Twenty years after the wall

[Vuk]

American patriotism is a very different kettle of fish from the nationalism we know in Europe, and so I wouldn't really compare them.

My point exactly.
And as such, American rightwing ideology is really devoid of nationalism (unlike the left and right wings of some European countries), so it is not fair to say that nationalism is part of the rightwing when we are talking about American rightwing (the ONLY true righwing )

[Vuk]

Ok, I will crash on the next US aircraft carrier I see…

lol, WTH!? :P

[Rhyfelwyr]

My point exactly.
And as such, American rightwing ideology is really devoid of nationalism (unlike the left and right wings of some European countries), so it is not fair to say that nationalism is part of the rightwing when we are talking about American rightwing (the ONLY true righwing )

That's fair enough, but the USA is a unique case. Nationalism was very much present in Nazi Germany as we were discussing. And it wasn't just an undercurrent like in the USSR, it was a central part of the ideology (though I know Stalin practically made it official, it wasn't part of the original Marxist take).

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

They are the nasty side of the right-wing. They can also be a result of the nasty side of the left-wing. Both the right and left wings can also be peaceful.

My point being that it isn't inherently right-wing any more than it is inherently left-wing.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I see... I shouldn't have tried to be funny. I should have remembered Aesop's fable about the monkey and the camel.

At least Vladimir read my posts and understood.

Put your reading glasses on, Louis, here comes the straight version.

Sorry, I simply completely missed that post. I opened a window to reply to your other post, the one before. By the time I submitted my post, you had squeezed in a post about Fortuyn's environmental policy.

Oh, and your periodization about China was wrong as well: it should have been 1800-1910. Why 1910 and not 1911, I hear you ask? Because of Korea. Put that in your Cartesian pipe and smoke it.

Eh, I write my posts from memory.

Then only afterwards I add links to give posts gravity. The downside is that even I one can get some facts wrong...

...albeit not about Volkert.

Where are the other political murders by the mighty Dutch ecofascists you speak of? This enormous IRA-ETA-RAF organisation that apparantly murders Dutch political and business leaders at will?

[Vuk]

That's fair enough, but the USA is a unique case. Nationalism was very much present in Nazi Germany as we were discussing. And it wasn't just an undercurrent like in the USSR, it was a central part of the ideology (though I know Stalin practically made it official, it wasn't part of the original Marxist take).

My point was that often when discussing the AMERICAN rightwing and the dangers of socialism in America people will bring up Hitler (you know who you are) as an example of how bad conservatism can be also. If they are really two entirely different things, this is very unfair, as by American standards, the Nazis were VERY leftist. Socialism and Nazism are Socialism and Nazis though, regardless of place or time. (unlike right and left which changed over place and time) Thus you CAN make a fair argument for the dangers of socialsim in America. I am going really off track though...I had better get to bed. :P Goodnight dear Orgahs, please don't give me 20 massive pages to read through tomorrow. :P

[Rhyfelwyr]

My point was that often when discussing the AMERICAN rightwing and the dangers of socialism in America people will bring up Hitler (you know who you are) as an example of how bad conservatism can be also.

Kind of like when people keep comparing a certain black President to Mr. Schicklgruber.

If they are really two entirely different things, this is very unfair, as by American standards, the Nazis were VERY leftist.

Economically, yes.

I had better get to bed. :P Goodnight dear Orgahs, please don't give me 20 massive pages to read through tomorrow. :P

Well when I'm on a roll...

[Adrian II]

Where are the other political murders by the mighty Dutch ecofascists you speak of? This enormous IRA-ETA-RAF organisation that apparantly murders Dutch political and business leaders at will?

Ah, sarcasm - the rattle of the Cartesian machine when it starts catching sand.

Well, the green cohorts have been marching for more then twenty years, manifesting themselves through burglary, arson, planned explosions, hostage-taking and death threats. A police team that was formed around 2000 to track them and start solving cases was disbanded because the activists published the detectives' names, addresses and pictures of them, their wives and their children, accompanied by calls to harm them. An agriculture inspector who threatened animal rights interest, named Chris van de Werken, was indeed killed in 1996. The murder was never solved. Indeed, it was never properly investigated. That's a recurrent theme when it comes to ecoterrorists: somehow the police are often called back once they trace acts or perpetrators to some of the major environmental awareness organisations.

In Volkert's case, a Green alderman tipped off his close partner Sjoerd van der Wouw before the police got to Volkert's home. Sjoerd deleted the hard disc on Volkerts' computer and removed any compromising stuff from his abode. Only he overlooked some plans of mink farms that had written instructions on them for illegal entry. The police took these and they were later used during Volkert's trial to prove that he didn't shy away from illegal action even before the murder of Fortuyn.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Wow, it sounds like you guys have some serious eco-terrorists. Over here the worst tend to light construction sites on fire or break into animal research labs.

You know what amazed me when I went in USA: Flags every where, in front of houses, graveyards, protective clothing of the San Francisco Bridge painters, poster in US post Office (this is our flag, we are proud of it)…

I don't think you understand. People aren't proud of the flag, they are proud of America. It isn't a right or left wing issue, or like the type of nationalism you find in Europe.

You saw something outside of your experience, and tried to fit it into what you knew, which lead to your misunderstanding.

Except if you are a Commie. Or anti-war few years ago…

Gah! Really, please. No-one was stopped from speaking against the Iraq war. Did you not hear of any of the large protests?

As to the original topic (known about only by researching ancient stone tablets), I just make one observation. Funny how the Soviet Union and other states, the supposed 'worker's paradise', had to exert great control over their citizens to prevent them from leaving, and fleeing to the capitalist countries that had better living standards and so many more freedoms.

CR

[Adrian II]

As to the original topic (known about only by researching ancient stone tablets), I just make one observation. Funny how the Soviet Union and other states, the supposed 'worker's paradise', had to exert great control over their citizens to prevent them from leaving, and fleeing to the capitalist countries that had better living standards and so many more freedoms.

CR

That reminds me of something the missus once said to me: if a country needs a wall to keep in its citizens, even its propagandists are bound to be ashamed of themselves.

[Vuk]

Kind of like when people keep comparing a certain black President to Mr. Schicklgruber.



Economically, yes.



Well when I'm on a roll...

ummm..no, because by AMERICAN standards they were socially very leftist as well.
As to the President thing, you must not be talking about our half and half (technically more white blood than black) President, unless you mean that it only takes one drop of black blood to pollute someone and make them black. Sorry to be hard on you about it, but it smacks racism to me. I don't blame you, because everyone calls him black, but I cannot help but think it is racism when people who are half and half and even people who are 80-90% of white heritage are called black, like because they have SOME black blood in them they are polluted and it over-rides all their other blood. It is kind of talking about black heritage like it is some kind of disease. Anyway, rant over, I know you did not mean to be racist, but I just wanted to point out to you that there ARE racist undertones there. As far as comparing him to Hitler, yeah, it is ridiculous, BUT, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that politicians (him included) enacting social policies makes something like a Nazi repeat more possible because it strengthens the government and disenfranchises the people, making it easier for a dictator to take full control. I do not think there is anything wrong with pointing out what that can lead to. (which is not at all the same as calling someone Hitler) I personally think that the Nazi regime should stay with us as a lesson to WHY we have our checks and balances and the importance of keeping government small and efficient, and not letting it intrude into places where it shouldn't. That said, I agree with you, it is greatly overused.

[CountArach]

As to the President thing, you must not be talking about our half and half (technically more white blood than black) President, unless you mean that it only takes one drop of black blood to pollute someone and make them black.

Enjoy your locked thread.

[Vuk]

Enjoy your locked thread.

Boy, and you were talking about being misunderstood earlier? :P My entire point was to draw attention to just that hateful attitude.

[CountArach]

Boy, and you were talking about being misunderstood earlier? :P My entire point was to draw attention to just that hateful attitude.

Oh come off it - you were putting words in Rhy's mouth.

[Ironside]

ummm..no, because by AMERICAN standards they were socially very leftist as well.

Eh, very few people define full libertarianism as the most right-wing position on social issues. You're the second on this forum that done this claim (Gawain was the first), so I wouldn't say it's particullary common.

You know why? Political Leanings of Members . True libertarians are the lower right corner.

De facto libertarians want the society to be in the lower right, even when they are not always agreeing with the ideas there.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well Vuk you got me. As soon as there's one drop of black blood in there, you're no longer one of the pure white master race. Generally I use the word 'black' interchangeably with 'deviant', because he's just a corrupted white man, that's all black people are really.

Oh yeah and if it was needed...

[Vladimir]

Hey baby, we're all from Africa.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah I'm a Rastafarian, I'm going back to Zion! (which is Ethiopia for them isn't it?)

[Vuk]

Well Vuk you got me. As soon as there's one drop of black blood in there, you're no longer one of the pure white master race. Generally I use the word 'black' interchangeably with 'deviant', because he's just a corrupted white man, that's all black people are really.

Oh yeah and if it was needed...

I know you did not mean to be racist, but I just wanted to point out to you that there ARE racist undertones there.

I know that you were not meaning to be racist (and said so), I just wanted to point out that there ARE definate racist undertones to it, whether you realized it or not. Why is it that someone with a small percentage of African ancestory is a 'black man'? Likewise with asians and other races. The ones that a small amount of blood doesn't make you that race is white people. It is a very racist attitude. I just wanted you to know that so that you could reconsider your thought process. The media pounds it into us, so I know that it can be hard.

[LittleGrizzly]

Maybe some people would say your tight definition of the labels has some racist undertones to it... im not arguing that myself mind...

The label is simply an easy one to use, the same way we mangle political definitions all over the place in the backroom, it just makes things easier...

Of course if you really wanted to get into it properly things could get a little messy, what about those with 1 white grandparent and 3 black grandparents, or the other way around... would it also have racist undertones to call them half cast rather than quater or three qaurter cast ?

Similarly with someone half asain, quarter white and a quarter black. If they looked more asian than anything else couldn't we simply refer to them as asian rather than go through a complicated routine of mentioning thier exact ethinticity ?

If anything its more lazyness than racist undertones... and im all for lazyness and shortcuts

[Vuk]

Maybe some people would say your tight definition of the labels has some racist undertones to it... im not arguing that myself mind...

The label is simply an easy one to use, the same way we mangle political definitions all over the place in the backroom, it just makes things easier...

Of course if you really wanted to get into it properly things could get a little messy, what about those with 1 white grandparent and 3 black grandparents, or the other way around... would it also have racist undertones to call them half cast rather than quater or three qaurter cast ?

Similarly with someone half asain, quarter white and a quarter black. If they looked more asian than anything else couldn't we simply refer to them as asian rather than go through a complicated routine of mentioning thier exact ethinticity ?

If anything its more lazyness than racist undertones... and im all for lazyness and shortcuts

If so, then why isn't someone who is 3/4 white and 1/4 black called white just to be lazy? That is my point, they make it like black is a stigma. A guy who is 3/4 black is black. Ok, I can agree with that, it makes things easy. But why is someone who is 3/4 white also called black? It is because it only takes one drop of poisonous black blood to taint someone's whiteness. Like it or not, that is where the classification came from, and it is very racist. I understand that when people use it nowadays they do not mean to be racist, but I also think that people should make an effort not to say racist things when they know that they are racist.
Take the word polock FI. I always used to call Polish that because I had no idea that it was an insulting term (it is what they call themselves after all). When I learned that it was used as an insult though, I broke my long ingrained habit and stopped saying it. (same with Jap)

[LittleGrizzly]

TBH i think it is just down to appearances, firstly i don't now any 3/4 white 1/4 black people, but i am assuming that people who do refer those people as black, are maybe just genuinely mistaken, i mean you can get light skinned blacks and dark skinned whites, i have a friend who has a kind of natural tan and people occasionally call him black, hes not that dark so its probably just a wind up (as in spelling pever with a P is a wind up whilst not paticularly insulting) but he has a friend (i have been told) who is a very dark skinned white and apparently many people think he's black as he has a dark skin tone...

So i wouldn't really put it down to racism, maybe some people do put it that way for some racist purpose, but i think most just use it as an easy labelling system... this is one case where im going to settle with majority rules

I have to be honest though when i was a little un i was rather confused by the whole calling them blacks when many of them have far lighter skin than what you would think of as black skin... i think a little later i realised the whole white thing was a little off as well...

I think the main problem is where we identified races as colours, so anyone with quite dark skin that doesn't go into any of the other groups gets easily misidentified as black... though i suppose even if we had a fancy name instead of black if would be the distinguishing feature people would use to identify blacks anyway...

[Vuk]

TBH i think it is just down to appearances, firstly i don't now any 3/4 white 1/4 black people, but i am assuming that people who do refer those people as black, are maybe just genuinely mistaken, i mean you can get light skinned blacks and dark skinned whites, i have a friend who has a kind of natural tan and people occasionally call him black, hes not that dark so its probably just a wind up (as in spelling pever with a P is a wind up whilst not paticularly insulting) but he has a friend (i have been told) who is a very dark skinned white and apparently many people think he's black as he has a dark skin tone...

So i wouldn't really put it down to racism, maybe some people do put it that way for some racist purpose, but i think most just use it as an easy labelling system... this is one case where im going to settle with majority rules

I have to be honest though when i was a little un i was rather confused by the whole calling them blacks when many of them have far lighter skin than what you would think of as black skin... i think a little later i realised the whole white thing was a little off as well...

I think the main problem is where we identified races as colours, so anyone with quite dark skin that doesn't go into any of the other groups gets easily misidentified as black... though i suppose even if we had a fancy name instead of black if would be the distinguishing feature people would use to identify blacks anyway...

You do see what I mean though? You get confused because they are a little darker...than what? Than white people? Are they the standard? Why is it not that when you see someone like Obama you get confused because he is so white and call him a white person? Because he does not look like he is fully white? Guess what? He doesn't look like he is fully black either. I understand the ease of the terms, but it is very racist to hold whites as the standard and everything else as a deviant of that standard.

[LittleGrizzly]

You do see what I mean though? You get confused because they are a little darker...than what? Than white people?

Well TBH i would say there are 'tipping points' from very pale to a slightly darkish tan is white, from a slight tan to a dark tan is half cast and anywhere from a meduimish tan to a very dark tan is black. As you can see they overlap quite a bit so a half cast can look as dark as a black man (or the other way around) and some white people can tan very well and look black...

It doesn't nessecarily involve holding whites as the standard, i say more like a pale white is the standard for white a dark black is the standard for black and we make judgement calls about everything in between based on what colour it looks closer to...

I do understand your point, and can see why you think its a problem but i think its overstated...

[Rhyfelwyr]

TBH I am just going with the flow, everyone I've seen on the media, whether white or black, has called Obama black. I don't see why it's negative to call him black either.

[Banquo's Ghost]

One tangent too far.