Well, let's not forget previous wars, now, shall we?If something (whatever the **** you're alluding on) that happened 1500 years ago is a thorn in your eye, you must be one angry and confused teenager and I truly hope maturing and all kinds of experiences you'll undergo in the following years will relieve you of those burdens.
From Dark medieval until present day, the wars we had with France is eversince a thorn in my eyes.
Shall the world collectively blame the Dutch for their participation in the Triangular Trade, having shipped off millions of West-African slaves? Are Indonesians allowed to hate you, your mother and your father for the Dutch East India Company's oppressive rule of their parents and grandparents?
Don't you see how absurd that would be? How absurd your views are?
Apparently there is a clash of two different interpretations of responsibility and guilt here. While Jan Arie is advocating the principle of collective guilt, Orchid is obviously contradicting it. I should like to point out my view on collective guilt.
Collective guilt means, that every member of a certain group is responsible for all the actions of all the other members. As a consequence it would be legitimate to punish somebody for a crime, with which he personally has nothing to do with. The guilt of a member of his group would be reason enough. For instance the rather well known practice of vendetta is justified by this principle.
This is an exceedingly controversial idea, because it generates numerous difficulties. If a member of a group has committed a crime, every other member can be punished in his stead. He could simply evade the consequences of his own actions. In addition the question would arise, why this certain person has been punished and not any other person, although the others are guilty by their membership as well. Yet the actual culprit has been spared.
A possible solution might be to punish every member. But in turn this would pose the question, if everyone should be punished for the regarding crime or if the punishment should be divided. If the latter is chosen again another problem would arise. Not every penalty can simply be divided. Furthermore would collective guilt mean collective compensation on the other hand? Should there be a distinction between voluntary and involuntary group members?
Another problem of collective guilt is the definition of certain collectives. This becomes especially complicated, if it is spilled over to historical events. Should the Federal Republic of Germany still be considered to be the same collective as the Third Reich? Should Great Britain be considered to be the same collective as the British Empire? Should Italy be considered to be the same collective as the Roman Empire? Who should receive the penalty for whose crimes? Are the French to be punished for Charlemagne’s wars against the Saxons or should the Germans punish themselves? Is the Frankish Kingdom today the collective of the Germans or the French or both or nothing of them? It is just obvious, that the idea even of such collectives is absurd, regardless of any historical guilt.
All these and many more inconsistencies and absurdities show easy to understand, that the principle of collective guilt is obviously not reasonable but both unjust and simply not practically executable, that is to say, there is neither a logical reason nor an actual possibility to exercise it. The principle of individual and not collective guilt is the foundation of our jurisdictions for a reason.
Racism = Hate towards someone's etnic background.
If you dislike a country, it is not racism.
I for one greatly dislike French, but that does not make me a racist, because French are no race.
After the idea of a hereditary guilt has been deconstructed, the only possible justification left, for hating a whole nation, could be reasoned by racism. Racism describes the idea, that humanity would be divided into natural and unalterable associations of persons, in other words races. Thereby the characteristics of every individual person would be affected by its race and a recognizable hierarchy of these races would exist. Science has proven this thesis wrong anyway.
The only explicit characteristic, a French person has, is having the French nationality, nothing less and nothing more. Obviously this is no reason to hate a Frenchman, because it is absolutely value-free. Nevertheless if you hate the French for being French, you have to presuppose, that being French would entail certain contemptible characteristics, not regarding the fact, that everyone can change his nationality anyway. As a result you would have to consider the French to be an own race. Therefore everybody, who hates the French for being French, is necessarily a racist.
I for one am Dutch Nationalist, and I hate it being labeled as a Racist over and over again.
I'm getting sick of it.
Hence it is irrelevant, how you call yourself, Jan Arie, because your disdain of the French as a whole reveals inevitably, that you are a racist and not just a nationalist, as you say.
It always needs a specific reason to hate an individual. Orchid for instance dislikes racism, which justifies him for disliking you. Although he does not know much of you, your racism is a sufficient reason for his antipathy. However he is not justified to dislike you for being a Dutch, because being Dutch does not necessarily imply being a racist.
Such generalizations are not only blatant displays of close mindedness, they offer good proof of pure ignorance and flat-out stupidity as well.So you're technically saying, everyone who hates a certain people or country is close minded, ignorant, and flat-out stupid?
Well, maybe that's just a conclusion by one who simply needs to get deeper into one's mind, rather than to throw irrational stuff like this, just to make his point.
Reasons for racism can be among others accrued aggression, lack of self-confidence, escapism, xenophobia, existential fear and other manifestations of a lower intellect.
On an argumentative level I would like to remark, that it is not too intelligent to try to criticise a potential unreasonable argument without a reasonable counterargument to prove it being unreasonable.