Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conservative? and Chomsky
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 1 of 85 (580356)
09-08-2010 8:03 PM


If you're going to turn it into a Chomsky topic, at least you could have gotten his name in the subtitle. Instead we've mostly had a long string of "Re: The Echoing Press".
Closing in about 15 minutes.
Adminnemooseus
Source, end of lead in topic
lol except it was closed in like 5min, but np I will continue this, as I find it interesting. Even if it is just me and Oni, we can go round and round anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what is conservative to you? (we could discuss liberalism too, i just dont know much about it)
To me its some of the the stuff Oni linked through videos, though abortion really doesn't belong IMO. this is only my opinion, some neocons may think they are, though i will have to disagree.
onifre writes:
Like I wrote to crash, you do realize that today's use of the terms don't really represent what they used to mean, right? The term conservative and liberal existed long before contemporary liberal and conservative arguments existed. So, it is in that sense that Chomsky uses the terms, and NOT by today's standards. Perhaps, just maybe, today's use of the terms are more propaganda based, and not really representative of the true meaning of the words.
I do not think that they do. I think they get thier definitions from contemporary sources, or maybe even the news media, on how liberals are to think and how conservatives like me are to think. Many people on here automatically 2nd guess what my thoughts and motivations are immediately when I say that I feel that I am a conservative. somehow that, in thier eyes, makes me a fox-ophile, a pro-lifer, and anti-ghey marriage (which i have done here as a devils-advocate).
when I think Conservative, I think back to the father of the conservative movement in the 20th century (and that is why he is in my signature): Barry Goldwater (Republican Senator from Arizona 1950s-1980s).
If you want to see a great documentary about conservatism, and the man, HBO has a great one called: Mr. Conservative. Though its probably much easier to sit there an confuse NeoCons with real conservatives.
Mr. Conservative, Barry Goldwater
having trouble getting the video to work in preview mode, i cant figure out what i am doing wrong.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Link to topic where Chomsky discussion started (and was off-topic). Fixed embed and youtube link.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Spelling: "Sorce" -> "Source".

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by onifre, posted 09-08-2010 11:30 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 20 by lfen, posted 09-15-2010 1:55 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 8 of 85 (580466)
09-09-2010 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by onifre
09-08-2010 11:30 PM


onifre writes:
Thanks for opening it, AE.
Let me get past the Chomsky issue first.
Chomsky identifies himself as a conservative in the traditional sense, and I've read enough and listened to enough Chomsky to understand why he feels this way. I can agree that the definitions have changed, and so did Chomsky, but that doesn't negate their orignial definition. Especially if, like I said and you quoted:
np, I thought it was a great direction and wanted to keep talking about it.
I must admit I do not really know much about this Chomsky guy, I will look him up today.
onifre writes:
Do you see this as the original source of the conservative movement in the US?
no I see Thomas Jefferson and the anti-federalists as the originators.
onifre writes:
Or do you see him as the source for the type of conservative views that you share?
yes. I see goldwater-ism as the one of the founders of the current conservative movement, even though they are considerably differnt from his original ideals. I do not consider NeoCons very conservative at all.
To me there is a continueation out there today, His name is Ron Paul, and that is who I voted for in 2008.
quote:
One scoring method published in the American Journal of Political Science found Paul the most conservative of all 3,320 members of Congress from 1937 to 2002. Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.
of course I do not agree with him on everything, but I agree with alot more than I disagree with.
onifre writes:
Hell, in Australia there's the Liberal Party of Australia which are moderate/conservatives. So which version do you want answered?
I would rather open this up, than be strict and narrow and thus have a great chance for another thread to be closed for straying off topic. exploring european versions does not hamper the discussion IMO.
minnemooseus writes:
Regardless of the general low opinion about things C-pedia, looking at their perspective of conservatism should have value. As I recall, the C-pedia articles were positive for paleocon and negative for neocon. Seemingly, they did not include Reagan, Bush 1, or Bush 2 as being neocons.
well IMO they are not correct, Reagan really started the NeoCon thing with his pandering of the religious right, though I think he was only half as Neocon as Bush 2. I am not a big fan of C-pedia either, though you have a point when it comes to perspective.
ps: I previously started another "Conservative" topic. Maybe I'll track it down and bump it.
I am sorry, I looked for one, but did not see it.
Hyroglyphx writes:
we'll call "Progressivism."
do we have to? when I think of the progressives, I think of Teddy Roosevelt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by onifre, posted 09-08-2010 11:30 PM onifre has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 26 of 85 (581504)
09-15-2010 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by lfen
09-15-2010 1:55 AM


For me, conservative now refers to indigenous peoples, and modern groups such as the Mennonites and Amish who like indigenous peoples take the long term survival of the group as the most important value. They evaluate change based on how it will affect not only the present but many generations down the line.
For me that would be called socialism
In America most of those who call themselves conservative, such as Republicans and libertarians, are market liberals and imperialists.
if by market liberals you mean classic liberalism, then i do not disagree, but imperialists is way off.
They tend to put great value on the individual allowing greed and stupidity to degrade and destroy the environment.
ORLY
things in the past may have occured due to lack of knowledge, but to call it stupidity is a bit pretentious, after all you are defending multiple vague peoples, many of whom never invented the wheel. The strongest and most advanced animal comes to dominate the enviroment (Homo sapiens sapiens), and to assume that indgenious peoples did not destroy the evironment is a bit naive. What happend to the Moa bird? [rhetorical], what about the Plestiocene Mega-fauna extinctions? [rhetorical] sorry but even your "Noble Savages", have caused a lot of environmental damage.
Ever heard of the Bush meat problem in Africa today?
I have become skeptical and critical of the claim that civilization is superior to indigenous tribal societies.
its a good idea. It is not superior just different, although your comparison is rather vague.
Are the Fulani indigenious tribals? Were the Cahokia? Were the Aztec? Are/were the Wolof? What about the Vikings, they were not city dwellers. I can think of hundereds of peoples that may or may not fit your contraints, would you mind being a bit more specific.
The Amish are civilized
I may just be not understading you, I think the dividing line is Agriculturalists vs. Hunter Gatherers when the question is about civilization vs. barbarians. Agriculturalists tend to bunch up and form villages (small civilizations).
I am outraged by the claim of both honest liberals, and the dishonest market liberals (who falsely label their radical individualism as conservatism) to superiority over the indigenous "savage" peoples of the world.
funny that the liberals are honest and we market liberals are the dishonest ones, that's quite a bias you have there. I see it as simply different groups of the same animal competing for the same resources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by lfen, posted 09-15-2010 1:55 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by lfen, posted 09-16-2010 11:41 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 59 of 85 (581758)
09-17-2010 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by lfen
09-16-2010 11:41 PM


market liberals mis identify themselves as conservative.
ok, but do you imply it is on purpose?
If you want to equate tribalism with socialism, I suppose that works, though it is also very participatory democracy. The major thing is that the well being of the group and of future generations is much more important than individual gratification.
You are really good at providing reference, though it seems you just want me to take your word on this. I really think you have Collectivism confused with Tribalism. If the Well being of the group and future generations was extremely important rather than the now, then why are many tribalistic groups so concerned with violence and war with thier neighbors? Why do they kill each other at alarming rates, including the children of neighbooring tribes? A great example of this is the Huaorani of Ecuador. I think it is tribalism with the mentality of in our group is people, and outsiders are inferior and less than "the people" (Us). If they cared so much about "the group" and "the future generations" then they would most likely be less inclinded to destroy each other over picking fruit, or hunting ungulates. Genocide is the product of tribalism, and the ethnocentric behavior associated with tribalism.
I would like market liberals to be so labeled and the term conservative to be used for those peoples I've mentioned who do not advocate rampant individualism and exploitation of the environment and other countries and peoples.
The problem is that you have mentioned very few peoples that fit the bill. The Amish may, though they are civilized, and not all that different from other rural farming americans, except for thier faith and their lack of the use of technology. I think you would be hard pressed to find a tribal society that is not for the exploitation of other peoples.
But I can't stand the lies and hypocrisies that market liberals and liberals engage in to sugar coat their brutal exploitation of the poor and indigenous peoples of the world.
I am not sure they are always lying, I think they believe they are conservative. as you go on to say "If people knew what conservatism really was they could make informed choices."
We don't see the Amish and Mennonite or Native Americans advocating war and running scams to get rich.
The Amish already are rich, they are quite the shrewd capitalists, with thier hand made furniture, and crafts, in addition to all the land they own. I do not know much about the Mennonite. Yeah the whole Native American Casinos thing I'm sure had nothing to do with getting rich [SARCASM]. And if I remeber my history correctly Native Americans where more than happy to fight in the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War. Oh yeah wasn't that a Native American (Ira Hayes) in the Iconic WWII picture of raising the Flag at Iwo Jima? I hope you just do not know these things rather than being dishonest yourself about them.
I don't know what you mean by "imperialist is way off." What is Manifest Destiny? The wars against the Native Americans, Spain, Mexico, on and on, gun boat diplomacy? If that isn't imperialism what is?
we were talking about two different things, I realize that now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by lfen, posted 09-16-2010 11:41 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by lfen, posted 09-18-2010 1:57 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 85 of 85 (582311)
09-20-2010 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by lfen
09-18-2010 1:57 AM


take your time, no worries
As to tribalism and genocide. I realize there are so many possibilities. Are you thinking of modern middle eastern politics? Rwanda? New Guinea? Maori? Warfare seems much more common than genocide. As I am in the middle of a move I just don't have time to check this out. I think it was Jared Diamond in Collapse who wrote a perceptive analysis of the Rwanda genocide. But I could have read it else where.
Tribalism breeds ethnocetricity (if that is a word, if not i hope you catch my drift). This allows genocide because you are "the people" (what most native peoples name for themselves is), and you enemy is not. I was commenting more on an abstract in general of tribalistic societies, not a specific one, as you have not been specific yourself except for the Amish, and Mennonites.
I usderstand if you are busy, just respond when you have time, and I'll get back to you then, take your time, we can debate as long as the thread is open and if it is not I would gladly start a new thread for us to debate this, which has been interesting IMO so far.
I am a fan of Jared Diamond, and read some of his books in college while pursuing my History Degree.
I believe collectivism refers to a modern state. Tribalism is on a much smaller and more personal scale. I don't think collectivism is the same thing at all. I apologize again for finding myself in a situation where I can't adequately research and annotate my views except in general terms. It is one thing if I know you or know some one who knows you versus decisions being made by someone who doesn't know me at all.
I just feel like you described collectivism and called it tribalism. and its really no big deal take your time, move, and get back to this later.
Casinos are a new development that emerged in trying to deal with the dominant culture. The variety and diversity of Native American tribal history is more than I have time to deal with now. Another, I know it is general, reference is Michel Foucault's analysis of the modern state. I will also cite Wandering God: A Study in Nomadic Spirituality by Morris Berman. But I've run out of time again.
well of course, Native american culture streatches from Siberia to Greenland to Tierra Del fuego from Arctic to Antarctic and everything in between, of course there is going to be a lot of diversity. In this diversity you should realize that putting them all into the tribalsim umbrela is not really going to work that well though. I would love to see some footnotes of Wandering God, or see what it is about, because there is a huge distinction between nomadic pastoralists amd nomadic hunter gatherers (Fulani and Hadza).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by lfen, posted 09-18-2010 1:57 AM lfen has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024