So do you want to debate this? I would be happy to. But I really do think it should be in a new thread. You seem so sure of yourself so the debate should not take very long. It should be a very short thread since you are so sure of yourself.
What do you mean I want to debate this? No, I don’t. I just wished to point out how very predictable Juan is. Honestly, debating about religion is perhaps the most tired topic ever. I’m really not willing to go into it, especially with those such as Juan on these forums who seem to have a very strong dislike of religion. It’s senseless. So if you’d be willing to drop the attitude any time I’d much appreciate it.
It may be cliché but it is also true. There are tribal wars (google Rwanda) religious wars (google Darfur) murders based upon ethnicity (google “History of the Kurds”) and racial killings (google “History of the Ku Klux Klan”). Clichés are sometimes based upon reality.
How predictable GilesStratton
Besides the obvious (flamebaiting and pandering to Juan) is there a point to this?
I was not trying to start a flame-war or pander to Juan. I was merely delving into a deep discussion of historical issues; like you did in a response to Juan. And this kind of misunderstanding is why I have supported starting a new thread.
Please don`t tell me what to google. I know plenty about such conflict and in fact judging by your comments more than you do. Darfur as a religious war? That will be the day.
There is no such thing as a tribal war in the modern world. There is no such thing as a religious war in the modern world. There has never been such a thing as an ethnic war and there has never been such a thing as a racial war. A war is not automaticaly “religious” or “ethnic” becase the conficting sides are of a different faith or ethnicity. All such conflicts in fact fall under one category, war for control of the state.
Penn one more for statism, but leave identity alone.
You must be using a very unusual definition of the word “modern”. Could you please clarify what you meant by “modern”?
Wars are indeed for control of the state; but sometimes thugs want that control for a particular ethnicity, race or religion. Identity often has a great deal to do with wars.
Intriguing. So which religions are at war with eachother in Darfur? Enlighten me.
From 1789 onwards as far as Europe is concerned.
You will have to explain to me how a certain ethnicity, race or religion can control the state. I am again intrigued.
So Rwanda was not a tribal war?
If members of that religion, ethnicity or race (and only them) control the state.
No. A tribal war is when two tribes warr over hunting grounds or raid each other for provisions and women. Think the Plains Indians before Christopher Colombus. The history of post-colonial Rwanda and Burundi is of struggle for control of the state between Tutsi and Hutu patriots. Each side feels it must control the state because seemingly that is the only guarantee the state will not be used against their identity group.
I am told all the shakers and the movers in Denmark are white. According to you that mean the white race controls Denmark. I am told Jay Leno is white. According to you that means Jay Leno controls Denmark. Remind me again who is the collectivist in this disscusion?
That is an archaic definition based upon the limited technology available to some tribes such as the pre-Columbian plains tribes you describe.
And their identity groups are what? They are TRIBAL.
Not necessarily, this depends upon whether or not others are blocked from becoming “shakers and movers” simply because or their race or ethnicity. You are using the neo-classical model of monopoly. I am using the Austrian model of monopoly.
No, you are twisting my meaning. Jay Leno is not (as far as I know) Danish. Nor is he a “mover and shaker” within Denmark.
I think if you need to invoke “thugs” you are on the wrong track. Particularly if you are talking about something which is so widespread as this sort of struggle. Are hundreds of millions of people truly thugs by bature? Nobody sees himself as a thug. Nelson Mandela and ANC for example certainly did not see themselves as thugs, jet what they were after was gaining control of the state so it can not be used against their identity group.
The thing is simply that once the premise is accepted that the state is a grand achievemnt of mankind then logic will take you into absurdities and absurdities will take you to attrocities. Ethnic cleansing is an attrocity, but in a statist world it makes perfect logical sense. Since there must be a state, we must control it so that it can not be used against us. Thus we must fight all who stand in the way of our control of the state. But as long as they live within our state they will always be a danger to our control of the state (particularly if they are strong demographicaly and we are democrats) thus they must be banished so they will no longer pose a threat.
So it is statism which is an underlying cause of this, not diversity of identities. Identity once it is removed from statism is at the very least benign or even grand, depending on your personal preference. Sadly much of the world has never heard of libertarianism and belives statism is progrress and is unaware of alternatives.
And I would also add that strong identities have immense benevolent utility. There are very few people who would fight just for their own induvidual sake, very few who would risk life and limb to see a world where they personaly do no need to pay taxes. Certainly I have never heard of a revolutionary army composed of vulgar induviduals that identify with nothing outside their own person. However there are many people who would fight, even risk life and limb for the benefit and the rights of their identity groups whatever they may be. Their town, region, ethnicity, nation whatever it is. We just have to make more people realise if they want to help their ethnicity they should oppose statism not aid it.
Wasn`t Randolph Bourne who concluded a true patriot must be a libertarian?
By nature? Perhaps it would be better to say by nurture. If hundreds of millions of people seek political power over others those hundreds of millions of people are thugs.
This does not mean that they are not
Power corrupts. It is a cliché but it is also true. Many well meaning people seek political power and are too tempted to not use it to their own advantage. If all Mandela were to do is repeal onerous laws far more people would respect for him. Few politicians are satisfied with merely repealing onerous laws. Once they taste power they want more of it.
I do not claim that it is a diversity of identities that is the problem. Statism is indeed a major probem but so are envy and hatred. Envy and hatred can lead to statism.
You keep calling this “identity”. You are Marko (at least on this board) that is your identity. You are an individual who has chosen a path in life. Unchosen characteristics are descriptors but they are not your “identity”.
What have revolutionary armies gotten us? Mob rule, The Federal Reserve Bank , the New Deal and Automobile Bailouts. Was it worth it?
Absurd! The nature of the war does not change with technology. War changes with institutions and ideas.
It is irrelevant how you label their identity groups. A tribe has its own institutions, its own procedures. If it is a tribal war was there a certain head tribal chief that woke one day and declared this war you speak of? Last time I heard before a tribe went to war the wisemen council gathered to deliberate on it. When was this council in Rwanda?
BTW, to think of the Hutus and Tutsis as merely “tribes” is a gross simpification. Their ethnogenesis is much more unique than that.
I am not twisting anything. It is not my fault if you do not grasp the full meaning of your own words. Saying that some people from a certain group controlling the state is enough to say that that whole group controlls the state is statist poppycock! The president of USA is an American. So am I to belive the American people controls the USA? This is what the statists would have you belive, but I think otherwise!
And their ideas have not changed. Therefore it is a tribal war.
Jean Kambanda and his cabinet held it in 1994. He pled guilty by they way.
What matters is not how I think of them. What matters is how they think of themselves.
And I never said that.
He pled guilty to what? Being a tribal chief?
A cabinet? I assure you the procedure to become a cabinet member differs substantialy from the procedure to become a tribal elder.
They think of themselves as peoples, it is what you would deem an ethnicity, but is actually in much of the non-Western world meant to understand nation.
Genocide.
Only in the way the Mafia differs from a street gang - very superficially. Each has its own set of rules. Each has its own form of magic. The differnce between traditional dress and a business suit is very superficial.
You are delving into semantics. The concept is the same. The people are just as dead whether they are members of an ethnicity or a tribe.
‘Patriots’ – that made my day, thanks. By the way, notice that your ‘patriots’ are statists after all ?
So, this identity thing is part of the problem eh ? Maybe the identity card can be used to manipulate people who think that individuals are not as important as ‘the group’ ?
Maybe the patriots want to use the state for offensive purposes i. e. to more easily enslave the ‘group’ they see as inferior ?
Of course, you want to make it sound as if the ‘patriots’ want to use the state only for defensive purposes…
Exactly. His very use of the term “patriots” indicates this is the case.
People who value unchosen characteristics over chosen ones are easily manipulated.