Dying for Colored Rags

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Baby-K
Ye know, if you're in a bad mood or whatever don't take it out on me.

I'm not in bad mood. But where did I say you? If you thnk I meant you - then either you think your guilty of it. Whatever the case may be as to why you would think you were included is your deal.

I was also not referring to your e-mail, but to the comments here (this is gonna go around in circles which I just do not care to do).

Which case I still did not say anything in regards to your pride in South Africa.

Oh & I didn't mean to imply that you asked about SA for any other reason that interest.

Okay - just wanted to make sure.

No - it's what YOU'RE about, last time I checked the US was a country not a single man in New Jersey.

Yeah - and is someone from South Africa or anywhere else outside of the US in any position to say whether it's not? I agree that that is not what the whole country thinks of - but it is what the ORIGINAL 13 states think of primarily -especially in the northeast. We have reenectments and celebrations dealing with the Revolution all year. Washington spent more than 50% of his time in New Jersey - so there is a lot more patriotism here because of the Revolution.

You said "concern themselves with their own countries" does America own Iraq now?

No- but the middle east needs to be dealt with - just like Germany needed to be dealt with during World War II (well not exactly the same), but a hard stand has to be taken. The world may not like it - but the world dragged it's feet on many many items that festored and grew until the problem became so large that millions and millions of civilians died as well as years of military action. If something isn't done - then terrorism in the Middle East will continue to grow and their anger will contiunue to be misplaced toward the west.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Baby-K
JD, you are taking everything I say as a personal attack, which I certainly do not intend it to be and in return you are being very aggressive - I don't appreciate that, so I will refrain from commenting again.

I didn't attack you - I'm just stating points. I have disagreements with your observations on things - as an example "it's illegal for the American flag to touch the ground". It isn't meant as a personal attack - I'm just saying that you're wrong. I also have disagreements on your view of the UN's role in the world, US parades, and what patriotism is in America. Sorry - but I don't think you have been to America. Just like I can't tell you what South Africa is like- you can't really tell me what the US is like or how people feel here or support.

[Baby-K]

I didn't attack you - I'm just stating points

Just came across as being very aggressive, that's all. I usually take insults as such, but then again maybe you didn't mean to be insulting.

"it's illegal for the American flag to touch the ground".

I must have misunderstood something said (or one of the links posted) in the Iraq thread a while ago then, my mistake, sorry.

I'm just saying that you're wrong. I also have disagreements on your view of the UN's role in the world, US parades, and what patriotism is in America. Sorry - but I don't think you have been to America.

No I haven't but should that prevent me from having an opinion? If so then I guess I'll shut up about it. Oh, yeah the comment about the oppressive government - it was to indicate that the people were protesting against the policies of the government of the time (the flag became a symbol of the government) and oppressed because over here that is used to indicate anyone excluded from the decisions government makes (like black South Africans here were for so long - they had no say in anything - government was not listening to their views even though they were also citizens of the country). Mistake on my part there - I used a local interpretation in a general sense.

Just like I can't tell you what South Africa is like- you can't really tell me what the US is like or how people feel here or support.

It's not what I was trying to do.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Baby-K
Just came across as being very aggressive, that's all. I usually take insults as such, but then again maybe you didn't mean to be insulting.

Didn't mean to be insulting - just meant to be disagreeable.

I must have misunderstood something said (or one of the links posted) in the Iraq thread a while ago then, my mistake, sorry.

No problem.

No I haven't but should that prevent me from having an opinion? If so then I guess I'll shut up about it.

No- you have a right to an opinion - I'm just saying that no one outside the US can really say what Americans feel or do in our own country.

Oh, yeah the comment about the oppressive government - it was to indicate that the people were protesting against the policies of the government of the time (the flag became a symbol of the government) and oppressed because over here that is used to indicate anyone excluded from the decisions government makes (like black South Africans here were for so long - they had no say in anything - government was not listening to their views even though they were also citizens of the country). Mistake on my part there - I used a local interpretation in a general sense.

The people of the US always had a voice in the government during Vietnam - even if they disagreed with it. Nixon was elected to get us out of Vietnam - but then people didn't feel he got us out quick enough. Then Cambodia occurred - but no one understood why that happened at the time. Vietnam divided the country and was a dark period - but it's not a well understood part of American History. it's too clouded in peace movements and people's emotions. Vietnam was a very poorly run war

Do you know that Nixon actually "snuck" out of the White House and talked to peace activists in the middle of the night at the Lincoln Memorial? If it wasn't for Watergate and Nixon's insecurities - he would have gone down as being a great president.

It's about time America moves beyond Vietnam. Not every war is a Vietnam - not every foreign policy decision leads to a Vietnam - but it's the rallying cry for the "inaction" group.

It's not what I was trying to do.

Okay

[Baby-K]

Didn't mean to be insulting - just meant to be disagreeable.

No worries

No- you have a right to an opion - I'm just saying that you really can't say what Americans feel or do.

I know - that wasn't my intention anyway, but the point is moot

The people of the US always had a voice in the government during Vietnam

I realise that, but IMO there is a difference in having a voice & having that voice listened to. I am of the opinion that the protestors felt frustrated & aggrieved that they were not being listened to / weren't really taken seriously (based on media reports & some books I'd read) - which is what I'd tried to explain earlier about not having a say (I seem to suck at English today, hell just take a look at the crappy translation I did in the Languages thread )

Nixon was elected to get us out of Vietnam - but then people didn't feel he got us out quick enough

Perhaps adding to the frustration of the protestors, since they believed that someone had been voted into power that would be a bit more sympathetic to their cause, but his delays could have indicated to them that he wasn't really?

Vietnam divided the country and was a dark period - but it's not a well understood part of American History. it's too clouded in peace movements and people's emotions. Vietnam was a very poorly run war

War always devides countries in YES & NO factions (in fact it does it to the world). I'm sure if discussion boards such as this had been around then the discussions would have been similar if not more heated than the Iraq thread.

Do you know that Nixon actually "snuck" out of the White House and talked to peace activists in the middle of the night at the Lincoln Memorial?

No, I didn't know that, interesting. What was the purpose of it & the results thereof?

Okay

Sharp

JD - I sent you a PM which is Part 1 of 2, part 1 went through, but 2 was returned 'cos yer PM box is full. I'll send p2 as soon as ye have some space (p1 will probably make more sense then).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Baby-K
I realise that, but IMO there is a difference in having a voice & having that voice listened to. I am of the opinion that the protestors felt frustrated & aggrieved that they were not being listened to / weren't really taken seriously (based on media reports & some books I'd read) - which is what I'd tried to explain earlier about not having a say (I seem to suck at English today, hell just take a look at the crappy translation I did in the Languages thread )

Well not everyone can be listened to - there are always some people who aren't going to get what they want. it's a democracy. I have a friend in Oregon - very very liberal - who said that she wished she was dictator so she could run the country the way she thinks it should be run. I'm very glad we have two term limits on the president, I'm very glad we have the checks and balances. I told her that I would not want her as president - let alone dictator.

Perhaps adding to the frustration of the protestors, since they believed that someone had been voted into power that would be a bit more sympathetic to their cause, but his delays could have indicated to them that he wasn't really?

The US government's foreign policy can't turn on a dime - let alone get out of a war. It's like trying to turn a supertanker. I think Nixon did add troops after coming into office though.

War always devides countries in YES & NO factions (in fact it does it to the world). I'm sure if discussion boards such as this had been around then the discussions would have been similar if not more heated than the Iraq thread.

I'm sure you're right - the US was sharply divided during Vietnam. It did not start out that way though. It started out as a supported war.

No, I didn't know that, interesting. What was the purpose of it & the results thereof?

He wa trying to get their views - and actually sit down and talk to them one on one. Without the cameras, without the speeches, without the media. He also wanted to get his point of view across.

[Baby-K]

Well not everyone can be listened to - there are always some people who aren't going to get what they want. it's a democracy. I have a friend in Oregon - very very liberal - who said that she wished she was dictator so she could run the country the way she thinks it should be run. I'm very glad we have two term limits on the president, I'm very glad we have the checks and balances. I told her that I would not want her as president - let alone dictator.

Yup, that's true - doesn't diminish the frustration though - everyone wants to be the one that get's listened to.

The US government's foreign policy can't turn on a dime - let alone get out of a war. It's like trying to turn a supertanker. I think Nixon did add troops after coming into office though.

Again - I agree with you (as I think most would), but human nature is a funny thing - I think it's safe to say that we are all selfish beings in a way & when we want something done we want it done now & we want it done our way. Under normal circumstances I'd think that, yes we are able to establish whether or not we are being reasonable about it, but during war times (or rather times of adversity), taking into account the 'heat of the moment' (for lack of a better description) we often lose sight of reason. It is of course possible & probable that one's own inabilities to speed up the process adds to the frustration & of course you would lash out at the perceived cause of your frustrations. (does that make sense to you? If not I'll try again)

I'm sure you're right - the US was sharply divided during Vietnam. It did not start out that way though. It started out as a supported war.

I think most wars do - but with support based on a pre-conceived idea of how things will go. When those preconceptions do not come true, that's when the opposition (usually) start, because IMO people might be feeling betrayed / disappointed / disillussioned or whatever. (Of course it could brood over a period of time & will only start becoming a true public opposition once it has a 'voice', i.e someone who will stand up & say what a group is feeling)

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Elf Girl--great article! Raised quite a few thoughts...

JD-I think what the article was about was that the flag has very different meanings for different people--it wasn't trying to say that the flag is meaningless. It's just a flag, yes, but it represents the country it belongs to, and thus, as a symbol of that country, can be interpreted in so many different way. It's just people's reactions to their opinion of the country, really.

I am quite tempted to get into a debate on the UN right now, but I don't think that's the best idea, not to mention it would probably belong on a different thread.

[wahine]

Nationalism by definition is...

loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

Nationalism is a choice, personal preference. If you live in America, and would jump at the chance at living in Canada (eh?) then that is your born right to do.

I feel, that every country should look out for its interests first and foremost, and that should be the feeling of the people. Second, they should worry themselves with feeding the hungry in other countries, clothing the homeless, and all that.

Referring to a previous statement *?* If another nation, or group of nations is a threat *indirect or otherwise* that is an issue of the national security, involving your personal safety. Thus, that country should be takin' care of *so to speak*. The citizens of said threatened nation should be concerned for that "rock" that they were born on.

Sheeana, say perhaps, that you are on vacation in ...erm...Australia or something, and NZ is blown to smithereens, would you still look it as "just a rock"? Or would it then be your home?

*forgive me if I didn't get exactly what you were saying about not giving a poop for your country, maybe I got that wrong? If I did, explain it to me so that I can understand.*

I think the United NAtions should be a seperate thread, because I won't be caught throwing a tantrum in a thread that my tantrum won't get the due attention it deserves.

[congressmn]

Originally posted by Coney
Exactly. I love England, the culture, history, society etc....

But if a better option turned up..........I'd pack my bags and emmigrate in an instant, I certainly don't intend to live here for my whole life.

where thou will emmigrate?

[Hasty Ent]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sheeana
Why? It's just a piece of rock. I just happened to be born in New Zealand because some random events lead to my creation. I don't see how one person being born on one piece of rock as opposed to another means anything. I don't personally see that nationalism is all that important. It's funny because the continents have changed so much over time, and will continue to change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Sheeana (as usual ). Although I was born in the US, I've never identified with being American. My parents were immigrants and raised me culturally as a Ukrainian. My father regretted coming to the US, my mother did not. I'm ambivalent. I'm here for now, and it's not too bad. Could certainly be worse.

I've always thought of nations as a type of gang, myself: an organized body of individuals governed over by a hierarchy of rulers. Governments can be benevolent or despotic. More usually they are some kind of compromise that pleases no one.

Found this definition of 'gang' online (edited for brevity, bold text by me):

gang
n.
A group of criminals or hoodlums who band together for mutual protection and profit.
A group of adolescents who band together, especially a group of delinquents.
Informal. A group of people who associate regularly on a social basis.
A group of laborers organized together on one job or under one foreperson.
A matched or coordinated set.

A pack of wolves or wild dogs.
A herd, especially of buffalo or elk.

v. ganged, gang·ing, gangs
v. intr.
To band together as a group or gang.

v. tr.
To arrange or assemble into a group, as for simultaneous operation or production.
To attack as an organized group.

Phrasal Verb:
gang up
To join together in opposition or attack.
To act together as a group.

[Middle English, band of men, from Old English, journey, and Old Norse -gangr, journey, group (as in thjofagangr, gang of thieves).]

[Coney]

Originally posted by congressmn
where thou will emmigrate?

I would really depend on which kind of lifestyle I wish to lead. At the moment England is fine, but when I feel it's time to experience life elswhere, I won't have any regrets about leaving..........national pride certainly won't come into it.

(pretty cool this is the "flag-waving" thread when the UK is about to change the Union Flag ).

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

While the world waits and waits like they did with Hitler - we have finally decided to take a stand - instead of pussy footing arond about the problems. It's about time too. So - no - it doesn't refute all my statements.

Like THEY did with Hitler??

Tell me one reason at that time - we should have gotten involed in the European conflicts? They were fighting all the time.

By guess who?

Countries which declared war on Hitler: Britain, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand- 1939

Countries which didn't declare war on Hitler and wouldn't have until Hitler declared war on them first- USSR, USA- 1941

Who exactly was waiting and waiting?

[sun-star]

*sun-star, realising it is always a mistake to get involved in these kinds of threads, goes ahead and does it anyway*

So... I prefer to think of myself as patriotic rather than nationalist. I'm not sure if the dictionary definitions support me on this, but I think patriotism is an acceptable pride in and love of your country, while nationalism tips the balance into racism - but maybe that's just in my mind. Certainly there is nothing wrong in loving your country. I love England (and Britain too) partly because it's my home and partly because it's a fantastic country. I'm not going to go on about it (because I think that might be rather un-British ) but it's a great place. I also like the Union Flag - I had one out for the Queen's Jubilee last year (not so keen on the flag of St. George - too many right-wing nationalist connotations), so I can't see anything wrong with flag-waving either. As long as you can see the good in other countries too and most especially the good in people from other countries. That is not, as some people imply, incompatible with patriotism.

Coney: (pretty cool this is the "flag-waving" thread when the UK is about to change the Union Flag ).

I hope they don't. It's such a weird idea, reflecting skin colour on a flag - I mean, where are all the red and blue people walking about?? I want to meet some

[wahine]

Who exactly was waiting and waiting?

If I am not mistaken, GreyMouser, JD said that we had "waited" in WW II, and NOW we are taking initiative. So really you did not dispute what he said, only made the same point.

? ?


Woooohoooo 600 posts YEAH!

Sorry, I get excited easily.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Like THEY did with Hitler??

Tell me where Hitler couldn't be dealt with early on by Europe? Why would a country half a world away get drawn into a ANOTHER European war after sending 100's of thousands to die in a European war less than 20 year prior to WWII. You were having wars right and left - it's just that World War I and II ended upo being huge because Europe tried ignoring the problems for so long.

By guess who?

Countries which declared war on Hitler: Britain, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand- 1939

Countries which didn't declare war on Hitler and wouldn't have until Hitler declared war on them first- USSR, USA- 1941

Who exactly was waiting and waiting?

Let's see. Britain - directly threatened by Germany. France - directly threatened by Germany. Canada - owned by England. Australia - owned by England. New Zealand - owned by England. I think it was self intertest which guided the hand of England and France. England then recruited it's large "white" commonwealth countires into the fight. What about all the years where Europe appeased Hitler and actually GAVE him Austria and part of Czechloslovakia? Again tell me why the US should have gotten immediately involved in another European war.

[wahine]

To right JD!



















That's all.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Hasty Ent
I agree with Sheeana (as usual ). Although I was born in the US, I've never identified with being American. My parents were immigrants and raised me culturally as a Ukrainian. My father regretted coming to the US, my mother did not. I'm ambivalent. I'm here for now, and it's not too bad. Could certainly be worse.

Yeah - you could have grown up under communism in Ukraine. I'm sure you would have loved to have grown up under that. Unlike there - in the United States - if you don't like the country you are free to leave.

I've always thought of nations as a type of gang, myself: an organized body of individuals governed over by a hierarchy of rulers. Governments can be benevolent or despotic. More usually they are some kind of compromise that pleases no one.

Seems like you only have a slim grasp of democracy if you think of the government as a gang. You seem to have have even less of a grasp on the concept of checks and balances or the foundations that were put in place to prevent any one branch of the US government from getting too strong.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You were having wars right and left - it's just that World War I and II ended upo being huge because Europe tried ignoring the problems for so long.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I was just wondering which wars you were referring to?

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Let's see. Britain - directly threatened by Germany. France - directly threatened by Germany. Canada - owned by England. Australia - owned by England. New Zealand - owned by England. I think it was self intertest which guided the hand of England and France.

Yes, it was. Who is suggesting otherwise? And why does it matter anyway - I thought we all agreed that countries should and do look after their own interests first

(Also I know this is really nit-picking and pedantic, but it is actually Britain you're referring to and not just England. No reason why anyone here should care, but if you were Scottish you would )

[Coney]

I hope they don't. It's such a weird idea, reflecting skin colour on a flag - I mean, where are all the red and blue people walking about?? I want to meet some

Exactly!

The new flag proposal looks far too stern and serious IMO :/

If they want to give us a flag that represents the people of the UK then they should just embroider a copy of the Eastenders cast