mercedo's Journal: My Explanation to Marxist Hacker 42

Today I found he is complaining about someone's strange moderation. I would like to explain why his lecture -yes it is beautifully categorically arranged - is moderated not interesting not insightful but 'funny', of course it is not in the least likely to be modded down, that case categorically deniable.

Got that last bit backwards. War is the natural end result of IMPERIALIST NATIONALISM, of which RACISM is a historical subset

This statement is a little bit too generalised and exaggerated though, by and large it's not a wrong assertion as to the wars especially in Europe after Napoleon.

because not so long ago people of different races rarely found their way to become a citizen of another country

Here I found funny assertion. Look at Roman Empire, look at Osman Turky, look at Soviet Union. It was even really rare of any people to have their own country on their only own. There was one dominant people who conquered and many other peoples who were conquered. We had to wait till after the WWI for them to have their own national state.

(heck, less than 500 years ago 90% of the human race lived and died within 10 miles of where they were born).

Even if it's true, still around 10% moved from where they were born. About 500 years ago, it was an age of geographical new findings. People in Europe started moving around the world.

Go back even further, and imperialist nationalism is just tribalism written on a large scale.

Correct.

We've got a couple of million years of evolution wiring us to be culturalist- and for those of relatively low intelligence the most outward sign of culture is race (it isn't for me- but a talk with Red Warrior convinced me that this is yet another way that I'm normal and the rest of the world is strange).

Acceptable.

It's really thanks to that evolution that war and racism happen-

Not a many people can find a certain trait between human evolution and war biased towards racism. So this comment might be insightful. At the same time I have to have you recall the idea you stated is similar to the ones German state scholar 1930's often posited. Biologically speaking you might be right, but also it connotes dangerous currents in human history.

and there are only two real solutions for the problem: 1. Evolve more.

It takes time.

2. Recognize that racism/culturalism/nationalism is a common trait of being human-

These are not a common trait

and design our societies to avoid trade and contact with other cultures.

Nearly impossible.

Interesting, even too interesting.. So someone might find it funny in your comment.

The first is best described by the aim of those worshiping "diversification", the second by those worshiping St. Augustine's Just War theory of never being an invader.

Agreed according to your passage.

Unfortuneately, due to an accident of history that wiped out most of the native population in America, most Americans are of the first- and most of the rest of the world is the second.

?

Every one of our foreign wars can be traced to this basic conflict in philosophy, except for WWI and WWII- where the main force we were fighting against had a perverted combination of the two (invading but not putting up with diversity).

?

Can somebody explain to me how a lecture on human genetics in it's relation to tribalism got moderated FUNNY?!?!?!? I personally thought it was very sad while I was writing it...that here it is the 21st century and we're still stuck to the last 2 million years of evolution....

-- Ideas Inform, Relationships Transform

I really couldn't understand your last two passages (the parts I put ? s ). Could you please explain more?

To answer the question marks

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And because I realize you're from Japan, largely a culturally homogenous nation. America isn't. It was at one time, before several thousand waves of immigrants came and killed off an extremely large percentage of the native population. But today- America is made up almost entirely of immigrants who came here as invaders- and destroyers. The majority of wars the United States has been in since then have followed the same theme- slash and burn and destroy native popluations that cause you trouble, because

Re:To answer the question marks

[mercedo]

Every one of our foreign wars can be traced Every one of our foreign wars can be traced to this basic conflict in philosophy, except for WWI and WWII-

If you except for two world wars, what else wars rest other than two these major wars, independent wars, America-Spanish War, America-Mexican War, Korean War.

where the main force we were fighting against had a perverted combination of the two (invading but not putting up with diversity).

Still this statement remains to be riddle.

I think the essence o

Re:To answer the question marks

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If you except for two world wars, what else wars rest other than two these major wars, independent wars, America-Spanish War, America-Mexican War, Korean War.

The Mexican War (aka the Alamo), the War of 1812 (these two defined the southern and northern borders repectively). The Indian wars. The Philipino Moro War. The invasions of Libya (both times), Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq (both times), Afghanistan, Alaska, Hawaii, Columbia (both times), Brazil, Virgin Islands, Peurto Rico. It's been a repeat

Re:To answer the question marks

[mercedo]

Every one of our foreign wars can be traced to this basic conflict in philosophy, except for WWI and WWII- where the main force we were fighting against had a perverted combination of the two (invading but not putting up with diversity).

So the only reasonable deduction from this statement is American had to fight against Treaties(Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey) and Axises(Germany, Italy, Japan) with the combination of the two basic principles without conflicting each other. When the first world war start

Re:To answer the question marks

[Marxist Hacker 42]

This combination is not at all strange. Although there are differences in aggressive or defensive, any people who believed to have got a cultural superiority than other people try to start enhancing their influence at that time especially in military means.

To me it's a bit strange. My Kwakiutal ancestors believed in their cultural superiority- but their method of dealing with their neighbors was peacefull trade, and the most agressive they ever got was the potlach- in which two tribes got together in fri

Re:To answer the question marks

[mercedo]

The potlach-I used to read about it in a guide book of Levis Strauss (French anthropologist). I think this is also a form of war in peaceful manner. After all they have to show off how they are generous in an excessive manner, that's ludicrous. I think examples you stated rather belong to the exceptions

Re:To answer the question marks

[Marxist Hacker 42]

True enough- a chief stupid enough to be that generous wouldn't have a tribe left after a few winters. But it's a heck of a lot better than killing people outright...