My Explanation to Marxist Hacker 42
2005.05.31 12:23

Today I found he is complaining about someone's strange moderation. I would like to explain why his lecture -yes it is beautifully categorically arranged - is moderated not interesting not insightful but 'funny', of course it is not in the least likely to be modded down, that case categorically deniable.

Got that last bit backwards. War is the natural end result of IMPERIALIST NATIONALISM, of which RACISM is a historical subset

This statement is a little bit too generalised and exaggerated though, by and large it's not a wrong assertion as to the wars especially in Europe after Napoleon.

because not so long ago people of different races rarely found their way to become a citizen of another country

Here I found funny assertion. Look at Roman Empire, look at Osman Turky, look at Soviet Union. It was even really rare of any people to have their own country on their only own. There was one dominant people who conquered and many other peoples who were conquered. We had to wait till after the WWI for them to have their own national state.

(heck, less than 500 years ago 90% of the human race lived and died within 10 miles of where they were born).

Even if it's true, still around 10% moved from where they were born. About 500 years ago, it was an age of geographical new findings. People in Europe started moving around the world.

Go back even further, and imperialist nationalism is just tribalism written on a large scale.

Correct.

We've got a couple of million years of evolution wiring us to be culturalist- and for those of relatively low intelligence the most outward sign of culture is race (it isn't for me- but a talk with Red Warrior convinced me that this is yet another way that I'm normal and the rest of the world is strange).

Acceptable.

It's really thanks to that evolution that war and racism happen-

Not a many people can find a certain trait between human evolution and war biased towards racism. So this comment might be insightful. At the same time I have to have you recall the idea you stated is similar to the ones German state scholar 1930's often posited. Biologically speaking you might be right, but also it connotes dangerous currents in human history.

and there are only two real solutions for the problem: 1. Evolve more.

It takes time.

2. Recognize that racism/culturalism/nationalism is a common trait of being human-

These are not a common trait

and design our societies to avoid trade and contact with other cultures.

Nearly impossible.

Interesting, even too interesting.. So someone might find it funny in your comment.

The first is best described by the aim of those worshiping "diversification", the second by those worshiping St. Augustine's Just War theory of never being an invader.

Agreed according to your passage.

Unfortuneately, due to an accident of history that wiped out most of the native population in America, most Americans are of the first- and most of the rest of the world is the second.

?

Every one of our foreign wars can be traced to this basic conflict in philosophy, except for WWI and WWII- where the main force we were fighting against had a perverted combination of the two (invading but not putting up with diversity).

?

Can somebody explain to me how a lecture on human genetics in it's relation to tribalism got moderated FUNNY?!?!?!? I personally thought it was very sad while I was writing it...that here it is the 21st century and we're still stuck to the last 2 million years of evolution....

--Ideas Inform, Relationships Transform

I really couldn't understand your last two passages (the parts I put ? s ). Could you please explain more?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
My Explanation to Marxist Hacker 42 Preferences Top 7 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 7 comments 0: 7 comments 1: 7 comments 2: 4 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
To answer the question marks(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.05.31 12:45 (#12681094) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.27 10:10)
And because I realize you're from Japan, largely a culturally homogenous nation. America isn't. It was at one time, before several thousand waves of immigrants came and killed off an extremely large percentage of the native population. But today- America is made up almost entirely of immigrants who came here as invaders- and destroyers. The majority of wars the United States has been in since then have followed the same theme- slash and burn and destroy native popluations that cause you trouble, because they are somehow less than human.Even today in Afghanistan and Iraq- that is the method of the United States. So while some may find some aspect of my post being funny- in the end result it's a horrific analysis of a culture that has become so hypocritical that it no longer can justify it's actions.--The two chances he had to legally be a dictator under the Constitution- and Bush blew both.
Re:To answer the question marks(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.05.31 13:36 (#12681371) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
Every one of our foreign wars can be traced Every one of our foreign wars can be traced to this basic conflict in philosophy, except for WWI and WWII-
If you except for two world wars, what else wars rest other than two these major wars, independent wars, America-Spanish War, America-Mexican War, Korean War.
where the main force we were fighting against had a perverted combination of the two (invading but not putting up with diversity).
Still this statement remains to be riddle.
I think the essence of war, the cause of war are just hard to be explicable, you clearly did it, and itself is considered very good.. But last conclusion is rather ambiguous or rather too explicit. That would be a funny point.
Please explain more your last passage.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:To answer the question marks(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.06.01 4:15 (#12686673) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.27 10:10)
If you except for two world wars, what else wars rest other than two these major wars, independent wars, America-Spanish War, America-Mexican War, Korean War. The Mexican War (aka the Alamo), the War of 1812 (these two defined the southern and northern borders repectively). The Indian wars. The Philipino Moro War. The invasions of Libya (both times), Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq (both times), Afghanistan, Alaska, Hawaii, Columbia (both times), Brazil, Virgin Islands, Peurto Rico. It's been a repeating motiff- and the really interesting thing that shows the power of the US Military is that many of these "lesser wars" were fought DURING larger conflicts- you mentioned several during the cold war, but the first invasion of Libya was during the War of 1812, the Moro War was caused by the Spanish American War (as were Peurto Rico and the Virgin Islands) and many of the central and southern American invasions were conducted during WWI.where the main force we were fighting against had a perverted combination of the two (invading but not putting up with diversity). In WWI and WWII, the Germans were fighting mainly for racial purity- but the Axis were fighting for land resources. Thus the strange combination of tribalism and expansionism- not tolerating differences from the tribe (culminating in Hitler's Holocaust) but also wanting control over neighboring tribes. Oddly enough- if they had only done the first, they probably would have been left alone. Even America at the time was highly isolationist. But because they attacked others, they forced the rest of the world into war.--The two chances he had to legally be a dictator under the Constitution- and Bush blew both. [ Parent ]
Re:To answer the question marks(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.06.03 2:19 (#12706065) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
Every one of our foreign wars can be traced to this basic conflict in philosophy, except for WWI and WWII- where the main force we were fighting against had a perverted combination of the two (invading but not putting up with diversity).
So the only reasonable deduction from this statement is American had to fight against Treaties(Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey) and Axises(Germany, Italy, Japan) with the combination of the two basic principles without conflicting each other. When the first world war started, the notion of war were said to chage from limited warfare to all out war, so it is understandable of both sides to conduct war just for war. I must add here that the nature of two world wars are a fight over world sovereignty by both sides.
In WWI and WWII, the Germans were fighting mainly for racial purity- but the Axis were fighting for land resources.
In both wars, economic reasons have to be put prior to everything. Germany wanted oilfields off Caspean Sea especially in the case of WWII, let alone expansion of their land. Japan wanted rich oil in Indonesia, too. But I must admit that always their racial prejudices were a strong engine to their aggressions.
Thus the strange combination of tribalism and expansionism- not tolerating differences from the tribe (culminating in Hitler's Holocaust) but also wanting control over neighboring tribes.
This combination is not at all strange. Although there are differences in aggressive or defensive, any people who believed to have got a cultural superiority than other people try to start enhancing their influence at that time especially in military means.
Oddly enough- if they had only done the first, they probably would have been left alone.
In theory it might be possible. We all live in the same sphere, it is unrealistic for any people not to have any relationship with the rest of the world. So
Even America at the time was highly isolationist. But because they attacked others, they forced the rest of the world into war.
In the end, America participated in two WWs, and won the wars.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:To answer the question marks(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.06.03 3:50 (#12706910) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.27 10:10)
This combination is not at all strange. Although there are differences in aggressive or defensive, any people who believed to have got a cultural superiority than other people try to start enhancing their influence at that time especially in military means. To me it's a bit strange. My Kwakiutal ancestors believed in their cultural superiority- but their method of dealing with their neighbors was peacefull trade, and the most agressive they ever got was the potlach- in which two tribes got together in friendly competition to see who could be the most generous (usually to a fault- an extrmely pridefull chief would cost his tribe a few lives the next winter when generosity in trading got out of hand). Racism was not an issue- they knew the difference between culture and race, and when some of your kinsmen became stranded after shipwrecks, they were usually welcomed into the cultures that were here. There's a good deal of Ainu and Nipponese blood in Kwakiutal blood lines due to interbreeding with shipwrecked sailors. I can only think of one case where this was not so, the legend of the treasure at Ne-ah-kah-nie Mountain, and even that they gave the white shipwrecked pirates several years before deciding to drive them out.--The two chances he had to legally be a dictator under the Constitution- and Bush blew both. [ Parent ]
Re:To answer the question marks(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.06.03 4:22 (#12707206) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
The potlach-I used to read about it in a guide book of Levis Strauss (French anthropologist). I think this is also a form of war in peaceful manner. After all they have to show off how they are generous in an excessive manner, that's ludicrous. I think examples you stated rather belong to the exceptions--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:To answer the question marks(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.06.03 7:18 (#12708865) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.27 10:10)
True enough- a chief stupid enough to be that generous wouldn't have a tribe left after a few winters. But it's a heck of a lot better than killing people outright...--The two chances he had to legally be a dictator under the Constitution- and Bush blew both.