Would Ukrainians be better off if they ended the war and surrendered to Russia? — frank

Would you do that if you it would be your country and not Ukraine?

From my country's experience it's not only that give make an acceptable and somewhat beneficial option to Russia, you also have to make it clear that the surrender option isn't happening and that the annexation option will simply be too costly. With those options being off the table, then the "Finlandization" option is the one Russia is happy with. But notice, only with those two options out of the question.

Or then you simply have to have nuclear deterrence. Of some sort. (Which the Ukrainians, btw, gave away thanks to promises from the US, UK and Russia in 1994.)

(Dismantling of the Ukrainian nuclear deterrence)

Would Ukrainians be better off if they ended the war and surrendered to Russia?
— frank
Would you do that if you it would be your country and not Ukraine? — ssu

During the 100 year war the Burgundians favored surrender to England because France was suffering so much from the conflict. 1/3 of the arable land wasn't being farmed. 1/3 of the churches were empty, many of them robbed by French soldier/brigands.

I can't say they were wrong.

During the 100 year war the Burgundians favored surrender to England because France was suffering so much from the conflict. 1/3 of the arable land wasn't being farmed. 1/3 of the churches were empty, many of them robbed by French soldier/brigands.

I can't say they were wrong. — frank

Yep!

And there's no independent Burgundy anymore.

Do note that independent Burgundy was absorbed to French crown lands and the Belgian part to Habsburg posessions not long after that. Now only about 50 000 people do know to speak some Burgundian.

So with that kind of thinking, history will remember you and your people/country like this:

That's some nationalistic values you have there: the grandeur of the state's legacy over the well being of the people?

That's some nationalistic values you have there: the grandeur of the state's legacy over the well being of the people? — frank

Better to starve to death with a sword in your hand than to simultaneously eat morsels fertilized by brethren's corpses with said sword placed firmly up your, oh never mind.

The "legacy" of a state is the well being of the people. Defeated enemies (of the state) who claim to have been "the state" and were able to act as such simply add to the legitimacy of said state and relevant people. It's not that complicated really.

Yeah but your descendants aren't going to care what your nationality was, or what language you spoke, or what you looked like, or what your religion was. It's all vanity.

Joe Biden is probably the worst president USA will support the next 3 years, we hope he does not mess up things. Ukraine situation will not increase it is lie it's only A sham they just repeat the situation over and over.

That's some nationalistic values you have there: the grandeur of the state's legacy over the well being of the people? — frank

The grandeur in this case is of course the French state and the French language where prior there was a multitude of other different languages and cultures.

It was in 1790, barely a year after the Bastille was stormed, that the first ever linguistic survey of France took place. The Rapport Grégoire established that French was the sole language in only 15 of the 83 départements, and that over 12 million citizens – mainly in rural areas – couldn’t speak enough French to carry out a conversation, and that only 3 million people could speak French ‘properly’, with even fewer able to write it. In effect, Paris and its hinterland was virtually an isolated island of monolingual French speakers surrounded by a sea of regional languages.

French is the sole official language according to the second article of the French Constitution. Other languages spoken in the area, like Occitan, are now highly endangered. This hasn't happened because of the idleness of the previous speakers of those languages. The parents didn't just suddenly not teach their children the language. It naturally has been a crucial objective for the French state to create a uniform language and uniform French culture, because left with to the old the state of a true multiethnic country would be far more troublesome than the United Kingdom or Spain.

Language was to play a key role in this re-education of the French people. French, and French alone, was to be the language of freedom and the universal values embodied by the Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme. While it may have, theoretically, been done in the spirit of equality and democracy – a national language ensured that all citizens had equal access to the benefits of the Revolution – the practical application of the policy and the language had a decidedly authoritarian bent.

And do note how you conquer lands, you don't take them just over, you mold the people of those conquered nations to be part of your starting from the language and culture they had. If you don't assimilate the people you have conquered, you are just asking for trouble in the future. Likely the state will just collapse when people don't think they belong to it. There aren't many Empires left these days.

So it's not nationalism I'm preaching here (or you are confusing the term), but you @frank might not understand that what you say might unintentionally be promoting imperialism.

Yeah but your descendants aren't going to care what your nationality was, or what language you spoke, or what you looked like, or what your religion was. It's all vanity. — frank

You really think so?

So it's not nationalism I'm preaching here (or you are confusing the term), but you frank might not understand that what you say might unintentionally be promoting imperialism. — ssu

No, that is nationalism, you just didn't realize that nationalism is mostly made of love. It's love for a culture, love for a language and history. Is it worth killing to preserve it for a few more years?

. Is it worth killing to preserve it for a few more years? — frank

A few years? What are you talking about?

That is simply crazy. You think in a few years English language will just die out? Or is it just Finnish, Estonian, and other small languages that will "fizzle out", in a few more years? Do the Native Americans have a right to their language and culture? Are their demands for "nationalism" so bad, inherently evil? If your logical, I guess it would be so. Or do you just change the discourse when it's politically correct to do so?

But I guess with you the question is just what would you considered to be worth defending even with resorting to violence. This seems to be the typical ignorant attitude of someone who's own culture hasn't been under threat of possible extinction. So I guess for you culture, the language you speak and your heritage doesn't matter. It's all bad I guess.

You think in a few years English language will just die out? Or is it just Finnish, Estonian, and other small languages that will "fizzle out", in a few more years? — ssu

Yes. Although I'm aware that my time sense has been warped a little by my adventures into geological history and the history of the Bronze Age. I got so used to diving into the past that the present moment started seeming far away.

It gets me in trouble with climate change angst too. I realize that a thousand years isn't really that long.

Do the Native Americans have a right to their language and culture? Are their demands for "nationalism" so bad, inherently evil? If your logical, I guess it would be so. Or do you just change the discourse when it's politically correct to do so? — ssu

There isn't any Native American nationalism. And I didn't say nationalism is inherently evil. That is your knee-jerk reaction, and that probably explains why you aren't aware of how fiercely nationalistic you actually are.

It's ok to love your country and culture. It's normal to be willing to kill to protect it.

We aren't all normal, though. Some of us are willing to say goodbye.

This seems to be the typical ignorant attitude of someone who's own culture hasn't been under threat of possible extinction — ssu

Oh no, you got personal, so I'll have to pull rank on ya. I'm from the Melting Pot. I am Assimilation Personified by virtue of my diverse genetics.

I'm keenly aware of how much is lost through assimilation and mixing.

You are the one who isn't aware of how much of your genome comes from cultures that have been lost through defeat. You're so proud of what you are and your pride would be a betrayal, except for one thing:

One of your old Gothic grandmothers didn't care what you would look like. She didn't care what language you would speak. She didn't care what your culture would be. She blessed your life, and that's all.

Yes. Although I'm aware that my time sense has been warped a little by my adventures into geological history and the history of the Bronze Age. I got so used to diving into the past that the present moment started seeming far away.

It gets me in trouble with climate change angst too. I realize that a thousand years isn't really that long. — frank

1000 years? Sure, in a 1000 years not much is consistent and doesn't change. But yes, I think the time range of one millennium isn't the most preferable one when tackling the problems of the present societies.

There isn't any Native American nationalism. — frank

Really? How can you say that?

Some very prominent Native writers and intellectuals such as Vine Deloria Jr., Taiaiake
Alfred, Jeff Corntassel, David E. Wilkins, Glenn T. Morris, Tom Holm, Waziyatawin Angela Wilson, and Simon Ortiz have reflected on the concept of tribal sovereignty and self-determination and, in order to achieve self-reliance and self-confidence, have called Native peoples to return to the positive energy of Indigenous epistemologies that is desperately missing from Native communities. Along the way, for instance,

Ortiz, in Woven Stone, concurs:
We need to insist on Native American self-sufficiency, our heritage of cultural resistance, and advocacy for a role in international Third-World de-colonizing struggles, including recognizing and unifying with our indigenous sisters and brothers in the Americas of the Western Hemisphere.

Thus, academically-based and community-grounded Native intellectuals and writers alike are expressing the need for Native societies to restore the health and prosperity of the people using historical Native ways of governing.

It's not only the Navajo that call themselves the Navajo Nation, but with their own jurisdiction, administration and police force, they can call themselves rightly a nation.

And I didn't say nationalism is inherently evil. That is your knee-jerk reaction — frank

Fair enough. But do note that the discussion started from Ukraine, a country that was invaded and has now for seven years fought a war with Russia. And if it was bad (nationalism) for them to defend their country? Yet I think we agree on this issue.

Oh no, you got personal, so I'll have to pull rank on ya. I'm from the Melting Pot. I am Assimilation Personified by virtue of my diverse genetics. — frank

So hopefully your country does promotes that diversity! There's a lot of countries where those of mixed heritage are left outside the political/ethnic/racial divide and have no place in the political discourse. And that is extremely sad.

I would argue that several countries have been able to successfully create that "Melting Pot" and create a universal culture in which people from different backgrounds can relate to. We naturally think of the US, but I'd argue that the Romans were successful in this too. A multicultural state can exist, but then there has to be created a very strong identity over the older identities. The British identity is the obvious example of this. How important this is seldom is acknowledged. That the EU has totally failed in this (which is obvious, because it has taken national identities and "nationalism" to be bad). The EU will never be something like the US, it's just a political union for which nobody actually is willing to give his or her life literally.

In a way, it's crucial for the state to uphold the "priviledges" of it's people: that you can be educated in the language that your family speaks, that you get service in the language you speak. That the Constitution and the government is made for you, not someone else. These are among the obvious "perks" of having an own state intended for you that we take for granted. We shouldn't forget that this isn't granted. These "priviledges" also give the reason why people would give their life to defend that state. No small matter for the existence of a nation, large or small.

1000 years? Sure, in a 1000 years not much is consistent and doesn't change. But yes, I think the time range of one millennium isn't the most preferable one when tackling the problems of the present societies. — ssu

A millennium isn't that long. :cool:

Really? How can you say that? — ssu

Read that again and recognize that Native American tribes have their own private governments and police. That was a call for reinforcement of Native traditions. That's a lost cause. You can take my word for it, or believe what you want. :razz:

And if it was bad (nationalism) for them to defend their country — ssu

It's been devastating to the people. That's what I was thinking about.

Always nice talking to you. :blush:

That was a call for reinforcement of Native traditions. That's a lost cause. You can take my word for it, or believe what you want. :razz: — frank

I do believe it isn't a lost cause. The only thing is that actual culture cannot be just remembering the past, something new has to be created also.

(Navajo language likely won't die yet.)


It only puts a bigger burden if there are fewer people. For example, there are only 10 000 Sami people in Finland. Try upholding an own culture (music, literature, art) with that. But with even a few hundred thousand it's totally possible. Icelandic language and culture will surely prevail. I simply cannot fathom that somehow they would forget their language and start talking something else.

It's been devastating to the people. That's what I was thinking about. — frank

If you haven't lived where the combat has taken place, it has been quite normal. Remember that this basically has been now a border war fought with limited resources. For instance air power hasn't been used by Russia.

(For example Donetsk looks quite ordinary, even if the front lines are close)

For example, there are only 10 000 Sami people in Finland. Try upholding an own culture (music, literature, art) with that. But with even a few hundred thousand it's totally possible. Icelandic language and culture will surely prevail. I simply cannot fathom that somehow they would forget their language and start talking something else. — ssu

That's cool. Native Americans aren't like that. Their cultures are gone. There's a really sad Bob Dylan song about it.

"Well I found him
in South Carolina
trailer in the sand
the man from the picture
paste and yellow in my hand

He said I sold my blood for money
there wasn't any pain
the only thing that bothers me
is it's in someone else's veins.

My mother took me aside
tried to change my mind
she said they wadn't no use a'lookin
there's nothing
nothing left to find

So I left him
in South Carolina
trailer in the sand
the man from the picture
paste and yellow in my hand"

Native Americans aren't like that. Their cultures are gone. — frank

:roll: :snicker:

Native Americans aren't like that. Their cultures are gone. There's a really sad Bob Dylan song about it. — frank

Well @frank, if you have Native American heritage, links to them or would have studied them, that might sound more credible. I think Robert Zimmermann's ancestry is Jewish from Eastern Europe.

I think one has to put these things into perspective.

My country compared to Europe is like the state of Minnesota compared to the US. I'm sure there are actors, writers and intellectuals from Minnesota, but they are a small fraction to the "cultural" people of all the US. And this shows actually that when we talk of American culture, be it Hollywood or Broadway in New York or whatever, that there are 331 million Americans, some 64 times more people than there are Finns. So actually it's no wonder that the US can have vibrant cultural centers, yet the fact is that there are only a few of them is the real question. There being the "West Coast" and the "East Coast" and the in between being "Fly over country" doesn't sound actually so vibrant to me.

Just compare motion pictures. In my country about 30 motion pictures, long films, are produced annually. Hollywood produces about 600 (earlier perhaps 800) motion pictures. Compared to the population (64 times smaller) Finland produces a lot more films than Hollywood. A way lot more. Cultural activity simply doesn't go similarly with the growth of the population. In fact I could argue that some "cultural scenes" can dominate larger populations and basically end with less cultural activity in a bigger population.

There are about 2,9 million Native Americans in the US belonging to 574 federally recognized tribes. That's less than 1 percent of the US population and equivalent to the population of Kansas. The largest community I think is the Navajo with 332 000 people belonging to this ethnic group. That is of similar size of the city of Corpus Christi in Texas.

So perhaps we have to look at how vibrant culture Corpus Christi has, how many famous artists, writers and intellectuals have come from there? Great if you can mention one. I'm sure there are, but that comparison is a good reality check of how much unique culture can be sustained with a few hundred thousand people. Some comparing the "cultural scene" in Corpus Christi to NY or LA might think the city is quite dead. Yet it's likely not. So to argue that the Native Americans have lost their culture is quite unfair. There are so few of them.

I'll let you believe those cultures still exist. There's no harm in that.

I'll let you believe those cultures still exist. There's no harm in that. — frank

The harm is in believing they don't.

P.S. No culture is stagnant. They either change or die. Every single one.

P.S. No culture is stagnant. They either change or die. Every single one. — James Riley

Exactly.

If for example people don't have in ceremonies folk costumes from the 19th Century (and some from the 18th Century) doesn't mean that Finnish culture is dying. Culture isn't just remembering the past, but adapting to the present and creating something new in one's own way. Besides, there has always been the a lot of influences across cultures. Good luck trying to separate which Nordic traditional folk costumes comes from which country. They actually are quite similar.

P.S. No culture is stagnant. They either change or die. Every single one.
— James Riley
Exactly.

If for example people don't have in ceremonies folk costumes from the 19th Century (and some from the 18th Century) doesn't mean that Finnish culture is dying. Culture isn't just remembering the past, but adapting to the present and creating something new in one's own way. Besides, there has always been the a lot of influences across cultures. Good luck trying to separate which Nordic traditional folk costumes comes from which country. They actually are quite similar. — ssu

When I was young, and ignorant of such things, I would attend powwows. I would look around for, and be somewhat disappointed not to find, dancers who were in traditional, brain-tanned buckskins and other natural materials, sewn with sinew, etc.

My little brain suffered cognitive dissonance in witnessing all the Nike sneakers, Copenhagen and Skoal can lids, bright silk fabric, metal arrowheads and other accoutrements foreign to my myopic understanding of what an Indian should be. I thought their culture must truly be dead if it did not fit my prejudicial, uninformed and wholly biased view. And there all around, were cowboy hats, boots, Wranglers and rodeo buckles. On Indians! And what was with all those western saddles! And Winchesters in the Easy Rider Rifle Racks!

But they were patient, and gentle with me over the years. And not with just a little humor. Although trust was and still is difficult to earn. And understandably so. They trade goods just as they traded goods long before Columbus showed up. Why not continue trading? That is entirely consistent with their culture. The best obsidian came from areas that may have been a thousand miles away. So why not silk from the orient? The horse itself was food, left the continent, returned and was adopted for work and transportation. So why not a truck from Detroit? I suppose if Indians can't have a truck, then horses are out too. What then of the horse culture?

The language was still there. And oh, the drumming and songs and dancing. I have heard it in the clouds laying on the ground in misty rain in familiar lands. It's still in the land. I have many CDs and they are in "shuffle" on my iPod. Whenever I go to powwow, they insist I come dance the veterans dance with them: Nez Perce, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Shoshone, Paiute.

They have all the characters of humanity, generally, including both bad and good. I represented individuals and Tribes, in Tribal and federal court. They have all the politics and infighting and animosities that other cultures have. There is even division between "traditionalists" and others. But I learned the worst thing I could do was to think their culture does not exist. Yes, there were tribes (especially on the coasts) that suffered genocide into extinction. Literally every last member killed. But there are many that are left. Many have their cultures and languages and songs and ceremonies extant.
Changed? Yes. But still very much alive.

I don't hold romantic views of Indians. They are humans and I'm no big fan of humans. But at the end of the day, there are many cultures left, and I've seen worse.

A good reply. This cartoon from Gary Larson came to mind from what you said:

I thought their culture must truly be dead if it did not fit my prejudicial, uninformed and wholly biased view. - I don't hold romantic views of Indians. They are humans and I'm no big fan of humans. — James Riley

If only things would be this way, that people would hold native peoples as humans and not either as "noble savages" or just as victims of Western imperialism. Yet those prejudicial, uninformed views do dominate. Either you have the classical derogatory (racist) views or then the more woke ideas, which also can go into nonsense just from a totally different path.

If those cowboy hats, boots and Wranglers are somehow viewed as wrong by somebody, I would say the Sami, one of the last indigenous and nomadic people in Europe, have even bigger problem with the dominant narrative. And that is that the narrative about indigenous people has this dichotomy between the indigenous people and white people, the settlers. Because this is the dominant narrative, the Sami activists simply have to adapt to this narrative and have to refer to Finns, Swedes and Norwegians as the white "settlers". The problem is that Sami, being a Fenno Ugric people, are in the American racial terms simply white. There is absolutely no way you can spot the difference of a Sami from a Finn from some outward "racial" difference. Perhaps an Udmurt could be recognized from having more likely red hair, but even that doesn't count for some reason as a racial difference (as these racial definitions are genuinely invented). Bit of a problem when a female Sami activist looks like a stereotypical Finnish or Swedish girl with blue eyes and blonde hair in an environment where intersectionality and white priviledge are so important and it is assumed that all indigenous people have a similar story with the European settlers.

But I guess the same way even the proletariat, the working class, was earlier romanticized by leftist activists in to being something that the actual people weren't.

White House quietly tries to reshape economic coverage

The White House, not happy with the news media's coverage of the supply chain and economy, has been working behind the scenes trying to reshape coverage in its favor. Senior White House and admin officials — including NEC Deputy Directors David Kamin and Bharat Ramamurti, along with Ports Envoy John Porcari — have been briefing major newsrooms over the past week, a source tells me.

The officials have been discussing with newsrooms trends pertaining to job creation, economic growth, supply chains, and more. The basic argument that has been made: That the country's economy is in much better shape than it was last year. I'm told the conversations have been productive, with anchors and reporters and producers getting to talk with the officials...

https://t.co/s3tNP28Lae

That’s hilarious. If you’ve seen this administration’s propaganda, you know they’ll stoop to any level to paint themselves in a certain light, even though it is comes off as phoney as a three dollar bill. Remember this one?

Of course, Trump would never do this. Instead of trying to subtley spin stories, he just directly called Fox News and told them to lie for him. If you'd complained about that, you might have some credibility. But you didn't, so you don't.

Trump and an appeal to hypocrisy… I’m not surprised.

You shouldn't be, it'll keep on happening until you start to be consistent and not a naughty little propagandist. :naughty:

Consistent fallacy doesn’t do much to convince me, unfortunately. Perhaps a better tactic is in order.

OK, maybe I'll just do this then.

If you’ve seen this administration’s my propaganda, you know they’ll I'll stoop to any level to paint themselves the Dems in a certain light, even though it is comes off as phoney as a three dollar bill. — the real NOS4A2

Better?

(None of this is to say you're necessarily wrong on the facts, of course. It just seems fair to mess with you sometimes.)

(None of this is to say you're necessarily wrong on the facts, of course. It just seems fair to mess with you sometimes.)

Hey, I can take it. So fair enough. But since it only applies to me you must forgive me for disregarding the remarks about my consistency.