You are, as I have said all along, right to celebrate the achievements of Canadians. You are also right, to a degree, to be proud of the achievements of the human race - one of the greatest of which IMNSHO would be to confine nationalism and other forms of tribalism to the dustbin of history. What is wrong is to feel pride for the achievements of any group unless you yourself directly contributed to those achievements.Manofnofaith wrote:Complete and absolute nonsense. I have provided an explanation for why tribalistic behaviour occurs, not a blanket endorsement of any kind of it. I have no idea how you go from A to sea urchin unless you are being dleiberately obtuse.Xamonas Chegwé wrote:You have once again presented an argument for any form of tribalistic behaviour.
My wording was a little inaccurate. That statement should read, "You have once again presented an argument that applies equally well to any form of tribalistic behaviour." I did not intend to imply that you were 'for' nationalism in the sense that you were endorsing it, which sense you have just argued against. I also believe that you knew that and deliberately twisted my, admittedly badly chosen, words. Naughty.
Now, I'd rather not have to say this, Xamonas, but that really is spectacularly absurd. Canada isn't based on a cult of racial superiority, apocalyptic destruction of supposed undesireable elements, extreme central governmental control, and bloody military conquest. That is just such a fucking stupid comparison that you should apologise to the Canadians on this board for that slanderous comparison. Yes, nationalism can be a source of great stupidity and evil. So can kitchen knives. The possible negative aspects of each are directed by conscious choice. Now, you're a smart guy generally, Xamonas, and I like you most of the time, so I'd really rather not be this hard on you, but this Canada-Nazis comparison is bunk on an industrial scale, and it is extremely insulting and offensive. You don't pull out the N-word unless it's for good reason, not as some petty rabbit-out-of-the-hat-trick to win some bizarre argument about how people shouldn't have group identity.Xamonas Chegwé wrote: Wouldn't you defend Aryan supremacists as readily? Surely they are only identifying themselves with a group - stupidly so in most opinions? Your claims of great achievements by Canadians - which you use to justify your nationalism - are directly analogous to the claims of great achievements by Aryans used by the nazis.
The comparison was not absurd. It also most definitely DID NOT compare Canada to nazi Germany in any sense except that similar arguments can be - and have been - used for both forms of group identity. Once again, you have deliberately (I give you credit for not doing so out of stupidity) twisted my words in order to attack something other than my actual argument - a strawman in other words.
Xamonas Chegwé wrote:What difference does it make that your tribalism is delimited by geographical boundaries and not racial ones?
Because my tribalism isn't based on the Fraser river or Baffin Island. It's about the sociological construct that inhabits the area containing those things, not the area itself.
OK. What difference does it make that your tribalism is delimited by those that live under the same sociological construct and not racial ones? My question is equally valid and still unanswered.
You mention society, but society is itself a kind of tribalism, in how it is composed of different parts, eg. teachers, etc, and how the society of any particular country relates to the outside world. It matters how that tribalism is expressed, but if we reject tribalism or herd it in somehow, as you seem to be saying, then how can we even have society?Xamonas Chegwé wrote:My argument is that we should be able to recognise our nationalistic, racist and similar impulses as a throwback to a harsher time - not something that is relevant in today's global, multi-cultural society. In exactly the same way as the tribal war gods of Arab goat-herders no longer have a place.
I mentioned human society as a whole. If you wish to call this species tribalism, that is up to you. However, how can reigning in national tribalism imply that we cannot have a global, human society. Once again, you are not arguing against the words I said, but against a twisted strawman that you have built from them. I see a pattern emerging here.
You offer the typical horror stories in any lay criticism of Nationalism, but it isn't all extremes. I love Canada, and I think it's the best country in the world in a lot of ways, but I wouldn't say that it's somehow more deserving than other countries, or that Canadians are inherently or always better than people in other countries. And I readily admit it's pretty fucking far from perfect. I don't think of it as some Idol to be mindlessly worshipped. I could only ever believe in a reasoned, civil Nationalism, and I abhor jingoism as an automatic and unthinking reflex, and the impulse to sneer at other people from other places on the broadest basis. Now that doesn't mean we can't take the piss out of each other on other issues, but when we use it as an opportunity to beat up on others for no real reason I think that's disgusting. Hence the post that started this thread, but that was a reaction to what I considered a rude thing to say, and mainly a joke, said to explain that I take offense at that kind of thing.
Lay criticism? As opposed to? Are you claiming some kind of nationalistic holy orders here?
I have never been arguing only against the extremes of nationalism. I oppose the very idea of nationalism. Of tribalism of any kind. I have also never claimed that your particular brand of nationalism is in any way extreme. In fact, I am sure that it isn't. More strawmen I'm afraid - watch them fall.
I recognise no sacred cows - either my own, or those of others. I see no more reason not to criticise or joke about your country than I do not to criticise or joke about your religion, choice of clothing, hair style or musical tastes. I extend a similar privilege to you and to everyone else here - as long as it is good-natured, any joke is fair game - only if it is deliberately intended to hurt or belittle does it cease to be so IMO.
The comment that you objected to in such strong words and which started this whole debate was couched in the most gentle, almost apologetic terms. RPizzle meant no personal insult to either you or any other Canadian. He was merely making a harmless reference which in no way deserved your tirade against him (in the person of "someone that actually said that.")
And for the record, I think that if we have some out of this century pretty well as a civilization(the whole world), we will have resolved to a high degree most of the problems that will have been a possible source of conflict and bloodshed, and nationalism will by then be irrelevant. Until then, however, I will settle for us Canadians celebrating and being proud of our heritage and achievements, and acting with reason, justice, and mutual deserved repect between Nations on the world stage.
I really enjoyed watching Andy Murray play and win at Wimbledon today. I was extremely pleased at the way he played and by the result. (I also enjoyed the spectacular dives of Robert Kendrick, who was a tough opponent.) However, I take no pride in his victory. I had no part in it other than watching it on my sofa, so what so I have to be proud of - the fact that the guy I wanted to win, did win? The fact that he is British certainly contributed to the fact that I follow his career more closely than others and wish him success. But the fact is, I am no more proud of the fact that we are both deemed British than I am of the fact that we have the same birthday (true.)
Okay, I really dont, but it never mattered to me what I was and where I was from. 
I knew you had it in you to be friendly and I wasn't that upset with you at all, 99% of this was illustrative of what I don't like to see on the forum. Your robust debating style, rather like Meeky's, are what I would say were at the very edges of the forums desired flavour.
