Sorry, Dr. King Did Not Consider You An Enlightened Anti-Zionist. Deal With It.

[shira]

It is painful to be called an anti-Semite by a deceased saint. Yet the dead speak, even when we wish they'd keep their thoughts to themselves. There is a tremendous effort to deny that Martin Luther King ever said these words: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism." Unfortunately, he did. He said them at a dinner party in Cambridge (as quoted by Seymour Martin Lipset inEncounter magazine, December 1969, p. 24)

...

If you pronounce the word "Zionism" with righteous contempt, however, you'll have to accept this cold brute fact: Martin Luther King clearly and unequivocally considered you a bigot. I can imagine that will be painful. Difficult. Uncomfortable. Or rather: it will be painful if you are in other respects a liberal. A neo-Nazi will welcome Martin Luther King's judgment. Proud Jew-haters are happy to be considered anti-Semites, especially by loathed giants of the Civil Rights Movement.

No, it is evidence of a profound liberal conscience that you squirm when an unlit corner of your soul is exposed and condemned, by a man -- now dead -- who you acknowledge was a better human being than you are. (You do, I hope. He was.)

...

more...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/martin-luther-king_b_1091950.html?ref=israel

[shira]

1. X

[MADem]

2. Times change. Affiliations change. Perspectives change.

Once upon a time, the Republicans were the champion of the black man--until Nixon crafted the southern strategy.

Once upon a time, the Democrats were the vote-denying, poll taxing, racist assholes south of the Mason Dixon.

We know MLK had to be saying that, what, some two decades after the end of WW2? The whole concept of "Zionism" in the general public's mind has undergone a substantial shift in the last half century or so. Way back when, everyone was appalled at the whole Holocaust, it was fresh in people's minds, there were survivors everywhere with testimonies to recount, and most people thought "Zionism" and they thought "Those poor Jews DESERVE a homeland for how they suffered!" Hell, everyone had seen 'EXODUS'on the wide screen.

Of course, no one thought that maybe poetic justice might have appropriately sited that in Germany, but whatever.

MLK is dead, so we can't really ask him what he meant. I imagine his POV might have undergone some shifts had he lived. However, I can't claim to speak for him, and I really don't know where he'd be, contextually, on the many issues arising in the Middle East nowadays.

Years ago, no one would have thought that pro-union, pro-working man, ardent Democrat Ronald Reagan would be a President who railed against Welfare Queens, babbled about bootstraps, and declared catsup to be a vegetable.

People change. World events shape perspectives. You can't take the words of someone from decades ago, drag them down through the years, and come up with a real "Ah HA--GOTCHA!" moment.

Context is everything.

[Shaktimaan]

7. That's not quite true.

Democrats were always more liberal on race issues than Republicans. If you look at what lawmakers supported and opposed the equal rights law it appears that many more republicans supported it than dems, UNTIL you control for geography. Northern dems overwhelmingly supported it compared to their republican counterparts. And the same is true in the south. The key difference being that southern legislators opposed it far more than northern ones. After equal rights passed and LBJ famously said that they just lost the south for a generation, was Nixon able to exploit racist ideology via the southern strategy. Nothing changed. It was just that the southern voters hated equal rights more than they loved other democratic values.


People change. World events shape perspectives. You can't take the words of someone from decades ago, drag them down through the years, and come up with a real "Ah HA--GOTCHA!" moment.

Context is everything.

This you are right about though. People sometimes like to pull up a letter written by Gandhi denouncing Zionism as evidence that it is a morally corrupt movement. He wrote: If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German might, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance, but would have confidence that in the end the rest were bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can.

Of course that letter was written in 1938, before the extent of Hiter's genocide was known. Passive resistence is only truly effective in the face of an enemy that can be shamed. Would Gandhi have felt the same when confronted by the horrors of the Holocaust? We can never know.

We can NEVER know. That is the most important thing to bear in mind when trying to extrapolate how any leaders might have evaluated situations that developed following their deaths. MLK's quote was spoken only 2 years into the occupation, and before the settlement movement started in earnest.

That said, we CAN draw certain extrapolations. 1969 was a full 20 years after Israel gained independence which is more than enough time for Dr. King to come to a conclusion on the ethical validity of Zionism's original goals and Israel's existence, despite incidents like Deir Yassin, the Nakba, the six day war and so on. And it is this time period that many anti-Zionists speak of when they reject the morality of Israel's creation and continued existence. It is one thing to criticize the occupation or settlements. It is quite another to reject Israel's right to exist. And on this subject, at least, we can speak with authority on Dr. King's views as he had ample time to form them following independence. And those views were that no distinction exists between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

It is true, his views MAY have shifted given time. Many people change their whole philosophy when they get older. Ronald Reagan became an asshole, as you so cogently demonstrated. Jesse Jackson so evolved. But that older, bitter MLK never existed. The MLK we do KNOW though, the civil rights leader and reverend, HE had a very pointed opinion on this matter. It is pointless to consider what MLK might have thought had he evolved into a different person. MLK is loved and respected because of the person he was while alive. No one loves Jesse Jackson like they used to. But MLK never lived long enough to get the opportunity to dissapoint us. And so it is that person we still ove so much who denounced anti-zionists so eloquently.

[King_David]

8. It is as true today as it was then.

The Jewish States Enemies and Deteactors have not changed.

[aquart]

3. King and I are on the same page.

Anti-Zionist? Someone who doesn't believe Israel has right to exist. How do you get Israel to unexist? You kill the Jews.

Zion is liberal code for Jew. Pretending it isn't is simply denial.

But liberals can't be bigots! That's also a big, juicy hunk of denial.

Let me know when any of you start crying over the poor Kurds. Or any other minority being oppressed. Let me know when you need a separate forum to discuss them.

[shira]

4. I think much of the confusion is between liberals and progressives/leftists

Liberals tend to support Israel.

Progressives/Leftists not so much, as they seem to be attracted more to totalitarian anti-Western regimes that have atrocious human rights records.

[MADem]

30. Not to derail the thread, but I've been one of those Kurd Cryers for many, many decades.

They are culturally quite distinct from their neighbors. Night and day.

Your points are quite valid.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. Ah, the good old argument from authority.

And it's as easy to rebut as any other example of argument from authority.

Yes, Martin Luther King was a good man.

No, he was wrong about zionism.

[King_David]

6. You really hate Zionism huh?

It's quite sad for you.

I rebelled against my family too but eventually got over it.

;)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. I'm a) English and b) liberal.

That makes hatred of colonialism pretty much a given - the English left cut its eye-teeth in anticolonialism, among other causes.

There are some English liberals who either genuinely believe that zionism isn't colonial, or who have managed to convince themselves that it isn't, but not many.

What's truly sad is that you don't hate zionism.

[shira]

16. Zionism is in no way colonialism....

Your hatred is so irrational that you have to redefine colonialism in order to justify your contempt of the Jewish state.

“Colonialism means living by exploiting others,” Yehoshofat Harkabi has written. “But what could be further from colonialism than the idealism of city-dwelling Jews who strive to become farmers and laborers and to live by their own work?”1

Moreover, as British historian Paul Johnson noted, Zionists were hardly tools of imperialists given the powers’ general opposition to their cause. “Everywhere in the West, the foreign offices, defense ministries and big business were against the Zionists.”2

Emir Faisal also saw the Zionist movement as a companion to the Arab nationalist movement, fighting against imperialism, as he explained in a letter to Harvard law professor and future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter on March 3, 1919, one day after Chaim Weizmann presented the Zionist case to the Paris conference. Faisal wrote:

The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement....We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home....We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is nationalist and not imperialist. And there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success without the other (emphasis added).3

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/colonial.html

[LeftishBrit]

34. Support for an independent Jewish state is colonial?

There was neither an independent Jewish nor an independent Palestinian state there in the past. The area *was* colonized for a long time: most recently by Britain, before that by Turkey.

There are an awful lot of independent states that were part of the British Empire, and then got their independence. I suppose the form taken by the states is influenced by their colonial past; but we can't abolish all these states on those grounds. By the same argument as you are making, India and Pakistan should not be separate countries (possibly true, but hardly reversible).

[azurnoir]

36. Define Zionism is it simply supporting Israel's right to exist or has it come to mean supporting

not only "right to exist" but Israel's continued physical growth via colonizing the OPT can one oppose the occupation including East Jerusalem and still be considered a Zionist? IMO the answer is a resounding NO

[oberliner]

37. Your answer is wrong

There are lots of Zionists who oppose the occupation including East Jerusalem.

Richard Silverstein, for one.

[azurnoir]

38. Please do YOU really consider Richard Silverstein to be a Zionist

or is that what he says?

[oberliner]

49. "Any half-way decent human being whose spent five minutes reading this blog knows what I am"

Any half-way decent human being whose spent five minutes reading this blog knows what I am, what I call myself, and what other reporters and publications (including Yediot, Walla and Maariv in Israel) have called me when they’ve written about my views. Progressive Zionist? Yes. Criticial Zionist? Yes. Some have called me a leftist and others liberal. But the only people who call me anti-Zionist are settlers and their supporter

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/06/20/gershom-gorenberg-is-a-liar/

Or, how about another example of a Zionist who opposes the occupation: Rabbi Michael Lerner.

[LeftishBrit]

39. Well, to me it just means Israel's right to continued existence

and doesn't require supporting the Occupation or expansionist policies. Lots of Zionists don't, e.g. supporters of Peace Now and similar groups.

[azurnoir]

46. well in that case I too am a Zionist

that being said I've seen too many here equate withdrawal from the West Bank ( surely Hamas rockets will rain down on Tel Aviv ect) with the destruction of Israel along with Israel having the right to build anywhere it pleases in East Jerusalem for me to accept that the two have not become linked at least for some if not most

[Shaktimaan]

41. how did you come to this conclyusion?

Define Zionism is it simply supporting Israel's right to exist or has it come to mean supporting not only "right to exist" but Israel's continued physical growth via colonizing the OPT can one oppose the occupation including East Jerusalem and still be considered a Zionist? IMO the answer is a resounding NO


I personally know dozens of Zionists who oppose the expansion of settlements. In fact, I am one myself. But that's a bit besides the point... more galling to me is your assumption that you are somehow enough of an authority on Zionism to define it so concretely. The occupation/settlements always has been and continues to be a volatile subject in Israel, with lots of room for disagreement and heated debate. What makes you think you have any right to determine who is and who is not a Zionist based on any single facet of such a complex movement, It's mind-numbing how arrogant you are being here... to label members of groups like Peace Now or B'tselem, who fought and sometimes gave their lives to protect the state of Israel, as not qualifying as Zionists.

It reminds me of people who see no problems with firmly asserting that anyone who supports gay rights can't consider themselves a Christian. (Especially if the person making said statement isn't even Christian himself.)

Seriously, where do you get such nerve?

[King_David]

43. It is astounding nt

[azurnoir]

47. aha yepper you oppose "expanding the settlements" but do you oppose

the so called "natural growth" of the settlements along with there settlement blocks remaining?
As I pointed out to another poster Zionism is simply supporting Israel's "right to exist" without the occupation then I along with several other Pro-Palestinian posters here are Zionists by definition

[Shaktimaan]

56. I am no fan of the settlement movement.

But my own personal views on the topic are hardly the key factors regarding Zionism's standard definition. Who cares what I think? There will surely be plenty of Zionists who support the most radical right-wing aspects of the settler movement just as there are millions of Zionists who remain committed to the most far-reaching land-for-peace proposals. The thing about Zionism is that is was always a "big tent" movement with countless splinter groups representing a huge variety of political views. No one is in any position to determine who qualifies (or who does not), as a Zionist beyond the assurance that one or two general ideals are upheld. Namely (more or less), that the Jews have a right to practice self-determination in their historic homeland of Israel. Everything else is window dressing that marks you as being affiliated with any one of countless political groups that operate under the huge (and very general), banner of Zionism.

[King_David]

42. Your logic there

needs a lot of work.

It does not make any sense. At all.

[Shaktimaan]

45. For that matter, what is pro-Palestinianism?

Is it merely supporting Palestine's right to a state of its own? ANY state of its own? Can one be truly pro-Palestine while also supporting the existence of a Jewish state on land that originally belonged to Arabs? IMO the answer is a resounding NO.

[azurnoir]

48. well right now the Palestinians have asked for the West Bank and East Jerusalem along with Gaza

as the Palestinian state and that I support

eta IMO EJ should be declared a world heritage site under UNESCO and the Palestinians should guarantee access to all religions

[aranthus]

50. It means that you want them to succeed as they define success.

Just as being pro-zionist means that you want Zionism to succeed as it defines itself (the creation and continued existence of a Jewish state). Since I believe that Palestinianism is intimately entwined with opposition to the existence of a Jewish state, I think that your analysis is correct. One can be both Zionist and a supporter of a Palestinian state, but one cannot be pro-Palestinian and Zionist, or even claim to support a two state solution.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

11. Which lands you into the

"Zionism is Racism" camp.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. Hell yes. N.T.

[shira]

14. It's not just Dr. King, but the EUMC working def'n that also defines anti-Zionists as bigots.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. Please stop repeating lies to me when I've repeatedly pointed out that they're lies.

The EUMC working definition says that anti-zionism can be a manifestation of bigotry, not that it always is.

I know you know this, because I've told you so myself repeatedly.

[shira]

19. It's not just that antizionism CAN be a manifestation of bigotry, but that antizionist views...

...typically meet all, or nearly all, the criteria defining antisemitic bigotry.

•Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
•Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
•Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
•Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
•Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
•Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Specifically with respect to Israel, taking into account the overall context, the EUMC gave the following examples:
•Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
•Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
•Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
•Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
•Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.


Antizionists typically meet every - or almost every - single description above.

And when that's the case, they're bigots.

Or do you actually believe it's possible for an antizionist to hold most of the views above without being a bigot? :shrug:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. Going down the list:

Bigoted by definition
Almost always bigoted; could theoretically just be ignorance.
Almost always bigotted; could theoretically just be ignorance.
Almost always bigotted; could theoretically just be ignorance.
Almost always bigotted; could theoretically just be ignorance.
(1)

(2)
(3)
Bigoted by definition
Almost always bigotted; could theoretically just be ignorance.
Bigoted by definition.


(1): A non-trivial minority of non-Israeli Jews appear to be more loyal to Israel than to their own countries (there was, for example, a recent article in ?the JPost?Ynet? by an American Jew renouncing his American citizenship in order to take up a post as an Israeli diplomant, IIRC); a great many Jews feel some loyalty to Israel in addition to to their own countries. Also, a great many articles in the English-language Israeli press believe that non-Israeli Jews *should* be more loyal to Israel than to their own states, and are outraged if/when this appears not to be the case. But making it as any kind of blanket accusation, or suggesting that it's particularly widespread, is almost certainly bigotry; suggesting that it's a bad thing is, in my view foolish, but antinationalism is not a mainstream view.


(2) Denying Jews the right to self-determination is also racist and bigoted by definition. Demanding the right for self-determination for Jews *qua Jews* is racist and bigotted; opposing it is not. Jews should have exactly the same right to self-determination as anyone else - the right to vote and run for office in whichever country they live, without race or religion being a factor. Israel is an explicitly racist endeavour.

(3)This is usually a false accusation raised when Israel is being held to the same standards other democratic nations are held to. When it does occur, it's more often motivated by ignorance than bigotry, but can be either.


The claim that antizionists typically do most of the above is so dishonest as to be laughable - you can't tell me you actually believe that most antizionists are holocaust deniers, for example?

[shira]

21. Do you think it's possible for an antizionist to match most of those descriptions...

...and not be a bigot?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. In theory, a sufficiently ignorant one might not. In practice, I doubt it.

(Although if you take "most" literally and exclude the worst half, it becomes less unlikely).

[shira]

25. Thanks. When is it possible to exclude ignorance as an excuse? n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. Most of the time. N.T.

[shira]

24. Let's start by focusing on the very top of the list, where you say it's bigoted by definition...

•Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

I agree with you that this is bigoted by definition.

However, this describes efforts by anti-zionists to aid (via flotilla or open borders) and justify (terror as legit resistance) Hamas' killing or harming of Jews in the name of their radical ideology and extremist view of religion.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. Anyone who suggests that killing civilians is legitimate is a bad person.

If they draw the race of the civilians into it, they're a bigot too. But the vast majority of anti-zionists oppose terrorism against civilians, as I'm sure you know.

But to suggest that the flotilla constitutes "Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion" would be laughable if it weren't such a vile slander - the aim of the flotilla was to help improve conditions in Gaza.

You may believe that the flotilla may have had the unintended effect of leading to the killings of Jews - just as I believe that prolonging the occupation by opposing BDS has the unintended effect of leading to the killings of Jews - but to suggest that that was its " radical ideology" is ridiculous.

[shira]

28. The charge against the flotilla people is not a vile slander at all....

1. Here are the IHH thugs on the Marmara singing songs invoking the killing of Jews...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk

Same radical ideology and extremist view of religion as Hamas. No one connected to the flotilla has ever denounced these hateful bigots for who and what they represent. In fact, the Free Gaza Movement tried working once AGAIN in coordination with these folks just this past spring in their sequel to the Marmara. And if that's not enough....

2. Here's the Free Gaza idiots in solidarity with Hamas...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/smoking_gun_the_free_gaza_move.html

Same radical ideology, and you'll note that these freaks from Free Gaza have never once denounced Hamas for their insanely radical hatred and incitement to murder Jews. Thus, the FGM has allied itself and continues to work alongside the IHH and Hamas, 2 radically extreme religious movements who proudly admit their goal is to destroy Israel and murder Jews.

It's beyond absurd and an insult to people's intelligence to claim the Free Gaza movement only has the best of intentions.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Please stop repeating lies to me when I've repeatedly pointed out that they're lies.

The EUMC working definition says that anti-zionism can be a manifestation of bigotry, not that it always is.

I know you know this, because I've told you so myself repeatedly.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

22. Credit for not beating behind the bush

N/T

[King_David]

29. Nah I think your just "still" rebelling against your family

Its obvious .

Classic .

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shaktimaan]

10. Yeah... I don't think so.

That letter is a total hoax. While we might legitimately argue about the extent of Dr. King's committment to Zionism, I think we can all agree that he wasn't a shitty writer.

[shira]

15. Read the OP to see what Dr. King really said. n/t

[Quartermass]

31. He is absolutely one million percent right..

Zionists is used a lot when it comes to antisemites, along with apartheid. it is one thing to criticize Israel, but not every Jew everywhere in the world is a Zionist. When antisemites use Zionists they truly do mean every single Jew everywhere in the world.

What it really means though, is a patriotic citizen of Israel, and not a Jew who wants to control the world via the idiocy that is "The protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion".

However, racists never see themselves as racists, they always see themselves as the good ole boys fighting the good fight against oppression, as well as believing themselves to be victims of oppression.

[Swede]

32. I've always agreed with King on this.

Antizionist is antisemitism.

[LeftishBrit]

40. Not quite, IMO

Antizionism + support for everyone else's right to nationalism = antisemitism.

But some people are against all forms of nationalism. Which is a consistent view, if not IMO very practical under present circumstances, where the main alternatives to nationalism tend to be worse: imperialism and tribalism.

[aranthus]

51. I have never understood this argument.

At the receiving end, what does it matter to a me if you hate my nationalism only or if you hate my national existence because you hate all national existence? The fact that the view is consistent does not make it acceptable, moral, or less hateful.

[LeftishBrit]

57. There is a difference between hating an individual or group; and supporting a programme which may be

bad or dangerous, but is not based on specific bigotry against that individual or group.

If you disapprove of nationalism in general, and think that borders should be totally open, with no separate countries - then this may well be a dangerously unrealistic view at present, likely to result either in huge bloodbaths or in a return to some form of imperialism to prevent or stop the bloodbaths. But it is based on a Utopian view of society, not on a desire to have bloodbaths!

I suppose I could draw an analogy with different versions of a viewpoint that I strongly oppose: the economic Right. I think that economic right-wing views are immoral and unacceptable in any form; nevertheless there is a difference between right-libertarians and what I would call proto-fascists. The right-libertarian places the free market above other considerations, and either is naive enough to think that eventually the free operation of capitalism will raise up the poor along with the rich, or considers that poor people are acceptable collateral damage in the pursuit of economic 'liberty'. But they don't explicitly hate poor or weak people, or regard them as the enemy. By contrast, the proto-fascist actively supports of social Darwinism, considers that the poor and weak *should* suffer; otherwise one is rewarding weakness, and (in the words of Mark Steyn) 'removing people from their most basic instincts such as the survival instinct', and making the whole of society softer and less 'virile'. I think that both right-libertarianism's acceptance of harshness toward poor or weak people in the cause of 'economic liberty', and proto-fascism's approval of harshness toward poor or weak people as an actively good thing, are very dangerous, destructive and usually selfish beliefs; and that a poor person is rendered just as hungry and miserable whether they are so are so as collateral damage, or because they are treated as an actual enemy. Nevertheless I consider proto-fascism a much more intrinsically hateful ideology. A right-libertarian could be a decent person who is simply misguided; whereas I think it is not possible for a decent person to be an active believer in proto-fascism.

[bemildred]

52. Historically, nationalism has always been a curse.

Usually a curse for the nationalists, always a curse for their neighbors. People forget that Japan and Germany both got pounded flat during WWII, in fact damn near everybody but the USA got pounded flat. The USA is somewhat unique in that the only time it really got pounded flat (the Civil War), we did it to ourselves. And generally, the more extreme the nationalism, the sooner you get pounded flat, because that always leads to annoying the neighbors, and annoying the neighbors never leads to peace.

[shira]

53. No better or morally superior alternative exists for Jews worldwide. n/t

[Dick Dastardly]

54. That is false, nationalism has not always been a curse and in fact was far from a curse many times

in history. During times of severe crisis or war nationalism pulled a country together enabling them to overcome from being pounded flat. It can keep a country strong and together for long periods as well. The Roman Republic and Empire lasted about 1000 years. It was highly nationalistic as well as expansionist leading to Pax Romana (Roman Peace) for over 200 years during its period of greatest expansion. It brought Roman law and culture to the far reaches of the Empire, Romanizing the various conquered peoples and kept the Empire free of any major social disorder or conflict. The Empire in fact declined when its nationalism and the civic duty it inspires declined.

During WW2 Americas nationalism helped us win the war. We could not have won WW2 without our nationalist attitude. Most of the Japanese high command (The Nazis too)thought the US was weak and would not fight if it could be avoided and underestimated our industrial capacity and resolve. Admiral Yamamoto the mastermind of Pearl Harbor stated "I am afraid we have awakened a sleeping giant" after the attack. Yamamoto was against attacking the US because he had lived in the US for many years and knew our industrial might and our capacity to pull together would grind them down, but as a military man he followed orders. He believed Japans only hope (even this was a long shot)was to attack Pearl Harbor and knock out our carriers and a good part of our Pacific fleet crippling our ability to attack for years. Then force us to make a peace agreement.
Yamamoto was right because after the attack we pulled together with a singular nationalist resolve to pound Japan and Germany to dust. The Arsenal of Democracy,s industrial might kicked into high gear out producing everyone else put together. Nationalism made our victory in WW2 possible.

Here are some of our nationalist posters in WW2 some are pretty extreme











During the Civil War the US did not get pounded flat, our industry went into high gear and pounded the South to their knees. The North was pretty much intact while the South was completely devastated. It was the first modern type of warfare using the principle of total war which was used by Sherman so devastatingly on the South. Slavery tore the union apart and nationalism saved the union.

Nationalism can be good or bad and does not necessarily end up with the country getting pounded flat. On the contrary it can save the country from such a fate and can even push a country to make great advances such as putting a man on the moon. Nationalism when coupled with xenophobia on the other hand is when nationalism can turn ugly.




Some nationalist quotes

"These are the times that try men�s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered yet we have this consolation with us, the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value." -- Tom Paine after the Declaration of Independence

"Our citizenship in the United States is our national character. Our citizenship in any particular state is only our local distinction. By the latter we are known at home, by the former to the world. Our great title is AMERICANS�" -- Thomas Paine


"I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country." -- Nathan Hale's last words before being hanged by British.



"What kind of a people do they (Japan) think we are? Is it possible they do not realize that we shall never cease to persevere against them until they have been taught a lesson which they and the world will never forget?" -- Winston Churchill

"We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old." -- Winston Churchill

"We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea and air--war with all our might and with all the strength God has given us--and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy." -- Winston Churchill


"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." -- John F. Kennedy

"(W)e here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." -- Abe Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." -- Abe Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." -- Abe Lincoln

[bemildred]

55. LOL. I'll have to think about this.

I must say I appreciate your effort in any case.

There is the obvious descent into a debate over the meaning of "nationalism", and then into who controls the meaning when I use it, me or the person who is arguing with me, but that is not very appetizing. Old hat. Pretty soon one is quoting Humpty-Dumpty:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)

And then there is teasing apart the distinction between good citizenship and patriotism and jingo nationalism. I mean I'm not an anarchist, I don't question the merit of human societies, yet it is clear that they often do bad things to each other, and generally in the context of the sort of "us-against-them" imagery that you provided. And I don't consider that a good thing at all.

Hmmm.

[shaayecanaan]

33. I myself admire the man...

but I dare say his opinion on this as well as other matters (abortion and gay marriage, for example) might not be considered progressive today.

[oberliner]

35. Can you point me to some of his statements about gay marriage?

Specifically those of his statements on the subject that you do not deem progressive.

[King_David]

44. Please tell

that would be of interest to me.