Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
It
can be a sign of nationalism to call someone un-American, but it isn't necessarily so.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
I'm sure it does. But in many cases, there isn't a direct comparison.
|
If the concept exists, then it seems that there's a direct comparison.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Second, it is fair game to express your ideas whether they be from the left or the right, from national to international interests.
|
It's fair game to express your ideas in America, too. Sometimes it results in being called names, though (un-American, racist, socialist, xenophobe, homophobe, anti-semite, Zionist, selfish, etc.). I have a hard time believing that this never, ever happens in Canada.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
I don't see much difference between calling someone "un-Canadian" because their views allegedly aren't in the best interests of Canadians and simply saying their views aren't in the best interests of Canadians. If they mean the same thing, then it's nothing but semantics.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Yes, what it tells me is that I know some observant people, open to understanding what is happening and willing to discuss it.
|
That's one possibility.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
This would be an acceptable answer except that such a scenario is unlikely. The way wars are waged changed permanently after August 6, 1945.
|
No country ever attacks another?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
Just because things supposedly "work well together" doesn't mean that one will necessarily lead to the other. Taking a unilateral approach to a specific problem, in and of itself, doesn't automatically result in nationalism any more than public education, in and of itself, automatically results in fascism.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
If the Russians marched into Finland, the Finns would be acting UNILATERALLY if they immediately began defending themselves without first asking for approval from the global community. That doesn't mean that other nations wouldn't offer to help, but a decision by Finland to immediatly mobilize its troops and defend itself would be a unilateral one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Also, you use an all-too-quaint word: credible. You will need to expand on this before we can continue.
|
A credible threat is one from an entity that is able and, as far as we know, willing to commit an attack.