"Canada ranked #1 country in the world for Quality of Life"

[brilligtove]

John, Daniel, jt512: Loving your family, wanting good for your group, caring about what your culture values... these are all part of being human. It doesn't matter that the specific targets of these feelings are largely an accident of birth: the feelings are real.

Your family, yes.  Your "group" is too ambiguous to comment on.  What I'm arguing about is your country.  Uncountable numbers of people leave their homelands exactly because they oppose the "values" of those countries and favor the values elsewhere.  To believe that you owe an allegiance to a country just because you were born there or a religion just because you were born into it is just indoctrination.  The sooner one realizes this the freer one is.

I think your argument confuses cause and effect with respect to 'owing' loyalty or allegiance. Humans often feel loyalty to the groups they are part of. Membership in any group is a combination of voluntary and involuntary factors...

You wouldn't even know you were a citizen of a country unless someone told you, nor a "member" of a particular religion.  We are told practically from infancy that we are "American" or "Jewish" or whatever.  We have no inborn nationalistic or religious ties.  We are taught them.  At some point one becomes a grown-up and ought to be able to see this for him or herself.

You are correct about eventually being an adult and making informed choices.

Yes.  Period.

Fine. You're 100% correct.

Now explain why humans form groups, please.

Also, how did Africans choose to be American slaves again? If you insist all national group membership is voluntary, I mean.

And finally, don't put words in my mouth with shitty childish edits.

[haudace]

John, Daniel, jt512: Loving your family, wanting good for your group, caring about what your culture values... these are all part of being human. It doesn't matter that the specific targets of these feelings are largely an accident of birth: the feelings are real.

Your family, yes.  Your "group" is too ambiguous to comment on.  What I'm arguing about is your country.  Uncountable numbers of people leave their homelands exactly because they oppose the "values" of those countries and favor the values elsewhere.  To believe that you owe an allegiance to a country just because you were born there or a religion just because you were born into it is just indoctrination.  The sooner one realizes this the freer one is.

I think your argument confuses cause and effect with respect to 'owing' loyalty or allegiance. Humans often feel loyalty to the groups they are part of. Membership in any group is a combination of voluntary and involuntary factors...

You wouldn't even know you were a citizen of a country unless someone told you, nor a "member" of a particular religion.  We are told practically from infancy that we are "American" or "Jewish" or whatever.  We have no inborn nationalistic or religious ties.  We are taught them.  At some point one becomes a grown-up and ought to be able to see this for him or herself.

Individualism is not present every where. There are a lot of people in this world who have no control over their destiny. Talking about making informed decisions and having the ability to implement those decisions can be extremely difficult for some people living in not so developped countries.

[daniel1948]

John, Daniel, jt512: Loving your family, wanting good for your group, caring about what your culture values... these are all part of being human. It doesn't matter that the specific targets of these feelings are largely an accident of birth: the feelings are real.

Your family, yes.  Your "group" is too ambiguous to comment on.  What I'm arguing about is your country.  Uncountable numbers of people leave their homelands exactly because they oppose the "values" of those countries and favor the values elsewhere.  To believe that you owe an allegiance to a country just because you were born there or a religion just because you were born into it is just indoctrination.  The sooner one realizes this the freer one is.

I think your argument confuses cause and effect with respect to 'owing' loyalty or allegiance. Humans often feel loyalty to the groups they are part of. Membership in any group is a combination of voluntary and involuntary factors...

You wouldn't even know you were a citizen of a country unless someone told you, nor a "member" of a particular religion.  We are told practically from infancy that we are "American" or "Jewish" or whatever.  We have no inborn nationalistic or religious ties.  We are taught them.  At some point one becomes a grown-up and ought to be able to see this for him or herself.

Individualism is not present every where. There are a lot of people in this world who have no control over their destiny. Talking about making informed decisions and having the ability to implement those decisions can be extremely difficult for some people living in not so developped countries.

The above is true. But does not change the fact that there is no reason to feel loyalty or obligation to a country just because you were born there.

[amysrevenge]

No, but there is plenty of reason to feel loyalty and obligation to your in-group, and there is no magic line for the scope of your in-group beyond which that loyalty and obligation switches from rational to irrational.

(For me in a Venn diagram sense, there are a series of encircled in-groups one inside another, starting with "all humans" as the outside circle, and "wife and child" as the inside one - I have a diminishing sense of loyalty and obligation to each group as you head outward, but even at the outermost one that sense does not drop to zero.)

[John Albert]

Why do you feel you have a responsibility to your homeland?

Maybe it's because I was brought up to believe that politics is a personal responsibility and I'm capable of making a difference if I try.

Or, to put it another way, maybe it's because you were "brought up to believe" (ie, indoctrinated) that you have a special responsibility to the tribe into which you were born through no choice of your own.

I don't see it so simple as that.

Is civic responsibility nothing more than indoctrination into a "tribe"?

It is not obvious to me why one would automatically feel a responsibility to his "homeland."

So are you getting hung up on the word "homeland"? Is that it?

Perhaps that was a poor choice of verbiage on my part. I certainly did not mean to imply that I feel some spiritual connection to the dirt under my feet. I would hope that's obvious given the overall tenor of my posts on this forum.

What I'm talking about is a sense of social responsibility to the people among whom I have lived my entire life.

At this point in time, in the country which I call home for better or worse, a concerted attack is being waged against certain segments of the population. The attack has come in the form of a racist and classist social movement which has gained so much popularity that outspoken bigotry has become a viable political platform for political candidates. This movement threatens the livelihood and well-being of many of my family and friends.

Given that situation, I have two options. I can stay and fight with vocal opposition, community organization, and political campaigning. Or I can leave in disgust, immerse myself in the day-to-day culture and politics of another country, and mitigate my effectiveness by opposing the situation from afar.

The point I was trying to make is that I'm part of the racial and cultural majority, hence I'm in a (somewhat) privileged position. I'd incur less danger than if I were, say, a Muslim, Latino or member of some other targeted minority.

So if I exercise my privilege to freely pick up and leave, am I not just running away, shirking my civic responsibility,  and leaving the less fortunate to their fate?

[jt512]

Why do you feel you have a responsibility to your homeland?

Maybe it's because I was brought up to believe that politics is a personal responsibility and I'm capable of making a difference if I try.

Or, to put it another way, maybe it's because you were "brought up to believe" (ie, indoctrinated) that you have a special responsibility to the tribe into which you were born through no choice of your own.

I don't see it so simple as that.

Is civic responsibility nothing more than indoctrination into a "tribe"?

It is not obvious to me why one would automatically feel a responsibility to his "homeland."

So are you getting hung up on the word "homeland"? Is that it?

Perhaps that was a poor choice of verbiage on my part. I certainly did not mean to imply that I feel some spiritual connection to the dirt under my feet. I would hope that's obvious given the overall tenor of my posts on this forum.

What I'm talking about is a sense of social responsibility to the people among whom I have lived my entire life.

At this point in time, in the country which I call home for better or worse, a concerted attack is being waged against certain segments of the population. The attack has come in the form of a racist and classist social movement which has gained so much popularity that outspoken bigotry has become a viable political platform for political candidates. This movement threatens the livelihood and well-being of many of my family and friends.

Given that situation, I have two options. I can stay and fight with vocal opposition, community organization, and political campaigning. Or I can leave in disgust, immerse myself in the day-to-day culture and politics of another country, and mitigate my effectiveness by opposing the situation from afar.

The point I was trying to make is that I'm part of the racial and cultural majority, hence I'm in a (somewhat) privileged position. I'd incur less danger than if I were, say, a Muslim, Latino or member of some other targeted minority.

So if I exercise my privilege to freely pick up and leave, am I not just running away, shirking my civic responsibility,  and leaving the less fortunate to their fate?

I'll keep an eye out for your name in the headlines.

[John Albert]

I'll keep an eye out for your name in the headlines.

What is this supposed to mean?

[jt512]

I'll keep an eye out for your name in the headlines.

What is this supposed to mean?

You know, when you become president, or win the Medal of Freedom.

[John Albert]

I'll keep an eye out for your name in the headlines.

What is this supposed to mean?

You know, when you become president, or win the Medal of Freedom.

Um, okay...

[John Albert]

Are you trying to imply that citizens of a country have no civic or social responsibility, short of running for public office or performing some act of extraordinary heroism?

[jt512]

Are you trying to imply that citizens of a country have no civic or social responsibility, short of running for public office or performing some act of extraordinary heroism?

https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,50948.msg9603066.html#msg9603066

[brilligtove]

The American success at integration has been considered something we should learn from.

While I wait on a response to the other questions, I wanted to mention that I largely agree with you on this statement. For example, America has found ways to incorporate many cultures into itself in a small number of generations and with significantly less rapine violence that conquering empires have historically used to 'mix up the cultures' so to speak. Ghengis Khan created a multicultural society by some standards, but there was a lot more violent death involved. That's something your country and others can learn from. At the same time, America's failures at integration - horrible systemic segregation and racism baked into its bones for instance - are also something to learn from.

[Rai]

The American success at integration has been considered something we should learn from.

While I wait on a response to the other questions, I wanted to mention that I largely agree with you on this statement. For example, America has found ways to incorporate many cultures into itself in a small number of generations and with significantly less rapine violence that conquering empires have historically used to 'mix up the cultures' so to speak. Ghengis Khan created a multicultural society by some standards, but there was a lot more violent death involved. That's something your country and others can learn from. At the same time, America's failures at integration - horrible systemic segregation and racism baked into its bones for instance - are also something to learn from.

This statement kind of ignores the tens of millions of Native Americans who had to be killed off for the melting pot to become open for business. And there was still a lot of voilence, as about 50 different conflicts were fought in North Ameica since 1776, including the Civil War, which remains the bloodiest war in American history (if you don't count the European Invasion). There were wars of conquest (the Mexican-American War), mass racist/nativist violence (the Lynching Era, Mountain Meadows, the War on Drugs, etc.) and many smaller conflicts.

[Quetzalcoatl]

The American success at integration has been considered something we should learn from.

While I wait on a response to the other questions, I wanted to mention that I largely agree with you on this statement. For example, America has found ways to incorporate many cultures into itself in a small number of generations and with significantly less rapine violence that conquering empires have historically used to 'mix up the cultures' so to speak. Ghengis Khan created a multicultural society by some standards, but there was a lot more violent death involved. That's something your country and others can learn from. At the same time, America's failures at integration - horrible systemic segregation and racism baked into its bones for instance - are also something to learn from.

Your link didn't lead to anything I posted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Mongols mostly conquered cities, and those they didn't destroy, they made them pay tribute, and apart from that, were left to teir own affairs. Very different from immigration to the US, or any other country.

Is American society ("racially") segregated today? Yes, I know of the segregation policies in the south in the 1960s, but today?

[Quetzalcoatl]

The American success at integration has been considered something we should learn from.

While I wait on a response to the other questions, I wanted to mention that I largely agree with you on this statement. For example, America has found ways to incorporate many cultures into itself in a small number of generations and with significantly less rapine violence that conquering empires have historically used to 'mix up the cultures' so to speak. Ghengis Khan created a multicultural society by some standards, but there was a lot more violent death involved. That's something your country and others can learn from. At the same time, America's failures at integration - horrible systemic segregation and racism baked into its bones for instance - are also something to learn from.

This statement kind of ignores the tens of millions of Native Americans who had to be killed off for the melting pot to become open for business. And there was still a lot of voilence, as about 50 different conflicts were fought in North Ameica since 1776, including the Civil War, which remains the bloodiest war in American history (if you don't count the European Invasion). There were wars of conquest (the Mexican-American War), mass racist/nativist violence (the Lynching Era, Mountain Meadows, the War on Drugs, etc.) and many smaller conflicts.

When the American integration is held up as a success, it does not refer to the conquest of the continent.