The Jews Killed Mickey Mouse!!!

[Watchman]

Surely you jest, good sir.

[Husar]

As for there being no zealots in Israel, I think even the Israelis would be surprised to hear that.

not to say their aren't zealots among them.

I think he wanted to say that there ARE zealots in Israel.
After that video of kids throwing stones that's hard to deny anyway, unless one goes all lunatic and says it's fake or that they were somehow justified.

I fthose countries want to stop the violence, they might want to start by stopping to teach their kids hatred towards the other country. It's of no use to anyone and people who really love their kids and want a better future for them wouldn't do that anyway because it will certainly not help their kids. At the very least the governments could try doing that in schools, teaching kids to respect the other is a big step towards a better future IMO.

[Beirut]

I think he wanted to say that there ARE zealots in Israel.

My mistake. Bad reading before coffee. Apologies are offered.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My mistake. Bad reading before coffee. Apologies are offered.

Beirut:

Nobody can fault your manners, that's for sure.


As to the larger socio-cultural discussion....

Remember, those of us writing from the USA have -- with few exceptions -- no experience of tribal warfare as a part of our national history.

Family Feuds -- rare, but understood (Hatfield/McCoy): Check.

Storied bandits -- 1920s & 1930s (Dillinger, Bonny & Clyde): Check.

Civil Wars -- one, but exceedingly violent (ACW): Check.

Aboriginal conflict -- many, 1776 to 1910 or so (lots of what we would label as terrorism today on both "sides"): Check.


The master narrative on all of these stories (note, this "narrative" does not always connect on all points with historical fact) depicts the feuders as backwoods idiots, the bandits as destined to lose to the power of the law, and the conquest of America from the Amerind peoples as a triumph OVER the inherently weaker political structure of tribalism.

Only episodes such as the Lincoln County War or the Cowboys/Marshalls struggle in Tombstone really feature open sub-national faction conflict akin to ongoing tribal conflicts. Even these are "spun" to depict the eventual triumph of the law.

Mostly though, we have a complete disconnect between US thinking and thinking that places tribe above nation and feud above rational problem solving. It requires effort to think in the other mode for us, and we're more comfortable recasting things in our own framework -- witness the take on Wallace's rebellion that Braveheart made.

[KukriKhan]

Interesting angle Seamus Fermanagh. Do you think that the lack of an american comprehension of tribal affiliations also informs our experience in Iraq & Afghanistan?

Our work in the 60's and 70's with the Hmong springs to mind; but, then again, that was us exploiting tribalism in the interests of some national goal, versus actually operating tribally.

[Watchman]

As an aside, I've seen it postulated that Americans on the whole have a bit skewed take on the whole issue of "nation" and "democracy" (we'll assume away the somewhat complicated and troublesome background of the concept of "nation" for the sake of brevity), stemming from not recognizing the fact that the birth of their own "nation" at the same time as becoming a democracy *is* indeed a quite unique combination. The rest of the world, however, was "nations" long before "democracies" or even "states" for that matter... obviously this could lead to some troublesome failures in understanding.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The rest of the world, however, was "nations" long before "democracies" or even "states" for that matter... obviously this could lead to some troublesome failures in understanding.

That's the Finnish perspective. You were a nation first, then a democracy, then a state. We, on the other hand, were a state first, then a democracy, then a nation. (Though many would disagree with that).
While we're at it, the English / British: a state first, then a nation, then a democracy. The US, broadly speaking, all three at once. Iraq, a state, and neither a nation nor a democracy.

@Seamus, interesting. But we could add racialism into the mix.

[Watchman]

FYI, I'm pretty sure the scholar who postulated it wasn't a Finn. The point is in any case that the norm was community/people/nation/realm/state/whatever first, irrespective of the specific type of rulership, and mode of governance second. The argument being that Americans, who in essence became both at once, are prone to think of other communities and peoples in the same terms. Example gratia there being the manifestly buggered priorities in Iraq, where - so the argument goes - they tried to create a similar "at once" nation-state, trying to recreate (likely not even realizing it) the sui generis pattern of their own "Birth of the Nation" in completely different circumstances.

Just thought the theory might be relevant to the turn the thread had taken; I've no particular opinion on it myself actually.

[Don Corleone]

All I have to say is that its clear from his analysis that Seamus is from Philadelphia. Nobody from Boston or New York, especially during baseball season, would ever say America has no familiarity with tribal warfare.

I understand the distinction between nation/state verus democracy. I do not understand the distinction between nation and state. Both describe a people that think of themselves as part of a sovereign people and sharers of a common cultural identity, correct?

Maybe if you could take the granddaddy of political confusion, the island cluster of Britannia and Hibernia over there....

England: Nation or State?

Great Britain: Nation or State?

The United Kingdom: Nation or State?

The Commonwealth: Nation or State?

[Husar]

I understand the distinction between nation/state verus democracy. I do not understand the distinction between nation and state. Both describe a people that think of themselves as part of a sovereign people and sharers of a common cultural identity, correct?

I thought so, too, at first, but I think nation refers to the people thinking that they belong together and state refers to being an official, united political entity. Hope that makes it clearer.

For example Germany was a nation for a long time, but only in 1871 did it become a state.
Before that it was a nation that was split into many states, because the people saw themselves as germans but lived in states called prussia, bavaria, etc.

[Watchman]

Main Entry: na·tion
Pronunciation: 'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English nacioun, from Anglo-French naciun, from Latin nation-, natio birth, race, nation, from nasci to be born; akin to Latin gignere to beget -- more at KIN
1 a (1) : NATIONALITY 5a (2) : a politically organized nationality (3) : a non-Jewish nationality <why do the nations conspire -- Psalms 2:1 (Revised Standard Version)> b : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government c : a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status
2 archaic : GROUP, AGGREGATION
3 : a tribe or federation of tribes (as of American Indians)

Definition of nation according to Merriam-Webster Online;

Main Entry: 1state
Pronunciation: 'stAt
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English stat, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French estat, from Latin status, from stare to stand -- more at STAND
---
3 a : social position; especially : high rank b (1) : elaborate or luxurious style of living (2) : formal dignity : POMP -- usually used with in
4 a : a body of persons constituting a special class in a society : ESTATE 3 b plural : the members or representatives of the governing classes assembled in a legislative body c obsolete : a person of high rank (as a noble)
5 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b : the political organization of such a body of people c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character <a police state> <the welfare state>
6 : the operations or concerns of the government of a country
7 a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government <the fifty states> b plural, capitalized : The United States of America
8 : the territory of a state

same for state, superfluous meanings removed and emphasis added to the most relevant part.

"Nation" is basically a group of people who identify themselves as such; a rather vague concept with a muddy and complicated history frankly. A "state" is a formal political entity which people live in/under.

There's also "nation-state" -

Main Entry: na·tion-state
Pronunciation: 'nA-sh&n-'stAt, -"stAt
Function: noun
: a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state; especially : a state containing one as opposed to several nationalities

- but AFAIK that concept is actually most commonly used interchangeably with the meaning of "state", particularly the so-called "Westphalian" state - the form of sovereign territorial state that became more or less the norm in Europe in the aftermath of the Thirty Years' War, and is still pretty much what people think of when they think of a "state".

[Slyspy]

All I have to say is that its clear from his analysis that Seamus is from Philadelphia. Nobody from Boston or New York, especially during baseball season, would ever say America has no familiarity with tribal warfare.

I understand the distinction between nation/state verus democracy. I do not understand the distinction between nation and state. Both describe a people that think of themselves as part of a sovereign people and sharers of a common cultural identity, correct?

Maybe if you could take the granddaddy of political confusion, the island cluster of Britannia and Hibernia over there....

England: Nation or State?

Great Britain: Nation or State?

The United Kingdom: Nation or State?

The Commonwealth: Nation or State?

England is a nation.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a state.

The Commonwealth is neither.

[Papewaio]

The Commonwealth of Australia however is a nation-state.

[Slyspy]

Ah, but that is a different Commonwealth of course. Designed, it would seem, merely to confuse Americans!

[Papewaio]

And to make it more confusing the Commonwealth of Australia belongs in the Commonwealth of Nations

[Don Corleone]

I see, so to the majority of you, the term nation and cultural identity are interchangeable.

Interesting.

[Slyspy]

I see, so to the majority of you, the term nation and cultural identity are interchangeable.

Interesting.

Is that really your conclusion?

[Suraknar]

I see, so to the majority of you, the term nation and cultural identity are interchangeable.

Interesting.

Well, it is how the same dictionary as above describes nationality.

nationality
One entry found for nationality.
Main Entry: na·tion·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: "na-sh&-'na-l&-tE, "nash-'na-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : national character
2 : NATIONALISM 1
3 a : national status; specifically : a legal relationship involving allegiance on the part of an individual and usually protection on the part of the state b : membership in a particular nation
4 : political independence or existence as a separate nation
5 a : a people having a common origin, tradition, and language and capable of forming or actually constituting a nation-state b : an ethnic group constituting one element of a larger unit (as a nation )

[KafirChobee]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Gotta love those palestinians. Is there ANY reason to believe that these people will ever get their #### straight and join reality?

Just to remind y'all what started this train wreck. It is atypical for threads to metamorph from worm to butterfly to slug, but this ones gone from irrelevent to incomprehensible. What now is the point?

Cultural clashes happen. Misunderstandings between them is a norm, there being an acceptance by one to the other for being equal to them is abnormal - it would also be perceived as weakness. To believe that one religion is better than another is the way each of us has been raised, and few are allowed to choose. [reminds me of a cartoon my Mom sent me when I was in the service. It showed an African style witch doctor - mask, spear, head on a stick, etc - in a normal american living room and the man is saying to his wife, "Your the one that wanted him to choose his own religion".]

When the nations of the world determine this is all the only planet they have and agree to share in it. When the religions of the world actually accept that their differences far outweigh their similarities ... and that's fine. When race matter less than the content of each individual; or that an individual matters more than race - or class, or intellect, or political preference, or economic strata, or political preference - then, it might be possible that man will exist beyond the present millenium. Then again, when all of us that live above the lesser 80 or 90% of the world populace grasp that it isn't the poor that are the enemy, but the men that control +90% of the world's wealth are - who knows. Maybe, maybe there can be change.

Me, I like dreams. Who knows, maybe in some near future - people will grasp whom the real enemy is. The wealthiest of the wealthy, those that have learned that stirring the pot on the basics that even the illiterate grasp - you can make the literate believe it as well.

Then, again - Mickey Mouse is dead.

[KukriKhan]

...It is atypical for threads to metamorph from worm to butterfly to slug, but this ones gone from irrelevent to incomprehensible...

With respect, I disagree KafirChobee. I think the thread has taken a turn towards illumination, rather than the heat it started with. But I'll grant you that it's not often we see a silk purse being made from a sow's ear around here. We agree there.

Seamus took the essential elements of the conversation, put them in a (mental) box, shook them up, and laid them out on a new play-board.

Now the fellas are defining and refining terms. I personally am interested in exploring the obvious disconnect in world-views of 'the west' vs 'the east' (or middle east), nation/state orientation vs tribal orientation.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

With respect, I disagree KafirChobee. I think the thread has taken a turn towards illumination, rather than the heat it started with. But I'll grant you that it's not often we see a silk purse being made from a sow's ear around here. We agree there.

Seamus took the essential elements of the conversation, put them in a (mental) box, shook them up, and laid them out on a new play-board.

Now the fellas are defining and refining terms. I personally am interested in exploring the obvious disconnect in world-views of 'the west' vs 'the east' (or middle east), nation/state orientation vs tribal orientation.

Thank you kind sir. I have been away at the funeral of my great aunt (read grandmom in practice)...in Philadelphia...actually left this thread on my computer for the entire time after hitting send....

Don: It's originally South Jersey for me (Margate) but Mom and Dad were both Philly natives. As to the Red Sox/Yankees rivarly to which you refer, I haven't much cared....neither team plays real baseball, as do my Phillies.

Kafir:

You want us to decry DevDave's view as intolerant. I wanted to explore the roots of that intolerance. DevDave's point actually spoke rather well to a sentiment I (sometimes at least) share -- so I thought I'd explore it a bit. Why do I think that way? Why do I come up with so much of a "their behavior does not compute" answer? I then ventured a possible explanation.

The poor as my enemy? I don't see my success or lack thereof as the source of harm for another; I define enemies as those I see/note acting against me (even thoug I usually ascribe their motives as seeking their own betterment).

Are you really trying to summarize this with the old saw about money being the root of all evil?