Why The Liberal Left Is Dismayed By The Recent Surge In Nationalism

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you don't think "shared humanity" is rational?

Wait, you mean that wasn't a quote from Goebbels?

Be damned.

Do you share humanity with Goebbels?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you don't think "shared humanity" is rational?

Wait, you mean that wasn't a quote from Goebbels?

Be damned.

Do you share humanity with Goebbels?

To my knowledge, Mr. Goebbels is deceased, so no, no shared humanity there.

Since you mention it though, would you compare the egalitarian cries for national unity you were recently praising to be more reminiscent of the Reign of Terror or of the Khmer Rouge?

a reply to: Gryphon66

National as in nation state.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

National as in nation state.

(Well technically I imagine "having to do with a nation state" (National is usually an adjective ...))

So ... back to the topic, Nationalism: Reign of Terror or Khmer Rouge?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you don't think "shared humanity" is rational?

People do not share humanity. So no, I do not think it is rational.

Since people don't share humanity, it's okay to enslave or eliminate the sub-humans, right?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

National as in nation state.

(Well technically I imagine "having to do with a nation state" (National is usually an adjective ...))

So ... back to the topic, Nationalism: Reign of Terror or Khmer Rouge?

Neither.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do you share humanity with Goebbels?

Goebbels was a human being, albeit insane. Had he lived, he would be entitled to the same rights-- and punishments-- as any other human being.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you don't think "shared humanity" is rational?

People do not share humanity. So no, I do not think it is rational.

Since people don't share humanity, it's okay to enslave or eliminate the sub-humans, right?

What sub-humans?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you don't think "shared humanity" is rational?

People do not share humanity. So no, I do not think it is rational.

Since people don't share humanity, it's okay to enslave or eliminate the sub-humans, right?

What sub-humans?

The ones you don't share your humanity with, of course.

a reply to: DJW001

Perhaps you could point to this "humanity" you and I are sharing. Is it a feeling? Is it an idea? Help me to understand.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

National as in nation state.

(Well technically I imagine "having to do with a nation state" (National is usually an adjective ...))

So ... back to the topic, Nationalism: Reign of Terror or Khmer Rouge?

Neither.

On the contrary, both. Both were political movements to unite their respective nations ... that cost untold lives.

Nice side-step though.

a reply to: DJW001

Perhaps you can also demonstrate the "nation" that exists outside of maps and the minds of those who believe in them.

I must have missed all those letters like "United States of America" actually embedded in the soil... those lines carefully drawn across the landscape.

#ludicrosity

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

National as in nation state.

(Well technically I imagine "having to do with a nation state" (National is usually an adjective ...))

So ... back to the topic, Nationalism: Reign of Terror or Khmer Rouge?

Neither.

On the contrary, both. Both were political movements to unite their respective nations ... that cost untold lives.

Nice side-step though.

Khmer wasn't a nation-state. Their brand was an ethnic, not civic nationalism. So not a nation-state. The Khmer Rouge were communists. This is the first time I've heard of the Reign of Terror described as nationalism.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DJW001

Perhaps you can also demonstrate the "nation" that exists outside of maps and the minds of those who believe in them.

I must have missed all those letters like "United States of America" actually embedded in the soil... those lines carefully drawn across the landscape.

#ludicrosity

You've never driven through a border before? I guess it was in your mind.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

National as in nation state.

(Well technically I imagine "having to do with a nation state" (National is usually an adjective ...))

So ... back to the topic, Nationalism: Reign of Terror or Khmer Rouge?

Neither.

On the contrary, both. Both were political movements to unite their respective nations ... that cost untold lives.

Nice side-step though.

Khmer wasn't a nation-state. Their brand was an ethnic, not civic nationalism. So not a nation-state. The Khmer Rouge were communists. This is the first time I've heard of the Reign of Terror described as nationalism.

But Cambodia was "united" under the Khmer Rouge ... and that makes good sense, right?

The French Revolution wasn't about nationalism? That'd be news to the Partisans I would think: ""liberty, equality, fraternity" "for France."

(It's even still the national motto, for goodness sakes.)

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DJW001

Perhaps you can also demonstrate the "nation" that exists outside of maps and the minds of those who believe in them.

I must have missed all those letters like "United States of America" actually embedded in the soil... those lines carefully drawn across the landscape.

#ludicrosity

You've never driven through a border before? I guess it was in your mind.

The border was. The guards and the checkpoint that shared that mental image with me were not.

a reply to: buster2010

That had nothing to do with healthy nationalism.. dont be a fool.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

National as in nation state.

(Well technically I imagine "having to do with a nation state" (National is usually an adjective ...))

So ... back to the topic, Nationalism: Reign of Terror or Khmer Rouge?

Neither.

On the contrary, both. Both were political movements to unite their respective nations ... that cost untold lives.

Nice side-step though.

Khmer wasn't a nation-state. Their brand was an ethnic, not civic nationalism. So not a nation-state. The Khmer Rouge were communists. This is the first time I've heard of the Reign of Terror described as nationalism.

But Cambodia was "united" under the Khmer Rouge ... and that makes good sense, right?

The French Revolution wasn't about nationalism? That'd be news to the Partisans I would think: ""liberty, equality, fraternity" "for France."

(It's even still the national motto, for goodness sakes.)

For one, the Reign of Terror is not the French Revolution, and two, the Khmer Rouge was opposed to a Cambodian nation. The Khmer Rouge fought against Cambodia Ina brutal civil war.

From Wikipedia:

The Khmer Rouge's ideology combined elements of Marxism with an extreme version of Khmer nationalism and xenophobia. It combined an idealization of the Angkor Empire (802–1431), with an existential fear for the existence of the Cambodian state, which had historically been liquidated under Vietnamese and Siamese intervention.[6]

a reply to: Gryphon66

"Every nationalist argues for national purity"

Wrong, you are leading the conversation to the extremes.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Right. The Reign of Terror happened in the American Revolution, right? Pffft.

As as far as what you're trying to sneak past ...

Pol Pot (1925-1998) and his communist Khmer Rouge movement led Cambodia from 1975 to 1979.

1.5 Million people died in the name of Nationalism. (PS, all nationalists are authoritarian including Communists)

History.com