TAEmove Ticket | Today | Join | Member | Search | Who's On | Help | Sign In | |
TAEmove > General > General Discussion Go to subcategory:
Author Content
govols
  • Rank:Worthy Member
  • Score:366
  • Posts:296
  • From:USA
  • Register:01/17/2010 6:27 PM

Date Posted:10/01/2018 9:00 PMCopy HTML

I was trying to diagram humanity and its cultures and civilizations. I let the piece of paper represent a common ancestry. I let it further represent a map of the world. In so doing my blank page came to be everything universally true…universally common among pre-historic humans, and universally inclusive of the environments available to us as we went forth being fruitful. Toward the bottom left I drew a good sized circle representing southern Africa. I drew horizontal oval for the Sahara region, an odd shaped horizontal oval with some southerly bulges to include much of Northern Africa, the Upper and lower Nile Basin, basically all of the Mediterranean watershed. I circled the Levant, the big Asian river basins. I drew a series of circles across the northern portions of Eurasia. Basically, I sort of circled environments that corresponded with early human cultures. All of these circles (shapes, really) overlap along the way in a manner that might represent trade in the form of cultural practices, technological innovations, and both material and population surpluses.

My musing is based on the idea that we spread out all over the easily accessible globe, as near as I can tell, long before any of us really managed to build civilizations; but long before we built civilizations we were establishing thousands of micro- societies and cultures throughout the Old World, Oceana, and eventually even the New World. It’s almost certain that as we went forth being fruitful, we went as small tribal or social groups, likely with some not quite but still-threatening Alpha leading a culled collection of ragtag followers away from a stultifying asshole-in-chief. For thousands of years we either ganged up on the asshole and killed him, or some competent individual or two grunted something akin to “Fuck it!” and lead a disgruntled assembly of clan mates to a new home. We spread across the globe disgruntled with the old boss but taking with us the old ways. Long before civilizations began to spring up, before agriculture was developed, we populated the world as damned smart apes all living very similar hunter/gatherer lifestyles…in vastly differing environments.

Somewhere in here, because evolution never sleeps, some of our traits begin to suit themselves to our disparate environments, but our basic anatomy remains the same and especially the fundamental structures of our brains. The hardware is fundamentally the same across the species though time and environment may select for better sprint speed or chase duration. Gathering wild rice might select for shorter and apples for taller. Solar intensity might select for variations in skin tones. Etc., etc., etc. Environment might cause social appreciation to vary, distributing more or less status to individuals for things ranging from creativity to strength to adventurousness. Who knows? One thing that is theorized, though, is that somewhere in here we begin to co-select not just for best at survival of the individual, but also for the well-being of the various social systems that are sustaining our various broadening societies into more and more advanced cultures.

The blank page I started with above is developed into the places that made us how we are physically different. How we are socially different is based on the fact that we then developed societies and cultures apart from one another. How we are psychologically different is based on our experience being reared in such a variety of cultures. All of our cultures fill similar needs for those raised within them because we all share similar physical needs and similar biological and neurological hardware. Top down we’re very much the same. Bottom up requires a whole other perspective on circles.


alaskaone Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:TAE Member
  • Score:19256
  • Posts:17012
  • From:USA
  • Register:12/03/2008 3:25 AM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:10/02/2018 2:45 PMCopy HTML

Interesting.


Ever read, "Connections", by James Burke?

Come to the Dark Side. We have cookies. The advantage of insinuations over hard arguments is that they bypass critical thought. No one can respond precisely to a charge that is utterly vague or to accusers who will envelope any reply in a poisonous fog of further insinuations. ~ David Warren, The Guardian There was a time when there was enough freedom that it hardly mattered which brand of crooks ran government. That has not been true for a long time and that captures an important point. The more powerful the government becomes, the more people are willing to do in order to seize the prize, and the more afraid they become when someone else has control. ~ Glenn Harlan Reynolds “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve.” ― H.L. Mencken
govols Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:Worthy Member
  • Score:366
  • Posts:296
  • From:USA
  • Register:01/17/2010 6:27 PM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:10/02/2018 3:37 PMCopy HTML

Not yet, but it's in the q.


I'm not sure how accurate my op is, but it's pretty close to how I understand it. 


Nickel Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:TAE Member
  • Score:1559
  • Posts:1357
  • From:USA
  • Register:12/10/2008 12:41 AM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:10/02/2018 7:38 PMCopy HTML

Works for me, govols. Matrilineal dna for me goes back to Africa, to a community of white people that emigrated to Crete, to Italy, France, Finland, and Ireland. Following the dna to one of the daughters of eve. At some point I just lost the faith, felt the test was a huge scam on curious people.
What goes around, comes around.
govols Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:Worthy Member
  • Score:366
  • Posts:296
  • From:USA
  • Register:01/17/2010 6:27 PM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:10/02/2018 8:33 PMCopy HTML

I've never really had much interest in the DNA thing, nor ever attempted to question family elders about how far back our ancestral memory goes. We're mostly British stock as far as I know, but damn were those islands swarmed a few times, or what? If science has it right we're all Africans anyway, but I'm a Southern Appalachian myself. The hills and foothills of the Smokey Mountains and the Tennessee River valley is where my roots draw sustenance. 


Still, history is still worth exploring...


Nickel Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:TAE Member
  • Score:1559
  • Posts:1357
  • From:USA
  • Register:12/10/2008 12:41 AM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:10/02/2018 9:34 PMCopy HTML

For years, I was a verify, verify, verify family history researcher, and I discovered, uncovered some pretty cool stories of interest, which come to mind during conversations every now and then, and in political set them straight debates with strangers once in a while. Research interests ended for some inexplicable reason, just felt no further obligation; if family wants more they can find it, so people only get what I remember starting with my parents back eight generations, cause I didn’t want to leave anyone out on the way to the royals in Europe who are well documented. I’ve several Royal lines, but only one that I have fully researched and that was because I was looking for the error, or paid cheat who tricked up the family tree......people copy and paste with ease many false trees because they don’t concern themselves with sources. It doesn’t annoy me because I use them as an outline to find well sourced family connections. RootsWeb was immensely helpful and easy to use, sorting them out, and it’s still free.
What goes around, comes around.
oldarmybear Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:TAE Member
  • Score:2154
  • Posts:1464
  • From:USA
  • Register:12/01/2008 11:45 PM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:10/03/2018 1:52 PMCopy HTML

I grew up believing I had an Irish/English heritage. I did the dna a thing and found out that there was little to no Irish in my dna. I was however 36% Italian with over 5000 dna hits in southern Italy. My dear wife is now calling me her Italian stallion...
alaskaone Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:TAE Member
  • Score:19256
  • Posts:17012
  • From:USA
  • Register:12/03/2008 3:25 AM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:10/03/2018 1:53 PMCopy HTML

All that can be interesting and fun.  What we need, really, is a wayback machine!

The Toba eruption has been linked to a genetic bottleneck in human evolution about 70,000 years ago,[28][29]  which may have resulted from a severe reduction in the size of the total human population due to the effects of the eruption on the global climate.[30] According to the genetic bottleneck theory, between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, human populations sharply decreased to 3,000–10,000 surviving individuals.[31][32] It is supported by some genetic evidence suggesting that today's humans are descended from a very small population of between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs that existed about 70,000 years ago.[33][scientific citation needed]

Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia

Come to the Dark Side. We have cookies. The advantage of insinuations over hard arguments is that they bypass critical thought. No one can respond precisely to a charge that is utterly vague or to accusers who will envelope any reply in a poisonous fog of further insinuations. ~ David Warren, The Guardian There was a time when there was enough freedom that it hardly mattered which brand of crooks ran government. That has not been true for a long time and that captures an important point. The more powerful the government becomes, the more people are willing to do in order to seize the prize, and the more afraid they become when someone else has control. ~ Glenn Harlan Reynolds “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve.” ― H.L. Mencken
govols Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:Worthy Member
  • Score:366
  • Posts:296
  • From:USA
  • Register:01/17/2010 6:27 PM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:10/09/2018 7:56 PMCopy HTML

There’s no such thing as humanity. At present, as has ever been, there is only us and them. It may one day be otherwise, but for now we remain us and them.


Think for a moment about life as a pre-historic, pre-agricultural human. In theory we were social animals even prior to our being “modern man.” We lived as our ancestors had, in small groups, nomadic but territorial, mostly communal but still within an “Alpha”-style social structure—a dominance hierarchy. Archaeology suggests (to the extent that I understand it) that we never experienced anything approaching egalitarian societies until we’d invented spears and cooperative hunting techniques. Until we had the means of preying on animals that were stronger than us we remained prey even to our own communities’ strongest members. We still left our weak to die, and some excavations show malnourishment existing right alongside the fairly well fed. The fit fed and the less fit fed less. We were always social, and always had hierarchies, but—God help us—it wasn’t until we invented weapons that our hierarchies moved from dominance alone toward competence. We didn’t become communal until we came to value the stone chipper who created the spear point as much as we valued the spear chucker. The earliest humans were gangs of advanced apes that left their weak behind and who groveled at the feet of their alphas; the earliest people were those who made leaders of those who would feed last rather than first. Those were the people who created communities.


Ponder the globe at present minus ten or fifteen thousand years. Communities exist all over the world, but not yet societies. We’re pre-agriculture tribes of hunter-gatherers. Picture a few hundred roving gangs of stone-age free shit warriors attempting to rape and pillage thousands of communities spanning most of the habitable world. Picture overlapping migration patterns among the various tribes. Consider the possibility of kinships forming, not only by spin-offs from one large tribe into related tribes, but also by way of territorial association. Consider how clans might form not only through blood but by diplomacy—by consolidating shared territory into shared practices and traditions. Imagine the manners by which disparate communities and tribes, sharing proximity, might negotiate common sets of acceptable behaviors in order to manage the cultivation of society itself. Imagine the invention of “manners.” Select a random environment anywhere on the planet, populate it with us and them, and then consider the heroic efforts required by a few individuals to make the attempt at moving among them all. Culture predates history, but it doesn’t predate earliest attempts at us/them interaction.


Us/them. A human constant…thus far, at least. We're still doing it. 


Nickel Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:TAE Member
  • Score:1559
  • Posts:1357
  • From:USA
  • Register:12/10/2008 12:41 AM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:10/12/2018 9:24 PMCopy HTML

Us them is nationalism. Nationalism is a bad thing in global interaction. The east west center in Hawaii failed miserably because nations sent their most ardent nationalists. The United Nations has a similar problem. However, the east west center has not dissolved and neither has the U.N. Not sure what you mean by there’s no such thing as humanity, but I know we’re a work in progress. We may not have the lifespan to grow up, yet.
What goes around, comes around.
govols Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:Worthy Member
  • Score:366
  • Posts:296
  • From:USA
  • Register:01/17/2010 6:27 PM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:10/13/2018 10:40 AMCopy HTML

"Humanity" suggests a sort of universiality among us that doesn't exist. Maybe a "yet" applies there, but maybe not. 


What makes nationalism bad? What makes globalism preferable?

Nickel Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #11
  • Rank:TAE Member
  • Score:1559
  • Posts:1357
  • From:USA
  • Register:12/10/2008 12:41 AM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:10/14/2018 7:53 PMCopy HTML

It’s when we ignore global issues, happy in our national pride, that war knocks on the door. We have plenty of universals. Unfortunately, some of them don’t share or play well with others.
What goes around, comes around.
govols Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:Worthy Member
  • Score:366
  • Posts:296
  • From:USA
  • Register:01/17/2010 6:27 PM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:10/14/2018 11:38 PMCopy HTML

What are the universals, do you think?

govols Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:Worthy Member
  • Score:366
  • Posts:296
  • From:USA
  • Register:01/17/2010 6:27 PM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:10/30/2018 8:51 PMCopy HTML

On a globe covered with nations, nationalism is a definitional assumption. On a globe covered with nation-states, nationalism is the rational focus of a well prioritized State. The globe is populated by people, but also Peoples, and humans WILL gravitate into in-groups and perceive everyone else to be Other. Nation seems to be the current largest, most inclusive, fairly natural grouping we’ve psychologically adapted to. Our Place and its People. A People and its territorial Place. Very few of the billions among us are citizens of the world. Very few of us consider Humanity with a capital H to be a single in-group, and the globe itself (or the universe) to be Our Place. We’re not there yet.

Nationalism isn’t isolationism. It isn’t withdrawal from international participation within a global framework. It’s simply the idea that the purpose of a nation’s State is to prioritize the interests of the nation and its people above the interests of other nations in such dealings.

If nationalism is a people and its governing authority working in the interest of the nation, what’s the opposite of that? Better?


Nickel Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #14
  • Rank:TAE Member
  • Score:1559
  • Posts:1357
  • From:USA
  • Register:12/10/2008 12:41 AM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:11/05/2018 10:32 PMCopy HTML

That’s all true for the other end of the spectrum from my broad generalization, oops. Somewhere in the middle is the truth. Genetically we’re global. Cultural differences are sources of pride, or they should be, but the tendency to find a superiority is polarizing. Multicultural studies manages to inform, but somehow comparisons taken home return as contrasts, negatives that indicate superiority. No one wants to be second class. Some of the universals: Everyone Enjoys a good laugh Cries when a loved one dies Swells with pride at a job well done Loves their family beyond all reason Needs water, food, shelter and clothing Gets angry when someone they know is wrongfully injured Saddens when someone they know is hurt. The ominous they are pretty much us.....who doesn’t like Pizza?
govols Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #15
  • Rank:Worthy Member
  • Score:366
  • Posts:296
  • From:USA
  • Register:01/17/2010 6:27 PM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:11/06/2018 9:11 PMCopy HTML

Genetically we’re largely global. The science seems still to be out on the question at some levels. There’s a theory that we embarked at some point on a level of social selection. That wouldn’t have a thing to do with the structures of the brain or “gross anatomy” really, but might affect the wiring of the brain and the physical traits that subtly differentiate the plethora of peoples. Maybe not, but maybe so. Can your universals offer some insight?

Everyone:

Enjoys a good laugh, but the extent to which the laugh comes at the expense of another varies greatly by personality and culture.

Cries when a loved one dies? This one is wildly variable. Tears upon witness to tragedy might be more universal than loss of a loved one. I’ve teared up more times at movies than I have at funerals. Most deaths of loved ones that I’ve experienced have been almost blessings by the time they came. Again, personality and culture, at least to some extent. I would bet that for some of us the waterworks are greater while digging holes for pets than for standing graveside for most humans we care enough about to offer respects. Maybe “cries when a child dies” is universal, and pets stimulate the same circuits.

Swells with pride at a job well done probably applies to most people, but I think only if the individual in question finds the job meaningful, even if menial.

Loves their family beyond all reason is an example of reason reduced to chasing emotion and instinct as a way of making it justifiable in the face of realistic examination.

Needs water, food, shelter and clothing like every other animal, though clothing is either vanity or self-consciousness in at least some of Earth’s climates.

Gets angry when someone they know is wrongfully injured but our ideas of wrongful, injury, and justice vary greatly.

Saddens when someone they know is hurt? This one throws me. Sadness isn’t an emotion I’m intimate with, and hurt is hard word to nail down. I’m gonna punt.

The ominous they are pretty much us.....who doesn’t like Pizza? Anchovies. If you liked pizza you wouldn’t put anchovies on it to make the rest of the pie impossible to taste. Some among the ominous they just go too far…


Nickel Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:TAE Member
  • Score:1559
  • Posts:1357
  • From:USA
  • Register:12/10/2008 12:41 AM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:11/12/2018 9:41 PMCopy HTML

This seemed twisted at first: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ww1-centenary-macron-nationalism/with-trump-sitting-nearby-macron-calls-nationalism-a-betrayal-idUSKCN1NG0IH WORLD NEWSNOVEMBER 11, 2018 / 6:00 AM / A DAY AGO With Trump sitting nearby, Macron calls nationalism a betrayal Luke Baker 4 MIN READ PARIS (Reuters) - French President Emmanuel Macron used an address to world leaders gathered in Paris for Armistice commemorations on Sunday to send a stern message about the dangers of nationalism, calling it a betrayal of moral values. With U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin sitting just a few feet away listening to the speech via translation earpieces, Macron denounced those who evoke nationalist sentiment to disadvantage others. “Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism,” Macron said in a 20-minute address delivered from under the Arc de Triomphe to mark the 100th anniversary of the end of World War One. “By pursuing our own interests first, with no regard to others’, we erase the very thing that a nation holds most precious, that which gives it life and makes it great: its moral values.” French President Emmanuel Macron delivers a speech during a commemoration ceremony for Armistice Day, 100 years after the end of the First World War, at the Arc de Triomphe, in Paris, France, November 11, 2018. Ludovic Marin/Pool via REUTERS Trump, who has pursued “America First” policies since entering the White House and in the run-up to the congressional elections this month declared himself a “nationalist”, sat still and stony-faced in the front row as Macron spoke. There was no immediate response from either the White House or the Kremlin to Macron’s comments. ............ I thought patriotism and nationalism synonymous, but definitions are fluid. Words mean what speakers and listeners say they mean. Nice...lol
govols Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #17
  • Rank:Worthy Member
  • Score:366
  • Posts:296
  • From:USA
  • Register:01/17/2010 6:27 PM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:11/12/2018 10:11 PMCopy HTML

I wonder if patriotism isn't the emotional ties that bind a people together and to their place, and if nationalism isn't the politics of holding those ties together amidst the necessity international interaction.

Nickel Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #18
  • Rank:TAE Member
  • Score:1559
  • Posts:1357
  • From:USA
  • Register:12/10/2008 12:41 AM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:11/12/2018 11:32 PMCopy HTML

These two words may have shared a distinct sense in the 19th century, but they appear to have grown apart since. Or rather, it would be more accurate to say that only nationalism has grown apart, since the meaning of patriotism has remained largely unchanged. There are still obvious areas of overlap: we define patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country” and nationalism in part as “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But the definition of nationalism also includes “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/patriotism-vs-nationalism May have to define the nationalism you meant, which he did. The setbacks of the east west center in Hawaii were attributable to nationalism. Ongoing battle.....still. The United Nations frequently suffers from nationalism. Maybe I’m stuck in the 19th century; it’s still confusing because I am unsure of audience perceptions. A generally known example would clarify the nationalism meant until people only use it that way.
govols Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #19
  • Rank:Worthy Member
  • Score:366
  • Posts:296
  • From:USA
  • Register:01/17/2010 6:27 PM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:11/13/2018 1:25 AMCopy HTML

I'm just not sure the one is exclusionary so much as proprietary and imperative. Patriotism is I love my country. Nationalism is that I identify with my country, and in its dealings abroad I prioritize its wellbeing. Nationalism requires an identity while patriotism requires only an affinity.


America IS, I'm American, and my loylty and obligation is to America, first and foremost; that's greatly different from I love America.

alaskaone Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #20
  • Rank:TAE Member
  • Score:19256
  • Posts:17012
  • From:USA
  • Register:12/03/2008 3:25 AM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:11/16/2018 5:35 AMCopy HTML

I'm questioning an assumption that seems to be made here;  nationalism = bad.  I don't think that it is a valid assumption.  Let's start with Webster 'cause he's a stand up guy.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld#synonyms

                                                                                        

Well, that doesn't sound terrible.  One should be cognizant of and greatful for the culture and accomplishments of their fellow citizens and what is a nation other than the culture and accomplishments of those who lived and who live within it?


That seems like a pretty good thing, all in all, assuming that the government of the nation is worthy of gratitude.  Many are not, it should go without saying.  Many are, if not 'hell on earth', as close as humans can come to.  I'm looking at you, North Korea and Saudi Arabia, among others.


On the conservative side of the political spectrum, it's widely accepted that if you bring race into politics, you've gone too far.  Start talking white nationalism and people will begin eyeballing you and quietly leaving the room. 


This doesn't seem to be the case on the left if you approach the same thing but subsitute black for white.


Nationalism, however, need not be about race.  In fact, it isn't.  It's about culture and majority.  You might question that assertion but I'll point you toward northern China.  China is, along with Japan, the definition of nationalistic.  If you are not from there, you're a foreigner and lesser.  Along the northern border of China is Russia.  Within the Chinese border are villages and cities composed of white people, who are Chinese.  They are considered Chinese, identify as Chinese, speak Mandarin or other Chinese dialects.


As I said, nationalism is culturally and majority based, not racially based.


Globalism seems to ask nations to set aside their own best interests in favor of what is good for the entire world.  Yeah, nah.  Bad idea.  Some nations are prosperous and some are not.  The globalists seem to want prosperous nations to share what they've created with non-prosperous nations rather than put those non-prosperous nations under the microscope and look at why they are shitholes.


Hint:  it's not colonialism.


It chaps my ass when our government kowtows to people (I'm looking at you, Mexicans) who demand we conform with their culture when in point of fact their culture is part of the reason why they had to flee their home nations in the first place.  If you want the US to be 'just like home', why did you leave home in the first place?


I don't think nationalism is a bad thing.  You must look after yourself before you can look after others.

Come to the Dark Side. We have cookies. The advantage of insinuations over hard arguments is that they bypass critical thought. No one can respond precisely to a charge that is utterly vague or to accusers who will envelope any reply in a poisonous fog of further insinuations. ~ David Warren, The Guardian There was a time when there was enough freedom that it hardly mattered which brand of crooks ran government. That has not been true for a long time and that captures an important point. The more powerful the government becomes, the more people are willing to do in order to seize the prize, and the more afraid they become when someone else has control. ~ Glenn Harlan Reynolds “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve.” ― H.L. Mencken
Nickel Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #21
  • Rank:TAE Member
  • Score:1559
  • Posts:1357
  • From:USA
  • Register:12/10/2008 12:41 AM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:11/17/2018 3:33 AMCopy HTML

In context nationalism = bad when it means your nation is superior and all others are inferior. That just brews animosity. Watching out for other nations, protects ours. We’ve circled our problem nations with friends who let us build bases for their protection and ours. I worry that Taiwan will be abandoned by us, and hope that China has sufficient internal concerns to keep their hegemony at bay. South Korea should continue reunification efforts despite the recent North Korean saber rattling from our base expansion which is being questioned by some South Koreans. Italy doesn’t like our base there, but hey, too bad you sided with Hitler, Italy. You must have noticed how long it took us to get in position to do anything with Saddam Hussein. Set aside the failure to find the nuclear threat we thought he might use like the chemical warfare he launched on Iran. Arabs and Persians..... When the Shah of Iran fell, we lost a strategic position. Play the game of Risk and don’t forget how close Alaska is to Russia even though they’re so far apart on the board. All you say about nationalism in the good sense of the word is true. Mexicans look down on us, like the Europeans they pretty much are, and they don’t want to live here, they just want to work here, so they can send money home. The Mexican Government is good with that since it amounts to about a $10 million infusion for their economy. So, of course they just smile and apologize for our border issues.
alaskaone Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #22
  • Rank:TAE Member
  • Score:19256
  • Posts:17012
  • From:USA
  • Register:12/03/2008 3:25 AM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:11/17/2018 3:49 AMCopy HTML

In context nationalism = bad when it means your nation is superior and all others are inferior.

Our nation is superior to the majority of other nations;  culturally and economically.  This is just an objective fact.


That just brews animosity. Watching out for other nations, protects ours.  We’ve circled our problem nations with friends who let us build bases for their protection and ours.  I worry that Taiwan will be abandoned by us, and hope that China has sufficient internal concerns to keep their hegemony at bay.   South Korea should continue reunification efforts despite the recent North Korean saber rattling from our base expansion which is being questioned by some South Koreans. Italy doesn’t like our base there, but hey, too bad you sided with Hitler, Italy.

These are not our problems.


You must have noticed how long it took us to get in position to do anything with Saddam Hussein.  Set aside the failure to find the nuclear threat we thought he might use like the chemical warfare he launched on Iran.  Arabs and Persians..... When the Shah of Iran fell, we lost a strategic position.

You cannot have failed to anticipate I would reply with both hussein and the shaw were our monsters. We created them.  Because of that, it might be argued that disposing of them was our responsibility or that dealing with the consequences of their creation is our responsibility but yeah, nah.  It would be better if we ceased all diplomatic and economic relations with nations that are certifiably insane.


Play the game of Risk and don’t forget how close Alaska is to Russia even though they’re so far apart on the board.

Russia has no interest in Alaska.  That's why they sold it to the US.


All you say about nationalism in the good sense of the word is true.

I'm glad we agree.


Mexicans look down on us, like the Europeans they pretty much are, and they don’t want to live here, they just want to work here, so they can send money home.  The Mexican Government is good with that since it amounts to about a $10 million infusion for their economy. So, of course they just smile and apologize for our border issues.

I think that is true, too, although my sense is they harbor a good deal of resentment for losing so much land to the US in the Mexican American war.  They appear to want it back although why, I cannot fathom.  Were they to win it back, it would rapidly turn into the same sort of shithole that Mexico is.



Nickel Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #23
  • Rank:TAE Member
  • Score:1559
  • Posts:1357
  • From:USA
  • Register:12/10/2008 12:41 AM

Re:Playing with circles....

Date Posted:12/03/2018 2:26 AMCopy HTML

I watch Korean Dramas with the sound just loud enough to feel the emotion but not so loud that I can’t read the captions. We were on a tour of Pompei, and the group ahead was taking too long, so our guide spoke to their guide, she came out with her group and was very annoyed just a streak of angry Greek words passing us. A woman behind me asked, What did she say? And I responded with, We all look lovely today. Everyone laughed. So, to me feelings are pretty close to universal, having noted govols exceptions. In general music is universal. I am not a fan of Heavy Metal and other noise someone calls music that hurts my ears, but people respond to music in similar ways. Classical music is enjoyed by many husbands who attend concerts: No better way to get two hours of sleep. I only shook my husband if he started snoring.
You'll never get out of this world alive
Copyright © 2000-2018 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.