Alexis wrote:
OK, I will take the pain. Too irritated by this ignorant.
List of facts:
- Contrary to Seewald's contention, had liberal-minded Europeans of the 1820s not been passionate about Greek independence cause, it would not have prevented the following 1830 and 1848 revolutions. Culprit, if one is needed, is France, her revolution, her megalomaniac emperor and his laws being spread around Europe by way of arms. Consequences of which the Holy Alliance of 1815 could only hope to slow, not to suppress. More distant culprits are France, Britain and America, whose revolutions and other political upheavals reinforced and inspired one another into a political and intellectual movement that could not be suppressed, no matter whether one tried to spread it like Napoléon, or to hinder it
- In Seewald's view, revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were "destruction of Europe's order". I will leave him that opinion. I would only note that if he really thinks so, he should be distressed being German, for Germany was born as a result of 1848 revolution creating the desire for unity, while Bismarck used the 1870 war to actually create that unity. Incidentally, modern Germany is a more recent country than modern Greece
- In Seewald's view, consequences of Greece freeing itself of Turkish yoke with help of France, Britain and Russia, if those consequences were negative, would have to be by the fault of the Greeks. Absurd: one cannot fault a people for desiring to free itself from foreign domination, and if helping that nation was a fault, then it's on France, Britain and Russia
- Contrary to Seewald, Greeks are not presently preparing to "destroy Europe's order". They are negotiating with their creditors, which whatever opinion may have of their respective negotiation positions, is quite different from destruction of any order. Remembering that bankruptcy and default are risks of life, and possibilities for any creditor-debtor relationship
- Seewald is forgetting that Germany has defaulted on its debt more often than Greece during the 20th century. So if default is "destruction of order", then I'm afraid Germans are in no position to give lessons on this
- Speaking of bloodier versions of "destruction of order" than a mere default, I seem to remember that Germany has destroyed Europe's peace not once, but twice, in the 20th century. Seewald should not venture such accusations against Greece or any other European country, because he's in no position to
- On ethnicity, race and peoples, the fact is that most present day peoples are not ethnically identical to what their forefathers were two or three millenia ago. The only exception I could think of is Japanese people. As for the others, they all exchanged gametes in huge ways with other peoples. That is true for Greeks (who include indeed a large Slavic component which was assimilated), for French (Celtic basis, but with strong Germanic and Latin influxes, even before 19th century when that trend accelerated), even for Jews. And of course it's true of Germans who include a large Slavic component which was assimilated long ago (along with several others)
Being a member of a given people is not a question of ethnicity but of culture, birth and "willing to belong". Claiming that present Jews are no real Jews, present Greeks are no real Greeks, or present Germans are no real Germans... is just bollocks
excellent summarIES Alexis & Endo - CORRECTION!!!.Endovelico wrote:Alexis,
Good posts. But this is what "Europe" has become. The European ideal was one of cooperation and solidarity among the many nations which had joyfully killed each other for centuries. Some of us thought there was an European civilization, and that on such a civilizational foundation we could build a true community of like minded peoples hoping for a more just and tolerant world. Well, those who thought so were definitely not many and "Europe" soon proved it did not exist. In fact there are - as there always were - three "Europes". The Mediterranean, the Northern and the Eastern ones. With France not knowing whether it belongs to the Mediterranean or the Northern - probably Occitania and Corsica belong to the former and the rest to the latter -, and Romania and Bulgaria not knowing whether they belong to the Mediterranean or to the Eastern "Europes". But the sad point is that there is no way one is going to build one "Europe" out of the three mentioned ones. We are completely alien to each other and cannot cooperate in almost anything, with the possible exception of science. To avoid disaster - or even war - the only solution is for each "Europe" to go its independent way. The Mediterranean Europe should create a true Union based on cooperation, solidarity, development and a focus on the southern hemisphere. Northern Europe will be increasingly attracted by the US and will end up being part of the American empire. As such it will gradually lose its European character. Eastern Europe will cozy up to Russia, whether it likes the idea or not. Is that bad? Probably not, as it will allow each "Europe" to preserve its identity. Thanks to massive emigration to America, Northern Europe is in fact more akin to the US than to Europe. And Eastern Europe has mostly a Slavic identity. Let's be friends, let's trade with each other, and let's get out of the way of each other.
As the issues get more complex, and continually parsed, there are an infinite number of "we's" and "them's" into which the larger whole can continually sub-divide.
Survival of the least well deinfed and most rapidly adaptable. Zombies eat the slow runners.....
Culture is always in flux. Thankfully. It is how we adapt as a species.