nationalism

ariel · 7th January 2007, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsubame1

Very interesting to know your opinions. Please keep posting the deepest feeling you have on this matter... Are enlightening.

Mr. tacchini,
In your comment on Amazon.com ( addressed to me), you said:"...we've collected enough material to bury you with your own hate" and threatened to report me to Amazon.
Please feel free to add my current posting to the file assembled by you and your Merry Gang of Attack Poodles.

Emanuel · 7th January 2007, 08:37 PM

I think that nationalistic fervour is born from one's need to portray one's country in a greatr light than it is. A nationalist will see his/her country as occupying a unique important role in the world, or representing some unique aspect of humanity that cannot be found anywhere else. This becomes expressed in history, art, politics, and so on. The real impartial truth of past events is glossed over and moulded to demonstrate some particular ideal. The same goes for weapons...in the article linked by Ariel, the Russian smith saw himself as one of a handful of brilliant bladesmiths able to re-discover crucible steel after the great Anosov uncovered its secrets. The Iranian author of the article used this in support of his own view that Iranian/Persian blades of crucible steel were the best ever made. As a Romanian I could start presenting the great valour of my ancestors who resisted Celts, Romans, Huns, Tartars, Turks and so on and conclude that without them Europe would have been lost to the innumerable hordes many times. A look at cold, academic historical accounts will show otherwise however. Of course many many sources are needed to corroborate any fact, and every source will have some bias. The nationalist will naturally choose the source whose bias confirms his/her own and present it as academic/historical truth.

As for western martial arts and specifically unarmed martial arts, I think many individuals and nations have started feeling the need to demonstrate their own historical prowess in the face of eastern martial arts practices. It seems like some wish to show that they too also could fly through the air, walk on water and sweep away hundreds of incoming arrows with a simple gesture and lots of billowing cloth. I think it's very important for a culture to return to its martial characteristics and learn them but only so long as they uphold the purity of what they find. If it's simple wrestling and unrefined punching, so be it, but don't add flying kicks and fancy blocks. The nationalist prefers to develop an impressive construct than accept the simplicity and banality of the truth. He/she will present something that equals or surpasses every other nation in everything, instead of finding that one single, particularly defining trait that is not found anywhere else, if such a thing exists and focus upon it. I recently found out that Romanian weapons were essentially the same as those of neighbouring countries, namely greatly influenced by Ottomans, Tartars and Western Europeans. The same with armour, and battle tactics - if any. Decoration might be the one thing that is local, but even then one never knows. The falx is the one unique attribute, but it goes too far back and it's too much a derivasion of the rhomphaia the weapon of our Thracian cousins. I wish I had some ethnic Romanian weapons not found anywhere else, but aside from some cool shepherd staffs and some nice axes that look a lot like the Persian Tabar, there isn't much. I love the country though and will defend it with a flaming tongue in any serious or inebriated discussion. Pride is the one good aspect of nationalism. One should be proud of one's nation/people...after all they've made it this far...but be proud for truthful things, not constructs.

So much for Nationalism
Emanuel

ShayanMirza · 7th January 2007, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manolo

I think that nationalistic fervour is born from one's need to portray one's country in a greatr light than it is. A nationalist will see his/her country as occupying a unique important role in the world, or representing some unique aspect of humanity that cannot be found anywhere else.

I strongly agree and disagree--I think nationalism tends towards emphasizing the positive in order to an imply a negative about everyone else. However, I think there is such a thing as positive nationalism, since every country has something unique that is unknown anywhere else. Nationalism can be made to overemphasize it and turn a point of pride into a tool of hate, but I don't think it does so by nature. In my opinion, it is distinctly possible to be proud of one's country and its unique contributions to human heritage and at the same time respect the contributions of other societies and countries as well, much as a musician may be proud of their knowledge and skill and still revel in the contribution of their colleagues to the greater sound of the symphony as a whole. Perhaps my disagreement is just semantics--constructive nationalism may just be called patriotism, in which case nationalism would always be the negative flip-side.

And David, that was ridiculously well-said. I couldn't agree more with your summary.

Emanuel · 7th January 2007, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShayanMirza

Perhaps my disagreement is just semantics--constructive nationalism may just be called patriotism, in which case nationalism would always be the negative flip-side.

Agreed!

Here "nationalist" carries a somewhat negative tone. I think I better say that the nationalist or overly-patriotic individual tends to over-emphasize or exaggerate some aspect of his/her culture. This feeling may escalate into an air of superiority and turn nasty. I'm all for patriotism and pride though, as long as it is founded on truth.

Emanuel · 7th January 2007, 09:01 PM

About the Philippines...the discussions on this forum have been my introduction to this country and its people. I am impressed and feel that Filipinos justly have plenty to be proud of. As I understand so far, they lost in their struggle against the Spanish and later against the Americans. That battles were masscres is undeniable I think and a moot point - wars are ugly. In the need to conquer fast and show success to the upper hierarchy, rough measures are carried out. The Americans massacre as every other colonial power did, and their motives are irrelevant. Whether it was because they couldn't tell women apart from men, or that they specifically wanted to kill the women is again irrelevant - they did it. I'm certain that the people of the Philippines did the same in their own wars prior to colonialization. So it goes and so it has always been. Filipino manuals will write the Filipino part while American manuals will write the American part. The researcher (of weapons or other things) will sift through all this and find out the simple cold truth of action and events. He can determine the credibility of each source in providing each piece of data and work with it accordingly.
Numbers become irrelevant in conflicts I think- whether 100 were killed or thousands were butchered, the fact remains that a lot of people were killed at one specific moment in time as the result of deliberate action. Questions of resistance, insurgents, bandits or terrorist are moot in this point I think. The invading powers are ultimately responsible for this, since death is a result of their presence.

I think that invading powers will always try to present their actions as good and heroic against unruly, mean savages in order to preserve moral justification even when there isn't any. The indians were beastly savages for attacking poor settlers who only wanted to cultivate the land given to them by the government. The Filipinos and Moros were savages for not accepting benevolent Spanish/American rule. On the other side, the savages were heros bravely defending their homeland against the barbaric invaders who wanted to steal their God-given land. In most cases I think the invaded has the moral justification to resist an invader...not everyone agrees with this though.

Emanuel

Tim Simmons · 7th January 2007, 09:04 PM

What it really really is not true!!!!!

I will start to cry.

LabanTayo · 7th January 2007, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manolo

About the Philippines...the discussions on this forum have been my introduction to this country and its people. I am impressed and feel that Filipinos justly have plenty to be proud of. As I understand so far, they lost in their struggle against the Spanish and later against the Americans. That battles were masscres is undeniable I think and a moot point - wars are ugly. In the need to conquer fast and show success to the upper hierarchy, rough measures are carried out. The Americans massacre as every other colonial power did, and their motives are irrelevant. Whether it was because they couldn't tell women apart from men, or that they specifically wanted to kill the women is again irrelevant - they did it. I'm certain that the people of the Philippines did the same in their own wars prior to colonialization. So it goes and so it has always been. Filipino manuals will write the Filipino part while American manuals will write the American part. The researcher will sift through all this and find out the simple cold truth of action and events.

Manolo,
We can't rewrite the history that has already been written. All we can do is put out for everyone to read, is the other side.

Am I bitter that the Spanish took over the islands and called them the Philippines? No.
Am I bitter that the Americans won the Philippines? No.
The Spanish did some great things for the islands they called the Philippines.
The Americans also did great things for them. Without the Americans, I wouldnt be here today.

Am I bitter that the history that was written about them might be skewed? Yes.
Am I bitter that history written today has factual errors? Yes.

Unfortunetely, we cant go back in time and write the real history, whether the truth hurts or not.

I am willing to accept the truth if it hurts, as long as its the truth.
I will not be bias in my search for the true facts of any event. If we lost, we lost. Can't be biased if the facts are true.

Everyone heralds MacArthur as the savior of the Philippines during WWII.
Read the history books.
Now, go ask any of the vets living today, that he left behind when the Japanese took over, if he was a hero. Ask them what their side of the story is. Ask the Bataan death march survivors. These are people that today, we can get the real truth from.
I understand that war is war and you have to do anything to win, but to leave out facts in the history books about what really took place, is wrong. Thats National pride at its worst.

I praise our famous writter, Mark Twain, for trying to relay the real truth.
And he was American. He didnt have National pride bias when writing his letters about the Battle of Bud Dajo.

http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ailte..._featarms.html

David · 7th January 2007, 10:12 PM

Shelley, i am all for seeking alternatives to the side of the story that has been presented by the U.S. Government in this and ,in fact, many other actions, both past and present. But i wonder if this forum is the place for a debate of this scope. I would hope we could keep this discussion on topic, which from my perspective is how we study ethnographic weapons. I fear that this conversation has the potention to spiral into a much larger debate on international politics and morality. Can we talk about the weapons? How has the western perspective skewed the history of the Moro kris, for instance, or the barong. The historical perspective that you are raising here is indeed tragic, but can we tie this into the topic?

Emanuel · 7th January 2007, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LabanTayo

but to leave out facts in the history books about what really took place, is wrong. Thats National pride at its worst.

Thas is true LabanTayo, and it is sad when it is still ongoing. That's when nationalism becomes politics. A government will not teach new generations that some of its passed actions were bad. That's just a sort of propaganda. The important thing is for people to seek alternative sources and find all sides of a story in order to make up your mind and form an understanding of the matter. That people are kept ignorant of their country's true history is visible in the US and Canada as well I think. I don't think that can be changed to easily. The best thing a prof or even a parent can do is direct students to different views to make them understand that there are different sides of history and different truths.

The other thing about nationalism is that it renders one blind. The nationalist may forget history for the sake of patriotic pride, and his/her resulting actions may certainlly have adverse effects on others.

That's frustrating as hell I think...not meant in an offensive way but there is the expression of the "self-righteous idiot" the one who may be totally wrong, but so determined that his/her view is the God-given truth that he/she will not see reason no matter how hard one tries to show them. The self-righteous idiot knows that his country is great and good and has always been so, and any point to the contrary is wrong. Not much you can do against this attitude.

7th January 2007, 09:01 PM	#5
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	About the Philippines...the discussions on this forum have been my introduction to this country and its people. I am impressed and feel that Filipinos justly have plenty to be proud of. As I understand so far, they lost in their struggle against the Spanish and later against the Americans. That battles were masscres is undeniable I think and a moot point - wars are ugly. In the need to conquer fast and show success to the upper hierarchy, rough measures are carried out. The Americans massacre as every other colonial power did, and their motives are irrelevant. Whether it was because they couldn't tell women apart from men, or that they specifically wanted to kill the women is again irrelevant - they did it. I'm certain that the people of the Philippines did the same in their own wars prior to colonialization. So it goes and so it has always been. Filipino manuals will write the Filipino part while American manuals will write the American part. The researcher (of weapons or other things) will sift through all this and find out the simple cold truth of action and events. He can determine the credibility of each source in providing each piece of data and work with it accordingly. Numbers become irrelevant in conflicts I think- whether 100 were killed or thousands were butchered, the fact remains that a lot of people were killed at one specific moment in time as the result of deliberate action. Questions of resistance, insurgents, bandits or terrorist are moot in this point I think. The invading powers are ultimately responsible for this, since death is a result of their presence. I think that invading powers will always try to present their actions as good and heroic against unruly, mean savages in order to preserve moral justification even when there isn't any. The indians were beastly savages for attacking poor settlers who only wanted to cultivate the land given to them by the government. The Filipinos and Moros were savages for not accepting benevolent Spanish/American rule. On the other side, the savages were heros bravely defending their homeland against the barbaric invaders who wanted to steal their God-given land. In most cases I think the invaded has the moral justification to resist an invader...not everyone agrees with this though. Emanuel Last edited by Manolo; 7th January 2007 at 09:17 PM.

7th January 2007, 08:37 PM	#2
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	I think that nationalistic fervour is born from one's need to portray one's country in a greatr light than it is. A nationalist will see his/her country as occupying a unique important role in the world, or representing some unique aspect of humanity that cannot be found anywhere else. This becomes expressed in history, art, politics, and so on. The real impartial truth of past events is glossed over and moulded to demonstrate some particular ideal. The same goes for weapons...in the article linked by Ariel, the Russian smith saw himself as one of a handful of brilliant bladesmiths able to re-discover crucible steel after the great Anosov uncovered its secrets. The Iranian author of the article used this in support of his own view that Iranian/Persian blades of crucible steel were the best ever made. As a Romanian I could start presenting the great valour of my ancestors who resisted Celts, Romans, Huns, Tartars, Turks and so on and conclude that without them Europe would have been lost to the innumerable hordes many times. A look at cold, academic historical accounts will show otherwise however. Of course many many sources are needed to corroborate any fact, and every source will have some bias. The nationalist will naturally choose the source whose bias confirms his/her own and present it as academic/historical truth. As for western martial arts and specifically unarmed martial arts, I think many individuals and nations have started feeling the need to demonstrate their own historical prowess in the face of eastern martial arts practices. It seems like some wish to show that they too also could fly through the air, walk on water and sweep away hundreds of incoming arrows with a simple gesture and lots of billowing cloth. I think it's very important for a culture to return to its martial characteristics and learn them but only so long as they uphold the purity of what they find. If it's simple wrestling and unrefined punching, so be it, but don't add flying kicks and fancy blocks. The nationalist prefers to develop an impressive construct than accept the simplicity and banality of the truth. He/she will present something that equals or surpasses every other nation in everything, instead of finding that one single, particularly defining trait that is not found anywhere else, if such a thing exists and focus upon it. I recently found out that Romanian weapons were essentially the same as those of neighbouring countries, namely greatly influenced by Ottomans, Tartars and Western Europeans. The same with armour, and battle tactics - if any. Decoration might be the one thing that is local, but even then one never knows. The falx is the one unique attribute, but it goes too far back and it's too much a derivasion of the rhomphaia the weapon of our Thracian cousins. I wish I had some ethnic Romanian weapons not found anywhere else, but aside from some cool shepherd staffs and some nice axes that look a lot like the Persian Tabar, there isn't much. I love the country though and will defend it with a flaming tongue in any serious or inebriated discussion. Pride is the one good aspect of nationalism. One should be proud of one's nation/people...after all they've made it this far...but be proud for truthful things, not constructs. So much for Nationalism Emanuel

7th January 2007, 09:04 PM	#6
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,855	What it really really is not true!!!!! I will start to cry.

7th January 2007, 10:12 PM	#8
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,218	Shelley, i am all for seeking alternatives to the side of the story that has been presented by the U.S. Government in this and ,in fact, many other actions, both past and present. But i wonder if this forum is the place for a debate of this scope. I would hope we could keep this discussion on topic, which from my perspective is how we study ethnographic weapons. I fear that this conversation has the potention to spiral into a much larger debate on international politics and morality. Can we talk about the weapons? How has the western perspective skewed the history of the Moro kris, for instance, or the barong. The historical perspective that you are raising here is indeed tragic, but can we tie this into the topic?