Jump to content

Akmal Shaikh......the bringer of world peace....or is he?


Recommended Posts

Originally Posted By: Slippery Jim

GN, I think there's quite a difference between patriotism (which I would encourage for all people in all nations) and nationalism (which I suspect is really what you're on about, and not necessarily wrongly).


The line between the two is blurry and not distinct. And I don't believe that patriotism is actually all that good in any form at all. Far more preferable is to just have empathy and compassion for all people on the planet rather than just those that happen to also live within some arbitary borders created from past wars.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally Posted By: Go Native

The line between the two is blurry and not distinct. And I don't believe that patriotism is actually all that good in any form at all. Far more preferable is to just have empathy and compassion for all people on the planet rather than just those that happen to also live within some arbitary borders created from past wars.

That should be part of your patriotic philosophy.
It depends on your definition of Patriotic.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Slippery Jim
J


Meanwhile, I'm still quite amused at how we wound up blaming George W for the Chinese execution of some dope smuggler**. That particular leap of logic must be based on something taught the day I cut most of my classes.



**Even if he was ``tricked'' into it, he still carried in the junk.


i missed this bit...who said Bush was at fault for the guy getting executed?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Mantas
Originally Posted By: Go Native

The line between the two is blurry and not distinct. And I don't believe that patriotism is actually all that good in any form at all. Far more preferable is to just have empathy and compassion for all people on the planet rather than just those that happen to also live within some arbitary borders created from past wars.

That should be part of your patriotic philosophy.
It depends on your definition of Patriotic.


Yes it does depend on the definition somewhat.
Thing is patriotism in practice is normaly a pride thing. You should be proud to be 'insert nationality'. Under almost any definition patriotism is about celebrating the differences in your country/culture compared to others, the things that make Australia great for instance. Problem with this and any form of pride is that you can only really have it with comparison. Not that I'm religious at all but it's one of the reasons that pretty much all religions condemn pride (at least in their writings if not in practice).

Wikipedia has a fairly good discussion on the problems and virtues of patriotism. Personaly I think the problems outweigh the virtues. Governments rarely drum up patriotic fervour for good things in my experience. It's usually to gain support for doing bad things.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Go Native
Originally Posted By: Mantas
Originally Posted By: Go Native

The line between the two is blurry and not distinct. And I don't believe that patriotism is actually all that good in any form at all. Far more preferable is to just have empathy and compassion for all people on the planet rather than just those that happen to also live within some arbitary borders created from past wars.

That should be part of your patriotic philosophy.
It depends on your definition of Patriotic.


Yes it does depend on the definition somewhat.
Thing is patriotism in practice is normaly a pride thing. You should be proud to be 'insert nationality'. Under almost any definition patriotism is about celebrating the differences in your country/culture compared to others, the things that make Australia great for instance. Problem with this and any form of pride is that you can only really have it with comparison. Not that I'm religious at all but it's one of the reasons that pretty much all religions condemn pride (at least in their writings if not in practice).

Wikipedia has a fairly good discussion on the problems and virtues of patriotism. Personaly I think the problems outweigh the virtues. Governments rarely drum up patriotic fervour for good things in my experience. It's usually to gain support for doing bad things.


which is also true for religion
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Slippery Jim
JA, just a comment in general; surely you don't think the world lacks for stupidity?

As a retired teacher, no! I know it's there! In spades!

Originally Posted By: Slippery Jim
As for that KFC biz, I doubt it has anything to do with Australia, race relations in Australia, Australians (white, black or purple with pink polka dots) or anything other than a large corporation reacting to something done by an affiliate in (forgive me) a relatively small market, that could have major repercussions in its far larger home market given the state of race relations there. In other words, it was likely a decision made on purely domestic considerations.

But, the advert was an Aus domestic advert, made and aired in Oz. Not intended, nor published in US. How does the local scene affect the US "domestic" considerations?

It has nothing to do with the US, any way you cut it!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Tubby Beaver
Originally Posted By: Go Native

Wikipedia has a fairly good discussion on the problems and virtues of patriotism. Personaly I think the problems outweigh the virtues. Governments rarely drum up patriotic fervour for good things in my experience. It's usually to gain support for doing bad things.


which is also true for religion


Actually, neither is bad, per se. The "bad" comes when intolerance and patriotism (or religion) meet in the same human. This gives rise to a fanatic (either religious or nationalist) and the result is someone who cannot accept that there are people with valid views differing from theirs.
Link to post
Share on other sites

JA, unfortunately (as I would agree it should not have anything to do with the US) you're wrong on that. Given the state of race relations in my native land, and the readiness of people on both sides (of what is, let's face it, a rather nebulous line) to start screaming and pounding drums at any opportunity, however irrelevant, it's simply common sense for any large corporation to immediately disassociate itself from anything that might (rightly or wrongly) be taken up by such people as evidence of insensitivity/oversensitivity/nonsensitivity or any other tivity they can think up given 10 seconds notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Jim.

I see where you're at, and why you feel that way.

 

My point, if the advert had not been placed on the web, then there'd be no reason for corporate america to react in any way.

 

The unfortunate fact is that it only takes a couple of idiots without a functioning brain cell between them, to call "foul", and the overreaction is like an earthquake.

 

My feeling is that the corporates need to get a grip on reality (not the "it might hurt so extract" reaction) and allow people to see what is relevant to their own culture.

 

As mentioned elsewhere, the problem is the force-feeding of American "morality" on the rest of the world. (and I do not believe you can possibly believe that this does not happen).

Link to post
Share on other sites

JA,

Well I don't think we're really all that far apart, but can I then assume you divorce yourself from (for example) Australia's recent crusade to force-feed its ``morality'' on the rest of the world in regard to the hunting of whales, or so-called climate change?

I doubt any gathering of human beings anywhere for any reason can claim a completely clean slate when it comes to dealing with the practicality of the world, and I equally doubt many nation states (that have been put into the position of dealing with such practicalities) can claim a significantly cleaner pair of hands than the U.S.

Few nations live up to their ideals (I dunno, maybe Andorra or Lichtenstein?), but then again few measure themselves against ideals as high as those the U.S. demands of itself (and, admittedly, more often than not fails to reach).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Slippery Jim

Few nations live up to their ideals (I dunno, maybe Andorra or Lichtenstein?), but then again few measure themselves against ideals as high as those the U.S. demands of itself (and, admittedly, more often than not fails to reach).

I think there in lies the problem.
The U.S. is NOT a measuring stick for the rest of the world to measure up to.
The automatic assumption by many Americans that their morals, values and ideals should automatically transfer to the rest of the world is naive at best.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course what most Americans fail to realise is that the rest of us generally use America as an example of what not to be like. It's massive difference between rich and poor and the huge social issues this brings like the crazily high crime rates. It's racial problems, the influence of fundamental Christianity on politics and policies, the raising of individual rights to a point where individuals are more important than communities. God you could go on and on and on. The US is certainly not a country I'd hope many others aspire to be like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, I don't seem to remember suggesting any of you use the US as a measuring stick.

I think we've reached the theater of the absurd here with Mantas working on some creative fiction project while GN acts out what he accuses Americans of doing -- insisting that other people shoud emulate what he thinks is the proper way to live.

 

JA, it was an interesting exchange. See you around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Mantas
I think there in lies the problem.
The U.S. is NOT a measuring stick for the rest of the world to measure up to.
The automatic assumption by many Americans that their morals, values and ideals should automatically transfer to the rest of the world is naive at best.


True spoken. But I still prefer to follow USA's morals, values and ideals rather then upcoming superpower China.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Go Native
Of course what most Americans fail to realise is that the rest of us generally use America as an example of what not to be like. It's massive difference between rich and poor and the huge social issues this brings like the crazily high crime rates. It's racial problems, the influence of fundamental Christianity on politics and policies, the raising of individual rights to a point where individuals are more important than communities. God you could go on and on and on. The US is certainly not a country I'd hope many others aspire to be like.


There are some extreme social problems in the US. Income disparity is at an all time high, yes. Does that necessarily attribute to crime? Of course. It may not be the entirety of the root problem but it has a profound impact for certain. I would even go as far as to say France's racial problem is far more sufficient than anything I have ever seen in the US.

However, I don't think you have a correct view of what influences policy in the US. Of course there are fundamentalists. I won't deny that there are some influences of Christianity on politics, but as a whole that is not the case. What plagues the US is capitalism has become the religion. Not that we have fundamentalist Christians. These policies and politicians are lead not by morals but by perceived notions (what will get them elected again and again) and the almighty dollar. Hell, it isn't even possible for the common man to run for an elected official anymore. Americans learn by television and if you can afford to create some catchy tune and get 100 hours of airplay on national tv you've won the election. Everything about the US indoctrinates progression. ie the sons and daughters of a family have to do better economically than the father and mother. This is commonly referred to as the American dream.

Well as we came to find out economic growth at a rapid rate isn't sustainable for periods upon periods. Now we see deflationary pressures and deindustrialization problems. This always happens and will always happen so long as capitalism is here. People don't understand this, except for a select few. These are the ones you see as figureheads, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rumsfield, etc. The whole Iraq war now is about allocating resources back to the US which again brings us back to the almighty dollar.

Marx said this would happen and he was right. People have become so tied up in the world of economic progression on an individual level that we often oust feelings and acts of compassion that would otherwise bring our social strata to a more friendly state. So yes, the US is not one to aspire in this aspect of progression.

At it's formation and even up until today the US should be and is an iconic resemblance of a developed country. Every day the US contributes amazing medical research that reduces infant mortality rates. Sure pfizer and other drug companies hold onto patents that might otherwise cure aids. This is the spoiled milk that comes with the ingredients of making a cake. There are so many good things that the US collegiate level research finds every day. To look at the US in terms of capability, and where someone can work hard their whole life and achieve so much no matter the class system is admirable. Of course I realize how difficult it is and what the social restrictions are worldwide. However, seeing my father who had nothing in terms of human capital (high school dropout) or money achieve so much is nonetheless why I have a certain respect for America. Like I said there are many many cracks and perspective is everything.

To say America would be a bad example of what to look up to is encroaching on insulting. There are many great people here despite the ignorance of geographical knowledge. While I do agree the economic system needs tweaking and Americans are living dangerously comfortable albeit on debt or eating too much, etc, there still needs to be recognition of all the great contributions of the US. All great countries are going to have fallacies, especially when spanned through time. Ideally, this is not the best past couple decades to base admiration off, but if you can think a bit further into the development of the US you would realize that it isn't the precipice of what an industrialized country should be, but it is certainly on terms of aspiration worthy.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow didn't realize that was a novel oops hijack

 

 

Also, I appear to be a bit nationalistic but really I am impartial to national origin in terms of judging. Except for maybe someone coming from such a difficult situation as being born in Kabul or Mogadishu in which case I automatically judge with admiration (if that can be taken as a bad thing).

 

As I have stated I am well aware of the problems with the US, but preconceived notions of Americans really bothers me and considerably hampers my traveling enjoyments at times. I do what I can to bring about the positives in the US politically so you shouldn't judge the pawns in the system smile

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is the pre-conceived idea of Americans that its the be all and end all of everything that is good, is the thing that bugs most non-americans. The ability to look past the end of their nose to find out that there is a hell of a lot more going on that doesn't revolve around the stars and stripes.

 

Also I think that you underestimate the power of the Christian right in America. If there is gonna be a rise of Christian Fundamentalism in response to Islamic fundamentalism, there is only one place its gonna spring from and thats America.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely understand the sort of pretentious attitude that comes with American attitudes, but like I said it's not everyone. I'll agree it is obnoxious though.

 

I don't underestimate the power of these whackjob evangelicals, but they really don't influence politics as much everyone outside thinks. I will definitely agree there are too many of them and that does tend to sway voting but apparently it wasn't enough to sway the last election smile or even close really.

 

I don't think we will ever see a Christian and Islam clash of religious fervor. Like I said, the almighty dollar grasps the attention of people further than the outstretched arms of god could. This is subject to change in time as is anything but currently I don't see it being that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch,

 

You are correct, that's the intro to your best novel yet! wink

 

As TB mentions, though, I feel that your estimation of the strength of the "Christian Right" vote is way down on, at least the rest of the world's perception of, its actuality.

 

As I see it, admittedly looking from way outside - and through a filter of the news media, the electoral system is designed to ensure that only the independently wealthy are able to be elected. In addition, the election of local officials, from Mayor (which is common around the world) to law enforcement officials and judges, seems to mitigate against professionalism. You get the person with the deepest pockets or the person who's least offensive to the most people.

 

One of the reasons that the Australian referendum to become a Republic was roundly defeated was the fact that the pro-republic faction had so many options for the election of the "head honcho" whatever they were to be called, that the public were left wondering.

 

One of the options was "direct election" of the head honcho. This would have taken us to the same process as the US, and would have ensured that there was no chance that anyone other than the nominee of one of the major parties would have a chance.

 

I am mightily pleased that we have the option of voting for a minority party (or even for a non-party independent) to represent the electorate in our parliament. As I understand it, there are no independent members of the US House of Reps or Senate. (I could be wrong, and would appreciate correction).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Mitch that its highly unlikely that there is gonna be a clash between Christian and Islamic fundmentalists, but I only meant that IF there were ever gonna be, the only country with enough Christian right apetite among its young population would be the US.

 

i wish i could wipe religion from the human consciousness.....more trouble than its worth

Link to post
Share on other sites

JA,

 

Thanks smile

 

I couldn't agree more about the political system. There are independents in office actually, well it's complicated. They are technically independent-democrats (oh the irony). Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders are two. No president other than George Washington has been an independent though I am pretty sure. However, the electoral system is inherently flawed and the complete integrity of politics is a massacre of what the founding fathers would have liked.

 

There are always bound to be problems when a country is as socially and geographically diverse as the United States tries to accomplish federal matters.

 

I can promise you the Christian Right evangelical group really isn't that big of a deal right now. Like I said pertaining to the future if they do grow there will be problems. Right now I don't see a major issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TB,

 

I have a problem with ANY brand of "fundamentalist". They tend towards fanaticism, are very volatile, and will not accept that anyone else has a valid position.

 

I agree, religion is simply a way to explain stuff we otherwise are unable to explain. What I object to is the people who make a statement and "prove" it by a quote from the bible/koran/whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...