|
Once everything is close to evenly distributed and homogenous can we begin to unravel borders. But for now we will belong to "our corner" of the world. Maybe nationalism won't be as prominent, but we will always be divided until we're homogenized across the entire world.
Why? Because if we're not, we will always have different interests. These interests need not be geological; but the "borders" will still be there even if they aren't physical. At least as long as I and everyone in my 'country' speaks Norwegian and (next to) no one else does, I see little opportunity for creating something new that takes my interests and needs into account but isn't my 'nation'.
-In my cycle we viewed evolution as the only driving force 
I don't think anything we see or experience recently is created at random, "ad hoc", or by accident.
I feel that alot of so-called "socialism", and pacifism goes against "natural" evolution and is moving away from "survival of the fittest" (not that this is inherently bad, I'm unsure of to what extent it can actually work. For now I think it's quite sustainable, and so may become an evolutionary path for long to come; but I'm certain that it has inherent weaknesses that won't entirely withstand the test of time). You can't argue away evolution. While we can try to guide evolution along the path we wish it; we can't strategize for certain success or beat (free us from) evolution.
|
On October 05 2012 03:24 Cutlery wrote:Once everything is close to evenly distributed and homogenous can we begin to unravel borders. But for now we will belong to "our corner" of the world. Maybe nationalism won't be as prominent, but we will always be divided until we're homogenized across the entire world. Why? Because if we're not, we will always have different interests. These interests need not be geological; but the "borders" will still be there even if they aren't physical. At least as long as I and everyone in my 'country' speaks Norwegian and (next to) no one else does, I see little opportunity for creating something new that takes my interests and needs into account but isn't my 'nation'. -In my cycle we viewed evolution as the only driving force I don't think anything we see or experience recently is created at random, "ad hoc", or by accident. I feel that alot of so-called "socialism", and pacifism goes against "natural" evolution and is moving away from "survival of the fittest" (not that this is inherently bad, I'm unsure of to what extent it can actually work. For now I think it's quite sustainable, and so may become an evolutionary path for long to come; but I'm certain that it has inherent weaknesses that won't entirely withstand the test of time). You can't argue away evolution. While we can try to guide evolution along the path we wish it; we can't strategize for certain success or beat (free us from) evolution.
Human race no longer depends on evolution through selection. Progress through medicine, genetics engineering, and in the future bionics and virtualization can potentially drive the change of human race faster than nature possibly can.
|
On October 05 2012 03:09 TehPrime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 03:06 RavenLoud wrote:On September 29 2012 02:52 either I or wrote:
What we need is to erase concepts of country and nationality. This is slowly happening thanks to the internet and globalization. It's still going to take a long time, and it really can't just suddenly erase history. Sorry, but it's not gonna happen. Not in our lifetimes, I agree. Who knows what'll happen next?
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19986895
Two Japanese politicians visit the shrines. Japan defends by claiming it was a private visit. Others see this as politicians bolstering nationalism credentials before elections. Things like this should be able to just wind down as anger subside over time, but right wingers in Japan seem intent on making sure the anger stays fresh for the moment. This next Japanese election is going to be big. Wonder if the Chinese government is going to slap on some official sanctions. Unofficially there might as well be sanctions already.
|
On October 19 2012 02:24 ddrddrddrddr wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19986895Two Japanese politicians visit the shrines. Japan defends by claiming it was a private visit. Others see this as politicians bolstering nationalism credentials before elections. Things like this should be able to just wind down as anger subside over time, but right wingers in Japan seem intent on making sure the anger stays fresh for the moment. This next Japanese election is going to be big. Wonder if the Chinese government is going to slap on some official sanctions. Unofficially there might as well be sanctions already.
What a bunch of idiots. Japan *needs* amiable relations with East Asia in order to survive (since all its energy and raw material imports pass near the coasts of China, Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines, etc.)
And now these politicians are jeopardizing Japan's national security in order to score political points?
Imagine, for a second, if the US erected a shrine to its military, where the vast majority of soldiers honored there had died in the Mexican-American War of 1846. And every single time, prior to a US election, Republican politicians--the same ones that constantly seek stricter enforcement of immigration laws targeting those very Hispanics that hypothetical shrine denigrates--would visit, bow, sign their names as "the Honorable Governor of Massachusetts or the Honorable Senator from Arizona" and then say it was a "private matter". This, all the while Mexico is the #2 market for finished consumer products and #1 market for capital goods for the United States.
Yeah. Sigh...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
judging by the recent past the chinese government has a pretty tight lid on popular anything, so it'd be a stretch that japan's ceremonies has much material impact on actual policies carried out at the top.
nevertheless i agree japan's ceremonies are pretty bad when they include war criminals. the whitewashing by certain segments is a direct contrast to the openness displayed by germany.
nevertheless, the takeaway is obivously that nationalism begets nationalistic tension even when it is undirected. you think this is pretty clear from observing animal behavior but no.
|
On October 05 2012 03:24 Cutlery wrote:Once everything is close to evenly distributed and homogenous can we begin to unravel borders. But for now we will belong to "our corner" of the world. Maybe nationalism won't be as prominent, but we will always be divided until we're homogenized across the entire world. Why? Because if we're not, we will always have different interests. These interests need not be geological; but the "borders" will still be there even if they aren't physical. At least as long as I and everyone in my 'country' speaks Norwegian and (next to) no one else does, I see little opportunity for creating something new that takes my interests and needs into account but isn't my 'nation'. -In my cycle we viewed evolution as the only driving force I don't think anything we see or experience recently is created at random, "ad hoc", or by accident. I feel that alot of so-called "socialism", and pacifism goes against "natural" evolution and is moving away from "survival of the fittest" (not that this is inherently bad, I'm unsure of to what extent it can actually work. For now I think it's quite sustainable, and so may become an evolutionary path for long to come; but I'm certain that it has inherent weaknesses that won't entirely withstand the test of time). You can't argue away evolution. While we can try to guide evolution along the path we wish it; we can't strategize for certain success or beat (free us from) evolution.
I think nationalism is in line with evolution though. You see the idea of "survival of the fittest" is implemented also by securing turf for your own tribe while wiping out other tribes. The tribe that survived in such conflict is the true fittest. So nationalism is just one level beyond that, a nation is trying to state that its unique ppl are the fittest, and the way to prove it is to squash other nations.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I wish the U.S. would instigate a coup in Japan. My God those idiot politicians.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the problem with that is that nations are fluid. you get these neural routines sure, easily led paths and easily adopted concepts of collective identity, but you can always go beyond. it is at the edges of nationalism that things become interesting.
for instance, when an american decides to accept indians as 'americans', something has changed to include them. a different but beneficial mechanism is at work when other humans, who have evolved too, use their evolved capacity for cross-level thinking and say, oh gee, maybe nationalism is a constructed fiction that is doing more harm than good. maybe that muslim dude is also a human being, with similar concerns as mine, including possibly his own sense of national/identity pride etc.
at the end of the day, evolutionary appeals in support of one evolved tendency over another are fallacious because your opponent is also human, and his or her intuitions are also evolved. evolution supports anti-nationalist, expanding circle of care thinking just as much as it supports the existence of closed societies. to this end, offering an evolutionary argument with a clear normative valence depends on treating one state as the norm, and that's a fallacy of performance.
suppose we have a majority of nationalists and also a bunch of antinationalists. when one of the former group does in fact learn enough to see the wrongs of nationalism, involving evolved notions of justice and the idea of the human person, then voila, you get nationalist -1 and antinationalist +1.
now suppose these people are basing their beliefs on what the majority or "evolutionary norm" believes, then no such composition change would occur. it is also a pretty significant case of bad thinking leading to harmful results.
evolutionary and functional arguments that take existing trends and justify them are in very sketchy territory. it does not take much for them to become post hoc rationalisations.
|
I feel that China shouldn't care that they are visiting the shrine even it includes a few war criminals. So, they can't visit the shrine for the other people because there are a few war criminals there? =/.
I do understand that China does care though and when knowing this it was a very stupid move for Japan to do this without resolving the initial issues and with the whole island business going on.
|
On October 19 2012 05:28 Souma wrote:
I wish the U.S. would instigate a coup in Japan. My God those idiot politicians.
The funny thing is that some people actually believe that it's a good thing when the US steps up to do those kinds of stuff.
|
On October 05 2012 02:04 oneofthem wrote:
btw. i have not said stuff like 'national enemies' is not the product of strong and hardwired sentiments (the process is hardwired, but the result is not hardwired) and thus expect that every historical occurrence of these is engineered. however, national enemies in the west have largely faded. you don't get germans and french ruminating on the next great conflict, etc. in teh specific case of china, there is engineering and this is undeniable.
'National enemies' in the West have switched from nations within Europe to nations outside of Europe. Borders in the EU are fluid, there is a common language, and the beginnings of a common identity. This in no way argues against the persistence of nationalism, only the fluidity of nations - which has never been contested.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
no. they don't have national enemies because it's dumb to have national enemies.
|
Man. These East Asian countries just do not get along with each other at all do they. x-x Wonder if they ever will. (Doubt it though.)
|
On October 04 2012 13:56 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 01:58 Azarkon wrote:On September 29 2012 16:34 CountChocula wrote:On September 29 2012 04:28 Azarkon wrote:On September 29 2012 04:04 CountChocula wrote:On September 29 2012 02:53 Azarkon wrote:On September 28 2012 10:03 CountChocula wrote:On September 28 2012 09:27 Azarkon wrote:
Your inability to accept nationalism as the modus operandi in East Asia and increasingly in the world at large is precisely the problem. The Japanese side practiced nationalism when it decided to nationalize the islands. The Chinese side practiced nationalism when it decided to contest / protest / riot against this decision. Seeking an end to nationalism reminds me of seeking an end to war. The same ivory tower idealism. How is he unable to accept nationalism? He can discuss geopolitics by recognizing nationalism as a factor that influences large swathes of people and at the same time condemn it for being a force that tends to cause wars, doesn't make sense intellectually (label millions of people as good/bad based on their nationality) and is extremely prone to state manipulation. Just because it's difficult to end wars doesn't mean people ought to stop trying. I don't know what you're trying to say there. At least people trying to seek an end to nationalism have a high ideal to aspire to. What's the alternative? Not discuss its moral implications and only discuss geopolitics? I'm not saying that it's a practical or realistic goal for diplomats or completely relevant when people are discussing geopolitics, but I think most educated people who've studied 20th century history recognize the dangers of nationalism, and I feel it's important to be reminded of that once in a while instead of just embracing nationalism (even though we all have moments of weakness). What you dismiss as ivory tower idealism is for me a lighthouse that guides the minds of our generation, so the lives lost in wars during previous generations haven't been in vain and we have something to show for after learning from their mistakes. edit: Please don't think that I hold some personal grudge against you. It's just that when I see a post that is really unfair (in a subtle way as opposed to Endzy's post) and others haven't been calling it out, I feel compelled to refute it lest it influence the minds of some younger posters in this forum who might take correct grammar/spelling to be a sign of valid logic. The worst sort of idealism is one that presumes to understand without understanding, seeks to condemn without reflecting, and aims to guide without knowing where it's going. In the course of this thread, you and your allies have exhibited all three of these qualities: Presumes to understand without understanding: 'nationalism is an infantile disease' and we ought to be rid of it - as opposed to an organizational development that was necessitated by industrialism and the competition between human groups Seeks to condemn without reflecting: the Chinese [nationalists] are mindless followers of CCP propaganda - which is why the open societies of HK and Taiwan, neither of them followers of CCP propaganda, were among the first to protest / demonstrate against Japan Aims to guide without knowing where it's going: the 'correct' solution to this problem is to overthrow the CCP / stop their totalitarian brainwashing - which is why the democratic KMT in Taiwan was the first to play a game of brinksmanship with Japan using its patrol vessels, and democratic South Korea is just as pissed at Japan over the Dokdo conflict I suppose it's my mistake that rather than deny the validity of nationalism and its offspring, the nation-state, I choose instead to understand it. That rather than engaging in useless moral high horsing and condescension, I choose instead to state the practical outcome and solution. I suppose that makes me illogical and in need of a 'refutation' lest I 'influence the minds of youngsters' - because we all know that naive idealism, which breaks upon the first testing, is the best solution to the world's problems. Not sure what you mean by "deny the validity of" nationalism when that's not my axe to grind at all. People can simply deny nationalism on moral reasons. I didn't know one cannot understand something, then reject it based on moral reasons. That's what makes you illogical--that you associate a rejection of nationalism on moral grounds with an inability to discuss nationalism as a factor in geopolitics. Another place where you're wrong is that I didn't claim Chinese nationalists were mindless followers of CCP propaganda or even that this incident was started by CCP propaganda. I'm stating the view espoused in China: Fragile Superpower written by Clinton's Deputy Assistant Secretary of State that Jiang Zemin, for whatever reason, stepped up anti-Japanese nationalist propaganda in education to levels greater than those seen during the rules of Mao and Deng Xiaoping, and now that the proverbial genie has been let out of the bottle, the CCP finds it difficult to keep a balancing act. On the one hand, not pissing off their nationalistic countrymen so much so that they're overthrown and on the other, not pissing off Japan and the rest of the world.Even if Prime Minister Abe actually desists from visiting the Yasukuni Shrine, China will not be able to negotiate a comprehensive resolution of history issues and an overall improvement in relations with Japan unless it can credibly commit to stop criticizing Japan’s wartime history. The South Koreans, who pledged in writing to do so, couldn’t keep their promise because of the same sort of domestic political pressures that roil China. Even if the Politburo Standing Committee somehow could agree to revise Chinese school textbooks and stop commemorating anniversaries, they still cannot control events in Japan or the Chinese tabloids that report on them. “The Foreign Ministry and the Party leaders want to change public opinion about Japan, and leave history behind, but it is too late,” a PLA colonel told me. “We should have tried to change public opinion ten years ago when the Party could still control information. We can’t do it now.”
In any case, it's not a grassroots movement like you speak of. It was started in the 90s by Jiang Zemin and now it's driven by a combination of state propaganda and sensational tabloids that capitalize on anti-Japanese articles bringing huge readership in a vicious feedback loop.
I've already gone through with you why your 'moral criticism' of nationalism is absent of logic. I'm not keen on repeating myself on a subject I've spent pages on already. I can assure you that you did no such thing simply based on the fact that I only mentioned my argument against nationalism on the previous page. Before that, I didn't bother to explicitly give my argument against nationalism, because I assumed it was evident to most people who've lived through the 20th century the dangers of nationalism. I did, however, observe glaring flaws in your argument saying nationalism is an extension of tribalism and hence morally justified, which is what you might be thinking of. Sentiments in Korea are capable of being just as extreme - it's just that Koreans are not drawn to the same style of rioting. However, there are annual protests against Japan in Korea, just as in China, that at times become quite extreme. Also, rioters at protests tend to be young regardless, because older people have a greater sense of their own social responsibility, and you have yet to answer how Jiang specifically targeted Japan in his 'patriotic' education - as my sources say, the target of Chinese rage in the 90s was the US, not Japan. Pretty sure Jiang stepped up anti-nationalism towards Japan while Mao and Deng focused on the US and USSR. Here's an excerpt regarding your question as to how Jiang specifically targeted Japan in his patriotic education: Show nested quote +Jiang Zemin succeeded Deng Xiaoping as a compromise choice after Tiananmen and began to take charge in 1994 through 1995 as Deng’s health deteriorated. (Deng died in 1997 at the age of ninety-two.) Unlike Mao and Deng, Jiang lacked confidence. He worried about challenges from rival leaders and doubts from the public—memories of the Tiananmen crisis were fresh—and as a result, was much more attentive to nationalist public opinion. His intimidating face-to-face confrontations with anti-Japan student protestors when he served as mayor of Shanghai during the 1980s may also have made him fearful. When he spoke at his alma mater Jiaotong University in December 1986 to urge students to stop protesting, the students “heckled the mayor for spouting empty platitudes.” [1] And his personal history had left him with bad memories of the Japanese occupation.
Over time Jiang became personally invested in improving ties with Washington, but when it came to Japan, he hammered away at the history issue much more aggressively than his predecessors had. A senior official in the Chinese Foreign Ministry acknowledged, “China used to be quite accommodating to Japan under Mao and Deng,” but is much less so under Jiang. This official blamed the deterioration of Sino-Japanese relations on the dimming of Japan’s economic miracle and Japan’s growing resentment of China’s rise, but others were not so forgiving toward Jiang. “Mao and Zhou had the greatest moral right to hate the Japanese, but they responsibly made good relations with Japan because they thought strategically. Jiang is just playing patriotic games,” a think-tank expert told me.
Under Jiang, as China continued to move toward a capitalist-style economy, nationalism replaced communism as the rationale for people to support the Party. Beginning in 1994 the CCP Propaganda Department’s “patriotic education campaign,” designed to ensure the loyalty of its subjects—young people in particular—by nurturing their nationalist attachment to the state, became the dominant theme in school and media socialization. [2]
As the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II approached in 1995, schools and the media put the history of Japanese aggression against China front and center. President Jiang Zemin and his colleagues attended seventeen official celebrations of the Chinese victory over Japan during the summer of 1995. [3] Show nested quote +Because of anti-Japanese feelings stirred up by Jiang’s campaign, relations between China and Japan reached their lowest point in 1995 through 1996 since the reestablishment of diplomatic relations in 1972. [4] A vicious cycle developed. As scholar Gilbert Rozman described it, “China heightened Japan’s alarm and then took that alarm as evidence of nefarious intentions.” [5] China defied Japan’s request to halt nuclear testing and tested three times in 1995. Japan showed its dismay by discontinuing its aid to China, and China cited its historic grievance, saying that the aid was a form of war reparation and therefore must continue. Tension over the Diaoyu Islands reemerged, and Japanese prime minister Ryutaro Hashimoto paid a personal visit to the Yasukuni Shrine, the first visit by a prime minister since 1985. (The visits by Nakasone and Koizumi were official.) [1] George Washington University, September 4, 2003. [2] Alastair Iain Johnston, “The Correlates of Beijing Public Opinion toward the United States, 1998–2004” in Alastair Iain Johnston and Robert S. Ross, eds., New Directions in the Study of China’s Foreign Policy (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2006), 340–378. [3] Global Times, November 14, 2005. [4] See Southern Weekend, March 27, 2003. [5] Study Times, August 16, 2004, FBIS, CPP20040823000245.
There are two concrete arguments in your quote - the first is that Jiang stepped up patriotic education, which all scholars agree with. The second is that Jiang targeted Japan specifically, which, as my sources show, is far from evident. In fact, the only evidence given in that entire segment is that:
As the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II approached in 1995, schools and the media put the history of Japanese aggression against China front and center. President Jiang Zemin and his colleagues attended seventeen official celebrations of the Chinese victory over Japan during the summer of 1995.
So basically, on the 50th anniversary of World War II, Chinese schools and media commemorated World War II by keeping the memory of Japanese aggression alive, while Jiang attended multiple celebrations of China's victory over Japan - and this is supposed to be evidence for Jiang's 'anti-Japan nationalism?' I'm sorry, but your threshold for what constitutes nationalism is very low. What did you think the Chinese were going to do - suppress the memory of Japanese aggression for the sake of 'better relations' and not attend celebrations of China's victory over Japan?
I don't think that is an appropriate / healthy response. Ever heard of the phrase, 'never forget' when applied to WW II? You don't just forget atrocities that happened fifty years ago.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yea that's not a surprise considering what they do every day.
|
On October 19 2012 05:56 oneofthem wrote:
no. they don't have national enemies because it's dumb to have national enemies.
Enemies are born when two parties, each pursuing their own self interests, are unable to resolve the conflicts between those self interests to both parties' satisfaction. Whether the party is an individual, a group, or a nation changes very little. I could just as well argue that it's 'dumb' to have enemies at every level of human organization, because parties ought to be able to work out their differences and compromise. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way. It also doesn't change the fact that East Asia and Europe are fundamentally different in how unified their cultures and politics are.
The distance between a German and a French is miniscule when juxtaposed with the distance between a Chinese and a Japanese. Heck, there is greater diversity within China than there is between the bulk of nations in Europe.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you think a trade rivalry is on the same level of calling mass genocide on japan? keep moving the goalpost maybe you'll score
|
When have I ever said that? You're the only one moving the goalpost by making a different argument every post.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
references to national enemies in this discussion has always been about a violently antagonistic sort, dealing with national level entities. it is obviously different from whatever you think constitute 'national enemies' in western europe.
if this is not moving the goalpost the goalpost is pretty big
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
