4 ms·

Am I not special in this regard? Shouldn't I simply get whatever I want? I'm more than five years old, so I accept that I'm not as special as I once thought.

by Vivtek 13y ago

Am I not special in this regard? Shouldn't I simply get whatever I want? I'm more than five years old, so I accept that I'm not as special as I once thought. Nationalism is similarly infantile. And you're not responding to my argument about the Hopi, just repeating your own; I didn't even address your point about them at all. Edit: Whoops, that was sloppy of me. In fact I didn't address your Hopi/Swede point because I hadn't seen it yet. I'm not sure what I think about it (except that in principle it's a good idea to disabuse kids of their childhood beliefs, if not by beating them). I'm not prepared to treat that as I would child abuse in larger society, though.

einhverfr 13y ago
> (except that in principle it's a good idea to disabuse kids of their childhood beliefs, if not by beating them). I think there is very deep wisdom in the Hopi practice, and it is part of a process that leads to very nuanced views on religion among the Hopi, remember that disbelieving is the prerequisite for participation. The overall point though is to value one's own culture and heritage, and accept that we humans are cultural animals, that without culture we aren't even human, and then expect others to do the same. It's one thing for Americans to sympathize with the victims of the Boston Bombings more than they sympathize with the victims of drone strikes in Yemen or Pakistan. I think that's fine. Nationality matters. However, I also think it is wrong to assume that Yemenis and Pakistanis should not also sympathize with their countrymen and women who are killed in such attacks more than they sympathize with Americans killed in 9/11, the Boston Bombings, etc. I also think that if we accept and understand that we can build a better future. That's what I mean by everyone being special in that regard, and one not so tied to the wrong sorts of nationalism.
- Vivtek 13y ago
  I think it's entirely wrong for Americans to sympathize with Boston victims while disregarding and in many cases outright denying the existence of victims of drone strikes. It's hypocrisy at its finest and especially rich coming from self-proclaimed Christians. That is exactly the problem with nationalism. I suspect you're probably saying that it's understandable for Americans only to feel the reality of this kind of cruelty when it affects "their own", and my response is that it may be understandable, but then so are the mechanisms of cancer.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    I disagree in part and here is why. We have social obligations first to those nearer us and later those further away. We owe our parents more than we owe strangers. If we are in a crowded theater and fire breaks out, we have a greater obligation to save our own kids' than our neighbor's, but we have a greater obligation to save our neighbor's kids than a stranger's. So obligations start at the family and household level and spread out in concentric circles of community. This is healthy and it is more or less the way humanity has always worked. The outer two levels might generally be classified as the ethnos and lastly everyone else. Where I hesitate is where you say "in many cases outright denying the existence of" because that's a problem, but not because we owe no more to our own than to others. The problem is also wider than mere denial of the existence of innocent drone strike victims, but this idea that because we believe we have justified reasons for engaging in drone strikes, everyone should just understand that. A healthier attitude would be to expect and value the fact that Yemenis and Pakistanis will value their family and community members more than Americans, and where too many people off base is that they don't expect or value that. They think the Pakistanis should be grateful that we are killing bad guys and that's where the problem lies. Attitudes like that make it impossible to build bridges between our peoples, to understand and respect eachother. The alternative is to say that communities shouldn't matter. Why should the Pakistani not have American liberties? But then why should African Americans not be protected by European hate speech laws? Why should American Muslims not be protected against people insulting their religion? In the end, I think that community (as a series of concentric circles) is important and as much governance needs to be as local as at all possible. This means tolerating all kinds of things we might believe are abuses of rights in our own culture while trusting that other people have the ability to make things work in a basically just way.
    - Vivtek 13y ago
      I think you're conflating nationalism with ... love of community or something. And you're conflating rights with law, I think. I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing, and I'm anything but certain we disagree on any point of substance.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by Vivtek 13y ago

einhverfr 13y ago

> (except that in principle it's a good idea to disabuse kids of their childhood beliefs, if not by beating them). I think there is very deep wisdom in the Hopi practice, and it is part of a process that leads to very nuanced views on religion among the Hopi, remember that disbelieving is the prerequisite for participation. The overall point though is to value one's own culture and heritage, and accept that we humans are cultural animals, that without culture we aren't even human, and then expect others to do the same. It's one thing for Americans to sympathize with the victims of the Boston Bombings more than they sympathize with the victims of drone strikes in Yemen or Pakistan. I think that's fine. Nationality matters. However, I also think it is wrong to assume that Yemenis and Pakistanis should not also sympathize with their countrymen and women who are killed in such attacks more than they sympathize with Americans killed in 9/11, the Boston Bombings, etc. I also think that if we accept and understand that we can build a better future. That's what I mean by everyone being special in that regard, and one not so tied to the wrong sorts of nationalism.

Vivtek 13y ago
I think it's entirely wrong for Americans to sympathize with Boston victims while disregarding and in many cases outright denying the existence of victims of drone strikes. It's hypocrisy at its finest and especially rich coming from self-proclaimed Christians. That is exactly the problem with nationalism. I suspect you're probably saying that it's understandable for Americans only to feel the reality of this kind of cruelty when it affects "their own", and my response is that it may be understandable, but then so are the mechanisms of cancer.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  I disagree in part and here is why. We have social obligations first to those nearer us and later those further away. We owe our parents more than we owe strangers. If we are in a crowded theater and fire breaks out, we have a greater obligation to save our own kids' than our neighbor's, but we have a greater obligation to save our neighbor's kids than a stranger's. So obligations start at the family and household level and spread out in concentric circles of community. This is healthy and it is more or less the way humanity has always worked. The outer two levels might generally be classified as the ethnos and lastly everyone else. Where I hesitate is where you say "in many cases outright denying the existence of" because that's a problem, but not because we owe no more to our own than to others. The problem is also wider than mere denial of the existence of innocent drone strike victims, but this idea that because we believe we have justified reasons for engaging in drone strikes, everyone should just understand that. A healthier attitude would be to expect and value the fact that Yemenis and Pakistanis will value their family and community members more than Americans, and where too many people off base is that they don't expect or value that. They think the Pakistanis should be grateful that we are killing bad guys and that's where the problem lies. Attitudes like that make it impossible to build bridges between our peoples, to understand and respect eachother. The alternative is to say that communities shouldn't matter. Why should the Pakistani not have American liberties? But then why should African Americans not be protected by European hate speech laws? Why should American Muslims not be protected against people insulting their religion? In the end, I think that community (as a series of concentric circles) is important and as much governance needs to be as local as at all possible. This means tolerating all kinds of things we might believe are abuses of rights in our own culture while trusting that other people have the ability to make things work in a basically just way.
  - Vivtek 13y ago
    I think you're conflating nationalism with ... love of community or something. And you're conflating rights with law, I think. I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing, and I'm anything but certain we disagree on any point of substance.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]