Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
I don't know how long that term has been around or who invented it, but searching for "unchristian" on Google gave me about 346,000 hits.
|
Yes, but "un-American" is much more prevalent. "Un-Christian" is, perhaps, related to "un-American" in that it seems to make the assumption that the object of it is at fault if they do not act within the boundaries of the characteristics of the identity concerned. For example, to call one "un-Christian" assumes that things would be made right if this person would only act Christian. The same goes for one who is being "un-American." Again, this smacks of nationalism, and, in the case of "un-Christian," zealotry.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
When someone is accused of being "un-American" it's usually because the accuser believes the accused is acting against American interests or values. I'm pretty sure that such a concept exists in some other countries, even if it doesn't go by the name of "un-[insert name of country here]".
|
I'm sure it does. But in many cases, there isn't a direct comparison. For example, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to get away with calling a Canadian "un-Canadian." There are several reasons for this: first, there are more than one "Canadas." Second, it is fair game to express your ideas whether they be from the left or the right, from national to international interests. At worst, one might be accused of "not thinking in the best interests of Canadians." This is a far cry from being labelled "un-Canadian" because in Canada, we respect the concept of the idea, even if the ideas are bad. This is the process by which we determine what is a good idea and what is bad. It's not only called a discussion, or a debate, it's also considered a healthy environment by which they can be exercised.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
If true, that could say as much (or more) about the political views of the people you know as it does about the current political climate in America.
|
Yes, what it tells me is that I know some observant people, open to understanding what is happening and willing to discuss it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
No. More like how Japan did attack on December 7th, 1941.
|
This would be an acceptable answer except that such a scenario is unlikely. The way wars are waged changed permanently after August 6, 1945.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
It's more like unilateralism, which isn't necessarily a bad thing and isn't synonymous with nationalism. If somebody is attacking a nation or making credible threats to attack, it's silly to expect that nation to wait until others give the thumbs up before it defends itself.
|
This is an oversimplification. For starters, unilateralism and nationalism easily go hand in hand, just as fascism and collectivism do. Neither of these pairs are considered synonymous, but they do work well together. They are enabling, as it were. I call your argument an oversimplification because it assumes a traditional view of being attacked. For example, there would be no need for unilateralism if Russian soldiers marched an invasion into Finland. I'm certain Finland wouldn't have to go it alone.
Also, you use an all-too-quaint word:
credible. You will need to expand on this before we can continue.