Posted on 06/22/2006 4:29:24 PM PDT by Pokey78
THE SOUND of lusty Germans filling World Cup stadiums with the refrain of what much of the world still thinks of as Deutschland über Alles has provoked mixed reactions. Despite the best efforts of the enforcers of political correctness, it will never be possible for any of the current generations of Englishmen or women (or many other Europeans, for that matter) to dissociate the sound from the nation’s still unpleasantly recent past.
Certainly, it’s not the Horst Wessel Lied, and the anthem’s words (“Bloom, in the glow of happiness, Bloom, German fatherland!”) are almost bathetically bucolic by comparison with the old, troublingly blunter: “Germany, Germany, above everything in the world!” But there’s something about the sight of muscular Aryans and blonde-plaited Fräulein belting out the familiar tune that prompts some to reach instinctively for the tin helmet and the map of Poland.
But to others, me included, the development is a welcome one. It marks another small, symbolic victory in the unending struggle of people everywhere to preserve their national sovereignty. It says much, too, about the enduring nature of national identity. Despite centuries of efforts to extinguish it, the nation remains the unit in which most peoples, especially those in Europe, invest their loyalties. You can read too much into the behaviour of football fans, as we English know only too well. But the guiltless embrace of patriotism by football-loving Germans fits with a general perception in recent years that Germany is close to being a normal nation again.
Nationalism, of course, has long been a dirty word. It is generally deemed to have consigned Europe to almost continuous war between the early 19th century and the mid-20th century. And so it did.
But as with so many attempts to extirpate evil, the desire to crush its baleful consequences overreached. It was not just nationalism, but patriotism that was suppressed. The idea that your country can stand for something benign became unsayable, even with nations whose past fully entitled them to make such a claim.
The conviction took hold, in the governing and opinion-forming classes in the West, that the nation state itself was somehow an abomination, an intrinsic threat to peace and stability. So for half a century, emboldened political leaders in Europe made larger and larger efforts to snuff it out.
But while you can submerge nationhood in a tight web of supranational institutions, you can’t destroy the basic allegiances that animate the hearts of men. You can take the soul out of a country but you can’t take a country out of the soul. And the risk has always been that the more you attempt to suppress the idea of a nation, the more you will foster resentment and the very sort of indignant nationalism that has proved so tragically costly.
The European Union, of course, is not alone. The post-Second World War multilateral settlements designed to promote international co-operation between sovereign nations have become, in the dreams of many, an even larger opportunity to suppress the nation itself. There are political and cultural elites everywhere who regard the nation state as an unhealthy anachronism, who want to bury national pride and identity beneath an avalanche of deracinated, brotherhood-of-man, why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along-together mush. It is a conviction founded on a moral relativism, of course — no one nation is any better than any other — and promulgated by diplomats, business leaders and entertainers who have long since shaken off the irritating shackles of their own nationhood to play on a much larger global stage. To these people the United Nations is the highest achievement of humanity, and they would happily subjugate the will of peoples everywhere to its rule.
What is so striking about this effort to extinguish national identity and the popular will is that it is persistent, and through history repeatedly reveals itself in different ways. Marx regarded the nation as a capitalist construct, another manifestation of false consciousness to distract alienated labour from its true plight. The Soviets certainly did their bit to eliminate national boundaries, but the vigorous and renewed national pride in Eastern Europe is testament to the enduring failure of global communism.
Radical Islam wants the umma to replace national communities — and is willing to eliminate nations by violence. And I suppose, for reasons of absolute fairness, and as a Catholic, that I should also acknowledge that the Church has had a long history of adopting a bluntly political interpretation of its universalist claim, though today it has, fortunately come to happier terms with the nation state.
In some parts of the world, of course, popular allegiance is paid to even smaller units of society — tribes and ethnic groups. Indeed in places like Iraq, we should wish there were a stronger nationalism.
But the principle remains that voluntary loyalty to one’s own group is the most powerful popular coagulant. Belief in the supremacy of national sovereignty is not at all, as its critics claim, an inevitable driver of racism or nationalism. Even if, like the Dixie Chicks, you claim not to be able to understand the very idea of patriotism, you should at least acknowledge that, for most people, the nation is the primary political unit, the one that legitimises the governing of their nation.
Nor is support for the principle of a world of free sovereign nations consonant with economic isolationism. Globalisation has worked (and it has been the greatest antidote to poverty the world has ever seen) because it has been driven by consumer choices, individuals acting freely to promote their own welfare, not by elites.
Indeed, economic integration remains the best way to promote global co-operation and genuine prospects for peace. It gives people a tangible stake in each other’s futures in a way no supranational ideal or multilateral institution ever could.
You are the only ignorant one I see.
of civilian casualties the most reliable ESTIMATED number available is about 4-500K, who died as a result of combat actions,starvation and/or exposure, war-related illnesses & other similar causes.
the POINT is that lincoln, the TYRANT, could have saved ALL those lives & those of the brave servicemen on BOTH sides, had he chosen PEACE, rather than his needLESS war.
i will not argue about whether the TV special's figure is correct or not, as (imVho) ANY & ALL of those civilian deaths were UNnecessary.
free dixie,sw
Then Mr. Lincoln's political ambitions apparently outweighed his principles, inasmuch as he was perfectly willing, in March of 1861, to endorse an amendment to the United States Constitution that would have permanently legalized slavery by preventing Congress from ever interfering with its practice.
1. slavery was DYING by 1861,
2. the north had about the same percentage of slave OWNERS as the south did (5-6%) AND
3. lincoln, the TYRANT & despoiler of the Constitution, chose WAR, we'll never know will we???
fwiw, NOBODY in the whole of the USA in the 19th century thought Blacks or AmerIndians (like me for example) were equal to white people. so your comment on that score is DUMB in the first degree.
face it "restorer", the WBTS was for the southland's citizenry about LIBERTY & for northerners it was about MONEY, political power & "preserving the union". 99% of BOTH sides were UNCONCERNED about slavery. they should have cared. they did NOT!
free dixie,sw
This practice just perpetuates racism because no matter what a minority achieves, there is a common assumption that his or her appearance was a major factor.
It also teaches minorities that "the man" is always trying to keep them down, so special privileges must be awarded just to them since they cannot otherwise succeed in such an unfair society.
WELL SAID! lincoln was a RACIST & a cheap, scheming politician. period. end of story.<P.free dixie,sw
"Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star! "
Hurrah!
It's my understanding that the original meaning of the "ueber alles" verse was one of unification NOT of "Germany is over lord of all the world." Many are unaware it wasn't until the 1870s that Germany was unified for the first time...and to put greater Germany ahead of your little local kingdom was a major step for them then.
It was the National Socialists who perverted the meaning...to one of World domination, twisting love of country into lust for power. It is a good thing to see healthy patriotism in Germany today--HEALTHY love of country, in a democracy, should prevent the horrors of the 2 world wars again.
Incorrect. This belief was rare, but it did exist, even among white people, most often among Christians who derived it from the Bible. The science of the time in general "proved" that whites were superior.
Obviously, these beliefs were a great deal more common among "people of color."
Not hardly. Average prices paid for slaves are certainly an accurate reflection of people's perception of whether the institution was dying:
1840-1845 $722
1846-1850 $926
1851-1855 $1240
1856-1860 $1658
The 1850s were the most prosperous decade in history for the plantation economy and the institution of slavery on which it was based.
The institution was dying so rapidly that average price paid for a slave doubled in 20 years. And this was in a period of zero inflation.
Source please.
White population of the North (Union states) in 1860, about 20M. Total number of slaveowners in the four Union states that allowed slavery, 77,335. Percentage of white population, about .39%.
White population of the South (Confederate states) in 1860, about 5M. Total number of slave owners in these states, according to 1860 census, 316,632. Percentage of white population, 6.3%.
For 5% of northerners to own slaves, even if each had owned only one, there would have had to be 1M slaves in the loyal states. Total actual number, about 432,000.
Where do you get your statistics?
Well, they certainly believed that. But before and during WWI there were plenty of Germans who believed in the German destiny to dominate the world.
The Nazis didn't invent the idea, they just carried it to its logical conclusion.
Percentages by state of free households that owned at least one slave in 1860.
Mississippi: 49%
South Carolina: 46%
Georgia: 37%
Alabama: 35%
Florida: 34%
Louisiana: 29%
Texas: 28%
North Carolina: 28%
Virginia: 26%
Tennessee: 25%
Kentucky: 23%
Arkansas: 20%
Missouri: 13%
Maryland: 12%
Delaware: 3%
As you can see, all Union slave states were at the very bottom in percentage of slaveownership. All other Union states had zero slaves.
Most normal Americans routinely ask the african americans, asian americans, etc. drop the hyphenation.
You nutcases for some reason want to be confederate/southern americans.
And your origins simply don't exist anymore.
You and your friends are a bunch of luddites.
The war was a war of Northern Aggression. And that's all that needs to be said.
Wallowing in the past of 150 years ago is idiotic.
That is all that needs to be said.
Or do you favor reparations for the blacks ? Because that is where this is heading.
We are never going to give out reparations, anyone who believes that we are is living a pipe dream. I will just say this. In downtown, we have a federal courthouse. Built in the 1930's, guess who we named it for. John Archibald Campbell, famous as a Supreme Court jurist because he resigned his seat on the court when it became clear that war was inevitable.
Also, in the city, we have streets named for Beauregard, several named for Robert E. Lee, we have a street named for Admiral Semmes, and in fact, there's what would now be called a suburb, used to be a small town, named for Semmes. There is a historical marker at the house Braxton Bragg retired to following the war, same for Admiral Semmes. We used to have a Davis Avenue, and it would still be called Davis if it had not been the main drag in the city's oldest black dominated area. There is a statue of Raphael Semmes at the intersection of Government and Royal, just a block down from the state's tallest building.
We have a black Mayor, he was elected with about 30% of the white vote, and without that white vote, he could not have won. This being said, whenever he has a conference, he will come out in front of a podium with a seal on it, which has the six flags of the city emblazened on it. One of these is the Third Confederate National flag. This man used to be a County Commissioner, and on the County Seal, the Battle Flag remains. But I have noticed something, we have virtually little to no recognition of major union figures in all of our historical naming/recognition. We have a street named for the battle of Rotterdam, but we have not one named for Abraham Lincoln. Now, immediately outside the city limits, there is a poor black area, it has been that way since they layed it out in the 1920s, they have a Lincoln Boulevard, but it's not a road anyone goes out to. We do have a Grant Street, but that was named for someone in the community named Grant, not the general.
Semmes lost in the battle of the Bay, yet we still fondly remember him, and pay little to no mention of David Farragut. Last I checked, there's not a damned thing in the city named for Farragut. When they renamed Davis Avenue, they didn't rename it for Lincoln, they renamed it for King. If the leaders of our city see no real reason for us to venerate the union side of the cause, then why should we?
The Alabama Hills, near Lone Pine, Calif., were named by Southern partisan prospectors for the Confederate raider CSS Alabama. If you're a fan of old horse operas, you may be interested to know that a lot of them were shot in these hills. Lone Pine hosts an annual film festival in October.
However, there were also some Union partisans in the area during the War, and they named a nearby mountain pass after the USS Kearsarge, the steamship that sank the Albama off Cherbourg, France, in 1864.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.