Thread: Skin colour, religion and nationality are as important as they ever were.

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

I suggest some of you stop pointing your freaking fingers at the USA and just admit the simple truth that "killing sucks." Blame never leads to solutions; it just leads to more difficulties.

I think the OP had the U.K. in mind (and the U.S.) when making his or her comments about the British PM. The U.S. led war in Afghanistan and Iraq have been international efforts of a coalition of nations. The U.K. has given up the lives of its own citizens supporting her long time and close ally the United States of America. Some of those famous cave battles in Afghanistan portrayed by the U.S. media as U.S. special forces engaging Taliban were actually British SAS fighters and not U.S. special ops.

From what I've read the French even deployed the French Foreign Legion early in the invasion of Afghanistan to take point, and lead U.S. forces into the Mountainous regions of that country. That's what I've read but I'm not sure how true it is.

Kris's comment about the U.S. media not reporting on the civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan with the same sympathy it does a relative few American military casualties is a worthwhile point and observation. It is rooted in nationalistic feelings and perhaps the medias goal to support the U.S. Government in its war efforts. Iraq and Afghanistan have become an "American story" just like Vietnam did. At least a million Vietnamese were killed by Americans compared to the roughly 50,000 Americans killed in Southeast Asia (Vietnam and her neighbors).

And bear in mind even during the Vietnam War the U.S. had help from other nations. South Korean fighters were in Vietnam and so were Australian fighters - all helping the U.S. and it's ally South Vietnam. Prior to that the French were in Vietnam and were being backed financially and with intelligence and military advisers. This is an example of U.S. involvement in what is termed "neo-colonialism." And even before the French were the Chinese in Vietnam - operating as colonial as any of the European nations that planted their flags around the world.

But I don't really have enough knowledge to say which is better or worse: empire or neo-colonialism. With my limited knowledge on both I would say they both have their pros and cons. Both are exploitative to be sure. On one hand empire provides a greater commitment to at least the social and cultural development in a nation (the French left some positive, noteworthy institutions in Vietnam or "Indo-China"). What is left of Liberia that theoretically should model the United States? On the other hand neo-colonialism disrupts less of the indigenous culture in a nation. Latin America remained culturally Latin America even though U.S. backed puppets selling out their nation and country men implemented liberal economic policies that benefited the U.S. with inexpensive goods.

You might think of Moorish Spain. It was invasion and colonization of another people. It's only gloried because it suits the purposes of the enemies of Catholicism (and to a lesser extent those prejudiced against the Spanish). The Amerindians would have done well to expel the white man like the Spanish did the Moorish. That's why you still have white women in Spain like Penelope Cruz even though her sister Monica Cruz looks like she could be a mestizo Mexicans biological sister.

In Mexico had the Spanish remained in power they might be the equivalent of a Western European country today if not an approximate equal of the United States of America. A Moorish Spain if you will. Mexico was once one of the great success stories of the "New World" and the United States looked less cultured. This does not suit the agenda of those both anti-Spanish and anti-Catholic, so, the impression intentionally give is that Mexico only got better after the Creoles and latter the mestizos took over. Not so.

I digress though.

One of the best nations - in my opinion - was that of Thailand some centuries ago. I regard it as better than Rome, Egypt, Spain, England, China and whatever...

The Thai unlike their Khmer neighbors did not practice slavery. Consequently, Thai means "free people," and Thailand means "Land of the Free." This was long before the U.S. came into existence.

The Inca civilization was impressive too, but I think the Jesuit reductions were probably even better. At least from what little I know about the two.

But it is those nations that crush others like ancient Rome that we celebrate in song and story. Thailand and the reductions are swept under the rug.

The United States of America, like all other countries, has enough skeletons in its closet to satisfy a pound filled with wild dogs. But, how funny it is to hear those who despise America and who hide behind their intellect demonize the USA when their own countries fared no better. That is hypocrisy in its highest degree.

Thailand. I have a small letter opener that I found in Chinatown (NYC) years ago. Stamped on the small curved blade are the words: Made in Siam. It's one of my prized possessions.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

I think the OP had the U.K. in mind (and the U.S.) when making his or her comments about the British PM. The U.S. led war in Afghanistan and Iraq have been international efforts of a coalition of nations. The U.K. has given up the lives of its own citizens supporting her long time and close ally the United States of America. Some of those famous cave battles in Afghanistan portrayed by the U.S. media as U.S. special forces engaging Taliban were actually British SAS fighters and not U.S. special ops.

From what I've read the French even deployed the French Foreign Legion early in the invasion of Afghanistan to take point, and lead U.S. forces into the Mountainous regions of that country. That's what I've read but I'm not sure how true it is.

Kris's comment about the U.S. media not reporting on the civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan with the same sympathy it does a relative few American military casualties is a worthwhile point and observation. It is rooted in nationalistic feelings and perhaps the medias goal to support the U.S. Government in its war efforts. Iraq and Afghanistan have become an "American story" just like Vietnam did. At least a million Vietnamese were killed by Americans compared to the roughly 50,000 Americans killed in Southeast Asia (Vietnam and her neighbors).

And bear in mind even during the Vietnam War the U.S. had help from other nations. South Korean fighters were in Vietnam and so were Australian fighters - all helping the U.S. and it's ally South Vietnam. Prior to that the French were in Vietnam and were being backed financially and with intelligence and military advisers. This is an example of U.S. involvement in what is termed "neo-colonialism." And even before the French were the Chinese in Vietnam - operating as colonial as any of the European nations that planted their flags around the world.

But I don't really have enough knowledge to say which is better or worse: empire or neo-colonialism. With my limited knowledge on both I would say they both have their pros and cons. Both are exploitative to be sure. On one hand empire provides a greater commitment to at least the social and cultural development in a nation (the French left some positive, noteworthy institutions in Vietnam or "Indo-China"). What is left of Liberia that theoretically should model the United States? On the other hand neo-colonialism disrupts less of the indigenous culture in a nation. Latin America remained culturally Latin America even though U.S. backed puppets selling out their nation and country men implemented liberal economic policies that benefited the U.S. with inexpensive goods.

You might think of Moorish Spain. It was invasion and colonization of another people. It's only gloried because it suits the purposes of the enemies of Catholicism (and to a lesser extent those prejudiced against the Spanish). The Amerindians would have done well to expel the white man like the Spanish did the Moorish. That's why you still have white women in Spain like Penelope Cruz even though her sister Monica Cruz looks like she could be a mestizo Mexicans biological sister.

In Mexico had the Spanish remained in power they might be the equivalent of a Western European country today if not an approximate equal of the United States of America. A Moorish Spain if you will. Mexico was once one of the great success stories of the "New World" and the United States looked less cultured. This does not suit the agenda of those both anti-Spanish and anti-Catholic, so, the impression intentionally give is that Mexico only got better after the Creoles and latter the mestizos took over. Not so.

I digress though.

One of the best nations - in my opinion - was that of Thailand some centuries ago. I regard it as better than Rome, Egypt, Spain, England, China and whatever...

The Thai unlike their Khmer neighbors did not practice slavery. Consequently, Thai means "free people," and Thailand means "Land of the Free." This was long before the U.S. came into existence.

The Inca civilization was impressive too, but I think the Jesuit reductions were probably even better. At least from what little I know about the two.

But it is those nations that crush others like ancient Rome that we celebrate in song and story. Thailand and the reductions are swept under the rug.

Excellent work.

Wars are won for one of two reasons, the victor is able to apply overwhelming force, or he comes up with new tactics. I twould be unrealistic to expect small nations, such as Vietnam for example, to face the industrial might of America slugging it out toe to toe, they needed to come up with a new tactic. The armed forces of the industrialised nations mainly fought their wars away from civilian populations on battlefields right up to the second world war. The Irish were probably the first to come up with the idea of "War amongst the people", though DeValera opposed it for political reasons. After the second world war the main enemy of the west was seen as the Warsaw pact countries and traditional armies were built up, war amongst the people is ideally suited to fighting such armies, a fighter bomber or a battle tank can be rendered useless if you deny them an army to fight. It is not a case of cowardly tactics, any more than Nelson figuring out that taking on the enemies ships two to one by going both sides of them was, simply tactical common sense. If they want to win this war America needs to do some serious tactical thinking and re-training. Meanwhile I am with Kris, war is a rubbish way of solving problems, as Bertram Russell said "The winners are not those who are right, simply those who are left."

The conscience clearly tells us that certain things ought not to be the way they are. When it comes to fairness, until each and every single person on the planet is able to always do what they ought to do and never do that which they ought not to do, there will never be a perfect world. People are great at finding and developing things to fight over and then justifying themselves. There is no man-made solution to that problem because the problem is with people. The symptoms of the sickness are manifold.

At present, we live with the problem.

That is how I think/feel about it. Now, what do you think about that?

Nationalism, to me, doesn't make sense. Either judging people based on their country, or getting overly patriotic about one's own country. As for patriotism, I think we should try to make the countries we live in better places, but some of the irrational fervor I see people give their countries is just outrageous. It's like sports. People get caught up, give huge emotional investments, to things that really don't make sense.

A few times I've been around people who commonly round people according to their ethnicity, nationality, religion, "Oh, typical Portuguese, for you," and I think it's just such a backwards, stone-age way of thinking. People are so various; the notion that something so simple and broad as these things could determine people fails for me.

I've heard our emotions may be somewhat hardwired for "us and them" thinking, but that's exactly what this is, irrational emotion. It feels good to round people into groups, but that doesn't mean it's actually true. Rounding people into groups enables xenophobia, hatred, and people thinking all Canadians say, "Eh?" Although we do.

Originally Posted by caelum

I've heard our emotions may be somewhat hardwired for "us and them" thinking, but that's exactly what this is, irrational emotion. It feels good to round people into groups, but that doesn't mean it's actually true. Rounding people into groups enables xenophobia, hatred, and people thinking all Canadians say, "Eh?" Although we do.

You're completely right.
It's not nearly as pronounced as the stereotype, but it still finishes our sentences.

On a side note, I hear that Canada's political rhetoric tails the US' by four years... to think that what we're witnessing down south might actually happen up here... yesh...