Does "National Identity" Exist in Reality?

[remulus]

"... every social group - be it national, religious, ethnic, or whatever - is
marked by enormous heterogeneity. Because of this, communities or nations
should never be the subject of any sentence. That is, >The Poles< don't do
anything - specific individuals or subgroups of Poles do. >The Jews< aren't
marked by any attitude. Specific Jews are. And it follows that >The Poles<
are not responsible for Jedwabne: a specific and identifiable national and
racial and religious ideology was responsible for driving a specific group of
Poles to violance. [...] The belief in impenetrable lines [around human
communities] and the conviction, that each part represents the whole: this is
what was ulitmately, an the deepest level, responsible for the Jedwabne
massacre, and this is what is holding Poles and Jews [and many other groups
and communities and societies!] back from reconciliation today."
Quoted from: Brian Porter, Explaining Jedwabne. In: The Polish Review. Vol.
XLVII, 2002, No. 1, page 25.
I ask myself why this "driving" and the willingness to be driven never ends.

[Gość: chickenShorts]

How do you define this 'Reality', mr remulus?

remulus napisał:

> "... every social group - be it national, religious, ethnic, or whatever - is
> marked by enormous heterogeneity. Because of this, communities or nations
> should never be the subject of any sentence. That is, >The Poles< don't d
> o
> anything - specific individuals or subgroups of Poles do. >The Jews< aren
> 't
> marked by any attitude. Specific Jews are. And it follows that >The Poles
> 0
> are not responsible for Jedwabne: a specific and identifiable national and
> racial and religious ideology was responsible for driving a specific group of
> Poles to violance. [...] The belief in impenetrable lines [around human
> communities] and the conviction, that each part represents the whole: this is
> what was ulitmately, an the deepest level, responsible for the Jedwabne
> massacre, and this is what is holding Poles and Jews [and many other groups
> and communities and societies!] back from reconciliation today."
> Quoted from: Brian Porter, Explaining Jedwabne. In: The Polish Review. Vol.
> XLVII, 2002, No. 1, page 25.<

Did you post it against your, so to speak, better judgement or that wasn't
your problem? Just curious. Heterogeneity or not, sentencing is just an
extended judgemnt. It starts in 'the head' of ... man, a member of a commmunity
of men. Anyway, assertion that you can't judge communities because everybody is
different is as valid as any other obvious truth, not to say cliché, but going
from there to Jedwabne, is just stupid!

> I ask myself why this "driving" and the willingness to be driven never ends.<

Don't think this is a good place but accept the possibility of being wrong.

[Gość: Duduch]

"but going from there to Jedwabne, is just stupid!"
And what about goeing from "there" to Palestine?

"Having a nation is not an inherent attribute of
humanity, but it has now come to appear as such."
"For instance the belief systems known as Christianity
and Marxism, are both of them contingent: each of them
consists of a complexx of themes, which individually may
have been inherent in the situation in which it came into
being, but which, as a particular combination endowed
with a name and a historic existence and continuity, were
only forged into some kind of unity by a set of thinkers
or preachers."
Ernest Gellner: NATIONS AND NATIONALISM. Oxford 1983.
Pages 6 and 123.

Who proclaimed:
"every policy [...] is rapacious in relations with other
nationalities; it must always strive to obtain new
territories or regain lost ones." ? Neither Arafat nor
Sharon!

[Gość: chickenShorts]

Gość portalu: Duduch napisał(a):

> "but going from there to Jedwabne, is just stupid!"
> And what about goeing from "there" to Palestine?<

What about it?

> "Having a nation is not an inherent attribute of
> humanity, but it has now come to appear as such."
> "For instance the belief systems known as Christianity
> and Marxism, are both of them contingent: each of them
> consists of a complexx of themes, which individually may
> have been inherent in the situation in which it came into
> being, but which, as a particular combination endowed
> with a name and a historic existence and continuity, were
> only forged into some kind of unity by a set of thinkers
> or preachers."
> Ernest Gellner: NATIONS AND NATIONALISM. Oxford 1983.
> Pages 6 and 123.
>
> Who proclaimed:
> "every policy [...] is rapacious in relations with other
> nationalities; it must always strive to obtain new
> territories or regain lost ones." ? Neither Arafat nor
> Sharon!<

No idea! Who did?

[remulus]

> How do you define this 'Reality', mr remulus? <

reality = the quality of being real; real existence

real = existing in fact, not imagined or supposed

idea = thought, picture in the mind; plan; scheme; opinion

Drawn from: Oxford Student´s Dictonary of Current English.
Ninth Impression 1983

[Gość: chickenShorts]

remulus napisał:

> > How do you define this 'Reality', mr remulus? <
>
> reality = the quality of being real; real existence
>
> real = existing in fact, not imagined or supposed
>
> idea = thought, picture in the mind; plan; scheme; opinion
>
> Drawn from: Oxford Student´s Dictonary of Current English.
> Ninth Impression 1983<

I didn't ask what the Oxford Dic's definition of 'reality' is, but how you
defined it. You suggest (I take it) that it's something 'concrete', unlike
a 'picture in the mind', but in that case the political reality makes national
identity quite 'concrete'. Unfortunately for many and 'fortunately' for many
others...
'Does 'National Identity' Exist in Reality?' Well, in what 'Reality'?
International politics? Yes! Quantum phisycal reality? No!

[remulus]

Gość portalu: chickenShorts napisał(a):
> I didn't ask what the Oxford Dic's definition of
'reality' is, but how you
> defined it.

Well, I only quoted what I agreed to.

> You suggest (I take it) that it's something
'concrete', unlike
> a 'picture in the mind',

No, until now a take it as a 'picture in the mind', not
in `reality´. As a projection on reality, so to speak.

Brian Porter´s essay is entitled: `Explaining Jedwabne:
The Perils of Understanding´. - That means: He comes from
`Jedwabne´ going to ´there´. - Who was stupid then?

[Gość: chickenShorts]

...me, chickenShorts.