From: Tchiowa on 17 Aug 2006 10:46
> On 16 Aug 2006 17:52:39 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com>
> >Hatunen wrote:
> >> On 15 Aug 2006 22:45:11 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Europeans possession of passports is a result of hatred and bigotry
> >> >that has kept the continent at war with itself for centuries. Not
> >> >something to be proud of.
> >> >
> >> >> and Europeans can travel between most countries without going through
> >> >> any kind of passport control.
> >> >
> >> >These days, yes. But that's a recent development. The reason a lot of
> >> >Euros have passports was because that wasn't the case until recently.
> >> >
> >> >Try to keep up.
> >> As I pointed out elsewhere, there were no passports until after
> >> WW1. The fact that they are no longer needed for much
> >> intra-European travel means that they really only served their
> >> purpose for about 80 years out of two millenia of European
> >> history. You make a pretty weak case with the passport business,
> >> espcially since you don't explain *why* passports are an
> >> indication of bigotry and hatred.
> >Passports are not an indication of bigotry and hatred. I never said
> I could swear it was you who said:
> "Europeans possession of passports is a result of hatred and
> bigotry that has kept the continent at war with itself for
I think I did. But, as I pointed out repeatedly, it's not the passport,
it's the need for the passport. It's the international boundaries.
Ever hear of "root cause analysis"? You should pick up a book.
> >The need to have a passport in order to travel more than a couple of
> >hours in any direction in Europe is a result of the fact that Europe is
> >chopped up into little political entities.
> >And that is a result of
> >1,000 years or more of bigotry and hatred and war.
> Ah, see, you're waffling now; that's not what you've said. You've
> said it was a result of bigotry and hatred, not war.
What do you think caused the war? Stale wine?
Bigotry and hatred.
> >The hatred and bigotry caused the boundaries and the need for passports
> >to travel arised from the boundaries.
> Now, see, there's where your reasoning seems to be coming a
> cropper. You provide no evidence that hatred and bigotry caused
> teh boundaries.
Are you saying that the boundaries just appeared on a map one day?
You're not aware that over 1,000 years of hatred, bigotry, war, greed,
etc. formed those boundaries?
> >Therefore the need for passports
> >for Euros results not from some cultural superiority as has been
> >claimed but rather because the hatred and bigotry that has existed for
> >a millenium and more (and still exists) created the national borders.
> Who, exactly, was it that said the need for passports came
> cultural superiority?
Follow the thread back.
> >So the "More Europeans have passports than Americans" statement (which
> >is what this discussion is about) does not prove cultural superiority
> >but rather stems from a history of war and hatred.
> I don't beleive the claim was made that the need for passports
> proved cultural superority; I believe the calim was that
> Europeans traveled more.
No, that Europeans travelled "abroad" more. In the context that
Europeans are superior and get more and better vacations as proven by
how many of them have passports. I challenged that rather dumb
From: Tchiowa on 17 Aug 2006 10:54
> On 16 Aug 2006 17:57:36 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com>
> >> So because memebrs of the EU bureacracy sometimes use English it
> >> means almost all Europeans speak English? Your logic escapes
> >> mmost of us.
> >Interesting. I cited several examples. You separate them then respond
> >that *just one* of them doesn't prove anything. Try taking things as a
> Oh, wow. You cited several examples. But you provided no
> Gallup-type justification for extrapolating from those example to
> an entire continent.
So now I have to conduct a continent wide poll for you?
> >> >It is the primary language of business
> >> >throughout the EU.
> >> Not yet. It is the primary language in certain places, e.g., the
> >> board of FIAT.
> >Try again. Look at the law for contracts in the EU.
> What, exactly, does it say?
I told you to look. Go ahead.
> >English is the primary language of business in the EU for any business
> >that crossed national borders.
> Ah. Changing your claim again. Now you add the qualification that
> it is true for businesses that cross national boundaries. Do you
> have an itemized list of all the European businesses that cross
> national boundaries, denoting those that conduct business in
> English and those that don't?
No. Do you? Or are you just grasping at an argument because you know
> >> >It is the primary language for education throughout the EU.
> >> Most student now have to study English in the schools, but it is
> >> far from the "primary language for education throughout the EU".
> >It is *required* for lower level students to learn at a minimum level
> >and many University degrees require almost fluencyi.
> That is NOT the same thing as "the primary language of
Pardon me. I guess I should have said "higher education".
> >> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3143464.stm
> >> >
> >> >"Italians place a very high importance on learning languages,
> >> >particularly English. Fifteen years ago it was quite difficult to find
> >> >an English speaker here but today it is relatively easy."
> >> "Relatively easy"? Compared to what?
> >As compared to what it used to be like, maybe? Which has been my
> >experience in 2 decades travelling to Europe fairly regularly.
> Try traveling into the hinterlands a little more.
Like where? Atyrau, Kazakhstan? Riga, Latvia? Oporto, Portugal?
Or are you starting like a couple of other people I've seen posting
that unless you hang out with the poor and uneducated you can't
possibly understand the culture?
> YOu're very
> much like those Europeans who come to the USA, visit New York and
> Los Angeles, and proceed to tell us what all Americans are like,
> even those in Kansas and Texas and Oregon.
How about the Europeans that come to the USA over 100 times and spend
several years total in 50 cities in 1/3 of the states. Would that help?
That's pretty much what I've done in Europe.
(As an example, I checked my Frequent Flyer data base. I've landed in
Paris 83 times. Yes, I got so tired of the place that the last 40 or so
I spent very little time there. Took the train to Amsterdam or Lisbon
or anywhere else I could find other than Paris.)
From: Sarah Banick on 17 Aug 2006 10:54
>> >The US was once a group of small political entities that didn't much
>> >like each other.
>> That's certainly a bit overstated; can you document the claim
>> that the royal govenment of Virginia didn't much liek the royal
>> government of Norht Carolina?
> 1860. Bit of a struggle in the US.
It was not a "group of small political entities" that fought the Civil War.
There were only two sides. And while I will agree with you that the war
further solidified the union as one entity, our founding fathers were well
aware in the 1770s that the fledging states needed to join together. They
declared independence as one country, fought a war together as one country,
and authored the Constitution as one country.
From: Tchiowa on 17 Aug 2006 11:00
> On 16 Aug 2006 18:12:23 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com>
> >> World War
> >> One was not caused by hatred or bigotry, it was the result of the
> >> Austro-Hungarian Empire deciding that the little incident at
> >> Sarajevo was a good excuse to add Serbia to the Empire.
> >And considering the people Serbia as some kind of "lesser people"
> >didn't figure into that calculation?
> I have no evidence of that; do you?
Yes. It's called "experience". I've spent many years of my adult life
living in war zones. I learned what it takes to make war. First thing
is to de-personalize your enemy. If you look at the soldiers on the
other side as men with wives and children and houses who watch football
and get drunk on weekends you have a hard time killing them. To make
war successfully you first have to take the view that your needs or
views are so far superior to theirs and that you and your people are
superior to them.
> >To start a war of conquest like
> >that you first must consider your target to be unworthy of protection
> >and independence.
> Not necessarily. That's a wild leap of logic. Not all wars were
> Hitlerian, and certainly the Great War was not.
> >> >The US was once a group of small political entities that didn't much
> >> >like each other.
> >> That's certainly a bit overstated; can you document the claim
> >> that the royal govenment of Virginia didn't much liek the royal
> >> government of Norht Carolina?
> >1860. Bit of a struggle in the US.
> So you calim that in 1860 Virginai didn't much like North
Nope. But they weren't fond of New York at all.
> >It's commonly said that prior to the Civil War we said "The United
> >States *are*" but after the war we said "The United States *is*"
> >(indicating a finally unified country).
> It's commonly said, all right. But attemtps to document it have
> demonstrated it to be untrue.
> >> >But the US unified (for better or for worse). Europe
> >> >was never able to unify because of the hatred and bigotry and can't
> >> >unify today for many of the same reasons.
> >> Bigotry doesn't enter into it, and hatred is a bit strong; it's
> >> more like "suspicious", and given the past history of various
> >> attemts to achieve power over Europe perhaps rightfully so.
> >OK. Bigotry, hatred, power, greed *AND* suspicion.
> And what would that suspicion be a result of?
Mostly unfounded suspicion based on a belief that they are somehow less
human than you are and their mere existence deprives you of something
you think you deserve so you are suspicious of their motives.
From: Tchiowa on 17 Aug 2006 11:03
> On 16 Aug 2006 17:16:06 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com>
> >> Oddly, so have I, plus many others reading this. Your view seems way
> >> different to anyone elses here, suggesting you must be right, and
> >> we're all wrong.
> >The Euro's opinion of themselves?
> >Which part do you disagree with? The fact that Europe is chopped up
> >into little political units because of a millenium of bigotry and war?
> >The fact the European economy is lagging far, far behind the US? The
> >fact that unemployment in most of Europe is roughly double what it is
> >in the US?
> I see you like trick questions. When did you stop beating your
> wife sort of thing.
No. Those are legitimate questions. They are the points I've been
making and you claim that I must be wrong because you and others
disagree. So which of the points are you disagreeing with?
> "Which part do you disagree with? The fact that Europe is chopped
> up into little political units because of a millenium of bigotry
> and war?"
> You don't leave it open to the possibility that Eruope is chopped
> up into little political units for other reasons (and some of
> those political units are pretty damn big).
Then you disagree about the reason. Tell me about all the love and
acceptance that created the borders.