1BC Civ Forums / Off Topic Discussions / More Than a Game, Civ in Real Life / Politics & Religion / Three months after the China Quake / Latest Posts

RE: Three months after the China Quake

jerm — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:57:30 GMT

The thing with "God's Kingdom on Earth" is that almost any religion I can think of that believes in this also believes that it won't happen until God himself establishes it. Until then, and I don't want to get into a theological debate, we can't delude ourselves in to thinking that evil will cease to exist someday.

Humanity's goodness comes and goes in waves it would seem. I think we have come a long way from about 200 years ago and a big chunk of that has occured in the last century, nay, the last 50 years! Was the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany or Mao China "better" than the Roman Empire? Than the Egyptians? The Persians? The only difference I can see is that the "good guys" can give the "baddies" a serious *** whoopin'. The problem is that (from a theological perspective again) man is free to choose. This means many will choose evil and lead many away with them. Unfortunately, most of the time, the best way to fight evil is to... well fight it.

[green]Addit: The reason we've got it so good recently is precisely because mankind [i]has[/i] chosen to fight it. What if we didn't unite to fight Nazi Germany? What if we didn't fight Soviet expansion? We sit back in our nice cushy homes with the ability to criticise some of our more nefarious actions during the cold war but what if we [i]didn't[/i] do some of those things? Is it possible that things may have ended up much worse? At any rate, my point is that the reason we can sit back and say how much progress the world has made is precisely because good people chose to fight the bad. If you did not have a sense of nationalism, why on earth would you die for your country? I'd submit that the success we are seeing in Iraq is directly due, in part, to a sense of nationalism (the patriotism kind) among those serving. We don't even have a draft.[/green]

[quote]Of course it has not been exclusive to Bush, and I am not sure why you call him "evil" I do not think he is evil. But as you say, the move have been towards less freedom. Surely he has, in part, rested on the precedence of those who came before him in cutting back on liberties, but that is not an excuse for his actions. I do not dismiss out of hand what others have done before him, but I do not let him off the hook for following their lead.[/quote]

I'd agree to a degree but you never answered my actual question ;).

[quote]Find it a bit funny that you say "patriotism is one definition of Nationalism," when the very next definition on your list says "extreme patriotism! [/quote]

Actually it says excessive patriotism but I digress :P. You're right, that is another definition. That doesn't mean the number 2 definition is incorrect. Hence the "war on semantics."

[quote]Of course I responded to your parentheses. You wouldn't have said it if you didn't mean it.[/quote]

Yeah, but that was a side thought to my actual point. :blink:

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Locus Coeruleus — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:56:39 GMT

[quote][b]jerm (8/15/2008)[/b][hr][quote]I disagree. But then, I guess I have more faith in humanity than you do! [/quote]

Most liberals do. What evidence to you have that humanity is generally good? The last 7000 years? The last 500? The last 100? The last 10? No, the evidence points to the fact that humanity is generally rotten unless we are taught or forced to be "good"... and even then it doesn't always work. [/quote]

Actually I am not sure what it has to do with being liberal. It more has to do with "God's Kingdom on Earth", which is a concept I am sure you are familiar with. Humanity has come a long way in the past 7000 years don't ya think? ;) You say humanity has to be taught or forced. A good mix of both have been involved throughout the course of history, and no doubt [b]our learning is not over[/b]. I know we won't see this in my lifetime, but I have a strong feeling, call it faith if you want to, that humanity will be closer on the day that I die than it was on the day I was born. What say you?

I do not pretend that things are all peachy keen, and it ("God's Kingdom on Earth") may all be a myth, but it is definitely something worth striving for, IMO.

[quote][b]jerm (8/15/2008)[/b][hr][quote]No, of course not. I wish GWB felt the same way! [/quote]

So, what liberties have you lost during Evil Booshmeister's been in office? Still, I generally agree that the move has been towards less freedom, though this has not been exclusive to Bushy.[/quote]

Of course it has not been exclusive to Bush, and I am not sure why you call him "evil" I do not think he is evil. But as you say, the move have been towards less freedom. Surely he has, in part, rested on the precedence of those who came before him in cutting back on liberties, but that is not an excuse for his actions. I do not dismiss out of hand what others have done before him, but I do not let him off the hook for following their lead.

[quote][b]jerm (8/15/2008)[/b][hr][quote]Well, they are not, but the latter does not require Nationalism as a motivating factor. I do not worship at the altar of Nationalism. I do not require it, it doesn't get me out of bed each day, that is what I am saying. Patriotic, yes, you betcha. But nationalistic, no, never! [/quote]

Perhaps we are battling a war of semantics.

[quote][url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationalism]Nationalism[/url]

1.	national spirit or aspirations.

2.	devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; [b]patriotism[/b].

3.	excessive patriotism; chauvinism.

4.	the desire for national advancement or independence.

5.	the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

6.	an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.

7.	a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation.

[/quote]

Patriotism is one definition of Nationalism. I am not saying that we should worship at the alter of nationalism. I am only saying that a degree of nationalism is not a bad thing and in fact can be a force for good as long as the nation one is nationalistic tois a good one.[/quote]

Find it a bit funny that you say "patriotism is one definition of Nationalism," when the very next definition on your list says "extreme patriotism! :D

[quote][b]jerm (8/15/2008)[/b][hr][quote]Nothing, sir, nothing at all. But you know, good intentions pave the road to hell, you know this, right? [/quote]

You respond to my parentheses?:hehe:[/quote]

Of course I responded to your parentheses. You wouldn't have said it if you didn't mean it.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

-M- — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:09:04 GMT

[quote]and my wife wouldn't mind[/quote]

Well that one is the question of time, persevirance, and intelectual superiority.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Scipio Africanus — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:56:29 GMT

[quote][b]Nuclearcow (8/16/2008)[/b][hr][quote]In fact, my friend from Norway is coming here for 3 months and I am trying to help her figure out what to see. [/quote]Whoa! Wait... what?

Not only is Roadkill a woman, but you guys are pals enough for her to visit? :crazy:

*goes to turn on Rosie O'Donnell*[/quote]

Yeah, I'd put Scandinavia into the same category as Canada: swell place but too damn cold and dark for too damn long every year . . . except for zee weomun . . . If I could have my own harem in Oslo or Trondheim (and my wife wouldn't mind!) I'd gladly migrate to Scandinavica.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Nuclearcow — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:14:28 GMT

[quote]In fact, my friend from Norway is coming here for 3 months and I am trying to help her figure out what to see. [/quote]Whoa! Wait... what?

Not only is Roadkill a woman, but you guys are pals enough for her to visit? :crazy:

*goes to turn on Rosie O'Donnell*

RE: Three months after the China Quake

cleopatra143 — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:43:45 GMT

[quote][b]Locus Coeruleus (8/15/2008)[/b][hr]If I didn't have family here that I am very close to (parents and siblings and whatnot), I would probably be in another country now, not because I hate America, my reasons are actually quite different than that, but because I want to see and experience the entire world, as much as I possibly can. America will always be home, but there is just so much out there. Granted ya have to understand that we moved around a lot when I was a kid, so this whole idea of "settling down" for me is quite foreign.[/quote]I am in the same boat as you. I've lived and been everywhere in this country, and while I would love the opportunity to live in Germany or Australia for a while, the US will always be home. I love our diversity, cultures, nature, food, everything! We have the best of all worlds here. :D
In fact, my friend from Norway is coming here for 3 months and I am trying to help her figure out what to see. It's really tough. Norway is beautiful but it doesn't have near the diversity that we have here.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

jerm — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 02:11:04 GMT

I think everyone should live for a time outside of their home country. I wish I could have done so longer. If I were single and a 20 something, I'd probably look for work outside the U.S. I think this would be better than going straight to college after High School actually. See the world man. I think I'd always return though.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Scipio Africanus — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 01:32:26 GMT

[quote][b]Rishbhav (8/15/2008)[/b][hr]There's one question I'd like to pose that has to do with nationalism and patriotism: if you thought that by immigrating to another country you could have a better life (and in "better life" I include economic factors, political/freedom factors, cultural affinity factors, attractive female factors, etc.) would you do it?[/quote]

If I could get a comparable job, I'd go live in France in a heartbeat, and maybe never speak English again, and probably never miss one iota of America, nor North America ever again. Been there, done that already.

Ahh, to go on weekend trips to the Pyrenees . . . to take my dog with me to the restaurant . . . to get snooty with the best of them . . . to drink wine and coffee, and act uppity and such . . .

Britain I wouldn't be quite so eager to switch to . . . I'd do it if there was a big enough reward. Germany maybe, haven't spent enough time there to say. Spain I'd probably be just about as eager to switch to if the job was comparable enough for my wife and me.

Canada is a swell place. Only real problem is it is cold as balls, and dark as night for far too long every year. Still, Vanouver could be fun. Or Montreal again too, if it was a big enough reward. Australia I suppose would be fine too, never had any burning desire to go, but sure wouldn't pass up the opportunity.

Other places I'd consider migrating to? Singapore, Hong Kong, maybe one of Brazil's bigger nicer cities, but I'd be concerned here about being able to figure it all out before I got waxed by criminals. Nothing has ever really drawn me to S. America so that would depend on some kinda serious lure (great job or something).

I'd live in Russia temporarily but would not want to migrate. India: too much poverty, inequality, and pollution, and far too different for me to ever be able to blend in to any real degree. Lots of other places fit that bill.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Locus Coeruleus — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:49:23 GMT

If I didn't have family here that I am very close to (parents and siblings and whatnot), I would probably be in another country now, not because I hate America, my reasons are actually quite different than that, but because I want to see and experience the entire world, as much as I possibly can. America will always be home, but there is just so much out there. Granted ya have to understand that we moved around a lot when I was a kid, so this whole idea of "settling down" for me is quite foreign.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Nuclearcow — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:45:37 GMT

Very possibly. I'd consider anything for the betterment of my family. Except for watching Rosie O'Donnell.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Rishbhav — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:36:28 GMT

There's one question I'd like to pose that has to do with nationalism and patriotism: if you thought that by immigrating to another country you could have a better life (and in "better life" I include economic factors, political/freedom factors, cultural affinity factors, attractive female factors, etc.) would you do it?

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Scipio Africanus — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:22:43 GMT

Jerm, the key thing you are maybe not getting. Anderson would argue that a "Culture" (like American culture or Mexican culture) is not necessarily as "imaginary" as is an entity like a so-called "American nation" or "Mexican nation."

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Nuclearcow — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:35:13 GMT

I thought my explanation was similar. :doze: Semantics.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

jerm — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:22:30 GMT

That is what I assumed you meant as well Biz. I actually had a neighbor analogy too but thought it wasn't a tangent worth heading off on. Here's a good one though. Increasing the value of your house also has a possitive effect on your neighbors' houses values. Likewise, if we make our nation a better place, there's a pretty good chance that the possitive effects will not stop at our borders.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Bismarck2990 — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:58:21 GMT

Irrespective was not used in my post to specifically mean at the "expense of" x nation. By it's definition it means, "without consideration or regardless of," which I would stress moderation again. General rule of thumb, I love most my neighbors, but they don't pay my bills nor live in my house, so they don't effect my decision making when it comes to my house.

Just noticed, 5 years and finally 1000 posts. :)

RE: Three months after the China Quake

jerm — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:11:48 GMT

Hmm, it is, I suppose an imagined community in a sense but I think more ties a nation together than just this imaginary affinity. At least in the west today, nations are also connected by some basic values and even culture. So, while I may never meet someone in New York, or Oregon, there's a good chance that we share many values in common. I share many values with you Scipio, even though I know there are many we don't. The values that we seem to agree upon are fundamentally American values. Freedom, democracy, rule of law, a nation for the people. Slight subcultural influences aside, the fact that I can move almost anywhere in this large geographical area and still feel like I'm in "America" is a testament that this is not just imagined. On the other hand, I go much less distance south and I'm in a totally different world.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Scipio Africanus — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:08:05 GMT

According to Benedict Anderson, one fairly influential cultural anthropologist, nations are [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_communities]"Imagined Communities"[/url].

[quote]Benedict Anderson defined a nation as "an imagined political community [that is] imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign".^[1] An imagined community is different from an actual community because it is not (and cannot be) based on quotidian face-to-face interaction between its members. Instead, members hold in their minds a mental image of their affinity. As Anderson puts it, a nation "is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion".^[1][/quote]

As someone who regards humans from a more evolutionary perspective, i.e., by placing human natura history into the context of the phylogenetic-bush of ape-lineages out of which we emerged 6 to 8 million years ago: I see considerable merit in this perspective on nationalism. It is also applicable to a lesser degree to other [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic]Emic conceptions[/url] of social identity such as ethnicity, and race.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

jerm — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 02:43:58 GMT

I don't think it's so clear. "Irrespective of" and "at the expense of" are not the same thing. I really do wonder what Biz meant, though perhaps it's a bit nit picky. I know what Nuke means and that should be enough. I do think there is a bit of subjectivity in the definition of "Nationalism" and "Patriotism" though Nationalism seems to do with one's feelings toward his nation while Patriotism seems to be more about the outward expression of it.

The definition of Nationalism I am speaking of is pride in one's country. I want people to be proud of the countries they are citizens of, especially when there are things to be proud of. It's good to see all these countries draped in their flags. In theory, the olympics are the perfect expression of nationalism. The world comes together but they compete as a nation against other nations. This definition does not mean that one has unwaivering/unquestioning support for everything their country does but it does mean they believe that there is something good about their country and that it's values are more important than any one citizen. That doesn't mean we have some communist type of a system where everyone moves for the greater good. It means that the values their country upholds are worth sacrificing and even dying for when needed. Sure people work for their pocketbooks but if crisis arises will they have the national pride to work for the betterment? I do not know if this is the case today but in WW2 nationalism certainly had a heavy hand in our efforts, even if nationalism also was the cause. If that kind of nationalism is gone today (and certainly it has waivered among some), I do not think that it is for the better.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Locus Coeruleus — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 01:05:58 GMT

to put it into context:

Biz said:

[quote]
Nationalism is pride in your own sovereignty and involves exclusive focus towards the betterment of your country even if it is irrespective of another country. The emphasis is still towards the betterment of one's own country and promotion of it's individual sovereignty.[/quote]

Nuke said:

[quote]I tend to agree with Biz's description of Nationalism. Patriotism to me is loving your country and being proud of its history, etc. Nationalism is preferring your nation at the expense of others. That sorta thing.[/quote]

You be the judge! Is "even if it is irrespective of another country" the same as "at the expense of of others." You might say there is a difference, but there is a fine line, in my opinion. They are more or less the same.

jerm, I will get back to you this weekend. ;)

RE: Three months after the China Quake

jerm — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:37:29 GMT

You often skim over what I say and react to what's on the surface Locus without addressing what I actually say. Perhaps you're being cheeky and the smilies would indicate such but I don't feel like you're getting what I'm saying. That my be my fault.

[quote]Actually I firstly identify myself as a human being... THEN an American. But who's counting! [/quote]

This is a given. It's like, I'm a male or I have a beard or I slept last night... well that's not always a given :P. Yes, working to make a better world is wonderful and I join you in this, but if you lived in a rotten country, how easy would it be to do this? Cleanse the inner vessel first, then fix the world. That's not to say you can't do both ;).

[quote]I disagree. But then, I guess I have more faith in humanity than you do! [/quote]

Most liberals do. What evidence to you have that humanity is generally good? The last 7000 years? The last 500? The last 100? The last 10? No, the evidence points to the fact that humanity is generally rotten unless we are taught or forced to be "good"... and even then it doesn't always work.

[quote]No, of course not. I wish GWB felt the same way! [/quote]

So, what liberties have you lost during Evil Booshmeister's been in office? Still, I generally agree that the move has been towards less freedom, though this has not been exclusive to Bushy.

[quote]Well, they are not, but the latter does not require Nationalism as a motivating factor. I do not worship at the altar of Nationalism. I do not require it, it doesn't get me out of bed each day, that is what I am saying. Patriotic, yes, you betcha. But nationalistic, no, never! [/quote]

Perhaps we are battling a war of semantics.

[quote][url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationalism]Nationalism[/url]

1.	national spirit or aspirations.

2.	devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; [b]patriotism[/b].

3.	excessive patriotism; chauvinism.

4.	the desire for national advancement or independence.

5.	the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

6.	an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.

7.	a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation.

[/quote]

Patriotism is one definition of Nationalism. I am not saying that we should worship at the alter of nationalism. I am only saying that a degree of nationalism is not a bad thing and in fact can be a force for good as long as the nation one is nationalistic to is a good one.

[quote]Nothing, sir, nothing at all. But you know, good intentions pave the road to hell, you know this, right? [/quote]

You respond to my parentheses?:hehe:

Nuke:

[quote]I tend to agree with Biz's description of Nationalism. Patriotism to me is loving your country and being proud of its history, etc. Nationalism is preferring your nation at the expense of others. That sorta thing.[/quote]

Was that Biz's description? Biz? :blink:

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Locus Coeruleus — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:21:20 GMT

[quote]we'd firstly identify ourselves as Americans (or whatever other country you belong to). [/quote]

Actually I firstly identify myself as a human being... THEN an American. But who's counting! :P

[quote]Your statement about wars is very simplistic. The only way there will ever be total peace on earth is when an iron fisted totalitarian regime rules it all. [/quote]

I disagree. But then, I guess I have more faith in humanity than you do! :P

[quote]Are you willing to trade freedom for peace?[/quote]

No, of course not. I wish GWB felt the same way! :w00t:

[quote]Forget working together as a nation for common goals, I am working for all of humanity to make the world a better place, not just for this nation, but for all the peoples of the world.[/quote]

[quote]Why in the world are these two mutually exclusive?[/quote]

Well, they are not, but the latter does not require Nationalism as a motivating factor. I do not worship at the altar of Nationalism. I do not require it, it doesn't get me out of bed each day, that is what I am saying. Patriotic, yes, you betcha. But nationalistic, no, never! :)

The world is my playground. :D

[quote]I am proud to be an American first and foremost. I do not pretend that everything we have done in the world has been good (though I think our intentions were at least in the 20th Century) but I do believe this is the best damn country on the earth and if I didn't feel that way, I'd move to the one I thought that was. What the hell is wrong with that? :)[/quote]

Nothing, sir, nothing at all. But you know, good intentions pave the road to hell, you know this, right? :P

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Locus Coeruleus — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:16:07 GMT

I think the bumperstickers.....actually I've never seen the bumperstickers, but the phrase I have heard is "Think for yourself, question authority".

[quote]Thinking for oneself, being as objective and realistic as possible, and expressing oneself in a civil, clear, and assertive way--including questioning authority--I think is what you actually mean LC.[/quote]

That is exactly what I mean doc. ;) What can I say, I was rushed this morning when I posted that. Specifically what I meant to say is "Questioning your government.... WHEN IT IS NECESSARY". Which fits with what you have so eloquently said. ;)

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Nuclearcow — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:56:03 GMT

I've touched that artillery piece that shot that nuclear round. :P

I tend to agree with Biz's description of Nationalism. Patriotism to me is loving your country and being proud of its history, etc. Nationalism is preferring your nation at the expense of others. That sorta thing.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:10:29 GMT

[quote]Patriotism is questioning your government because you care about your country[/quote]

Questioning for the sake of questioning is not only not a virtue, it is sophomoric and disruptive.

Thinking for oneself, being as objective and realistic as possible, and expressing oneself in a civil, clear, and assertive way--including questioning authority--I think is what you actually mean LC.

Questioning authority is not--despite what the putatively clever bumperstickers have to say--not in and of itself virtuous.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

jerm — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:58:38 GMT

I don't agree. The Russian kind of nationalism of expansion probably would be better off gone but pride in one's country is almost what defines a nation or at least holds it together. Some of us may be black, some of us may be white, some of us may be mormon, some of us may be Ba'hai, some of us may be repbulicans, some of us may be democrats but if we were healthy, we'd firstly identify ourselves as Americans (or whatever other country you belong to).

Your statement about wars is very simplistic. The only way there will ever be total peace on earth is when an iron fisted totalitarian regime rules it all. Are you willing to trade freedom for peace? If not, wars are a part of life on this planet and motivation for fighting for freedom is absolutely necessary if we wish to defend it.

[quote]Forget working together as a nation for common goals, I am working for all of humanity to make the world a better place, not just for this nation, but for all the peoples of the world.[/quote]

Why in the world are these two mutually exclusive?

I am proud to be an American first and foremost. I do not pretend that everything we have done in the world has been good (though I think our intentions were at least in the 20th Century) but I do believe this is the best damn country on the earth and if I didn't feel that way, I'd move to the one I thought that was. What the hell is wrong with that? :)

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Locus Coeruleus — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:15:05 GMT

You take the bad with the good, jerm. Nationalism is an outdated concept, and one the world would be best leaving behind. ;) That doesn't mean you get rid of all nations. But national integrity is different than nationalism. You mention, wars, and what people would fight for, if not, nationalism. Ok, wars are something we could do with out too, and I think you will find most people work for their pocketbooks, not their country.

[quote]which is fine but there also needs to be a degree of working together as a nation towards common goals. [/quote]

Forget working together as a nation for common goals, I am working for all of humanity to make the world a better place, not just for this nation, but for all the peoples of the world. ;)

RE: Three months after the China Quake

jerm — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:27:16 GMT

Yep, the most extreme forms of Nationalism are indeed a force for evil. "My country Uber alis." This is not the sole definition of Nationalism. Patriotism, as far as I can tell (and there is a degree of subjectivity to both terms) is a mild form of Nationalism. I believe a degree of nationalism is vital for a free nation's survival. If one doesn't love his country, why would he fight for it? Without some nationalism, we are all agents for our own goals, which is fine but there also needs to be a degree of working together as a nation towards common goals. In short, bad nationalism is bad and good nationalism is... well good. Ya know Locus, UNITY :P

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Bismarck2990 — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:03:05 GMT

I disagree with that definition, LC.

Nationalism is pride in your own sovereignty and involves exclusive focus towards the betterment of your country even if it is irrespective of another country. The emphasis is still towards the [i]betterment[/i] of one's own country and promotion of it's individual sovereignty. You're describing the extreme (aka sheeple) as if it's the default ignoring moderate Nationalists.

As far as patriotism is concerned, it's mainly symbolic and in the eye of the beholder for the most part...

...whether it's telling 7 year old kids the country isn't great or wearing flag pins

Sorry I couldn't stop myself on that last one. :P [img]http://www.lotterypost.com/emoticons/hitwithstick.gif[/img]

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Locus Coeruleus — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:47:35 GMT

Patriotism is questioning your government because you care about your country. Nationalism is blindly following your government come hell or high water because you are blinded by your patriotism.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:46:07 GMT

I think maybe you jokers are confusing love of Liberty, Democracy, Fraternity and a desire for it to be enjoyed by all humans as Patriotism [for the U.S.].

I love Canada. I love Australia. I love the U.K. I love France. I love Germany. Brazil, Belgium, India, Spain, Italy, Japan, etc.

I love them cause they are humane, just, prosperous nations that benefit their citizens and do not control individual lives primarily to benefit a putatively "communist" ruling elite comprising tyrants and thugs. They are that way in large part because the U.S. helped to save them from tyrranny ~60 years ago.

In global Team Democracy, Team America is just the quarterback, not the sole player.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

jerm — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:47:14 GMT

[taunt]So Nationalism automatically leads to nuclear holocaust? Hmm, not a very good argument there Scip:P. I know you can do better ;).[/taunt]

Locus, what is the difference between Nationalism and Patriotism?

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:02:51 GMT

Yeah, jerm. Nationalism is SO 18th-20th century. We're in the 21st now. Get with the program! :P Nuttin' wrong wit a little bit o' Patriotism, but Nationalism is just wrong, man, just wrong! ;)

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:22:32 GMT

[quote][b]jerm (8/13/2008)[/b][hr]What's wrong with Nationalism? :P[/quote]

[youtube]bMQnALZKAG4&feature=related[/youtube]

RE: Three months after the China Quake

jerm — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:25:10 GMT

What's wrong with Nationalism? :P

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:22:02 GMT

I'm sorry folks but since about 1965, the Olympics has transformed into something new, and it is not all about amateur athletes from all over the place coming together to compete in a friendly, sportsmanlike manner.

It is first and foremost about product. The food companies, the beverage companies, the music, the clothing, the athletic gear, not to mention the travel, the building, and a host of other industries that make a killing because of the Olympics.

Once upon a time there was a tradition that deserved to be referred to with the name "The Olympics." Not anymore. It is a giant consumerist facade.

Secondly, the notion that these are amateur athletes has also gone WAY out the door. For many sports, these athletes are not just professionals, recruited, trained, funded, by nations, they are the UBER-professionals, comparable in sponsorship and recruitment selectivity to the superhuman products of other global sports-entertainment industries (soccer, baseball, tennis, golf, etc.).

And this brings us to the final and most eggregious flaw in what the thing called the Olympics has become: unvarnished nationalism at its worst. The Olympics is intended to be a venue in which nations and ethnicities come together and act as comrades, in short, to diminish national barriers, national pride, national distinction. I don't think I have to point out that, the regalia, the extravaganzii, the uniforms, and much of the structure of the whole thing actually promote national distinctions and competitiveness.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

cleopatra143 — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:15:40 GMT

I am of mixed feeling about China myself. China is a great country and the people are awesome, but the government is rotten. They treat their own citizens like crap. The opening ceremony was spectacular but I couldn't help but feel like I was watching a massive amount of slaves perform for their master. I have no doubt that the Chinese are proud of this accomplishments, but I am also afraid of how China will use this to their advantage. Knowing that China is a collectivist culture, makes me feel really sorry for their Olympic team. If they don't win Gold, they are failures in the eyes of their government. What will they do to them?

Now I also agree that the Olympics shouldn't be about politics. It's a romantic notion and an idealistic one. Unfortunately, the reality is that the government of China should never have been given the honor. Somehow I feel the IOC really didn't give this much thought. Giving the Olympics to China has just made the situation worse, in my opinion. If they had been overlooked, perhaps they would have rethought their stance. But since they were "rewarded" for their misdeeds, they have no reason to change. If China wants to move into the 21st century with the rest of us, there are certain standards they need to uphold, and human rights is one of them.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

jerm — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:31:29 GMT

The IOC like the UN is impotent when it comes to any kind of a moral stand. These two organizations should be proof enough that a one world government would be a net negative. Anyway, I'm not one of those people who think we should boycott the games but giving them a pass in restricting press freedoms while the games are at least going on, is not something that should be tolerated.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

ddmagnan — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:15:08 GMT

[quote][b]Nuclearcow (8/13/2008)[/b][hr]You do know that China has its own version of Echelon, don't you? ;) (carrying on Scip's joke from another thread)

Do you guys agree that the Olympics is about the world coming a small step towards unity on one small area (athletics/sportsmanship)?

If that is the intent of them, then I think the criticism of them allowing China to host them is over-blown. The Olympics should avoid politics and if the West thinks China stinks at human rights (which they do, lol) and other things, perhaps they should remember that its the Olympics and not a debate on if Communism is okay (I think they are more Fascist than Communist), or human rights, nation rights, or whatever.

There is something to be said about people who belong to different nations who might normally be foes politically, who go out and compete against each other and go congratulate the winner of the other nation, etc. Its silly, but people are sentimental, so its also a small step towards something bigger maybe.[/quote]

That is why I stated that even if we overlook their human rights and other political issues there is still a problem. When China bid for the Olympics they promised complete freedom of the press, yet they have broken that promise, even before the games began. Of course it was too late to do anything about it, but did the IOC really believe China would keep that promise? Seems to me if countries can take back things they promise in their bids, then the bidding process is broken. Countries can bid anything they want just to win the bid, then at the last minute go back on those promises when it is too late.

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-flumenbaum/the-great-olympic-swindle_b_117320.html[/url]

My favorite parts are:

[quote]Back in 2001, Wang Wei, the head of Beijing's 2008 Olympic bid campaign famously told the International Olympic Committee "We will give the media complete freedom to report when they come to China."

....

In just the last week, we have witnessed the sad reality of reporters in the official Beijing Olympics Main Press Center going online to do research for their stories only to discover that numerous sites they relied on had been blocked. The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that its own Olympics blog had been blocked by the Chinese government and that hundreds of other sites would be censored, not in the hotels or in Olympic housing, but in the press tents. As of Wednesday, MSN's Taiwan site, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Huffington Post, and numerous Falun Gong and Free Tibet sites remain blocked not only for the Chinese people, but for the Olympic press as well.

...

It appears China is actually for an unfettered freedom of the press, as long as that freedom doesn't conflict with Chinese law, which expressly limits the freedom of the press.

[/quote]

Full article:

[quote]With just two days until the torch hits the cauldron in Beijing and the Games begin, the world's eyes are locked on China, watching half in wondrous anticipation of the Olympics and half in pure, unadulterated amazement that the world has actually entrusted China with the Olympics.

Back in 2001, Wang Wei, the head of Beijing's 2008 Olympic bid campaign famously told the International Olympic Committee "We will give the media complete freedom to report when they come to China." The motto of the Beijing bid delegation was "New Beijing, Great Olympics," promising a slow but steady improvement of human rights in China and hinting at democratization. The IOC, a body who historically awards the Games to cities that are not only ready, but cities that also need to develop, practically salivated at the idea of a Beijing Olympics and all that it would represent. As ESPN's Jim Caple wrote in an editorial Tuesday:

The four other finalists for the 2008 Olympics were Paris; Toronto; Osaka, Japan; and Istanbul, Turkey; each is a fine, attractive city, and all are most certainly less controversial than Beijing. We would not see "Free Saskatchewan" protests leading up to Toronto. But that's precisely the point: Whether it was the IOC's intention or not, due to all the surrounding sagas, Beijing has made the Olympics interesting again.

And this couldn't be more true. Beijing has certainly made the Games "interesting." But as the Games draw near, what has been most "interesting" is not China's coming-out party, but how China has reneged on all of its promises for the Summer Games, pulling off a swindle of Olympic proportions.

If you cling naively to any hope that the IOC will swoop in like Superman and demand the Chinese keep their pre-Olympic promises, don't hold your breath. The IOC, we learned this week, struck a deal with the Chinese government to allow sensitive non-Olympic-related websites to be blocked during the Games. IOC press chief Kevan Gosper told the press, "I regret that it now appears BOCOG (Beijing Organizing Committee) has announced that there will be limitations on Web site access during Games time. I also now understand that some IOC officials negotiated with the Chinese that some sensitive sites would be blocked on the basis they were not considered Games related." Rather than stand up to China on press freedom during the Olympics, our international Olympic body shamefully cowered and became complicit with the censors.

But that wasn't even the worst incident in the world of press freedom this week.

On Monday, two Japanese reporters covering a grenade attack that killed 16 people at a border patrol station in western China's Xinjiang province were beaten by local Chinese police. One told his network in Japan, "My face was pushed into the ground, my arm was twisted and I was hit two or three times in the face." While the Chinese government apologized Tuesday, the event shows that Chinese officials, on both local and national levels, have been trained to react violently, particularly when it comes to what they consider dangerous press freedom. Perhaps the Japanese reporters should have known better than to cover a terrorist attack in the Olympic host country four days before the Olympics.

China makes no mistake about it. They're not going to let a little thing like the Olympics change their ways. The news story receiving the least attention this week that deserved the most was from China's state news service Xinhua titled "Press freedom shall not go above laws." Xinhua, which is merely a mouthpiece for the government, justifies all crackdowns on subversive websites (like the Philadelphia Inquirer) on the basis that Chinese law outranks freedom of the press. Here is a piece from the story:

Journalistic freedom, at any time, is a relative but not absolute conception. Even for the media in the United States, contempt of court and violation of citizen's privacy are banned by laws....
The openness to media complies with both international conventions and the Chinese laws. Just like other countries, China regulates the Internet according to law.
The Chinese laws forbid anyone to spread illegal information, such as preaching an evil cult like the Falungong, or do anything that harms national interests through the Internet.

It appears China is actually for an unfettered freedom of the press, as long as that freedom doesn't conflict with Chinese law, which expressly limits the freedom of the press.

We have all been duped. The IOC, NBC, reporters working in China, those who love the Olympics, all of us. The Chinese government made essential and unequivocal promises they had no intention of keeping in order to win the right to put on the show that starts Friday. By not demanding a free press during the Games, the rest of the world has conspired with China, allowing it to conduct business as usual, shutting off anything and everything thought to "harm national interests." We have given China the immense power to censor, not just for its own people, but now for ours.

And two weeks from now, after the Games have ended, China will be more powerful than it's ever been.

[/quote]

Not to mention the recent incident of the Chinese police trying to prevent reporters and photographers from recording the arrest of some Free Tibet protesters.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Nuclearcow — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:45:26 GMT

You do know that China has its own version of Echelon, don't you? ;) (carrying on Scip's joke from another thread)

Do you guys agree that the Olympics is about the world coming a small step towards unity on one small area (athletics/sportsmanship)?

If that is the intent of them, then I think the criticism of them allowing China to host them is over-blown. The Olympics should avoid politics and if the West thinks China stinks at human rights (which they do, lol) and other things, perhaps they should remember that its the Olympics and not a debate on if Communism is okay (I think they are more Fascist than Communist), or human rights, nation rights, or whatever.

There is something to be said about people who belong to different nations who might normally be foes politically, who go out and compete against each other and go congratulate the winner of the other nation, etc. Its silly, but people are sentimental, so its also a small step towards something bigger maybe.

RE: Three months after the China Quake

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:43:22 GMT

[quote][b]ddmagnan (8/13/2008)[/b][hr]For me it is not the deaths or the damage itself, but the way it is being handled. Natural disasters happen, however the point of a government is to help the victims and try to prevent a reoccurance. The signs over the wreckage stating "Be grateful to the Communist Party." and the "Promise to not complain and you can have $9,000 and go have another kid." just irks me. Also why are they blocking foriegn journalist from the area unless they are trying to hide something.[/quote]

No argument there. They are a repressive regime and this shows one more dimension of it to be sure.