant (there literally can be no nationalism without a printing press), which meant a vast majority of people knew little about what happened outside of their village (and perhaps neighboring city). Various elites jockeyed for power, some using arguments that nationalists would later fine-tune. But ultimately, those elites legitimized themselves through appeals to tradition ("my father was your king, therefore I am your king now"), God, or brute force.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #783
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Right, in the way Marx claims some version of class consciousness existed centuries back. Except it wasn't nationalism for the simple fact that nations did not exist. Religious identity existed. There was some general sense of a civilizational identity (albeit a weak one) in places like Greece, Rome, and China. But illiteracy was rampant (there literally can be no nationalism without a printing press), which meant a vast majority of people knew little about what happened outside of their village (and perhaps neighboring city). Various elites jockeyed for power, some using arguments that nationalists would later fine-tune. But ultimately, those elites legitimized themselves through appeals to tradition ("my father was your king, therefore I am your king now"), God, or brute force.
    I suspect this is definitional, but I'm not sure I follow all of your assertions here (e.g. that a printing press or literacy is required for national identity, or that tradition or religion can't also be part of a national identity). Since this is Zionuts, do you really think that the Bar Kochba rebellion wasn't in the interests of re-establishing a Judean nation with self-determination? How is that not a national identity? And that was back in the 2nd century.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  4. #784
    Quote Originally Posted by Joachim Meyer
    As I intent to diligently and truly and to the best of my understanding and abilities describe the art of Fencing in the Knightly and Manly weapons that are currently used most often by us Germans, and because fencing with the sword is not just the source and origin of all other forms of fencing but, as experience shows and as is obvious, also the most artful and manly next to other weapons, I deem it necessary and good to begin with it and do so in brevity but also clarity as it is customary in other arts and disciplines.
    Quote Originally Posted by Joachim Meyer
    And if these four parts weren’t already addressed enough for one, against them the Ancient German Fencer will need to strike with the various strikes as they are known among us Germans at this time, so special in their Handywork with the Winding, these will fight the furthest and against the Greatest since all of humanity in common is divided in the above named four parts. We see how the the Upper Vertices meet, and Below how the Chin and Throat are relevant. Onward we see the Right and Left parts which are joined across the Ears, both sides are relevant, both right and Left ears will be addressed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Joachim Meyer
    What the right Iron Door is, which you will find out should you go farther onto Rapier Fencing, that while it is used in stabbing with the Sword as by us Germans, this guard is also easily deflected and sent to the ground. Although at this time it is used by the Italians and other nations, it covers like the Barrier Guard, and so of the Iron Door no further report is therefore required.
    Joachim Meyer, writing around 1570, is making reference to a distinctly German tradition of martial arts, several hundred years before there was a Germany, and makes references to contrasting Italian traditions, also several hundred years before there was an Italy.

    30 Years later, in London.

    Quote Originally Posted by George Silver, 1599
    Wherein is proved the true grounds of fight to be the short ancient weapons and that the short sword has advantage over the long sword or the long rapier. And the weakness and imperfection of the rapier-fights displayed. Together with an admonition to the noble, ancient, victorious, valiant, and most brave nation of Englishmen, to beware of false teachers of defence, and how they forsake their own natural fights. With a brief commendation of the noble science or exercising of arms.
    The noble, ancient, victorious, valiant and most brave nation of Englishmen.

    The reason which moved me to adventure so great a task, is the desire I have to bring the truth to light, which has a long time lain hidden in the cave of contempt, while we like degenerate sons, have forsaken our forefathers virtues with their weapons, and have lusted like men sick of a strange ague, after the strange vices and devices of Italian, French, and Spanish fencers, little remembering, that these apish toys could not free Rome from Brennius's sack, not France from the King Henry the Fifth his conquest.
    "Italian, French and Spanish" fencers. This manuscript has dozens of passages like this. George Silver, who may have been the most opinionated Englishman in history, has a very strong sense of his own national identity and also sees others through that lens as well, and is particularly seething in his contempt for "Italian" masters, despite the fact that no nation of Italy exists, nor will it exist for centuries.

    What about the Italians themselves? Saviolo was an Italian fencing master George Silver absolutely could not stand, let's see what he has to say for himself:

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincentio Saviolo, circa 1590
    Moreover, if a man follow the warres and converse with Captaines, and incurre a quarrell, and have no knowledge of this arte, what shift shall hee make? Or how shall hee behave himselfe being challenged the combat for his Countrie or his Prince, which hath often happened, not onely in the time of the Romanes, but in our dayes, as we may read in the life of Charles the fifte, and of other Emperours: Paulus Jouius and Guicciardino do make mention of many combats fought in the kingdome of Naples betweene French-men and Italians for theyr Countrie, whereunto were required and chosen men most famous and skilfull men both of the French and Italian Nation.
    In the Kingdom of Naples, Frenchmen and Italians fought for their country.
    Sing in grief, a requiem, the curse of our millennium, these souls keep whispering from the river beds
    An end to all these violent means, alive in these red water dreams, their haunted burdens stirring in my head on streets still running red
    Most went in the flood, a few were martyred by the flames, yet those who unleashed the waters are still guilty all the same
    When the ignorance of puppets serves the masters larger game, they let it rain, they let it rain
    When I get the chance to rise I'll find the light in their cold eyes or lose myself and carry out revenge
    The righteous hunt has just begun, the dimming of the bleeding sun will let these waters run clear once again



  5. #785
    Some of these examples fit equally well with an identity based on perceived ethnicity than on the notion of a nation.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  6. #786
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,421
    It also is hardly a coincidence that the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands in 1581 united Dutch speaking political provinces in the Habsburg empire who then identified the enemy as Spaniards.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  7. #787
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Some of these examples fit equally well with an identity based on perceived ethnicity than on the notion of a nation.
    First of all, that's a very fuzzy distinction to draw, especially in the case of Germans.

    Secondly, I think you get a clear sense from those sources that not only did they identify people as being German, Italian, English, etc, they also saw certain ideas or ways of doing things as quintessentially English, German, etc. Meyer says "the Knightly and Manly weapons that are currently used most often by us Germans", i.e Germans traditionally use certain weapons, and writes about how Germans do certain techniques in such an such a way, but the Italians do things differently. Silver's work has an entire hypothetical conversation between an Italian and an Englishman about fencing theory, contrasting the two different approaches. This points to a developing sense of national identity, with shared ideas and traditions, at least as far back as the late 16th century and possibly much, much earlier. Fiore de Liberi, writing a century earlier, mentions that he studied under "both Italian and German masters" and "taught the art to many Italians and Germans".

    Even the 13th century Codex Regius, containing copies of much earlier poems form the Viking age and source of pretty much everything we know about Viking myth, at least mentions places like Denmark and Sweden, even though they did not exist as distinct political entities in the Viking Age ("King Sigmund remained for a long time in Denmark, in Borghild's Kingdom, after he was married to her"), and makes mention of Germans and other national groups ("[this is our tale of how Sigurth was killed], but the Germans say they killed Sigurth out in the forest"), making at least the concept of a Denmark and a Germany at least a 1000 years old, even if it's not quite a German or Danish identity at this stage.

    It also is hardly a coincidence that the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands in 1581 united Dutch speaking political provinces in the Habsburg empire who then identified the enemy as Spaniards.
    And when Bismark and Garibaldi decided to unify Germany and Italy in the 19th century, the concept of a nation of German and Italy didn't just sort of magically spring into existence from nothingness.
    Sing in grief, a requiem, the curse of our millennium, these souls keep whispering from the river beds
    An end to all these violent means, alive in these red water dreams, their haunted burdens stirring in my head on streets still running red
    Most went in the flood, a few were martyred by the flames, yet those who unleashed the waters are still guilty all the same
    When the ignorance of puppets serves the masters larger game, they let it rain, they let it rain
    When I get the chance to rise I'll find the light in their cold eyes or lose myself and carry out revenge
    The righteous hunt has just begun, the dimming of the bleeding sun will let these waters run clear once again



  8. #788
    Nationalism is the belief that sovereignty is derived from the people (of the same nation), people who should be allowed to rule themselves (rather than being ruled by elites from another nation). The idea of uniquely German, English, etc. traits is insufficient for nationalism. What you're referring to is a vague us vs. them dynamic. The Greeks had some notion of the Greek world vs. barbarians. The Chinese had a similar belief. As did the Germans. Even though it wasn't until Napopeon's conquest that there was a serious attempt to base German sovereignty on the consent of the German people.

    But these claims were more similar than modern ones about the existence of a Western civilization or Islamic civilization. Few actually believe civilizations should have sovereignty. No one thinks a Western government should exist because of its legitimacy from the Western people.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  9. #789
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    It also is hardly a coincidence that the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands in 1581 united Dutch speaking political provinces in the Habsburg empire who then identified the enemy as Spaniards.
    They didn't like being oppressed by a zealous Catholic king. They attempted to make various French and English nobles their leader. That doesn't strike me as Dutch nationalism.

    As for Steely's claim about Garibaldi and Bismarck: the latter hated German Catholics and served a king who explicitly refused a national crown (and considered himself a Prussian who happened to conquer all Germanic lands). Both the German and Italian educated elites wanted national unification, but that nationalism only arose in the early 1800s and only really took off by the 1840s. There's a reason so many unifications took place in the second half of the 19th century.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  10. #790
    Too bad that what you actually said was that the concept of national identity didn't exist until recently.
    Sing in grief, a requiem, the curse of our millennium, these souls keep whispering from the river beds
    An end to all these violent means, alive in these red water dreams, their haunted burdens stirring in my head on streets still running red
    Most went in the flood, a few were martyred by the flames, yet those who unleashed the waters are still guilty all the same
    When the ignorance of puppets serves the masters larger game, they let it rain, they let it rain
    When I get the chance to rise I'll find the light in their cold eyes or lose myself and carry out revenge
    The righteous hunt has just begun, the dimming of the bleeding sun will let these waters run clear once again



  11. #791
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    They didn't like being oppressed by a zealous Catholic king. They attempted to make various French and English nobles their leader. That doesn't strike me as Dutch nationalism.

    As for Steely's claim about Garibaldi and Bismarck: the latter hated German Catholics and served a king who explicitly refused a national crown (and considered himself a Prussian who happened to conquer all Germanic lands). Both the German and Italian educated elites wanted national unification, but that nationalism only arose in the early 1800s and only really took off by the 1840s. There's a reason so many unifications took place in the second half of the 19th century.
    They were struggling with the concept of a non-monarchical system of government. Their choices for potential kings were strategic and seemed necessary given that this tiny new country was taking on the biggest empire the world had seen so far. Also, the search wasn't started until after the revolution had been successful in throwing out the Spanish and disposing of their king.

    The selected ones were soon removed as well for not being aligned closely enough with Dutch society.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  12. #792
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Nationalism is the belief that sovereignty is derived from the people (of the same nation), people who should be allowed to rule themselves (rather than being ruled by elites from another nation). The idea of uniquely German, English, etc. traits is insufficient for nationalism. What you're referring to is a vague us vs. them dynamic. The Greeks had some notion of the Greek world vs. barbarians. The Chinese had a similar belief. As did the Germans. Even though it wasn't until Napopeon's conquest that there was a serious attempt to base German sovereignty on the consent of the German people.
    Which means that any trace of "divine right of kings" in your attitude or make-up excludes the possibility of nationalism entirely. Which really isn't all that reasonable applied to the real world rather than theory models for academia. More importantly, you're talking about nationalism strictly as overt political ideology, but the topic was rather broader. You don't need to apply full rigorous modern nationalism to fit the topic that was raised. As Steely points out, your own claim in rebuttal to that topic was "the concept of national identity" didn't exist. It clearly did and is, in fact, a necessary precursor for nationalism to ever develop. It's not a chicken and egg problem, one clearly comes before the other in this case.

    But these claims were more similar than modern ones about the existence of a Western civilization or Islamic civilization. Few actually believe civilizations should have sovereignty. No one thinks a Western government should exist because of its legitimacy from the Western people.[/QUOTE]
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  13. #793
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Which means that any trace of "divine right of kings" in your attitude or make-up excludes the possibility of nationalism entirely. Which really isn't all that reasonable applied to the real world rather than theory models for academia. More importantly, you're talking about nationalism strictly as overt political ideology, but the topic was rather broader. You don't need to apply full rigorous modern nationalism to fit the topic that was raised. As Steely points out, your own claim in rebuttal to that topic was "the concept of national identity" didn't exist. It clearly did and is, in fact, a necessary precursor for nationalism to ever develop. It's not a chicken and egg problem, one clearly comes before the other in this case.
    Yes, divine right of kings is inconsistent with nationalism. Sovereignty either comes from the people or it does not. Are we going to equate nationalism with "people who have a vague sense of being similar in some way"? That's identity in general. Are we going to consider tribes to be nations now? Or all states for that matter?

    National identity does predate nationalism, but by decades, not millennia. That identity presupposed interaction between different parts of the nation, which didn't take place until the urbanization associated with the industrial revolution. It requires people to know national myths, which could only happen on a mass level after the printing press and a certain level of literacy. It requires people to identity as members of a certain nation (which is why ancient Greece wasn't a nation; people might have had some general sense of being Greek, but they identified with their city-state), which did not happen until the 19th century. Someone could literally be English one day and French the next (based on conquest) without even understanding what happened. The peasants frequently didn't even speak the language of their lords.

    Meanwhile, nobles identified with their House. They might have had some residual loyalty to their king. But that's a loyalty based on dynastic ties, not nationalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I suspect this is definitional, but I'm not sure I follow all of your assertions here (e.g. that a printing press or literacy is required for national identity, or that tradition or religion can't also be part of a national identity). Since this is Zionuts, do you really think that the Bar Kochba rebellion wasn't in the interests of re-establishing a Judean nation with self-determination? How is that not a national identity? And that was back in the 2nd century.
    What made that revolt different to the ones carried out by various tribes of barbarians subjugated by the Romans? No one likes being oppressed.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  14. #794
    Great history and poli-sci information about Nationalism....so what happens to the Palestinians? Israel seems to have given up on a two-state solution, calls the Golan Heights "sovereign" to Israel, and now plans to annex the West Bank. At least that's what Netanyahu promised in his campaign, with backing from the Trump admin. (but not international consensus).

  15. #795
    Loki, your conception of European history is strange. You seem to have this picture in your head of the social conditions of, like, the dark ages with nobles and serfs living in isolated communities and no one else, persisting all the way up until the dawn of modernity and industrial revolution when suddenly the modern world appears pretty much overnight.

    The printing press was invented in 1439. Also, there was this thing between the medieval period and modern period called the renaissance? Maybe you've heard of it? Places like Germany had a middle class. Burghers, you heard of those guys? By the 1500s handing out pamphlets was a popular method of mass communication, and of political speech. It's part of how the Protestant revolution got started, amongst other things: See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pamphlet_wars. You don't need mass literacy for mass communications, just as long you have enough of people who can a) read and b) shout loudly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    It requires people to know national myths, which could only happen on a mass level after the printing press and a certain level of literacy.
    Wait till he finds out where his screen name comes from.
    Sing in grief, a requiem, the curse of our millennium, these souls keep whispering from the river beds
    An end to all these violent means, alive in these red water dreams, their haunted burdens stirring in my head on streets still running red
    Most went in the flood, a few were martyred by the flames, yet those who unleashed the waters are still guilty all the same
    When the ignorance of puppets serves the masters larger game, they let it rain, they let it rain
    When I get the chance to rise I'll find the light in their cold eyes or lose myself and carry out revenge
    The righteous hunt has just begun, the dimming of the bleeding sun will let these waters run clear once again



  16. #796
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Yes, divine right of kings is inconsistent with nationalism. Sovereignty either comes from the people or it does not. Are we going to equate nationalism with "people who have a vague sense of being similar in some way"? That's identity in general. Are we going to consider tribes to be nations now? Or all states for that matter?

    National identity does predate nationalism, but by decades, not millennia. That identity presupposed interaction between different parts of the nation, which didn't take place until the urbanization associated with the industrial revolution. It requires people to know national myths, which could only happen on a mass level after the printing press and a certain level of literacy. It requires people to identity as members of a certain nation (which is why ancient Greece wasn't a nation; people might have had some general sense of being Greek, but they identified with their city-state), which did not happen until the 19th century. Someone could literally be English one day and French the next (based on conquest) without even understanding what happened. The peasants frequently didn't even speak the language of their lords.

    Meanwhile, nobles identified with their House. They might have had some residual loyalty to their king. But that's a loyalty based on dynastic ties, not nationalism.



    What made that revolt different to the ones carried out by various tribes of barbarians subjugated by the Romans? No one likes being oppressed.
    Actually there was a middle way described in the Act of Abjuration which effectively turned the divine right on its head by coupling it with the right of the people to judge the proper application of it. For such a principle to be expressed you need a deeper sense of national belonging than a vague cultural similarity. It is unlikely that the Netherlands the outlier in Europe to such an extent that national identity was only to be found in the Republic.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  17. #797
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    5,900
    I really wonder what the "Freeze Peach" crowd makes of this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...i-denied-entry
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  18. #798
    https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4...semitic-tropes

    I seriously wonder just how thick some of these editors have to be.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  19. #799
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,421
    I don't really see how the dog image is antisemitic. To me it seems to be the kippa that makes it an antisemitic caricature.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  20. #800
    Jews have frequently been portrayed as subhuman. A common imagery and language in anti-Semitic circles is to specifically call them dogs. The kippa - and the broader relationship portrayed between netanyahu and Trump - also didn't help.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  21. #801
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,421
    Is Blair-poodle really less problematic than Netanyahu-dachshund? I stand by the kippa being the real ominous part of the caricature; it implies something much more sinister than the swipe at Netanyahu and seamlessly links in with the antisemitic trope of Jews being the real power behind the throne.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  22. #802
    I think we can agree the cartoon was obviously problematic and that the NYT shouldn't have let it get anywhere near the paper. Precisely which parts are most problematic can be left as an exercise for the reader.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  23. #803
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,421
    Problematic seems much too friendly a description for the caricature; it is deeply offensive.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  24. #804
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Problematic seems much too friendly a description for the caricature; it is deeply offensive.
    I prefer to avoid such terminology. 'Offensive' implies that someone must take offense for there to be an issue; it focuses on a victim and is a heavily subjective, loaded word. I can be offended about pretty much anything. But even in a vacuum, when evaluating the cartoon in the light of historical antisemitic depictions of Jews, it is clearly, well, 'problematic'. Even if there was no one around to take offense.

    I will give the NYTimes a smidgen of credit - after a mealy mouthed 'sorry if anyone was offended' non-apology, they followed up with a more full-throated apology with some intimation that they would try to fix the issues that led to such an atrocious error in judgment. And their editorial staff didn't keep Bret Stephens from publishing what I thought was a pretty decent column on the whole mess. If this was a one-off, I'd give them a B or B minus for their handling of the situation. Placed in the context of their broader reportage and the specific sensitivities around this issue, it's more of a C minus. But it could be worse.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  25. #805
    Problematic is a shitty word though that is overused among the SJW crowd.

  26. #806
    "Incredibly, the cartoon itself was selected and seen by just one midlevel editor right before the paper went to press."
    That's the main 'error in judgement'. It's surprising (and disappointing) that a publication like the NYT didn't have a better SOP in the first place. Especially for political cartoons which test/push limits, and almost always "offend" someone as part of their purpose.

  27. #807
    https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN1SK11N

    Yes, the famous Palestinian city of Tal Ar-Rabeea that was depopulated in an ethnic cleansing campaign by the Zionists in 1948. Good job, Reuters.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  28. #808
    just leaving this here

    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •