Pooh and Seuss and more was: How to build a working digital computer 4165

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Mickey

And I'm not going to now that I have read some more of your posts. Not worth the trouble, I wouldn't be able to reach you anyway.

For others who might be persuaded:

Zionism is a nationalism for a people that didn't originally have a state. It arose at the same time as the other nationalisms in Europe and was, like those, heavily inspired by Romanticism. Now that we have had some further experience with nationalism and the idea of nation states here in Europe, the evidence is mostly that both are very bad (or at the very least very dangerous) ideas.

Few countries, if any, are true nation states. Denmark is one of the closest ones and yet there are other "nationalities" here as well: the German minority in the South, the Greenlanders, and the Faroese. And there is a Danish minority abroad, in Northern Germany.

If you must have a nationalism, or "patriotism", as they seem to prefer to call it in the US, then the best kind would be what is called Verfbuttungspatriotismus in Germany -- consbreastutional patriotism. It is largely an ideal, something to strive for.

Of the traditional nationalisms, the "risorgimento nationalism" is the least deplorable -- some ethnic group wants "its own country" because they don't want to be ruled by others. Fair enough, but ethnic groups rarely live in nicely four-colourable areas. I have never heard of a case where it didn't lead to the suppresion of the (smaller) minorities in the newly established country.

Both kinds of nationalism involves a fairytale backprojection of current history ("it has always been thus", "our ancestral lands") which always is a construction.

As an example, Denmark has certainly not always been culturally homogenous or had the geographical size it currently has. Everybody who was something in the capital spoke German a few hundred years ago. Danish was for the peasants!

When one knows something about how these constructions go, ideas of "returning" to a land ones supposed ancestors left 2000 years ago, thinking that one has more rights to it than the current inhabitors, is preposterous.

Besides, did all the jews really leave back then? Hadn't many already left? Weren't many Jews at the time of the Exodus (which one, btw?) converted from other faiths or descendents of such? How about those that never left?

Historical sources do not support the idea that all the Jews were thrown out of the Holy Land about 2000 years ago.

I think I'll stop here. This should be more than plenty material to chase for someone who genuinely wants to make up his-her mind on a factual basis.

No. Actually, I missed your post and thoughtyouhad played the coward ;)

Nope.

Don't you know how to check headers?

-Peter