Collectivists do not care for individuals, it's all and exclusively about e.g. classes, or race etc.
The opposing extreme is libertarianism / anarchy or something to that effect, roughly speaking.
A sensible common sense perspective is individuals with liberty, but allegiance to family / community / nation.
Allegiance comes with benefits and responsibility. Has nothing to do with collectivism.
Your claim "I got nothing to do with the ugly downsides" is the same attitude as moronic libtards clamoring "Trump is not my President".
DEI has spread around the world coming right out of American academia. BLM has originated exactly where? Or is intersectional identity politics not collectivism?
I pretty well agree with your first four paragraphs above. We should take a sensible middle road between completely disconnected individualism and a world in which the individual is completely suppressed in favor of the group. Well said.
DEI and other wokery has indeed infested the world from American academia, probably mediated by USAID and other American covert influence institutions. In turn, American academia got it from the Frankfurt School of neo-communists that developed in Germany under the Weimar Republic, and jumped like fleas to us when the Germans elected Hitler. It seems we're both to blame for this.
I agree that allegiance comes with benefits and responsibility, but that responsibility is only for our own actions as a member and a representative of the group to which we hold allegiance. We may hold allegiance to America or to Germany, and we may both take honor in behaving responsibly to our compatriots and to foreigners in a way that brings credit to our respective countries.
But we do not control the actions of each of our millions of fellow members. I have little more influence over the actions of the people who run the American government than you do, and you have little more say over the people who run the German government than do I, and neither one of us has much more real control over what they do than anyone else on earth.
Each of us controls only our own actions. You are not to blame for any atrocities committed by Germany under Hitler, I am not to blame for any committed by America under Roosevelt or Truman, and neither one of us is to blame for the disaster our countries have caused to Ukraine, provided we were not involved in the decisions that led to it. I've opposed that war from the beginning, and I suspect you have too. It happened despite us rather than because of us, and the people who provoked it and enabled it and advocated for it are the ones to blame.
With the term "blame" you shift the perspective in favor of your point of view. There is something between personal responsibility and total detachment.
America is to blame for the Ukraine war, that is a true statement. And you are part of that nation. While internally, you opposed the neocon machine, for the people in Ukraine who fell victim, that offers no comfort whatsoever. They can still expect America to help them recover.
Either the American people as a group acting in history exists or it doesn't. You enjoy a lot of upsides, so you are going to live with the downsides, too.
It may look unfair, and in a way it is.
At the grocery, you pay for the shoplifters, too. Then again, to prevent shoplifting, you would have to buy over a counter like a hundred years ago, without immediate hands-on access to the products on the shelves. No shoplifting, but with all the personnel, it would still cost you much more.
I know, it's far from a perfect analogy. Just saying that the consequences of the system you are living in will bear on you even when there is no personal wrongdoing or even just negligence on your part.
Alright, I think I see where we're misaligning. You're making a distinction between "blame" and "responsibility" that would correspond to the difference between "Schuld" and "Verantwortung" in German, correct?
"Schuld" translates to either "blame" or "guilt" in English. In English, "guilt" is a formal legal or moral-philosophical term, while "blame" is more down to earth and slightly humorous, and implies that the party to blame is the cause of the bad thing that everyone is mad at him for.
"Responsibility," like "Verantwortung," in its origin means the state of being "answerable," or being the one that others seek out to put things right if there is an issue. In practice, we've used the term so sloppily in American English over the past century or so that we've pretty well lost that original meaning. For us now, to say that someone is responsible for something is generally just a pretentious way of saying that they are to blame for it or are guilty of it.
So when you say that A. is "responsible" for an offence his ancestor or compatriot committed, you are saying that A. is the person upon whose door the victims of the offence will be knocking when they come to seek recompense. But when we speakers of American English hear you say that, we understand you to mean that A. is personally to blame, or guilty, for the offense, and find that notion monstrous.
Would that be a fair assessment of our difference?
I'm talking about nations as legitimate (and entirely necessary!) structures for groups of people who do share a collective identity. It's not possible to escape it as an individual. Which is also an incentive to care for what the nation is actually doing, politically.
This does not of course make obsolete all other legitimate levels of analysis, where within the nation certain sub-groups are the true culprits for some things.
But for the outside world, you guys are America, all of you.
Just like you assumed all Germans share certain characteristics.
That being said, it was also absurd to call critics of the Biden regime in Germany, of which there are quite a lot, "anti-American", for not applauding the Ukraine war. A people and its current government are obviously different entities.
Collectivists do not care for individuals, it's all and exclusively about e.g. classes, or race etc.
The opposing extreme is libertarianism / anarchy or something to that effect, roughly speaking.
A sensible common sense perspective is individuals with liberty, but allegiance to family / community / nation.
Allegiance comes with benefits and responsibility. Has nothing to do with collectivism.
Your claim "I got nothing to do with the ugly downsides" is the same attitude as moronic libtards clamoring "Trump is not my President".
DEI has spread around the world coming right out of American academia. BLM has originated exactly where? Or is intersectional identity politics not collectivism?
I pretty well agree with your first four paragraphs above. We should take a sensible middle road between completely disconnected individualism and a world in which the individual is completely suppressed in favor of the group. Well said.
DEI and other wokery has indeed infested the world from American academia, probably mediated by USAID and other American covert influence institutions. In turn, American academia got it from the Frankfurt School of neo-communists that developed in Germany under the Weimar Republic, and jumped like fleas to us when the Germans elected Hitler. It seems we're both to blame for this.
I agree that allegiance comes with benefits and responsibility, but that responsibility is only for our own actions as a member and a representative of the group to which we hold allegiance. We may hold allegiance to America or to Germany, and we may both take honor in behaving responsibly to our compatriots and to foreigners in a way that brings credit to our respective countries.
But we do not control the actions of each of our millions of fellow members. I have little more influence over the actions of the people who run the American government than you do, and you have little more say over the people who run the German government than do I, and neither one of us has much more real control over what they do than anyone else on earth.
Each of us controls only our own actions. You are not to blame for any atrocities committed by Germany under Hitler, I am not to blame for any committed by America under Roosevelt or Truman, and neither one of us is to blame for the disaster our countries have caused to Ukraine, provided we were not involved in the decisions that led to it. I've opposed that war from the beginning, and I suspect you have too. It happened despite us rather than because of us, and the people who provoked it and enabled it and advocated for it are the ones to blame.
With the term "blame" you shift the perspective in favor of your point of view. There is something between personal responsibility and total detachment.
America is to blame for the Ukraine war, that is a true statement. And you are part of that nation. While internally, you opposed the neocon machine, for the people in Ukraine who fell victim, that offers no comfort whatsoever. They can still expect America to help them recover.
Either the American people as a group acting in history exists or it doesn't. You enjoy a lot of upsides, so you are going to live with the downsides, too.
It may look unfair, and in a way it is.
At the grocery, you pay for the shoplifters, too. Then again, to prevent shoplifting, you would have to buy over a counter like a hundred years ago, without immediate hands-on access to the products on the shelves. No shoplifting, but with all the personnel, it would still cost you much more.
I know, it's far from a perfect analogy. Just saying that the consequences of the system you are living in will bear on you even when there is no personal wrongdoing or even just negligence on your part.
Alright, I think I see where we're misaligning. You're making a distinction between "blame" and "responsibility" that would correspond to the difference between "Schuld" and "Verantwortung" in German, correct?
"Schuld" translates to either "blame" or "guilt" in English. In English, "guilt" is a formal legal or moral-philosophical term, while "blame" is more down to earth and slightly humorous, and implies that the party to blame is the cause of the bad thing that everyone is mad at him for.
"Responsibility," like "Verantwortung," in its origin means the state of being "answerable," or being the one that others seek out to put things right if there is an issue. In practice, we've used the term so sloppily in American English over the past century or so that we've pretty well lost that original meaning. For us now, to say that someone is responsible for something is generally just a pretentious way of saying that they are to blame for it or are guilty of it.
So when you say that A. is "responsible" for an offence his ancestor or compatriot committed, you are saying that A. is the person upon whose door the victims of the offence will be knocking when they come to seek recompense. But when we speakers of American English hear you say that, we understand you to mean that A. is personally to blame, or guilty, for the offense, and find that notion monstrous.
Would that be a fair assessment of our difference?
Partly, I guess.
I'm talking about nations as legitimate (and entirely necessary!) structures for groups of people who do share a collective identity. It's not possible to escape it as an individual. Which is also an incentive to care for what the nation is actually doing, politically.
This does not of course make obsolete all other legitimate levels of analysis, where within the nation certain sub-groups are the true culprits for some things.
But for the outside world, you guys are America, all of you.
Just like you assumed all Germans share certain characteristics.
That being said, it was also absurd to call critics of the Biden regime in Germany, of which there are quite a lot, "anti-American", for not applauding the Ukraine war. A people and its current government are obviously different entities.
Two things can be true at the same time.