The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum

=> Re: Nation and Nationalism Panco said:

Re: Nation and Nationalism Panco said:
Posted by pancho (Guest) - Saturday, September 9 2006, 20:34:36 (CEST)
from 200.57.25.27 - unknown.bestel.com.mx Mexico - Windows XP - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

Ashur wrote:
>Panco said:
>
>"the definition of a nation isn't modern or ancient...it is the same 1000 years ago as it is today...we have NO attribuite of a nation today...not today and not 1000 years ago....give us an example instead of just holding your breath till you turn blue. "
>
>
>MY REPLY:
>
>
>The concept of NATION and NATIONALISM is very new which started in the 18 and early 19 century....

...the definiton of "nationalism" may be new...but there is nothing new in "nation" I didn`t refer to a dictionary of 1000 years ago...the one I refrenced has been updated and is updated regularly...if you had a decent argument you would have looked up "nationalism" yourself...which came about when people chased out of their nation, or live under occupation in their nation decided they wanted to be a part of it long-distance...this is indeed new. But "nation" hasn`t changed at all..if it had, the dictionary would have said so. Silly.

....it`s funny how you dance around...you hearken back 3000 years to get your definition of what you are...but when it proves inconvenient to remain consistent or faithful, you leapfrog ahead millenia to pick up a definition which suits your purpose...itīs perfectly clear what "nation" means to those who mean well...the rest of you can twist and turn anything to your advantage because you are first and foremost, not nationalists nor patriots and certainly not Assyrians, but opportunists.

In any event all those who wrote about this subject very rarely accept each other, because their definition was in conflict with each other.
>
>I consider the ASSYRIAN people a nation under occupation,


...you still haveīn`t defined "nation"...you merely use the word to suit yourself...and that`s precisely the reason people long ago decided to collect COMMON usage in things called dicvtionaries..so they could understand one ANOTHER..and not merely talk to the wall...you didnīt define "under occupation" either...the United States is far more "occupied" than ancient Assyria ever was...by your definition nine tenths of the Assyrian empire was "occupied territory" and hence illegitimate...would YOU have given any of it back?

..it`s interesting how you skip over and leave out whatever you can`t deal with...Aprim is the same kind of "scholar"...to be legitimate you have to take on EVERYTHING...not cherry-pick what you think you can handle...I told you that the UN considers "indigenous" anyone who remains in one place for at least 400 years...that`s all it takes..also that EVERY modern and ancient nation, especially an EMPIRE existed on "usurped" lands...it`s in the nature of the beast...the empire of Sargon was made up of conquered and occupied lands..as was that of Hammurabi and Ashurbanipal too...as was that of Rome, Persia, Greece, Britain, France and Spain...just what are YOU crying about?

as others consider ther people NATIONS and here John Breully in his book Nationalism and State on page 149 look what he said :

...before wading into this let me point out to you that he juxtaposes the word "STATE"...which changes everything.
>
>" ... I will compare Arab nationalism in the Ottoman empire with European nationalism ( Balkan area I think he means ) in the Ottoman empire .. "
>
>So ,the Arabs were considered as a NATION,

...silly...he didn`t define it EITHER!!!!

even though at that time under the Ottoman empire never have an independent status, then why not us or me as Ashur you like that or not.

..they were not a nation...they were individual tribes brought together for a time...but their individuality is well known throughout their history...also the Ottoman Turks were NOT Arabs!!!!...even TE Lawrence lamented how dificult it was to get real ARABS to think in terms of "Arab"...never mind such a nationality. Nasser found it impossible too to forge one nation out of them....
>
>In conclusion,if you think that is old up to 1000 years COULD YOU SUPPORT THAT HISTORICALLY, if you do then LET US SEE !

...you make absolutely no sense...do I need to point out that the Arabs remained ONE RELIGION..and remained faithful to that ONE? You people have run out of your country...but ONLY some of you...the rest have tried valiantly through all horrors to remain...you are not on your own soil..you exist on the stolen lands of other "nations"...meanwhile you insist that YOU and only you are the "legitimate" owners of the land YOU left..by which you mean you Christians! Has there ever been a more looney "position"? And you wonder why you only seem to be slicing big chunks off your nose to spite your silly face...you are losing and losing and can only lose so long as you try to hold together a "position" with such disparate and incongruous parts...while you may make sense to your cousins and the fools down the street..you make absolutely NO sense to all those people you think you need to impress with your "position".

give it up.



---------------------


The full topic:



Content-length: 5573
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa: ++++++++++++++
Accept: */*
Accept-language: es-mx
Cache-control: no-cache
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf4/rkvsf_core.php?Nation_and_Nationalism_Panco_said-48bs.2NPq.QUOTE
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9