Nationalism

[American]

Looking down at the world from the moral high ground (where I like to spend my afternoons) I notice that many of its problems are either caused by nationalism or made more difficult to solve by nationalism. The idea of drawing lines on maps and assigning absolute sovereignty to the nations thus defined will have to be discarded if humanity is going to have any chance of peace and prosperity (and perhaps survival).

Organisations like the League of Nations and the UN have been attempts to move on from this model, and (not coincidentally) have been created after major conflicts in which nationalism played a major part. But they are fundamentally flawed since they are composed of sovereign nations, and the rulers of sovereign nations are not well-disposed to seeing that sovereignty diluted. If the US decides to act unilaterally against another sovereign nation (which may happen, who knows) the UN is powerless and nations that oppose the action are left with only two options - put up with, or good old military action. Is this where we are in the 21stCE? Must it always be this way - nations lavishing blood and treasure on warfare and living in fear of everybody else's weapons?

Environmental problems of regional or global importance are left to fester as nations follow their own perceived self-interest (as nations are expected to do). Rivers pass through a variety of nations, each concerned only with its own needs and the actions of those upstream (be warned, water wars are going to be a feature of the near future if things don't change). Scientific projects that require multi-national input are halted by arguments about which nation gets to host it. Natural economic zones are disrupted by having national borders running through them.

Nationalism leads to patriotism, which ranks with religion as a means of persuading people to behaviour they would never contemplate in their private lives. While it's an easy trick to persuade young men into "righteous" violence (and there will always be people around who want to do that), why make it easier by regarding patriotism as righteous? It should be consigned to the dustbin of history, like racism and sexism.

I'll mention Israel because it is a particularly egregious example of the damage nationism does, and because I expect to use this thread to absorb a continuing but intermittent debate with the esteemed Cleopatra over the nature of the zionist project. My contention is that the Jewish State was conceived as a nationalist project; Cleopatra feels otherwise.

What the world needs is a new political model. The United States was an experiment in this direction (the Constitution is actually a treaty between sovereign states). The Constitution provides guarantees of certain rights and minimum democratic standards but within those limits states have sovereignty. Citizens of the states can appeal to the centre for protection of their rights and the centre can enforce its decisions. I would like to see a global equivalent, a central authority which enforces standards of human rights but leaves local decisions to local people. This local control could be exercised in nations, where that makes sense, or regions or cities or whatever is rational.

That's all very interesting.

You forgot to mention that the U.S. makes all other nations look pathetic in every area that counts, and even our own allies can't keep up with us.

BOOO-YA!!!

 

[Cleopatra]

Well. I don't know any other National Movement that its adjective has been used and is been used an an insult. "Zionist" is used by many people as an insult and if you find this hyperbolic maybe you should read again the passionate post of a person who lives in Wales.

One phrase from the "Jewish State" is enough for Capel Dodger to debunk a whole movement of people that predates Hertzl.

But there dawns the day that you realize that you are fed up with reading the same old stories and myths , especially in a skeptical forum and you decide to make a list of facts.

I post the table below first for those they think that Zionism means Hertzl. Second for those that believe that Israel sprung from nothing in 1948 , third for those that insist to ignore the historical needs that gave birth to Zionism and its uniqueness in comparison to other nationalistic movements.

Jews are not those who must apologize.

Instead of narrating stories let's talk about the facts here.I will post within the day a Glossary of "jewish terms" I use in my table because I don't wish to leave the explanation of the jewish terms to Capel Dodger and a short bibliography I used in order to create this table. I hope that you will find it interesting.I end the chronology with the year the "Jewish State" was published but I will continue it if I read more fiction in this thread.

A Historical Evolution of Zionism:

<table border="1"><tr><td></td><td>Political Evolution</td><td>Culture, Intellectual Life<td>Evolution of Yishuv</td></td></tr><tr><td>1830
</td><td>-----</td><td>-----</td><td> Waves of immigrating Jews from Magreb arrive in Palestine</td> <tr><td>1839</tr></td><td>Rabbi Yahouda Hai Alkalai( 1798-1878) expresses his ideas regarding the vanity of the "wait and see" policy among the Jews. He migrates in Jerusalem in 1874 </td><td>-----</td><td>------</td><tr><td>1845</tr></td><td> ---- </td><td>Alkalai Publishes Min'hat Yehouda</td><td> ---- </td><tr><td>1851</tr></td><td> ---- </td><td>N.Krochmal, Guide for the Mislead of our times</td><td> ---</td><tr><td>1853</tr></td><td>----</td><td> Publication of the famous jewish roman of Abraham Mapou, Ahavat Zion ( The Love of Zion) 1853-1876. H.Graetz, A History of the Jews ( in 11 volumes)</td><td>----</td><tr><td>1856</tr></td><td>---</td><td> Creation of the newspaper Ha Maggid</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1856</tr></td><td>The hungarian Rabbi Joseph Natonek introduces the proto-zionist activism " Emancipation means suicide"</td><td>Creation of the newspaper HaMelitz</td><td>----</td><tr><td>1860</tr?</td><td>Paris: establishment of the " Allience Isreaelite Universelle" ( Universal Alliance of the Israelites)NOTE: The greek Jews describes themselves until today with the term Israelite</td> <td>---</td><td> Around 1860, La halouka( see the vocabulary) concerne almost the 80% of the residents of Yishuv</td><tr><td>1861</tr></td><td> Creation of the Society for the Collonization by Haim Lorje in Francfort-on-Oder ( Bradenburg-Germany)</td><td>----</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1862</tr></td><td>----</td><td>Moses Hess publishes Rome and Jerusalem</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1863</tr></td><td>----</td><td>Saint Petersburg: Creation of the Society for the promotions of "the instruction" among the Jews by Y.Gordon,L.Pinsker)</td><td>-----</td><tr><td>1865</tr></td><td>London:establishment of the Palestine Exploration Fund</td><td>---</td><td>----</td><tr><td>1868</tr></td><td>----</td><td>Peretz Smolenskin publishes in Vienna the magazine HaShahar in Hebrew--the language that Capel Dodger called artificial</td><td>----</td><tr><td>1869-1870</tr></td><td>Emancipation of the Jews of Prussia</td><td>----</td><td>Establishment of the Agricultural School of Mikveh Israel by the Universal Alliance of the Israelites</td><tr><td>1871</tr></td><td>Emancipation of the Jews in Germany</td><td>---</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1876</tr></td><td>---</td><td> Publication on the first travel guide of Jerusalem in Hebrew--the language that Capel Dodger called artificial</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1877</tr></td><td>Yehouda Leib Gordon publishes the first anonymous brochure that asks for the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine under british sovereignty</td><td>---</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1878</tr></td><td>---</td><td>---</td><td>Establishment of Petah-Tikva(the first permanent settlement for the returning Jews) by the Jews of Jerusalem</td><tr><td>1879</tr></td><td>Establishment of the first society of Mahzikei Ha Das as an opposition to the Haskala( I leave dear CapelDodger to explain the significance of this historical event since he is the one who talked about a total rejection of Zionism in Europe)<td>---</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1881</tr></td><td>

• In April 15 1881: assassination of the Tsar Alexander the II in Elisabethgrad. Initiation of fierce progroms against the Jews that will last for three years.
• Creation of the first groups of the "Lovers of Zion" (the famous Hibbat Zion and Ahavat Zion)

</td><td>---</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1882</tr></td><td>

• January: foundation in Karkhov of the group "BILU"( see glossary)
• Foundation in Vienna by Nathan Birnbaum of the Society friends of Palestine "Kadima"
• First international antisemitic congress in Dresde( Germany)

</td><td> (underlined and bolded for Capel Dodger)starts the publication of a series of 13 volumes under the title Yeroushalaim by A.M.Luncz on the geography of Eretz Israel</td><td>

• The pioneers of BILU arrive in July of 1882 in Palestine.The first Alya( waves of immigrants) of 25.000 people arrive in Palestine. 17 settlements are established.
• Baron Edmond de Rothschild initiates his aid dor the returning Jews of Palestine that continues until 1899

</td><tr><td>1884</tr></td><td>November: First Congress of Hibbat Zion( Lovers of Zion) in Kattowice ( in Austia-Hungary)(whaaaat?? Jews were talking about zionism before evil Hertzl?)</td><td>----</td><td>Foundation of Gedera ( Sorry but I had to post this because I am fed up with the myth of the prosperous Arabs that lost everything when the evil Zionists came in 1948 to erect Hertzl's statue(sic). Name one similar Arabic organization in Palestine during the same period)</td><tr><td>1885</tr></td><td> Nathan Birnbaum launces the newspaper Selbstemanzipation( auto-emancipation--explanation provided upon request)</td><td>---</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1887</tr></td><td> Uh-hoh! Second Congress of Hibbat Zion in Druskieniki (Russia)</td><td>----</td><td>---</td><tr><td>1889</tr></td><td> Uh-hoh! Third Congress de Hibbat Zion( The lovers of Zion) in Vilna</td><td>---</td><td> Establishment of the first Hebrew School in RishonLeZion( Israeli Town)</td><tr><td>1890</tr></td> <td>Legalization of the "Lovers of Zion"( Hebbat Zion) in Russia</td><td>

• Creation in Yishuv ( Palestine) of Va'aad HaLashon( Commitee for the Hebrew language)
• Nathan Birnbaum coins the term Zionism

</td><td>Establishment of the cities of Hadera and Rehovot in the country that today is known as Israel</td><tr><td>1891</tr></td><td>

• Baron Maurice De Hirsch creates the Association for the Jewish Collonization
• Expulsion of the Jews of Moscow

</td><td>---</td><td> First petition of the Arabs of Jerusalem against the jewish immigration</td><tr><td>1892</tr></td><td>---</td><td>

• First school of higher hebrew studies in Haifa
• Publication of the Religious Zionist Collection Shivat Zion( Yeah! It's this book: The Return to Zion)
• First association of the Jewish Professiors of the Hebrew Language

<td>----</td><tr><td>1894</tr></td><td>----</td><td>----</td><td> Ben Yehouda gets arrested in Jerusalem</td><tr><td>1896<td>Vienna, February: Theodor Hertzl : On The Jewish State: Searching for a modern solution to the jewish question"</td><td>----</td><td>----</td></table>


edited ad nauseam for the code....

 

[Chaos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Nationalism

Originally posted by Skeptic
Oh, I dunno. I think someone should put in a good word for the guy who doesn't try and says that an idea is stupid and impossible. He gets all the bad press, but at least doesn't make any trouble. On the other hand, they tried Communism, Fascism, and Islamism, too. These wonderful ideas for a new, perfect world succeeded well enough to ruin the lives of billions of people, in the most literal sense of the world, but that's about it. If only people considered nice but impossible fantasies...

Communism, Fascism and Islamism, as they have been tried and are still tried, are/were basically dictatorships with a framework around it - economic and social for Communism, social for Fascism, and religious for Islamism. (By the way, I can show exactly how the premises from which Marx developed the ideas that were to become Communism are wrong - if you are interested)
The idea of a world community would be, basically, a democracy with a social, and perhaps economical, framework - much like the Constitution was. It would be on a much larger scale, of course, but given the advances in travel, information technology etc, I think the world is much better equipped to handle that than the USA was back then.

Yes, but again--you first. When your country gives up its national identity, flag, history, capital, etc., etc., etc., in the name of anti-nationalism, and it all works out just fine, then you'd have a case. No fair being generous and trying to give the benefits of non-nationalism to others before you do it yourself.

One moment... I said nothing about giving up "national identity, flag, history, capital etc. etc. etc."
Nobody is giving up - or taking away - any history. We´re not doing Stalinist (or Nazi) revisions of history. Capitals will remain, if for no other thing than as administration centers - much like the state capitals in the US.
What you - and I and everyone else - should give up is the sense that it is good, and something to be proud of, to belong to nation/country/ethnic group X, and that other groups just can´t be our equals, and that because we want to do something, we have a right to do it.
As for me, personally, I might well be the least patriotic person on the board. I am not proud to be a German - which has nothing to do with the Nazi era and its legacy; I just don´t see a reason why I should be proud of having been - by pure chance - into this nation instead of some other. If I feel the need to be proud of something, I look at my own achievements, not those of 80 million others, most of whom I don´t even know - not to mention the hundreds of millions of Germans who lived before me. For me nationalism is just a tool that rulers use to make people do things that, deciding reasonably, they would never do. (Imagine what might have been if in 1914, the people of Europe would have told their governments: "There´s no way WE are going to fight YOUR war. If you want war, well, here´s a rifle, the front is in this direction. Have fun.")

 

[Cleopatra]

A language had to be invented for it. It wasn't created where its designers had ever lived but on a different continent, in a different climate, amongst people - Jewish, Chriatian and Muslim -who had no affinity with the designers. In a land where the olive has been the mainstay of life for five thousand years its determination is to grub up every last tree. Just how much more artificial could it be? It's supposed to be a Jewish State, but it was only made possible by Christian Zionists who want shot of Jews. It claims to be the saviour of Jewishness but it has corrupted Jewishness to fit a European secular ideology and calls believers in traditional Jewishness "self-hating" (a particularly vicious term, since it gives licence to zionists to hate them in turn.) It co-operated with the Nazis to break the world-wide boycott of German goods, then calls critics Nazis. It has created a new state religion based on nationalism to replace the religion is claims as its justification.

You have nothing to say and you're saying it too loud.

I will try to overlook the emotional part of this ( no I won't characterize it with the word that comes to my mind) and I will try to address some issues.

The jewish language has always been a problem for the jews all around the world. The language was preserved thanks to the Torah. This is how the Greek language survived the 4 centuries of the Ottoman Occupation BTW; children were learning Greek from the Bible.

As far as I know Jews were the only group on the planet that have been accused for speaking Hebrew that only them understood in order that it's easier for them to conspire against the world and this is the reason why the Haskala movement proposed that Jews should abandon the language of their ancestors, for their safety.

If you are prejudiced you can say that Hebrew is an artificial language.It was revived by Ben Yehuda in 19th ce , even before the publication of the "Jewish State".

I found amusing the accusation that the borders of Israel were artificial. Really? This appears really exceptional to me. Do you know any other countries that have artificial borders? One of the things that Greece and Israel have in common is that they have been created by Christian Zionists, your ancestors Capel Dodger, who happen to have created every State in Europe, Africa and Middle East as well so I really miss your point here.

We have discussed the issue of the Zionist leaders who met the Nazis at least twice in this forum but I see that you have made some progress here. You have changed your previous claims that "Zionists claimed that they broke the boycott of the German products and in reality they have done nothing of sort " to "they co-operated with the Nazis to break the world-wide boycott of German goods". Zionist leaders have met the Nazis twice but the Nazis in the most characteristic way allowed the Jews to go everywhere but in Palestine. If you consider that nobody could foresee the extend of the genocide I find dishonest ( to say the least) to suggest that Zionists are in any way responsible for it.

But let us return to Hertzl....

 

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:

It was never my intention to confine the discussion to Herzl, or claim that zionism - even nationalist zionism - started with Herzl's book. The Jewish State was influential, and it was Herzl who organised the First Zionist Congress. And it seems to me important to point out that Herzl did not predict a Holocaust or anything like it. His motivations were different, and principally nationalist.

There is more than one type of zionism, and the zionism of Herzl is better described as nationalist zionism, but that's a rather clumsy phrase to keep repeating. The formulation "Nat-Zi" is obviously problematic so I'm just using "zionism". It was this form of zionism that led to the creation of Israel. The older non-nationalist zionists had no ambition to set up a Jewish State and expel the existing inhabitants, rather they expected to live amongst them until the coming of the Kingdom of God. It was an optimistic century.

Nationalist Zionism, the re-conquest of the Holy Land, cropped up occasionally in the 19thCE but was regarded as weird and gained no momentum. It was only after the assassination of Tsar Alexander II and the pogroms initiated under the reactionary Alexander III that nationalist zionism was turned to by serious people in Russia. Without that assassination Israel would never have been created. The idea still had no impact in the West, who regarded Russia as backward anyway. The expectation was that Russia would follow thw West in time, and that, in Herzl's words, "the equal rights of Jews before the law cannot be withdrawn where they have once been conceded".

Hebrew fell out of use a very long time ago and only survived as an archaic religious language, much like Latin in the Catholic Church. It was deliberately revived and modernised, not least by Asher Ginsberg (a zionist) who was of the opinion, at the end of the 19thCE, that modern Hebrew was not then ready for use as a national language. HaShahar may have been published in Hebrew, but there are magazines published in Esperanto.

Rabbi Judah Alkalai was far from the mainstream and, as I recall, lobbied for the British to take over the Holy Land and enable the return of the Jews, which would in turn usher in the Kingdom of God (quite the opposite of normal Judaism). How Jews were to be made to return I don't know; perhaps he thought the British could help there too. Whether he advocated Jewish sovereignty I don't know. (I only know of him from British history - the Great Game and the Turkish Question overlap with zionism at quite a few points.)

It seems likely that Rabbi Joseph Natonek's aphorism " Emancipation means suicide" refers not to personal suicide but to the loss of Jewish identity, which I assume he was against. It would, after all, put him out of a job. If Jewishness dies out because people aren't interested in it any more, that's their business. I rather think the Rabbi didn't want his flock having, or at least exercising, that option.

This thread is about nationalism, so it's nationalist zionism I'll be referring to. I'll just finish this piece with a quote from The Siege by Conor Cruise O'Brien:

Herzl's challenge to the rabbis [was]: tough, sardonic, neat, concise, funny and a little unfair - and by that combination maddening to the adversary, and meant to be so.

So who's going to do that version of your avatar?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Capeldodger:

Defining nationalism is a problem in itself. Where is the divide between nationalism and tribalism?

Good question. Originally, I think it is fair to say that nationalism was a development of tribalism.

One question is whether tribalism is genetic. I don't know, but I doubt it. And if it is not genetic it can certainly be done away with.

I think it is time to do away with it. There is no a priori reason why someone born in coordinates (x,y) should be subjected to fewer basic "rights" than someone born in coordinates (w,z). He should be free to travel where he wants and to interact whith who he wants.

One World Government Now!

The UN is a very limited step in that direction, but it doesn't go anywhere near far enough. In fact, it consecrates the existence of national entities.

What we need is a One World Government, possibly even based on the US Constitution (to pacify our American righties ).

Kindly be aware that I'm not arguing for the PaxAmericana, just for the withering away of nationalism.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Chaos:

As for me, personally, I might well be the least patriotic person on the board.

Not while I'm alive you ain't. Let's call it level, since I'm in agreement with every point you make. It's almost spooky.

There's a verse by Rudyard Kipling (patriot and imperialist, but by no means stupid)

It's "Tommy this", and "Tommy that",
And "Tommy, here's my boot".
But it's "Tommy you're a hero"
When the guns begin to shoot.

which sums up patriotism for me. At least you can get to be a hero, because you're going to get bugger-all else.

 

[Grammatron]

Capeldodger:Good question. Originally, I think it is fair to say that nationalism was a development of tribalism.

One question is whether tribalism is genetic. I don't know, but I doubt it. And if it is not genetic it can certainly be done away with.

I think it is time to do away with it. There is no a priori reason why someone born in coordinates (x,y) should be subjected to fewer basic "rights" than someone born in coordinates (w,z). He should be free to travel where he wants and to interact whith who he wants.

One World Government Now!

The UN is a very limited step in that direction, but it doesn't go anywhere near far enough. In fact, it consecrates the existence of national entities.

What we need is a One World Government, possibly even based on the US Constitution (to pacify our American righties ).

Kindly be aware that I'm not arguing for the PaxAmericana, just for the withering away of nationalism.

What happens if one or more countries do not agree to be a part of this OWG?

 

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It was never my intention to confine the discussion to Herzl, or claim that zionism - even nationalist zionism - started with Herzl's book. The Jewish State was influential, and it was Herzl who organised the First Zionist Congress. And it seems to me important to point out that Herzl did not predict a Holocaust or anything like it. His motivations were different, and principally nationalist.

First of all I don't know why you keep mentioning that Hertzl had not predicted the Holocaust. Who has claimed the opposite. As my table demonstrates the first jewish Congress was not really the first.

The formulation "Nat-Zi" is obviously problematic so I'm just using "zionism".

I wish you haven't posted this Capel Dodger.

It was this form of zionism that led to the creation of Israel. The older non-nationalist zionists had no ambition to set up a Jewish State and expel the existing inhabitants, rather they expected to live amongst them until the coming of the Kingdom of God. It was an optimistic century.

No things are not like that as the table above demonstrates I am sorry.

Nationalist Zionism, the re-conquest of the Holy Land, cropped up occasionally in the 19thCE but was regarded as weird and gained no momentum. It was only after the assassination of Tsar Alexander II and the pogroms initiated under the reactionary Alexander III that nationalist zionism was turned to by serious people in Russia. Without that assassination Israel would never have been created. The idea still had no impact in the West, who regarded Russia as backward anyway. The expectation was that Russia would follow thw West in time, and that, in Herzl's words, "the equal rights of Jews before the law cannot be withdrawn where they have once been conceded".

You know how I feel about hypothesis that concern the past. This is called historical anachronism and it is a fallacy. I'd say that it was the Holocaust the turning point.

Hebrew fell out of use a very long time ago and only survived as an archaic religious language, much like Latin in the Catholic Church. It was deliberately revived and modernised, not least by Asher Ginsberg (a zionist) who was of the opinion, at the end of the 19thCE, that modern Hebrew was not then ready for use as a national language.

And has this happened only with Hebrew, right?

HaShahar may have been published in Hebrew, but there are magazines published in Esperanto.

And others in Ladino, newpapers were published in Hebrew and this means a lot that's why I mentioned it.

It seems likely that Rabbi Joseph Natonek's aphorism " Emancipation means suicide" refers not to personal suicide but to the loss of Jewish identity, which I assume he was against. It would, after all, put him out of a job. If Jewishness dies out because people aren't interested in it any more, that's their business. I rather think the Rabbi didn't want his flock having, or at least exercising, that option.

You try to trace his true motives that are not the point here. I agree with you but this is not the point. The point that you pretend you don't see is that Zionism and the wish to return to Israel was alive long before Herztl.

So who's going to do that version of your avatar?

Good question. Here is somebody I would like to create that version of my avatar:The author of The True-Born Englishman, Defoe ( I think)

While ev'ry nation that her powers reduced,
Their languages and manners introduced;
From whose mix'd relics our compounded breed;
By spurious generation does succeed;
Making a race uncertain and uneven,
Derived from all the nations under heaven.

Make my day now. Tell me that you are not English but Welsh.

edited to add:I found the reference: D.Defoe,The True-Born Englishman in Works,London 1871. I learned it from a Scot who has gone as far as composing odes for Hertzl. Odes, libels ...sometimes the motives are the same.

 

[DanishDynamite]

What happens if one or more countries do not agree to be a part of this OWG?

There would be no countries. They would be as passe as city-states.

[Edited six million times]

 

[Grammatron]

There would be no countries. They would be as passe city-states.

Let's say Turkey and Mongolia -- to pick two random countries -- refuse to have anything to do with OWG even to be city states, how does that affect them?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Let's say Turkey and Mongolia -- to pick two random countries -- refuse to have anything to do with OWG even to be city states, how does that affect them?

Ah, now you are asking for the operational plan. Short answer, I don't have one. Longer answer, look at what the EU is doing. A few months ago 10 new countries willingly joined the EU. An EU constitution is in the works.

Despite my lack of an operational plan, do you agree with the basic goal?

 

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Despite my lack of an operational plan, do you agree with the basic goal?

Of course not because it overlooks the very nature and the essence of nationalism.

Nationalism basically springs from the need of the people to define themselves. It might not be necessary for you (although your avatar and your nickname suggest otherwise) but millions of people disagree with you.How do you plan to persuade every single individual or the opinion of every single individual doesn't count? Also, correct me if I am wrong about I thought that you were against the European Constitution.

And although I know how Capel Dodger composes at least half of his posts this came as a surprize from you.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Of course not because it overlooks the very nature and the essence of nationalism.

Nationalism basically springs from the need of the people to define themselves. It might not be necessary for you (although your avatar and your nickname suggest otherwise) but millions of people disagree with you.

I have no problem with people defining themselves based on where they were born. Look at the US where there is quite a bit of regional identity. Someone from the South is different in his identity to someone from the North. They still have the same basic rights, though.

How do you plan to persuade every single individual or the opinion of every single individual doesn't count?

Make it worth their while. Why do you think 10 new countries just willingly signed up to the EU?

Also, correct me if I am wrong about I thought that you were against the European Constitution.

I was against several parts of it, yes. I'm also against a lot of other stuff about the EU administration, such as it's lack of transparancy and democracy.

And although I know how Capel Dodger composes at least half of his posts this came as a surprize from you.

Glad I can still surprise you, wifey.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite:
Make it worth their while. Why do you think 10 new countries just willingly signed up to the EU?

Handouts?

Why do you think that two of Europe's richest and most stable countries, Norway and Switzerland, continue to stay out?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Handouts?

Possibly. The bottom line is that they joined willingly.

Why do you think that two of Europe's richest and most stable countries, Norway and Switzerland, continue to stay out?

Historical reasons and the fact of their very success. They are so succesful that the entisements aren't appetizing enough.

 

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:

I will try to overlook the emotional part ...

I'm disappointed you see it that way, I was trying to be ice-cold. I was, after all, making what will probably be my only reply to Skeptic.

The jewish language has always been a problem for the jews all around the world. The language was preserved thanks to the Torah. This is how the Greek language survived the 4 centuries of the Ottoman Occupation BTW; children were learning Greek from the Bible.

Welsh survived more or less as a biblical language (the bible was tanslated in 1588, the use of Welsh having been legalised by Henry Twdr). Even into the 1920's it was banned in schools, and a child heard speaking Welsh would be required to wear a placard, the "Welsh Not" ("This Child Spoke Welsh"). They would wear it until they heard and snitched on another child speaking Welsh, at which point the placard was transferred. Whoever was wearing it at the end of the day got a beating. It was all for their own good, of course; Welsh would get them nowhere in the wider world. More recently, research indicates that a bi-lingual upbringing correlates with higher intellectual and social attainment in general, but how sound it is I don't know.

As far as I know Jews were the only group on the planet that have been accused for speaking Hebrew that only them understood in order that it's easier for them to conspire against the world and this is the reason why the Haskala movement proposed that Jews should abandon the language of their ancestors, for their safety.

You're missing out on a lot. It's a common urban myth amongst the English that the Welsh only speak their language when there are English people around. When I say common, if you mention that you're born in Wales across any dining-table in England someone will bring this up. How they know what language people speak when they're not there I don't know, but often ask. Why they think that Welsh-speaking people with their Welsh-speaking friends wouldn't be speaking Welsh is also an unsolved mystery. The English are an unsolved mystery.

Catalan, Breton and Basque have probably had the same sort of problem.

Cockney rhyming slang, which evolves rapidly in its homeland, is intended to be incomprehensible. The authorities (and particularly the filth (police) which isn't rhyming slang and is meant to be understood) were seldom local. Cockney language and culture also has a lot of Yiddish and Jewishness in them, by the way. I gather the same can be said for New York.

Anyhoo, Hebrew was not a living language even in Jeebus's days, and what people were complaning about was more likely Yiddish. Welsh was revivied in the mid-19thCE, as were the Gaelic, Breton, Hebrew and others as a result of the nationalist ideas that were pervading European philosophy at the time. The whole Druidic pageant you see in Wales and Cornwall and Stonehedge was entirely invented in the 19thCE.

I found amusing the accusation that the borders of Israel were artificial.

I wouldn't say that. I distinctly remember recently laying out my reading of the rational borders of the region - the Sinai in the South, the Jordan Valley in the east (the valley, not the river) and the Lebanese hills in the north. Eretz Israel is a commonly used term for it. It has a historic continuity as a recognised region because it is so rational.

I was pointing to the artificiality of a nation created, not where the creators actually lived (as other nations were), or even in the same climate (like German colonies in the Ukraine) but in a different continent, with a completely different history and culture. The zionists may have been capable of understanding the culture, but they made no effort to. It was, to them, a backward culture, incapable of forming nations and therefore full of "natives" who could be played with by "advanced", nation-building, European peoples. Which esteemed company European Jews were going to join - thereby no longer being "natives" themselves but worthy of respect. Respect from the only people that mattered, of course - other "advanced" Europeans.

... your ancestors ...

I repeat, I claim nothing from my ancestors, neither their triumphs not their tribulations. You can't silence me by claiming that I have no right to comment because of my ancestry - which, remember, you know little or nothing about. You can't even silence me with the Curse of the Cat - I'll go down screaming and spitting and haunt you with the rattling of chains and the bumps in the night and the "Woo ... Wooo...". (You'd be right to suspect, from my boldness, that I've recruited a few Druids to my side.)

 

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:

If you consider that nobody could foresee the extend of the genocide I find dishonest ( to say the least) to suggest that Zionists are in any way responsible for it.

Assuming that you consider that nobody could foresee the Holocaust, what persuades you that the zionist movement of the 1880's on was based on a fear of such persecution? As I pointed out, Herzl claimed that zionism created no dangers for Jews because the argument of the majority of Jewish thinkers and commentators was that it did. Whether or not zionism harmed the interests of European Jews in practice, Herzl and his like were prepared to do that harm in the furtherance of their nationalist dream. They weren't interested in Jewish people, they were interested in The Jewish People, a transcendent ideal beside which (in the eyes of such people) individuals mean nothing. This is what makes nationalism - like religion - so damaging, the reduction of the individual, the dismissal of the actual death, the actual injury, the actual eviction in terror in the night as the bullets, bombs and bulldozers of the nationalists grind up the valley. The actual damage in the name of romantic fantasy.

I'm agin it.

 

[Cleopatra]

Ok one last for tonight.

Welsh survived more or less as a biblical language (the bible was tanslated in 1588, the use of Welsh having been legalised by Henry Twdr). Even into the 1920's it was banned in schools, and a child heard speaking Welsh would be required to wear a placard, the "Welsh Not" ("This Child Spoke Welsh"). They would wear it until they heard and snitched on another child speaking Welsh, at which point the placard was transferred. Whoever was wearing it at the end of the day got a beating. It was all for their own good, of course; Welsh would get them nowhere in the wider world.

Yes I know that and the funny thing is that I learned those things by an Israeli friend who is married with a welsh. Poor man.

More recently, research indicates that a bi-lingual upbringing correlates with higher intellectual and social attainment in general, but how sound it is I don't know.

I grew up learning three languages but in a house that at least five different languages were spoken.

You're missing out on a lot. It's a common urban myth amongst the English that the Welsh only speak their language when there are English people around. When I say common, if you mention that you're born in Wales across any dining-table in England someone will bring this up.

Ok Ok. I accept that.

Anyhoo, Hebrew was not a living language even in Jeebus's days, and what people were complaning about was more likely Yiddish. Welsh was revivied in the mid-19thCE, as were the Gaelic, Breton, Hebrew and others as a result of the nationalist ideas that were pervading European philosophy at the time. The whole Druidic pageant you see in Wales and Cornwall and Stonehedge was entirely invented in the 19thCE.

You come to my words now Capel Dodger. The case of Israel is not exceptional but rather common.

I was pointing to the artificiality of a nation created, not where the creators actually lived (as other nations were), or even in the same climate (like German colonies in the Ukraine) but in a different continent, with a completely different history and culture. The zionists may have been capable of understanding the culture, but they made no effort to. It was, to them, a backward culture, incapable of forming nations and therefore full of "natives" who could be played with by "advanced", nation-building, European peoples. Which esteemed company European Jews were going to join - thereby no longer being "natives" themselves but worthy of respect. Respect from the only people that mattered, of course - other "advanced" Europeans.

Capel Dodger things are not even that simple. Sefardic Jews considered Askenazis barbarians and saukraut eaters. You wouldn't want to know what my grandmother said about zionists and Askenazis but the point is elsewhere, you know it very well.The point is that people were sent there.

You can't even silence me with the Curse of the Cat - I'll go down screaming and spitting and haunt you with the rattling of chains and the bumps in the night and the "Woo ... Wooo...". (You'd be right to suspect, from my boldness, that I've recruited a few Druids to my side.)

The curse of the cat wouldn't work on you Capel Dodger because you can charm even the cats I don't trust them when you are around. I have more powerful weapons for cases like yours...

 

[CapelDodger]

from DanishDynamite:

One question is whether tribalism is genetic. I don't know, but I doubt it.

I disagree. We are mostly monkey, when you come down to it. Chimps and gibbons are tribal. Other great apes not so much, admittedly, but then they are rather "great" and require a lot of territory each. Tribalism, I think, is a reflection of the human state-of-nature, which has been our species' experience for far longer than our civilized days. But tribalism doesn't have to be about a genetic group, it can be about sport or work or music or whatever. It doesn't have to be confrontational. Fundamentally, we have to learn to understand our true nature and work with it (rather than exploiting it).

There would be no countries. They would be as passe as city-states.

Again ... I like city-states. Like tribes, they're on a human scale. Nations aren't. It's hard to fool people about what the tribe's interests are, but easy to fool them over national interests (which generally turn out to be the perceived interests of a wealthy minority). I like the idea of a world of city-states and regions, with a central guaranteeing authority. Great Cities like New York, Singapore, London, Kabul, Shanghai, Cairo, Salonika, Moskva, cities with real histories and rationales.

Ah, now you are asking for the operational plan. Short answer, I don't have one.

Good answer, me neither. I'm indulging in blue skies thinking. Exactly how we get the Mongolians on board is too much of a distraction. But I'm not against letting the US bug out, considering the crap-pile they're racing towards. We can let the seceding bits join in separately.