Uechi-Ryu.com

I'm doing fine Rich, thanks for asking. How's the fishing?

Gene

Fishing has just been so-so this year. I fish the James River and a large lake so finding th schools is a challenge. But when you do, wow.

This is the time of year for fresh water striped bass so next week that will be my target.

Rich

Valkenar wrote:

Just as a few police take the job because they like the power and authority, there are a few soldiers who enlist because they want to shoot people legally.

Hmmm sounds like a visit from the turd terrorist

http://minibytes.mondominishows.com/poo ... ?Affil=fan

Interesting discussion. I agree with Rich why sully someones name if you don't know all the facts. And why sully those who serve with a statement like this.

RACastanet wrote: But I believe you need to stand for your country. If you do not feel some twinge of nationalism I say shame on you.

Why? What is good about nationalism for its own sake? I personally believe that nationalist sentiment is rooted in some rather unsavory instincts and thus I try to avoid that kind of mindset. Specifically, I think it's part of an "us vs. them" mindset that is counter to where I'd like to see humanity headed. There's a pretty wide gulf between what is ideal and what is real, of course, but to the extent is possible I try not to contribute to what I see as a problem.

Look at all the people clamoring to get into America to share the wealth. How many people are risking everything to get into Iran? North Korea? Venezuala? Somalia?

There's definitely a lot of good reasons to want to live in America. That doesn't mean people who happen to be born elsewhere are inferior human beings.

Here is some conceit for you... people feel safer when I am around. kind of like the sheep dog among sheep. It is a good feeling to have people enjoy my presence.

That's not a conceit, it's a simple fact. What's a conceit is taking that fact and extrapolating to a position that says anyone (or almost anyone) who just so happens to live in the country as you can be anticipated to be a better person than someone who lives elsewhere simply because of your presence in that country. That's the essence of nationalist spirit.

See any Russian or French or Iranian or South American or Saudi ships rushing to the rescue? I think not. It makes me proud to be an American!

I agree, that's something to be proud of. The only caveat I'd put here is that while one might be proud of their country having wealth, and one might be proud of their country having the ethical stance to give aid, it's not quite fair to say that any given country lacks that ethical stance because they don't give as much. If they have less to give, it's basic math that they're not going to be able to give as much, regardless of their moral fortitude. From the ethical standpoint, I would look more at proportion of GDP spent (or some such metric) in order to try to quantify their dedication to worldwide relief efforts.

I definitely am interested in how you will substantiate this statement. What are your sources?

You're right I have no real sources for that. If you don't agree with it, that's fine, though it seems a statistical certainty given the size of the military and the fact that it does present a potential outlet for murderous desires.

That doesn't mean people who happen to be born elsewhere are inferior human beings.

Justin: I have never, ever stated or implied such a thing, be it in regard to nationality, race, religion. martial arts style or whatever. I challenge you to do a search of my thousands of posts and find one such reference. You are so reflexively whatever you see things that are just not there.

What's a conceit is taking that fact and extrapolating to a position that says anyone (or almost anyone) who just so happens to live in the country as you can be anticipated to be a better person than someone who lives elsewhere simply because of your presence in that country.

Again, I do not know where I have ever taken this position. Take off your smoke colored glasses and go back and reread my posts.

The only caveat I'd put here is that while one might be proud of their country having wealth, and one might be proud of their country having the ethical stance to give aid, it's not quite fair to say that any given country lacks that ethical stance because they don't give as much.

One more time, that is not my position. If you want to go by GDP then every country with a positive GDP should give something. There were a lot of absentees at disaster sites the last few years that could have given something, if only according to their ability.

Think about this... While we are involved in a worldwide fight against terror and fighting terrorists in Iraq, one of our best Navy hospital ships was caring for Muslims in Indonesia! Our Marines are getting by on one or two meals a day while the Corps prepositioned supply ship is being offloaded to feed disaster victims. I submit we as a country go way beyond our fair share.

You're right I have no real sources for that. If you don't agree with it, that's fine, though it seems a statistical certainty given the size of the military and the fact that it does present a potential outlet for murderous desires.

You are way out of line here and are just casting your unsubstantiated opinions on our armed forces. I do know for a fact that the type of individual you refer to is not welcome in our military. These types are screened out early on... the recruiters may let a few go by the the DIs in basic and in OCS are on the lookout for these 'murderous' types. They are not welcome and are sent packing. As a rule, these types are easy to screen out as they do not take direction well.

For me, it is family, community, region/state, and country that I am proud of. As I said before, I feel sorry for people like you that do not share those types of feelings. Your world must be very hollow. You should apply for a job at the UN.

Rich

RACastanet wrote: Justin: I have never, ever stated or implied such a thing, be it in regard to nationality, race, religion. martial arts style or whatever.

Well you said "I put America and Americans first. " To me that implies you think Americans have more value. Call me crazy, but usually if I put something first it's because I value it over other things. Since you mention race, what would your impression be of someone saying "I put whites first?" Would that not imply to you that the speaker values white people higher than non-whites?

I submit we as a country go way beyond our fair share.

That's quite likely true. We are about 20% of the world's gdp (Wikipedia, so grain of salt). The total statistics here are pretty complicated, but it wouldn't surprise me if more than 20% of the worldwide relief efforts come from us.

You are way out of line here and are just casting your unsubstantiated opinions on our armed forces.

Well, not just my opinion, but I'm not about to try an argument by popularity.

I do know for a fact that the type of individual you refer to is not welcome in our military.

Of course they aren't. And of course law officers who are in it for the feeling of authority aren't welcome in the police force either. I highly doubt the military's screening process is perfect.

As I said before, I feel sorry for people like you that do not share those types of feelings. Your world must be very hollow. You should apply for a job at the UN.

Heh. What makes for a full life would be an interesting discussion. Anyway, we've gotten pretty far offtopic in this thread.

Well you said "I put America and Americans first. " To me that implies you think Americans have more value. Call me crazy, but usually if I put something first it's because I value it over other things. Since you mention race, what would your impression be of someone saying "I put whites first?" Would that not imply to you that the speaker values white people higher than non-whites?

You are certainly consistant in looking at the dark side of every position. OK, how about you substitute the word 'family' over 'white'. Do you not prioritize your family in your responsibilies or priorities or were you found under a rock? Shame on you if you would not put your family first. Is that your attitude?

Well, not just my opinion,

OK, whose opinion is it? Care to elaborate?

If you would like to start up a new thread with this track please do.

Rich

Val

I see putting "Americans" first is not all that different than putting anyone else "first."

I'm an American--so I tend to look at what is good for my nation before I look elsewhere.

What really strikes me is that you only get questions questions like this from western nations.

Got a buddy in China, you want to knwo how many times he and HIS buds sit around and wax all "zen" over the problems with "putting China first?"

ZERO.

You only get such self flogging question in nations with highly educted people that pretty much live lives of pampered ease.

Mainly because in MOST places around the world, belong to nation carries with it some sense of pride and some sense of actual support.

I honestly applaud the question, its shows that peoples hearts are in the right place.

I just think its a really complex question.

The USA is one of the few nations that actually DOES put its people and pocketbook on the line to help "others"--in a big way.

But such alturism comes at a high cost.

And part of that cost is at least some of the time--we have to take care of ourselves first--in order to help others.

Like they say on the airplanes--if the cabin loses oxygen, you MUST put your OWN oxygen mask on FIRST--BEFORE you help your kids--otherwise NOBODY can be helped.

Valkenar wrote:Call me crazy, but usually if I put something first it's because I value it over other things. Since you mention race, what would your impression be of someone saying "I put whites first?" Would that not imply to you that the speaker values white people higher than non-whites?

First off, even though the discussions have continued and Rich doesn't seem upset at the comment, I don't appreciate the negative connotations brought in with the implied "racist" label.

Not wanting to make this into a BIG discussion on the topic (I simply don't have the time), but I have wondered about this for a long time...

You imply that someone saying "I put whites first" equates to them having a higher value of whites than non-whites. That position is interesting to me for a number of reasons. First, why is there automatically the "racist" label and accompanying negative connotations associated with such a statement when that statement is made (as implied) by a "white" person and yet that same racist label and accompanying negative connotations do not get applied when someone from another race makes the same comment about their race? Second, your comment in saying that such a statement means that the person making the statement believes that "whites" are superior to "non-whites" interests me because I don't see how that is supported by the comment. You are the one that seems to automatically assume some superior/inferior relationship to anyone... nay, any "white" person, that has any racial pride. Why is it OK for non-whites to have racial pride and not OK for "whites"? There is absolutely no reason to believe that skin tone has anything at all to do with superiority or inferiority. However, there are most definitely other, deeper, racial/cultural differences between groups. Differences that are obvious to even the casual observer and differences which can be scientifically shown. There are those who will jump all over that and call me a "racist". They are wrong. I do not believe that I am superior to anyone else as a human being because of such mere differences. Differences are simply that... differences. Differences may define our chosen profession (I simply do not have the physical/DNA makeup to be a professional basketball player), but pointing those differences out does not mean that there is a superior/inferior relationship on a human level. Why is it automatically a "racist" comment for a "white" person to be proud of their race, when it is not considered a "racist" comment from any "non-white" in the western countries? I don't really expect an answer... it's more rhetorical than anything else...

Panther wrote: First off, even though the discussions have continued and Rich doesn't seem upset at the comment, I don't appreciate the negative connotations brought in with the implied "racist" label.

What? I wasn't calling him a racist at all. I used that example because it's the one that resonates most clearly. People are aware of racism. The analogy I made is far more immediately comprehensible than if I had used something like "green-eyed pride" instead.

And as an aside, I've been very tolerant of Rich's shenanigans. If you're going to condone his repeated and overt personal attacks then it's more than a little bit nonsensical to reproach me for saying something that might somehow be construed as implying a negative label.

Not wanting to make this into a BIG discussion on the topic (I simply don't have the time),
...
Why is it OK for non-whites to have racial pride and not OK for "whites"?

This statement and question are a bit incompatible. Here's my nutshell analysis:

1. In the abstract, what color your skin in doesn't affect whether or not it's reasonable to take pride in it.

2. In the real world, in America, there's been a social stigma attached to blackness throughout our history. Therefore black pride has at least two purposes that white pride doesn't. One, to counteract and reduce the prevalence of those attitudes, and two, to restore the lost self-image or self-worth of those who have been affected by those negative assumptions. There is no analogous purpose for white pride because those conditions simply never existed exist for whites (in America). Therefore black pride has social utility that white pride simply doesn't, even though there's nothing more fundamentally reasonable about black pride than about white pride.

3. If you want to consider PC-ism an anti-white stigma (which I think is an arguable position in certain extreme cases) then it becomes more reasonable to assert white pride. Still, that's only 10-15 years old, and far less entrenched than negative attitudes about blacks were.

Why is it automatically a "racist" comment for a "white" person to be proud of their race, when it is not considered a "racist" comment from any "non-white" in the western countries?

Because historically pro-white messages have been less about honest white pride and more about hating black people. e.g. The KKK. It's hard to escape that legacy. White pride has usually been synonymous with white supremacy, while black pride has been more often sincerely about self-worth, equality and unity.

Not so say that there hasn't been anti-white strains of black pride, there absolutely have. Still, a message of hate from disproportionately poorer and less powerful minorities are less intimidating than the same sort of message from a disproportionately richer and more powerful majority. That doesn't make hate right in either case, of course. But as spiderman would say, with great power comes great responsibility.

You don't sound like you really want to discuss this, but if you do, a new thread might be best.

I've been very tolerant of Rich's shenanigans.

Justin, people like you are shameless. The most intolerant people I have met are the self rightous and you are a perfect example of that. Please, grow up. Get out of your comfortable cocoon of others like you and join the real world.

You have an answer for everything based in PC terms. You just do not get it. You are borderline sociopathic. Have you joined ELF, or ALF, or PETA yet? They need extremeists like you.

Rich

Val

Sorry but I honestly have to take issue with the statement:

"Historically pro-white messges have been less about honest white pride and more about hating black people."

The foul rambling of a group of criminals--which is exactly what the KKK and their ilk are/were is simply not a fair example of "white pride" than the equally inane ravings of the Black Panthers.

Neither are indicative of the "mainstream" of white or black thought and pride are/was.

Hate is hate, racism is racism, wrong is wrong.

"Inequalites of power" is a Leftist arguement for those that can't or won't think things thu.
It assumes facts that are not in evidence and discounts every rational mode of discourse.

ie "I" can't be a racist--- I'm NOT part of the power stucture!!"

cxt wrote: The foul rambling of a group of criminals--which is exactly what the KKK and their ilk are/were is simply not a fair example of "white pride" than the equally inane ravings of the Black Panthers.

Well what examples of sincere white pride can you provide me with? Maybe it's a deficiency in my reading, but white pride in the sense we're using it is a fairly recent phenomenon is it not? Unless you want to count racial purity societies, but I would not consider those exactly high-minded either.

Hate is hate, racism is racism, wrong is wrong.

I absolutely agree. Louis Farakhan et al are clearly in the wrong. Notice I never said that "put blacks first" would be an okay sentiment. I did say racism from the dispossessed is less intimidating, but I didn't say it was less wrong.

"Inequalites of power" is a Leftist arguement for those that can't or won't think things thu.

So you don't think there's any such thing as power imbalances? Or does it just not make any difference whether a group is represented in stations of power?

ie "I" can't be a racist--- I'm NOT part of the power stucture!!"

I understand what you're saying, and some people do use that excuse. But I have to point out that I did acknowledge black against white thought. I try to not to use the term racist around here because it tends to trigger, but I would definitely agree/argue there there is exists racism against whites by blacks.

Val

I think thats part of the problem, in my view, other than the aforementioned criminals and the sterotyped unconstructed "southerner."

Whites as a group simply did not sit around having "white pride" discussions.
Did some?
Sure.
But hardly in the modern sense of a "Black Pride" rally etc.

The whole "color" thing distorts the issue.

What you had in history is various groups that held great pride in THIER specifc idenity--an idenity that was NOT tied to color.
You would have groups of whites spliting themselves on tribal/cultural lines ie the Scots, the Irish, the Brits, the Welsh etc.
With a pretty good "hate-on" for the others.
On a funcational level nobody really was running around patting themselevs on the back just for being "white."

Did some?

Sure, but there are always wackos in any group.

The fact that people can "see" color differences obscures that in the not to distant past--whites divided themselves up AMONG THEMSELVES pretty neatly.

As did blacks.

But since we can "see" the difference between a black and a white we tend to assume a solidarity based upon what we can "see" rather than harder to detect "other" factors.

I'm sure that are power imbalances.

I would just hesitiate to automatically ascribe them to racism without detailed support.

"Historically pro-white messges have been less about honest white pride and more about hating black people."

what absolute nonsense

maybe you need to get a broader world veiw , have you done much travel ?