Common sense

[Arraya]

[quote=CA renter]

There is no doubt about herding/tribal instincts in humans, IMHO. Throughout history, humans have lived and worked in groups; and they have fought vicious battles with other “groups” who’ve tried to gain control/access to the resources controlled by the first group.

We are, without any doubt, social animals, and we engage in tribal/herd behavior because it has been beneficial to our ancestors in the past — it was the only means by which they were able to survive during times of scarce resources and other threats.

Hoarding is a very basic instinct, and it really becomes apparent when resources are scarce. IMHO, the global unrest is a result of the perception that billions of other people are beginning to seek greater access to more of the world’s resources. The growing wealth disparity is an example of this hoarding behavior, as those with the access and means are stockpiling for what they believe will be a future filled with greater competition for commodities and other basic necessities.[/quote]

Well, sure humans evolved as ‘tribal’ beings and developed ‘wiring’ for such thinking. Which has led to group think or herding behavior. Which leads to mass insanity, genocide, financial bubbles, etc.. And this is also used for group survival strategies involving resource acquisition. Heck, early empires would conquer and take resources for the glory of it and the conquered would be killed or assimilate. Over time peoples morals changed and Rome came up with “casus belli” or pretext which populations required for war. Which has kept propagandists gainfully employed for a millenia

But what is in flux is *perception* of said tribe. We went from tribes to religions to empires to nation-states and conglomerates of nation-states.

Also, I disagree that hoarding is a ‘natural’ instinct. Survival is an instinct, hoarding is a behavior to perceived scarcity. Now, with the advent of agriculture and associated exponentially increasing populations came drawing lines in the ground, organized violence, locking up the food and a scarcity mentality with associated behavior.

Which makes a financial collapse a conflict-violence prone environment, socially and geo-politically.

[briansd1]

[quote=SD Realtor]Brian my point is that the immigrants who came here built themselves up. Our nation did not “provide” anything special for them. There was no govt window that you went to after Ellis Island that was the “opportunity center”. There was the street. Your declaration of immigrant success in the USA due to govt involvement when compared to immigrant failure in in Europe makes no sense. Yes the USA is a staggerring success when it comes to immigration success story but not because of the govt, but because of the immigrants themselves and the sacrifices they made. That is all I am pointing out. Not because of some special govt program making sure they got their “proportional share” or something like that.[/quote]

You are misundertanding me.

I was referring to the structure of our economy. In America, immigrants can more easily start small businesses, become maids and handymen etc… to survive and thrive. It’s harder in France because their economy, labor rules, eductional system, are more rigid and the immigrant communities are smaller. It’s up to them to reform so that their immigrants have more opportunities.

[briansd1]

[quote=SD Realtor]Brian my point is that the immigrants who came here built themselves up. Our nation did not “provide” anything special for them. There was no govt window that you went to after Ellis Island that was the “opportunity center”. There was the street. Your declaration of immigrant success in the USA due to govt involvement when compared to immigrant failure in in Europe makes no sense. Yes the USA is a staggerring success when it comes to immigration success story but not because of the govt, but because of the immigrants themselves and the sacrifices they made. That is all I am pointing out. Not because of some special govt program making sure they got their “proportional share” or something like that.[/quote]

You are misundertanding me.

I was referring to the structure of our economy. In America, immigrants can more easily start small businesses, become maids and handymen etc… to survive and thrive. It’s harder in France because their economy, labor rules, eductional system, are more rigid and the immigrant communities are smaller. It’s up to them to reform so that their immigrants have more opportunities.

[briansd1]

[quote=SD Realtor]Brian my point is that the immigrants who came here built themselves up. Our nation did not “provide” anything special for them. There was no govt window that you went to after Ellis Island that was the “opportunity center”. There was the street. Your declaration of immigrant success in the USA due to govt involvement when compared to immigrant failure in in Europe makes no sense. Yes the USA is a staggerring success when it comes to immigration success story but not because of the govt, but because of the immigrants themselves and the sacrifices they made. That is all I am pointing out. Not because of some special govt program making sure they got their “proportional share” or something like that.[/quote]

You are misundertanding me.

I was referring to the structure of our economy. In America, immigrants can more easily start small businesses, become maids and handymen etc… to survive and thrive. It’s harder in France because their economy, labor rules, eductional system, are more rigid and the immigrant communities are smaller. It’s up to them to reform so that their immigrants have more opportunities.

[briansd1]

[quote=SD Realtor]Brian my point is that the immigrants who came here built themselves up. Our nation did not “provide” anything special for them. There was no govt window that you went to after Ellis Island that was the “opportunity center”. There was the street. Your declaration of immigrant success in the USA due to govt involvement when compared to immigrant failure in in Europe makes no sense. Yes the USA is a staggerring success when it comes to immigration success story but not because of the govt, but because of the immigrants themselves and the sacrifices they made. That is all I am pointing out. Not because of some special govt program making sure they got their “proportional share” or something like that.[/quote]

You are misundertanding me.

I was referring to the structure of our economy. In America, immigrants can more easily start small businesses, become maids and handymen etc… to survive and thrive. It’s harder in France because their economy, labor rules, eductional system, are more rigid and the immigrant communities are smaller. It’s up to them to reform so that their immigrants have more opportunities.

[briansd1]

[quote=SD Realtor]Brian my point is that the immigrants who came here built themselves up. Our nation did not “provide” anything special for them. There was no govt window that you went to after Ellis Island that was the “opportunity center”. There was the street. Your declaration of immigrant success in the USA due to govt involvement when compared to immigrant failure in in Europe makes no sense. Yes the USA is a staggerring success when it comes to immigration success story but not because of the govt, but because of the immigrants themselves and the sacrifices they made. That is all I am pointing out. Not because of some special govt program making sure they got their “proportional share” or something like that.[/quote]

You are misundertanding me.

I was referring to the structure of our economy. In America, immigrants can more easily start small businesses, become maids and handymen etc… to survive and thrive. It’s harder in France because their economy, labor rules, eductional system, are more rigid and the immigrant communities are smaller. It’s up to them to reform so that their immigrants have more opportunities.

[briansd1]

[quote:Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Uh, let’s see, 100 years ago would be 1911, right? And World War I started when? Oh, yeah, 1914.

Dude. Europe 100 years ago was experiencing some of the most fervent nationalism going and was on the cusp of one of the most destructive wars in world history. Europe was NOT a lot more multi-cultural at all, and borders were sure as hell NOT more flexible and changing.[/quote]

The borders used to change frequently with empires. Not until after WWI were the border fixed.

If you look at Alsace-Lorraine, that region was traded between France and Germany for centuries. People used to be bilingual and go back and forth freely, but after WWI, people on either side were prohibited from even learning the “foreign” language.

I know a German women in her 70s, from the Black Forest area accross from France. When growing up, she was prohibited from speaking French.

True that fervent nationalism was horribly destructive to Europe. So why revive that? If anything, multiculturalism is peace inducing (only if politicians would not fan the flames of nationalism and hatred).

Go back another 100 years to the early 1800s and there was more multiculturalism in Europe. People more or less freely crossed borders, according to the means of transport of the time.

Another example of ugly nationalism is how it split up families and created divides that did not exist.

The royal families of Europe before WWI would marry foreigners frequently.

Previously, an Italian could become Queen of France. A Frenchman could become King of Poland, Spain or Sweden. British royals were German. The elite was the melting pot of Europe.

Because of nationalism even the British royals had to abandon their family name and turn their backs on their first cousins in Germany and Russia.

Nationalism is ugly, destructive and leads to war.

[briansd1]

[quote:Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Uh, let’s see, 100 years ago would be 1911, right? And World War I started when? Oh, yeah, 1914.

Dude. Europe 100 years ago was experiencing some of the most fervent nationalism going and was on the cusp of one of the most destructive wars in world history. Europe was NOT a lot more multi-cultural at all, and borders were sure as hell NOT more flexible and changing.[/quote]

The borders used to change frequently with empires. Not until after WWI were the border fixed.

If you look at Alsace-Lorraine, that region was traded between France and Germany for centuries. People used to be bilingual and go back and forth freely, but after WWI, people on either side were prohibited from even learning the “foreign” language.

I know a German women in her 70s, from the Black Forest area accross from France. When growing up, she was prohibited from speaking French.

True that fervent nationalism was horribly destructive to Europe. So why revive that? If anything, multiculturalism is peace inducing (only if politicians would not fan the flames of nationalism and hatred).

Go back another 100 years to the early 1800s and there was more multiculturalism in Europe. People more or less freely crossed borders, according to the means of transport of the time.

Another example of ugly nationalism is how it split up families and created divides that did not exist.

The royal families of Europe before WWI would marry foreigners frequently.

Previously, an Italian could become Queen of France. A Frenchman could become King of Poland, Spain or Sweden. British royals were German. The elite was the melting pot of Europe.

Because of nationalism even the British royals had to abandon their family name and turn their backs on their first cousins in Germany and Russia.

Nationalism is ugly, destructive and leads to war.

[briansd1]

[quote:Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Uh, let’s see, 100 years ago would be 1911, right? And World War I started when? Oh, yeah, 1914.

Dude. Europe 100 years ago was experiencing some of the most fervent nationalism going and was on the cusp of one of the most destructive wars in world history. Europe was NOT a lot more multi-cultural at all, and borders were sure as hell NOT more flexible and changing.[/quote]

The borders used to change frequently with empires. Not until after WWI were the border fixed.

If you look at Alsace-Lorraine, that region was traded between France and Germany for centuries. People used to be bilingual and go back and forth freely, but after WWI, people on either side were prohibited from even learning the “foreign” language.

I know a German women in her 70s, from the Black Forest area accross from France. When growing up, she was prohibited from speaking French.

True that fervent nationalism was horribly destructive to Europe. So why revive that? If anything, multiculturalism is peace inducing (only if politicians would not fan the flames of nationalism and hatred).

Go back another 100 years to the early 1800s and there was more multiculturalism in Europe. People more or less freely crossed borders, according to the means of transport of the time.

Another example of ugly nationalism is how it split up families and created divides that did not exist.

The royal families of Europe before WWI would marry foreigners frequently.

Previously, an Italian could become Queen of France. A Frenchman could become King of Poland, Spain or Sweden. British royals were German. The elite was the melting pot of Europe.

Because of nationalism even the British royals had to abandon their family name and turn their backs on their first cousins in Germany and Russia.

Nationalism is ugly, destructive and leads to war.

[briansd1]

[quote:Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Uh, let’s see, 100 years ago would be 1911, right? And World War I started when? Oh, yeah, 1914.

Dude. Europe 100 years ago was experiencing some of the most fervent nationalism going and was on the cusp of one of the most destructive wars in world history. Europe was NOT a lot more multi-cultural at all, and borders were sure as hell NOT more flexible and changing.[/quote]

The borders used to change frequently with empires. Not until after WWI were the border fixed.

If you look at Alsace-Lorraine, that region was traded between France and Germany for centuries. People used to be bilingual and go back and forth freely, but after WWI, people on either side were prohibited from even learning the “foreign” language.

I know a German women in her 70s, from the Black Forest area accross from France. When growing up, she was prohibited from speaking French.

True that fervent nationalism was horribly destructive to Europe. So why revive that? If anything, multiculturalism is peace inducing (only if politicians would not fan the flames of nationalism and hatred).

Go back another 100 years to the early 1800s and there was more multiculturalism in Europe. People more or less freely crossed borders, according to the means of transport of the time.

Another example of ugly nationalism is how it split up families and created divides that did not exist.

The royal families of Europe before WWI would marry foreigners frequently.

Previously, an Italian could become Queen of France. A Frenchman could become King of Poland, Spain or Sweden. British royals were German. The elite was the melting pot of Europe.

Because of nationalism even the British royals had to abandon their family name and turn their backs on their first cousins in Germany and Russia.

Nationalism is ugly, destructive and leads to war.

[briansd1]

[quote:Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Uh, let’s see, 100 years ago would be 1911, right? And World War I started when? Oh, yeah, 1914.

Dude. Europe 100 years ago was experiencing some of the most fervent nationalism going and was on the cusp of one of the most destructive wars in world history. Europe was NOT a lot more multi-cultural at all, and borders were sure as hell NOT more flexible and changing.[/quote]

The borders used to change frequently with empires. Not until after WWI were the border fixed.

If you look at Alsace-Lorraine, that region was traded between France and Germany for centuries. People used to be bilingual and go back and forth freely, but after WWI, people on either side were prohibited from even learning the “foreign” language.

I know a German women in her 70s, from the Black Forest area accross from France. When growing up, she was prohibited from speaking French.

True that fervent nationalism was horribly destructive to Europe. So why revive that? If anything, multiculturalism is peace inducing (only if politicians would not fan the flames of nationalism and hatred).

Go back another 100 years to the early 1800s and there was more multiculturalism in Europe. People more or less freely crossed borders, according to the means of transport of the time.

Another example of ugly nationalism is how it split up families and created divides that did not exist.

The royal families of Europe before WWI would marry foreigners frequently.

Previously, an Italian could become Queen of France. A Frenchman could become King of Poland, Spain or Sweden. British royals were German. The elite was the melting pot of Europe.

Because of nationalism even the British royals had to abandon their family name and turn their backs on their first cousins in Germany and Russia.

Nationalism is ugly, destructive and leads to war.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote:Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Uh, let’s see, 100 years ago would be 1911, right? And World War I started when? Oh, yeah, 1914.

Dude. Europe 100 years ago was experiencing some of the most fervent nationalism going and was on the cusp of one of the most destructive wars in world history. Europe was NOT a lot more multi-cultural at all, and borders were sure as hell NOT more flexible and changing.[/quote]

The borders used to change frequently with empires. Not until after WWI were the border fixed.

If you look at Alsace-Lorraine, that region was traded between France and Germany for centuries. People used to be bilingual and go back and forth freely, but after WWI, people on either side were prohibited from even learning the “foreign” language.

I know a German women in her 70s, from the Black Forest area accross from France. When growing up, she was prohibited from speaking French.

True that fervent nationalism was horribly destructive to Europe. So why revive that? If anything, multiculturalism is peace inducing (only if politicians would not fan the flames of nationalism and hatred).

Go back another 100 years to the early 1800s and there was more multiculturalism in Europe. People more or less freely crossed borders, according to the means of transport of the time.

Another example of ugly nationalism is how it split up families and created divides that did not exist.

The royal families of Europe before WWI would marry foreigners frequently.

Previously, an Italian could become Queen of France. A Frenchman could become King of Poland, Spain or Sweden. British royals were German. The elite was the melting pot of Europe.

Because of nationalism even the British royals had to abandon their family name and turn their backs on their first cousins in Germany and Russia.

Nationalism is ugly, destructive and leads to war.[/quote]

Brian: My grandmom left Germany with my dad and my uncle in 1935. I’m familiar with the Alsace changing hands, and I’ve actually seen the same textbook in both French and German.

If we back up 100 years from 1911, we’re smack dab in the middle of the Napoleonic Wars, and fervent nationalism was rampant then, too.

Back up 100 years from then, and we’re dealing with the Wars in the Age of Reason. More nationalism.

As to intermarriage between the French and British and Germans, et al, this was largely driven by politics and advantage, and had nothing to do with any sort of multiculturalism. The various ruling families were always seeking a means to further their ambitions and marriage was a very convenient means to do so.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote:Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Uh, let’s see, 100 years ago would be 1911, right? And World War I started when? Oh, yeah, 1914.

Dude. Europe 100 years ago was experiencing some of the most fervent nationalism going and was on the cusp of one of the most destructive wars in world history. Europe was NOT a lot more multi-cultural at all, and borders were sure as hell NOT more flexible and changing.[/quote]

The borders used to change frequently with empires. Not until after WWI were the border fixed.

If you look at Alsace-Lorraine, that region was traded between France and Germany for centuries. People used to be bilingual and go back and forth freely, but after WWI, people on either side were prohibited from even learning the “foreign” language.

I know a German women in her 70s, from the Black Forest area accross from France. When growing up, she was prohibited from speaking French.

True that fervent nationalism was horribly destructive to Europe. So why revive that? If anything, multiculturalism is peace inducing (only if politicians would not fan the flames of nationalism and hatred).

Go back another 100 years to the early 1800s and there was more multiculturalism in Europe. People more or less freely crossed borders, according to the means of transport of the time.

Another example of ugly nationalism is how it split up families and created divides that did not exist.

The royal families of Europe before WWI would marry foreigners frequently.

Previously, an Italian could become Queen of France. A Frenchman could become King of Poland, Spain or Sweden. British royals were German. The elite was the melting pot of Europe.

Because of nationalism even the British royals had to abandon their family name and turn their backs on their first cousins in Germany and Russia.

Nationalism is ugly, destructive and leads to war.[/quote]

Brian: My grandmom left Germany with my dad and my uncle in 1935. I’m familiar with the Alsace changing hands, and I’ve actually seen the same textbook in both French and German.

If we back up 100 years from 1911, we’re smack dab in the middle of the Napoleonic Wars, and fervent nationalism was rampant then, too.

Back up 100 years from then, and we’re dealing with the Wars in the Age of Reason. More nationalism.

As to intermarriage between the French and British and Germans, et al, this was largely driven by politics and advantage, and had nothing to do with any sort of multiculturalism. The various ruling families were always seeking a means to further their ambitions and marriage was a very convenient means to do so.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote:Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Uh, let’s see, 100 years ago would be 1911, right? And World War I started when? Oh, yeah, 1914.

Dude. Europe 100 years ago was experiencing some of the most fervent nationalism going and was on the cusp of one of the most destructive wars in world history. Europe was NOT a lot more multi-cultural at all, and borders were sure as hell NOT more flexible and changing.[/quote]

The borders used to change frequently with empires. Not until after WWI were the border fixed.

If you look at Alsace-Lorraine, that region was traded between France and Germany for centuries. People used to be bilingual and go back and forth freely, but after WWI, people on either side were prohibited from even learning the “foreign” language.

I know a German women in her 70s, from the Black Forest area accross from France. When growing up, she was prohibited from speaking French.

True that fervent nationalism was horribly destructive to Europe. So why revive that? If anything, multiculturalism is peace inducing (only if politicians would not fan the flames of nationalism and hatred).

Go back another 100 years to the early 1800s and there was more multiculturalism in Europe. People more or less freely crossed borders, according to the means of transport of the time.

Another example of ugly nationalism is how it split up families and created divides that did not exist.

The royal families of Europe before WWI would marry foreigners frequently.

Previously, an Italian could become Queen of France. A Frenchman could become King of Poland, Spain or Sweden. British royals were German. The elite was the melting pot of Europe.

Because of nationalism even the British royals had to abandon their family name and turn their backs on their first cousins in Germany and Russia.

Nationalism is ugly, destructive and leads to war.[/quote]

Brian: My grandmom left Germany with my dad and my uncle in 1935. I’m familiar with the Alsace changing hands, and I’ve actually seen the same textbook in both French and German.

If we back up 100 years from 1911, we’re smack dab in the middle of the Napoleonic Wars, and fervent nationalism was rampant then, too.

Back up 100 years from then, and we’re dealing with the Wars in the Age of Reason. More nationalism.

As to intermarriage between the French and British and Germans, et al, this was largely driven by politics and advantage, and had nothing to do with any sort of multiculturalism. The various ruling families were always seeking a means to further their ambitions and marriage was a very convenient means to do so.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote:Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Uh, let’s see, 100 years ago would be 1911, right? And World War I started when? Oh, yeah, 1914.

Dude. Europe 100 years ago was experiencing some of the most fervent nationalism going and was on the cusp of one of the most destructive wars in world history. Europe was NOT a lot more multi-cultural at all, and borders were sure as hell NOT more flexible and changing.[/quote]

The borders used to change frequently with empires. Not until after WWI were the border fixed.

If you look at Alsace-Lorraine, that region was traded between France and Germany for centuries. People used to be bilingual and go back and forth freely, but after WWI, people on either side were prohibited from even learning the “foreign” language.

I know a German women in her 70s, from the Black Forest area accross from France. When growing up, she was prohibited from speaking French.

True that fervent nationalism was horribly destructive to Europe. So why revive that? If anything, multiculturalism is peace inducing (only if politicians would not fan the flames of nationalism and hatred).

Go back another 100 years to the early 1800s and there was more multiculturalism in Europe. People more or less freely crossed borders, according to the means of transport of the time.

Another example of ugly nationalism is how it split up families and created divides that did not exist.

The royal families of Europe before WWI would marry foreigners frequently.

Previously, an Italian could become Queen of France. A Frenchman could become King of Poland, Spain or Sweden. British royals were German. The elite was the melting pot of Europe.

Because of nationalism even the British royals had to abandon their family name and turn their backs on their first cousins in Germany and Russia.

Nationalism is ugly, destructive and leads to war.[/quote]

Brian: My grandmom left Germany with my dad and my uncle in 1935. I’m familiar with the Alsace changing hands, and I’ve actually seen the same textbook in both French and German.

If we back up 100 years from 1911, we’re smack dab in the middle of the Napoleonic Wars, and fervent nationalism was rampant then, too.

Back up 100 years from then, and we’re dealing with the Wars in the Age of Reason. More nationalism.

As to intermarriage between the French and British and Germans, et al, this was largely driven by politics and advantage, and had nothing to do with any sort of multiculturalism. The various ruling families were always seeking a means to further their ambitions and marriage was a very convenient means to do so.

[Author]

Posts