>>Nationalists are NOT pluralists. It is more or less "my country, right or wrong...they are NOT open to the possibility they do not already know the truth. Here I just comment - and anyone hostile I pretty much ignore --elcid<< READ: Anyone who doesn't swallow Sid's pontifications & historical disinformation, hook, line & sinker, he tries to BS! As for "pluralism"! AMERICAN Nationalists; eat, sleep, and drink it in 24/7! We are PROUDLY the most pluralistic society on the planet! And, NOT surprizingly, the most generous and the most successful! American Pluralism does not mean that all ideas or their proponents are equal! We recognize that some ideas, as well as their creators, aren't ready for Prime Time. This does not mean they are BAD people, just different...HAVFND! On Watch -- Let's Roll

"P.S. It is customary for new girls & guys to at least observe and read the boards for a spell before sounding off. Sort of like getting the FAQs straight before burdening others with one's ignorance." It's true. I made the same mistake when I first showed up. I thought OW and swhitebull absolutely hated me. Turns out I'm kinda like their little mascot now. They slap me around when they think I've gone wrong, but typically they jump on people that are trying to railroad me..

Well, I like a roll in the sand as much as the next person, and I appricate Grum and OW for their attempts to keep me honest - I like that and respect them for it but I did - and do, take issue with the kind of language OW used. Its not colloqialism or that I'm ignorant of shades of linguistic meaning - rather I'm extremely consious of it. In psycho-liguistics it's termed 'verbal mounting'. Using sexually loaded terminlology ( and soory but missie, flap hips, etc etc are sexually loaded) to establish dominance within the group. Anyway, I have a problem with it. You may as well call a black man a n***er and then act surprised when he calls you on it. But I've noticed that both Grum and OW have calmed down a bit and I think we can have some fruitful dicussions. I've lived in four continents and seen enough to reassure OW on the thickness of my skin. Relax, mate, I'm no bra burner.

"nationalist is by no means a bad thing. the nazis ruined the meaning of that word." No, in fact 'nationalism' is quite a good thing. The alternative to nationalism is to invest your civic loyalty in a person instead of an idea. That is a far more dangerous thing. You are quite right that the Nazi's have spoiled the idea of 'nationalism' in most people's minds, but they have done so in a strange way. It wasn't German nationalism that was really the root of the evil during the Nazi era. German nationalism was just one of the things that was exploited in order to turn Germany from a nation state ran by the rule of law, into a nation state ran by a person. The single most frightening event in the rise of Nazi power wasn't any sort of flag waving, cheering mob, but the point in which the German army was asked to swear loyalty - not to Germany or German people or to the Constitution of German or to some abstract idea - but to the person of the Furher himself. This meant that the rise of German nationalism became a big step backward from the Rule of Law and towards the Rule of Man. Nazism was actually a nationalistic movement that was anti-nationalism. And if you've read Mein Kamp then you'll know that Hitler freely admits that that is exactly what Nazism is all about. The trend of nationalism is to subjegate everyone, including and most especially the rulers, to the needs of the larger national community. The Magna Carter is a 'nationalist' document. Democracy is an enherently 'nationalistic' movement, because it places the power of government in the hands of the people, and explicitly does so by taking what are normally the sacred trappings of government which it reserves to the government - flags, banners, and what not - a puts them in the hands of commoners. A flag has a certain degree of power. It makes the statement that you own the country. I don't particularly worry about flag waving and patriotism until those flag wavers and patriots start investing the idea of patriotism in the support of one person. Of course, there are some other alternatives. You could choose to have no civic loyalty at all, but I suspect that way lies anarchy and civic disolution. Or you could try to do as the EU (or Islam for that matter) seems to be trying to do and invest your civic loyalty in a trans-national idea, but its not clear to me that that is yet practical given the diversity of global opinion or actually really anything but a form of nationalism that differs only in the size of the nation it is trying to define.

"The demise of these religions - almost overnight - in the face of Christianity was more a function of their nature. Relatively speaking, the Christian deal was a much better one! [Human sacrifice probably is not popular - at least among mothers]. Probably Jewish or Islamic evangilists would have been equally successful, had they been there. In fact, the Islamic ones were: they got to SE Asia before the Christians did, and the minor religions fell in a similar fashion. [See Malaya, Indonesia, Philippine history]" That's not exactly how I recall reading it. It was multiple factors that led to the Aztecs demise and with that their religion, Cristianity offering a better alternative is not one of them. - Hernando Cortez was thought to be the God Quetzalcoatl returning. Also because he arrived at the right time according to the Aztecs calender cycle. - Aztec warfighting was different to European warfighting. Aztec warfighting was more geared to capturing enemies for ritual sacrifices to the Gods. European warfighting was geared to killing the enemy (which was more effective). - European weapons were better. - Cortez used other tribes as allies to attack tenochtitlan and eventually won along with diseases. - Several European diseases wreaked havoc among the Aztec population. By the time the Spanish were done with the Aztecs there was little left to convert. However small remnants of Aztec religion have survived in folklore and customs. It is said that some church altars are build on top of old Aztec altars so that some are still worshipping old Aztec gods in a way. Also it is said that certain Catholic saints were really considered a variant of previous Aztec gods. Such a mix between Catholism and an other religion is nothing new however. Consider our Christmas or for instance Voodoo which also has elements of Catholism.

>>In psycho-liguistics it's termed 'verbal mounting'. Using sexually loaded terminlology ( and soory but missie, flap hips, etc etc are sexually loaded) to establish dominance within the group.<< Group you say? Like Monkey's you mean? References Please! Also provide actual quotes of the author's that support your interpretations of their theoretical constructs. Also, provide specifics for your place holders "etc" & "etc". So far I note: "missy" and "flapping glow worm hips" as representations of what you define as "sexually demeaning". Also don't forget to include where and how it is specifically that your author/s equates his/her MOUNTING model with the RACISM model -- Thanks in Advance. Out of Professional courtesy, I'll wait till you provide the Authors and studies which you've alluded to -- before I blow your feminist psychobabble out of the water ;~) BTW, Ms uch, let me call your atttention to a direct correlation between, "Grum and OW have calmed down", and your semi-contrite apology last evening. I'd predict that the sharpness of the reparte will be in direct proportion to how you conduct yourself in future! En garde! OW -- Let's (dare I say it) Roll P.S. With respect to your Continent Hopping and the thickness of your hyde, please withold the details. Previously, we had a Frenchman in residence here(OneGus), who revealed the secret masculine MO viz female students on 'the Continent' - shocking!

Would you care to do a fair bit on the difference between jingoism and nationalism, or the tendency of the meaning of the two to be blurred together? I couldn't do it. I could try, but like OW says, sometimes I'm stretched beyond my abilities to convey an idea and it shows..

If you'll pardon the expression, I'm 'man' enough to accept correction even if it comes from someone I disagree with, if what they are saying make sense and is logical. So, for example, your request for me to site my sources is a reasonable one, where as your invitation to flap my hips at passing GIs in the hope that I might receive some edifying lecture on honour and respect was not. Also, you did not identify exactly what you disagreed with in my first post. My apology was sincere, but there is nothing particularly contrite about it. I should have cited, but I am also adamant you should not have used such highly personal, demeaning and inflamatory language. I hope that you are man enough to admit that - I'm prepared to let it go because I think that on a board such as this you must be subject to tirades from leftists agitators. Posters like that are not interested in learning, they are interested in getting a reaction from you. Anyway you are still trying to wrongfoot me, but in a much more intelligent way, so yeah, let's roll. If you dare ;-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also don't forget to include where and how it is specifically that your author/s equates his/her MOUNTING model with the RACISM model -- Thanks in Advance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Different authors - I'm trying to find weblinks but many are in journals I don't have access to in Korea. I think that I might be able to get hold of the abstracts for somewhere. I can probably put together something by Saturday (sorry, but I'm really pushed for time just now). However, my analogy with Racism was mine alone. Just my own sweet opinion. I tend to look for patterns across a range of human behaviours, rather than discretely. I think that the same basic motivations lie behind sexism as racism. And I think that women are equally capable of sexism as men, and black people equally capable of it as whites. However the difference lies in how much power these people have within groups. (Some studies and writing on this can be found in the numnerous publications of the sociologist Robert Miles). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Out of Professional courtesy, I'll wait till you provide the Authors and studies which you've alluded to -- before I blow your feminist psychobabble out of the water ;~) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. I hope that I manage to avoid psychobabble. But could you tell me what you mean by feminist? In my experience, North American men tend to have a rather different definition of it than me. (Man hater and bra-burner seem to feature quite strongly). Would you care to define? >>>>>>>>>>>>>.. With respect to your Continent Hopping and the thickness of your hyde, please withold the details. Previously, we had a Frenchman in residence here(OneGus), who revealed the secret masculine MO viz female students on 'the Continent' - shocking! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this page have an archive? Would have to read what he said before I could comment. Not sure what you mean by this, but anyway, I do not "continent hop". I find a job in one place and live there. The kind of lifestyle touted by most European students does not particularly inspire me. All I meant by the relative thickness of my hide is that because I have lived in several radically different cultures, I've had to adapt. You see some amazing things and some stuff which is bloody awful. A wee spat on an internet discussion forum is really unlikely to ruffle my feathers when placed beside (for example) a visit to a burns unit in a state run Indian hospital, or asian refugee camps. Or the deathbeds and gravesides of victims of torture. You have not hurt my feelings, or cowed me, or whatever. Nor am I playing the victim. What I am saying is that we cannot discuss anything, and most importantly, I cannot understand your point of view, while you are abusing me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So far I note: "missy" and "flapping glow worm hips" as representations of what you define as "sexually demeaning". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. I've also noticed you've stopped doing it. For which I am deeply greatful. C'mon mate, we should just let this one go. Let's bury this particular hatchet, (and preferably not in each other's heads). With respect Uchiita. PS: Sorry, no time to spell check this. Need to rush.

>>we should just let this one go.--Ms Uch<< Very well Ms, and in the spirit of putting it to bed, here's a gift for you: Why We Call a Ship a She Ships are referred to as "she" because men love them, but this encompasses far more than just that. Man-o'-war or merchantman, there can be a great deal of bustle about her as well as a gang of men on deck, particularly if she is slim-waisted, well-stacked, and has an inviting superstructure. It is not so much her initial cost as it is her upkeep that makes you wonder where you founder. She is greatly admired when freshly painted and all decked out to emphasize her cardinal points. If an aircraft carrier, she will look in a mirror when about to be arrested, and will wave you off if she feels you are sinking too low or a little too high, day or night. She will not hangar around with duds, but will light you off and launch you into the wild blue yonder when you muster a full head of steam. Even a submarine reveals her topsides returning to port, heads straight for the buoys, knows her pier, and gets her breast-lines out promptly if she is single-screwed. On departure, no ship leaves port asleep, she always leaves awake. She may not mind her helm or answer to the old man when the going gets rough, and can be expected to kick up her heels on a family squall. A ship costs a lot to dress, sometimes blows a bit of smoke, and requires periodic overhauls to extend her useful life. Some have a cute fantail, others are heavy in the stern, but all have double-bottoms which demand attention. When meeting head-on, sound a recognition signal; whistle! If she does not answer up, come about and start laying alongside, but watch to see if her ship is slowing . . . perhaps her slip is showing? Then proceed with caution until danger of collision is over and you can fathom how much latitude she will allow. If she does not remain on an even keel, let things ride, feel your way, and do not cross the line until you determine weather the "do" point is right for a prolonged blast. Get the feel of the helm, stay on the right tact, keep her so, and she will pay off handsomely. If she is in the roaring forties, however, you may be in the dangerous semi-circle, so do not expect much "luff," especially under bare poles. She may think you are not under command or control and shove off. If she edges aweigh, keep her steady as she goes, but do not sink into the doldrums. Just remember that "to furnish a ship requireth much trouble, but to furnish a woman the cost is double!" ... Rear Admiral Francis D. Foley, U.S. Navy(Ret)

now i get it, but exactly what did you mean by "bump in the polls"?.