Not at all. Just interested in more detail. In my case I am now more
comfortable in Japan or Taiwan than I am when I visit the USA. That both Japan
and Taiwan have excellent public transportation and affordable, universal
healthcare has a lot to do with that.
John
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 17, 2019, at 10:27, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is this something you disapprove of ?
Virus-free. www.avast.com
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 3:18 AM Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Feels comfortable that it is my culture. I don't have to struggle to
understand the language or the customs. Okay, it is also a community and
people know me.
Virus-free. www.avast.com
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 3:14 AM John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
What about the culture feels comfortable? What about other cultures doesn’t?
John
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 17, 2019, at 10:12, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Virus-free. www.avast.com
I would not see myself as a beneficiary of globalization - I have spent
time abroad but returned home eventually. I like this community - not from
political or economic or religious reasons but because I am culturally
comfortable in it. However, it is not clear how sustainable it might be.
O.K.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 2:40 AM John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Fights over territory are part of our animal, vertebrate, primate
heritage. I may be going too far to suggest that “soil” becomes an
emotionally charged synonym for territory thanks to agriculture. But
expressions like “customs rooted in the soil of...” “fertilized by the
blood of...” or later interpretations of national character in terms of
geography do seem to imply a close association.
We agree that breaking communities by taking over their land is
dangerous. On the other hand, diasporas resulting from war, persecution
or other catastrophes appear throughout human history. To me an
interesting question raised by Mashood’s remarks is whether our situation
as beneficiaries of globalization is significantly different from that of
officials, merchants and entertainers who wound up living in parts of the
Roman, Persian, Mughal or Chinese empires from those in which they were
born. Another interesting question is whether our expectation that our
descendants will live in a more cosmopolitan world is more realistic than
that of immigrants like us before the fall of the world systems that made
possible the lives we lead.
John
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 17, 2019, at 9:11, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hm... while the word 'soil' might have associations to agriculture, I
suspect that hunter-gatherer tribes had notions of tribal territory even
if it was not fixed. It could be negotiated over, but once it came to it
those tribes fought over land.
The form of globalization that seems bound on breaking communities by
taking over their land IS dangerous. And if you identify with some
ideology that sees it as legitimate or even righteous to appropriate
lands and break communities, you could legitimately be seen as a
dangerous person.
Virus-free. www.avast.com
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 1:56 AM John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Mashood,
To me, obsession with “soil” is not only primitive but very dangerous.
Conflict over territorial boundaries is found in numerous animal
species. Concern with soil per se most likely dates back to the
invention of agriculture. That said it remains alive and well in
disputes that include not only Israel and Palestine but also Pakistan
and India in Kashmir and China, Japan and the Philippines in the South
China Sea. The violence of US reactions to the 9/11 terrorist attacks
was a reflex response to the attacks having occurred on what Americans
consider their own sacred soil.
That said, it remains to be seen whether the diminished obsession with
native land found among those like you and me, who have benefited from
globalization and emigrated to live and work in other places, or the
intensification seen in right-wing nativism in Trump, Brexit, and
populist political movements worldwide will prevail.
Thinking bleak thoughts,
John
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 17, 2019, at 5:29, Mashhood Sheikh <senor_massao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear all,
Understanding our past and future is a natural desire and can take the
form of DNA testing/genealogy reports, genetic susceptibility to
diseases, etc.; nothing wrong with that; the prices are coming down
like crazy, and these days one can get a complete report for few
hundred USDs. In some years, it will be as cheap as buying a coca
cola. Its use will also increase significantly as there is already a
move towards “personalized” medication. Knowing our susceptibilities
“could” be helpful for preventing certain diseases. These were the
things that came to my mind with Lawrence’s original email on this
topic.
Torgeir’s email; however, points to issues related to “identity”. I
agree with Lawrence that it isn’t really a “quest”; although people
are free to be obsessed with anything including their race, religion,
language, culture, or soil. My family roots are from central and
northern India. Generations ago during the Muslim rule of India, my
forefathers converted from Hinduism to Islam. Since they were high
caste Hindus, they took the surname “Sheikh”, to maintain their high
social status among their new community of Muslims. None of that
matters today, as I am a non-believer in Norway. That said, I agree
with Torgeir: “Does that mean that its constituent members consider
legally naturalised nationals AS NATIONAL as those who have the blood
and soil on their side? Probably in many cases not.” This is true, but
times are changing. To me, obsession with “soil” is a primitive idea
mostly found in deserted places far from the rest of human
civilization.
USA went through this a long time ago (mostly the western and east
coast), while all this is still new to many European countries. I do
not see much change in my lifetime, but maybe my fourth generation
would experience the “inclusiveness” of today’s New York or Boston in
Norway; Ok, may be fifth or sixth generation..but if I have to bet,
I’ll probably put my money on 8th generation 😊. Until then, my son’s
name (Aaron Sheikh) will continue to raise eyebrows in Norway.
Cheers and happy Easter,
Mashhood
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Lawrence Helm
Sent: 16. april 2019 20:55
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Philosophy of John Wayne (was: Stand Up
Comics)
As the author of the “Was” poem and an Anglo-American to boot, I must
confess with Palma that I do not understanding what the question is.
Take this sentence: “And isn't our ongoing quest to unearth our roots
a testament to precisely the idea that we DO have roots in a SPECIFIC
soil, and that this makes us DIFFERENT from those with roots in OTHER
soils?” I understand the “isn’t our ongoing quest” part and in
response to that, my answer would be “no.” My grandfather, Troy
Matthews knew a doctor whose last name was Matthews and they began
searching for genealogical information that would enable them to
determine whether they were related. I inherited Troy Matthews’
genealogical work and from time to time tried to expand on it. Later
on, one of my daughters became a Mormon. Mormon’s are interested in
their ancestry because they believe that they can pray for their dead
relatives in an intercessory way and enable them, heretics though they
may have been when alive, to enter heaven. My daughter and I don’t
discuss Mormon theology, but we have from time to time discussed
genealogy – not in a long time however.
One other thing, the reason I submitted my DNA information to
Ancestry.com was because we had a family tradition that we were part
Indian. One of our ancestors, William Leander Sparks, while moving
West with his parents encountered a destitute young Indian maiden from
a tribe that had been mostly wiped out by another tribe. He married
her and therefore, we were all told, we have Indian ancestry. I was
encouraged to think that in the Marine Corps who tested my blood and
put Blood-type-B on my dog tag. Blood type B is the common blood-type
of American Indians. In Korea I was taken under the wing of a
full-blooded Oklahoma Indian named Emhoola, whose tribal commandment
was that all of us part-Indian Indians show up at the slop-chute every
afternoon whenever we weren’t on duty.
Years later non-Marine-Corps doctors checked my blood and said it was
not blood type B. I argued with them: “But my dog-tag says . . .”
Several other blood tests confirmed their statements. If I had been
wounded in combat, I would have been in big trouble. So when
Ancestry.com offered all its members a DNA check for $100, I sent mine
in. And it came back “no Indian.” My mother’s main argument was that
she had seen her grandmother sitting cross-legged in the backyard
smoking a corn-cob pipe, and she looked Indian.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Torgeir Fjeld
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 7:13 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] The Philosophy of John Wayne (was: Stand Up
Comics)
Dear all,
In the West known as wild there is one philosophy that holds sway. We
read:
"Out here, due process is a bullet."
John Wayne
(Colonel Mike Kirby in The Green Berets 1968, directed by Ray Kellogg.)
Anyway, philosophy with a loaded gun inevitably ushers into defeat and
solemn humming of the unforgettable Beatles ditty: "speaking words of
wisdom, let it be." There seems to be a list-wise general agreement
("consensus") that nations should be codified as per the
French/American approach (and we refer to the view propagated by
Anderson, Kamenka and Alter, amongst others), namely that these are
voluntary ("imagined") communities that can (as per Ernest Renan) be
dissolved or abolished when its potential constituents wish it so.
Hence, we have the possibility of naturalisation. It is logical and
inevitable that Americans find this the only way to conceive of
nations. However, in many parts of the world (and even in the USA
itself) there are dissenting voices. While not going to take sides in
the debate, it might be useful (a nicely utilitarian concept to lure
all you Anglo-Americans to read this post until the end) to notice
that AFTER the American "revolution" (i.e. war of independence from
Great Britain), many political entities introduced nationalism by
official decree. And then there are many nationalisms that doesn't fit
neatly into this dichotomy.of "state nation" over and against "kultuur
nation."
Is it possible to be naturalised into nations today? Yes, in most
cases such a possibility exist. Does that mean that its constituent
members consider legally naturalised nationals AS NATIONAL as those
who have the blood and soil on their side? Probably in many cases not.
And isn't our ongoing quest to unearth our roots a testament to
precisely the idea that we DO have roots in a SPECIFIC soil, and that
this makes us DIFFERENT from those with roots in OTHER soils?
Our task is to ask, much less to answer.
Mvh. / Yours sincerely,
Torgeir Fjeld
https://torgeirfjeld.com/
Download the Introduction to my latest book -- rock philosophy:
meditations on art and desire -- for free from https://bit.ly/2vMGwVs. ;
Get a 24% discount by using code CFC159723D56 on checkout at the
publisher https://vernonpress.com/book/494. It is also available from ;
Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Rock-Philosophy-Meditations-Art-Desire/dp/1622734416/
Virus-free. www.avast.com
